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. While the honor systems at each academy share many similarities, there are also some key differences. . . 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.”
“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.”
The 1994 Naval Academy honor concept 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. That is, they both include language that makes it an honor offense to allow an honor violation to go unreported. 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. 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. The Naval Academy does not grant the right to remain silent before an individual is officially accused of an honor violation. 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. Many students at each academy are reluctant to report honor violations. 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. 3.8). 3.10). 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). As of January 1, 1995, the Air Force Academy replaced that board with a two-step process. 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 the punishment of “restriction;” and, in the case of the Military and Air Force academies, the standard of proof used to determine guilt. UCMJ imposes limitations on article 15 punishments. 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. 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. Many Rules and Regulations Seen as Unreasonable

The students overwhelmingly indicated that the academies have overregulated them. 5.2.)
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the honor and conduct adjudicatory systems at the Department of Defense (DOD) service academies, focusing on: (1) how the systems at each academy compare; (2) the due process protections of these systems; and (3) the students' attitudes and perceptions toward these systems.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) although the honor systems at the academies have many similarities, there are some prominent differences among them; (2) 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; (3) 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; (4) academy honor hearings provide students with the majority of the protections typically associated with procedural due process, with some exceptions and limitations; (5) the most prominent limitations exist on the right to representation by counsel and the right to remain silent and avoid self-incrimination; (6) 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; (7) the right to remain silent is not granted until the individual is actually charged with an offense; (8) responses to a GAO questionnaire indicated that academy students generally saw their honor systems as fair; (9) 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; (10) there was considerable reluctance among students to report their fellow students for honor violations; (11) in general, the administrative conduct systems at the Military and Naval academies provide several due process protections, with some exceptions and limitations on others; (12) 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; (13) 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; (14) 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; (15) a large majority of the students questioned the reasonableness of many of the minor rules and regulations in the conduct codes; and (16) many students perceive academy handling of conduct offenses, the application of rules and regulations, and the imposition of disciplinary actions as inconsistent.