United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

April 1995 DOD SERVICE

ACADEMIES

Comparison of Honor

and Conduct

Adjudicatory Processes

GAO/NSIAD-95-49

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-260802 

April 25, 1995

The Honorable Strom Thurmond

Chairman

The Honorable Sam Nunn

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Dan Coats

Chairman

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Personnel

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable John Glenn

United States Senate

As part of a comprehensive review of student treatment at the Department of Defense (DOD)

service academies originally requested by Senator Nunn and Senator Glenn, we collected

information on the honor and conduct adjudicatory systems at the Military Academy, the Naval

Academy, and the Air Force Academy. The purpose of this report is to (1) compare the honor

and conduct systems at each academy and describe how the various systems provide common

due process protections and (2) describe the attitudes and perceptions of the students toward

the honor and conduct systems.

As arranged with your staff, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no

further distribution of this report until 1 day from its date of issue. At that time, we will send

copies to other interested congressional committees and Members of Congress; the Secretaries

of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; and the Superintendents of the Military

Academy, the Naval Academy, and the Air Force Academy. We will also make copies available

to other interested parties on request.
B-260802 

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, I can be reached on

(202) 512-5140. The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Mark E. Gebicke

Director, Military Operations

 and Capabilities Issues

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Executive Summary

Purpose Over the years, there have been several highly publicized incidents at the

Department of Defense’s (DOD) service academies involving honor or

conduct charges against students. The former Chairman of the Senate

Committee on Armed Services and the former Chairman of its

Subcommittee on Manpower and Personnel asked GAO to review the

adjudicatory systems used at the academies to make decisions regarding

student conduct and performance.1

 The objectives of this report are to

(1) compare the honor and conduct systems at each academy and describe

how the various systems provide common due process protections and

(2) describe the attitudes and perceptions of the students toward these

systems.

Background The service academies are one of the main sources of newly

commissioned officers. Over the last 20 years, the academies have

provided about 10 percent of annual new officer accessions, with the bulk

of the remainder coming from the Reserve Officers Training Corps and

officer candidate schools. Each academy operates adjudicatory systems to

maintain discipline and standards and to train students. The conduct

system at each academy establishes rules and regulations and provides a

process for dealing with those accused of violations. In addition, each

academy has a largely student-run honor system that prohibits lying,

cheating, and stealing.

Results in Brief Although the honor systems at the academies have many similarities, there

are some prominent differences among them. The honor codes at the

Military and Air Force academies include non-toleration clauses that make

it an honor offense to know about an honor offense and not report it,

while at the Naval Academy failure to act on a suspected honor violation is

a conduct offense. Differences also exist in the standard of proof that is

used in honor hearings, “beyond a reasonable doubt” used at the Air Force

Academy versus “a preponderance of the evidence” used at the other

academies.

Academy honor hearings provide students with the majority of the

protections typically associated with procedural due process, with some

exceptions and limitations. The most prominent limitations exist on the

right to representation by counsel and the right to remain silent and avoid

1

Each academy also has an academic board that makes decisions regarding student academic

performance deficiencies. Since academic deficiencies are handled much differently from conduct and

honor cases, the operation of the academic boards has been addressed in a separate report, DOD

Service Academies: Academic Review Processes (GAO/NSIAD-95-57, Apr. 5, 1995).

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Executive Summary

self-incrimination. All three academies impose a limitation on the right to

counsel by prohibiting military or civilian lawyers from representing

cadets and midshipmen in the hearing itself. The right to remain silent is

not granted until the individual is actually charged with an offense.

Responses to a GAO questionnaire indicated that academy students

generally saw their honor systems as fair. In some cases, whether an act

constitutes an honor violation is not completely clear because the intent of

the accused must be inferred from the investigative and hearing processes.

Also, there was considerable reluctance among students to report their

fellow students for honor violations.

In general, the administrative conduct systems at the Military and Naval

academies provide several due process protections, with some exceptions

and limitations on others. The Cadet Disciplinary Board proceedings at the

Air Force Academy, on the other hand, provided fewer due process

protections than proceedings at the other two academies. As of January 1,

1995, the Air Force Academy eliminated the Cadet Disciplinary Board and

implemented a two-step process aimed at improving timeliness and

fairness in dealing with major conduct offenses. While the conduct

systems are characterized by academy officials as administrative, rather

than judicial, they offer less due process protection than is mandated

across DOD for other nonjudicial disciplinary proceedings.

A large majority of the students questioned the reasonableness of many of

the minor rules and regulations in the conduct codes. Also, many students

perceive academy handling of conduct offenses, the application of rules

and regulations, and the imposition of disciplinary actions as inconsistent.

Principal Findings

Academy Honor Systems

Differ Regarding Toleration

and Standards of Proof

The academy honor systems differ on several key features. The codes at

the Military and Air Force academies require cadets to report a fellow

cadet if they become aware of an honor violation and the individual does

not turn himself/herself in, and failure to do so itself constitutes an honor

violation. At the Naval Academy, failure to act on an honor violation is a

conduct violation, not an honor offense. The Naval and Military academies

use the “preponderance of the evidence” standard of proof in their honor

proceedings, while the Air Force Academy uses the “beyond a reasonable

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Executive Summary

doubt” standard. The higher standard of proof used at the Air Force

Academy makes it more difficult to obtain a conviction and, therefore,

offers more protection for an accused cadet.

Honor Systems Provide the

Majority of Due Process

Protections, While Limiting

Others

The honor systems provide many due process protections, such as

adequate notice, open hearings, an impartial tribunal, and knowledge of

incriminating evidence. However, several other protections are limited,

such as the right to representation by counsel. The academies provide

legal assistance to students charged with an offense and encourage them

to seek advice. However, none of the academies allows a student’s legal

counsel to represent the student during the actual hearing or in

subsequent reviews of the hearing outcome before academy officials.

Another limitation involves the right to remain silent. When an officer or

student in the chain of command requests a statement from a student, the

student must comply by revealing all information about the incident, even

if answering will implicate the student in a violation. The right to decline

to make a statement is generally not recognized until it becomes likely that

the student will be charged with a violation of the Uniform Code of

Military Justice.

What Constitutes an Honor

Violation Is Unclear

In a questionnaire, GAO asked the students and academy honor officials at

each academy whether 27 specific acts were or were not honor violations.

Widespread difference of opinion was found among students and between

students and officials regarding what constituted a violation. Also, there

was no clear criteria for determining whether a given act would be

charged as a conduct offense or an honor offense.

Students Are Reluctant to

Report Honor Violations

The absolute wording of the honor code, where all violations are viewed

as equally serious, appears to be unrealistic to many students. Student

responses to questions regarding whether they would report a peer for

specific honor violations indicated that many cadets and midshipmen

would not turn in a company- or squadron-mate, even if they had direct

knowledge that a violation had taken place.

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Executive Summary

Air Force Academy

Conduct Hearings

Provided Fewer

Protections Than Those at

the Other Academies

The administrative conduct systems at the Military and Naval academies

provide several due process protections while imposing limitations such

as not allowing an attorney to represent the accused at the conduct

hearing. The Cadet Disciplinary Board, in place until recently at the Air

Force Academy, imposed more limitations than the other academies by

restricting an accused’s opportunity to present argument, cross-examine

witnesses, receive all information going to the board members, and by

withholding the right to remain silent until after it has been decided that a

violation of military law may have occurred.

Fewer Rights Granted in

Academy Administrative

Conduct Systems Than Are

Mandated for Other

Nonjudicial Punishment

The conduct systems are administrative, as opposed to judicial, in nature.

As such, they are similar in intent to other forms of nonjudicial

disciplinary proceedings covered under the Uniform Code of Military

Justice. However, the administrative adjudicatory systems provide fewer

protections than are mandated by DOD or service policies on nonjudicial

disciplinary proceedings. Areas where academy students have fewer such

protections include the rights to have attorneys represent them at

hearings, to remain silent, and to an independent appeal, and a limitation

on the duration of restrictions imposed for punishment.

Academy Students See

Themselves as

Overregulated by Trivial

Rules

With regard to conduct rules, questionnaire responses showed strong

student concerns about what they saw as the unreasonableness of the

conduct rules. About 70 percent of the students perceived that many

regulations were trivial and unrealistic and over three-quarters indicated

that the academies should allow students more freedom.

Academy Students

Perceive the Conduct

System as Operating

Inconsistently

Three-quarters or more of the students at each academy perceived that

conduct offenses were handled differently across the academy. In

addition, they perceived that the rules and regulations were unevenly

applied and that students received different disciplinary actions for the

same offenses.

Recommendations GAO is not making any recommendations.

Agency Comments DOD generally concurred with the report. DOD stated that it sees no clear

basis for concluding that protections provided under the administrative

conduct systems must parallel nonjudicial disciplinary proceedings.

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Contents

Executive Summary 3

Chapter 1 

Introduction

12

Disciplinary Systems 12

Honor Systems 13

The Honor Education Programs 13

Congressional Interest in Academy Adjudicatory Systems 15

Characteristics of Adjudicatory Systems 16

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 18

Chapter 2 

Comparison of

Academy Honor

Systems

19

The Origin of the Academy Honor Systems 19

Number of Honor Cases 21

Differences Among the Academy Honor Systems 22

Similarities Among the Academy Honor Systems 28

Honor System Due Process Provisions 29

Additional Honor System Issues 38

Chapter 3 

Cadet and

Midshipman

Perceptions and

Attitudes Regarding

the Honor System

43

Students Generally Saw the Honor Systems as Fair 43

Honor Codes/Concept Are Not as Straightforward as They

Appear

48

Competing Concepts Regarding What Constitutes Honor 60

Many Students Are Reluctant to Report Honor Violations 61

Many Students Perceived That the Honor Standard Is Higher at

the Academy Than Among Active Duty Officers

68

Student Perceptions About Cheating 69

Over Their 4-Year Academy Careers, Student Views Toward

Honor Appear to Become Less Positive

71

Chapter 4 

Comparison of

Academy Conduct

Systems

73

Conduct Systems and Adjudicatory Processes 73

Misconduct Statistics 75

Comparison of Due Process Protections in Academy Conduct

Adjudication Systems

76

Some Elements of Administrative Adjudicatory Systems Are

Inconsistent With DOD or Service Policy Regarding Nonjudicial

Disciplinary Proceedings

82

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Contents

Chapter 5 

Cadet/Midshipman

Perceptions and

Attitudes Concerning

the Conduct System

85

Many Rules and Regulations Seen as Unreasonable 85

Administration of Discipline Seen as Inconsistent 87

Student Views on Enforcement Were Mixed 88

Changes in Perceptions From Freshman Year to Senior Year 90

Appendixes Appendix I: Comments From the Department of Defense 92

Appendix II: Description of Questionnaire Methodology 93

Appendix III: Assessment of Academy Officials Regarding

Whether Various Scenarios Might Constitute an Honor Violation

97

Appendix IV: Major Contributors to This Report 99

Tables Table 2.1: Differences in the Service Academy Honor Code

Adjudicatory Processes

23

Table 2.2: Determination of an Honor Offense 29

Table 2.3: Due Process Elements in the Academy Honor Systems 30

Table 4.1: Due Process Elements in the Academy Conduct

Systems

76

Table II.1: Sampling Errors for Various Academy Subgroups 96

Figures Figure 3.1: Student Perceptions of the Honor System Fairness 44

Figure 3.2: Student Trust in the Honor System 46

Figure 3.3: Student Perceptions of Misuse of Honor System 48

Figure 3.4: Student Views Regarding Whether Specific Acts Were

Honor Violations

50

Figure 3.5: Student Views Regarding Whether All Honor Offenses

Are Equally Serious

54

Figure 3.6: Student Views on the Seriousness of Toleration 56

Figure 3.7: Student Views Regarding Alternative Concepts of

Honor

60

Figure 3.8: Willingness to Report a Friend for an Honor Violation 62

Figure 3.9: Percentage of Students Who Indicated They Would

Definitely Not or Probably Not Report Specific Acts as Honor

Violations

64

Figure 3.10: Student Views Regarding Frequency and Causes of

Cheating

70

Figure 5.1: Student Perceptions Regarding the Reasonableness of

Rules and Regulations

86

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Contents

Figure 5.2: Student Perceptions Regarding Consistency in the

Administration of Discipline

88

Figure 5.3: Student Views on Punishment and the Enforcement of

Rules and Regulations

89

Abbreviations

DOD Department of Defense

UCMJ Uniform Code of Military Justice

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 1 

Introduction

The service academies are one of the main sources of newly

commissioned officers. Over the last 20 years, the academies have

provided about 10 percent of annual new officer accessions, with the bulk

of the remainder coming from the Reserve Officers Training Corps and

officer candidate schools.

Each of the academies operates adjudicatory systems to provide students

with training and maintain discipline and standards. The conduct system

at each academy establishes rules and regulations and provides an

administrative process for dealing with those accused of violating them. In

addition, each of the academies has a largely student-run honor system

that prohibits lying, cheating, and stealing.1

Although each institution’s processes are somewhat unique, students

accused of honor or conduct violations at the various academies

experience generally similar investigative and separation procedures. The

honor and conduct adjudicatory systems at each academy are considered

by the academies to be administrative systems. That is, they are intended

primarily as an aid in maintaining discipline and order. As such, they are

nonjudicial in character.

Disciplinary Systems The U.S. Constitution, through the President, gives a commanding officer

executive authority (the right to lead). The Congress, through the Uniform

Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), provides commanders with quasi-judicial

responsibility when they act in an administrative (nonjudicial) punishment

capacity, and judicial authority when they act as a court-martial convening

authority.

Academy students are expected to adhere to civilian laws, UCMJ, and

service and academy directives and standards. Unless excluded by statute,

all statutory provisions applicable to military members are also applicable

to cadets. Article 2 of the UCMJ2

 specifically cites “cadets, aviation cadets,

and midshipmen” as being subject to UCMJ. The superintendent of each

academy has also been designated as a general court-martial convening

authority.

1

The honor codes at the Military and Air Force academies also prohibit toleration (failure to report) of

those who violate the honor code. At the Naval Academy, failure to act on an honor violation is a

conduct offense.

2

10 U.S.C. 802(a)(2).

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Conduct violations are grouped into categories, depending upon the

seriousness of the offense. For minor offenses, adjudication and

punishment are determined by a member of the student or officer chains

of command. Students who violate more serious disciplinary standards are

subject to administrative disciplinary hearings or court-martial for serious

violations of UCMJ. Punishments range from demerits to expulsion and

include a wide range of intermediate sanctions.

Honor Systems Each of the academies also has a largely student-run honor system that is

intended to set the standard for moral behavior of the cadets and

midshipmen with the ultimate objective of building the trust and integrity

necessary for military teams to work effectively. At each academy, a

committee of cadets is elected annually by the student body to administer

the honor system. This group also provides members to sit on student

honor boards. All accused honor violators are provided certain due

process rights in the adjudication of their cases, and potential punishment

depends on the circumstances of each case.

Under the honor systems, anyone may report a cadet/midshipman for a

suspected honor violation, including the individual himself/herself. When a

possible honor violation is reported, a student investigator or investigative

team is appointed. If the investigation finds sufficient evidence that an

honor violation has occurred, a formal honor hearing is convened. If the

honor board finds an individual guilty, the case file is routed to the

Commandant and the Superintendent who review the evidence and decide

upon punishment. The service secretary is the approval authority for

expulsions.

The Honor Education

Programs

The honor systems at the academies consist of more than the honor codes

and the processes established for investigating and adjudicating alleged

violations. A key part of the honor systems involves the academies’ efforts

to inculcate their students with a high standard of ethics and integrity.

Military Academy The honor education program at the Military Academy at West Point, New

York, is a continuous, progressive, 4-year program. The overall goal is to

foster an internal commitment to ethical standards that is beyond

reproach. The honor education program includes 50 hours of instruction,

12 of which take place during cadet basic training, 35 during the academic

year, and 3 during cadet field training.

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 1 

Introduction

The focus of honor education changes as cadets progress through their

academy careers. Fourth class honor instruction is intended to give new

cadets an appreciation and understanding of the tenets of the honor code

and its application to the cadets, both at the academy and while away from

the academy. Third class instruction focuses on developing an

understanding of the significance of being honorable as a leader of

subordinates. Second class honor instruction focuses on the transition

from honorable living as a cadet to honorable living as an officer. First

class year is a time for reflection and coming to terms with the

responsibilities of the office that cadets will enter at graduation. In

addition, “X-Y letters,” which are descriptions of actual honor cases and

their resolutions, are distributed to cadets.

Naval Academy Honor education at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, is in the

process of being revised and unified under a new character development

program. The character development officer oversees this program and is

directly responsible to the Superintendent for educating, training, and

providing feedback to students and staff regarding the honor concept.

While midshipmen have always received honor training during each of

their 4 years at the academy, the curriculum has been largely repetitive

from year to year. A group of faculty, administrators, and athletic coaches

is currently rewriting the curriculum, which is expected to be

implemented during the 1994-95 school year. The program is expected to

include 12 hours of instruction per year.

In addition to formal instruction, midshipmen receive periodic updates on

honor from the Ethics Advisor and “XYZ” letters. These letters are

descriptions of actual honor cases with explanations of the outcomes and

generalized advice for midshipmen who may be facing similar ethical

dilemmas.

Air Force Academy Honor education at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado,

is part of a comprehensive, 4-year character development program. The

overall goal of honor education is to introduce cadets to the four tenets of

the honor code as a minimum standard for their conduct. The honor

education program includes 61 hours of instruction, 18 of which occur

during basic cadet training and 43 of which take place during the academic

year.

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 1 

Introduction

The honor education program uses a variety of approaches, including

lectures, speeches, skits, film clips, case studies, scenarios, and

experiential activities. In addition, cadets receive “Cadet X” letters to keep

them informed of current honor case proceedings and to explain the

outcomes of cases.

Congressional Interest

in Academy

Adjudicatory Systems

The Congress has long been interested in the academies’ adjudicatory

systems. As those who appoint students to attend the academies, Members

of Congress are concerned that the students are treated fairly. In addition,

congressional attention has been drawn to the honor systems, in

particular, due to periodic episodes of large-scale honor violations. During

hearings on the academies, Members of Congress have periodically raised

questions about the honor systems because of their observations of legally

or ethically questionable behavior (such as falsified body counts, inflated

readiness reports, and coverups of illegal or embarrassing acts) by military

officers.

Each of the academies has experienced large-scale cheating episodes. The

most recent mass cheating scandal occurred at the Naval Academy in

1993, in which 88 midshipmen were found guilty of honor violations for

cheating on an electrical engineering exam. In 1974, seven midshipmen

were forced to resign for cheating on a celestial navigation exam after an

instructor allowed several midshipmen to examine a copy of the test

during a review session and they then shared the information with others.

At the Military Academy, 90 cadets were forced out for cheating on

examinations in 1951, 42 cadets left after being accused of cheating in

1966, 21 cadets were dismissed for cheating and condoning cheating in

1973, and 134 cadets left for cheating or tolerating cheating on a

take-home computer project in 1976.

At the Air Force Academy, 109 cadets left in 1965 for stealing and selling

exams or tolerating the practice, 46 cadets left in 1967 after sharing test

questions, 39 cadets were separated for cheating and tolerating those who

did in 1972, 6 cadets resigned after being found to have collaborated on a

physics lab exercise in 1976, and 4 cadets left the academy as a result of an

economics class honor incident in 1992. Episodes such as these have

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 1 

Introduction

triggered extensive congressional hearings such as those convened in the

House of Representatives in 1967-683

 and the Senate in 19764 and 1994.5

But congressional interest in the academies’ honor systems has not been

confined solely to the mass cheating episodes. Another concern has been

the academies’ effectiveness at inculcating new officers with a sense of

honor and ethics. For example, the Senate Committee on Armed Services

became concerned about the amount of ethics-based coursework at the

academies because the principal people convicted by juries in the

Iran-Contra scandal were all academy graduates. This concern prompted

the Committee to ask the Secretary of Defense to report on how the

academies were implementing the Committee’s recommendation that they

incorporate into their curricula topics such as the constitutional limits on

military authority, civilian/military relations, the proper response to illegal

orders, and the misuse of power to further personal goals.6

Characteristics of

Adjudicatory Systems

A primary objective of adjudicatory systems, from the point of view of

those subject to the systems, is “fairness.” To try to ensure fairness,

adjudicatory systems are typically designed in ways that minimize or

structure the discretion of the adjudicator(s) by imposing standardized

procedures and mandating certain protections for the accused. The

categories we used in this report to describe and compare the various

adjudicatory processes are derived from the legal concept of “procedural

due process,” which refers to safeguards incorporated into adjudicatory

proceedings.

The concept of due process is embodied in the 5th Amendment of the U.S.

Constitution, which provides that no person shall “be deprived of life,

liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The concept of

procedural due process implies that official governmental action must

meet minimum standards of fairness and justice. Since the courts view due

process as a concept that should be flexibly applied to fit the needs of a

particular context, a body of case law has developed regarding the

applicability of procedural due process protections to specific subgroups

and particular settings. Due process protections are greater in criminal

3

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Special Subcommittee on Service Academies,

Report and Hearings: Administration of the Service Academies, 90th Cong., 1st and 2nd sess., 1967-68.

4

U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Manpower and Personnel,

Honor Codes at the Service Academies, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., 1976.

5

U.S. Congress, Senate Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Force Requirements and

Personnel, Hearings on the Honor Systems and Sexual Harassment at the Service Academies,

February 3, 1994.

6

U.S. Congress, Senate Armed Services Committee Report 101-384, p. 167.

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 1 

Introduction

proceedings than in non-criminal proceedings (such as administrative

hearings).

Courts have established that students facing expulsion from tax-supported

colleges and universities have constitutionally protected interests that

require minimal due process protections and established standards for

student disciplinary proceedings.7

 While these standards and guidelines

have been used in devising due process requirements for academy

adjudicatory proceedings, courts have ruled that the government’s interest

in assuring the fitness of future military officers permits the academies

greater freedom in providing due process protections than is accorded

civilian institutions or authorities.8

We believe the due process protections and limitations applicable to

academy adjudicatory proceedings can be best understood by comparing

them with the broadest range of due process protections available in

civilian proceedings. In reviewing judicial and administrative proceedings,

we identified 12 categories of due process protections commonly used to

ensure fairness in hearings. These categories are used in this report to

discuss the academy adjudicatory systems and include the rights to

• adequate notice,

• an open hearing,

• an impartial tribunal,

• present argument,

• present and cross-examine witnesses,

• know opposing evidence,

• be represented by counsel,

• have the decision based solely on the evidence presented,

• have a complete record of the proceeding including findings of fact and

reasons for the decision,

• an independent appellate review,

• remain silent, and

• have involuntary confessions excluded.

These 12 categories of due process rights include several rights derived

from criminal hearings. However, their inclusion does not mean we

believe that all these rights should be provided in academy adjudicatory

systems. Our purpose is to lay out as complete a set of due process

7

Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 368 U.S. 930 (1961).

8

Wasson v. Trowbridge, 382 F.2d 807 (2d Cir. 1967); Hagopian v. Knowlton, 470 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1972).

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 1 

Introduction

protections as possible to facilitate a comprehensive discussion and

comparison of the various adjudicatory systems.

The academies classify their honor and conduct systems as administrative,

as opposed to judicial, processes. Over the last 25 years, a number of

cadets and midshipmen separated by the academies for honor or conduct

offenses have appealed to the federal courts for relief. The courts have

generally found that the academies’ adjudicatory systems provide students

with the due process protections required by existing law for

administrative systems.

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

The former Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the

former Chairman of its Subcommittee on Manpower and Personnel asked

us to review various aspects of student treatment, including the

adjudicatory systems, at the three Department of Defense (DOD) service

academies. The objectives of this report are to (1) compare the

characteristics of the honor and conduct systems at each academy and

describe how the various systems provide common due process

protections from the perspective of key participants in the process and

(2) describe the attitudes and perceptions of the students toward the

honor and conduct systems. A separate report describes the operation of

the academic adjudicatory processes at each academy.9

We reviewed academy rules and regulations, historical accounts of the

academies, studies and reviews related to the operation of the honor and

conduct systems, and files and case law on disciplinary and honor cases.

We interviewed academy officials, staff, students, and the

academy-provided attorneys at each academy who served as legal advisors

to students accused of misconduct or honor offenses. We provided DOD

with a draft of this report and its comments appear in appendix I.

In addition, we administered questionnaires at each of the three academies

to samples of cadets and midshipmen in 1990-91 and again in 1994. We

found little difference between the responses from these two periods and,

therefore, we present only the 1994 data. A detailed description of the

surveys and related methodological issues appears in appendix II.

We performed our review at the Military Academy, the Naval Academy,

and the Air Force Academy from October 1993 to January 1995 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

9

DOD Service Academies: Academic Review Processes (GAO/NSIAD-95-57, Apr. 5, 1995).

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 2 

Comparison of Academy Honor Systems

The Military Academy, the Naval Academy, and the Air Force Academy

operate under somewhat similar honor code adjudicatory systems. While

the honor systems at each academy share many similarities, there are also

some key differences. Each system provides students with certain

common due process protections, while not providing or limiting various

other protections.

The Origin of the

Academy Honor

Systems

The honor systems are strongly embedded in the history and traditions of

the academies. The exact wording of the honor code or concept is

somewhat different at each academy.

Military Academy The Military Academy honor code states “a cadet will not lie, cheat, or

steal, nor tolerate those who do.” This honor code can be traced to the

officer “code of honor” of the late 1700s and has existed in one form or

another since the Academy was established in 1802. However, there was

no formal honor system at that time and points of honor were generally

settled on a personal basis with the offended party “calling out” the

offender. The issue was then settled in some sort of a duel, usually a

fistfight.

Formalization of the honor system started to evolve in the late 1800s when

cadets began organizing “vigilance committees.” The vigilance committee

investigated possible honor violations and reported its findings to the

cadet chain of command. If a cadet was found guilty, he would be

pressured to resign. Although these committees were not officially

recognized by Academy authorities, their existence was tolerated and their

decisions unofficially sanctioned. In 1922, during the administration of

Brigadier General Douglas MacArthur as Superintendent, a formal student

honor committee was established, and it codified the existing unwritten

rules.

The content of the Military Academy’s honor code has evolved over the

years, going through numerous changes in statement, interpretation, and

application. The original code dealt only with lying. Later, cheating was

added during Sylvanus Thayer’s term as Superintendent (1817-33),

although the code reverted back to dealing only with lying by 1905. The

prohibition against stealing was originally only a matter of regulations. At

some point in the mid-1920s, stealing became part of the honor code,

although serious cases were still referred for court-martial. In 1970, the

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 2 

Comparison of Academy Honor Systems

honor code was changed to its current form to add an explicit

“non-toleration” clause.1

Naval Academy For over a century since its establishment in 1845, the Naval Academy had

no official, formalized honor system. Although midshipmen were

presumed to be inherently honorable, it was not until 1865 that they were

first placed on their honor regarding not violating liberty limits. By the end

of the 1800s, the meaning of honor had changed to a code of not reporting

fellow classmates for any offense.

By the early 1900s, an informal honor code had evolved, and a fistfight

would ensue if one’s integrity were questioned. When a 1905 fight resulted

in the death of a midshipman, President Theodore Roosevelt ordered that

the honor code be abolished. Honor standards were then incorporated into

the midshipman regulations and violations were processed as serious

conduct offenses.

In late 1950, superintendent Admiral Barry W. Hill expressed his concern

to the Brigade of Midshipmen (the student body) that not all midshipmen

were living up to the fundamental concepts of honor and personal

integrity. However, the Admiral

“. . . did not want a system that would codify right and wrong, or a system that over the

years would become so involved with loopholes and elastic clauses that soon its very

principles would degenerate into a set of rights and wrongs that would enable and tempt

midshipmen to do wrong yet still be within the codified system’s bounds of right.”2

Guidelines for an honor committee and the Academy’s “honor concept”

were approved in September 1951. The “honor concept” is based upon

midshipmen observing the fundamental principles of honesty,

truthfulness, forthrightness, and trustworthiness. The Naval Academy

makes a distinction between an honor concept and an honor code. As the

Naval Academy’s honor instruction states:

“The honor concept is not a code of specific requirements or prohibitions, but is violated

by the commission or omission of any act contrary to those principles, provided the

commission or omission was done with the intent to breach the fundamental concept.”

1

Up until 1970, non-toleration of honor offenders was an implied part of the code.

2

Excerpted from “The History of Honor at the United States Naval Academy from its Founding up to

the Establishment of our Present Honor Committees,” written by H. Ross Perot when he was a first

class midshipman.

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 2 

Comparison of Academy Honor Systems

The 1994 Naval Academy honor concept3 states, “Midshipmen are persons

of integrity: They stand for that which is right.”

Air Force Academy Prior to acceptance into the Cadet Wing, all Air Force Academy cadets

take the Honor Oath, which states, “We will not lie, steal, or cheat, nor

tolerate among us anyone who does. Furthermore, I resolve to do my duty

and to live honorably, so help me God.”

The Air Force Academy has had an honor code since its inception. A 1954

study group, headed by General Hubert R. Harmon, examined the honor

codes and systems in use by military and civilian institutions throughout

the country. From that review, the study group proposed a basic code and

system that borrowed heavily from the system being used at the Military

Academy. This basic code and system were presented to the Cadet Wing

on a trial basis in 1955, and the Class of 1959, the first class to enter the

Academy, adopted this code as the minimum standard for all cadets in

September 1956.

Number of Honor

Cases

The number of honor cases varies considerably from year to year and from

one academy to another. In addition, the proportion of cases that are

dropped without going to a board, the conviction rates, and the proportion

of convicted students who are expelled also tend to vary.

The Military Academy had 84 honor cases in academic year 1993-94, 141

cases in academic year 1992-93, and 115 cases in academic year 1991-92.

Fifty-nine percent of these cases were dropped without going to an honor

board. Of the 139 cases that went to a board, about half of the cadets were

found guilty. During this 3-year period, 20 cadets (about 28 percent of

those found guilty) were separated for honor violations.

The Naval Academy had 80 honor cases in academic year 1993-94, 118

cases (excluding the electrical engineering exam incident for which the

statistics are shown separately) in academic year 1992-93, and 100 cases in

academic year 1991-92. Fifty percent of these cases were dropped without

going to an honor board. Of the 149 cases that went to a board, a little over

half of the midshipmen were found guilty. During this 3-year period, 16

midshipmen (about 20 percent of those found guilty) were separated for

honor violations.

3

Before the spring 1994 change, the Naval Academy honor concept stated: “Midshipmen are persons of

integrity: They do not lie, cheat, or steal.”

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 2 

Comparison of Academy Honor Systems

The electrical engineering exam incident originally entailed charges

against 28 midshipmen, with 4 cases being dropped without a board. Of

the 24 cases that went to honor boards, 11 midshipmen were convicted.

Five of the convictions were overturned on review by Academy officials

and three midshipmen were separated. When the extent of the cheating

was determined to involve much higher numbers of midshipmen than

were initially charged, the Navy established a special board made up of

three admirals to adjudicate the cases. This board heard a total of 129

cases (including most of the cases that were previously heard by the

midshipman honor boards) and found 88 midshipmen (68 percent) guilty.

Twenty-six midshipmen (30 percent) were separated.

The Air Force Academy had 231 honor cases in academic year 1993-94, 164

cases in academic year 1992-93, and 154 cases in academic year 1991-92.

Twenty-four percent of these cases were dropped without going to an

honor board. Of the 371 cases that went to a board, 236 cadets (about

64 percent) were found guilty. During this 3-year period, 18 cadets (about

8 percent of those found guilty) were separated or resigned for honor

violations.

Differences Among

the Academy Honor

Systems

The main differences among the honor systems at the three academies are

summarized in table 2.1.

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 2 

Comparison of Academy Honor Systems

Table 2.1: Differences in the Service

Academy Honor Code Adjudicatory

Processes

Issue Military Academy Naval Academy Air Force Academy

Does the honor

code/concept include

a non-toleration

clause?

Yes. No. (However,

toleration is a

conduct offense.)

Yes.

How long does a

student have to report

an honor code

violation?

Encouraged to do

so within 2 days, but

can report any time

before the alleged

offender graduates

and receives a

commission.

21 days from the

time a witness

becomes aware of

the violation.

Any time before the

alleged offender

graduates and

receives a

commission.

What, if any, defense

counseling is provided

to a student charged

with a violation?

Two attorneys from

the Academy’s Staff

Judge Advocate,

who falls under the

Superintendent in

the chain of

command.

The Navy’s Judge

Advocate General,

Office of Legal

Counsel, provides

an attorney for

midshipmen.

Counsel reports to

Anacostia Naval

Station.

Two attorneys who

report to the

Director,

Headquarters, U.S.

Air Force Trial

Defense Judiciary.

How many votes are

required by the

adjudicatory panel to

convict a student of an

honor code violation?

6 of 9 votes by the

cadet members of

the honor

investigative

hearing.

6 of 9 votes by the

midshipmen

members of the

honor board.

6 of 8 votes by the 7

cadets and 1 field

grade officer

comprising the

honor investigative

board.

What is the “standard

of proof” required at

each academy to

establish guilt?

A “preponderance

of evidence.”

A “preponderance

of evidence.”

Proof “beyond a

reasonable doubt.”

Academies Differ

Regarding Non-Toleration

Clause

The honor codes of the Military and Air Force academies have an explicit

non-toleration clause. That is, they both include language that makes it an

honor offense to allow an honor violation to go unreported. The Naval

Academy’s honor concept does not have such a clause.

While the honor concept of the Naval Academy does not include such a

clause, midshipmen are not free to ignore honor violations. The Academy’s

honor instruction requires that anyone learning of what may be a violation

of the honor concept must take one of four options. The options are

(1) immediately report the evidence to the Brigade Honor Committee or

discuss the incident with the suspected offender and then, (2) report the

offender, (3) formally counsel the offender, or (4) take no further action if

it appears that no violation was committed. In 1994, the Academy began

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 2 

Comparison of Academy Honor Systems

requiring that a formal counseling sheet be turned in to the Brigade Honor

Chair through the Company Honor Representative when the counseling

option is chosen. The counseling record is retained until the midshipman’s

graduation for use in the character development program should more

than one counseling sheet be received. Failure to take one of the required

courses of action constitutes a 5000-level conduct offense, the highest

nonseparation offense level for a midshipman.

The non-toleration clause is one of the most controversial elements of the

honor codes. In 1975, we reported that the Military Academy’s studies

indicated that non-toleration was one of the biggest problems for cadets

and that toleration generally increased as a cadet progressed through his 4

years.4

Proponents of the non-toleration clause see self-policing as essential for

making the honor code work effectively and to convincingly make the

point that the individual has a duty to society that outweighs the bonds of

friendship. Proponents have also stated that they do not see reporting

one’s peers as contrary to societal norms when it comes to public service.

They cite, as examples, the duty of a lawyer to report a subornation of

perjury, the duty of a practicing engineer to report falsification of design

data, and the duty of an airline crew member to report a pilot for

unauthorized drinking.

Despite these arguments, the non-toleration clause remains controversial.

Critics point out that it requires a person to inform on his/her friends,

which may conflict with a person’s individual sense of honor and personal

integrity. These critics cite the following as support:

• Douglas MacArthur, when disobeying orders to disclose the names of

cadets guilty of hazing him, was quoted as saying: “My father and mother

have taught me these two immutable principles—never to lie, never to

tattle.”5

• A federal court has stated “we cannot fail to note that honorable students

do not like to be known as snoopers and informers against their fellows,

that it is most unpleasant even when it becomes a duty.”6

4

Academic and Military Programs of the Five Service Academies (GAO/FPCD-76-8, Oct. 31, 1975).

5

Rose, Michael T. A Prayer for Relief: The Constitutional Infirmities of the Service Academy Honor,

Conduct, and Ethics Systems, New York University Law School, 1973 (p. 178).

6

Zanders v. Louisiana State Board of Education, 281 F.Supp. 747 (1968), p. 759.

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 2 

Comparison of Academy Honor Systems

Beyond the question of the reluctance to inform on one’s peers, there is

also some controversy with regard to the effectiveness of the clause. One

critic has stated that since the large-scale cheating scandals were not

discovered until they had encompassed a fairly large number of students,

the clause may not be that effective. Some have also suggested that the

non-toleration clause could actually contribute to large-scale cheating

scandals because students could be deterred from turning in their peers

for fear that those whom they turn in could retaliate by reporting them for

past violations of the code. Finally, the non-toleration clause has been

criticized as failing to recognize the importance of developing the ability in

the students to exercise judgment and discretion about what should be

done in any given case.

Time Limit for Reporting

Honor Violations

At both the Military and Air Force academies, an honor violation can be

reported any time up until the alleged offender graduates and is

commissioned. Neither of their honor systems requires that an accuser

report a violation within a specified period of time, even though failure to

report a violation is considered to be toleration, which is itself an honor

violation. Military Academy officials told us that cadets are expected to

approach a suspected cadet within 24 hours and that another 24 hours is

allowed for the individual to report to the honor representative.

At the Naval Academy, a midshipman who suspects or becomes aware of a

possible honor violation must take action within 21 days. The purpose of

this reporting period deadline is to provide a potential accuser with

enough time to approach a possible offender to confirm the violation and

decide on an appropriate course of action, and yet avoid a situation where

someone’s own past violation could be used to pressure him/her into

ignoring another person’s violation. Allowing an unlimited time to report is

also seen as potentially unfair in that it may require a midshipman to

defend his/her actions in an incident that may have faded from the

individual’s memory and the memory of other potential witnesses.

Organizational

Independence of Defense

Counsel

Each of the academies provides accused students with legal counsel at no

cost. The attorneys who counsel cadets accused of honor violations at the

Military Academy are under the Staff Judge Advocate’s office, which is

part of the Superintendent’s chain of command. At the Naval Academy, the

legal advisor reports outside of the Academy’s chain of command to the

Navy Judge Advocate General. A recent change at the Air Force Academy

Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 2 

Comparison of Academy Honor Systems

now has its defense attorneys reporting to the Director, Headquarters, U.S.

Air Force, Trial Defense Judiciary.

The placement of student legal counsel within the academies’ chain of

command raises the issue of whether their independence may be

compromised. This issue was raised in the 1976 cheating scandal at the

Military Academy, when several Army lawyers counseling accused cadets

complained that Military Academy officials were interfering with their

efforts to defend their cadet clients. An investigation conducted by the

Army’s Deputy General Counsel and the Chief Judge of the Army Court of

Military Appeals concluded that several of the complaints of harassment of

defense attorneys were well-founded.

Requirements for

Conviction

In any adjudicatory proceeding in which facts are in dispute, adjudicatory

board members can never be completely certain about what happened.

Instead, they must develop a belief about what probably happened.

Sometimes, they may wrongly conclude either that an innocent person is

guilty or that a guilty person is innocent. The relative frequency of these

two types of errors is affected by the number or proportion of panel

members who must be convinced that a violation occurred and how

convinced they must be.

In theory, the more people who must be convinced, and convinced to a

higher degree of certainty, the stronger the evidence that would be needed

for a conviction. Consequently, it is more difficult to convict in general.

Conversely, the fewer the people who must be convinced of guilt, and the

more doubt they are allowed to have about their guilty verdict, in theory

the less evidence would be needed to convict. This situation would make it

easier to convict innocent persons as well as the guilty. Therefore, two

factors relevant to obtaining convictions are the degree of consensus

required within the adjudicatory board and the required standard of proof.

The Number of “Guilty” Votes

Needed for Conviction

In a civilian criminal trial in most states, a jury must be unanimous with

regard to a guilty verdict. In military trials (general courts-martial),

two-thirds of the members must agree before a person can be convicted

(except for offenses for which the death penalty is mandatory, in which

case the verdict must be unanimous).

The number of guilty votes needed for an honor conviction varies among

the academies. A guilty verdict requires a two-thirds majority (six of nine)

at both the Military and Naval academies and a three-fourths majority (six

Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 2 

Comparison of Academy Honor Systems

of eight) at the Air Force Academy. At the Military and Naval academies,

only students serve on honor hearing boards, while at the Air Force

Academy the board consists of seven student members and one field grade

officer.

Until 1994, the Naval Academy had required only a simple majority (four of

seven) for a guilty finding. When we reviewed the academies in the

mid-1970s, conviction of an honor offense required the unanimous vote of

12 board members at the Military Academy, 5 votes out of 7 board

members at the Naval Academy, and a unanimous vote of an 8-member

honor board at the Air Force Academy. Today’s less rigorous consensus

requirements came into being because academy officials were concerned

that too many acquittals resulted from the “not guilty” votes of one or two

board members.

The Standard of Proof

Necessary for Conviction

The standard of proof determines the degree of certainty necessary in an

individual honor board member’s mind before he or she should conclude

that a violation occurred. It represents an attempt to instruct adjudicatory

panel members concerning the degree of confidence they should have in

the correctness of their conclusions. The standard of proof required

typically depends on the nature of the case:

• The standard of proof required in civilian criminal cases is proof “beyond a

reasonable doubt.” With regard to degree of confidence in such a finding,

this standard has been defined as “fully satisfied,” “entirely convinced,”

and “satisfied to a moral certainty.”

• The standard of proof ordinarily used in civil cases is “preponderance of

the evidence.” This refers to evidence that is of greater weight or more

convincing than the evidence that is offered in opposition to it, that is,

evidence that as a whole shows that “the fact sought to be proved is more

probable than not.”

Use of the less stringent “preponderance of the evidence” standard

reduces the risk that a guilty person will avoid conviction, but it

simultaneously increases the risk that an innocent person will be wrongly

convicted. Use of the more stringent “beyond a reasonable doubt”

standard, on the other hand, reduces the risk that an innocent person will

be wrongly convicted, while it increases the risk that a guilty person will

escape conviction.

The “preponderance of the evidence” standard, in setting the two kinds of

risks as essentially equal, implicitly assumes that it is no more serious to

Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 2 

Comparison of Academy Honor Systems

convict an innocent person than it is to acquit a guilty person. Whereas,

the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard implicitly assumes it is far

worse to convict an innocent person than it is to acquit a guilty one. This

latter assumption is consistent with the principle derived from English

common law that “it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one

innocent suffer.”7

The Naval and Military academies require that honor verdicts be based on

a “preponderance of the evidence.” The Air Force Academy, however, uses

the more stringent “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.

Similarities Among

the Academy Honor

Systems

While there are a number of differences among the academy honor

systems, there are also a number of similarities. For example, at each

academy,

• students are elected by their peers to serve on the honor committee and

administer the honor system,

• investigations of alleged violations are conducted by students,

• students are involved in determining whether an offense has occurred and

not in determining what should happen to a convicted student,8

 and

• the service secretary has the final decision on whether a

cadet/midshipman will be separated.9

Another similarity is that the inferred intent of the accused is the key

factor that determines whether an offense has occurred. For example,

consider the offense of “lying.” There are two aspects to the offense. One

is the question of whether what was said or indicated was, in a factual and

objective sense, “true” or “false.” Making a false statement does not, in

itself, constitute an honor violation. Rather, the determining factor is the

individual’s intent. This leads to the possibilities shown in table 2.2.

7

Blackstone, Sir William, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 4, Philadelphia, PA: Rees Welsh

and Company, 1898, p. 1743.

8

At the Air Force Academy, cadet honor boards may make recommendations to the Commandant

regarding sanctions. The Commandant is not compelled to follow their recommendations but has been

consistent with cadet recommendations in over 95 percent of the cases.

9

The Air Force Academy recently proposed a change to the Secretary of the Air Force that would give

the Superintendent the authority to separate third and fourth class students who have been found

guilty of an honor offense.

Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 2 

Comparison of Academy Honor Systems

Table 2.2: Determination of an Honor

Offense Assessment of fact

Assessment of intent True False

To tell the truth Not a violation An error, but not a violation

To mislead A violationa A violation

aThere has been at least one case where a student has been expelled for an honor violation

based on intent to mislead although the actual statement the student made was found to be true.

Discretion in Imposing

Sanctions

If a person is found to have committed an honor violation, academy

officials determine what sanction should be applied. This determination

requires a subjective assessment of whether the honor violation was an

isolated incident not indicative of the individual’s true character (in which

case the individual would likely be retained) or was an indication of an

ingrained character flaw (in which case the individual would likely be

separated).

Historically, the punishment for anyone convicted of an honor offense was

almost always separation. Over the last several decades, the authority of

academy officials to impose sanctions other than dismissal has increased.

Academy officials now consider such factors as how long the student has

lived under the honor code/concept, whether the offense was

self-reported, whether the individual admitted the offense, and whether

there were any previous violations in determining the disposition of a

case. Over the 3-academic year period 1991-94, the percentages of those

who admitted or were convicted of honor offenses who were separated

from the academies were 28 percent at the Military Academy, 20 percent at

the Naval Academy, and 8 percent at the Air Force Academy.

Honor System Due

Process Provisions

Based on a review of the rules and procedures governing the honor system

and the views of academy officials, we assessed whether and how the

honor system at each academy provided the various due process elements.

Table 2.3 lists the due process elements and summarizes the results of our

assessment. In general, the academies are fairly similar with regard to the

due process protections their honor systems provide students. Overall,

more than half of the due process rights are provided for in full by the

academy honor systems, while there are limitations or qualifications on

the extent to which the others are provided.

Page 29 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 2 

Comparison of Academy Honor Systems

Table 2.3: Due Process Elements in the

Academy Honor Systems Element Military Academy Naval Academy Air Force Academy

Right to adequate

notice

Yes, 7 days’

minimum notice.

Yes, 3 working

days’ minimum

notice.

Yes, 2 working

days’ minimum

notice.

Right to an open

hearing

Open to DOD

personnel, cadets,

and family.

Not open to family

or nonacademy

friends.

Open only to cadets

and academy

faculty/staff, unless

accused elects to

have it closed.

Right to an impartial

tribunal

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Right to present

argument

Yes. Yes, but making a

statement can result

in loss of right to

remain silent.

Yes.

Right to present and

cross-examine

witnesses

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Right to know

opposing evidence

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Right to representation

by counsel

Limited to advice

outside the hearing.

Limited to advice

outside the hearing.

Limited to advice

outside the hearing.

Right to have

decisions based solely

on the evidence

presented

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Right to a complete

record of the

proceedings,

including the rationale

for the verdict

Partial. While a

transcript is

provided, it does

not address the

rationale for the

verdict.

Partial. While a

transcript is

provided, it does

not address the

rationale for the

verdict.

Partial. While an

audio tape copy of

the Wing Honor

Board proceedings

is available, it does

not address the

rationale for the

verdict.

Right to an

independent appellate

review

Partial. The case file

is reviewed by the

Staff Judge

Advocate, the

Commandant, and

the Superintendent.

No. Reviews of the

case file are for

procedural errors

and errors of fact,

not an independent

assessment.

Partial. The

Superintendent and

the Academy Board

review the case file.

Right to remain silent Yes, after being

accused.

Yes, after being

accused.

Yes, after being

accused.

Right to have

involuntary

confessions excluded

No. No. No.

Page 30 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 2 

Comparison of Academy Honor Systems

Right to Adequate Notice The minimum amount of notice required to be provided to a student being

charged with an honor offense varies from 2 working days at the Air Force

Academy to 7 days at the Military Academy. If an individual has been

charged with an honor offense, each academy relieves that person from

most other obligations so that he/she can focus on preparing for his/her

defense. We found no indications in any of the cases we reviewed or in any

of the interviews with attorneys that students did not have adequate time

to prepare their defense. Also, each academy indicated that students can

request more time if needed.

Right to an Open Hearing This element helps to ensure the fairness of hearings by subjecting them to

outside scrutiny. In the case of honor hearings, the academies recognize

an accused’s right to privacy. At all three academies, hearings are closed to

the public at large.

The Military Academy allows DOD personnel with official interest in the

proceeding, cadets, and family to be present during the hearing. The

Commandant has the discretion to allow others to observe if their

attendance would not have an adverse effect on the fairness and dignity of

the hearing or the cadet’s right to privacy. The accused’s attorney may be

present during the entire hearing but must sit in the observer section and

not represent the accused.

At the Naval Academy, the hearing is not open to family or friends. Military

and civilian personnel with ties to the Academy may observe hearings at

the discretion of the presiding officer. The accused’s attorney is not

allowed to attend the hearing, even as an observer.

The Air Force Academy allows an accused to elect to have the hearing

closed to observers. If closed, the accused may have his/her Air Officer

Commanding10 present. If the hearing is open, cadets and academy faculty

and staff may attend, and the accused’s attorney is allowed to attend the

hearing as an observer. Family and nonacademy friends are not allowed to

attend.

Right to an Impartial

Tribunal

Each of the academies has procedures aimed at ensuring that honor board

members will be unbiased by prior knowledge, a close or antagonistic

relationship with either the accused or a key witness, disposition, or

10Each of the academies has assigned commissioned officers to directly oversee the students in each

company or squadron. These officers are called Tactical Officers at the Military Academy, Company

Officers at the Naval Academy, and Air Officers Commanding at the Air Force Academy.

Page 31 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 2 

Comparison of Academy Honor Systems

belief. One of these procedures involves drawing board members from

across the academy. In addition, each academy requires board members to

recuse themselves if they feel that they cannot be impartial. While none of

the academies allows “preemptory” challenges, each stated it considers

any challenges for cause.

Right to Present Argument Each of the academies allows an accused to make statements and present

evidence. At the Military Academy, a hearing is usually recessed before

final argument to allow an accused to prepare a closing statement. The

accused may seek the advice of counsel in preparing the statement. At the

Air Force Academy, an accused may request a recess to consult with

counsel before making a closing statement.

A midshipman accused of an honor offense at the Naval Academy has the

right to make an oral or written statement before the honor board.

However, if an accused makes such a statement, the honor board

members may ask questions on the issues raised. Failure to respond to any

questions may result in the instruction from the presiding officer that the

board not consider the accused’s statement.

Defense attorneys who have assisted accused students stated that the right

to present argument is, in effect, somewhat qualified since students are

not particularly skilled at presenting argument and are sometimes too

emotionally involved to be able to make a cohesive and convincing case.

Although the defense attorneys acknowledge that they are allowed to

advise an accused in preparing for the hearing and during recesses, they

believe their effectiveness is hindered because they cannot hear the

testimony and present questions and argument firsthand.

Right to Present and

Cross-Examine Witnesses

Each of the academies allows an accused student to present and question

witnesses, directly or indirectly. Character witnesses, however, are

generally not allowed. At the Air Force Academy, the accused’s questions

are asked through the Group Honor Chairperson, while at the Military and

Naval academies the accused student questions and cross-examines

witnesses directly.

Defense attorneys raised questions regarding the efficacy of students in

cross-examining witnesses. The concerns they raised are that students

• are too closely involved to question witnesses effectively;

Page 32 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 2 

Comparison of Academy Honor Systems

• are not skilled at quickly analyzing the answers they receive and asking

effective follow-up questions;

• are sometimes intimidated when the witness is a commissioned officer;

and

• often try to imitate lawyers they have seen on television and in movies,

and they are generally not effective at doing this.

One defense attorney discouraged students from cross-examining

witnesses because it usually hurt them more than it helped. Another

referred to the right to cross-examine as a “hollow” right since the accused

students did it so poorly.

Right to Know Opposing

Evidence

While there is no formal “discovery” process, an accused is generally

provided with copies of all statements and access to all evidence gathered

in the honor investigation. An accused is free to gather additional evidence

and obtain statements.

One of the defense attorneys stated that he had encountered a problem

with regard to access to all evidence when several accused students were

involved. To protect the privacy of all of the accused students, each of the

accused was given access only to the evidence and statements that were

judged by academy authorities to be directly relevant to that individual’s

case. In addition, some of the evidence that was provided was heavily

redacted with the names and statements of other involved students

removed. This raised a concern among the defense attorneys that some

potentially exculpatory information may not come to the attention of the

accused. Additionally, a concern was raised about delays in getting access

to the evidence and official investigation reports.

Right to Representation by

Counsel

Each academy informs students accused of honor violations that they have

a right to consult legal counsel and, as noted earlier, each provides

attorneys to advise students free of charge. In addition, students may

engage outside counsel at their own expense.

The academies base their honor system proceedings on an administrative

(or nonadversary) model. The nonadversary model involves the

decisionmaker (who may be a judge or a board) learning about the case

from an investigator, who is supposed to be neutral and present all aspects

of the case. The decisionmaker tends to play a more active role in

questioning witnesses. The investigator is not expected to act in a partisan

Page 33 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 2 

Comparison of Academy Honor Systems

manner or as a prosecutor. The defendant is expected to represent

himself/herself. The adversary model, on the other hand, involves the

decisionmaker learning about the case from the presentations of

adversarial advocates, one representing the interests of the plaintiff or

prosecution and one representing the interests of the defendant. Each

advocate attempts to present facts that are favorable to the side he/she

represents and may oppose each other’s presentations through

questioning and rebuttal. The decisionmaker generally plays a relatively

passive role in the questioning and witness examining processes, which is

conducted primarily by the advocates. This is the model used in civil and

criminal trials and in courts-martial.

In the academies’ honor hearings, the role of legal counsel is limited to

providing advice. Counsel is not allowed to represent or speak for the

accused during the honor hearing or any of the reviews that may follow a

finding of guilt. The reasons cited by the academies for not allowing legal

counsel to speak for the accused include

• there is no prosecutor or government counsel presenting a case to the

board;

• students would resent the intrusion of attorneys into their honor system;

• allowing the accused to be represented by counsel would likely lead to

pressure for an attorney to represent the government’s interests;

• hearings would become too legalistic and cause lengthy delays and

increased processing time; and

• legal discussion of objections, evidence, and case law could confuse or

intimidate the board.

Defense attorneys raise the old adage, “He who represents himself has a

fool for a client.” They believe that calling the hearings “nonadversarial” is

window dressing and that contested hearings are very confrontational.

According to one defense attorney, there is no situation more adversarial

than when someone’s honor and character are called into question and,

given the potentially life-long implications of being found lacking in honor,

the accused deserves to be fully represented.

Defense attorneys indicated that, while no one plays the role of

prosecutor, the investigator who presents the evidence cannot realistically

be considered neutral since the investigator’s conclusions about what

occurred play a major role in determining whether a board is held and the

official charges were drafted by the investigator. Since it is likely that the

Page 34 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 2 

Comparison of Academy Honor Systems

investigator believes that a violation has occurred, there is a danger that

the investigator might inadvertently communicate that belief to the board.

Right to Have Decisions

Based Solely on the

Evidence Presented

The honor boards are supposed to consider only the information that is

presented at the hearing. There are no formal rules of evidence and any

information considered reasonably relevant to the issues in question will

typically be allowed.

For the reviews that follow a guilty finding, additional information is

considered. Information on the individual’s military, academic, and

physical performance and conduct record is included in the review

package. Each of the academies allows the individual to review and

respond to the additional information. In addition, the individual may

provide character reference statements for consideration at this stage.

Right to a Complete

Record of the Proceedings,

Including Findings of Fact

and Reasons for the

Decision

Each of the academies tape-records honor board hearings. The Naval and

Air Force academies use these recordings to provide an individual who is

found guilty with a copy of the verbatim transcript. At the Military

Academy, an individual is given a nearly verbatim record of the board

proceedings.

None of the academies provide the individual with the rationale for the

board’s decision. Academy officials said that board decisions are the

product of the individual votes of the members and that each of them may

have had different reasons for the way they voted. Academy officials also

stated that this practice of not requiring board members to explain or

justify their individual votes is consistent with the way criminal and civil

juries operate.

Right to an Independent

Appellate Review

A finding of not guilty is not reviewable. Each of the academies has a

multistep review process that each guilty verdict automatically undergoes.

The review processes are intended to identify whether there were any

legal shortcomings that may have worked to the disadvantage of the

accused. The commandant or superintendent at each academy can

overturn a guilty finding based on legal or procedural errors. In addition,

the commandant and superintendent at the Military and Air Force

academies are required to independently assess the sufficiency of the

evidence supporting the guilty finding. While some of the reviewers may

Page 35 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 2 

Comparison of Academy Honor Systems

meet with the accused and others and conduct an informal hearing, they

do not conduct a new hearing.

In all cases where the academy recommends separation, the final decision

is made by the service secretary. Cases are typically reviewed by the

secretary’s legal counsel, and the authority to approve or reject the

recommendation is generally delegated to an assistant secretary. The

secretariat reviews consist of examining the reported findings as

presented by academy officials and a statement from the accused. A new

hearing is not conducted.

At the Military Academy, the Staff Judge Advocate conducts a legal review

of the case. The case then goes to the Special Assistant for Honor, who

reviews it and makes recommendations to the Commandant, who, in turn,

reviews the case and makes recommendations to the Superintendent.

At the Naval Academy, the Commandant’s legal advisor reviews the case

file and advises the Commandant with respect to sufficiency of evidence.

The Commandant then reviews the case file and holds an informal hearing

to determine the disposition of the case. If the Commandant recommends

separation, the case file is forwarded to the Superintendent, through the

Superintendent’s Staff Judge Advocate. A 1994 change to the honor

process has limited the scope of the Commandant’s and the

Superintendent’s reviews. Prior to the change, the Commandant and the

Superintendent were both required to (1) independently weigh the

evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses, (2) determine

contested questions of fact, (3) independently determine if the finding of a

violation was established by a preponderance of the evidence of record,

(4) approve only those findings that were correct in law or fact, and

(5) consider matters in extenuation and mitigation. As a result of the

change, the roles of the Commandant and the Superintendent are now

limited to (1) reviewing the record and disapproving findings that are

clearly erroneous, (2) disapproving findings from an honor board during

which a procedural violation occurred that cannot subsequently be

remedied, and (3) returning a case to the honor board or a new board to

consider newly discovered evidence, in addition to the fourth and fifth

responsibilities that were retained. Gone is the language requiring a full,

independent review of the case.

At the Air Force Academy, the Commandant reviews the case and

recommends sanctions. The 10-member Academy Board reviews all cases

when the individual has been recommended for separation.

Page 36 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 2 

Comparison of Academy Honor Systems

The academies cite their multilevel review processes as, in effect,

constituting independent appellate reviews and point to the fact that

verdicts have been overruled at the academy or secretariat levels as proof

of independence. However, some defense attorneys question whether the

reviews are truly independent. They believe that academy officials are

often too deferential to the verdict of the honor boards for fear of arousing

the resentment among the student body or charges of favoritism if a guilty

verdict is overturned. Our review of some case files found occasional

statements in transmittal documents from academy officials in the review

chain who, although voicing considerable doubt about a given verdict,

indicated they did not want to overturn a student board verdict. However,

at each academy we found cases of verdicts being overturned by academy

officials.

Right to Remain Silent Each of the academies provides students suspected of an honor violation

with the right to remain silent, once they have been officially charged. This

right is protected during an honor investigation by requiring that accused

students be informed of the right to remain silent and acknowledge in

writing that they have been informed of that right.

The Naval Academy does not grant the right to remain silent before an

individual is officially accused of an honor violation. Consequently, a

faculty or staff member or another student can question a suspected

student about an incident and that student would be expected to respond

fully, even if it resulted in that student implicating himself/herself in a

conduct or honor violation.

Officials at the Military and Air Force academies indicated that cadets

have no obligation to answer questions from other students or faculty

members concerning a suspected honor violation. However, should the

cadet elect to respond, it is expected that the reponse would be truthful.

Air Force Academy officials also stated that a cadet may terminate any

interrogation at any point and request legal counsel.

Several defense attorneys stated that granting the right to remain silent

only after the decision to file charges has been made essentially nullifies

that right because the individual may have already been compelled to

admit a violation.

In addition, a defense attorney pointed out that Article 31, UCMJ, forbids

anyone subject to UCMJ from compelling any person to incriminate himself

Page 37 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 2 

Comparison of Academy Honor Systems

or to answer any question that may tend to incriminate him. Since an

honor violation could conceivably be charged as a violation of military

law, that attorney indicated that requiring a person to provide a statement

prior to an actual charge could itself be a violation of UCMJ.

11

Defense attorneys also noted that one of the common criticisms of the

honor systems is that they have been misused as a way of enforcing other

academy regulations by requiring that students either admit to violations

of rules and policies or risk escalating the offense into one that carries the

potential punishment of separation. Sensitive to this criticism, each

academy has identified certain kinds of questions such as “fishing

expedition” questions or questions aimed at confirming something that is

already apparent (e.g., asking an obviously intoxicated student whether

he/she has been drinking) as being inappropriate and trivializing the honor

system. However, each academy still requires accused students to answer

the questions and to lodge a complaint about the inappropriate question

later. A defense attorney indicated that this after-the-fact request for a

review did not provide any real protection.

Right to Have Involuntary

Confessions Excluded

None of the academies grants students an automatic right to have

admissions or statements they may have made before being given the right

to remain silent excluded from consideration in the hearing. However, the

board hearing officer at the Military Academy, the honor board presiding

officer at the Naval Academy, and the Group Honor Chairman or Chief of

the Honor and Ethics Division at the Air Force Academy can exclude such

statements or other evidence if they believe its use would be inappropriate

or unfair.

Additional Honor

System Issues

Defense attorneys and others have raised a number of additional criticisms

and concerns about the academy honor systems. Among the concerns

raised are that honor proceedings lack adequate standards of evidence,

honor boards are too dependent upon subjective inferences of intent,

students are penalized for conducting a vigorous defense, students have

been expelled for trivial acts, honor punishments are sometimes

disproportionately severe, and a separate honor system is not needed.

11A 1989 study done for the Assistant Superintendent at the Coast Guard Academy concluded that

every offense against the Academy’s cadet regulations (which are essentially similar to those at the

three DOD service academies) could be seen as an offense under UCMJ (as either article 133, conduct

unbecoming an officer, or article 134, the General Article, as an offense prejudicial to good order and

discipline, or another specific article) and that a cadet therefore had “reasonable cause to apprehend

danger that he may incriminate himself by answering questions.”

Page 38 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 2 

Comparison of Academy Honor Systems

Lack of Formal Evidentiary

Procedures

Several defense attorneys mentioned the lack of formal evidentiary

procedures as a problem. Because honor boards are considered

administrative proceedings, formal rules of evidence are not applied.

Defense attorneys said that they have seen hearsay, conjecture, and other

forms of questionable evidence presented before honor boards.

A related concern involved sufficiency of evidence. In many honor cases,

particularly those involving the charge of lying, defense attorneys said

there is relatively little “hard evidence” (such as physical or documentary

evidence) that board members can directly examine on their own. Instead,

much of the evidence is circumstantial or testimonial in nature—especially

with regard to the key issue of intent. They said that this can be

particularly problematic in cases involving the word of one person against

the word of another, and they expressed concern that students have been

found guilty based on nothing other than the testimony of their accuser.12

Such cases also illustrate the difference between the evidentiary

requirements in academy administrative versus military judicial hearings.

In a trial for “perjury,” the Manual for Courts-Martial states that no one can

be convicted of that offense based solely on the testimony of a single

witness. Only the Air Force Academy has a policy that states that an

accused cadet who denies the charge cannot be convicted based solely on

the uncorroborated testimony of another person.

Honor Boards Too

Dependent on Subjective

Inferences of Intent

As noted earlier, the key factor in determining whether an honor violation

has occurred is the inference drawn about the intent of the individual.

Defense attorneys questioned whether students in their late teens and

early 20s have the maturity of judgment and perspective to make such

highly subjective judgments where the consequences can taint an

individual for life, noting that it seemed ironic that the honor system was

virtually the only area of academy life where academy authorities treated

students as though they were responsible adults.

Questions have also been raised about the students’ ability to determine

who is telling the truth and who is not. Attempts to detect deceit are

typically based on the assumption that telling a lie is readable in a person’s

involuntary physiological responses. In cases where most, if not all, of the

evidence is testimonial and circumstantial in nature, achievement of just

outcomes is highly dependent upon the board’s ability to determine who is

telling the truth.

12In one Naval Academy honor case we examined, a midshipman who denied lying was found guilty

solely on the uncorroborated testimony of his accuser.

Page 39 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 2 

Comparison of Academy Honor Systems

Ekman and O’Sullivan (1991)13 recently reviewed the research literature

on the ability of people to detect lying. They concluded that 20 years of

research in this area indicates that little confidence should be placed in

judgments, by laymen or experts, about whether someone is lying or

telling the truth. Over all the studies, the average accuracy in detecting

deceit has rarely been above 60 percent (with chance being 50 percent),

and college students have tended to do worse than others, sometimes

choosing less accurately than chance.

Students Are Penalized for

Conducting a Vigorous

Defense

One defense attorney stated that accused students were, in effect,

penalized for conducting a vigorous defense14 and trying to prove their

innocence. This reportedly occurs because academy officials tend to take

the admission of guilt and the expression to willingness to accept the

consequences as the primary evidence of remorse and commitment to live

honorably. This sets up the ironic situation where, given the same

circumstances, a guilty person is more likely to be retained at the academy

than an innocent person. The reason for this is that an innocent person

with a high sense of honor would probably be unwilling to falsely admit

guilt and claim to have learned a lesson from the incident, which would

tend to be interpreted by academy officials as lack of remorse. The guilty

person, on the other hand, would probably be more willing to make such

an act of contrition, especially if he/she were not really sincere.

Our review of the documents in honor case files indicated that inferences

about the remorse of the convicted person is an important factor in

determining the recommendations of academy officials regarding the

disposition of the case. Also, many of the recommendations in the files

stated that the continued insistence that the accused did not intentionally

commit an honor violation was an indication of lack of remorse.

Students Have Been

Expelled for Trivial

Offenses

One criticism of the honor systems is that they make no distinctions

among offenses by degrees of seriousness. Critics point out that students

have been found guilty and expelled from the academies for trivial

offenses. In a 1974 book, a former West Point psychiatrist cited cadets

being forced to resign or expelled for honor offenses such as quibbling

over status as a nonvirgin, telling a squad leader that shoes were shined 

13Ekman, P. and O’Sullivan, M. (1991). “Who can catch a Liar?” American Psychologist, 46: 913-920.

14Academy officials stated that a vigorous defense reduces the probability of an adverse decision

against those innocent of allegations. Officials also pointed out that their review of cases showed a

vigorous defense to be the rule, rather than the exception.

Page 40 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 2 

Comparison of Academy Honor Systems

4 hours before inspection rather than the night before, falsely claiming to

own a Jaguar, and falsely telling other cadets his cookies were gone when

he still had some left.15

The Severity of Some

Honor Punishments

Exceeds the Severity of the

Offense

One defense attorney noted that some punishments appear

disproportionate to the offense, particularly when one looks at

punishments across adjudicatory systems. We were referred to the

following two Naval Academy cases that were adjudicated in the same

year by the same academy officials.

One case involved the honor system. A plebe (freshman) was being

questioned while serving noon meal to the upperclass midshipmen at his

table. An upperclassman asked him what he had done over the weekend to

improve his physical fitness. Although under no obligation to have

engaged in physical conditioning, the plebe answered that he had gone

running on Sunday. In response to follow-up questions, he cited where and

when he had run. He then asked to discuss it later with the questioner.

When his request was denied, he stated that he had answered incorrectly

and that he had not been running. He was charged with the honor offense

of lying, was found guilty, and was separated from the academy.

The other case involved the conduct system. Several midshipman went to

a Navy athletic contest at another university. They had been drinking prior

to the game at the home of one of their classmates. After the game, one of

the midshipmen (a sophomore) physically struck a woman in a wheelchair

in a university dormitory. He was picked up by campus police and later

released into the custody of several classmates. He then went into the

local community where he encountered a 12-year old girl who was

babysitting for her next-door neighbor. He began to curse and verbally

abuse the girl, and he struck the girl’s mother when she told him to leave.

He then attempted to follow the girl into the house where she was

babysitting. He broke into the house by kicking in a plate glass exterior

door. Once inside, he broke several windows and was found passed out on

the floor by the police and arrested. He was found guilty of five conduct

offenses at the highest level of seriousness and a lesser offense of

underage drinking. He was retained at the Academy.

Separate Honor Board

System Is Not Needed

While stating that the services have a legitimate interest in the honesty and

integrity of the officer corps, a defense attorney stated that it does not

15U’Ren., Richard C., M.D.,Ivory Fortress, New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., 1974.

Page 41 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 2 

Comparison of Academy Honor Systems

necessarily follow that a rigid honor system, imposed only on the

academies, is a reasonable way for the services to try to assure the

honesty and integrity of the entire corps. He noted that 85 to 90 percent of

officers were commissioned through programs that have nothing

comparable to the academy honor codes. He noted that the courts used

essentially this same line of reasoning in striking down the mandatory

chapel attendance requirement that each of the academies used to impose

on cadets and midshipmen.16 He also stated that, since virtually any

significant offense under the honor code was also an offense under UCMJ,

17

a separate honor system was not needed.

16In Anderson v. Laird, 466 F.2d. 283, 303 (D.C.Cir. 1972), the court stated “The concept of government

necessity is undercut by the fact that approximately 95% of the service officers do not graduate from

the Academies, and have never been subject to this compulsory chapel requirement.”

17A similar conclusion was reached in a study conducted by the Coast Guard Academy.

Page 42 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 3 

Cadet and Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Regarding the Honor System

Our 1994 survey of students at the three academies found that they

generally saw their honor systems as fair. Determination of what

constitutes an honor violation is not as straightforward as the wording of

the codes implies. It is unclear what is or is not an honor violation since an

individual’s intent is the key determining factor. Some students see honor

as “black or white” while others see gradations. Also, there is some

confusion regarding whether some acts are honor violations or conduct

violations. Some students see the demands of the honor system as

conflicting with personal loyalty. Many students at each academy are

reluctant to report honor violations. Students also perceive that the honor

standard is higher at the academies than it is among active duty officers.

Over their 4-year academy careers, student views toward honor appear to

become less positive.

Students Generally

Saw the Honor

Systems as Fair

Several questions assessed the perceptions of cadets and midshipmen

regarding the fairness of the honor system. Overall, academy students saw

the system as reasonably fair. However, a considerable proportion saw a

need for officer involvement and adherence to due process protections,

and most did not believe that all violators should be expelled. In addition,

many students indicated some concerns about the honor system being

used to enforce regulations and as an easy way to remove someone from

the academy.

As shown in figure 3.1, more than half of the students at each academy

believed that the honor system was administered fairly and impartially.

However, a sizeable minority of 23 to 31 percent disagreed. The students

were split concerning whether honor violation punishments were

generally appropriate to the offense. From the wording of the question, it

is not possible to determine whether those who did not see honor

punishments as appropriate believed them to be too harsh or too lenient.

However, responses to another question on punishments indicated that

most students did not want to see the harshest punishment (dismissal)

imposed for every honor violation. When asked whether anyone found to

have committed an honor violation should be expelled, only 14 to

29 percent agreed while 51 to 69 percent disagreed.

Page 43 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 3 

Cadet and Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Regarding the Honor System

Figure 3.1: Student Perceptions of the Honor System Fairness

Percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

Military

Academy

Naval Academy

Air Force Academy

Military Academy

Naval Academy

Air Force Academy

Military Academy

Naval Academy

Air Force Academy

The honor system is

administered fairly and

impartially

Honor punishments are

generally appropriate to

the offense

Those found guilty of

honor violations should

be expelled

Disagree/strongly disagree

Undecided

Agree/strongly agree

Source: Responses to GAO questionnaires.

We also asked several questions aimed at assessing whether respondents

trusted the largely student-run process (see fig. 3.2). While most of the

students at each academy indicated they trusted the student investigators

and that the students were capable of fairly administering the honor

Page 44 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 3 

Cadet and Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Regarding the Honor System

system without the involvement of officers, there was a significant

minority (18 to 28 percent) who did not fully trust the student investigators

and saw officer involvement as needed. Although most students trusted

the system, they were generally unwilling to forego due process

protections, with 42 to 50 percent of the students at each academy

indicating those protections were more than just legal technicalities and

should apply in disenrollment decisions. As a Naval Academy student

responded,

“I feel our honor code can not be held higher than the U.S. Constitution. All midshipmen

still maintain their American rights.”

Page 45 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 3 

Cadet and Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Regarding the Honor System

Figure 3.2: Student Trust in the Honor System

Percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

Military

Academy

Naval Academy

Air Force Academy

Military Academy

Naval Academy

Air Force Academy

Military Academy

Naval Academy

Air Force Academy

Fully trust the fairness

of student honor

investigators

Students can fairly

administer honor

without officers

Due process

technicalities should not

overturn verdict

Disagree/strongly disagree

Undecided

Agree/strongly agree

Source: Responses to GAO questionnaires.

We asked some questions concerning criticisms that have been raised over

the years about potential misuse of the honor system (see fig. 3.3). One

such criticism involves use of the honor system as a tool to enforce

regulations. This issue entails using the person’s honor against him/her by

Page 46 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 3 

Cadet and Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Regarding the Honor System

asking an improper question that puts a student in a position where he or

she must either admit to some conduct violation or commit an honor

violation. For example, if an officer heard a rumor that a student had been

off-post without authorization and then asked that student whether the

rumor was true, the officer would be using honor to enforce conduct

regulations by forcing the student to either admit to a conduct offense or

risk an honor offense. The academies have recognized this as a potential

problem that could trivialize the honor system, and each has included a

discussion of improper questioning in the guidance governing the honor

system. Over half the students at the Air Force Academy and over

one-third at each of the other two academies perceived that honor was

used to enforce regulations.

Another concern is that the honor systems can be misused as an expedient

way of removing students who are seen as not fitting in. While about half

or more of the students at each academy indicated a belief that the honor

system was not an easy way to get a cadet/midshipman out of the

academy, from 22 to 38 percent disagreed.

Page 47 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 3 

Cadet and Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Regarding the Honor System

Figure 3.3: Student Perceptions of

Misuse of Honor System Percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

Military Academy

Naval Academy

Air Force Academy

Military Academy

Naval Academy

Air Force Academy

The honor system is

used to enforce

regulations

The honor system is an

easy way to get a

student out

Disagree/strongly disagree

Undecided

Agree/strongly agree

Source: Responses to GAO questionnaires.

Honor Codes/Concept

Are Not as

Straightforward as

They Appear

While the honor codes/concept appear to be simple and straightforward in

their wording, in actual practice, determination of whether or not an honor

offense has been committed is much more subjective and greatly depends

upon what inferences are drawn concerning the intent of the

cadet/midshipman in question.

Page 48 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 3 

Cadet and Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Regarding the Honor System

We developed a set of 27 short scenarios to determine the extent of

agreement regarding what was or was not considered an honor violation.

The scenarios dealt with all three aspects of the honor codes/concept

(lying, cheating, and stealing). Some scenarios were derived from actual

honor case situations while others were hypothetical. The scenarios were

intentionally focused on “grey area” situations. We also included a couple

of scenarios that we knew, based upon advice from academy officials,

were not honor violations.

The officials at each academy who were responsible for the honor

programs assessed each of the scenarios regarding whether it was likely to

constitute an honor violation. The 27 scenarios and the assessments

across the three academies are shown in appendix III. Allowing for the

absence of sufficient information in some of the scenarios to allow

definitive determination of the individual’s intent and the subjectivity

inherent in such determinations, there appeared to be at least some

differences among the academies regarding whether specific acts were

violations of their honor systems. In some cases, a given act (such as

taking a joyride in a government vehicle) was considered by academy

officials to be a conduct violation rather than an honor offense. Other

differences were the result of specific academy policies. For example, the

Military Academy has a policy that instructors not give the same exam to

different class sessions, which makes it permissible to ask a friend what

was on the exam.

Figure 3.4 shows the percentage of students at each academy who

indicated that a specific scenario1

 was either definitely or probably an

honor violation. As can be seen, there is little agreement among the

students at each academy with regard to what does or does not constitute

an honor violation.

1

The text of the items was abbreviated for use in the figure. See appendix III for the full text of the

items.

Page 49 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 3 

Cadet and Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Regarding the Honor System

Figure 3.4: Student Views Regarding Whether Specific Acts Were Honor Violations

Page 50 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 3 

Cadet and Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Regarding the Honor System

Percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

USMA

USNA

USAFA

USMA

USNA

USAFA

USMA

USNA

USAFA

USMA

USNA

USAFA

USMA

USNA

USAFA

USMA

USNA

USAFA

USMA

USNA

USAFA

USMA

USNA

USAFA

USMA

USNA

USAFA

Stuffing

clothing

under covers

to appear to

be in bed

Ordering an

alcoholic

beverage

although

below

drinking age

Disregarding

a directive

because of

adverse effect

on unit

Telling a little

white lie to

avoid hurting

feelings

Making an

unauthorized

personal toll

call on official

phone

Asking a

friend what an

earlier exam

covered

Complying

with a

directive to

shade an

official report

A mistreated

plebe denying

mistreatment

when asked

about it

Submitting a

literally

truthful, but

incomplete

report

52

86

78

11

42 39

6

12 9

16

35

21

52

60

54

2

78

70

77

87

78

44

53

39

49

74

50

Page 51 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 3 

Cadet and Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Regarding the Honor System

Percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

USMA

USNA

USAFA

USMA

USNA

USAFA

USMA

USNA

USAFA

USMA

USNA

USAFA

USMA

USNA

USAFA

USMA

USNA

USAFA

USMA

USNA

USAFA

USMA

USNA

USAFA

USMA

USNA

USAFA

Falsely

denying

disagreement

when

specifically

asked

Covering

windows/door

to conceal

studying after

lights-out

Using a false

ID to

purchase

alcoholic

beverages

Taking a

government

vehicle for a

joyride on

academy

grounds

Allowing

someone to

draw a false

impression to

get a favor

Failing to

raise hand to

admit being

unprepared

Telling a little

white lie to

avoid being

embarrassed

Asking

someone to

do a favor

under false

pretenses

Completely

paraphrasing

a term paper

from a unit

study file

3 6

1

10

35

15

89

96 95

18

34 31 28

59

34 35 36

28

58 58

51

64

79

51

73

82

75

USMA: U.S. Military Academy

USNA: U.S. Naval Academy

USAFA: U.S. Air Force Academy

Source: Responses to GAO questionnaires.

Many Cadets/Midshipmen

See Honor as “Black or

White” While Many Others

See Gradations

While the honor codes/concept are stated in absolute terms (i.e., any act of

lying, cheating, or stealing is a violation), many academy students see

honor not as a matter of “black or white,” but as varying “shades of grey.”

This is not a new issue. In a 1973 book, Galloway and Johnson wrote:

“The absolute nature of the system makes it difficult for graduates to differentiate between

insignificant moral problems and those of great moment, for within their frame of

reference it is the form of the situation which matters. Ethical acumen is discouraged

Page 52 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 3 

Cadet and Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Regarding the Honor System

where honor and integrity are defined in clear-cut, black-or-white terms. As the cadets are

told at their orientation talks, honor is like virginity—you’ve either got it or you don’t”.2

Academy students were basically split with regard to whether all honor

offenses were equally serious (see fig. 3.5). About 40 percent at each

academy indicated that any violation of the honor code/concept was

significant, while about 40 percent saw some honor violations as less

serious than other violations. Example comments follow.

“There are no ’LITTLE WHITE’ LIES SIR.” (Naval Academy midshipman)

“I think your questions on honor situations contain too many black and white answers.

Honor is not clean cut.” (Air Force Academy cadet)

2

Galloway, K. B. and Johnson, R.B. Jr., West Point: America’s Power Fraternity, New York: Simon and

Schuster, 1973, pp. 109-110.

Page 53 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 3 

Cadet and Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Regarding the Honor System

Figure 3.5: Student Views Regarding

Whether All Honor Offenses Are

Equally Serious

Percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

Military Academy

Naval Academy

Air Force Academy

There are no minor

honor offenses: all are

significant

Disagree/strongly disagree

Undecided

Agree/strongly agree

Source: Responses to GAO quesionnaires.

The scenario items offer some clues regarding what kinds of acts are more

likely to be seen as violations.

• Deceptive acts involving official reporting or accountability issues (such

as falsifying a roster, shading a report, or using a false identification) had a

higher percentage of respondents indicating it was an honor violation than

acts that involved only personal issues (e.g., lying about having a date).

Page 54 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 3 

Cadet and Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Regarding the Honor System

• A lie told to benefit the teller or take advantage of someone was more

likely to be seen as an honor violation than if it was told to benefit

someone else.

• Scenarios that involved gaining an unfair academic advantage (e.g., getting

unauthorized help on a homework assignment) were likely to be seen as

honor violations.

• Scenarios involving direct verbalized deception were more likely to be

seen as honor violations than were scenarios in which the deception was

indirect or implied, but not verbalized. For example, while a

cadet/midshipman who is below the legal drinking age and who orders an

alcoholic beverage could be seen by some as falsely implying that he/she is

entitled to be served, as long as the individual did not verbally claim to be

of age or present a false identification, many respondents saw no honor

violation.

Many academy students (from 23 percent at the Naval Academy to over

40 percent at the other two academies) saw toleration of an honor offense

as much less serious than other offenses (see fig. 3.6). Toleration was

more likely to be seen as a less serious offense at the two academies with

a non-toleration clause than it was at the Naval Academy where toleration

is a conduct offense, not an honor offense.

Page 55 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 3 

Cadet and Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Regarding the Honor System

Figure 3.6: Student Views on the

Seriousness of Toleration Percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

Military Academy

Naval Academy

Air Force Academy

Toleration is much less

serious than other honor

offenses

Disagree/strongly disagree

Undecided

Agree/strongly agree

Source: Responses to GAO questionnaires.

Write-in comments indicated that the toleration issue caused considerable

consternation among students. For example,

“The toleration clause of the honor code is only teaching us to be little tattle tales. Sounds

childish, but we are treated like children, so it fits.” (Military Academy cadet)

“The problem with the honor code itself is not the code—it is the way the toleration clause

is enforced. There is no leeway for a cadet to confront another cadet about

Page 56 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 3 

Cadet and Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Regarding the Honor System

something—counsel them and leave it at that. If a friend of mine makes a dumb

mistake—by regulation I have to turn him in. I can’t talk to him and solve the problem from

there. Everything has to go to a board. I think that’s wrong and rather than admit I saw or

witnessed a violation by counseling the person myself, I’m not going to run the risk of

getting a toleration hit and I’m going to pretend I never knew a thing.” (Air Force Academy

cadet)

The Individual’s Intent Is

the Key Determining

Factor

The set of honor scenario items generated extensive write-in comments

from the respondents. Most of these comments indicated that the

scenarios did not provide enough information to make a definitive

assessment of the individual’s intent and the respondents questioned the

validity of any conclusions based on the scenario questions. Typical

examples of the comments follow.

“From what we are taught, honor violations are determined upon the intent of the possible

violation. From the questions posed in this questionnaire, we have no information or

knowledge of their intent. Its almost presuming guilty before being proven innocent. Only

some of the questions are like this. Others gear us to the “right” answer by how they are

worded.” (Military Academy cadet)

“There are lots of gray areas in several of these questions. The biggest thing I look at before

turning someone in is INTENT. Not everything is black and white. Definitely there are

actions that are WRONG and should never be covered up but intent is the biggest

determinant.” (Naval Academy midshipman)

“The answers I have given throughout the survey often depend on situation, intensity, etc. I

hope that is taken in to account when these results are reviewed. Each question lacks the

specific context that may make the results more accurate or reliable.” (Air Force Academy

cadet)

We agree that many of the scenario items did not include a specific

indication of the person’s purpose or intent, but at least half of the items

did provide such an indication. We believe, however, that the respondents’

comments serve to confirm the conclusion that the determination of what

constitutes an honor violation is not clear-cut. Rather, as noted in the

previous chapter and stated in many of the comments, determination of an

honor offense depends upon the inference that an observer forms

regarding the individual’s intent. For example, while taking a bed sheet

from the laundry to make a “spirit” sign has the effect of a theft on the

rightful owner of the sheet, if the “intent” of taking the sheet was seen as a

prank then this act would probably not be seen as an honor violation.

Page 57 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 3 

Cadet and Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Regarding the Honor System

Since different individuals can draw different inferences from the same set

of observed facts, determination of an honor offense is highly subjective.

Confusion Regarding

Whether an Act Is an

Honor Violation or Merely

a Violation of Regulations

A second common criticism that respondents cited in their write-in

comments about our scenarios was that we were apparently confused

regarding what constituted an honor violation versus what merely

constituted a violation of regulations. For example, several respondents

stated that covering room windows and stuffing a towel under the door to

avoid detection for violating lights-out policy is a conduct offense. They

saw this as an attempt to avoid detection, not as an attempt to deceive

authorities into believing that the lights were out.

In reviewing the Naval Academy’s serious conduct offenses for the 1990-91

school year, we found more cases involving theft that were dealt with

using the conduct system than with the honor system. These cases

included

• stealing Logs (the Academy’s humor magazine),

• wrongfully appropriating a motor vehicle,

• stealing by making unauthorized credit card phone calls,

• stealing from the Midshipmen’s Store,

• stealing property of Citadel cadets,

• stealing Navy property,

• stealing $4.96 in merchandise,

• assisting in transporting and concealing stolen stereo equipment,

• stealing a check and cashing it, and

• stealing money and credit cards from other midshipmen.

In addition, two cases of stealing were handled using court-martial

procedures. These cases involved stealing

• a watch, a ring, and cash from the hotel room of a retired Army general

and his wife, and

• $1,500 worth of stereo equipment from fellow midshipmen.

During that same period, we found six other cases that were dealt with

under the honor system. These cases involved stealing

• a fellow midshipman’s weapons project,

• an exam,

• a homework solutions manual,

Page 58 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 3 

Cadet and Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Regarding the Honor System

• money from a wallet,

• a bracelet, and

• 21 library books from the Academy library.

We could find no explanation or criteria for determining whether a given

act would be pursued using the honor system, the administrative conduct

system, or the military justice system.

The Honor Codes/Concept

Are Not Ethics Codes

The honor codes/concept do not prohibit all unethical acts or practices.

Some of the respondents acknowledged this in pointing out deficiencies in

various scenario questions. For example, we asked about the situation

where an academy student used a paper from a study file and, while not

copying any of it verbatim, paraphrased it completely. Several respondents

wrote comments that whether this would constitute an honor offense

depended upon whether the cadet/midshipman in question had cited the

use of the study file paper. For example, one Military Academy cadet

wrote, “Some underclass cadets might not know the difference between an

ethics violation and an honor violation. You must clarify if receiving help

or paraphrasing is documented or not.”

Some respondents acknowledged that the hypothetical students in some

of the scenarios behaved inappropriately, but that did not constitute an

honor offense. Examples of comments made by Military Academy cadets

follow.

“Regarding the cadet paraphrasing the paper (for example), it would only be an honor

violation if he failed to document his source. Otherwise, it is just unoriginal thought that

deserves a bad grade.”

“Although this [keeping a $20 bill without trying to find who lost it] is not morally correct,

the cadet is not required to return the money. However, I feel he/she should make a

reasonable attempt at finding the owner and returning said money.”

“Most of these [the honor scenarios] are ethical dilemmas, not honor questions.”

“Many things listed [in the honor scenarios] would be wrong, possibly unethical, but not an

‘honor’ violation.”

Page 59 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 3 

Cadet and Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Regarding the Honor System

Competing Concepts

Regarding What

Constitutes Honor

We asked respondents several questions aimed at identifying how they

personally defined honor and whether they saw any conflict between the

demands of the honor system and loyalty to friends (see fig. 3.7).

Figure 3.7: Student Views Regarding Alternative Concepts of Honor

Percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

Military

Academy

Naval Academy

Air Force Academy

Military Academy

Naval Academy

Air Force Academy

Military Academy

Naval Academy

Air Force Academy

Military Academy

Naval Academy

Air Force Academy

Loyalty among friends is

the highest form of

honor

Performance of one’s

duty is the highest form

of honor

Honor system conflicts

with emphasis on team

and loyalty

Personal loyalty should

take precedence over

rules

Disagree/strongly disagree

Undecided

Agree/strongly agree

Source: Responses to GAO questionnaires.

Page 60 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 3 

Cadet and Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Regarding the Honor System

Half or more of the students at each academy indicated that duty was the

highest form of honor. Also, a sizeable minority of students at each

academy indicated that loyalty was the highest form of honor, that the

honor system conflicts with the emphasis on being a team player and

personal loyalty by requiring students to turn in their fellow students, and

that personal loyalty should take preference over rules and regulations.

Write-in comments also indicated that many students perceived a conflict

between the demands of the honor system and the obligations of personal

loyalty. For example,

“Because of the way I was brought up, it is hard to deal with the Honor Code. I was taught

that is was okay to cover up things for friends and many things along those lines. I don’t

think that is dishonesty.” (Military Academy cadet)

“Loyalty to your friends is much more important than enforcing military standards. If you

are in a war, shined shoes won’t save your ass. Friends will.” (Air Force Academy cadet)

“I think the main reason why the Honor Concept may not be applied in some circumstances

is that it conflicts with other values learned at the Academy. Teamwork, and personal

loyalty are two such values. It is hard to put someone in jeopardy, when one is taught not

to ’bilge’ [inform on], or backstab, another midshipmen. It is especially hard for classmates

to punish one another, as one often views his/her class as one big team or family.” (Naval

Academy midshipman)

“I would rather have a loyal friend by my side during combat than one who has passed

muster at the Naval Academy as being honorable - we are here to lead men in combat and

honor has nothing to do with it.” (Naval Academy midshipman)

“Many peoples’ morals are eroded over time while they are here and an unfortunate

casualty includes their personal honor. This erosion comes from wanting to be part of the

group and putting loyalty to them (team, company) over their personal integrity and

standing up for what’s ’the right thing to do.’ If they do break with the group, they’re

ostracized. I know, I was one of those.” (Naval Academy midshipman)

Many Students Are

Reluctant to Report

Honor Violations

We asked students several questions aimed at assessing their willingness

to report honor violations. The proportion of students indicating they

would not turn in a close friend for a possible honor violation was

37 percent at the Military Academy, 30 percent at the Air Force Academy,

and 29 percent at the Naval Academy (see fig. 3.8). The responses could

mean that students are willing to report honor violations only if they are

sure that an honor offense has been committed. However, since about

Page 61 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 3 

Cadet and Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Regarding the Honor System

one-quarter of the students at each academy indicated they would not turn

in a close friend for a clear-cut honor violation, it would appear that many

students are simply unwilling to report their friends for honor violations.

Figure 3.8: Willingness to Report a

Friend for an Honor Violation Percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

Military Academy

Naval Academy

Air Force Academy

Military Academy

Naval Academy

Air Force Academy

Would not turn in a

friend for a possible

honor violation

Would not turn in a

friend for a clear-cut

honor violation

Disagree/strongly disagree

Undecided

Agree/strongly agree

Source: Responses to GAO questionnaires.

To get another assessment of student willingness to report honor

violations, we examined the responses of those students at each academy

who thought each scenario either probably or definitely was an honor

Page 62 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 3 

Cadet and Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Regarding the Honor System

violation. We also asked how likely it was that they would report someone

in their unit for a possible honor violation if they had direct knowledge,

after approaching for clarification, that the individual had committed the

act described in the scenario. Midshipmen’s responses do not necessarily

mean that the respondent would take no action since the Naval Academy

honor system provides a “counsel and not report” option for handling an

honor offense. However, since the honor codes at the Military and Air

Force academies provide no other option than to report honor offenses,

these results raise significant questions regarding student support for the

non-toleration clause at these academies.

As shown in figure 3.9, the proportion of students indicating they would

probably or definitely not report the individual varied significantly from

scenario to scenario, again indicating that many students see different

degrees of seriousness depending on the nature of the specific offense.

Overall, an average of 30 to 34 percent of those students who saw various

scenarios as either probably or definitely constituting an honor offense

indicated that they probably or definitely would not report a student in

their companies or squadrons.

Page 63 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 3 

Cadet and Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Regarding the Honor System

Figure 3.9: Percentage of Students Who Indicated They Would Definitely Not or Probably Not Report Specific Acts as

Honor Violations

Percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

USMA

USNA

USAFA

USMA

USNA

USAFA

USMA

USNA

USAFA

USMA

USNA

USAFA

USMA

USNA

USAFA

USMA

USNA

USAFA

USMA

USNA

USAFA

USMA

USNA

USAFA

USMA

USNA

USAFA

Answering a

questionnaire

falsely to

protect the

academy

Falsely

marking

someone

present on a

roster

Falsely

stating that

he/she had a

New Year’s

Eve date

Taking

something

without

permission or

leaving a note

Receiving

unauthorized

assistance on

independent

assignment

Promising to

perform a

favor then

failing to do it

Purchasing

an item for a

civilian friend

at the cadet

store

Taking no

action about a

false boast

made by

another

Taking no

action to find

the owner of a

found $20 bill

38

52

39

19

24 21

48

75

56

25 23

18 18

29

24

29

58

53

32

56

48

44

62

42

19

23

17

Page 64 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 3 

Cadet and Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Regarding the Honor System

Page 65 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 3 

Cadet and Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Regarding the Honor System

Note: This figure only includes those students who indicated that a specific act was probably or

definitely an honor offense.

Source: Responses to GAO questionnaires.

Write-in comments indicated that reluctance to turn in peers for honor

offenses stems from a variety of reasons, such as loyalty to one’s friends,

unwillingness to contribute to the destruction of someone’s life, belief that

almost everyone has violated the code at some point in their academy

career, concern that minor violations can result in disproportionate

Page 66 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 3 

Cadet and Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Regarding the Honor System

punishment, and the ostracism that can result from turning in a peer. The

following are examples of some of the students’ comments.

“I like to think that I’m honorable, but on the same token I cannot envision myself turning

in a friend for a violation. I would definitely approach him and discuss it, but I probably

wouldn’t turn him in.” (Naval Academy midshipman)

“The hardest part about the honor code is that turning someone in and ruining their life

would be an extremely hard choice to make.” (Military Academy cadet)

“We all make good and bad decisions in life. However, to destroy a career over some of the

things that happen here probably makes us suffer as a whole in the long run.” (Naval

Academy midshipman)

“Pertaining to the honor questions, I would never turn in somebody for honor violations

because I would not want to be responsible for ending somebody’s career. I will always

give them a second chance.” (Naval Academy midshipman)

“The honor concept really needs to be looked at. If you interview midshipmen, most would

tell you that it is strictly adhered to, but it is not. I would seriously doubt anyone graduates

without committing some sort of H.O. [honor offense] The H.C. [honor concept] is used as

a scare tactic and to keep others under control. Personally I hate it with a passion and

would never, ever take part in its proceedings no matter how serious the offense was.”

(Naval Academy midshipman)

“The problems that many mids [midshipmen] face, including myself, when deciding

whether or not to report somebody has to do with what exactly the offense was. I would

generally try to counsel first, and only as a last resort would I turn somebody in. However,

even then I would be hesitant to do so unless it was a serious honor violation. There are

many times when technically something is an honor violation but it is almost ridiculous to

report.” (Naval Academy midshipman)

“I was part of the people who turned in the EE [electrical engineering] crew. All I got was

hardship, pain, and hatred from everyone in the hall. I tell you it was not worth it.” (Naval

Academy midshipman)

Factors Related to

Reluctance to Report

Honor Violations

We also looked at the responses to other questionnaire items to see if

those who indicated they would report a violation could be distinguished

from those who indicated they would not. Reluctance to report was not

related to class, gender, race, or ethnic background. We found that

students who were less willing to report violations were more likely to do

the following.

Page 67 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 3 

Cadet and Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Regarding the Honor System

• Draw distinctions among honor violations by degree of seriousness (i.e.,

they tended to indicate that not all honor violations were equally serious;

that toleration of an honor offense was less serious than lying, cheating, or

stealing; and that not all honor offenders should be expelled).

• Indicate less trust in the fairness of the honor system (i.e., they tended to

indicate that the honor system was not administered fairly and impartially,

that honor punishments were not appropriate to the offense, and that they

did not fully trust the honor investigators).

• Perceive that the honor system was misused (i.e., they tended to see the

system used to enforce regulations and as an easy way to remove someone

from the academy), and

• Place greater value on loyalty to peers (i.e, they tended to see loyalty as

the highest form of honor, indicate that loyalty to friends should take

precedence over rules and regulations, and to see conflict between the

honor system and the academy’s emphasis on being a team player and

personal loyalty).

Many Students

Perceived That the

Honor Standard Is

Higher at the

Academy Than

Among Active Duty

Officers

We asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with the

statement: “The concept of honor is much more stringent at the Academy

than it is among active duty officers.” The percent of students agreeing or

strongly agreeing was 66 percent at the Air Force Academy, 61 percent at

the Military Academy, and 46 percent at the Naval Academy. This could

indicate either a cynical view of the degree of honor on active duty or

academy students see themselves as being held to a higher standard. Some

of the student comments on this issue were quite strident. Examples such

as the following reveal considerable depth of feeling concerning a

perceived double-standard regarding honor at the academy and honor on

active duty.

“We use someone else’s words and ideas and its called cheating. The Supe [Academy

Superintendent] uses someone else’s words and ideas and they call it a great speech. That’s

how it works in the real world.” (Naval Academy midshipman)

“We follow the Code out of fear while we are here. But most of us will fall right into line

with all the career protectionism crap when we go on active duty.” (Military Academy

cadet)

“One need not look further than the Space Command’s treatment of the officers who dared

to tell the truth about the programs the Air Force wanted, to see that honor doesn’t count

for much in the real Air Force.” (Air Force Academy cadet)

Page 68 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 3 

Cadet and Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Regarding the Honor System

“If we dissemble or quibble, we’re gone. If a general does it to a congressional committee to

get some new weapon system, he gets promoted. Just another case of ‘Do as I say, not as I

do’.” (Air Force Academy cadet)

Student Perceptions

About Cheating

We asked respondents about their perception of the frequency of

academic cheating (see fig. 3.10). At the Military Academy, 11 percent

disagreed with the characterization of cheating as “extremely rare,” as did

35 percent at the Naval Academy and 40 percent at the Air Force Academy.

Thus, according to the perceptions among cadets and midshipmen,

cheating may be more prevalent than the occasional scandals make it

appear.

Page 69 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 3 

Cadet and Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Regarding the Honor System

Figure 3.10: Student Views Regarding

Frequency and Causes of Cheating Percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

Military Academy

Naval Academy

Air Force Academy

Military Academy

Naval Academy

Air Force Academy

Academic cheating is

rare at the academy

Academic pressure and

lack of time can lead to

cheating

Disagree/strongly disagree

Undecided

Agree/strongly agree

Source: Responses to GAO questionnaires.

As shown in the figure, about half or more of the students at each academy

saw the twin pressures of academics and inadequate time as likely causes

of cheating. However, since 54 to 70 percent of cadets/midshipmen

indicated they did not have sufficient time to satisfy all the demands made

on them and 44 percent to 65 percent indicated they did not have sufficient

time for their academic studies, such pressures appear to be a fact of

academy life.

Page 70 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 3 

Cadet and Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Regarding the Honor System

Over Their 4-Year

Academy Careers,

Student Views Toward

Honor Appear to

Become Less Positive

In its December 1993 report on honor at the Naval Academy, the Honor

Review Committee of the Naval Academy Board of Visitors stated that

midshipmen’s attitudes toward honor appeared to become increasingly

cynical over their 4 years at the Academy. To see if this observation also

held at the other academies, we compared the responses of the Class of

1994 to our surveys conducted in 1990-91 with that class’ responses in

1994. Since both the 1990-91 and 1994 administrations involved random

samples, we believe each provides a reliable assessment of the prevailing

attitudes among the members of that class at those two points in time,

even though the same individuals were not necessarily included in both

samples.

The data support the observation that attitudes of first class (senior)

students at each academy appeared less positive toward the honor system

than they were as fourth class (freshmen) students. In particular, members

of the Class of 1994 became

• less likely to indicate that honor was well respected,

• less willing to report a close friend for either a possible or a clear-cut

honor violation, and

• more likely to see honor as more stringent at the academy than among

active duty officers.

There was also a tendency for students in the Class of 1994 to see fewer of

the honor scenarios as violations in their last year at the academy than

they did in their first year. However, according to academy officials, this

result could represent the first class (seniors) having gained a more

thorough knowledge of the intricacies of the honor system and the

elements of proof needed to determine that a violation has occurred,

which can result from living under the system for 4 years.

In light of these findings, it is interesting that some elements of the

academy honor education programs appear to take hold over the 4 years.

Senior students were less likely than they were as freshmen to indicate

that

• loyalty was the highest form of honor,

• loyalty should take precedence over rules and regulations, and

• the honor system conflicts with the academy’s emphasis on teamwork and

personal loyalty,

Page 71 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 3 

Cadet and Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Regarding the Honor System

In some ways, Class of 1994 students at the Military and Air Force

academies also appeared to become more “hard-line” regarding honor over

their 4 years. For example, the percentage indicating that honor offenders

should be expelled and the percentage indicating that there was no such

thing as a minor honor violation increased from when they were freshmen.

Page 72 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 4 

Comparison of Academy Conduct Systems

Codes of conduct at all three academies define acceptable cadet behavior

as adherence to civilian laws, UCMJ, and service and academy directives

and standards. Students who violate the academies’ conduct standards

may be subject to an administrative disciplinary hearing, where

determinations of fact are made concerning the alleged misconduct.

The academies characterize their disciplinary systems as correctional and

educational rather than legalistic or punitive. Their goals are to instill in

the cadets and midshipmen the desire to accept full responsibility for their

actions and to place loyalty to the service above self-interest or friends and

associates. The conduct system at each academy consists of two types of

reviews: reviews of specific violations and reviews of overall records for

cadets/midshipmen who are deficient in conduct.

Conduct Systems and

Adjudicatory

Processes

Each conduct system and related adjudicatory processes are based

essentially on similar principles of conduct and character development.

However, the systems and processes vary considerably across the three

academies.

Military Academy There are five levels of conduct adjudication at the Military Academy.

These are, in increasing order of severity, award of demerits, company

boards, regimental boards, hearings involving violations of Academy

regulations, and court-martial hearings involving violations of UCMJ.

1

Demerits are awarded for minor infractions of cadet regulations, for

example, not shining shoes properly. Cadets are allowed a certain number

of demerits per month, depending upon their class. Once this number is

exceeded, cadets must serve one punishment tour2

 per demerit in excess

of the monthly allowance. Company boards may award punishments of up

to 20 demerits and 20 punishment tours for infractions such as being late

for class through neglect. A company board is not considered to be a

major disciplinary proceeding.

A regimental board, convened for such offenses as leaving post without

authority, is considered to be a major disciplinary proceeding. A

regimental board may award punishments of up to 35 demerits, 100

1

Cadets at the Military Academy are part of the Army and are subject to military law. However, by

Army regulation (paragraph 3-3a, AR 27-10), article 15, nonjudicial punishment, may not be imposed on

cadets.

2

A tour is a period, about an hour, during which the individual is assigned to perform a specific duty at

a particular place.

Page 73 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 4 

Comparison of Academy Conduct Systems

punishment tours, and 4 months’ restriction to specific areas (typically a

cadet’s own room, the nearest latrine, and the orderly room). If a cadet

gets three regimental boards during his/her cadet career, an investigating

officer is appointed to review the board proceedings and recommend

action to the Superintendent. A hearing for suspected violations of

Academy regulations is the most serious level of administrative

adjudication and may result in a cadet being separated. Court-martial is

reserved for serious offenses that are considered clearly criminal, such as

sexual assault, fraud, and so forth.

Naval Academy At the Naval Academy, conduct offenses are categorized into six levels of

seriousness, 1000 through 6000. Levels 1000 through 3000 cover

infractions, such as failure to have door open when a room is occupied,

unauthorized use of an official telephone, and unauthorized absence of 30

minutes or less. Punishments for these levels are awarded by

commissioned officers at the company level. The remaining levels, 4000

through 6000, involve more serious infractions, such as intentional failure

to perform a duty, sexual misconduct, and hazing. Punishments for

offenses at these levels are determined at the battalion level or higher.

Each midshipman is allowed a certain number of cumulative demerits per

year or over his/her career, depending upon class. Based on these demerit

levels, midshipmen are given a letter grade for their conduct. The three

levels of conduct standing are proficient, deficient (exceeding two-thirds

of the annual allowable demerit total), and unsatisfactory (exceeding the

annual or cumulative demerit allowance). Low conduct grades can result

in a hearing to determine if the midshipman should be allowed to continue

at the Academy.

Air Force Academy At the Air Force Academy, conduct violations are categorized into four

levels of seriousness: A, B, C, and D. For class A conduct offenses, such as

a minor uniform appearance violation, the awarding authority for

punishment lies within the cadet chain-of-command. Class B offenses,

such as being absent from class, and class C offenses, such as being

outside cadet limits without permission, are adjudicated by a cadet’s Air

Officer Commanding and the group Air Officer Commanding, respectively.

Class D offenses, such as drug or alcohol abuse, sexual misconduct, and

hazing, are the most serious level of misconduct and may constitute

grounds for involuntary dismissal. For violations of UCMJ, the Commandant

Page 74 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 4 

Comparison of Academy Conduct Systems

of Cadets can initiate article 15 or court-martial actions. But most class D

cases were normally adjudicated by a Cadet Disciplinary Board.

Recommendations for involuntary separation were reviewed by the

Military Review Committee, a standing committee of the Academy Board.

In September 1994, the Air Force Academy proposed to the Secretary of

the Air Force that the Cadet Disciplinary Board be replaced with a

streamlined Military Review Committee hearing. The objective of the

proposal was to streamline, ensure due process, and align Academy

disenrollment procedures for discipline and aptitude more closely with Air

Force discharge procedures. The Secretary approved the proposal as of

January 1, 1995.

Misconduct Statistics The number of conduct hearings held varied greatly from academy to

academy. Because of differences in the ways each academy categorizes

and handles conduct offenses, the rates of misconduct hearings and the

dispositions of those cases are not comparable.

For academic years 1991 through 1994, the Military Academy had 30 cases

in which cadets had been accused of serious cases of misconduct and

were investigated under the provisions of Regulations, USMA. About

17 percent of the cases were dropped before hearings. Of the 25 cadets

that had formal hearings, 15 (60 percent) were found guilty. Ten

(67 percent of those found guilty) were separated.

The Naval Academy had 147 serious (potential separation level)

misconduct cases during academic years 1991-92 and 1992-93 and the first

semester of 1993-94. Of those cases, 32 (about 22 percent) were dropped

before a hearing. Of the 115 midshipmen that had hearings where final

dispositions have been made, 84 (about 73 percent) were found guilty.

Thirty-two midshipmen (about 38 percent of those found guilty) were

separated.

The Air Force Academy had 139 serious (class D and UCMJ) misconduct

cases during academic years 1991-94. Of those cases, 8 (about 6 percent)

were dropped before a hearing and 7 were still pending a decision at the

time of our review. Of the 124 cadets that had hearings where the final

dispositions were known, 99 (about 80 percent) were convicted.

Twenty-five cadets (about 25 percent of those found guilty) were

separated.

Page 75 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 4 

Comparison of Academy Conduct Systems

Comparison of Due

Process Protections in

Academy Conduct

Adjudication Systems

The due process protections available to cadets and midshipmen who are

charged with serious conduct offenses vary across the academies and are

somewhat different from those provided in honor cases (see table 4.1).

However, many of the due process concerns raised by defense attorneys

with regard to honor hearings are seen by those attorneys as also

applicable to administrative conduct hearings (see ch. 2).

Table 4.1: Due Process Elements in the

Academy Conduct Systems Element Military Academy Naval Academy Air Force Academya

Right to adequate

notice

Yes, 7 days’

minimum notice.

Yes, 5 days’

minimum notice.

Yes, 3 days’

minimum notice.

Right to an open

hearing

Open to DOD

personnel, cadets,

and family. Other

persons may be

admitted at the

discretion of the

Superintendent.

Not open to family

or nonacademy

friends.

Cadet and officer

chain of command

are allowed to sit in.

Observers may be

permitted by Board

President.

Right to an impartial

tribunal

Yes. Yes. There is no

provision for the

accused to

challenge a Board

member for bias.

Right to present

argument

No. The accused

may only make

unsworn opening

and closing

statements.

Yes, but exercising

this right opens the

accused to being

questioned.

No. The accused

may make an

opening statement,

clarify or correct any

written statements,

and make a closing

statement.

Right to present and

cross-examine

witnesses

Yes. Yes, but exercising

this right opens the

accused to being

questioned.

Partial. The Board

conducts all

questioning.

Right to know

opposing evidence

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Right to representation

by counsel

Limited. Attorney

cannot represent at

hearing.

Limited. Attorney

cannot represent at

hearing.

Limited. Attorney

cannot represent at

hearing.

Right to have

decisions based solely

on the evidence

presented

Yes. Yes. Partial. The Board

may consider

recommendation

statements that may

not have been

discussed in the

hearing.

(continued)

Page 76 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 4 

Comparison of Academy Conduct Systems

Element Military Academy Naval Academy Air Force Academya

Right to a complete

record of the

proceedings,

including the rationale

for the verdict

No. A summarized

transcript is

provided and it

does not ordinarily

address the

rationale for the

verdict.

Partial. While a

transcript and an

audio tape are

provided, the

rationale for the

decision is provided

by the Commandant.

Partial. A

summarized

transcript and

minutes of the

proceedings is

provided, but it

does not address

the rationale for the

verdict.

Right to an

independent appellate

review

No, the Staff Judge

Advocate reviews

the case file for

legal sufficiency.

No, but accused

may make a

Request for

Reconsideration.

The Superintendent

reviews the case file.

No. However, the

accused may

request an AFR

53-3 Hearing Officer

review. The

Academy Board

reviews the case file

if separation is

recommended.

Right to remain silent Yes, during a

misconduct

investigation and

hearing.

Yes, as soon as it’s

known that the case

involves a

6000-level offense.

Not unless a UCMJ

violation is involved.

Right to have

involuntary

confessions excluded

No. No. No.

aOur analysis was based on review of the Cadet Disciplinary Board process.

Right to Adequate Notice The minimum amount of notice required to be provided to a student

charged with a serious conduct offense varies from 3 days at the Air Force

Academy to 7 days at the Military Academy. Air Force Academy officials

told us that while, there was no specific minimum notice for serious

misconduct offenses, every effort was made to close the Air Force Cadet

Wing Form 10 (the form used to report conduct offenses) as soon as

possible. Academy officials also said that they notified an accused orally,

and not in writing, and an accused could not get additional time to prepare

for a hearing because the accused was fully aware of the charges pending

against him/her.

At the Naval Academy, we were told that while an accused has a minimum

of 5 days to prepare for an investigative hearing, as a practical matter an

accused tends to have more notice for more serious offenses. Generally,

the Conduct Office has 11 working days to generate a formal charge; 

Page 77 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 4 

Comparison of Academy Conduct Systems

18 days for an investigative hearing; 23 days for a Commandant’s hearing;

and 25 days (5 weeks) for a Commandant’s memorandum.

Right to an Open Hearing The Military Academy limits attendance to DOD personnel, cadets, and

family. Other persons may be admitted to observe a proceeding, at the

discretion of the Superintendent, if their attendance would not have an

adverse effect on the fairness and dignity of the proceeding or the

respondent’s right of privacy.

The Naval and Air Force academies also close their administrative conduct

hearings to the public at large. The Air Force Academy permitted

observers (usually the future board membership pool) to attend all or part

of the hearing at the discretion of the board president and the cadet chain

of command was allowed to sit in during testimony. The Naval Academy

does not allow the accused’s family or friends to attend the hearing.

Right to an Impartial

Tribunal

One major difference among the academies is the nature of the

misconduct tribunal. At the Naval Academy, a single investigating officer

collects the evidence, holds the hearing, and makes recommended

findings. The Military Academy’s regimental board consists of the

Regimental Tactical Officer. As mentioned previously, the Air Force

Academy had a Cadet Disciplinary Board, which consisted of four officers

and three cadets. As of January 1, 1995, the Air Force Academy replaced

that board with a two-step process. When a cadet is suspected of serious

misconduct, an inquiry may be conducted by the Security Police,

Commander, or by an appointed inquiry officer. At the conclusion of the

inquiry, the Commander may opt for cadet punishment or may recommend

disenrollment. If disenrollment is recommended, the case will be

forwarded to the Military Review Committee for fact-finding and a

recommendation of disposition.

At both the Military and Naval academies, a cadet/midshipman can

challenge the investigative officer for lack of impartiality or failure to

qualify as an investigative officer. This challenge will normally occur

before the fact-finding portion of the investigation, but may be done during

any portion of the investigation when the respondent discovers possible

grounds for challenge.

At the Air Force Academy, the board president and board members had

certain procedures to follow regarding the circumstances under which a

Page 78 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 4 

Comparison of Academy Conduct Systems

member would be considered not to be impartial. The accused could not

directly challenge board members for bias, although the accused could

present facts demonstrating that a board member was biased. The board

president made the determination as to whether a board member would be

excused for bias.

The Right to Present

Argument

At the Military Academy, an accused may make an unsworn opening

statement before the fact-finding portion of the investigation begins. At the

conclusion of the hearing, an accused can make an unsworn argument to

the investigating officer on the merits of the allegation and about possible

recommendations by the investigative officer.

The Naval Academy allows accused midshipmen the right to present their

own argument. The accused may receive assistance from his/her attorney

on overall presentation strategy.

An accused at the Air Force Academy did not present argument to the

board members. However, an accused had the right to make an opening

statement at the hearing. After the opening statement, witnesses were

brought in and questioned by the board about their written testimony. An

accused could make a closing statement to clarify any testimony or

answers to questioning.

Right to Present and

Cross-Examine Witnesses

At both the Military and Naval academies, an accused cadet/midshipman

may call witnesses, present evidence in his/her own behalf, and

cross-examine all witnesses. However, at the Naval Academy, if an

accused questions witnesses, the accused may be questioned. Also, an

accused midshipman needs permission for character witnesses to testify

on his/her behalf.

During a Cadet Disciplinary Board hearing at the Air Force Academy, only

the board members could cross-examine witnesses. An accused cadet

could not question opposing witnesses directly, but could submit

evidence, names of prospective witnesses, and questions to the board

president. The board president had the discretion to call witnesses to

testify.

Page 79 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 4 

Comparison of Academy Conduct Systems

Right to Know Opposing

Evidence

At all three academies, an accused is entitled to a copy of all documents

and witness statements in the case file. An accused is also given the names

and addresses of all witnesses expected to testify at the hearing.

Right to Representation by

Counsel

Each academy informs students accused of serious conduct offenses,

when dismissal is a possibility, that they have a right to legal counsel. For

purposes of consultation, an accused may obtain civilian counsel at his/her

own expense, consult with military counsel provided free of charge by the

academy, or do both. The right to counsel, however, is limited to advice

given outside of the hearing. An accused’s counsel may be present as a

spectator only at the Military Academy.

Right to Have the Decision

Based Solely on the

Evidence Presented

The conduct hearings at each academy are supposed to consider only that

information that is presented at the hearings. Since these hearings are

considered administrative, not judicial, there are no formal rules of

evidence and any information that is considered reasonably relevant to the

issues in question will typically be allowed.

Right to Have a Complete

Record of the Proceedings

None of the academies provides a convicted cadet/midshipman with an

explanation of the rationale for their decision and sanctions. A convicted

cadet at the Military Academy receives a summarized record of the

proceedings and findings, which is authenticated and certified by the

investigating officer, a copy of the Staff Judge Advocate’s legal review, and

the Commandant’s recommendation.

At the Naval Academy, a convicted midshipman receives a copy of the

investigative hearing report and, upon request, a copy of the audio tape of

the hearing. However, the accused does not get a copy of the Staff Judge

Advocate’s recommendations that is forwarded to the Superintendent.

At the Air Force Academy, a verbatim transcript was not made of the

proceeding. Convicted cadets were given a summary of the hearing and

minutes of the case. A cadet did not receive a copy of the recommendation

of his/her Air Officer Commanding.

Right to an Independent

Appellate Review

There is no process for a formal, independent appeal of administrative

conduct decisions at the Military and Air Force academies. At the Naval

Page 80 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 4 

Comparison of Academy Conduct Systems

Academy, however, a convicted midshipman may request reconsideration

of either a finding of guilt or the award of a particular punishment.

Each academy does, however, conduct a legal review through its staff

judge advocate. At the Military Academy, the Staff Judge Advocate reviews

the record of proceedings to determine whether (1) legal requirements

have been complied with, (2) any errors that may have been made had a

material effect, (3) the findings of the investigating officer are supported

by the requisite proof, and (4) the recommendations are supported by the

findings. The Staff Judge Advocate may also make recommendations

concerning disposition of the case. At the Naval Academy, the legal review

is conducted by the Superintendent’s Staff Judge Advocate, after the case

has been reviewed by the Commandant. At the Air Force Academy, the

Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case to determine that legal

requirements had been met after the Commandant has reviewed the case.

A convicted Air Force Academy cadet who had been recommended for

separation could elect to have a review by a hearing officer in accordance

with Air Force Regulation 53-3 or the Commandant could refer the case to

a hearing officer or board of officers. The Academy Board reviewed all

cases when cadets were recommended for separation and voted to retain

or disenroll the cadet. Cadets who were being considered for

disenrollment could submit a written statement with supporting

documents to the Academy Board.

Right to Remain Silent At the Military Academy, a cadet may be required to state orally what he or

she knows about an incident, subject to his or her rights against

self-incrimination. A cadet whose conduct is subject to investigation and

cadets who are witnesses may decline to answer questions if their

statements would tend to incriminate them. For this purpose,

self-incrimination involves a situation in which a cadet could be required

to admit to a criminal offense. An article 31 rights warning (the right to

remain silent) is required in the case of a suspected criminal offense. A

cadet is not afforded the right to remain silent merely because he or she is

suspected of committing a delinquency under some conduct regulation.

As soon as Naval Academy officials know they are dealing with a

6000-level offense, they inform the accused that he/she has the right to

remain silent. An accused midshipmen has the right to remain silent at the

investigative hearing without any adverse inference being drawn from

exercising that right. If, however, the accused makes a statement at the

Page 81 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 4 

Comparison of Academy Conduct Systems

hearing concerning a particular offense, he or she is expected to answer

any questions the investigating officer may have concerning that offense.

At the Air Force Academy, an accused cadet does not have the right to

remain silent when confronted by a superior. When an officer or cadet in

the chain of command requests a statement from a cadet, the cadet must

provide a statement revealing all information about the incident, including

names of cadets or other persons involved, unless the conduct violation(s)

in question is to be punished under UCMJ. If during questioning or the

investigation of an incident, a cadet reveals information indicating a

possible UCMJ violation, all questioning is to be stopped immediately and

the cadet is to be informed of his/her legal rights under UCMJ Article 31 (the

right to remain silent). Academy officials also stated that a cadet can

terminate any interrogation and request legal counsel at any time.

Right to Have Involuntary

Confessions Excluded

At all three academies, incriminating statements are considered valid, even

if the individual was denied or not advised of the right to remain silent,

since conduct hearings are considered administrative proceedings and

rules of evidence do not apply. Failure to grant the accused the right to

remain silent will not necessarily result in any confession being excluded

as evidence.

Some Elements of

Administrative

Adjudicatory Systems

Are Inconsistent With

DOD or Service Policy

Regarding Nonjudicial

Disciplinary

Proceedings

As noted earlier, the academies consider their honor and conduct systems

to be administrative systems. As such, they are essentially similar to

nonjudicial disciplinary proceedings for military personnel authorized

under UCMJ Article 15. Military law provides for nonjudicial punishment as

a means of imposing prompt punishment for minor violations and to

correct, educate, and reform offenders in an efficient manner without

subjecting them to the stigma that a court-martial would entail. A

nonjudicial disciplinary proceeding is not a trial, and a determination of

guilt does not constitute a court conviction.

Despite the similarities between the objectives of the academy

administrative adjudicatory systems and DOD-wide and service objectives

regarding nonjudicial disciplinary proceedings, there are several key

inconsistencies between the rights given service personnel and the rights

accorded academy students under the administrative conduct and honor

systems. The inconsistencies, with academy students having less

protection, involve the right to be represented by counsel; the right to

remain silent; the right to an independent appeal; the maximum length of

Page 82 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 4 

Comparison of Academy Conduct Systems

the punishment of “restriction;” and, in the case of the Military and Air

Force academies, the standard of proof used to determine guilt.

One major difference between the academy administrative adjudicatory

systems and DOD nonjudicial punishment policy involves the right to have

counsel appear with the accused and present the case for the accused. The

Manual for Courts-Martial states that before nonjudicial punishment may

be imposed, the accused servicemember is entitled to appear personally

before the administrative authority imposing the nonjudicial punishment.

If the accused requests such a personal appearance, he/she is entitled to

be accompanied by a spokesperson, who may be a lawyer. This

spokesperson may speak for the accused, but may not necessarily

question witnesses except as the nonjudicial punishment authority may

allow as a matter of discretion. The presence of a lawyer as the personal

representative does not make a nonjudicial hearing a formal adversary

proceeding; it only gives the accused someone to advise and to speak up

for him/her. At the academies, the accused is not entitled to be

represented by a spokesperson or lawyer at any administrative conduct or

honor hearing.

A second difference concerns the right to remain silent. Rule 301 of the

Manual for Courts-Martial makes UCMJ, Article 31 (the right to avoid

self-incrimination) expressly applicable to nonjudicial punishment. Under

the academy administrative conduct systems, students must answer a

question that incriminates them, except when they are being charged

under UCMJ.

A third difference involves the right to an independent appeal. Under

article 15, a servicemember who considers the punishment to be unjust or

disproportionate to the offense may appeal to the next superior authority.

When punishment has been imposed under delegation of a commander’s

authority to administer nonjudicial punishment, the appeal must be

directed to someone other than the commander who delegated the

authority. Since the administrative adjudicatory systems are a delegation

of authority from the Superintendent, under the academy adjudicatory

systems, only a decision to separate a student with the required review by

the service secretary would appear to meet this definition of appeal.

A fourth difference involves maximum punishments. UCMJ imposes

limitations on article 15 punishments. One of those limitations involves the

punishment of “restriction.” The maximum restriction allowed by UCMJ for

nonjudicial punishment is 60 days, and then only if the punishment is

Page 83 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 4 

Comparison of Academy Conduct Systems

imposed by an officer with general court-martial jurisdiction or a flag rank

officer. At each academy, we found that restriction periods of longer than

60 days have been imposed on students under the administrative conduct

systems.

The last difference involves standard of proof. For Naval Academy

midshipmen, the standard of proof for administrative conduct hearings is

the same at the Academy as it is for nonjudicial punishment in the fleet,

“preponderance of the evidence.” However, the standard of proof used in

Military and Air Force Academy administrative conduct hearings

(preponderance of the evidence) is lower than that used for nonjudicial

punishment in the active Army and Air Force. The Army has been using

the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard for its nonjudicial punishment

cases since 1973. Similarly, Air Force Instruction 51-202, paragraph 3.3,

states that the commander must consider whether proof “beyond a

reasonable doubt” would be obtainable before initiating action under

article 15; if not, it states that action under article 15 is generally not

warranted.

In its official comments, DOD stated that it saw no clear basis for

concluding that protections provided under the administrative conduct

systems must parallel nonjudicial disciplinary proceedings. DOD stated that

a nonjudicial disciplinary proceeding is a quasi-judicial process

established under the UCMJ and the rights that accrue to an offender under

the UCMJ are quite specific. Disposition under the academy administrative

honor and disciplinary systems, according to DOD are not subject to the

same criteria. However, a defense attorney stated that he questions

whether the academies have the authority to substitute an administrative

disciplinary system that provides less protection for offenders in lieu of

legislatively mandated disciplinary system that has the same objectives.

Page 84 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 5 

Cadet/Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Concerning the Conduct System

We asked questions on our survey pertaining to the conduct rules and

disciplinary systems at the academies. Most academy students saw many

of the rules and regulations imposed on them as trivial and unrealistic and

they believed that the academies should allow students more freedom. A

majority of students at the academies perceived that the handling of

conduct offenses, the application of rules and regulations, and the

disciplinary actions imposed were not consistent. Students appear split

regarding whether strict enforcement and punishment are appropriate.

Finally, the perceptions of the Class of 1994 Air Force Academy cadets

changed very little from their freshman year while those in that class at the

Naval and Military academies tended to become increasingly of the

opinion that the rules were unreasonable and that discipline was

administered inconsistently.

Many Rules and

Regulations Seen as

Unreasonable

The students overwhelmingly indicated that the academies have

overregulated them. Most of the students at each academy indicated that

(1) many of the academy’s student regulations were trivial and

unrealistically restrictive, (2) the academies should allow them more

freedom, and (3) their peers did not view the conduct rules and

regulations as reasonable. (See fig. 5.1.)

Page 85 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 5 

Cadet/Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Concerning the Conduct System

Figure 5.1: Student Perceptions Regarding the Reasonableness of Rules and Regulations

Percent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Military

Academy

Naval Academy

Air Force Academy

Military Academy

Naval Academy

Air Force Academy

Military Academy

Naval Academy

Air Force Academy

Many student

regulations are trivial

and too restrictive

The Academy should

allow students more

freedom

Students view conduct

rules and regulations as

reasonable

Disagree/strongly disagree

Undecided

Agree/strongly agree

Source: Responses to GAO questionnaires.

The following write-in comments also addressed this overregulation issue.

“The problem with the Naval Academy and our sister service academies is that MIDN

[midshipmen] aren’t given enough responsibility. The feeling here is that we are treated like

children for too long. . . We have more restrictions on us than most enlisted folks.” (Naval

Academy midshipman)

Page 86 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 5 

Cadet/Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Concerning the Conduct System

“Too many stupid, useless, and inane regulations. Many of them serve no purpose. Many

cause unneeded restrictions on lifestyles.” (Military Academy cadet)

“Get rid of all the stupid rules . . . Give cadets more responsibility and authority . . . We

might actually surprise you with our performance.” (Air Force Academy cadet)

Some comments indicated that the rules were delaying or getting in the

way of students being able to mature.

“Mids [midshipmen] need more freedom from the restrictive rules and regulations so they

can make mistakes and learn from them before entering active duty.” (Naval Academy

midshipman)

“My biggest question since I started here . . . How do midshipmen learn if everything is

scheduled and done for them? They are not learning the basics of time management and

how to handle their money.” (Naval Academy midshipmen)

There may also be some connection between the degree of regulation and

the widespread unwillingness to report honor violations. As one

midshipman wrote, “I think many of the restrictive [regulations] and the

overloaded schedule breed contempt for the system including,

unfortunately, the Honor System.”

This concern was also expressed by Ellis and Moore in their book on West

Point published 20 years ago. As they stated, cadets

“become increasingly irritated at the accretion of petty, ’Mickey Mouse’ regulations that,

from their perspective, served no useful purpose. The result was not only an increase in the

violation of regulations but also creation of an atmosphere in which cadets who violated

regulations frequently felt that they were doing nothing wrong. The absence of guilt and the

parallel conviction that punishment was undeserved combined to sanction violations of the

Honor Code (particularly lying) as a means to avoid getting caught.”1

Administration of

Discipline Seen as

Inconsistent

Three-quarters or more of the students at each academy indicated that

conduct offenses were handled differently across the academy. In

addition, they perceived the regulations as not being uniformly applied and

that students committing the same offense received different disciplinary

actions. (See fig. 5.2.)

1

Ellis, J. and Moore, R., School for Soldiers, New York: Oxford University Press, 1974, p. 187.

Page 87 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 5 

Cadet/Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Concerning the Conduct System

Figure 5.2: Student Perceptions Regarding Consistency in the Administration of Discipline

Percent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Military

Academy

Naval Academy

Air Force Academy

Military Academy

Naval Academy

Air Force Academy

Military Academy

Naval Academy

Air Force Academy

Handling of conduct

offenses is not

consistent across units

Student regulations tend

to be applied uniformly

Disciplinary action tends

to be consistent for

same offense

Disagree/strongly disagree

Undecided

Agree/strongly agree

Source: Responses to GAO questionnaires.

Student Views on

Enforcement Were

Mixed

While about one-third or more of the students believed that strict

enforcement was important, about one-third or more disagreed. Similarly,

there was little agreement regarding whether disciplinary actions were

appropriate to the offense, although from the wording of the question we

were unable to determine whether those who believed the punishments

were inappropriate saw them as being too harsh or too lenient. There was

Page 88 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 5 

Cadet/Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Concerning the Conduct System

also considerable disagreement on whether serious2 conduct offenders

should be expelled. (See fig. 5.3.)

Figure 5.3: Student Views on Punishment and the Enforcement of Rules and Regulations

Percent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Military

Academy

Naval Academy

Air Force Academy

Military Academy

Naval Academy

Air Force Academy

Military Academy

Naval Academy

Air Force Academy

Strict enforcement of

rules and regulations is

necessary

Disciplinary actions tend

to be appropriate to the

offense

Serious conduct

offenders should be

expelled

Disagree/strongly disagree

Undecided

Agree/strongly agree

Source: Responses to GAO questionnaires.

2

For the reference of the respondent, a serious conduct offense was defined in the questionnaire as a

“6000-level” offense at the Naval Academy, a “serious Regulations-USMA or court-martial” offense at

the Military Academy, and a “Class III (50/80/4), Article 15, or court-martial” offense at the Air Force

Academy.

Page 89 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Chapter 5 

Cadet/Midshipman Perceptions and

Attitudes Concerning the Conduct System

Changes in

Perceptions From

Freshman Year to

Senior Year

At the Military and Naval academies, perceptions of the Class of 1994

regarding the conduct systems tended to change from their freshman year

to their senior year, while there was little apparent change in perceptions

at the Air Force Academy. The responses of the Class of 1994 in their

senior year at both the Military and Naval academies showed an increase

in the proportion of students who viewed themselves as being

overregulated with unreasonable rules and regulations and an increase in

the proportion who perceived inconsistent and inappropriate disciplinary

actions. At the Naval Academy, there was also an increase in the

proportion who saw inconsistent handling of conduct offenses and lack of

uniformity in the application of rules and regulations.

Page 90 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Page 91 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 92 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Appendix II 

Description of Questionnaire Methodology

The purpose of this appendix is to set forth our questionnaire development

process, our sampling approach, the response rates, the weighting of the

data, the processing of completed questionnaires, the sampling error, and

other methodological issues. This report is part of a broader review of the

Department of Defense service academies, which focused on various

aspects of student treatment at the academies, including the treatment of

women and minorities, the treatment of fourth class cadets and

midshipmen, and sexual harassment, in addition to the operation of

academy honor and conduct adjudicatory systems.

Questionnaire

Development

We originally developed an omnibus questionnaire in 1990-91 to address

the full scope of the broader review.1

 The 1994 version of the

questionnaire was shortened by omitting most of the items that did not

pertain to the honor and conduct systems or the issue of sexual

harassment. The wording of the 1994 items was identical to the wording in

the 1990-91 version.

Sampling

Methodology

To ensure that an adequate number of women and minorities would be

included, we used a stratified random sample design allowing us to

oversample those two groups. We used the last digit of the social security

number to randomly select respondents from each strata.2

Questionnaire

Response Rates and

Weighting of Data

The questionnaires were mass-administered to the academy students.

Those selected for the sample were notified through academy channels to

report to rooms designated for the questionnaire administration. The

questionnaires were administered by our staff during what would

otherwise have been free time for the respondents. Respondents were

assured of anonymity. There was a make-up session for Air Force

Academy cadets and Naval Academy midshipmen who had scheduling

conflicts. Our survey administration time at the Military Academy

conflicted with a scheduled academic placement examination for a portion

of the Class of 1995. To ensure that this would not have an impact on the

representativeness of our sample, those cadets scheduled for the

1

A more detailed description of the questionnaire development process and the 1990-91 survey

administration can be found in DOD Service Academies: More Actions Needed to Eliminate Sexual

Harassment (GAO/NSIAD-94-6, Jan. 31, 1994).

2

The last four digits of social security numbers are essentially a random field based on the order in

which individual social security offices process the applications they receive. Selecting one final digit

could be expected to yield a sample of about 10 percent.

Page 93 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Appendix II 

Description of Questionnaire Methodology

placement examination were subtracted from the population before the

random sample selection was made.

Completed questionnaires were received from 430 Military Academy

cadets (a response rate of about 92 percent), 470 Naval Academy

midshipmen (a response rate of about 90 percent), and 428 Air Force

Academy cadets (a response rate of about 77 percent).

Since we oversampled on the female and minority subgroups, we needed

to apply weights to the responses to allow them to represent the total

academy population. Raw weights were computed by dividing the number

of subgroup responses into the subgroup population. However, applying

raw weights would artificially increase the number of cases and inflate

tests of statistical significance. To avoid such inflation, we used the raw

weights to compute constrained weights, which when applied to the data

made the number of weighted cases equal the number of unweighted

cases.3

 Weights applied in this manner yield data that represented the total

population without distorting significance tests.

Processing Completed

Questionnaires

We reviewed and edited each returned questionnaire. Responses were

double-keyed, creating two files for each completed questionnaire. The

two files were then compared for consistency and corrections were made

as necessary. We checked the overall accuracy of the keyed data by

verifying every 10th record back to the responses in the completed

questionnaire. None of the three sets of questionnaires reached an error

level of 1 percent.

Sampling Error Since we surveyed samples of cadets, midshipmen, and faculty rather than

the entire populations, our results were subject to some degree of

uncertainty, or sampling error. Sampling errors represent the expected

difference between our sample results and the results we would have

obtained had we surveyed the entire populations. Sampling errors are

smallest when the percentage split responding to a particular question is

highly skewed, such as 5 percent responding “yes” and 95 percent

responding “no” and greatest when there is about a 50-50 percentage split

in responses.

On the basis of our response rates, we estimate that our results can be

generalized to the cadet and midshipman populations at the 95-percent

3

SPSS-X User’s Guide, 3rd edition, Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc., 1988.

Page 94 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Appendix II 

Description of Questionnaire Methodology

confidence level, with a maximum sampling error of plus or minus

4.6 percent at the Military Academy, 4.4 percent at the Naval Academy, and

4.6 percent at the Air Force Academy.

The sampling errors for various subgroups for which data are cited are

shown in table II.1. The decimal figures in the table are the sampling errors

that correspond to various percentages of respondents selecting a

particular response alternative. For example, if we state that 15 percent of

Military Academy cadets responded in a given way, the table shows a

sampling error of 3.3 percent corresponding to “all cadets” and a

15-85 percent response split. This means that we can be 95 percent

confident that the percentage of cadets responding that way in the

population would be within 15 percent plus or minus 3.3 percent, or

between 12.7 and 18.3 percent.

Page 95 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Appendix II 

Description of Questionnaire Methodology

Table II.1: Sampling Errors for Various Academy Subgroups

Percentage split in responses

Subgroup Population Sample 05/95 10/90 15/85 20/80 25/75 30/70 35/65 40/60 45/55 50/50

Military Academy

All cadets 3,638 430 2.4 3.0 3.3 3.7 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.6

Males 3,232 341 2.8 3.5 4.0 4.2 4.5 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.1 5.2

Females 406 79 6.6 7.9 8.8 9.5 9.9 10.2 10.2 10.4 10.6 10.6

Class of 1994,

in 1994

1,044 120 5.5 6.4 7.2 7.8 8.2 8.5 8.5 8.7 8.8 8.9

Class of 1994,

in 1991

1,190 125 5.3 6.4 7.1 7.7 8.1 8.1 8.4 8.6 8.7 8.7

Naval Academy

All midshipmen 4,049 470 2.3 2.9 3.2 3.5 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.4

Males 3,564 382 2.6 3.3 3.8 3.9 4.2 4.5 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.9

Females 485 88 6.4 7.5 8.3 9.0 9.4 9.7 9.6 9.9 10.0 10.1

Class of 1994, 

in 1994

967 120 5.5 6.4 7.2 7.8 8.2 8.5 8.4 8.7 8.8 8.8

Class of 1994,

in 1991

1,157 146 4.8 5.7 6.4 6.9 7.3 7.3 7.6 7.8 7.9 7.9

Air Force Academy

All cadets 4,012 428 2.5 3.1 3.3 3.7 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.6

Males 3,495 338 2.8 3.5 4.1 4.2 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.2

Females 517 90 6.3 7.4 8.3 8.9 9.3 9.6 9.6 9.8 10.0 10.0

Class of 1994,

in 1994

1,029 101 6.3 7.2 8.0 8.7 9.1 9.4 9.4 9.6 9.7 9.8

Class of 1994,

in 1991

1,283 137 4.9 6.0 6.8 7.2 7.7 7.6 7.9 8.2 8.3 8.3

The 1994 questionnaires were administered at all three academies in May

1994. The original administration of the academy student questionnaires

occurred in December 1990 at the Naval Academy and in March 1991 at

the Military and Air Force academies.

Representativeness of

Narrative Comments

The write-in comments of students have been used in a number of places

throughout this report to illustrate various points. While useful in

illustrating the intensity of opinions held by some respondents, there is no

way to quantify how widely held the views voiced by these respondents

may be. The percentage of respondents who provided write-in comments

was 37 percent at the Military Academy, 39 percent at the Naval Academy,

and 33 percent at the Air Force Academy.

Page 96 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Appendix III 

Assessment of Academy Officials Regarding

Whether Various Scenarios Might Constitute

an Honor Violation

Scenario

Military

Academy Naval Academy

Air Force

Academy

A cadet/midshipman answers a questionnaire falsely in an attempt to protect the

Academy from adverse findings.

Probably a

violation.

Probably a

violation.

Probably a

violation.

A cadet/midshipman knowingly marks someone present on a roster when that

person was not there.

Probably a

violation.

Probably a

violation.

Probably a

violation.

A cadet/midshipman falsely states that he/she had a date New Year’s Eve. Unable to

determine.

Unable to

determine.

Probably a

violation.

A cadet/midshipman takes something from another cadet/midshipman’s room

without first getting permission or leaving a note.

Probably not a

violation.

Probably a

violation.

Unable to

determine.

An academically struggling cadet/midshipman receives assistance from a

classmate on a homework assignment that was to be done independently.

Probably not a

violation, if

documented.

Probably a

violation.

Unable to

determine.

A cadet/midshipman promises to perform a task for another cadet/midshipman

and then fails to do so.

Unable to

determine.

Probably not a

violation, but

may be a

conduct

violation—

failure to do

duty.

Unable to

determine.

As a favor to a civilian friend (because the item is cheaper than in civilian stores),

a cadet/midshipman makes a purchase at the cadet/midshipman store for which

he/she will be reimbursed.

Probably not a

violation.

Probably a

violation.

Probably not a

violation.

A cadet/midshipman knows that a boast made by another cadet/midshipman is

false and he/she just lets it slide.

Unable to

determine.

Probably not a

violation.

Probably a

violation.

A cadet/midshipman finds a $20 bill on the floor of the cadet/midshipman store

and keeps it without any attempt to determine who lost it.

A violation if no

attempt made

to find owner.

Probably not a

violation.

Probably a

violation.

A cadet/midshipman stuffs clothing under his/her covers to make it appear to

anyone who looks in that he/she is in bed.

Probably not a

violation.

Probably a

violation.

Probably not a

violation.

A cadet/midshipman who is below the legal drinking age orders an alcoholic

beverage at a restaurant.

Probably not a

violation.

Probably a

violation.

Probably not a

violation.

A cadet/midshipman commander disregards a directive because he/she believed

enforcing it could have an adverse effect on members of his/her unit.

Probably not a

violation.

Probably not a

violation.

Probably not a

violation.

A cadet/midshipman tells a “little white lie” to spare hurting someone’s feelings. Probably not a

violation.

Probably not a

violation.

Probably not a

violation.

A cadet/midshipman makes an unauthorized personal toll call using an official

telephone without paying for it.

Probably a

violation.

Probably not a

violation, but

may be a

conduct offense.

Probably a

violation.

A cadet/midshipman asks a friend who took an examination earlier what the

examination covered.

Asking is not a

violation.

Probably not a

violation.

Probably a

violation.

A cadet/midshipman complies with a directive to shade an official report to make

the company/squadron’s performance look better than it actually was.

Probably a

violation.

Probably not a

violation.

Probably a

violation.

A plebe/doolie who had been mistreated by an upperclass cadet/midshipman

denies it when asked by someone in the chain of command.

Probably a

violation.

Probably a

violation.

Probably a

violation.

(continued)

Page 97 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Appendix III 

Assessment of Academy Officials Regarding

Whether Various Scenarios Might Constitute

an Honor Violation

Scenario

Military

Academy Naval Academy

Air Force

Academy

A cadet/midshipman submits a report that is literally the truth but does not tell the

complete story because it would reflect badly on him/her.

Probably a

violation.

Probably a

violation.

Probably a

violation.

A cadet/midshipman strongly disagrees with a course of action suggested by

his/her Company Tactical Officer/Company Officer/Air Officer Commanding but

does not voice an objection even when specifically asked.

Probably not a

violation.

Probably not a

violation.

Probably not a

violation.

A cadet/midshipman covers his/her room windows with a blanket and stuffs a

towel under the door so that studying after lights-out would not be detected.

Probably not a

violation.

Probably not a

violation.

Probably not a

violation.

A cadet/midshipman below the legal drinking age uses a false ID in order to

purchase alcoholic beverages.

Probably a

violation.

Probably a

violation.

Probably a

violation.

A cadet/midshipman takes a government vehicle for a “joyride” but does not leave

the Academy grounds.

A violation of

UCMJ.

Probably a

violation.

Probably a

violation.

A cadet/midshipman allows a person to draw a false impression in order to

convince that person to perform a favor.

Unable to

determine.

Probably a

violation.

Probably a

violation.

An unprepared cadet/midshipman fails to raise his/her hand when an instructor

asks if anyone is unprepared.

Probably not a

violation.

Probably not a

violation.

Probably a

violation.

A cadet/midshipman tells a “little white lie” in order to save face or avoid being

embarrassed.

Unable to

determine.

Probably not a

violation.

Probably a

violation.

A cadet/midshipman asks another to perform his/her duty so that the

cadet/midshipman can study, but goes out instead of studying.

Unable to

determine.

Probably not a

violation.

Unable to

determine.

A cadet/midshipman uses a paper from a company area file and, while not

copying any of it verbatim, paraphrases it completely.

Probably not a

violation if

documented.

Probably a

violation.

Unable to

determine.

Page 98 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Appendix IV 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

William E. Beusse

Office of the General

Counsel

Ernie E. Jackson

Denver Regional

Office

Rudolpho G. Payan

Richard Y. Horiuchi

Robin Brooks

(703046) Page 99 GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100
GAO/NSIAD-95-49 DOD Service Academies