Officer Leaves US Army, Joins Foreign Legion, Returns & Jailed for Desertion

[The Bread Guy]

As for the lead sentence to this story, I'd characterize this man's actions more as "walking away from his job" than "quitting" ....

The story is bizarre enough to serve as the plot of an action movie: 2nd Lt. Lawrence J. Franks Jr. quit his job in the U.S. Army, fled the country and secretly enlisted in the elite French Foreign Legion under an assumed name, authorities said. He deployed numerous times, including during a conflict in Mali, and then turned himself in to U.S. officials this year, seemingly at peace with what he had done.

“I needed to be wet and cold and hungry,” Franks said, according to the New York Times. “I needed the grueling life I could only find in a place like the Legion.”

Franks was court-martialed and convicted, and was sentenced Monday to four years imprisonment at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., for conduct unbecoming an officer and desertion with intention to shirk duty. By fleeing his unit March 30, 2009, at Fort Drum, N.Y., Franks avoided deployment and prompted a manhunt because of concerns that he might have been lost or injured in the cold woods of upstate New York, Army officials said.

( .... )

The lieutenant’s father, Lawrence Franks Sr., said in a letter to the editor published in April 2009 in an Oregon newspaper that New York State Police determined the soldier had flown to Zurich, Switzerland, and passed through Swiss customs. Then he disappeared — right up until this year, after five years in the Legion .....

 

[cryco]

so what good will it do to lock him up for 4 years?

 

[PMedMoe]

so what good will it do to lock him up for 4 years?

Oh, I don't know.....maybe to deter other U.S. members from simply walking away??

 

[daftandbarmy]

so what good will it do to lock him up for 4 years?

For being too dumb to formally leave the US Army before joining a foreign Army?

 

[The Bread Guy]

so what good will it do to lock him up for 4 years?

Pour encourager les autres?

 

[cryco]

I understand the deterrent factor or the punishing factor, but that's 4 years of his life in the slammer. I would say he didn't hurt anyone by leaving, and if he wasn't deployed when he took off, he would cause administrative headaches more than anything else. Mind you, that's how it looks from the outside (to me).
He broke the term on his contract; or is desertion not seen as breaking a contract and is seen as something more vile?

 

[Michael OLeary]

or is desertion not seen as breaking a contract and is seen as something more vile?

Yes.

 

[tomahawk6]

I doubt that he will do the full sentence.Rather punishment will involve repayment of his West Point education.I favor the latter as opposed to prison.Maybe suspend the prison sentence and focus on restitution.Failing to repay the debt the government can always make him do the full sentence.

 

[jwtg]

I understand the deterrent factor or the punishing factor, but that's 4 years of his life in the slammer. I would say he didn't hurt anyone by leaving, and if he wasn't deployed when he took off, he would cause administrative headaches more than anything else. Mind you, that's how it looks from the outside (to me).
He broke the term on his contract; or is desertion not seen as breaking a contract and is seen as something more vile?

I disagree with the idea that he didn't hurt anyone by leaving:

1) He graduated from USMA in 2008 and fled his unit (obviously evading a formal release process) in 2009, well before he could have satisfied his commitment of 5 years of service, owed by virtue of the training and education provided at West Point.  He hurt taxpayers that paid for his training, travel, education, etc. and expected a return on their investment.

2) The article says that, by leaving, he avoided a deployment.  Risking a venture into the realm of conjecture (I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of his unit, his deployment, and the American process for dealing with situations like this), I'll take a guess and say that his unit either deployed shorthanded, or somebody else was pulled to fill his spot.  If the former, then he hurt his unit by leaving them to shoulder his responsibility; if the latter, he may have hurt the family and friends of (and not to mention the individual) a soldier who had to go on a deployment they would not otherwise have had to.

To be completely honest (and at the risk of ruffling feathers)... I see that you are waiting for a position as an engineer officer; I imagine you didn't express in your interview that you felt a commitment to the military (especially in the case of obligatory service for education and training provided, which, admittedly, is unlike your own) was something one could simply walk away from without following proper release procedures? That desertion wasn't that big a deal? 

If you intend to deploy at any point during your time with the reserves, I suggest not using these as building blocks for your case that you deserve a spot.

EDIT to add: I agree with tomahawk.  Serve part of the sentence (may 1 day per day he remained AWOL/deserted) and then repay his debt for expenses incurred by taxpayers on his behalf.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Wish we had the balls to do this.

 

[The Bread Guy]

.... if he wasn't deployed when he took off ....

No, but the original story did say "Franks avoided deployment" - I think running away to avoid the fight is considered in a similar light as running away during the fight.

I doubt that he will do the full sentence.Rather punishment will involve repayment of his West Point education.I favor the latter as opposed to prison.Maybe suspend the prison sentence and focus on restitution.Failing to repay the debt the government can always make him do the full sentence.

I'd cut him a hair of slack for turning himself in, but an officer ducking out to avoid a deployment still strikes me as a pretty serious criminal and moral misdeed, worthy of serious punishment, even if he did spend the deserted time serving in an allied military force.

I agree with tomahawk.  Serve part of the sentence (may 1 day per day he remained AWOL/deserted) and then repay his debt for expenses incurred by taxpayers on his behalf.

If he was sentenced to four years, and he did a five-year hitch in the Legion, he's not even getting one-for-one.  Barring mitigating factors we haven't heard/read about, seems like a decent sentence.

 

[jwtg]

If he was sentenced to four years, and he did a five-year hitch in the Legion, he's not even getting one-for-one.  Barring mitigating factors we haven't heard/read about, seems like a decent sentence.

Of course.  Consider my dick stepped on- I obviously didn't do the math on this one.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Of course.  Consider my dick stepped on- I obviously didn't do the math on this one.

No prob - you did raise an interesting sentencing principle.

 

[daftandbarmy]

If he was sentenced to four years, and he did a five-year hitch in the Legion, he's not even getting one-for-one.  Barring mitigating factors we haven't heard/read about, seems like a decent sentence.

In 1 PARA we had two guys 'run away' to join the FFL and they came back after a year.

They got the same amount of time in cells as they had been away. I can't remember if they were allowed to soldier on after that though.

 

[The Bread Guy]

In 1 PARA we had two guys 'run away' to join the FFL and they came back after a year.

They got the same amount of time in cells as they had been away. I can't remember if they were allowed to soldier on after that though.

AND they can't go back to France unless they want to try out THEIR penal system.

 

[eliminator]

Wonder if he applied for French citizenship after 3 years?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

While I understand the need to punish for deserting, the fact that he left to go fight the same enemy elsewhere and then surrendered himself after the fact, should play into it. Also when you consider what some people are getting away with without punishment, then 4 years does seem steep.

 

[The Bread Guy]

While I understand the need to punish for deserting, the fact that he left to go fight the same enemy elsewhere ....

Maybe a bit, but it doesn't mitigate this part ....

I'll take a guess and say that his unit either deployed shorthanded, or somebody else was pulled to fill his spot.  If the former, then he hurt his unit by leaving them to shoulder his responsibility; if the latter, he may have hurt the family and friends of (and not to mention the individual) a soldier who had to go on a deployment they would not otherwise have had to.

If I was the person who went in his place, I don't know how convinced I'd be that my missing colleague was still fighting the good fight with the French in Africa.

Also, linking to the NY Times article, there's a bit more of the rest of the story - highlights mine:

.... On Monday, Lieutenant Franks was sentenced to four years in prison and dismissal from the Army on charges of conduct unbecoming of an officer and desertion with the intention to shirk duty, specifically deployment.

(....)

In an interview last week at a hotel near Fort Drum, where the court-martial was held, Lieutenant Franks said that he actually yearned to go to war, but that his deployment was still almost a year away and in the meantime felt he could no longer control his suicidal urges.

“I needed to be wet and cold and hungry,” he said. “I needed the grueling life I could only find in a place like the Legion.”

In hindsight, he said, there were other options, including trying to transfer to a deploying combat unit, but at the time, he thought none would be quick enough to help him.

“I feel really bad for the pain I put on my family, the disruption to my unit,” he said. “But I don’t regret what I did — any of it, good or bad — because it saved my life.” ....

Slightly different question now:  did this merit kicking him out of the Army?

 

[cryco]

I disagree with the idea that he didn't hurt anyone by leaving:

1) He graduated from USMA in 2008 and fled his unit (obviously evading a formal release process) in 2009, well before he could have satisfied his commitment of 5 years of service, owed by virtue of the training and education provided at West Point.  He hurt taxpayers that paid for his training, travel, education, etc. and expected a return on their investment.

2) The article says that, by leaving, he avoided a deployment.  Risking a venture into the realm of conjecture (I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of his unit, his deployment, and the American process for dealing with situations like this), I'll take a guess and say that his unit either deployed shorthanded, or somebody else was pulled to fill his spot.  If the former, then he hurt his unit by leaving them to shoulder his responsibility; if the latter, he may have hurt the family and friends of (and not to mention the individual) a soldier who had to go on a deployment they would not otherwise have had to.

To be completely honest (and at the risk of ruffling feathers)... I see that you are waiting for a position as an engineer officer; I imagine you didn't express in your interview that you felt a commitment to the military (especially in the case of obligatory service for education and training provided, which, admittedly, is unlike your own) was something one could simply walk away from without following proper release procedures? That desertion wasn't that big a deal? 

If you intend to deploy at any point during your time with the reserves, I suggest not using these as building blocks for your case that you deserve a spot.

EDIT to add: I agree with tomahawk.  Serve part of the sentence (may 1 day per day he remained AWOL/deserted) and then repay his debt for expenses incurred by taxpayers on his behalf.

I fully agree with him paying back all the education/training cost or serving jail time for that.
I guess I felt 4 years was long for the same reason Colin P mentioned. He fought the same enemy and also turned himself in.
And the fact that i feel 4 years in jail seems excessive does not equate to me feeling any less sense of duty or obligation to remaining within  (eventually) the forces.
Its not how much of a deterrent I feel is required that makes me more likely to stay or leave. This is silly. You think i don't do bad things because of the legal consequences or the moral ones within my head? Or he who is for capital punishment is less likely to commit the crime than those in favor of rehabilitation? (yes, extreme example, but along the same lines).
But you made legit points that required some clarification on my part. So yes, I do believe desertion is bad, but i didn't think 4 years in jail bad.

 

[daftandbarmy]

While I understand the need to punish for deserting, the fact that he left to go fight the same enemy elsewhere and then surrendered himself after the fact, should play into it. Also when you consider what some people are getting away with without punishment, then 4 years does seem steep.

Well, being French, it's important to note that the FFL don't ALWAYS fight the same enemies, or defend the same friends, as we do. They support the national interests of a country with a very independent approach to the whole world, pretty much.