## Facts

- Captain Sanford Wolfson, a U.S. Army Reserve Medical Corps surgeon on temporary duty in Vietnam, expressed strong dissatisfaction with his assignment, working conditions, and perceived underuse of his surgical skills.
- He repeatedly voiced complaints to superiors, subordinates, enlisted personnel, and visiting senior leaders.
- During an inspection tour by General William C. Westmoreland, Wolfson complained directly; the local commander viewed his behavior as embarrassing and pursued court-martial action.
- At a general court-martial, Wolfson faced multiple specifications under Article 133 (conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman), including negligent failure to shave, presenting an “undisciplined appearance,” and “constant complaint” about his Vietnam assignment in the presence of superiors and subordinates.
- Evidence showed Wolfson shaved regularly but preferred shaving in the afternoon; testimony indicated he never had more than a day’s beard growth.
- Wolfson was convicted of several Article 133 specifications and appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether minor grooming-related allegations (e.g., visible stubble from afternoon shaving) were legally and factually sufficient to support an Article 133 conviction.
2. Whether persistent criticism and complaining about an assignment and conditions—especially when made before subordinates and senior visitors—could constitute conduct unbecoming under Article 133.
3. Whether broadly worded “conduct unbecoming” specifications provided adequate notice and were sufficiently definite when paired with described underlying acts.

## Decision

- The Army Board of Review granted relief as to some Article 133 specifications grounded in trivial grooming/appearance allegations where the record showed general compliance with grooming expectations.
- The Board treated other specifications—particularly persistent, public complaining in the presence of subordinates and senior officers—as capable of constituting Article 133 misconduct, depending on context.
- The Board sustained at least part of the Article 133 conviction while narrowing the reach of certain specifications.
- The Board characterized generic “conduct unbecoming” charging language as functionally similar to alleging conduct “of a nature to bring discredit upon the military service.”

## Legal Principles

- Article 133 targets conduct that materially departs from the standards expected of an officer and tends to bring discredit upon the officer or the service.
- Minor, technical, or trivial grooming deviations—without proof of genuinely unofficerlike conduct—may be insufficient to support Article 133 liability.
- Persistent, public disparagement or complaining in front of subordinates may be punishable under Article 133 when it undermines discipline, morale, or command authority.
- A specification may use broad “conduct unbecoming” language if it identifies the underlying acts with enough detail to provide fair notice of the charged misconduct.

## Conclusion

The Army Board of Review drew a line between trivial appearance-based allegations and conduct that can reasonably be viewed as discrediting to an officer and the service, rejecting Article 133 liability for minor grooming claims while recognizing that repeated public complaints before subordinates may constitute conduct unbecoming when the context shows a disciplinary or reputational harm.


United States v. Wolfson, 36 C.M.R. 722 (A.B.R. 1966)