Posted: October 31st, 2016
Written by Matt Silverstein (’17) – Wake Forest School of Law Veterans Legal Clinic Student Practitioner
It would be clear to most individuals when they look at the military that it is distinctive from civilian life. Not just in the functions that it carries out, but in culture and many other aspects of everyday life. Most would also probably be aware of the fact that the military has a parallel justice system that can punish members of the military for a variety of offenses. However, many may not be aware of the types of offenses that are punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (“UCMJ) and the broad sweep of behavior that can be regulated while one serves in the military.
The most notable of these behaviors that can be punished is adultery. While many states may retain prohibitions on adultery on their statute books, they have long been unenforceable especially in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 which reaffirmed the principle that sexual acts between consenting adults were beyond the power of the state to regulate.[i] However, under the UCMJ, the military can and still does punish individuals who engage in adultery. This may seem strange in this day and age that behavior of this sort would even be a concern for the government, as it is something that is deeply involved in one’s personal life. However, the reasons for this have been made very clear. Such acts are punishable because they are believed to harm the good order and functionality of the military. A simple example can illustrate this point. If a soldier has an affair with the wife of a superior officer or vice versa and the other spouse found out about such behavior, they are unlikely to be well disposed towards that soldier. In fact, it would not be surprising if they are very hostile towards them given what may have occurred. This would almost certainly affect one’s ability to take or give orders and raises the specter of unfair treatment of individuals based on personal grievances. Because of this, and the need for the military to function as smoothly as possible, such behavior is not tolerated and can be punished quite harshly.
Other similar behaviors are also prohibited. In particular fraternization between officers and enlisted men is explicitly banned. Under Army Regulation AR 600-20, fraternization consists of a relationship that appears to present “undue familiarity” between soldiers of a different grade.[ii] Thus it prohibits more than just sexual relationships. Being close friends with a soldier of a different rank would likely be enough to qualify as fraternization. Certain behaviors, like the selling of a car or home, as well as socializing at an event for an entire unit are exceptions to this otherwise stringent rule. It may seem strange that type of behavior is also prohibited by the military but again the rationale is that in military life, an enlisted member must obey an officers orders and too close of a relationship between them may impair the ability for these orders to be carried out, much the same as the justification for the prohibition on adultery.
All of this serves not to criticize the military and its decision making process. There are reasons to both agree and disagree with the military for how it handles these issues. This post is meant more to stress to those who may be interested in joining the military that, once in the service, you are subject to a different standard of conduct than you are used to in the civilian world. Simply put, you are held to a higher standard of personal conduct and this standard does not lessen when you are off-duty or not on base. It is important to be aware that these avoidable issues can have legal ramifications while in the service and that they can, and have, cut short many a promising career. Just remember to always be familiar with the rules that apply to you as a member of the armed forces and how these rules impact your life.
[i] Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
Posted: October 28th, 2016
Written by Adam Nyenhuis (’17) – Wake Forest School of Law Veterans Legal Clinic Student Practitioner
The price tag for a college education has skyrocketed over the last several decades, and paying for college has become an increasingly difficult proposition for working families. Accounting for inflation, the average annual cost of attendance at a public, four-year college (including tuition, fees, and room & board) has increased from $7,833 in 1975 to $19,548 in 2015. Without scholarships or need-based aid, this brings the four-year average total cost of a bachelor’s degree to $78,192 at public colleges—and that does not account for interest that could accrue on loans used to finance the education. The cost of a four-year education at a private university more than doubles to an eye-popping total of $175,684.
This is enough of a headache for almost any family, but it can be even worse for military families with college-bound students. The difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition at many public colleges can be stark. In the 2010-2011 academic year, tuition for out-of-state students at four-year colleges cost on average $8,990 more per year than in-state tuition. States vary widely in their requirements to establish “in-state” status for tuition purposes, but dependent students must usually have at least one parent who is a state resident for one full year before the student matriculates in college. If the student receives substantial financial support from outside the state of the student’s college, the student’s claim to in-state tuition could be in jeopardy. This can pose problems that disproportionally affect military families, who move between states far more often than non-military families. Frequent moving makes it more likely that college-aged military children will have not lived in a state long enough to obtain in-state tuition under usual standards, or that their parents will move out of the state in which they attend college, which could endanger their claim to in-state tuition.
Fortunately, for public colleges, a relatively recent federal law provides military families with some relief. The Higher Education Opportunity Act states that public colleges cannot charge military spouses or dependent children more than in-state tuition rates, so long as the service member is on active duty for more than 30 days and is stationed in the state of the relevant public college. There is the additional requirement that the relevant state receive certain types of federal funding, such as Work-Study, Urban and Rural Community Action programs, and Native American programs, to name a few. Therefore, it is important to research whether the relevant state receives the required funding. Because this only applies to service members on active duty, it does not apply to retired service members. However, the law also provides that once a student begins paying the in-state tuition rate, that student will pay that rate for as long as he or she is continually enrolled at the institution. This means that dependents of service members who move—either due to a change in duty station or retirement—will not lose their in-state status. The important point to remember is that even though the Higher Education Opportunity Act has been the law for several years, not all college financial aid workers will be familiar with these standards. For that reason, students and/or their service member parents should be prepared to provide financial aid workers with the law’s requirements to make sure that the student receives the lower in-state rate. More information on the Higher Education Opportunity Act.
 Trends in Higher Education, College Board, https://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/tuition-and-fees-and-room-and-board-over-time-1975-76-2015-16-selected-years (last visited Oct. 25, 2016).
 In-State vs. Out-of-State Tuition, George Washington Univ., https://heath.gwu.edu/state-vs-out-state-tuition (last visited Oct. 25, 2016).
 In-State Tuition and State Residency Requirements, FinAid, http://www.finaid.org/otheraid/stateresidency.phtml (last visited Oct. 25, 2016).
 Higher Education Opportunity Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1015d (2015).
 See 42 U.S.C. §§ 2711–2996 (2015).