Navy Cmdr. Michael P. Ward II, who has been accused of having an affair with a 23-year-old Chesapeake, Va. woman and faking his death as a means of ending it, has been relieved of his duties as the commanding officer of the USS Pittsburgh, just one week after he was put in command.The Navy issued a pro forma comment.
According to a press release from the Navy, Capt. Vernon Parks, commander of Submarine Development Squadron 12, relieved Ward on Aug. 10I expect that the Navy has him on a legal technicality, or at least lying to a superior officer to cover his adulterous affair, which is usually the case. However, for the sake of this post, let us assume not and it is just the affair and he fact he lied to her.due to lack of confidence in Ward's ability to command based upon allegations of personal misconduct on the part of Ward.
Our thanks to The Stars and Stripes and reporters Karen Florin and Jennifer McDermott for this report.
So here are the elements of UCMJ Article 134:
Elements.From this I would think that if Private First Class Schmedlap is porking some farmer's wife, 50 miles from the base or post, while off duty, and neither the farmer nor his wife has any connection to the military, this article doesn't apply. (WARNING: I am not a lawyer.)
(1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person;
(2) That, at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone else; and
(3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
The question is, in 2012, do we think officers having affairs should be relieved of duty and Court Martialed, and perhaps even discharged?
And because the first question is usually just a scene setter, if "Yes", where else would we apply this approach?
Of course, the flip side of this is that the USS PITTSBURG is a nuclear powered attack submarine, perhaps equipped with nuclear weapons. I dislike it when people like Commander Michael P. Ward, II, put us in these ethical corners.
Regards — Cliff
PS: Jack, "All officers are [fill in the blank] and deserve it" is not a sufficient answer.
2 comments:
If I read this correctly, the man man a bad decision and compounded it by a series of subsequent bad decisions.
It's appropriate for the chain of command to constantly assess their confidence in any servicemember. What role, responsibility & rank anyone holds is an outgrowth of that confidence.
The military is a unique enviroment. CMDR Ward is not unique or special. When he is gone, several, if not tens, of competent folks await his billet.
After many years of being a primary employer of the UCMJ for the purposes of maintaining good order and discipline, I am more than familiar enough with the tactics that CAN be employed if a command element wants to get "next" to someone. If nothing else, we always have Art. 134 (often referred to in command circles as "the sucker charge.")
As one progresses in grade, one's responsibility increases sometimes in a quantum leap, and thus, the Service has much greater expectations...and rightfully so. At the same time, the "flexibility" an individual enjoys (or personal freedom if you will) shrinks proportionately. The moral and ethical expectations of a Colonel or an AF Chief Master Sergeaant (for instance) feature much less latitude (if any at all) than that enjoyed by a 2 Lt or an A1C.
As for the airman porking the farmers wife, I can say this. If he pork preference remains completely private, the AF has no interest in intervening or interrupting. On the other hand, if they are discovered in the local community and it becomes "newsworthy" then he has inflicted negative publicity on the Air Force, and will be dealt with accordingly. How depends on many other elements and variables, but would most likely result in a Letter of Reprimand or even action under Art. 134 and potentially a discharge under AFR 39-12 (or whatever reg it falls under today).
If it was a Chief or a Wing Commander who was porking the farmer's wife, serious action would ensure almost immediately upon discovery. At the very least, the "offender" would be relieved of duty and "invited" to retire "in lieu of..."
In this case....I would suggest that the Navy Commander's behavior was just plain stupid....moral and ethical considerations notwithstanding. The guy botched an affair.....one that portended little more than perhaps an angry divorce....and we want him to command a nuke sub?? I would suggest that his being relieved of duty was more due to "gross incompetence and stupidity" than anything else.
Post a Comment