Ucmj Gambling In Uniform

/ Comments off

Defining Wrongful Fraternization

Article 134, UCMJ. General article. Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special,. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 134 – General article Gambling With Subordinate Source: Internal or external at constitution.org. The UCMJ is the derived source of this information. The information below is for illustration and educational purposes only.

  1. Military case law.
    1. Military case law suggests that wrongful fraternization is more easily described than defined. Usually, some other criminal offense was involved when officers were tried for this offense. Whatever the nature of the relationship, each case was clearly decided on its own merits with a searching examination of the surrounding circumstances rather than focusing on the act itself.
    2. The legal test for describing or defining fraternization is found in United States v. Free , 14 C.M.R. 466 (N.B.R. 1953): “Because of the many situations which might arise, it would be a practical impossibility to lay down a measuring rod of particularities to determine in advance what acts are prejudicial to good order and discipline and what are not. As we have said, the surrounding circumstances have more to do with making the act prejudicial than the act itself in many cases. Suffice it to say, then, that each case must be determined on its own merits. Where it is shown that the acts and circumstances are such as to lead a reasonably prudent person, experienced in the problems of military leadership, to conclude that the good order and discipline of the armed forces has been prejudiced by the compromising of an enlisted person’s respect for the integrity and gentlemanly obligations of an officer, there has been an offense under Article 134.
  2. The Manual for Courts-Martial specifically includes fraternization between officerand enlisted personnel as an offense under UCMJ art. 134. The elements of the offense are:
    1. That the accused was a commissioned or warrant officer;
    2. That the accused fraternized on terms of military equality with one or more certain enlisted member(s) in a certain manner;
    3. That the accused then knew the person(s) to be (an) enlisted member(s);
    4. That such fraternization violated the custom of the accused’s service that officers shall not fraternize with enlisted members on terms of military equality; and
    5. 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. MCM, pt. IV, 83b.
  3. AR 600-20, paras. 4-14 and 4-15 (11 Feb 2009), define improper superior-subordinate relationships, to include several specified prohibited relationships. The regulation is punitive, so violation may be punished under Article 92.
  4. Case law and regulatory guidance can assist in developing a template for determining improper superior-subordinate relationships or wrongful fraternization. Additional scrutiny should be given to relationships involving (1) direct command/supervisory authority, or (2) power to influence personnel or disciplinary actions. “[A]uthority or influence . . . is central to any discussion of the propriety of a particular relationship.” DA Pam 600-35 (21 Feb 2000). These relationships are most likely to generate adverse effects.

Of the Uniform Code of Military Justice when there is a violation of customs of the service and the conduct is prejudicial to good order and discipline or service discrediting. The criminal offense of 'fraternization' is different from a violation of the Army's regulatory policy regarding relationships between soldiers of different rank. Poor quality and/or rogue casinos using free chips to try to reel in unsuspecting Ucmj Gambling In Uniform players. Free chips with ridiculous conditions attached. For example, $100 free but you must wager it 100 times in total, then you can only withdraw if your balance is. If you face a possible military case, you may need to know which punitive articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (U.C.M.J.) apply. We provide you a list. Punitive U.C.M.J. Article 77: Principals U.C.M.J. Article 78: Accessory after the fact U.C.M.J. Article 79: Conviction of lesser included offense.

Charging Fraternization

  1. Enlisted fraternization may be charged as a violation of UCMJ art. 134. UnitedStates v. Clarke , 25 M.J. 631 (A.C.M.R. 1987), aff’d, 27 M.J. 361 (C.M.A. 1989); United States v. Carter , 23 M.J. 683 (N.M.C.M.R. 1986); United States v. March , 32 M.J. 740 (A.C.M.R. 1991). Additionally, Article 134 has been successfully used to prosecute instances of officer-officer fraternization, United States v. Callaway , 21 M.J. 770 (A.C.M.R. 1986).
  2. In addition to AR 600-20, many commands have published regulations and policy letters concerning fraternization. Violations of regulations or policy letters are punishable under Article 92, if:
    1. The regulation or policy letter specifically regulates individual conduct without being vague or overbroad. See United States v. Callaway , 21 M.J. 770 (A.C.M.R. 1986); United States v. Adams , 19 M.J. 996 (A.C.M.R. 1985); United States v. Moorer , 15 M.J. 520 (A.C.M.R. 1983), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 16 M.J. 451 (C.M.A. 1983); United States v. Hoard , 12 M.J. 563 (A.C.M.R. 1981);
    2. The regulation or policy letter indicates that violations of the provisions are punishable under the UCMJ (directory language may be sufficient); and
    3. Knowledge: Service members are presumed to have knowledge of lawful general regulations if they are properly published. Actual knowledge of regulations or policy letters issued by brigade-size or smaller organizations must be proven. See generally United States v. Mayfield , 21 M.J. 418 (C.M.A. 1981); United States v. Tolkack , 14 M.J. 239 (C.M.A. 1982); see also United States v. Tedder , 24 M.J. 176, 1981 (C.M.A. 1987).

Options Available to Commanders

  1. Counsel the individuals involved.
  2. Pursue other non-punitive measures ( e.g. , reassignment, oral or written admonitionsor reprimands, adverse OER/EER, bar to reenlistment, relief, administrative elimination).
  3. Consider nonjudicial or punitive action.
    1. If the offense amounts to a social relationship between an officer and an enlisted person and violates good order and discipline, it may be charged under UCMJ art. 134.
    2. If the relationship violates other offenses such as adultery, sodomy, indecent acts, maltreatment, etc., the conduct should be alleged as such.
    3. Other articles may be charged depending upon the specific facts of the case.
    4. The conduct may be in violation of a regulation or order and charged under Art 92.

Applications

Ucmj Gambling In Uniform Ranks

  1. Sexual activity.
    1. United States v. Froehlke , 390 F. Supp. 503 (D.D.C. 1975). Upheld conviction of warrant officer for undressing and bathing an enlisted woman (not his wife) with whom he had been drinking. Offense of unlawful fraternization held not unconstitutionally vague.
    2. United States v. Hoard , 12 M.J. 563 (A.C.M.R. 1981). “[W]rongfully socializing, drinking, and engaging in sexual intercourse with female receptees in violation of cadre-trainee regulation.”
    3. United States v. Lowery , 21 M.J. 998 (A.C.M.R. 1986), aff’d, 24 M.J. 347 (C.M.A. 1987). Conviction upheld when accused officer had sexual intercourse with enlisted female, formerly under his command, where the female would not have gone to the accused’s office to make an appointment but for the superior- subordinate relationship.
    4. United States v. Tedder , 24 M.J. 176 (C.M.A. 1987). Charges of unbecoming conduct based on officer having sexual relationship with enlisted woman Marine and seeking to have subordinates arrange dates for him with another subordinate Marine were not impermissibly vague.
    5. United States v. Parrillo , 31 M.J. 886 (A.F.C.M.R. 1990), aff’d 34 M.J. 112 (C.M.A. 1992) Sexual relations with enlisted members under the accused officer’s supervision violated an Air Force custom against fraternization.
    6. United States v. Sanchez , 50 M.J. 506 (A. F. Ct. Crim. App. 1998). Accused cannot be convicted of both conduct unbecoming (Art. 133) and fraternization (Art. 134) when the misconduct alleged in the specifications is identical; fraternization gets dismissed. Those fraternization allegations not alleged in conduct unbecoming specifications remain. Court cites United States v. Harwood , 46 M.J. 26, 28 (1997) in support.
    7. United States v. Rogers, 54 M.J. 244 (2000). Evidence legally sufficient to sustain Art. 133 conviction for the offense of conduct unbecoming an officer by engaging in an unprofessional relationship with a subordinate officer in appellant’s chain of command. AF Court holds there is no need to prove breach of custom or violation of punitive regulation.
  2. Homosexual conduct.
    1. United States v. Lovejoy , 42 C.M.R. 210 (C.M.A. 1970). Accused convicted of sodomy and fraternization with enlisted member of submarine crew. Sodomy occurred at accused’s on-shore apartment, which he had invited enlisted sailor to share.
    2. United States v. Pitasi , 44 C.M.R. 31 (C.M.A. 1971). Charges of sodomy set aside on appeal as unproven but conviction for fraternization based on same relationship upheld.
    3. United States v. Free , 14 C.M.R. 466 (N.B.R. 1953). Accused convicted of sharing liquor with enlisted sailor in his quarters; sailor testified that after accepting invitation to spend the night in accused’s quarters, he was awakened in night by accused getting into bed with him.
  3. Drugs and other illegal activities.
    1. United States v. Graham , 9 M.J. 556 (N.C.M.R. 1980). Navy lieutenant convicted under Article 133 for conduct unbecoming an officer for smoking marijuana on shore with members of his ship’s crew.
    2. United States v. Chesterfield , 31 M.J. 942 (A.C.M.R. 1990). Drinking and smoking hashish with subordinates constituted fraternization.
  4. Excessive socializing.
    1. United States v. Arthur , 32 M.J. 541 (A.F.C.M.R. 1990). Accused officer’s romantic relationship with an enlisted co-worker did not constitute fraternization.
    2. United States v. McCreight , 43 M.J. 483 (C.A.A.F. 1996). Conviction for fraternization sustained where 1LT showed partiality and preferential treatment to senior airman; associated with airman on a first name basis at work and during numerous social contacts, including drinking and gambling; repeatedly allowed the same airman to stay in his apartment; and on one occasion drank with same airman under circumstances where the accused was the “designated drunk” and the airman was the designated driver. No sexual aspect alleged or proven. Fraternization does not require sexual conduct. Accord United States v. Nunes , 39 M.J. 889 (A.F.C.M.R. 1994) (“That no sexual relationship was alleged is irrelevant. This case is a useful corrective to the common notion that fraternization perforce must include sexual hanky-panky.”).
  5. Proof of custom and other facts.
    1. United States v. Wales , 31 M.J. 301 (C.M.A. 1990). Accused’s conviction for fraternization was reversed because the judge did not instruct that the members must find that the accused (an Air Force officer) was the supervisor of the enlisted member at the time of the alleged fraternization, and because the government did not prove that the accused’s conduct violated a custom of the service. To prove a custom of the military service, proof must be offered by a knowledgeable witness–subject to cross-examination–about that custom.
    2. United States v. Appel , 31 M.J. 314 (C.M.A. 1990). If the government relies on a violation of a custom as fraternization, it must prove the custom (Air Force accused). Proof of a military custom may not be based on judicial notice.
    3. United States v. Thompson , 31 M.J. 781 (A.C.M.R. 1990). Military judge is entitled to take judicial notice of a post regulation proscribing fraternization.
    4. United States v. Johanns , 20 M.J. 155 (C.M.A. 1985), cert. denied 474 U.S. 850 (1985). Decision of A.F.C.M.R. that “[C]ustom in the Air Force “against fraternization has been so eroded as to make criminal prosecution against an officer for engaging in mutually voluntary, private, non-deviate sexual intercourse with an enlisted member, neither under his command or supervision, unavailable.
    5. United States v. Fox , 34 M.J. 99 (C.M.A. 1992). Air Force fraternization specification must at least imply existence of a superior-subordinate or supervisory relationship and court members must be instructed that to find the accused guilty they must find the existence of such a relationship.
    6. United States v. Blake , 35 M.J. 539 (A.C.M.R. 1992). Specification alleging fraternization between Army 1SG and female NCO in his company was fatally defective where it failed to allege a violation of Army custom, which is an essential element.
    7. United States v. Boyett , 37 M.J. 872 (A.F.C.M.R. 1993), aff’d 42 M.J. 150 (1995). Determination in previous case ( Johanns ) that custom against fraternization in the Air Force had been so eroded as to make criminal prosecution against officer for engaging in mutually voluntary, private, nondeviate sexual intercourse with enlisted member, neither under his command nor supervision, unavailable was limited to state of customs reflected in record in that case, and would not preclude every prosecution for fraternization based on such conduct. (Per Heimberg, J., with three Judges concurring and one Judge concurring separately).
    8. United States v. Brown , 55 M.J. 375 (C.A.A.F. 2001). The military judge did not abuse his discretion when he admitted the nonpunitive Air Force Pamphlet (AFP) 36-2705, Discrimination and Sexual Harassment (28 February 1995) over defense objection. In so ruling, the CAAF agreed with the military judge that the AFP was relevant to establish notice of the prohibited conduct and the applicable standard of conduct in the Air Force community to the appellant. Additionally, the CAAF stated that in cases were evidence of the custom of the service is needed to prove an element of an offense, it is likely that the probative value will out weigh the prejudicial effect.

Drugs and other illegal activities.

Ucmj gambling in uniform regulations

Proof of custom and other facts.

If you face a possible military case, you may need to know which punitive articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (U.C.M.J.) apply. We provide you a list.

Ucmj gambling in uniform ranks

Punitive U.C.M.J. Articles

U.C.M.J. Article 77: Principals
U.C.M.J. Article 78: Accessory after the fact
U.C.M.J. Article 79: Conviction of lesser included offense
U.C.M.J. Article 80: Attempts
U.C.M.J. Article 81: Conspiracy
U.C.M.J. Article 82: Solicitation
U.C.M.J. Article 83: Fraudulent enlistment, appointment, or separation
U.C.M.J. Article 84: Unlawful enlistment, appointment, or separation
U.C.M.J. Article 85: Desertion
U.C.M.J. Article 86: Absence without leave
U.C.M.J. Article 87: Missing movement
U.C.M.J. Article 88: Contempt toward officials
U.C.M.J. Article 89: Disrespect toward superior commissioned officer
U.C.M.J. Article 90: Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer
U.C.M.J. Article 91: Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer
U.C.M.J. Article 92: Failure to obey order or regulation
U.C.M.J. Article 93: Cruelty and maltreatment
U.C.M.J. Article 94: Mutiny or sedition
U.C.M.J. Article 95: Resistance, flight, breach of arrest, and escape
U.C.M.J. Article 96: Releasing prisoner without proper authority
U.C.M.J. Article 97: Unlawful detention
U.C.M.J. Article 98: Noncompliance with procedural rules
U.C.M.J. Article 99: Misbehavior before the enemy
U.C.M.J. Article 100: Subordinate compelling surrender
U.C.M.J. Article 101: Improper use of countersign
U.C.M.J. Article 102: Forcing a safeguard
U.C.M.J. Article 103: Captured or abandoned property
U.C.M.J. Article 104: Aiding the enemy
U.C.M.J. Article 105: Misconduct as prisoner
U.C.M.J. Article 106: Spies
U.C.M.J. Article 106a: Espionage
U.C.M.J. Article 107: False official statements
U.C.M.J. Article 108: Military property of United States – Loss, damage, destruction, or wrongful disposition
U.C.M.J. Article 109: Property other than military property of United States – waste, spoilage, or destruction
U.C.M.J. Article 110: Improper hazarding of vessel
U.C.M.J. Article 111: Drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or vessel
U.C.M.J. Article 112: Drunk on duty
U.C.M.J. Article 112a: Wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substances
U.C.M.J. Article 113: Misbehavior of sentinel
U.C.M.J. Article 114: Dueling
U.C.M.J. Article 115: Malingering
U.C.M.J. Article 116: Riot or breach of peace
U.C.M.J. Article 117: Provoking speeches or gestures
U.C.M.J. Article 118: Murder
U.C.M.J. Article 119: Manslaughter
U.C.M.J. Article 119a: Death or injury of an unborn child
U.C.M.J. Article 120: Rape, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct
U.C.M.J. Article 120a: Stalking
U.C.M.J. Article 121: Larceny and wrongful appropriation
U.C.M.J. Article 122: Robbery
U.C.M.J. Article 123: Forgery
U.C.M.J. Article 123a: Making, drawing, or uttering check, draft, or order without sufficient funds
U.C.M.J. Article 124: Maiming
U.C.M.J. Article 125: Sodomy
U.C.M.J. Article 126: Arson
U.C.M.J. Article 127: Extortion
U.C.M.J. Article 128: Assault
U.C.M.J. Article 129: Burglary
U.C.M.J. Article 130: Housebreaking
U.C.M.J. Article 131: Perjury
U.C.M.J. Article 132: Frauds against the United States
U.C.M.J. Article 133: Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman

Ucmj Gambling In Uniform Law

U.C.M.J. Article 134: General article, includes:
Abusing public animal (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Adultery (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Assault with intent to commit murder, voluntary manslaughter, rape, robbery, sodomy, arson, burglary, or housebreaking (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Bigamy (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Bribery or graft (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Burning with intent to defraud (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Check, worthless, making and uttering – by dishonorably failing to maintain funds (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Child endangerment (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Cohabitation, wrongful (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Correctional custody – offenses against (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Debt, dishonorably failing to pay (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Disloyal statements (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Disorderly conduct, drunkenness (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Drinking liquor with prisoner (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Drunk prisoner (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Drunkenness – incapacitation for performance of duties through prior wrongful indulgence in intoxicating liquor or any drug (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
False or unauthorized pass offenses (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
False pretenses, obtaining services under (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
False swearing (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Firearm, discharging – through negligence (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Firearm, discharging – willfully, under such circumstances as to endanger human life (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Fleeing scene of accident (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Fraternization (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Gambling with subordinate (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Homicide, negligent (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Impersonating a commissioned, warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer, or an agent or official (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Indecent language (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Jumping from vessel into the water (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Kidnapping (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Mail: taking, opening, secreting, destroying, or stealing (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Mails: depositing or causing to be deposited obscene matters in (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Misprision of serious offense (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Obstructing justice (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Wrongful interference with an adverse administrative proceeding (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Pandering and prostitution (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Parole, violation of (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Perjury: subornation of (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Public record: altering, concealing, removing, mutilating, obliterating, or destroying (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Quarantine: medical, breaking (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Reckless endangerment (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Restriction, breaking (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Seizure: destruction, removal, or disposal of property to prevent (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Self-injury without intent to avoid service (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Sentinel or lookout: offenses against or by (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Soliciting another to commit an offense (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Stolen property: knowingly receiving, buying, concealing (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Straggling (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Testify: wrongful refusal (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Threat or hoax designed or intended to cause panic or public fear (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Threat, communicating (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Unlawful entry (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Weapon: concealed, carrying (U.C.M.J. Article 134)
Wearing unauthorized insignia, decoration, badge, ribbon, device, or lapel button (U.C.M.J. Article 134)