is it true that you can refuse article 15 and get court marticialed then choose to get separated?

Answer 1

Everything you want to know and more adnausium is in the link below.

Answer 2

I cannot speak to the Army or Air Force, but I can speak to the Navy and Marine Corps.

In the Navy, the only time you have the ability to waive NJP proceedings and to request Courts Martial is when you are on shore duty (i.e., stationed at a base ashore rather than being assigned in any way to a ship or naval vessel). If you are serving aboard ship, the Commanding Officer is the convening authority for Military Courts Martials and also has Article 15 jurisdiction granted them by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the Manual for Courts Martial (MCM). In short, while attached to a sea command, you DO NOT have the ability to request Courts Martial in lieu of Article 15 procedings.

Answer 3

Yes you can refuse an Article 15, you will go to a court-martial, but if the Brigade Commander approves your request you can get separated. Of course you just ruined your life, and you will see prejudice the rest of your life.

Take the Article 15. Get facts on why you did it, what the conditions where, have people speak for you, it's the best choice.

Answer 4

You can refuse an Article 15. But you do not get to choose the outcome of your Court Martial. If the Judge says three months custody and reduction of two ranks, that is what you get. If you really want out of the service, do your time.

Answer 5

Yes it is. But in most cases, its better to take the Article 15. Anyone facing those types of actions should be allowed to consult with a military lawyer before making that decision. Usually they'd only take a Cort Martial to prove they are innocent. And, in some cases, you can be offered a discharge in lieu of legal action. But there are lots of variables. The soldier MUST be allowed to see a JAG officer. Otherwise, the commander is dead wrong.

Answer 6

Seems to work the other way, you can get an Article 15 after a court marshall in rare cases.

In two cases, the Court of Military Appeals has considered the propriety of the imposition of Nonjudicial Punishment (Article 15) for offenses which have already been litigated (at least to some degree) before a court-martial. A reading of these cases would appear to indicate that the question of whether the offense may lawfully be taken to Nonjudicial Punishment (Article 15) following a court-martial will depend upon whether trial on the merits had begun on the offenses at court-martial prior to the imposition of Nonjudicial Punishment (Article 15).

In Dobzynski v. Green, 16 M.J. 84 (C.M.A. 1983), a charge of possession of marijuana was referred to special court-martial. After the military judge granted the defense motion to suppress the marijuana, the convening authority withdrew the charge and imposed Nonjudicial Punishment (Article 15) upon the accused for the offense.

As the accused was then attached to a vessel, he was unable to refuse the Nonjudicial Punishment (Article 15). On petition for extraordinary relief before the Court of Military Appeals, the accused argued that the military judge violated his due process rights by allowing withdrawal of the charge after arraignment and prior to the presentation of evidence on the merits. In denying the petition for extraordinary relief, the court held not only that the military judge properly allowed the withdrawal, but also that the "convening authority acted in accordance with the law and within his discretion in withdrawing the charges from the special court-martial."
In Jones v. Commander, Naval Air Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, 18 M.J. 198 (C.M.A. 1984), the accused's motion for a finding of not guilty was granted by the military judge following the presentation of the government's case-in-chief. The convening authority then imposed Nonjudicial Punishment (Article 15) upon the accused for substantially the same offense. Here, the court again denied the petition for extraordinary relief, but in dicta condemned the imposition of Nonjudicial Punishment (Article 15) following the earlier court-martial conviction as an "unreasonable abuse of command disciplinary powers which cannot be tolerated in a fundamentally fair military justice system.

Significantly, both Dobzynski, supra, and Jones, involved offenses committed and punished prior to 1 August 1984. For cases arising after this date, the provisions of section 1-A-5d of the Military Judges Manual would apply. This section provides that "(p)ersonnel who have been tried by courts that derive their authority from the United States, such as U.S. District Courts, shall not be tried by court-martial or be the subject of nonjudicial punishment for the same act or acts" (emphasis added). Assuming that the term "tried" as used in MJM 1-A-5d means that point in the trial after which jeopardy would attach and prevent the referral of charges to a subsequent forum. Thus, Nonjudicial Punishment (Article 15) would be barred for an offense previously referred to court-martial at which jeopardy had attached and which could not be retried at a subsequent court.

Seek advice from an attorney versed in military law.

Answer 7

YES, but you cannot choose to be separated, it depends upon what the results are of the courts martial. If you are found guilty, you will serve whatever sentence is handed
out to you, then you will be separated.

Answer 8

I agree with the SGM. Take what you have coming and get on with your life.