Unveiling the Shadows of Unlawful Command Influence in Military Justice

What is Unlawful Command Influence (UCI)?

Unlawful Command Influence (UCI) is often cited as the "mortal enemy of military justice." The term is specific to the military and its unique command structure. It refers to the inappropriate or illegal influence senior military officials may exert over the outcomes of court-martial proceedings, selection of jury members, or other aspects of military judicial processes.

UCI is not limited to those in command; anyone subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice can commit UCI by trying to coerce or improperly influence the court-martial or the members, or a convening, reviewing, or approving authority in respect to their judicial acts. UCI can be either actual or apparent, meaning that the outcome of an action, regardless of the intent, can be UCI if it interferes with the court-martial process. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) recognizes the severity of UCI and implements safeguards to combat it, allowing service members to challenge suspected occurrences that could taint the fairness of legal proceedings.

Common Manifestations of UCI

Instances of UCI can vary, ranging from direct orders to influence court outcomes to more subtle pressures that may affect the impartiality of a trial or legal process. For example, senior officers might implicitly suggest preferred outcomes or exert pressure on the career paths of subordinate judges or attorneys. Specific examples include incidents where Lt General Michael G. Koscheski allegedly committed UCI through pretrial advice and directed the recharging of cases, as well as Lt Colonel Janet Eberle's involvement, as the Senior Staff Judge Advocate (SJA), not only advising leadership to make such prejudicial decisions but also having the ability to hand-select a jury pool which is heavily biased with officers from a specific command.

In theory, UCI should be a rare occurrence, as all high-ranking commanders are expected to be aware of UCI, as it is strictly prohibited in the UCMJ and their guidebook, “Commander and the Law,” written by Department of Defense JAG. However, in this case, Major General Koscheski was already cited for UCI by Colonel Coyle (May 2023) and it appears that the other remaining commanders and JAG (Colonel Coyle, Colonel Voigt, Lt Colonel Eberle, Captain Lopes, Lt Colonel Higashi, and Lt Colonel McCormick) all played a role in exerting illegal influence on this case to affect its outcome, raising the question of 'Why?'.

It is reasonable to consider the possible motivation being the career advancement of the people below:

• General Koscheski - it had been announced that he was going to be promoted to Lieutenant General and Deputy Commander of the Air Combat Command (ACC) of the Air Force.

• Colonel Coyle - was a week away from Change of Command to Colonel Voigt and with a follow-on assignment to South Korea, was set up competitively for a promotion to 1-Star.

• Lt Colonel Eberle - announced for promotion to Colonel.

This dynamic likely made it easier for Lt Colonel Eberle to manipulate Colonel Voigt into the poor decision to pursue Captain Gale again. Allegedly, Colonel Voigt testified that "Lt Colonel Eberle said the General wanted to recharge Captain Gale." This pattern of alleged UCI committed by Koscheski, Coyle, Voigt, Eberle, Higashi, and McCormick suggests a concerted effort to protect their career advancements at the expense of justice.

*Visit the "Command Leadership" section on the About page, to learn more about how UCI has plagues Juan Gale's case.

Systemic Issues and Racial Disparities

UCI is not an isolated problem but a systemic issue within the military justice framework, accentuated by a hierarchical command structure that potentially muddies the separation between authority and the unbiased administration of justice. Furthermore, racial disparities in military justice are telling, with data from Protect Our Defenders showing that black service members are significantly more likely to face military justice or disciplinary actions compared to their white counterparts. These disparities persist despite the military's structured environment, which should theoretically minimize racial bias due to its controlled standards for recruitment and conduct.

Documented Patterns and Impact on Military Justice

The frequency of UCI cases is difficult to ascertain due to underreporting and the private nature of many military proceedings. However, available data and high-profile cases suggest that UCI is a pervasive issue that undermines trust in military justice systems. High-ranking officials may unknowingly or deliberately sway judicial proceedings, affecting everything from the preliminary handling of cases to final sentencing.

*See other cases of Unlawful Command Influence: U.S. vs Proctor 2020, U.S. vs Bergdahl 2019, U.S. vs Givens 2021, U.S. vs Horne 2021, U.S. vs Gilmet 2022

Legal and Institutional Reforms

The military has protocols under the UCMJ to address UCI, including training commanders on lawful conduct during judicial processes and offering judicial remedies like new trials or overturning convictions if UCI is proven. Yet, these measures require rigorous enforcement and greater transparency to be effective. The establishment of more robust reporting mechanisms and protective measures for whistleblowers are critical to fostering an environment where service members can report UCI without fear of reprisal.

Call to Action for Transparency and Reform

The Justice for Juan Gale case is a poignant example highlighting the urgent need for systemic reform. As we continue to track this and other cases, it becomes increasingly clear that without significant changes in both awareness and enforcement, UCI will continue to challenge the integrity of military justice.

Conclusion

Given the systemic nature of UCI and its severe implications, it is crucial for the military to hold accountable those who commit this crime, regardless of their rank or position. The Air Force's handling of such cases needs transparency and reform to ensure that justice is served and the integrity of military justice is maintained. The implications of UCI extend beyond individual cases, affecting the very foundation of military ethics and justice. It is imperative for military leadership to address these issues head-on, ensuring that all service members have access to a fair, unbiased judicial process. As the public, legal experts, and military personnel engage in this conversation, the momentum for reform grows, pointing towards a future where justice is truly blind to rank and race.