The motto of the Army’s new OSTC is Veritas, Justitia, Fiducia, which translates into Truth, Justice, Trust. (Credit: Aerial Mike - stock.adobe.com)
Court Is Assembled
The Office of Special Trial Counsel
Veritas, Justitia, Fiducia
By the Headquarters of the Office of Special Trial Counsel
An underlying philosophy of American government is that its
legitimacy rests on “the consent of the governed,”
and that consent is conditioned on public trust that the system will
operate justly.1The truism that “[n]obody cares how much you know until they know how much you care”2 applies as much to organizations as it does to individuals. In June 2012, director Kirby Dick released a documentary film featuring a group of Service members who, as part of a class action suit against the Department of Defense, claimed that the Services failed to properly respond to their sexual assault allegations.3 The film, The Invisible War, asserted there were frequent sexual assault incidents within the military to which leaders had not appropriately reacted. The documentary sparked widespread interest among advocacy groups, Congress, and the broader U.S. population. The next year, General (GEN) Raymond Odierno, then-Chief of Staff of the Army, made “combating sexual assault and sexual harassment within . . . [the Army his] number-one priority.”4
Trust: The Bedrock of Our Profession
In remarks to Congress, GEN Odierno focused on the trust needed between leaders and those they lead, arguing that the military “profession is built upon the bedrock of trust.”5 He also strongly advocated that “maintaining the central role of the commander in the military justice system is absolutely critical.”6 In the years since, Congress, the Army, and our sister Services instituted many changes to increase trust in the military justice system and victim care. Examples of just a few of the changes include withholding initial disposition authority for sexual assault allegations to colonels, removing a commander’s power to disapprove certain court-martial findings and sentences, and instituting the Special Victims’ Counsel (SVC) Program, the expedited transfer policy, a restricted reporting option, brigade-imbedded victim advocate positions, and a commander-run Sexual Assault Response Board to track victim care.
Despite these changes, many observers remained concerned with the efficacy and fairness of the military justice system. Indeed, the tragic murder of Specialist Vanessa Guillén, a prior victim of sexual harassment,7 eventually eroded Congress and the public’s trust in military commanders to appropriately address sexual misconduct within the military.
However, there was evidence the military achieved some objectives in its effort to address sexual assault: the estimated rates of sexual assault in the Army8 are below the rate estimated to occur on college campuses.9
It is reasonable to use campus life as a benchmark because the students
living there share many, albeit not all, of the relevant characteristics
as Service members. Further, a congressionally mandated committee
examining the health of the military justice system concluded that
military commanders had not failed to send cases with sufficient
evidence to trial.10 Finally, even before but especially after the 2014 reforms, the military justice system’s comprehensive victim care through the provision of SVC services is practically without precedent in any civilian jurisdiction.11
Despite these successes, there continued to be, rightly, an expectation that Service members and military leaders be held to a higher standard of performance. Additionally, behind-the-scenes successes rarely draw applause, and as others have recognized, “justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”12 The erosion of the public’s and, more concerningly, Soldiers’ trust in the military’s ability to prevent and respond to sexual assault led to a new approach. Extending the legal principle of open justice and the public trial, which requires presumptive openness of judicial proceedings to the public and the media, there is important value in timely sharing information while still protecting stakeholders’ interests to strengthen trust in the military justice system.13
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022: A New Chapter in Military Justice
In 2021, a majority of political leaders determined that the Military Services required a significant change in who decides which cases go to trial. In the waning days of 2022, Congress compromised on an agreement that would, for the first time in our Nation’s history, shift the responsibility of deciding which criminal allegations should be tried by court-martial from commanders to judge advocates (JAs).14 Congress chose eleven offenses (expanded to fourteen the next year15) to be covered under the new statute. The new law requires specially trained JAs, titled special trial counsel16
(STCs), to make referral decisions and to be detailed to subsequent
courts-martial when covered offenses are alleged.17
While commanders remain responsible for good order and discipline,
court-martial logistics, and, critically, for the care of their Soldiers
(victim and accused), STCs now have the responsibility to determine
whether there is sufficient evidence to charge and try a covered
offense.
The statute and subsequent policy give STCs six primary
responsibilities. First, they are to advise on the investigation of
covered offenses. Second, they alone determine whether an allegation is
a covered offense.18 Third, they may exercise authority over other offenses an accused may have committed in addition to a covered offense, and also any offense committed by people related to a covered-offense case.19
Fourth, STCs possess independent authority to determine which
allegations should be referred to court-martial and which should be
returned to commanders and their legal advisors for action.20
Fifth, STCs have the authority to enter into plea agreements with an
accused.21 And finally, the statute gives the lead special trial counsel the sole authority to decide when to file an appeal in a covered-offense case under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice.22
The Army has organized its Office of Special Trial Counsel (OSTC) into twenty-eight field offices, which in most cases are embedded in installation military justice shops. Those twenty-eight field offices fall under one of eight chief circuit STCs who supervise the field offices and their OSTC personnel.
What Constitutes Success for This New Organization and the Army?
Understanding the objective is the first requirement to achieving that objective, and the first requirement to establishing an objective is ensuring that it is possible to achieve. It is a tragic truth that while “Thou shalt not kill” has been written into civilization’s earliest written laws,23 murder remains a sad societal reality. Likewise, the “War on Drugs” declared by President Richard Nixon in 197124 has not eliminated drug abuse, which last year killed 109,357 in the United States.25 Prosecutions of sexual assault—in any jurisdiction—cannot alone eradicate occurrences of sexual assault.
If ending sexual assault is impossible via prosecution, what then, does success look like for the Army and its OSTC? In short, the answer is ensuring that evidence is impartially evaluated and professionally presented, victims are treated respectfully, accused Soldiers are prosecuted fairly, and consequently, there is a promotion of trust in the military justice system.26
The motto of the Army’s new OSTC is Veritas, Justitia, Fiducia, which translates into Truth, Justice, Trust. These three principles are the bedrock of this new organization, and they feed into the five primary OSTC priorities as we prepare to begin operations. Those priorities are: first, making wise, responsible decisions based on the law, evidence, and provable facts on behalf of the Army community; second, professionalism; third, zealous prosecutions that protect due process for an accused and seek justice for victims and the larger Army community; fourth, victim care throughout the investigative and prosecution processes; and finally, clearly communicating the work of Army prosecutors to the larger community to establish trust.
(Credit: moodboard - stock.adobe.com)
Veritas (Truth)
Wise, Responsible Decisions on Behalf of the Army Community
Making wise, responsible decisions based on credible and admissible evidence—what the facts lead us to believe is true—is critical to promoting trust. To find the truth, STCs will work with law enforcement to gather all available evidence, objectively analyze that evidence, and make sound decisions based on the evidence and law. This sequence is essential to earn the public’s trust. Prosecutors take cases, victims, and facts as they find them, and the duty of an STC, like all prosecutors, is to make responsible decisions based on facts they can prove in accordance with the law, not on what they wish they can prove.
The statute establishing OSTC specifically provides STCs with independence in making prosecutorial decisions. In light of this independence, who is the STC’s client? On whose behalf does the STC operate? Of course, a trial counsel always prosecutes an accused in the name of the United States.27 Army Regulation 27-26, Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyers, specifies that the Army is a JA’s client unless specifically assigned
to represent an individual client.28
The Office of Special Trial Counsel interprets “the Army” broadly. We
consider our client the Army community, which includes: the Army enterprise as led by the Secretary, Chief of Staff, and commanders at all levels; Soldiers; Families, on post and off; Department of the Army Civilians; and others who live and work among us or are affected by our presence. Those recovering from the traumatic experience of a crime as well as those moving through the judicial process in their defense against an allegation are all critical segments of the community requiring special care. Responsible decisions take into account the interests of the entire community using the factors in Manual for Courts-Martial Appendix 2.1, such as “the nature, seriousness, and circumstances of the offense”; the “extent of harm caused to any victim” and their views; “the accused’s willingness to cooperate” and “history of misconduct”; and “the effect of the offenses on the morale, health, safety, welfare, and good order and discipline of the command.”29
There is also a fine line between hard cases the Government should try and cases where the evidence is insufficient to obtain a conviction. The Office of Special Trial Counsel will continue to refer hard cases to trial, as we know commanders have done in the past. But unlike some cases that may have been referred based solely on the existence of probable cause, and consistent with our duties to prosecute zealously and fairly on behalf of our entire Army community, OSTC attorneys have been counseled to only refer cases in which the evidence is “likely [to] be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction.”30
With a willingness to take on hard cases, one should not expect across-the-board convictions—“likely to” does not mean “always will,” and trials are, as all litigators know, dynamic events. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is—and should be—a high evidentiary standard. And in any event, measuring the success of OSTC using conviction rates is a disservice to victims who find meaning in their participation simply wishing to be heard. Another reason conviction rates are an inappropriate measuring stick is that their use disincentivizes taking on difficult cases that may warrant a trial.
What is a must is that—in every case—STCs objectively weigh all admissible evidence, consider the likely effect on the factfinder in light of the law, and professionally try cases. We owe that to the community. As the public sees prosecutors making wise, responsible decisions and, in most cases, getting results favorable to the community, trust will increase.
Victim Care
While the STC’s client is the Army—and the United States—often our cases depend on victims stepping forward and testifying truthfully about terrible acts. Consequently, victim care is a moral imperative essential to our mission. One of our top priorities is consistent and candid communication with those who may be victims of crime. A special victim liaison, embedded into every OSTC field office, will work with the victim and the STC to develop a Victim Engagement Plan. The plan will document victim preferences on how and when OSTC communicates with that victim and set expectations on what to expect moving forward. Victims will receive a copy of their personalized plan.
At the conclusion of every investigation or court-martial, a member of the prosecution team will personally discuss with each alleged victim, or their SVC if the victim prefers, the disposition decision or court-martial result. A candid and empathetic conversation on the decisions reached is critical. It is the nature of criminal justice that some may be dissatisfied with a prosecutor’s decision, a panel’s findings, or a judge’s sentence, but everyone deserves to be respectfully informed of a decision not to prosecute or to agree to a plea, as well as receive assistance in understanding the results of a trial.
Eventually, we recommend establishing a victim feedback mechanism to gauge victims’ perspectives on how the prosecution team treated them during the adjudication process. Victim feedback is the best way to gauge progress; did the victim feel heard, informed, and treated with respect? If they did, we begin to build back trust.
Communication with Commanders and Staff Judge Advocates
Congress gave OSTC complete independence, subject to the direction of the Secretary of the Army, to refer or defer covered offense allegations. Its independence will allow it to make disposition decisions that are binding on the command.32
However, Congress also directed that commanders for both the accused and
a victim should have the opportunity to make recommendations.
Additionally, Congress kept commanders in charge of funding litigation
expenses and completing all administrative functions of a court-martial,
such as witness production, convening a court with panel members, and
provision of bailiffs and court reporters, among other duties. The
statutory authorities commanders have, such as making disposition
recommendations and administratively supporting courts-martial, require
synchronization between OSTC, local Offices of the Staff Judge Advocate
(OSJAs), and commanders. Local staff judge advocates (SJAs) and their
staffs will continue to be the primary legal advisors to commanders, but
STCs will be available to explain decisions.
In order to train a bench of future STCs, local trial counsel should
also be detailed to covered-offense cases to assist, and many
allegations may eventually be deferred to commanders for nonjudical and
administrative action. To be successful, STCs, chiefs of justice, trial
counsel, and SJAs must work together to seamlessly administer justice.
And commanders, who remain responsible for good order and discipline and
the welfare of all Soldiers—whether an accused, a witness, or a
victim—must remain informed and committed to the military justice
process. That is only possible with constant communication between the
parties.
Justitia (Justice)
Vigorous Prosecution
The former Army Chief of Staff drove home the message that in our Army,
“winning matters.”32 That is true on the battlefield, and winning should matter to a prosecutor as well. For a prosecutor, winning is achieving an outcome that is favorable to the Government by getting to the truth and helping to restore order, deter wrongdoing, rehabilitate wrongdoers, and protect community safety.33 Frankly, these are also wins for victims, the military justice system, and the Army community at large. “Hard but fair blows”34 has long been a rallying cry for prosecutors in the military justice system, and STCs should vigorously seek justice at all times. Likewise, once in court, counsel must be litigation experts and know their cases better than anyone else could. While counsel may not win every case, no case should be lost due to failures to admit admissible evidence or clearly explain its relevance to the factfinders. In the end, STCs promote trust by vigorously trying cases on behalf of the Army community.
Due Process
No system of justice can claim legitimacy if the accused is not afforded due process under law. One of the great things about Army JAs is their simultaneous desire to excel and win the day as well as foster a sense of courtesy and collegiality with opposing counsel. While STCs will vigorously prosecute cases with the intent to convict the guilty, a prosecutor’s first duty is to justice and the rule of law. That includes making sure the accused is convicted only after being afforded every constitutional right. It includes strict observance of Rule of Professional Conduct for Lawyers 3.4, Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel,35 and Rule 3.8, Special Responsibilities of a Trial Counsel and Other Army Counsel.36 While no system or counsel is perfect, and there will inevitably be mistakes, making fundamental fairness and due process a default is another way that OSTC can build trust as it seeks justice.
The Army and the American people expect a professional force of litigators just as they expect professional infantry and armor formations.
Fiducia (Trust)
Training and Experience
By statute, STCs are to be “well-trained, experienced, highly skilled, and competent in handling cases involving covered offenses.”37 The Judge Advocate General (TJAG) selects and certifies all STCs based on qualities of “education, training, experience, and temperament.”38
For the initial tranche of STCs, TJAG selected and certified sixty-five attorneys, including seven Reserve component attorneys, all of whom had significant prior criminal law experience and were vetted for temperament. Among the cohort include a former chair of the Criminal Law Department of The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School (TJAGLCS), an assistant U.S. attorney, current and former assistant district attorneys, former special victim prosecutors, former defense counsel, and former trial counsel who had shown litigation talent. The average criminal justice experience of the eight chief circuit STCs is 10.3 years, with 7.8 years of that time personally litigating in the courtroom. Other military justice jobs held include chief of justice, regional defense counsel, SJA, and professor of criminal law.
Additionally, the sixty-five attorneys TJAG certified as STCs attended four weeks of specially tailored training—black letter law at TJAGLCS39 and advocacy training at the U.S. Army Advocacy Center. Both blocks included discussions led by military and civilian experts in community-based prosecutions and special victim forensic issues. In short, the experience, maturity, and training of current STCs, combined with their ability to make disposition decisions “free from unlawful or unauthorized influence or coercion,”40 should assure the public of the competence of those charged with handling covered-offense cases.
Professionalism
For STCs, professionalism is paramount to OSTC and the Army’s ability to maintain community trust. Judge advocates are dual professionals: officers commissioned by the President to lead our Nation’s armed fighting force and lawyers bound by rules of conduct. Both roles require an oath of fidelity to the Constitution and have rules demanding high moral character. For example, attorneys licensed to practice in Mississippi take this oath:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will demean myself, as an attorney and counselor of this court, according to the best of my learning and ability, and with all good fidelity as well to the court as to the client; that I will use no falsehood nor delay any person’s cause for lucre or malice, and that I will support the Constitution of the State of Mississippi and the Constitution of the United States. So help me God.41
Other states use different formulations to communicate the same end: integrity, courtesy, and professionalism.
Merriam-Webster’s definition of a professional includes “conforming to the technical and ethical standards of a profession” and “exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner.”42 Those attributes are exactly what we expect of ourselves and what the Army community deserves.
Army OSTC’s success in gaining trust requires that its personnel demonstrate the highest levels of professionalism when dealing with victims, defense counsel, the judiciary, witnesses, law enforcement, commanders, OSJA personnel, the public, and SVCs.43 Additionally, as officers, STCs must also understand the customs and courtesies of the profession of arms, live the Army values,44 and maintain Army standards of combat proficiency, dress and grooming, and physical fitness.
Communicating with the Community
Members of OSTC and OSJAs can do all of the things discussed above—make sound decisions, act professionally, zealously and fairly try cases, and care for victims—but if those things are invisible to the Army community and the public at large, we will not regain trust in the military justice system. For years, JAs have given sound advice, competently tried cases, acted professionally, and cared for victims. However, the Army value of selfless service has sometimes meant that we act behind the scenes without telling our story. Going forward, we must better show what we do and how we do it. To that end, OSTC will have a communications director with a public affairs background. We will quickly provide media outlets with information on completed courts-martial. Our counsel are highly trained, motivated, competitively compensated, and experienced in criminal law. They favorably compare to elected or politically appointed civilian prosecutors in the communities surrounding our Army installations. By sharing with the public who we are, what we do, and how we do it, we can help promote trust.
Conclusion: Trust Is the Sum of All Other Successes
The Army and the American people expect a professional force of litigators just as they expect professional infantry and armor formations. Congress established OSTC to be that formation. No one metric will define OSTC’s success, and effective prosecution will never eliminate sexual misconduct from the Army. But, by a combination of factors based on truth, trust, and justice, OSTC can become trusted as that professional formation. We will do so by selecting experienced, mature counsel who focus on seeking and appropriately acting on true facts. We will do so by acting deliberately to obtain due-process-based justice. And finally, we will do so through excellent training, unwavering professionalism, and constant, clear communication with Army leaders, SJAs, Soldiers, and the public. In the end, the success of OSTC is a matter of trust—a trust we intend to earn. TAL
Notes
1. The Declaration of Independence para. 2 (U.S. 1776) (“That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed.”).
2. This quote is often attributed to both Theodore Roosevelt and John C.
Maxwell. See, e.g., Theodore Roosevelt Quotes, Theodore Roosevelt Ctr., https://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Learn-About-TR/TR-Quotes?page=112 (last visited Nov. 3, 2023); John C. Maxwell, The Complete 101 Collection: What Every Leader Needs
to Know 30 (2010).
3. The Invisible War (Chain Camera Pictures 2012).
4. Oversight Hearing to Receive Testimony on Pending Legislation
Regarding Sexual Assaults in the Military, Hearing Before the S. Comm.
on Armed Servs., 113th Cong. 9 (2013) (statement of General Raymond T. Odierno, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army).
5. Id.
6. Id. at 12.
7. An AR 15-6 investigation determined by a preponderance of evidence that a noncommissioned officer in Specialist Guillen’s unit previously sexually harassed her. Memorandum from Commanding Gen., U.S. Army Futures Command, to Commander, U.S. Army Forces Command, subject: Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 Investigation – Fort Hood’s Command Involvement in, and Response to, the Disappearance and Death of SPC Vanessa Guillén and Other Specific Topic Areas para. 3(c)(1) (5 Mar. 2021). However, no evidence linked her murder to sexual assault or sexual harassment. See id. para. 3(c)(2).
8. U.S. Dep’t of Def., Department of Defense Annual Report on Sexual
Assault in the Military: Fiscal Year 2019, annex 1, at 8 (2020) (reporting that about 5.8 percent of active-duty
Army women indicated experiencing a sexual assault in the year preceding
the survey).
9. Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network indicates that 13 percent
of all students experience rape or sexual assault (among all graduate
and undergraduate students) and 26.4 percent of female undergraduate
students experience rape or sexual assault.
Campus Sexual Violence: Statistics, RAINN, https://www.rainn.org/statistics/campus-sexual-violence (last visited Oct. 16, 2023). Duke University’s 2018 Student Experiential Survey indicated the rate of sexual assault for undergraduate female students was 47.8 percent. Duke Univ., 2018 Student Experiences Survey 12 fig.ES8 (2018). The Wake Forest University Campus Climate Survey indicated a 16.3 percent prevalence rate of unwanted/nonconsensual sexual contact. Wake Forest Univ., Executive Summary: Wake Forest University’s Campus
Climate Survey 2 tbl.1 (2022).
10.
Def. Advisory Comm. on Investigation, Prosecution, and Def. of Sexual
Assault in the Armed Forces, Third Annual Report (2019).
11. The Judge Advoc. Gen., U.S. Army, TJAG Sends, Vol. 39-02, Special
Victim Advocate Program (15 Oct. 2013); Colonel Louis P. Yob,
The Special Victim Counsel Program at Five Years: An Overview of Its
Origins and Developments, Army Law., no. 1, 2019, at 65, 65.
12. R v. Sussex Justices, Ex Parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256, 259.
13. See generally U.S. Const. amend. VI; Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, R.C.M. 806 (2019) [hereinafter MCM].
14. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, Pub. L. No.
117-81, 135 Stat. 1541 (2021).
15. James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2023, Pub. L. No. 117-263, sec. 541, 136 Stat. 2395, 2579-80 (2022).
16. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 created
the name “special trial counsel.”
See sec. 533(2), § 801(18), 135 Stat. at 1695-96.
17. Secs. 531(a), 535, §§ 824a(c), 827(e), 135 Stat. at 1692, 1696.
18. Id. sec. 531(a), § 824a(c)(2)(A), 135 Stat. at 1692 (“A special trial counsel shall have exclusive authority to determine if a reported offense is a covered offense and shall exercise authority over any such offense.”).
19. Id. sec. 531(a), § 824a(c)(2)(B), 135 Stat. at 1692.
20. Id. sec. 531(a), §§ 824a(c)(3), (5), 135 Stat. at 1692.
21. Id. All plea agreements must be accepted by the military judge to become binding on the parties. See MCM, supra note 13, R.C.M. 910(f).
22. Sec. 539A, 135 Stat. at 1698; Exec. Order No. 14103, annex 2, § 2(eeee), 88 Fed. Reg. 50535, 50680 (July 28, 2023) (R.C.M. 908(b)(7)); UCMJ art. 62 (2021); see also U.S. Dep’t of Army, Field Manual 5-0, Planning and Orders
Production
(16 May 2022).
23. Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17; Code of Ur-Nammu § 1 (c. 2050 B.C.E.); see Code of Hammurabi, King of Babylon: About 2250 B.C., at 10 (Robert Francis Harper trans., 2d. ed. 1904).
24. War on Drugs, History (Dec. 17, 2019), www.history.com/topics/the-war-on-drugs.
25. Provisional Drug Overdose Death Counts, Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/drug-overdose-data.htm (last visited
Oct. 17, 2023).
26.
The mission of the US Army Office of Special Trial Counsel is to seek
justice by independently and equitably evaluating covered criminal
allegations and effectively prosecuting cases warranted by the evidence
in the best interests of the Army community, while maintaining honest,
clear communication with victims, the Army, and the public in order to
promote trust in the military justice system.
Office of Special Trial Counsel, JAGCNet, https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/Sites/OSTC.nsf (last visited Nov. 3, 2023).
27. Court-martial cases are always styled United States v. (Accused’s last name). See also MCM, supra note 13, R.C.M. 103(17)(B).
28. U.S. Dep’t of Army, Reg. 27-26, Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyers
paras. 7(e)(1)-(2) (28 June 2018) [hereinafter AR 27-26].
29. MCM, supra note 13, app. 2.1 (“Non-Binding Disposition Guidance”).
30. Id. app. 2.1, para. 2.1(h).
31. UCMJ art. 24a(c)(4) (2021).
32. See, e.g., U.S. Dep’t of Army, The Army People Strategy 2 (2019) (quoting Gen. James McConville, 40th Chief of Staff, U.S. Army).
33. MCM, supra note 13, R.C.M. 1002(f)(3); U.S. Dep’t of Army, Pam. 27-9, Military Judges’ Benchbook 81 (29 Feb. 2020).
34. E.g. United States v. Johnson, ARMY 2013075, 2016 WL 1311423 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Mar. 31, 2016).
35. AR 27-26, supra note 28, r. 3.4.
36. Id. r. 3.8.
37. 10 U.S.C. § 1044f(a)(4).
38. 10 U.S.C. § 824a(b)(1)(B).
39. Army STCs attended the Advanced Justice Practitioner’s Course along with attorneys from the U.S. Army Trial Defense Service and members of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force OSTCs.
40. 10 U.S.C. § 1044f(a)(3)(B).
41. Miss. Code Ann. § 73-3-35 (2011).
42. Professional, Merriam-Webster (Oct. 11, 2023), www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/professional.
43. See AR 27-26, supra note 28, r. 3.5 cmt. 4.
44. The Army Values, U.S. Army, www.army.mil/values (last visited Oct. 18, 2023).