Vindman v Schiller

I am not sure if I fully understand all of the legal fine points that differentiate the cases of LTC Alexander Semyon Vindman, US Army Retired and that of Lt Col Stuart Scheller, USMC under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). But there are similarities worth noting. Both were in positions of responsibility and authority. LTC Vindman, as the Director of European Affairs of the National Security Council. Lt Col Scheller, as the Commanding Officer, Advanced Infantry Training Battalion, School of Infantry East. Both were infantry officers; both were combat veterans of the current Middle East conflicts; and both were well decorated. Vindman, receiving the Purple Heart for combat wounds that he sustained.

According to media sources, Scheller is being charged under the UCMJ with violations of Article 88, contempt towards officials; Article 90, willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer, Article 92, failure to obey an order; and Article 133 conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman. Vindman never faced charges but was under investigation and all of the charges leveled against Scheller could certainly be applied to Vindman. There are some additional charges Vindman could have faced and perhaps should have faced. Those would include unauthorized release of classified information to persons not authorized to receive that information, which Vindman confirmed in his testimony before Congress. What Vindman did not say was that he also violated the terms of his Non-Disclosure Agreement with the National Security Staff. This being a legal contract with criminal penalties associated for violation. Both significant charges. Scheller has disclosed nothing of a classified nature in his public social media posts or statements. Of course, Vindman’s information and resulting testimony to Congress were critical parts of the House Democrats bringing Articles of Impeachment against President Trump. Sheller’s statements have not resulted in charges, investigation, or even concern with any senior officer of the armed services or any civilian in that chain of command. Both have received praise and condemnation from members of Congress for their actions. Political association plays a key part in which members gave praise or condemnation.

Vindman works in private industry drawing retired pay as an Army LTC. Despite being selected for promotion to colonel, he elected to retire citing negative impact upon his career. Scheller sits in the brig at MCB Camp Lejeune, NC awaiting trial. His offer of immediate resignation of his commission refused. What is the difference here? Astute political gaming and even leadership by the Army senior generals? Or conversely, a lack of political gamesmanship or genuine leadership by the Corps’ generals? Behind the scenes, and I only surmise with no shred of evidence or even personal knowledge, I would suggest that the Army leadership decided the best way to handle Vindman was to make sure he was promoted (even though his selection was delayed for further review). But, I am willing to bet that the personal conversation with Vindman from a general officer was that your next four to five years (time to promote and then time in grade required to retire in that grade) are going to be rather rough. He would not be assigned to any duty requiring a security clearance (not a winner for a colonel). In fact, a reasonable man might even bet that Vindman wouldn’t be in charge of a garbage detail. Is justice served? Not really but it was expedient and Vindman is out of the Army, out of the public and therefore media spotlight and the Army moves on. A similar situation could have existed for the Corps. But alas the Corps’ leadership decided to be strict disciplinarians. Why? False sense of loyalty, higher standards than the Army, strict accountability (sort of confirms Scheller’s arguments as well as those of the several media outlets that have come to Scheller’s defense), what? Unknown to all but a few but clearly there is a double standard being applied to these two officers. Maybe that is the problem here, politics over justice.