Re: Disposition

Texas lawyer Beldar says this about lawyering, which I think illuminates a part of your point:

There's truth in Shaw's (character's) observation that all professions amount to conspiracies against the laity, but it's not the whole truth. A fair portion of this blog is critical of my profession, or elements of it. My second post about Mr. Smith started with a sentence acknowledging that lawyers are only occasionally effective at policing our own; I know that's also true of physicians, and it's probably true of other professions as well. Some of what should be "career-ending moves" go entirely unpunished, and many lesser transgressions do, and those all exact a substantial cumulative price from both laity and professionals. Conspicuous cases like these in which we've gotten it right are worth acknowledging.

Military engineering marvel?

Well, maybe not that Pluto - but there was another one which was, as set out here.

Disposition

How do you handle offenses committed by junior soldiers versus those committed by more senior? How about enlisted vs officer?

A common misconception is that officers get away with things that enlisted don’t. That when an officer commits some form of misconduct, they are allowed to skate whereas the lowly(?) NCO gets hammered for the same conduct. You most often hear complaints like this from people that sign their names “John Smith, PV2 (Ret)” which should always give one pause.

To the extent there does exist a disparity in treatment, the real distinction is not between officer vs enlisted but between junior and senior. The 2LT fresh out of ROTC is more likely to get hammered and eliminated than is the E-7 just on the cusp of retirement.

And that’s perhaps the biggest factor in why some junior soldiers (O and E) may receive less favorable dispositions, retirement. When so much of military service is based on hitting that 20 year mark and becoming eligible for retirement decision maker (themselves eligible or near eligible for retirement) might not be willing to punish an individual twice, once for the actual misconduct and twice by taking away their retirement benefits.

There is a certain logic to it. Whereas the stated maximum punishment for an offense might be quite light, is it fair to then take away several hundreds of thousands of dollars from an individuals by denying them their ability to retire with benefits? That tends to change the calculus. Panels and separation boards certainly take it into account.

Is there a solution? Not really, so long as “20 years” remains a magic number, decision makers will continue to consider the effects of nullifying all that work for an offense that might not warrant such a heavy de facto punishment.

(I say all this as someone who is nowhere near that magic number.)