When “Accountability” Becomes Punishment: Rethinking Military Discipline in the Air Force
The U.S. military prides itself on discipline, but the way discipline is administered raises serious concerns about fairness and due process, especially in light of recent guidance from the Secretary of War. Consider how under Department of the Air Force Instruction 36-2907, commanders wield sweeping discretion to issue Letters of Reprimand, Admonishment, or Counseling for a broad range of perceived misconduct. These adverse administrative actions, though technically short of “punishment,” can end a career as surely as a court-martial conviction.
The evidentiary standard for an adverse action is “preponderance of the evidence.” But unlike in any courtroom—or even most administrative tribunals—there are no formal rules of evidence and no neutral fact-finder weighing competing accounts. The commander who initiates the action also decides whether the evidence meets the standard. It is a black box: evidence may be hearsay, rumor, or unsupported opinion. The result can be arbitrary discipline that shapes or ends careers with little transparency.
Appeal rights are almost nonexistent. A service member can submit a rebuttal to an adverse action, but once the commander “closes out” the action, the formal recourse is typically limited to an Article 138 complaint—a process that is rarely successful. For most, that means the commander’s word is final. In a system where reputation and promotion depend on clean records, a single letter of reprimand can derail decades of faithful service.
These issues come into sharp focus when viewed against guidance from the Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who recently told general and flag officers at Quantico that “mistakes will no longer define careers.” His message was clear: the Department intends to foster a culture of resilience and redemption, not zero-tolerance perfectionism. Yet media reports suggest many senior officers have privately resisted the Secretary’s message—and these same officers are the ones returning to their bases to mete out discipline.
So, the question becomes: is the field following the Secretary’s guidance, or quietly ignoring it? With limited appeal rights, service members have no reliable way to enforce the cultural shift coming from the Secretary. Military defense counsel, though highly capable, remain within the chain of command. They may have to temper arguments that challenge the system —especially when those challenges point to failures of leadership within that same chain.
For service members facing an adverse administrative action, this reality can be daunting. The promise that “mistakes will no longer define careers” rings hollow if commanders remain unaccountable for how they apply that principle. In such cases, it may make sense to seek advice from a civilian defense attorney—someone free from command influence, able to raise uncomfortable questions, and experienced in navigating the blurred lines between accountability and overreach.