General demoted after affair and multiple sex partners - Air Force Generals play too!

If you play, you might have to pay....he knew the risks, shame though...he seemed to have had a good career.

I agree with your post, but kinda wonder your opinion on the whole losing your career over extra martial affairs issue?

I've never personally stepped out on either of my ex wife or my current wife. But man I watched a few guys get burned over cheating, and generally had more to do with someone not liking somone, and less to do with the actual affair.
 
How many of his Soldier's careers did he end during his career because they broke the rules? More than one or two would be my guess. Fuck'm, big boys rules.
 
How many of his Soldier's careers did he end during his career because they broke the rules? More than one or two would be my guess. Fuck'm, big boys rules.

That's my biggest issue with him. How many times did he burn someone for doing the same exact thing he did. In my book...that makes him a tool! I don't feel sorry for him in the slightest.
 
Are the rules about infidelity for officers the same for NCOs and enlisteds? I would think the penalties would increase with rank.
Yes, although punishment seems to vary slightly on a case-by-case basis, as @Marauder06 pointed out earlier. But, dont think I'm saying anybody gets off easy, I've never heard of someone getting caught up in some type of sexual misconduct and not suffering a pretty severe punishment.

It's also a line of questioning that comes up on psych evals, boards, and polygraphs.
 
We're a values-based Army, especially in the Officers' Corps. Trust is the bedrock of our profession. If someone can't trust someone to do something as simple as stay true to their marriage vows, what else will they not stay true to?

And of course the Army doesn't enforce adultery rules on non-military spouses. Our country is not a military dictatorship, and the Army's laws, rules, and norms aren't society's laws, rules, and norms.
 
We're a values-based Army, especially in the Officers' Corps. Trust is the bedrock of our profession. If someone can't trust someone to do something as simple as stay true to their marriage vows, what else will they not stay true to?

And of course the Army doesn't enforce adultery rules on non-military spouses. Our country is not a military dictatorship, and the Army's laws, rules, and norms aren't society's laws, rules, and norms.

This should also apply to all Commanders-in-Chief.
 
I know several people who served under now LTC(R) Haight. He had an affair with a woman he met when he was a LTC (maybe a BN CDR) who was a contractor in IZ. They led a 'swinger' lifestyle in the sense that she procured additional partners for him through swinging clubs and internet sites in all of his subsequent assignments and his wife apparently didn't know anything about it (they were active members of the Mormon church). I guess after he broke up with his mistress she did not take it well and started talking.

What's interesting to me about this is that reduction is an administrative action by Army leadership. The success of the Army in actually prosecuting and holding senior people responsible for this type of behavior (the way they consistently do for junior personnel) is very poor. The anecdotal evidence that comes to mind is the ADC of the 82nd that was court martialed a few years ago and the 173rd CDR very similarly - both got off very lightly as I remember.

Sinclair (ADC of 82nd) was fined 20k, pled guilty to a number of offenses, and got busted two pay grades. Johnson (the 173rd commander) got busted back to LTC, fined $300,000, and has convictions for fraud and bigamy. Those don't seem like light punishments.

If going to jail isn't on the table, then administrative action makes a lot of sense. It saves the time, money, and public spectacle of a trial and can often have the same end result.

It's common practice, and I think appropriate, for officers convicted of misconduct to be busted back to the highest pay grade at which they served honorably. That seems to be the case with LTC(R) Haight.

The problem with CM'ing General Officers is conveying a panel of higher ranking officers, you need 6-18 Officers senior to him and these GO's can not be friends or peers. The pool of candidates winnows down quickly, and in some cases you can not get a panel of officers.
It may seem like a minor slap, but the clearance goes away along with any job opportunities.
I suspect Mrs LTC Haight will soon be an ex, with 50% (or more) of his retired pay, so he will have to make it on $30K per year.
The conviction also has ramifications (voting, firearms, etc).
 
We're a values-based Army, especially in the Officers' Corps. Trust is the bedrock of our profession. If someone can't trust someone to do something as simple as stay true to their marriage vows, what else will they not stay true to?

And of course the Army doesn't enforce adultery rules on non-military spouses. Our country is not a military dictatorship, and the Army's laws, rules, and norms aren't society's laws, rules, and norms.

It's another example of people wanting to regulate morality for no other reason than their personal sensibilities. Again, marriage vows and job performance are unrelated. The trust argument is a non-starter, IMO, Sir. As I said earlier, it's false equivocation.

Perhaps the Army should worry more about fixing its actual issues, and less about regulating morality.
 
It's another example of people wanting to regulate morality for no other reason than their personal sensibilities. Again, marriage vows and job performance are unrelated. The trust argument is a non-starter, IMO, Sir. As I said earlier, it's false equivocation.

Perhaps the Army should worry more about fixing its actual issues, and less about regulating morality.

I know this is an Army GO, but in fairness it isn't the Army regulating morality. It's the UCMJ.

I agree that job performance is an unrelated issue, but surely you can see where adultery can make someone vulnerable to manipulation. That's true if the bad guys find out about your affair and threaten to expose it or set up the affair themselves.
 
It's another example of people wanting to regulate morality for no other reason than their personal sensibilities. Again, marriage vows and job performance are unrelated. The trust argument is a non-starter, IMO, Sir. As I said earlier, it's false equivocation.

Perhaps the Army should worry more about fixing its actual issues, and less about regulating morality.

I will preface this by saying I agree with everything you have posted thus far.

Now to play devils advocate. If "you" are a member of a small team and while TDY your leadership,be it a team sergeant or officer, cheats on his spouse, then at the next team party, you see that spouse. The leadership has put you in a compromising position to your own values, or possibly morals. If you have to lie to cover for them, it changes from regulating individual morality to something very different. It is one thing if this is peer to peer, but once it goes up or down it becomes a different thing in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
I will preface this by saying I agree with everything you have posted thus far.

Now to play devils advocate. If "you" are a member of a small team and while TDY your leadership,be it a team sergeant or officer, cheats on his spouse, then at the next team party, you see that spouse. The leadership has put you in a compromising position to your own values, or possibly morals. If you have to lie to cover for them, it changes from regulating individual morality to something very different. It is one thing if this is peer to peer, but once it goes up or down it becomes a different thing in my opinion.
Agree, but find it interesting that our Coalition Partners don't have the issue we seem to.
I think the Adultery statute could be removed and if causes issues we can charge under the Conduct Unbecoming Articles.
The issue goes back to the Clinton era and an AF Officer banging her Crew Chiefs husband, IIRC her name is Kelly Flynn.
Now everything gets charged.
 
I know this is an Army GO, but in fairness it isn't the Army regulating morality. It's the UCMJ.

I agree that job performance is an unrelated issue, but surely you can see where adultery can make someone vulnerable to manipulation. That's true if the bad guys find out about your affair and threaten to expose it or set up the affair themselves.

Yes, I can see where it would make them vulnerable. Again, when has it ever happened? In this day and age, with the capabilities out there, they wouldn't even need to catch an actual affair. They could edit you into one and threaten anyways. I think that's a red herring argument.

I will preface this by saying I agree with everything you have posted thus far.

Now to play devils advocate. If "you" are a member of a small team and while TDY your leadership,be it a team sergeant or officer, cheats on his spouse, then at the next team party, you see that spouse. The leadership has put you in a compromising position to your own values, or possibly morals. If you have to lie to cover for them, it changes from regulating individual morality to something very different. It is one thing if this is peer to peer, but once it goes up or down it becomes a different thing in my opinion.

That is a great point. I don't think cheating on your spouse is right. You shouldn't do it. But, it also should not be prosecutable under the UCMJ. A scenario like the one you presented is internal team business, and should be handled as such.
 
Yes, I can see where it would make them vulnerable. Again, when has it ever happened? In this day and age, with the capabilities out there, they wouldn't even need to catch an actual affair. They could edit you into one and threaten anyways. I think that's a red herring argument.

Exactly, if you did or not, it's silly that today someone could use something like that to manipulate you. We photoshop our PL with a pink dildo in his mouth and that was 10 years ago.


That is a great point. I don't think cheating on your spouse is right. You shouldn't do it. But, it also should not be prosecutable under the UCMJ. A scenario like the one you presented is internal team business, and should be handled as such.

This is exactly the point, people are people and do stupid shit, to include cheating. Handle that shit with some heart to heart life experience talks, and drive on. If it's jacking with your boys or fucking with performance, straighten that shit out or bye-bye. But UCMJ is fucking stupid. That is personal life bullshit. I've seen more than my fair share of officers and NCO'S cheating just like junior enlisted. Take a dude out of the mix with his old lady for 12-15 mths and some hard body starts flirting and shit will happen. Be it a weakness or laps in judgment, it's a personal matter. Just because some joe gets his dick wet outside of his marriage, doesn't mean he can't be trusted to do his job and have integrity about it. How many guys have known their wife had been cheating for month or years, but eat shit for their kids or because they will lose their ass in retirement, etc. We really want to hold them stepping out against them in that situation? I think that's pretty silly...
 
Wasn't Eisenhauer rumored to have been knocking boots with his driver?

Did it impact his job performance?

Yes. Power does corrupt, and corruption does not happen in a vacuum.

I guess the question comes down to what is the behavior you expect from leaders? Where do you draw the line in terms of a leader's personal behavior? @TLDR20 brought to light a very interesting point regarding a leader's behavior impacting the moral compass of those below him. Haight's adultery was corrupt behavior and it impacted all who know of it. People do make mistakes, and adultery is one of them. If it happens and ends so be it, but for it to go on for years is the wrong in it.

Officers having affairs are not a new thing, as the Ike relationship with his driver points out. In the face of officers violating the UCMJ so often, the rules have held firm and unchanged. That
Lt Colonel Haight has been punished, and his life now totally changed is not the fault of the UCMJ, it is the hubris of the swinger lifestyle he lived that was wrong.

We have seen threads here regarding the lowering of standards for the SOF community. I have not seen many agree with the lowering of said standards. Should we lower the standards for officers, our leadership? If we remove the stand against adultery, to me it is not unlike lowering other long-held standards. I think we should expect our leaders to hold to the moral high ground. That's my $.02.


Perhaps we should conduct a poll regarding the lowering the standard to allow adultery. My vote would be no.
 
That Lt Colonel Haight has been punished, and his life now totally changed is not the fault of the UCMJ, it is the hubris of the swinger lifestyle he lived that was wrong.

I am even more adamantly opposed to going after swingers or polyamorous couples. If two adults consent to living that arrangement, as many do, that is even less the business of the military. If they are flaunting it at work, that should be dealt with. The same can be said for the single E-4 or E-5 who makes others uncomfortable talking about a different bar skank every weekend. Have a talk with them about keeping their personal activities a little more quiet, and carry on.

It is far from hubris for someone to want to be a swinger. It is a religious interpretation of relationships that attempts to force people into monogamy, and punishes those who practice otherwise. If you want to be monogamous, great, go for it. If you are in a swinging, or poly, couple, and all parties consent, who cares? If you commit adultery, it's between you and your spouse. If someone who works for you has a problem with it, then they can be adults and move past it. I disagree with things my leadership believes or does, and it doesn't affect my ability to do my job. Because it doesn't matter. If the subordinate is so distraught over adultery that they cannot manage to function at work, then that's their own problem. People make mistakes. On the list of things that would make me want to work for a different officer, adultery doesn't make the cut.
 
I am even more adamantly opposed to going after swingers or polyamorous couples. If two adults consent to living that arrangement, as many do, that is even less the business of the military. If they are flaunting it at work, that should be dealt with. The same can be said for the single E-4 or E-5 who makes others uncomfortable talking about a different bar skank every weekend. Have a talk with them about keeping their personal activities a little more quiet, and carry on.

It is far from hubris for someone to want to be a swinger. It is a religious interpretation of relationships that attempts to force people into monogamy, and punishes those who practice otherwise. If you want to be monogamous, great, go for it. If you are in a swinging, or poly, couple, and all parties consent, who cares? If you commit adultery, it's between you and your spouse. If someone who works for you has a problem with it, then they can be adults and move past it. I disagree with things my leadership believes or does, and it doesn't affect my ability to do my job. Because it doesn't matter. If the subordinate is so distraught over adultery that they cannot manage to function at work, then that's their own problem. People make mistakes. On the list of things that would make me want to work for a different officer, adultery doesn't make the cut.

Again I only want to point out that when in a small unit, the actions of others can force a moral objector to carry the weight of others indiscretions. This is when it crosses a line in my opinion.

In some units, regular deployments to countries where certain activities are very legal can lead to a situation in which much of a small unit partakes in things some or one member may find morally reprehensible due to religious or other reasons. If that team member is then punished or removed from the team for objecting, to behavior that is technically outside of the borders of conduct outlined in the UCMJ, what recourse does that team member then have? Be a rat? Or abandon the moral code he chooses to follow? It can be compromising.

It gets pretty muddy. I am all for personal freedom in personal decisions. However in a small team or unit, some decisions can have non personal repercussions.
 
Last edited:
All that said I do agree with @CDG. I am just pointing out where the personal decision argument gets weak.
 
Here's an interesting observation. In the policing world, we don't have special laws that apply to us in the sense of the UCMJ (outside of a few specific criminal charges relating to depriving someone of their civil rights under color of law). When we screw up we're dealt with according to a code of conduct that is internal to the agency (speaking generally, of course).

With that as context, the agency I retired from along with its larger sister agency both had a charge for moral turpitude in the code of conduct. Get caught fucking around on your spouse, and you were fired. That's since been removed, but the reasoning was that it went directly to your morals and your ability to be trusted--as well as the odds of your testimony being impeached.

I'm not sure that a criminal charge is appropriate for what most would view as an expression of personal ethics. Some form of punishment is certainly called for, though.

Given our current social climate and the changes it has already brought upon the military, it may very well be that the adultery section in the UCMJ will be stricken or amended.
 
I agree with your post, but kinda wonder your opinion on the whole losing your career over extra martial affairs issue?

I've never personally stepped out on either of my ex wife or my current wife. But man I watched a few guys get burned over cheating, and generally had more to do with someone not liking somone, and less to do with the actual affair.

Your professional life used to be separate from your private life....but not in this PC world. The Colonel knew, when he started playing around, that the Army and DOD would hammer him if he became exposed and an embarrassment...but he did it anyway.


In the past 28 years in law enforcement, one thing that I have learned...whatever I do off duty will come back on me...be it in court and a defense attorney tries to discredit me on the stand, or someone complains to IA. As a serving public servant....I no longer have the rights I use to as a private citizen.

I might not like it or agree with it, but it's the way it is.
 
Back
Top