USFK Soldier Facing Court Martial On the Run In South Korea

It might help to track this guy down if a picture of what he looked like was available:

usfk logo

A U.S. soldier under military investigation has disappeared from a base near the border with North Korea, a spokesman said Thursday.

The missing soldier is being investigated for a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, said Lt. Col. Richard Hyde, a 2nd Infantry Division spokesman. South Korean police said the soldier had been scheduled to face a court-martial Wednesday, but the military declined to confirm that or provide details about the charges.

The soldier, who is in his 20s, is not wanted for a violent crime, Hyde said.

“We do not believe that he is armed or dangerous,” he said. “He is believed to be in Seoul.”  [Stars & Stripes]

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

12 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
setnaffa
setnaffa
7 years ago

Granted I’ve been out of the military since before Reagan was elected, but I don’t think the young man was showing good sense here, going AWOL and such…

guitard
guitard
7 years ago

Used to be fairly common back in the day. Obviously really shortsighted though … because once the money ran out (which it inevitably always did) … the yobo who you thought was in love with you all of sudden fell out of love real quick! And then the guy invariably dragged his azz back to garrison … knowing he was done for.

The only one who lasted more than a month was a Korean-American kid … but even he gave up eventually.

ChickenHead
ChickenHead
7 years ago

Hmmm… I should set up an underground railroad for AWOL GIs.

…keep them in a safehouse on a diet of corn syrup and fund it all with their plasma donations… keeping them in line with fearful stories of the prison raape they face if they turn themselves in,,,

,,,not that they would escape anyway… being handcuffed to the bed and all.

You only need one kidney to stay alive, right?

Mcgeehee
Mcgeehee
7 years ago

In 1987 I was in Security Police at Osan conducting random, i.e., command-directed searches of outgoing vehicles at the now barricaded and closed Hill 180 Gate when we stopped an outbound AAFES taxi. Long story short; in the cab was a guy who had been AWOL for six years. He was headed home from a monthly trip to the commissary. I remember the trunk being chock full of commissary bags. He had an ID card and a ration control card (had to run across an imprinter). One or both of the cards were either expired or fake which is what caused us to take a second look at this guy when his name eventually surfaced on an AWOL list. I remember being amazed at how long he got away with it. Some MPs from Camp Humphries came and picked him up. Never heard what happened or followed up on the guy so my guess is he did a stint at Leavenworth. There were two Korean women in the cab with him (association with him unknown/forgotten).

setnaffa
setnaffa
7 years ago

AWOL over 30 days ought to be Desertion, right? And, if no other charges, in peacetime, an administrative discharge (upping it to BCD if other misdemeanors and DD if felonies).

guitard
guitard
7 years ago

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/awoldesertion.htm

The offense of desertion, under Article 85 carries a much greater punishment than the offense of AWOL, under Article 86. Many people believe that if one is absent without authority for 30 days or more, the offense changes from AWOL to desertion, but that’s not quite true.

The primary difference between the two offenses is “intent to remain away permanently,” or if the purpose of the absence is to shirk “important duty,” (such as a combat deployment).

If one intends to return to “military control” someday, one is guilty of AWOL, not desertion, even if they were away for 50 years. Conversely, if a person was absent for just one minute, and then captured, he could be convicted of desertion, if the prosecution could prove that the member intended to remain away from the military permanently.

If the intent of the absence was to “shirk important duty,” such as a combat deployment, then the “intent to remain away permanently” to support a charge of desertion is not necessary. However, Such services as drill, target practice, maneuvers, and practice marches are not ordinarily “important duty.” “Important duty” may include such duty as hazardous duty, duty in a combat zone, certain ship deployments, etc. Whether a duty is hazardous or a service is important depends upon the circumstances of the particular case, and is a question of fact for the court-martial to decide.

guitard
guitard
7 years ago

So if this guy was smart … as soon as they snatched him up, the first words out of his mouth should have been, “But I was planning on coming back the whole time.”

Mcgeehee
Mcgeehee
7 years ago

, I almost didn’t post above incident because so many aspects of it didn’t add up: He shouldn’t have been able to get on base, get past the front door checker, or the cashier at the commissary. Speculation was one woman he was with was paying off someone (commissary, Pass & ID, ?). Ration control was real tight in those days, so having a ration control plate that worked would have been a feat that required some help (downstream unit reporting). It could have been he was using lost/found/stolen OR a fake/expired ID and ration control plate. I just couldn’t believe this guy was coming back on base every month for commissary shopping.

setnaffa
setnaffa
7 years ago

It takes more work to be a successful (i.e., un-arrested) small-time crook than it does to be an honest Congress-critter…

12
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x