Q. Can a service member get in trouble for dawdling while on duty even if he gets his work done and on time?
A. There is a distinction between a job done and a job well done the right way. Think of when you were in school: Acing a test and getting a perfect score by cheating are two very different things. It’s no different in the military: The way a service member performs is as important as the duty itself.
A service member can perform a duty and still be charged with dereliction of duty in violation of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Manual for Courts-Martial states a service member is “derelict” when, “in the performance of duties…that person willfully or negligently fails to perform that person’s duties or when that person performs them in a culpably inefficient manner.” “Culpably inefficient” means “inefficiency for which there is no reasonable or just excuse.” Here, the emphasis on efficiency, or the lack of it, shows the military’s interest in how a duty is performed, regardless of any failure to perform it.
The U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals drove this point home in U.S. v. Ricky D. Craion (2006) when it said, “Willful departures from standards of conduct established in nonpunitive regulations can constitute willful derelictions of duty.” Craion involved an Army specialist who was convicted of, among other things, two specifications of dereliction of duty, stemming from his sexually assaulting a 16-year-old student intern while he was supposed to be inventorying and moving medical equipment. He was charged with willfully failing to conduct an inventory and move supplies “in a timely manner” in accordance to his duty and instead engaging in sexual activity with the 16-year-old girl while on duty, in uniform and on a military facility.
At court-martial, the specialist claimed he was not willfully derelict, noting that he ultimately completed his duties. The Army Court of Criminal Appeals rejected this theory. It said that “[e]ven in cases where an order arguably authorizes delay, one should consider the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the delay when determining whether appellant complied with the order. It found the specialist’s departure from his military duties to commit a crime to be “inherently unreasonable.” The court, however, did mention that “[h]ad the specifications omitted reference to the timeliness of appellant’s accomplishing his tasks, appellant’s position would be stronger.”
Service member’s charged with dereliction of duty should immediately contact a military law attorney. Depending on the circumstances, an attorney could show that the service member’s departure from duty was reasonable, that he or she satisfied his or her duties, or the duty of which he or she was accused of being derelict was not his or her duty in the first place.
Mathew B. Tully is an Iraq war veteran and founding partner of the law firm Tully Rinckey PLLC. E-mail questions to askthelawyer@fedattorney.com. The information in this column is not intended as legal advice.