A Pocket Guide to the Military’s Many Scandals

Cadets of The United States Military Academy prepare to take their seats for a graduation and commissioning ceremony May 26, 2012 in West Point, New York.
National Journal
Sara Sorcher Jordain Carney
Sara Sorcher Jordain Carney
Feb. 4, 2014, midnight

Don’t be sur­prised that the mil­it­ary is start­ing to fo­cus more on eth­ics train­ing.

A series of high-pro­file — and, at times, bor­der­line ri­dicu­lous — scan­dals have dom­in­ated the head­lines about the mil­it­ary ser­vices in re­cent months. The Air Force’s cheat­ing im­broglio has en­snared nearly half the nuc­le­ar-mis­sile crew at one key base; the Navy’s sex-and-bribery brouhaha keeps get­ting wider and weirder. And a massive fraud in­vest­ig­a­tion tied to an Army Na­tion­al Guard re­cruit­ing pro­gram will be un­veiled at a Sen­ate hear­ing on Tues­day.

Mil­it­ary edu­ca­tion schools will now sport “eth­ics units,” as top of­ficers re­view prop­er pro­ced­ures for travel and ac­cept­ing gifts, Chair­man of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mar­tin De­mp­sey told The Wall Street Journ­al. And pro­mo­tions will more strongly con­sider of­ficers’ char­ac­ters.

Be­fore that’s all done, though, you may find our handy-dandy guide to re­cent mil­it­ary scan­dals pretty use­ful.

ARMY

Re­cruit­ing Fraud Scan­dal:

It’s one of the biggest fraud in­vest­ig­a­tions in the Army’s his­tory. That’s the word from Sen. Claire Mc­Caskill, the Mis­souri Demo­crat whose sub­com­mit­tee on fin­an­cial and con­tract­ing over­sight will re­veal de­tails about an emer­ging scan­dal in a pub­lic hear­ing Tues­day.

The Re­cruit­ing As­sist­ance Pro­gram was once con­sidered to be among the most suc­cess­ful re­cruit­ing pro­grams in U.S. mil­it­ary his­tory. Cre­ated at the height of the Ir­aq War in 2005, the pro­gram paid Na­tion­al Guards­men, re­tir­ees, and ci­vil­ians for their re­fer­rals of friends and fam­ily who joined up. The pro­gram was so suc­cess­ful, it ex­pan­ded to in­clude the Army and its re­serve corps, but it was can­celed in 2012.

Sol­diers serving as re­cruit­ers (or re­cruit­ing as­sist­ants) were not meant to get the re­fer­ral bo­nuses. Today, more than 800 sol­diers are be­ing in­vest­ig­ated for un­fairly profit­ing off that sys­tem, ac­cord­ing to USA Today, and get­ting im­prop­er bo­nuses said to total in the “tens of mil­lions.” We’ll hear more in Tues­day’s hear­ing. Lt. Gen. Wil­li­am Grisoli, dir­ect­or of the Army Staff, will testi­fy; so will Maj. Gen. Dav­id Quan­tock, com­mand­ing gen­er­al for the U.S. Army Crim­in­al In­vest­ig­a­tion Com­mand and Army Cor­rec­tions com­mand. Aud­it­ors and former of­fi­cials from the Na­tion­al Guard will also speak.

AIR FORCE

Nuc­le­ar Force Scan­dals:

Nearly half of the 190 of­ficers at an Air Force base in Montana are tem­por­ar­ily sus­pen­ded for al­legedly cheat­ing on a monthly pro­fi­ciency ex­am — or for know­ing about the cheat­ing. That would have been a bad enough P.R. night­mare for the Air Force. But the in­cid­ent is only the latest for an in­creas­ingly battered nuc­le­ar-mis­sile crew, amid ques­tions about its mor­ale and se­cur­ity.

The al­leged cheat­ing was un­covered as in­vest­ig­at­ors probed il­leg­al drug use in the nuke force — and the news, un­for­tu­nately for mil­it­ary me­dia pro­fes­sion­als every­where, broke around the same time that De­fense Sec­ret­ary Chuck Hagel vis­ited one of three bases re­spons­ible for the coun­try’s nuc­le­ar mis­siles. Air Force of­fi­cials said last month that 10 of­ficers have been tied to that in­vest­ig­a­tion.

There was also trouble at the top. The Air Force fired Maj. Gen. Mi­chael Carey, who over­saw this coun­try’s land-based nuc­le­ar mis­siles, in Oc­to­ber. The In­spect­or Gen­er­al out­lined his “im­prop­er con­duct” while part of a del­eg­a­tion to Mo­scow. That’s put­ting it mildly. Carey, ap­par­ently, boldly de­clared that Pentagon lead­er­ship didn’t sup­port him, danced and in­ter­ac­ted with for­eign wo­men, and was pub­licly drunk — to the point that wit­nesses wor­ried about his abil­ity to re­main up­right. He also made com­ments “re­gard­ing lovely ladies” that troubled some of the of­fi­cials Carey was with.

NAVY

Con­tract­ing Fraud:

A wealthy Malay­si­an con­tract­or known as “Fat Le­onard” is ac­cused of brib­ing Navy of­fi­cials with cash, trips, and pros­ti­tutes — in ex­change for ship­ping in­form­a­tion. It’s a bizarre scan­dal re­veal­ing a com­plex, and al­legedly fraud­u­lent web, between Glenn De­fense Mar­ine Asia CEO Le­onard Glenn Frances and the Navy, which has already cost two seni­or Navy of­fi­cials and an NCIS agent their jobs and prom­ises to sweep up more.

The House Over­sight and Gov­ern­ment Re­form Com­mit­tee is now in­vest­ig­at­ing the af­fair, which the Justice De­part­ment terms a “multi-na­tion­al, multi-year, multi-mil­lion dol­lar fraud of the United States Navy.” It is simply the latest twist in one of the Navy’s biggest scan­dals in re­cent years. Be­sides the three ar­rests of the ser­vice mem­bers (and Fat Le­onard), four oth­er Navy of­fi­cials are be­ing in­vest­ig­ated. But be­fore the Christ­mas hol­i­day, Navy Sec­ret­ary Ray Mabus said he ex­pec­ted more dis­clos­ures will come from the on­go­ing in­vest­ig­a­tion.

MAR­INES

Corpse-De­fil­ing Scan­dal:

One of the ugli­est in­cid­ents in Mar­ine Corps his­tory isn’t over yet.

The Mar­ine Corps is still wrest­ling with the ripple ef­fects from a video de­pict­ing four Mar­ine snipers in full com­bat gear ur­in­at­ing on the bod­ies of dead Taliban in­sur­gents, an im­age that set off wide­spread protests across Afgh­anistan when it was pub­lished on­line in 2012. The Mar­ines who ap­peared in the video pleaded guilty to a raft of charges; oth­ers re­ceived non­ju­di­cial pun­ish­ments. As For­eign Policy re­cently re­por­ted, however, an in­vest­ig­a­tion in­to wheth­er seni­or of­ficers “at­temp­ted to cov­er up their own mis­con­duct while pro­sec­ut­ing war crimes in Afgh­anistan has sud­denly roared back to life.”

A top ci­vil­ian of­fi­cial, John Fitzger­ald, is now look­ing in­to wheth­er top Mar­ine brass “un­law­fully con­cealed cru­cial evid­ence in the cases.”

The Mar­ine Corps is also in­vest­ig­at­ing what’s be­hind dozens of newly sur­faced pho­tos de­pict­ing Mar­ines de­fil­ing bod­ies of dead Ir­aqi in­sur­gents. The pho­tos, ac­cord­ing to en­ter­tain­ment site TMZ, were said to have been taken in Fal­lu­jah, Ir­aq, in 2004.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4704) }}

ARMY

Re­cruit­ing Fraud Scan­dal:

It’s one of the biggest fraud in­vest­ig­a­tions in the Army’s his­tory. That’s the word from Sen. Claire Mc­Caskill, the Mis­souri Demo­crat whose sub­com­mit­tee on fin­an­cial and con­tract­ing over­sight will re­veal de­tails about an emer­ging scan­dal in a pub­lic hear­ing Tues­day.

The Re­cruit­ing As­sist­ance Pro­gram was once con­sidered to be among the most suc­cess­ful re­cruit­ing pro­grams in U.S. mil­it­ary his­tory. Cre­ated at the height of the Ir­aq War in 2005, the pro­gram paid Na­tion­al Guards­men, re­tir­ees, and ci­vil­ians for their re­fer­rals of friends and fam­ily who joined up. The pro­gram was so suc­cess­ful, it ex­pan­ded to in­clude the Army and its re­serve corps, but it was can­celed in 2012.

Sol­diers serving as re­cruit­ers (or re­cruit­ing as­sist­ants) were not meant to get the re­fer­ral bo­nuses. Today, more than 800 sol­diers are be­ing in­vest­ig­ated for un­fairly profit­ing off that sys­tem, ac­cord­ing to USA Today, and get­ting im­prop­er bo­nuses said to total in the “tens of mil­lions.” We’ll hear more in Tues­day’s hear­ing. Lt. Gen. Wil­li­am Grisoli, dir­ect­or of the Army Staff, will testi­fy; so will Maj. Gen. Dav­id Quan­tock, com­mand­ing gen­er­al for the U.S. Army Crim­in­al In­vest­ig­a­tion Com­mand and Army Cor­rec­tions com­mand. Aud­it­ors and former of­fi­cials from the Na­tion­al Guard will also speak.

AIR FORCE

Nuc­le­ar Force Scan­dals:

Nearly half of the 190 of­ficers at an Air Force base in Montana are tem­por­ar­ily sus­pen­ded for al­legedly cheat­ing on a monthly pro­fi­ciency ex­am — or for know­ing about the cheat­ing. That would have been a bad enough P.R. night­mare for the Air Force. But the in­cid­ent is only the latest for an in­creas­ingly battered nuc­le­ar-mis­sile crew, amid ques­tions about its mor­ale and se­cur­ity.

The al­leged cheat­ing was un­covered as in­vest­ig­at­ors probed il­leg­al drug use in the nuke force — and the news, un­for­tu­nately for mil­it­ary me­dia pro­fes­sion­als every­where, broke around the same time that De­fense Sec­ret­ary Chuck Hagel vis­ited one of three bases re­spons­ible for the coun­try’s nuc­le­ar mis­siles. Air Force of­fi­cials said last month that 10 of­ficers have been tied to that in­vest­ig­a­tion.

There was also trouble at the top. The Air Force fired Maj. Gen. Mi­chael Carey, who over­saw this coun­try’s land-based nuc­le­ar mis­siles, in Oc­to­ber. The In­spect­or Gen­er­al out­lined his “im­prop­er con­duct” while part of a del­eg­a­tion to Mo­scow. That’s put­ting it mildly. Carey, ap­par­ently, boldly de­clared that Pentagon lead­er­ship didn’t sup­port him, danced and in­ter­ac­ted with for­eign wo­men, and was pub­licly drunk — to the point that wit­nesses wor­ried about his abil­ity to re­main up­right. He also made com­ments “re­gard­ing lovely ladies” that troubled some of the of­fi­cials Carey was with.

NAVY

Con­tract­ing Fraud:

A wealthy Malay­si­an con­tract­or known as “Fat Le­onard” is ac­cused of brib­ing Navy of­fi­cials with cash, trips, and pros­ti­tutes — in ex­change for ship­ping in­form­a­tion. It’s a bizarre scan­dal re­veal­ing a com­plex, and al­legedly fraud­u­lent web, between Glenn De­fense Mar­ine Asia CEO Le­onard Glenn Frances and the Navy, which has already cost two seni­or Navy of­fi­cials and an NCIS agent their jobs and prom­ises to sweep up more.

The House Over­sight and Gov­ern­ment Re­form Com­mit­tee is now in­vest­ig­at­ing the af­fair, which the Justice De­part­ment terms a “multi-na­tion­al, multi-year, multi-mil­lion dol­lar fraud of the United States Navy.” It is simply the latest twist in one of the Navy’s biggest scan­dals in re­cent years. Be­sides the three ar­rests of the ser­vice mem­bers (and Fat Le­onard), four oth­er Navy of­fi­cials are be­ing in­vest­ig­ated. But be­fore the Christ­mas hol­i­day, Navy Sec­ret­ary Ray Mabus said he ex­pec­ted more dis­clos­ures will come from the on­go­ing in­vest­ig­a­tion.

MARINES

Corpse-De­fil­ing Scan­dal:

One of the ugli­est in­cid­ents in Mar­ine Corps his­tory isn’t over yet.

The Mar­ine Corps is still wrest­ling with the ripple ef­fects from a video de­pict­ing four Mar­ine snipers in full com­bat gear ur­in­at­ing on the bod­ies of dead Taliban in­sur­gents, an im­age that set off wide­spread protests across Afgh­anistan when it was pub­lished on­line in 2012. The Mar­ines who ap­peared in the video pleaded guilty to a raft of charges; oth­ers re­ceived non­ju­di­cial pun­ish­ments. As For­eign Policy re­cently re­por­ted, however, an in­vest­ig­a­tion in­to wheth­er seni­or of­ficers “at­temp­ted to cov­er up their own mis­con­duct while pro­sec­ut­ing war crimes in Afgh­anistan has sud­denly roared back to life.”

A top ci­vil­ian of­fi­cial, John Fitzger­ald, is now look­ing in­to wheth­er top Mar­ine brass “un­law­fully con­cealed cru­cial evid­ence in the cases.”

The Mar­ine Corps is also in­vest­ig­at­ing what’s be­hind dozens of newly sur­faced pho­tos de­pict­ing Mar­ines de­fil­ing bod­ies of dead Ir­aqi in­sur­gents. The pho­tos, ac­cord­ing to en­ter­tain­ment site TMZ, were said to have been taken in Fal­lu­jah, Ir­aq, in 2004.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4704) }}

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
30 minutes ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
30 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
30 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
30 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×