Article 138: Fill & Download for Free

Yes.The rules which I and my ‘bros’ follow are-Bros before ho’s. (Article 1)Saikat never tries to woo his bros’ girlfriends though they wanted to cheat his bros.Bros do not share dessert. (Article 12)Saikat never shares his Haagen Daz coffee ice-cream with his bros. Except his girl-bro when she is on her periods.A Bro shall not sleep with another Bro’s sister. However, a Bro shall not get angry of another Bro says, “Dude, your sister’s hot!” (Article 19)Saikat always complements his bros’ sisters and mother.There is no law that prohibits a woman from being a Bro. (Article 22)Saikat’s 2nd best bro is a woman who has given excellent advices regarding women to him.A Bro doesn’t let another Bro get a tattoo, particularly a tattoo of a girl’s name. (Article 25)Saikat has saved his two bros from getting a tattoo of their ex.Even in a fight of to the death, a Bro never punches another Bro in the groin. (Article 38)Saikat never punches his bros in the groin. Period.A Bro doesn’t grow a moustache. (Article 58)Saikat doesn’t let his bros grow a moustache. Except his girl-bro because she can’t.A Bro will make any and all efforts to provide his bro with protection. (Article 63)Saikat has bought condoms for his friend at around 10 pm.A Bro shall say yes in support to a Bro. (Article 89)Saikat has to support his bros’ lies no matter how much ridiculous it sounds. For example- His bro’s distant family relatives are Ambanis.A real bro doesn’t laugh when a guy gets hit in the groin. (Article 138)Saikat doesn’t laugh at his bros when they get hit in the groin. Except watching nut-cracking youtube videos.Thanks for the kind perusal. It means a lot to me.

Answering your question requires understanding Article 138 and the process for using it. Article 138 of the UCMJ provides a way for a service member who thinks he has been wronged by his commander to file a grievance against that commander. Before filing a complaint under Article 138, the soldier must have requested and been denied redress from his commander, or the commander must have failed to respond to the request in a timely manner (15 days). The grievance must be for a matter covered by Article 138 and it must be complete, addressing all of the information required by the Article. If you are wondering whether the requirement for correctness hinders the soldier, don’t; the local staff judge advocate office will provide advice and assistance.Article 138 complaints are serious and are treated seriously. They are filed with the General Court Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA), who must act upon them expeditiously. As the complaint makes its way through the chain of command, any commander in that chain may direct redress and/or add comments to the packet, but they cannot deny the request. The soldier filing the grievance may withdraw it at any time, but nobody can order him/her to do so, nor may anyone retaliate against him for filing an earnest grievance . Once the grievance reaches the GCMCA, he/she will direct or conduct an investigation (following the procedures of Army Regulation 15–6). Based on the results, the GCMCA may direct specific actions to redress the grievance, direct redress in part, or deny the request. The results go to HQ, Department of the Army where the Staff Judge Advocate reviews them and recommends appropriate disposition to the Chief of Staff of the Army and the Secretary of the Army.To answer your original question, the career effect upon a commander who is the object of an Article 138 complaint depends entirely upon the results of the investigation into the complaint. If his actions and decisions are in keeping with law, regulations and established policies, it shouldn’t affect his career at all. If, however, he is found to have inflicted a wrong upon a soldier through arbitrary, indifferent or vindictive actions or if he has refused to redress a wrong once it is pointed out to him, the consequences can be quite damaging. The consequences can include his superiors losing confidence in his leadership ability and relieving from command or even initiating criminal investigation if his actions rise to such a level as to merit doing so.Because the services provide many ways to redress grievances, wrongs that require Article 138 grievances are rare. It takes an exceptional amount of resources to investigate and process each of them when they do occur, but they provide a valuable way to protect the integrity of military leadership and justice principles. The vast majority of commanders do not engage in conduct subject to Article 138 complaints, and justifiable disciplinary or administrative actions (however harsh they might appear on their face) in the performances of their duties are legitimate. Article 138 protects both the soldier and the commander’s ability to command.

Each Service is provided discretion to determine which ranks, grades, or rates are appointed as “noncommissioned officers,” or “petty officers.”Acknowledgement of both types of officers goes back before the foundation of the Continental Army, Marines, and Navy, and the earliest versions were very similar to the British concepts of the same.Regardless of the journey to get there today, because there have been some adjustments along the way, especially in the Army and Air Force (with Army “specialists” broken out from “troop leaders” long ago, and expanded, and then contracted until only Spec-4 remains), and the Air Force experimenting with specialists, “buck sergeants” and “senior airmen,” etc.), here is where the current authority is invested in “noncommissioned officers” and “petty officers” (which are treated equally under the laws and regulations for inherent authority):Army: Corporal/E-4, or a Spec-4 reappointed laterally within pay grade E-4 to the rank of Corporal, or a Spec-4 promoted to Sergeant/E-5,Marines: Corporal/E-4,Navy: Petty Officer Third Class (all ratings)/E-4,USAF: Staff Sergeant/E-5,USCG: Petty Officer Third Class (all ratings)/E-4.The Sea Services use a simple yard-stick: upon appointment to the rate/rank/grade (as you prefer…there are some minor legal quibbles between them, but virtually everybody uses them interchangeably…and it doesn’t really hurt any discussion here to use them interchangeably) of E-4, you also are invested into an “office,” from which recognition flows a small slice of Constitutional authority, as confirmed in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM).The Air Force settled on E-5 as their first noncommissioned officer ranks.The Army still retains vestiges of the specialist traditions, and has bifurcated the soldiers appointed to ranks in pay grade E-4…I suppose a very few are directly appointed as Noncommissioned officers (as corporals), while most are laterally reappointed to the rank of corporal after serving as specialist-4’s, while other soldiers may only become noncommissioned officers upon appointment as sergeant/E-5.Under the UCMJ, and MCM, whether an enlisted member is a NCO or PO is important, as once appointed to their office, they not only have additional authorities to wield, but additional methods to enforce discipline, and additional protections should they be disobeyed or assaulted:Under the UCMJ and MCM, “noncommissioned officers” and “petty officers” have the inherent authority to apprehend any violator of any punitive Article of the UCMJ. (See: 807. ARTICLE 7. APPREHENSION. This is exactly the same authority used by any commissioned or warrant officer, or sentry/guard, or military police, to apprehend violators upon perpetration of a crime or when they have the belief of reasonable cause, etc…it’s complicated, but laid out in the UCMJ and MCM, and taught at NCO courses.)NCO’s and PO’s that are assaulted, disrespected, or disobeyed have additional protections under Article 91, Insubordination (which includes striking/assaulting, disrespecting, and disobeying warrant officers, NCO’s, and PO’s).Notice that NCO’s and PO’s share these authorities and powers with warrant officers, i.e., W-1’s who have been appointed by “warrant,” and not with a commission (all W-2’s and above are appointed by commission). This treatment of W-1’s under the UCMJ and MCM is one of the many reasons why the USAF has no warrant officers at all, and the USN and USCG appoint no W-1’s; those two Services only appoint to W-2 using commissions. Further compounding the issue: W-1’s are not subject to Article 138, Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Gentleman (only commissioned officers of W-2 and above, and Cadets and Midshipmen, are subject to Article 138), and W-1’s convicted of any offense at a General Court-Martial are subject to dishonorable discharge, while any commissioned officer (or cadet or midshipman) convicted of any offense at a GCM is subject to dismissal, as opposed to dishonorable discharge.Thus, NCO’s and PO’s, as a specific class with authorities, are well defined at the entry level by each of their Services, but it gets fuzzy at the upper end of just what constitutes a “Non-commissioned” officer…Certainly enlisted NCO’s and PO’s qualify,But how about W-1’s? They aren’t commissioned officers (by law and definition), and lack the protections and authorities granted to commissioned officers, although we generally treat them like commissioned officers,And what about cadets and midshipmen? They aren’t commissioned either, and yet are appointed to offices just like NCO’s, PO’s, and W-1’s, and are subject to Article 138 and Dismissal proceedings, exactly the same as commissioned officers and quite different from other NCO’s.I cannot speak to the exact experience of any particular NCO or PO who serves alongside Sister-Service personnel, only to say that professionals in all Services know the rank structure at least of their immediate leadership, and if that happens to include (at least temporarily) Sister-Service personnel (or Allies or Coalition partners), then as professionals they had best know exactly who ranks where, and at least make an effort to render proper customs and courtesies that should be extended when appropriate.A Navy PO-3 serving alongside soldiers would have exactly the authority, customs, courtesies, whatever, extended to an Army Corporal, because all Navy PO-3’s are — by definition — noncommissioned officers. In a truly Joint command, if it was absolutely necessary to know, an Army corporal, Navy PO-3, Marine corporal, and USCG PO-3 could compare their exact dates of rank to determine seniority…I can’t imagine many scenarios where that would be useful other than an amusing way to waste 5 minutes, but I suppose it might be necessary somewhere.And because the Army explicitly states that even the most junior corporal outranks the most senior Spec-4, any Spec-4’s (and USAF E-4’s) who watch the others gather around and compare their dates of rank can just laugh about it, and then go back to work…safe in the knowledge that they just get to do their job, do what they’re told, and don’t have to worry about “desk jobs,” and “paperwork,” and the headaches that decision making and leadership have…Cheers,