## Facts

- A U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel commanded a fighter squadron deployed to Aviano Air Base, Italy, in late 1995.
- A first lieutenant was a subordinate officer in his squadron.
- The government charged the commander under Article 133, UCMJ, alleging that, at or near Pordenone, Italy, between about November 1 and December 31, 1995, he wrongfully and willfully developed an unprofessional relationship of inappropriate familiarity with the subordinate officer.
- At trial, the government presented testimony describing repeated social interactions and displays of familiarity between the commander and the subordinate officer that were observed by others and were viewed as exceeding normal commander–subordinate relations.
- The prosecution theory was that the relationship reasonably appeared to compromise the chain of command and the commander’s impartiality, thereby disgracing him or seriously detracting from his standing as an officer.
- A general court-martial convicted the commander (contrary to his pleas) of the Article 133 offense; the sentence included a reprimand and forfeitures.
- The intermediate appellate court affirmed; the commander sought further review limited to the Article 133 conviction.

## Issues

1. Whether the Article 133 specification was unconstitutionally vague because it did not identify a relevant custom or regulation prohibiting relationships between officers.
2. Whether the specification failed to state an offense because it did not allege the specific acts that made the relationship “unprofessional.”
3. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support the Article 133 conviction.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the Article 133 conviction and the lower court’s decision.
- The court held the specification was not unconstitutionally vague despite not citing a regulation or custom.
- The court held the specification stated an offense under military notice-pleading standards even without enumerating each underlying act.
- The court held the evidence was legally sufficient for a rational factfinder to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused willfully developed an unprofessional, inappropriately familiar relationship with a subordinate in a manner unbecoming an officer.

## Legal Principles

- Article 133 has two elements: (1) the accused did or omitted certain acts, and (2) under the circumstances, the conduct was unbecoming an officer; the offense reaches conduct that dishonors or disgraces the officer or seriously detracts from the officer’s standing.
- A conduct-unbecoming charge does not constitutionally require pleading a specific violated regulation or service custom; the focus is whether the conduct, under the circumstances, disgraced the officer or the military profession.
- A specification is sufficient if, read with maximum liberality, it provides notice through identifying the accused, time, place, involved person(s), and the wrongful character of the conduct; essential elements may be supplied by reasonable construction of the specification’s language.
- On legal-sufficiency review, the court asks whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational factfinder could find all elements beyond a reasonable doubt, drawing reasonable inferences for the government.
- A commander–subordinate personal relationship observed within the unit may constitute unbecoming conduct when it creates inappropriate familiarity and reasonably threatens perceptions of favoritism, chain-of-command integrity, or discipline.

## Conclusion

The court sustained the Article 133 conviction, ruling that a specification alleging a willful, unprofessional commander–subordinate relationship during a defined deployment period provided adequate notice without citing a specific regulation, and that the trial evidence permitted a rational factfinder to find the conduct unbecoming beyond a reasonable doubt.


United States v. Rogers, 54 M.J. 244 (C.A.A.F. 2000)