DATE: Sunday, June 29, 1997                 TAG: 9706290079

SECTION: FRONT                   PAGE: A1   EDITION: FINAL 

SOURCE: BY DAVE MAYFIELD, STAFF WRITER 

                                            LENGTH:  132 lines

DISCIPLINARY CASES DROP IN ARMED SERVICESDOWNSIZING, TOUGHER DRUG-ABUSE POLICY, STIFFER COMPETITION CITED AS REASONS.

If the struggling TV series ``JAG'' had to rely on the real Navy to inspire its mayhem-filled scripts, the show that loosely portrays the sea service's judicial system would have a harder time enticing viewers than it already does.

The number of Navy courts-martial has dropped by more than 60 percent since 1990, according to figures released last week by the service.

The trend cuts across the military.

Indeed, in spite of some highly publicized recent cases, such as the Army's sexual-misconduct trials, all of the armed services are handling fewer disciplinary cases now than in 1990 - and far fewer than in the 1970s and '80s.

One reason for the decline this decade is the sharp drawdown in the number of uniformed military personnel. About 600,000 fewer people served in the armed forces last year than six years before.

But the number of disciplinary cases per capita has dropped in the '90s as well - meaning the decline has outpaced any drop due simply to shrinking manpower.

A review of the statistics by The Virginian-Pilot found that roughly 56 of every 1,000 people in military service faced courts-martial or a less serious disciplinary action, known as non-judicial punishment, last year. That compared to about 75 per 1,000 involved in such cases at the start of the decade.

The downward trend buttresses military leaders' contention that, all in all, the men and women in today's armed forces are cleaner-nosed and more career-minded than those of previous generations.

``The only safe conclusion I think one may draw from the data is that the smaller you get, the more selective you become both in recruiting and retention,'' said Capt. Richard M. Mollison, director of the criminal law division of the Navy's Judge Advocate General office.

``You have people who are better-trained and more committed; they're here to do a job,'' added Master Chief Petty Officer Bob Conklin, the top enlisted man in the Norfolk-based Atlantic Fleet Surface Force.

Outside observers say the numbers help show how profoundly the conduct of military personnel has changed because of downsizing, as the services face increasing pressure to thin their overmanned middle and upper ranks.

``This is basically a no-error environment, where re-enlistment, transfer, training can all be denied for the smallest infractions,'' said Eugene R. Fidell, president of the Washington-based National Institute of Military Justice. ``The room for personal redemption, to revive a career that has hit a rough spot, is virtually gone.''

Still, Fidell and others caution against making too many assumptions.

The drop in disciplinary cases is flattening out in the Navy. And though they're still below the levels experienced in 1990, the Marine Corps and Air Force have actually seen caseloads increase in the last few years.

Some observers say that, because of the strong economy, the services may be having a harder time competing against civilian employers to recruit top candidates. Last year, for example, the Army fell short of its recruiting goal, embroiling it in debate about whether to lower its intake standards.

Even with a more difficult recruiting environment, however, current and former military people think overall conduct will stay relatively good - especially compared to the 1970s, when the services were wracked by drug abuse problems.

The Navy and Marine Corps combined to send 30,000 cases to courts-martial alone in 1970 - the equivalent of about one in every 32 sailors and Marines at the end of that year. By the early '80s, the ratio had dropped to about one of every 45. In the 1996 fiscal year, with just 4,885 combined cases, only about one of every 120 sailors or Marines faced courts-martial charges.

One frequently cited reason for the steep drop is the military's tougher policy against use of illicit drugs. Since the crackdown began in the early '80s, it has been one of the armed forces' major weapons for screening out potential troublemakers. And, by all appearances, it has worked as intended.

The Navy, for instance, reported last year that fewer than 1 percent of sailors now show positive for drug use in its random urinalysis tests. While a higher number - 7 percent - of sailors responding to a separate 1996 Defense Department survey said they'd used illegal drugs at least once in the previous year, that's still well below the 28 percent of personnel the Navy says illegally used drugs in 1980.

The effects of reducing drug abuse have been far-reaching, said Michael F. Imprevento, a Norfolk attorney who served as a Navy lawyer in the 1980s. He said sailors who abuse drugs are more likely to commit other types of crimes ``or get involved in bad work habits that would lead to purely military offenses: missing deployments, showing disrespect, not being on their job when they're supposed to.''

Conklin said the intolerance of drug usage bolstered recruiting - assuring top candidates, ``who we might ask to put their lives at risk,'' that they won't have to work next to people who are out of control.

Imprevento has other theories for the decline in military discipline cases, not the least of which, he said, is the increase in the number of women in uniform.

Since 1973, women have grown from 2.5 percent of active-duty personnel to about 13 percent. While the Navy's Mollison said the services haven't analyzed the effect of this change on disciplinary cases, Imprevento thinks it's bound to have contributed to the decline because, historically, crime rates among women have been lower.

On top of that, said Kathleen Gilberd, co-chair of the San Diego-based Military Law Task Force, ``many women in the military feel that they have to be better than their male colleagues to have any chance to advance.'' She said that increases the pressure on women ``to toe the line because of the threat of minor infractions to their advancement or ability to stay in.''

Still another theory for this decade's decline in military punishments comes from Fred Lederer, Chancellor Professor of Law at the College of William & Mary. ``It is possible,'' said Lederer, a leading civilian authority on military justice, ``that it reflects better leadership . . . that the military has leaders who are better able to cope with personnel problems.''

Master Chief Conklin said that has been the case in the Navy. In the last several years, he said, the service has pushed leadership and personnel training further down in the ranks, where supervisors have more time to spend with young sailors.

He pointed out that first-class and second-class petty officers are now being trained to handle such personnel initiatives as financial counseling and suicide prevention that five or six years ago would have been dealt with by nobody lower than a chief.

Clearly, however, the services show no signs of going soft on errant behavior.

Last June, for example, the Navy reduced from three to two the minimum number of non-judicial punishments that a sailor may accumulate before he or she can be drummed out, via an administrative discharge, for a pattern of misconduct.

Navy leaders wanted to give commanding officers ``a little more leeway for when and if they they have to process somebody out,'' said Lt. Cmdr. Clif Johnson, a case worker in the Bureau of Naval Personnel.

In addition, he said, the service has been encouraging commanding officers to use their authority to impose other, often-overlooked measures for weeding out sailors who lack long-term potential.

``We're trying to get down to a smarter and higher-quality Navy,'' Johnson said. ILLUSTRATION: Graphic

VP

A CLEANER-NOSED MILITARY

SOURCES: The service branches

[For complete graphic, please see microfilm]

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu