Yes you are right many do not see the political side. I got to many times for was always tasked with the Generals to do special projects. It can and will get vicious also look at it now how weaponized it is.

Yes, I am aware of this having seen it at the time from a perspective others did not have had and was trying to be discrete w/o naming anyone specifically involved. She’s nominated in Sep 2010 for AFSPC/CV and her 4th star before ultimately choosing to retire (and effectively pulled her own nomination) where POTUS did it officially after political hassles as mentioned above. The conviction set aside was Feb 2012 with political hassles starting afterward.

The inner political machine with Congress and the DoW is one only a few get to see, so elected politics do get their way a lot of times when it comes to their wants.

Your additional concerns are valid and alive & well in the minds of many and have been since before 2010 when the military legal ball on this topic started raising to the top for changes we see today.

The general you’re remembering was Lt. Gen. Susan Helms. She was an Air Force officer and NASA astronaut who flew five space missions and spent 211 days in space. Her service and accomplishments were substantial, but a military justice decision became the issue surrounding her next assignment.

A couple of details need correcting. This happened in 2012–2013, and the nomination was for vice commander of Air Force Space Command, a three-star position. In February 2012, Helms set aside Capt. Matthew Herrera’s aggravated sexual assault conviction using authority commanders had at that time. Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri then blocked her 2013 nomination because of that decision. Helms requested retirement, and President Obama withdrew the nomination in November 2013.

To me, this raises a concern that goes beyond one general or one case. If reviewing a conviction and reaching a decision that elected officials disagree with can put your next assignment in jeopardy, what message does that send to everyone else in command?

I cannot say this case proves that budgets drove the decision or that someone was deliberately sacrificed. What I can say is that the career consequences were real, and I worry about how that pressure affects decisions involving people further down the chain.

Having served, I know how much the military depends on the chain of command. That makes it even more important to ask whether someone can exercise independent judgment when their own future may be affected by the answer.

It is not just for accountability, however, but for the sake of keeping budgets and promotions intact. About 2011, there was a nominated four-star general of the flying service who had gone to space on the shuttle and done great things, but had that promotion nomination put on hold by the Sen (then) from the great state of Misery (who loves signs for PFRs). This was done because of the actions done by the nominated general to set aside a conviction of a young Capt at the time which drew blowback from the Sen noted above. This was just one step in getting things changed away from what it was then to what it is today. The nominated pulled their nomination for four-stars and the command seat which awaited them for retirement. The system changed thereafter.

With this being said, the military legal system still is lost in how it justifies itself because it is held to the budget strings of elected officials which allows for undue influence and non-unanimous verdicts, especially for topics such as this. The military cannot take monies from the public at large, but must get appropriations from elected officials who rep those who elect them and thus are servant to others at their discretion. When blood is called for by the people, blood must be served one way or another, as seen by the new direction. For the good of the service, people are sacrificed regardless in the military legal system. Honesty, much like the registry, I am not seeing the new direction making any difference(s) in the military.

The military member must remember that if the civilian legal system does not do anything, then the military system can (and probably will). It is not double jeopardy but Title I v Title III.