<p>“Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an of-ficer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”</p>
<p>So states Article 133 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice in language that is about as clear as the Swedish Chef reading Shakespeare.</p>
<p>“Jurisprudence for Dummies,” it ain’t. </p>
<p>Even though the grim “shall be punished as a court-martial may direct” makes me wonder if a judge uses a Magic 8-Ball for sentencing, it pales in comparison to the ambiguity of how “unbecoming” conduct is identified.</p>
<p>Is there a picture book listing all the possibilities? Hmm, let’s see, running a brothel in your stateroom? Check. Falsifying official documents? Sure. Walking onto the quarterdeck with just your underwear on your head? You betcha.</p>
<p>But what about behaviors that aren’t as obvious? It actually boils down to something that just doesn’t look or feel right. It’s like that old argument about what is or isn’t obscene. While you may not be able to describe it exactly, you sure know it when you see it.</p>
<p>In other words, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it sure isn’t a rhesus monkey.</p>
<p>So it is with conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. I’m firmly onboard with holding people accountable for actions that don’t seem right. And don’t give me the old, “Well, other people are doing it, so why are you picking on me?” canard, either.</p>
<p>The fact that hardly anyone is brought up on Article 133 alone – most times it’s brought up in combination with another offense – doesn’t lessen its seriousness. I maintain it’s actually more serious because of the nature of the business we’re in. Certainly, I wouldn’t want my division officer to stage cockfights in his garage. Neither would I want one who’d ignore rules he finds inconvenient.</p>
<p>With this in mind, I’ve paid very close attention to the circus that has surrounded the Lamar Owens case.</p>
<p>In light of these findings, the superintendent of the Naval Academy, Vice Adm. Rodney Rempt, has recommended he be punished for “unsatisfactory conduct.” In Rempt’s opinion, Owens is not fit to wear the uniform of a naval officer and should forfeit his college education.</p>
<p>Enter the hysterical hand-wringing over injustice foisted upon a star quarterback who led the Midshipman to an 8-4 record and a win in the Poinsettia Bowl.</p>
<p>We’ve endured a plethora of arguments in favor of this midshipman. From statements of what a fine leader he is to overwrought despair over the damage this will do to his future, the wailing has addressed every aspect of this case.</p>
<p>Thank goodness nobody has argued, “Well, it’s just about sex.”
Yet. After much consideration as to what should be done about someone who decided rules against sex in a dormitory – albeit consensual – didn’t apply to him, I have to agree with Vice Adm. Rempt. Partly.</p>
<p>Let’s allow the man his degree. After all, he put in a considerable amount of time and effort into his studies. By all accounts, he was a good student. To act as if the past several years didn’t exist would be wrong.</p>
<p>However, there is no way he should have the privilege of becoming a commissioned officer. By acting in a manner that brings his integrity into question, he has forfeited the honor of leading Navy men and women.</p>
<p>Copyright 2007 Army Times Publishing Co.
All Rights Reserved
Navy Times
April 16, 2007</p>