Cases involving orders to perform EMI
In United States
v. Trani, 1 C.M.A. 293, 3 C.M.R. 27 (1952), C.M.A. held that an order given
to a prisoner to perform close order drill was valid as a corrective measure
to cure a want of discipline and self-control where the prisoner had burned
certain confinement records. The C.M.A. concluded that the purpose of the drill
was training, not punishment, and there was a reasonable relationship between
the duty assigned, close order drill, as a corrective measure in light of the
deficiencies exhibited by the accused, i.e., a want of discipline and self-control.
See also United States v. Cagle, 40 C.M.R. 550 (A.B.R. 1969), where an Army
Board of Review found that an order given to an unsentenced prisoner to drill
with sentenced prisoners was a valid order to perform a military duty rather
than an imposition of punishment.
Compare Trani and Cagle with United States v. Roadcloud, 6 C.M.R. 384 (A.B.R.
1952), in which an Army Board of Review found an order to the accused to
perform close order drill at 2230 was punishment rather than additional training.
The timing of the assignment, the antecedent circumstances, and the fact that
the accused was held in the bullpen for two hours until he consented to drill,
demonstrated the punitive nature of the order in this case.
EMI must have a valid training purpose and be reasonably related to the deficiency
to be corrected. EMI may extend to a review of proper procedures for performance
of assigned tasks or the performance of additional work designed to improve
the skills of the individual. The ramifications of failing to adhere to this
standard is emphasized by the following cases.
United States v. Raneri, 22 C.M.R. 694 (N.B.R 1956). The accused improperly
deposited a parachute on the floor and was ordered, in company with a petty
officer, to take a parachute and deposit it properly in each area of the hangar
and to announce to those present, each time, that this was the proper way to
deposit a parachute. The Navy Board of Review held that the order was punitive
and, therefore, illegal because punishment may legally be imposed only as a
result of article 15 proceedings or as a result of conviction by court-martial.
United States v. Robertson, 17 C.M.R. 684 (A.F.B.R. 1954). An inspection
of the accused's quarters on Saturday resulted in an unsatisfactory mark. Normal
cleaning hours were from 0730-1000. The accused was ordered to draw cleaning
gear at 1600 to clean his spaces. The Air Force Board of Review found the order
to clean after normal working hours was not additional training but an attempt
to punish the accused by assignment of extra duties; therefore, the order was
illegal.
United States v. Reeves, 1 C.M.R. 619 (A.F.B.R. 1951). The accused received
a "gig" and was placed on a work detail roster. No reference was made
to the observed deficiency; rather, the accused was assigned to cut a lawn from
a list of jobs which needed doing. The Air Force Board of Review found that
the work detail was punitive extra duty and could not be classified as an assignment
of extra instruction for training. The board also determined that the word "gig"
had punitive connotations.
Above Information Courtesy of United States Navy
