Soldiers of all ranks have expressed outrage at the light sentence imposed on the former commander of 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team, Col. James H. Johnson III.
Johnson, 48, pleaded guilty to 15 counts including bigamy, fraud and adultery and was convicted June 13 on two more counts.
The fraud counts stem from unauthorized expenditures of government funds, spent to “frolic” with his Iraqi mistress between 2008 and 2011.
A panel of five colonels in Kaiserslautern, Germany, sentenced Johnson to a reprimand and a fine of $300,000 — or five years in jail if he doesn’t pay the fine.
“Military justice is a joke,” retired Staff Sgt. John Mackes wrote to Army Times. “Different standards for enlisted and officers. If this was an enlisted soldier, you know he would have been hit with serious jail time. One standard for enlisted and another for officers. It makes me sick.”
Capt. Joseph R. Vigueras added, “In one swift decision, the board made a mockery of justice and allowed a bigamist and a thief to retire with honor.”
The Army charged that Johnson racked up more than $100,000 in authorized charges including unauthorized travel, cellphone bills and hotel and meals charges for him and his mistress while off duty.
The bigamy count was the result of Johnson’s November 2011 marriage to his Iraqi mistress — while he was still married to Kristina Johnson, whom he married soon after he graduated from West Point in 1986.
Johnson re-married by proxy after producing a phony divorce certificate for his 1987 marriage. That first marriage is still working its way through the divorce courts.
Even Johnson’s former colleagues disapproved of the sentence imposed by the colonels.
“As a member of Col. James H. Johnson’s staff during his command of the 173rd BCT, I am appalled at the light sentenced he received,” wrote Special Forces Lt. Col. Bo Stuart. “He was convicted of 15 counts, yet received no confinement and is still an active-duty colonel. His fine did not even cover the money he defrauded from the government and the cost of the investigation and trial. This is yet another egregious example of senior officers protecting their own. If Col. Johnson were an E-6 instead of an O-6, he would be in Leavenworth. This is an embarrassment to the officer corps.”
Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, commanding general of U.S. Army Europe, issued a statement about Johnson’s sentence, acknowledging that “many soldiers and senior leaders I’ve discussed the results of this case with are surprised with the sentence, especially given the guilty plea provided by Col. Johnson on the majority of the counts.”
“But none of us know what went on in the courtroom,” Hertling wrote. “And none of us know of the discussion that went on between the panel members.
“We should know, however, that our military justice system takes all factors of evidence, proof and mitigation into account, and we must keep faith in that system doing what’s right.”
Many who have looked at the sentence — including Kristina Johnson, the victim of the adultery and bigamy — say the sentencing panel must have weighed the impact of a harsher sentence on her and the two children.
Had Johnson been reduced in rank, or stripped of his rank and dishonorably discharged, he would have lost some or all of the benefits he and his family earned during 26 years of service. That would have left the family with no retirement, no health benefits and would have cut off Johnson’s daughter’s GI Bill college support.
“It seems like the jury cared more about the Johnson family than Colonel Johnson did,” Kristina Johnson told Army Times.
While she is glad that she will not lose the benefits, she said she believes the sentence “reinforces the notion that if you’re a colonel or a general, or your father is a general, or if you went to West Point, you can do whatever you want.”
Johnson’s father, retired Lt. Gen. James H. Johnson Jr., commanded the 82nd Airborne Division during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The elder Johnson and Col. Johnson’s family were in the courtroom for the duration of the trial.
But, according to two people who were at the trial, the impact of a conviction on Johnson’s retirement was never raised in open court — by the prosecution or the defense. The prosecution asked the panel to sentence Johnson to dismissal and confinement for a period of “years, not months,” according to Stars and Stripes.
Johnson’s problems began in January 2011, when Kristina Johnson contacted Army authorities after she was denied health care — because the Army said she was divorced.
Johnson was relieved of command in March 2011. An Army investigation found he had misused Army funds to travel to see the mistress and had given her an Army cellphone — and that she racked up $40,000 in charges.
Johnson was also accused of attempting to steer an Army contract to his mistress’ father and of hiring her father, an Iraqi who spoke no Afghan languages — to be his cultural adviser when his unit was in Afghanistan.
Col. Johnson is not guaranteed his retirement as an O-6. When he applies for retirement, Army regulations require that Human Resources Command review his personnel file “to see if there is any adverse information generated since the officer’s last promotion.” If there is — and Johnson’s record will almost certainly reflect his court-martial conviction — Army Regulation AR 15-80 requires HRC to refer the officer’s case to the Army Grade Determination Review Board, which is in the Office of the Secretary of the Army.
The AGDRB will review the record and recommend that the officer be considered for “the highest grade in which the officer has served satisfactorily.”
For Johnson, who was a colonel when his crimes were committed, that could mean he could be referred for reduction to O-5.
The final decision rests with the assistant secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
Johnson was promoted to colonel Nov. 1, 2007, and the actions for which he was convicted date to September 2008.
“There will be some who say the sentence was unfair, or that there is a different system between officers and enlisted,” Hertling said. “But those who say that were likely not there, and those who say that probably have little knowledge of what went on in the court. What we know is this: Col. Johnson was relieved and charged with crimes by his commanders; he pled guilty to some charges, and was found guilty of others, in our military court system; and he was sentenced by that court. Soldiers can debate or be discouraged by the sentence, but we must maintain trust in the fairness of our military judicial system.”
No comments:
Post a Comment