# Senior General Is Relieved of Duties   News story  4 star relieved



## FormerHorseGuard (9 Aug 2005)

Senior General Is Relieved of Duties
WASHINGTON - The Army, in a rare disciplinary act against a four-star officer, said Tuesday it relieved Gen. Kevin P Byrnes of his command after an investigation into unspecified "personal conduct."
ADVERTISEMENT

Byrnes was relieved as commander of U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command on Monday by Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker, according to a brief statement issued by Army headquarters at the
Pentagon.

In that post, Byrnes oversaw all Army training programs and the development of war-fighting guidelines.

Although disciplinary action against general officers is not uncommon, it is extremely rare for a four-star general to be relieved of command. Byrnes held the position as commander of Training and Doctrine Command since November 2002. Before that he was director of the Army staff at Army headquarters in the Pentagon.

"The investigation upon which this relief is based is undergoing further review to determine the appropriate final disposition of this matter," the Army statement said.

A spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Bryan Whitman, said the investigation involved "matters of personal conduct," but he would not say more.

The deputy commander of Training and Doctrine Command, Lt. Gen. Anthony R. Jones, has been designated the acting commander, following the action against Byrnes, said Army spokesman Paul Boyce.

The spokesman said it was an Army policy not to release information about specific allegations in an investigation of an Army officer.

In April the Pentagon announced that Lt. Gen. William Wallace had been nominated for a four star and assignment as commander of Training and Doctrine Command, to succeed Byrnes, but he has not yet been confirmed by the Senate. There was no public indication at the time that Byrnes was under investigation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050809/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_general_relieved    


see also

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/09/general.relieved.ap/index.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8883343/


in my  opinion it must be very serious to remove a 4 star from any command.  will have to follow this and see what  happens

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1022265


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Aug 2005)

Quite right about a four star being relieved being a rarity. I cannot remember a case. Personal misconduct covers alot of ground but I would bet its a sexual harassment type issue or a misuse of his office.


----------



## Chimo (9 Aug 2005)

Army Relieves General of His Command
August 8, 2005

On Aug. 8, the Chief of Staff of the Army directed the relief of Gen. Kevin P. Byrnes from his position as Commanding General, United States Army Training and Doctrine Command. The investigation upon which this relief is based is undergoing further review to determine the appropriate final disposition of this matter. 

This is the official media release on the army.mil website. 

http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=7708


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Aug 2005)

The story going around is that he and a subordinate were in the parking lot in his vehicle in fellatio. It went to the IG then over to Schoomaker who felt this isnt the Army values he had in mind.


----------



## Gunner (10 Aug 2005)

> The story going around is that he and a subordinate were in the parking lot in his vehicle in fellatio. It went to the IG then over to Schoomaker who felt this isnt the Army values he had in mind.



Female subordinate or male?   >


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (10 Aug 2005)

i figured it had to be for something stupid, sexual nature , but i was more leaning towards drinking  and driving or something along that  lines. do not think the staff parking lot at his level is a good place to have any sort of sexual conteact. anyways till the whole story comes out, this is interesting.


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Aug 2005)

Alot of stories circulating. One thing is certain the investigation has been ongoing for sometime now. An admission today that the affair was with a civilian female. His divorce was finalized Monday. The real kicker may be his use of his personal staff to enable the affair. I think he will lose a star. Under present law his wife [now ex] can get 50% of his retired pay [75% of an 0-10 base pay].


----------



## Gunnar (11 Aug 2005)

Lawyer Issues Statement on General's Case

By ROBERT BURNS
The Associated Press
Wednesday, August 10, 2005; 11:36 PM

WASHINGTON -- The four-star Army general relieved of command this week is alleged to have had an extramarital affair with a female civilian who does not work for the military or the federal government, the general's attorney said Wednesday.

Gen. Kevin P. Byrnes was abruptly sacked as commander of the Army's Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, Va., and the Army has not ruled out taking additional disciplinary action against him.



This undated photo provided by the Pentagon shows Army Gen. Kevin P. Byrnes who was relieved of his command as commander of U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command on Monday, Aug. 8, 2005, after an investigation into unspecified "personal conduct." (AP Photo/Pentagon) (AP)  
Army officials declined to discuss any details of the accusations, except to say they involved sexual misconduct.

Byrnes' attorney, Lt. Col. David H. Robertson, said Byrnes and his wife separated in May 2004 and they remained separated until their divorce became final on Monday _ the same day Byrnes was removed from command.

"The allegation against General Byrnes involves a consensual, adult relationship with a woman who is not in the military, nor is a civilian employee of the military or the federal government," Robertson said in an e-mail exchange. He said Byrnes approved the statement but was not willing to be interviewed directly about the matter.

Robertson did not say whether the allegation is that the affair took place before Byrnes' separation from his wife. Under military rules of behavior it would be considered adultery as long as it took place before the divorce became final.

Robertson referred to the Army's allegation against Byrnes but he neither confirmed nor denied an affair.

Following an inspector general's investigation of the alleged affair, top Army leaders are still considering what next step to take. One possibility is that Byrnes will be permitted to retire, as he had planned before the disclosure of the alleged affair, with no other punitive action taken against him. The Army might also recommend that he be retired at a lower rank, possibly as a three-star. That requires Senate approval.

If the Army determined that Byrnes violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, it could seek to prosecute him, although officials said Wednesday that seem unlikely given that he already has suffered loss of command. Adultery cases are rarely prosecuted and instead are handled through administrative actions.

Byrnes, 55, a Vietnam veteran who entered the Army in 1969 as a second lieutenant, ranked third in seniority among the Army's 11 four-star generals.

Army officials said they could find no record of another four-star general being relieved of command for disciplinary reasons in modern history.

The action against Byrnes comes at a time when the Army faces criticism from some in Congress for not taking harsher disciplinary action against the most senior Army commanders in Iraq during the prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib.

In his position as commander of Training and Doctrine Command, Byrnes oversaw all Army training programs and the development of war-fighting guidelines. The organization operates 33 training schools and centers on 16 Army installations and is headquartered at Fort Monroe, Va. Byrnes had been commander since November 2002.


----------



## Joe Blow (15 Aug 2005)

> "The allegation against General Byrnes involves a consensual, adult relationship with a woman who is not in the military, nor is a civilian employee of the military or the federal government,"


 I had read the same thing in the National Post and was wondering why -if that's the case - the army would care ...until I read this above:



> Under military rules of behavior it would be considered adultery as long as it took place before the divorce became final.


 So, presumably adultery is frowned upon in an official way (uniform code of military justice?) by the US Army.  OK.  If that's the case then rules are rules and he should have been smarter. 

 But, (assuming of course that nothing abusive of his position occurred, like use of his staff, 'recreation' during job hours and/or in a public parking lot ..that sort of thing) ..if it's really just a case of two consenting adults in private and on their own time ..then what business of the US army's is it if Gen. John Q. Officer's marriage is going to pot?  Or if (hypothetically) he wife and I have an ..umm ..unorthodox understanding regarding where they spend their respective nights?  

Seems _arbitrarily_ intrusive to me.  Job performance is job performance, no?  ..Just my $0.02.  

Does anyone know off hand of the CF has a policy regarding (extra) marital relations?

------------

PS: 





> Does anyone know off hand of the CF has a policy regarding (extra) marital relations?


  Lol! My wife saw that post and I got a funny sideways look...


----------



## Gunner98 (20 Aug 2005)

CF Policies - Fraternization - yes, abuse of athority - yes, adultery - no.


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Aug 2005)

The affair occured while he was seperated [and may be the cause of the seperation]. Second the Army Chief of Staff ordered him to cease and desist. He continued the relationship anyway. He disobeyed an order.


----------



## Joe Blow (20 Aug 2005)

> He disobeyed an order.


I guess that settles that.  Not a great career move.

I guess I'm just surprised that you can legally order someone to stop committing adultery.  What business is it of the army's chief of staff if he's knockin' boots with the check out girl from the grocery ...or whoever?  I'm not exactly in favour of adultery, but - if I was the Chief of Staff for the US Army  ;D - I would assume that my authority ends where your bedroom begins.

Anyway, presumably this fellow's dismissal was meant as an example.  I'm curious if there has been any notable reaction in the wider army population.  Is it being understood as an example of what happens to those who disobey orders, or to those who carry on affairs ..or is no one really talking about it?

(Oops.  Edited to note he disobeyed an order ..Infanteer posted while I was editing ..and yeah ..not a good career move.)


----------



## Infanteer (20 Aug 2005)

Here is a decent read:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/adultery.htm

Remember what Tomahawk said though - this General disobeyed the order of a superior.


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Aug 2005)

Byrnes was slated to retire anyway. There are some who think that maybe he had danced along the edge one time too many. His only vocal defender is a retired LTG who was a close friend. One thing to remember is that a CG's wife has many social responsibilities and an affair would undercut her position within the command. I am not sure who brought the charges either the now ex-wife or the woman Byrnes had an affair with. In any event Schoomaker ordered him to stop. He didnt. LTG Wallace once the Senate authorizes his promotion to General will take over TRADOC - sometime in September.

From the Army Times, a subscriber only article.

August 22, 2005

4-star fired
'Zero due process' in affair probe for TRADOC chief, source says

By Sean D. Naylor 
Times staff writers


Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker fired the head of Training and Doctrine Command, Gen. Kevin Byrnes, on Aug. 8 for failing to obey a "cease-and-desist directive" to stop seeing a woman with whom he was allegedly having an affair, according to the service's top spokesman.

But a retired senior Army leader said Byrnes had received "zero due process," and questioned why the Defense Department's inspector general handled the investigation. 

Since the Aug. 9 announcement of Byrnes' relief, many in the Army community had questioned why the popular and highly respected general had received a punishment that, on the surface, seemed disproportionate to his alleged offense.

"The allegation against Gen. Byrnes involves a consensual, adult relationship with a woman who is not in the military, nor is a civilian employee of the military or the federal government," according to an e-mail statement from Byrnes' lawyer, Lt. Col. David Robertson, an attorney in the Army's Trial Defense Service. "Gen. Byrnes and his wife separated in May 2004. They remained separated until their divorce became final on 8 Aug 2005," Robertson wrote to Army Times, indicating that the couple maintained separate domiciles and did not appear together at official Army functions following their separation. Byrnes, who was due to retire in November, did not respond to a message left on his answering machine seeking comment.

"You've got to wonder, what the hell's the story," a TRADOC source said. "And why 90 days before a change of command? Why not let him change command and then hold up his retirement?"

The fact that Byrnes was separated from his wife since May 2004 suggested that there was more to the case than met the eye, said the TRADOC source, who added that there had been no sign that Byrnes' personal life was adversely affecting his ability to run TRADOC. 

"There's a level of vindictiveness here, clearly," he said. "This just doesn't add up. In the midst of everything else the Army's got going on, we need this right now? It doesn't pass the smell test." 

But Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, Army chief of public affairs, said "the bottom line" was that Byrnes disobeyed a direct order.

When the Army first received the allegation that Byrnes was having an affair, a uniformed senior leader ordered Byrnes to "cease and desist" any adulterous relationship that he might be having, Brooks said. (The only senior uniformed leaders above Byrnes in the Army chain of command are Schoomaker and Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Richard Cody.) That order was not given with any presumption of guilt, Brooks stressed. Rather, according to Brooks, the tone of the directive to Byrnes was: "This is what's come in; we're going to refer it for investigation, and if it's true, you'd better cease and desist."

"The investigation then ensued and found that the conduct itself - the relationship - was substantiated," said Brooks, who added that he had not seen the investigation. 

"As General Byrnes' attorney is referring to it, it was a consensual, adult relationship. That behavior, unto itself, constituted conduct unbecoming an officer of his grade and responsibility," Brooks said. "When the investigation was complete, it was quite clear that that order [to stop the relationship] had not been followed, and that the relationship continued for some time.

"So what we really have here is a failure to respond appropriately to that directive. It didn't happen," Brooks said. "It's really that that makes the difference between why he would not receive just a reprimand or some sort of other censure [such as] early retirement, and why he's relieved of his command. That's the bottom line."

'Not been interviewed'

But the retired senior Army leader said Byrnes was not given an opportunity to present his side of the story before being relieved of command. 

"He's had absolutely zero due process. None," the retired senior leader said. "Not only has he not been interviewed, he has not seen anything that his accuser has alleged against him. All he knows is that he's under investigation because a woman has accused him of having an affair with her.

"Nobody has told him what the content of the investigation is, no one has told him officially what the details of that are, nobody has asked him to explain himself. ... He's never, ever been asked his side of the story, and he's never seen, in writing, her side of the story, either. ...

"The fact of the matter is that murderers in this country get far more due process than some guy that's provided 35 years of service to his nation."

Robertson, Byrnes' attorney, did not respond by press time Aug. 12 to an e-mail asking whether the general had been given an opportunity to state his case during the investigation.

Brooks said he had no information on whether Byrnes had a chance to make his case.

"I honestly don't know, because I have not been brought into the specifics of the investigation itself. ... Normally that would occur. There would be at least some sworn statements or testimonies that would be taken by investigating officials. He always has the option of declining those.

"He certainly has an opportunity to comment now, and he has an attorney that's been provided to him by the U.S. Army," Brooks said. "I can also assure you that he had an opportunity to respond to the cease-and-desist order.

"This is not an overnight kind of thing. The length of time makes it very clear that he had many opportunities to consider the cease-and-desist order and to comply with it, and [he] didn't."

Enter the IG

The involvement of the Defense Department IG mystified the retired senior Army leader. Normally, four-star flag officers who head major commands within their services, such as TRADOC or Forces Command, are investigated by their service IGs, he said. The only service four-stars who are investigated by the Defense Department IG are the chief and vice chief of each service, because they fall above the service IGs' chains of command, he added. 

"The Army has a very thorough IG, and DoD has always had confidence in them," he said.

But Brooks said the Defense Department IG had investigated the case because Byrnes outranked the Army IG, Lt. Gen. Stanley Green.

Army spokesman Col. Joe Curtin concurred. 

"It's a matter of procedure to refer it to a higher [authority] because the IG of the Army is only a three-star," Curtin said. "The IG here is outranked."

Department of Defense Directive 5505.6, dated July 12, 1991, which covers "Investigations of Allegations Against Senior Officials of the Department of Defense," gives the Defense Department IG the authority to "provide oversight ... on investigations conducted by the DoD Components into allegations against senior officials."

Byrnes, a field artillery officer, had been at the helm of TRADOC at Fort Monroe, Va., since November 2002 and was expected to retire this fall after 36 years of service. During his tenure at TRADOC, he oversaw the writing of doctrine for the reorganization of the Army into modular units of action. He also helped implement the tenets contained in the Warrior Ethos, the Army's defining principles of service. 

TRADOC has operational oversight of 33 of the Army's training schools, and includes the U.S. Army Accessions Command and the Recruiting Command.

Between 1997 and 1999, Byrnes was commanding general of the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood, Texas, and commander of Multi-National Division (North), Stabilization Force and Operation Joint Force in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Prior to taking over at TRADOC, he was assistant vice chief of staff of the Army and deputy chief of staff of the Army for programs from 1999 to 2001, and later was director of the Army staff in the Office of the Chief of Staff of the Army for a year.

He is expected to be replaced by Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, who was nominated for the post in April but has not yet been confirmed by the Senate. Wallace, an armor officer who was the senior tactical commander of Army forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom, is commanding general of the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth, Kan. He was commander of the 4th Infantry Division during its transition into the Army's first digital division between 1997 and 1999, then commander of the Joint Warfighting Center and director of Joint Training, J-7, at U.S. Joint Forces Command.

Acting as TRADOC commander is Lt. Gen. Anthony R. Jones, deputy commander at TRADOC since June 2003, Army spokesman Paul Boyce said Aug. 9. A determination has not yet been made as to Byrnes' retirement status and other issues related to the separation process. 

However, Brooks said that although a final disposition has not been made regarding Byrnes' case, it was "not likely" to proceed to a court-martial. 

"There's no criminal charges," he said.

To constitute an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, according to Article 134, the adulterous conduct must either be directly prejudicial to good order and discipline or discrediting to the service. If the conduct is open and obvious and has a divisive effect on unit cohesion, discipline or morale, it can be considered directly prejudicial. 

Jim Tice contributed to this report. 

Past allegations
Allegations of adultery and improper relationships have a long military history. Several high-profile cases among senior leadership in recent years:

2005

The Air Force's top lawyer, Maj. Gen. Thomas Fiscus, was dismissed and demoted two ranks for having multiple affairs over a 10-year period. 

1999

Recalled from retirement to face court-martial, Maj. Gen. David Hale pleaded guilty to seven counts of "conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman" and improper relationships with the wives of several subordinate officers. Hale was fined $22,000 and returned to retirement as a brigadier general.

1998

Sergeant Major of the Army Eugene McKinney was removed from his post following accusations of sexual misconduct by six female soldiers. A special court-martial panel acquitted him on 18 charges of sexual misconduct but convicted him on a charge of obstruction of justice. McKinney was reduced to master sergeant and retired.

1997

Air Force Gen. Joseph Ralston was about to become head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when it was revealed he dated a woman 13 years earlier while separated from his wife. The publicity derailed his nomination. He later headed a command in Europe. 
Back to top


----------



## Mineguy (20 Aug 2005)

Theres no doubt some dabbling by agenda based people seeking to get rid of some competetion as well somewhere in all this. That happens in the CF as well and more then people think....No name no pack drills, Ive met a few CF personel during my time onboard in positions of authority openly lie (well to those who actually knew that they were actually doing that) and railroad people with some serious unblanced facts and heavy agendas to suit a persons desired end while ruining or railroad the career of an innocent or not entirely guilty individual and They toed the line as well so fine and intimidate where they can and it usually worked.   Its not only at the high military levels people are gonna make use of nessecity whenever they can. But it all comes back in karma....i hope!...either way i look forward to meeting any of these individuals on civi street when theyre finnished wearing boots and retired for some verbal abuse!


----------



## Joe Blow (22 Aug 2005)

> Here is a decent read:
> 
> http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/adultery.htm



That is actually a pretty good read.  Completely cleared up the issue with Lt Flynn from a few years back.  I remember being surprised at the time that the military would involve itself in her love life ..which is why the Gen. Byrnes situation caught my interest.

So as I understand it:



> Adultery in the military is actually prosecuted under Article 134, which is also known as the "General Article." Article 134 simply prohibits conduct which is of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, or conduct which is prejudicial to good order and discipline.


Article 134 is expanded into sub articles, one of which (paragraph 62) deals with adultery and list 3 articles of proof required for conviction:


> (1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person;
> (2) That, at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone else; and
> (3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was
> of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.



In Lt. Flynn's case:



> Lt. Kelly Flynn was the Air Force's first female B-52 pilot. Unfortunately, Lt Flynn was an unmarried officer who was having an affair with a married civilian.





> ...the civilian "boyfriend," was the husband of an active duty enlisted Air Force member, stationed at the same base as Lt Flynn. Therefore, Lt Flynn's "affair" had a direct negative impact on the morale of that military service member...


  
There are differences in the cases of Lt. Flynn and Gen. Byrnes. Lt. Flynn was ordered to cease and desist the affair, however she lied about its subsequent rekindling prompting her charges to be filed.  In Gen. Byrnes' case he was ordered to cease and desist and he did not, prompting his dismissal.

However there are other differences.  The legal basis for the cease and desist orders in each case do not seem to be the same.  In the case of Lt. Flynn, her affair was with the husband of a service member and therefore could (and probably did) have a detrimental effect on 'good order and discipline'.  So the order to "cease and desist" seems legal given that the alleged action meets the articles of proof under article 134 paragraph 62 of the UCMJ.  In Gen. Byrnes  case however it is not so clear that these criteria are met. (His affair was with some civilian woman ..as far as we know with no connection to the military.)  So what then are the legal grounds for the cease and desist order pertaining to Gen. Byrnes' adultery?

Article 134 of the UCMJ definitely extends the legitimate domain of an authority ..but the articles of proof seem to act to limit that authority as well.  If they cannot be met then the charge is dismissed and thus the allegation is recognized by the court as having been inappropriate.  So, if these allegations (or substantiated actions) *are not even alleged* to be in contravention of article 134 (and it is not clear the Gen. Byrnes' are) then where is the legal basis for a cease and desist order pertaining to them?

If Gen Byrnes disobeyed an order, that order must be demonstrated to be legal ..or within the bounds of command.  It is not clear the the UCMJ establishes Gen. Byrnes' affair as within the bounds  Army chain of command / Army authority (unless you want to argue it would "bring discredit upon the armed forces" ..in which case you have an uphill battle ..not for me personally ..but you would have a hard time demonstrating it objectively ..unless you took a very wide poll or something like that).

...Or am I looking at this wrong?  Perhaps there are other yardsticks used to establish the legality/appropriateness of an order (aside from the UCMJ).  Are there other grounds on which Gen Byrnes' cease and desist order would have been legal or appropriate to the chain of command.

I think it's an important question, because if he disobeyed an order that was not legal or demonstrably with in the domain of the chain of command ..well ..he's been inappropriately dismissed.  :-\

-------

EDIT:  I think my question here is this: What is it that establishes that a 'cease and desist order' pertaining to adultery falls legitimately within the domain of the chain of command?'.  ..Because if it is the UCMJ then Gen. Schoomaker's order seems to be on shaky ground.

Or maybe my question is more general.  Maybe I want to ask: What is it that establishes that any order falls legitimately within the domain of the chain of command?  Surely superiors can't just order you to part you hair on the left side or raise your children Baptist (..or cease and desist an affair?) just because it suits their fancy.  What is it that establishes that they have authority in the areas in which they are issuing orders?


----------



## redleafjumper (22 Aug 2005)

This sounds like a bunch of crap.  Who was Clinton's boss that ordered him to stop his affair?  This General Officer seems to be getting a raw deal.  The "disobeying an order" seems a bit ridiculous.  Shades of Walmart telling you who you can and can't date from work.  
Perhaps as a senior general officer there was some poor judgement or lack of discretion, but if he had split from his wife I don't see what the big deal is.


----------



## The_Falcon (22 Aug 2005)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> This sounds like a bunch of crap.   Who was Clinton's boss that ordered him to stop his affair?   This General Officer seems to be getting a raw deal.   The "disobeying an order" seems a bit ridiculous.   Shades of Walmart telling you who you can and can't date from work.
> Perhaps as a senior general officer there was some poor judgement or lack of discretion, but if he had split from his wife I don't see what the big deal is.



I don't see the connection between Clinton and General.  Clinton was the top civil servant in the US and Commander of the US Military.  He was the top boss.  The General was still in the Military, still subject to all the same rules/laws/regs, and yes even though he was a 4 star there were a few other 4 stars above him.  And if he broke the rules he needs to be, he MUST be punished, so the troops on the lowend see that even 4 star Generals have superiors and they still need to follow orders and regs.  You can disagree with their (US Military) policy on adultery, but they have decided that they require such a policy to maintain order and discipline.  If it helps them sleep better at night who cares, your in the Canadian Military so the UCMJ doesn't apply to you.


----------



## Joe Blow (22 Aug 2005)

> You can disagree with their (US Military) policy on adultery, but they have decided that they require such a policy to maintain order and discipline.



It's not clear that Gen. Byrnes' actions prejudice good order and discipline, (in the same way that Lt/ Flynn's did for ex.) so where is the offence?  ..In disobeying an order?  ..Where is the legality/appropriateness of that order demonstrated?


----------

