| |
A member may not be held responsible for his or her
acts and their foreseeable consequences if, as the result
of a mental defect, disease, or derangement, he or she
was unable to comprehend the nature of such acts or to
control his or her actions. In the absence of evidence to
the contrary, it is presumed that all persons are mentally
responsible for their acts.
Because of the strong instinct for self-preservation,
an unsuccessful, but bona fide, attempt to kill oneself
creates a strong inference of lack of mental
responsibility.
In all cases of attempted suicide,
evidence bearing on the mental condition of the injured
person must be obtained. This includes all available
evidence as to social background, actions, and moods
immediately before the attempt, any troubles that might
have motivated the incident, and any pertinent
examination or counseling session.
Self-inflicted injury not prompted by a serious
intent to die is, at most, a suicide gesture and such injury,
unless lack of mental responsibility is otherwise shown,
is deemed to be incurred as a result of the member’s own
misconduct.
The mere act alone does not raise a
question of mental responsibility because there is no
intent to take one’s own life; the intent was to achieve
some secondary gain.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MISCONDUCT
AND LINE OF DUTY
There are only three possible determinations for
findings in a line of duty/misconduct determination.
They include the following:
1. In line of duty, not due to member’s own
misconduct.
2. Not in line of duty, not due to member’s own
misconduct. This determination would occur when
misconduct is not involved, but an injury or disease is
contracted by a service member that falls within one of
four other exceptions to the line of duty presumption
(desertion; unauthorized absence (UA); confinement as
a result of civilian conviction; or confinement pursuant
to sentence by a GCM that included an unremitted
dishonorable discharge). Example: A service member
has been UA for 8 months and is injured while lawfully
crossing a street. The injuries were not the result of
negligence.
3. Not in line of duty, due to member’s own
misconduct. A determination of misconduct always
requires a determination of not in the line of duty.
An adverse determination as to misconduct or line
of duty is not a punitive measure. Disciplinary action,
if warranted, is taken independently of any such
determination. A favorable determination as to line of
duty/misconduct does not prevent separate disciplinary
action, nor is such a finding binding on any issue of guilt
or innocence in any disciplinary proceeding. The loss
of rights or benefits resulting from an adverse
determination may be relevant and, at the request of the
accused, admissible as a matter in extenuation and
mitigation in a disciplinary proceeding.
RECORDING LINE OF
DUTY/MISCONDUCT DETERMINATIONS
The inquiry into, and findings concerning, injuries
or disease can be recorded in one of three ways.
1. Health and dental record entries. Use health and
dental records when the member’s physical inability to
perform duty exceeds 24 hours and the medical
representative and CO agree that the injury or disease is
not likely to result in permanent disability and was
incurred in the line of duty and not as a result of the
member’s own misconduct.
2. Form reports.
Use an injury report form
(NAVJAG Form 5800.15) when all the following
conditions are met:
a. In the opinion of the medical representative,
as concurred by the CO, the injury or disease was
incurred in the line of duty and not as a result of the
member’s own misconduct.
b. In the opinion of the medical officer, a
permanent or permanent partial disability will likely
result.
c. A fact-finding body is not required under the
JAG Manual and is not otherwise contemplated.
In any case, even if a health and dental record entry
would suffice, a form report maybe made to JAG if there
appears to be any reason for maintaining a record in that
office, Send the form report to JAG via a GCM CA for
review.
Never use a form report when an injury is
self-inflicted, either intentionally or accidentally, since
a finding of misconduct often results in either case.
3. A fact-finding body must be convened, and the
CO must make findings concerning misconduct and line
of duty in any case that:
l the injury was incurred under circumstances that
suggest a finding of misconduct might result.
13-21
|
