Have you ever felt like your punishment had nothing to do with you and everything to do with politics? You might be right.

In the military, Generals are under immense pressure to “crush” certain trends. One month, it is DUIs. The next, it is sexual harassment. When a General declares “War on Misconduct,” individual justice often goes out the window. Soldiers become statistics. They are punished not to rehabilitate them, but to “send a message” to the formation.

At Gonzalez & Waddington, we call this the “Command Climate Defense.” When a GOMOR is driven by optics rather than facts, we don’t just defend the soldier; we expose the pressure cooker.

The “Zero Tolerance” Trap: A Legal Violation

You often hear Commanders say, “We have a Zero Tolerance policy for DUIs.” While this sounds tough, it is often legally vulnerable.

The Law: Military regulations generally require Commanders to exercise discretion. They must evaluate each case on its own merits (the soldier’s history, the circumstances, the intent). If a General has a pre-determined policy that “Everyone gets a permanent GOMOR,” they have abandoned their duty to judge the individual.

Identifying Unlawful Command Influence (UCI)

UCI is the “mortal enemy of military justice.” It happens when a senior leader bullies subordinates into punishing soldiers to make the unit’s stats look better. Signs of UCI in your GOMOR packet include:

• Disproportionate Punishment: You are receiving a career-ending reprimand for a minor infraction that others got a slap on the wrist for last year.
• “Making an Example”: The GOMOR language explicitly states that you are being punished to deter others.
• Speed over Accuracy: The investigation was rushed to meet a deadline for a briefing, missing key evidence.

Why You Need a Lawyer to Make This Argument

This is the most dangerous defense to use. If a Sergeant First Class stands up and says, “General, you are punishing me because you need to look good for the Pentagon,” that Sergeant will be crushed for disrespect.

However, when Michael Waddington writes a rebuttal, we can say:

We say the same thing, but in legal language that forces the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) to pay attention. We make the General realize that pursuing this punishment might be more political trouble than it is worth.

The “Fall Guy” Reality

Often, GOMORs are issued to cover up higher-level failures. If a unit has low morale and high crime, it is easier to fire a few Lieutenants and NCOs than to fix the toxic culture. We investigate the command climate surveys and historical data of your unit. If we can prove the toxicity comes from the top, we can argue that you are a scapegoat, not a criminal.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I request my unit’s Command Climate Survey?

Yes, through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request or discovery during a board process. These surveys often contain smoking guns regarding toxic leadership and pressure to punish.

Does the ‘Command Climate’ defense work for everything?

No. If you committed a serious crime (e.g., violent assault), the command climate is irrelevant. This defense works best for “good order and discipline” offenses (alcohol, disrespect, curfew) where the punishment feels vastly out of proportion to the crime.

Why do Generals hate this defense?

Because it attacks their integrity. It suggests they are politicians, not leaders. That is why it is effective—no General wants to be accused of UCI on the official record. It often encourages them to settle for a local filing to make the problem go away.