Coming Home

Note: This post was originally published in January 2004. Please see this timeline for full details.

Master Sgt. Lisa Girman, Staff Sgt. Scott McKenzie, and Spc. Timothy Canjar have come home, joining Shawna L. Edmondson in putting the Army and the war in Iraq behind them.

From the Atwater, Fl. News Press:

Carolyn Lachemayer of North Fort Myers said she got the best New Year’s news ever: Her son won’t face 22 years in prison.

Former military policeman Staff Sgt. Scott McKenzie, 38, phoned his mother on New Year’s Eve to say he was on his way home from Kuwait, ending eight months of investigation into charges he and three others mistreated Iraqi soldiers.

All charges were dropped — the court-martial trial was canceled — and McKenzie took a general discharge under honorable conditions — not quite an honorable discharge, but good under the circumstances, his mother said.

“He was fighting to the bitter end — he was going to hang in there. He said he was innocent and he was going to prove it,” Lachemayer said. “But he finally got to the point where he wanted out ... and this (deal) was pretty good considering all they’d been through.”

McKenzie has maintained his innocence since May when he, Master Sgt. Lisa Girman and Spc. Timothy Canjar were accused of dereliction of duty, cruelty and maltreatment of prisoners, filing false statements, obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice.

The fourth soldier requested a discharge in lieu of a court-martial, and it was granted under “other than honorable” conditions.

The statement in the above story that "all charges were dropped" is likely not completely true.

Non-judicial Punishment (NJP), commonly called an "article 15" in reference to the passage in the Uniform Code of Military Justice that details it, spares the soldiers the lifelong stigma of a federal conviction that can result from court martial proceedings. A commander, (usually after extensive consultation with military legal authorities) can offer NJP in lieu of court martial to an accused. The individual has a right to counsel, and in fact is normally required to seek legal assistance prior to accepting the punishment or declining and opting for court martial. Obviously they must carefully weigh their options; in some instances the path of least resistance is chosen. Rarely, in fact, do the accused elect court martial.

In many instances (normally the most severe crimes), the commander elects not to offer NJP, and a court martial ensues.

There are many other details involved in an article 15 hearing. The accused can present his case, witnesses, evidence, and character references. Commanders have broad authority to determine guilt or innocence and levy appropriate punishment. (Punishment phase is again normally done only after extensive consultation with military legal authorities.) Among other options, the commander can order additional duty, levy 'fines' (normally in the form of forfeiture of pay), order confinement and/or reduction in grade, or discharge for the accused. Likewise, he or she can opt to suspend punishment altogether.

In this case:

In addition to the discharges, two soldiers had their ranks lowered, and all three were ordered to forfeit pay for two months.

Note that the CNN story can be somewhat misleading, as the description of the article 15 actions read like court martial results.

Interestingly, if the story above is correct, the three who maintained their innocence longer did receive a preferable discharge. "General under honorable conditions" should allow them to keep their veterans benefits short of the GI Bill tuition assistance.

Original post: 2004-01-05 22:32:45

Note that comments on this and all posts are open and unmoderated, although obscene remarks will be deleted when discovered. No claim is made regarding truth or accuracy of comments, to include identity of the commenter. In all matters the reader is advised to draw his or her own conclusions.