I purposely did not present a lot of facts in my original post because I don't know a lot of facts, only what I have heard from grads and read in the newspaper.
Here is my understanding of the situation:
When the charges were brought forward, the Supt had two basic choices, to handle it within house or to recommend it to a courts martial. He chose the latter.
The alleged victim was offered immunity to testify. My first cynical remark will be "why does a midshipmen need immunity to tell the truth?".
The CM found LO innocent of rape but guily of conduct unbecoming an officer (consensual sex in the barracks, I assume) and failure to obey a restraining order to stay away from the AV. Now the sticky part: The CM recommended no punishment for the lesser two charges. Could the fact that the AV was granted immunity and received no punishment, leave the court with no other choice than "no punishment" for LO's commiting of the same offense? I am not a UCMJ expert and do not know the ramifications of a grant of immunity.
Meantime, the Superintendent made several public and private comments that LO was guilty and would not graduate.
The CM reviewing authority upheld the findings of the CM.
The Supt, receiving the findings and not liking them one bit, banished LO to the Navy Yard for over six months until Friday, a week ago, when he was summoned to his office. LO was not permitted council. Navy JAG officers were present. We do not know what was discussed and if, in fact, there was any bargaining.
From the Sun and Post articles, it appears that LO will not graduate, will not be commissioned, will not have to pay back his education expenses, and will be granted an administrative discharge.
Rumors indicate that the Supt listed four factors as relevant in his decision:
-LO had amassed 185 demerits. Many have amassed many more and graduated. My understanding is that the majority of the demerits were for sex in Bancroft Hall for which the AV is still there.
-An "F" in aptitude for spring semester. His aptitude (grease) was good enough for him previously to be designated a striper. The "F" was a result of this allegation alone.
-Downloading porn off the internet. Sticky one here. Serious enough for dismissal? The curve ball is that the Academy makes every attempt to recoup as much of the midshipmens salary as possible. My understanding is that they are charged for internet usage. So it must be compared to home internet usage instead of a business-type environment. So we have an adult viewing porn on his own internet site on a computer for which he was forced to purchase and also on his own time.
-Lastly, he cites the two CM convictions for reason to dismiss. The same two reasons that the CM recommended no punishment. So these two charges combined with the above, the first two which only existed due to the false allegations, are sufficient to discharge him. In essence, was he discharged only as an adult, viewing porn from his rented internet source, on his own computer, on his own time? Kind of seems like it to me. I seriously doubt if this is the standard punishment for this infraction which, I am sure, has happened before.
The Academy has gone way beyond double jeopardy in this case and into the realm of a "railroad" job.
In addition to JAMs comment about the Supt's attempt to create a "safe" environment, rumor is that he is positioning himself for his second career, that of the President of a civilian college.
My concern is that the sea services have difficulty attracting minorities, especially black males. What signal is this sending to them?
My other concern is what is being done with all the proceeds from the sale of the #2 football jersey and whether it will continue to be available or will it become a collector's item available only on ebay? (what do i have to do to put a smilie here?)
