windwalker wrote:You would lose
you might want to understand what happens and why
Yeah, I understand what's happening and why.
Financial responsibility for negligence has to be proven, as described in the article. They gave damage to housing as an example, so let's use that. How can a person be considered negligent for their housing? Because they accepted living there under a condition of responsibility, so if they tear down a wall inside of it without permission, they're responsible. What if a SCUD knocks down the wall, are they negligent then? Probably not. See the difference?
What if you crash an F-14? Do you pay for it based on whether or not you're negligent? No. You may be punished in some other way, according to the UCMJ, but that's clearly punishment in an Article 15 or 31 proceeding, and not this hidden punishment of financial loss outside those legal avenues.
As I see it, the financial responsibility is being put onto the service member under duress, under orders, under threat of punishment, and it is then being enforced as a punishment under the UCMJ. And here's a concept from military law: you may not punish a service member for alleged offenses to the UCMJ, or otherwise restrict their leave and liberty based on an alleged offense. Financial punishments would be included.
So probably the legal rationale for financial responsibility is based on dereliction of duty, which is one of the so-called punitive articles in the UCMJ, and therefore punishing a service member for an alleged offense outside of Article 15 or Article 31 proceedings is not correct.
Last edited by Michael on Mon Jul 15, 2019 6:44 am, edited 1 time in total.