Boeing 777 en route to Beijing missing, Malaysia Airlines says

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — Search and rescue crews across Southeast Asia scrambled on Saturday to find a Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 that disappeared from air traffic control screens over waters between Malaysia and Vietnam early that morning, leaving the fates of the 239 people aboard in doubt.

CEO Ahmad Jauhari Yahya said at a news conference that Flight MH370 lost contact with Malaysian air traffic control at 2:40 a.m. (18:40 GMT Friday), about two hours after it had taken off from Kuala Lumpur. The plane, which carried passengers mostly from China but also from other Asian countries, North America and Europe, had been expected to land in Beijing at 6:30 a.m. Saturday (22:30 GMT Friday).

Pham Hien, a Vietnamese search and rescue official, said the last signal detected from the plane was 120 nautical miles (140 miles; 225 kilometers) southwest of Vietnam's southernmost Ca Mau province, which is close to where the South China Sea meets the Gulf of Thailand.

Lai Xuan Thanh, director of Vietnam's civil aviation authority, said air traffic officials in the country never made contact with the plane.

The plane "lost all contact and radar signal one minute before it entered Vietnam's air traffic control," Lt. Gen. Vo Van Tuan, deputy chief of staff of the Vietnamese army, said in a statement issued by the government.

The South China Sea is a tense region with competing territorial claims that have led to several low-level conflicts, particularly between China and the Philippines. That antipathy briefly faded as nations of the region rushed to aid in the search, with China dispatching two maritime rescue ships and the Philippines deploying three air force planes and three navy patrol ships to help.

"In times of emergencies like this, we have to show unity of efforts that transcends boundaries and issues," said Lt. Gen. Roy Deveraturda, commander of the Philippine military's Western Command.

The Malaysian Airlines plane was carrying 227 passengers, including two infants, and 12 crew members, the airline said. It said there were 153 passengers from China, 38 from Malaysia, seven each from Indonesia and Australia, five from India, four from the U.S. and others from Indonesia, France, New Zealand, Canada, Ukraine, Russia, Italy, Taiwan, the Netherlands and Austria.

At Beijing's airport, authorities posted a notice asking relatives and friends of passengers to gather to a hotel about 15 kilometers (nine miles) from the airport to wait for further information, and provided a shuttle bus service. A woman wept aboard the shuttle bus while saying on a mobile phone, "They want us to go to the hotel. It cannot be good!"

In Kuala Lumpur, family members gathered at the airport but were kept away from reporters.

"Our team is currently calling the next-of-kin of passengers and crew. Focus of the airline is to work with the emergency responders and authorities and mobilize its full support," Yahya, the airline CEO, said in a statement. "Our thoughts and prayers are with all affected passengers and crew and their family members."

Fuad Sharuji, Malaysian Airlines' vice president of operations control, told CNN that the plane was flying at an altitude of 35,000 feet (10,670 meters) and that the pilots had reported no problem with the aircraft.

Finding planes that disappear over the ocean can be very difficult. Airliner "black boxes" — the flight data and cockpit voice recorders — are equipped with "pingers" that emit ultrasonic signals that can be detected underwater.

Under good conditions, the signals can be detected from several hundred miles away, said John Goglia, a former member of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board. If the boxes are trapped inside the wreckage, the sound may not travel as far, he said. If the boxes are at the bottom of a deep in an underwater trench, that also hinders how far the sound can travel. The signals also weaken over time.

Air France Flight 447, with 228 people on board, disappeared over the Atlantic Ocean en route from Rio de Janiero to Paris on June 1, 2009. Some wreckage and bodies were recovered over the next two weeks, but it took nearly two years for the main wreckage of the Airbus 330 and its black boxes to be located and recovered.

Malaysia Airlines said the 53-year-old pilot of Flight MH370, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, has more than 18,000 flying hours and has been flying for the airline since 1981. The first officer, 27-year-old Fariq Hamid, has about 2,800 hours of experience and has flown for the airline since 2007.

The tip of the wing of the same Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777-200 broke off Aug. 9, 2012, as it was taxiing at Pudong International Airport outside Shanghai. The wingtip collided with the tail of a China Eastern Airlines A340 plane. No one was injured.

Malaysia Airlines' last fatal incident was in 1995, when one its planes crashed near the Malaysian city of Tawau, killing 34 people. The deadliest crash in its history occurred in 1977, when a domestic Malaysian flight crashed after being hijacked, killing 100.

In August 2005, a Malaysian Airlines 777 flying from Perth, Australia, to Kuala Lumpur suddenly shot up 3,000 feet before the pilot disengaged the autopilot and landed safely. The plane's software had incorrectly measured speed and acceleration, and the software was quickly updated on planes around the world.

Malaysia Airlines has 15 Boeing 777-200s in its fleet of about 100 planes. The state-owned carrier last month reported its fourth straight quarterly loss and warned of tougher times.

The 777 had not had a fatal crash in its 19-year history until an Asiana Airlines plane crashed in San Francisco in July 2013. All 16 crew members survived, but three of the 291 passengers, all teenage girls from China, were killed.

Associated Press writers Chris Brummitt in Hanoi, Vietnam, Didi Tang and video producer Aritz Parra in Beijing, Stephen Wright in Bangkok, Joan Lowy in Washington and Scott Mayerowitz in New York contributed to this report.

Lawsuits revived by soldiers over exposure to burn pit toxins

The burn pit at Balad Air Base, Iraq, was in full operation in early 2008. Though the military has purchased incinerators to mitigate any health risks from open trash burning, few have been installed.
Michael Gisick/Stars and Stripes

By LARRY O'DELL

The Associated Press

Published: March 6, 2014

RICHMOND, Va. — A federal appeals court on Thursday revived dozens of lawsuits by soldiers and others who claim they were harmed by improper waste disposal while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The lawsuits claim Houston-based contractors KBR and Halliburton Co. exposed soldiers to toxic emissions and contaminated water when they burned waste in open pits without proper safety controls. U.S. District Judge Roger W. Titus in Maryland dismissed the lawsuits last year, ruling that the contractors could not be sued because they were essentially an extension of the military.

But a three-judge panel of the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in its unanimous decision that the contractors are protected only if they were following explicit instructions from the military. The court said Titus improperly tossed the case without sufficient evidence on that issue.

"In short, although the evidence shows that the military exercised some level of oversight over KBR's burn pit and water treatment activities, we simply need more evidence to determine whether KBR or the military chose how to carry out these tasks," Judge Henry F. Floyd wrote for the appeals court.

The consolidated cases now go back to Titus for further proceedings.

"We are pleased with the decision and look forward to our day in court," said Susan L. Burke, attorney for the soldiers. "The 4th Circuit clarified the law in a way that's quite helpful. The decision makes it clear nobody can stand in the shoes of the sovereign and get immunity if they're doing things contrary to what the sovereign directed them to do."

The two sides disagree on whether the contractors were following military instructions.

KBR spokesman Richard B. Goins said company officials were disappointed with the court's ruling.

"The court basically asks the trial court for more facts and we believe this is, at heart, a mistaken reading of the extensive existing record," Goins said in an email.

He said company officials are evaluation options for further appeals, which include asking the full appeals court or the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

The lawsuits claim that the open burning of waste by the contractors caused serious physical injuries, including cancer and permanent respiratory damage.

With US Navy's help, disabled Canadian ship arrives at Pearl Harbor

PEARL HARBOR, Hawaii — A Canadian refueling ship disabled by an engine fire pulled into Pearl Harbor under tow Thursday morning with almost 300 sailors aboard.

U.S. Navy tug boats guided the HMCS Protecteur to a pier after making a slow journey from Pacific Ocean waters north of Hawaii.

The ship got help from the U.S. Navy after the fire broke out last week, leaving 20 sailors with minor injuries, the Royal Canadian Navy said. The fire engulfed a space as large as a school gymnasium, three or four stories high. The Canadian navy said a doctor treated sailors for dehydration, exhaustion and smoke inhalation.

Sailors came off the ship having not shaved or showered in a week. The ship lost power amid the fire and did not regain it during the trip to Pearl Harbor.

Commodore Bob Auchterlonie, leader of the Canadian Pacific Fleet, said the ship encountered "an absolute worst-case scenario" of a major fire on board a tanker in the middle of the ocean at night, compounded by the power loss.

"The leadership on board, the professionalism of the sailors and the courage displayed to get through this has been absolutely exceptional," he told reporters after meeting the ship.

Auchterlonie expressed his gratitude for the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Navy's help during the ordeal. "I can't thank them enough for the great job they did in helping our sailors get back to port safely," he said.

Petty Officer 2nd Class Shawn Mosson said he had just sat down to have a cup of coffee in the cafeteria when he heard the alarm. He immediately went down below and grabbed a hose to cool off the deck.

The heat was so intense, his eyeglasses melted when he set them down.

"The boots were starting to melt to the deck from the heat," he said. "(We were) overcome with smoke. You couldn't see your hand in front of your face."

Mosson, from Brandon, Manitoba, said his training kicked in and his mind went blank as he focused on fighting the fire.

Now that he's back on land, Mosson said he'll first take a shower — "a very long one at that."

He's looking forward to returning to Canada.

"As soon as I get home, I'm going to grab my wife, my son, my stepdaughter and I'm never going to let them go," he said.

The fire was under investigation, and Cmdr. Al Harrigan of Maritime Forces Pacific Headquarters said getting the ship back to a dock was the first step in that process and eventually guiding the vessel back to Canada.

The 44-year-old Protecteur was on its way home from a three- to four-week deployment, he said.

The Protecteur is a supply ship that refuels and provides food and parts to other navy vessels at sea.

Earlier this week, an American guided-missile destroyer took 19 relatives of the Canadian crew back to Hawaii. The family members had been traveling with the Protecteur as part of a regular program allowing relatives to join crews on return trips from long missions. The rest of the crew stayed with the Protecteur, except for one crew member who had cut his hand, Harrigan said.

The tow was initially complicated by rough seas that caused the tow line to break Sunday. But the deep-water ocean tug USS Sioux took over the towing, and the escort saw better conditions later in the week.

The Protecteur was scheduled to be retired next year.

A-10's prowess touted as pressure grows to retire jet

The time-tested A-10 "Warthog" — the aircraft that comprises the bulk of Davis-Monthan Air Force Base's operations — was both doted on and deemed ready for discharge Wednesday in the first Senate hearing on a military budget plan that seeks to retire the aging plane.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey called the A-10 the "ugliest, most beautiful aircraft on the planet" during the hearing, but defended losing it among budget cuts announced last week by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel.

"I'm probably one of the few people in the room that's actually had an A-10 come to my rescue, so you don't have to convince me that it's been an extraordinarily valuable tool on the battlefield," he said. But he said that this year will be unlike previous years, when A-10 supporters were able to avoid proposed cuts.

"What's different now is, we had some slack in our budget over the last 10 years. There's no more slack in it. The margins are just really very tight," he said.

As national leaders weigh the fate of the Warthog, local elected officials and advocates for the base are touting the aircraft's strengths, and warning of the economic fall-out for Tucson if the jet is retired.

"The impact that it will have on Davis-Monthan will be significant to extreme," said Ramon Valadez, the Pima County supervisor representing District 2, which includes the base.

Davis-Monthan could lose thousands of employees if the Department of Defense's proposal to retire the fleet succeeds, he said.

"It's the primary mission at Davis-Monthan," said Mike Grassinger, president of DM 50, a local nonprofit group that advocates for the base and its airmen and airwomen. "We've been told by the base commander that if the A-10 leaves, it would probably eliminate 2,000 jobs. That's not counting whatever jobs might be eliminated in the civilian economy as a result of those jobs going away."

Davis-Monthan estimates its operations generated more than $1 billion in economic impact in the Tucson area in fiscal year 2012. That includes about $200 million in job-creation impact.

Lt. Erin Ranaweera of Davis-Monthan's public affairs division said she could not comment on the content of the budget proposal, and she could not estimate the exact number of jobs that could be affected if the aircraft were retired. But, she said, "We are fully committed to the mission here at D-M and training the airmen to produce the most ready force in our nation."

The aircraft, officially dubbed the Thunderbolt II in the 1970s but nicknamed the Warthog for its snub-nosed appearance, has been the centerpiece of Davis-Monthan for decades. It provides aerial support for soldiers engaged in combat, and is often referred to as a tank killer.

Davis-Monthan has two fighter squadrons, one training squadron and one reserve squadron, Ranaweera said. A third fighter squadron was deactivated last month, but the change is a money-saving move unrelated to the A-10 proposal, she said. Personnel in the deactivated squadron will be transferred to a different base or squadron, she said.

Retiring the fleet would save $3.5 billion over five years, Hagel said.

Those who support keeping the A-10 say the proposal to discard it, particularly before a comparable alternative is up and running, reflects an assumption that ground wars will soon be a thing of the past. The A-10 is known for its ability to fly at low altitudes and low speeds, so pilots can better distinguish between enemy targets and American soldiers. It's also able to more rapidly turn and reattack within seconds rather than minutes.

Pilots specially trained to fly close air support missions -- protecting troops engaged in battle -- would be replaced by multimission pilots with weaker ties to ground troops, according to the nonprofit Project on Government Oversight, which has come out in strong support of the A-10s. Those pilots would likely perform support missions from higher altitudes at faster speeds, the Washington, D.C.-based group says.

"We support the A-10 because it still has strategic value and is extremely cost-effective," said Joe Newman, a spokesman for the group.

But the Air Force's proposed 2015 budget says, "Fiscal constraints required the Air Force to prioritize multirole legacy over single-mission platforms." Supporters of the cuts also say the 40-year-old A-10s are becoming outdated, and other aircraft, like B-1 bombers, can provide close air support as well as perform multiple missions.

BUDGET PRIORITIES

At Wednesday's hearing, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said providing close aerial support to soldiers on the ground should be a top priority to military leaders. She quoted Maj. Gen. Paul T. Johnson, Air Force director of Operational Capability Requirements, who told the Wall Street Journal in January that more people will die, and battles may even be lost, with the retirement of the A-10. Johnson, nevertheless, supports divesting the fleet.

"When we hear concerns ... that lives will be at stake; why aren't we preserving that priority over other priorities?" Ayotte said during Wednesday's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

She noted that the proposal would phase out all A-10s by 2019, beginning next year. Replacement F-35s will not be fully operational until 2021, leaving at least a two-year gap, she said.

At the committee hearing, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said other aircraft can't quite compare to the A-10.

"While there are other assets that can perform the close air support mission, none can do so with the same maneuverability, loiter time and targeting capability," he said. "I think it's wishful thinking to believe that pilots of those other platforms will receive the training necessary to be proficient in close air support."

Cutting the A-10 mission is a shortsighted reaction to large-scale sequestration budget cuts, Valadez said.

"Either Congress finds a way of fixing what they've done through sequester or this only continues to get worse," he said. "As the military looks at the need to cut back, they need to cut back on missions that are not combat-critical. A-10 is a combat-critical mission."

At Davis-Monthan, A-10s have received updated electronics and new wings, extending their lives to 2028, Rep. Ron Barber, D-Ariz., said in a news release.

Cuts should come from elsewhere, he said.

"We must instead do the hard work of going through the entire budget and cutting programs that are wasteful, outdated or duplicative," he said. "Sequestration is causing deep harm to our country, and this is only one example of that."

Davis-Monthan should remain an economic driver in Tucson, said Grassinger, of the DM 50.

"If they're going to retire the A-10, we're hopeful the Air Force is going to recognize the superior capabilities of Davis-Monthan and assign another mission here to replace the A-10," he said.

Identities sought of 21 men killed at Pearl Harbor

Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., has co-authored a letter requesting Pentagon officials grant the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command's Central Identification Laboratory's request to exhume five "unknown" caskets and identify the remains inside — a move that could help relatives of a Swanzey man killed during the attacks on Pearl Harbor bring him home.

On Dec. 7, 1941, 3rd Class Fireman Edwin Hopkins from Swanzey was killed while serving onboard the USS Oklahoma during the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor. Tom Gray, Hopkins' second cousin, wants his remains in Hawaii to be exhumed and turned over to his family so they can bury him in a family plot in Keene.

"He was identified," Gray told the Union Leader from his home in Guilford, Conn. "We know where he is. He deserves more than a comingled grave marked 'unknown.'"

According to Gray, Hopkins' remains are buried along with other veterans in the National Memorial Cemetery on Oahu Island, a cemetery known as the "

Gray said his family has traced his cousin's remains to the National Memorial. He said in 1943, Hopkins and 381 other veterans were recovered from the wreck of the Oklahoma. Their bodies were buried in mass graves at the Halawa and Nu'uana cemeteries in Honolulu until 1949, when the Army Graves Registration Service disinterred the graves to identify the remains within each.

The service recommended that 27 soldiers and Marines, including Hopkins, killed on the Oklahoma be identified. However, Gray said an anthropologist working on the project refused to certify his cousins remains, and they were all classified as unknown.

Family members were never told of the disinterment. Hopkins and 26 other Marines and sailors were reburied in the Punchbowl, under a marker reading "unknowns." Gray says he is one of 10 men buried in Section P, Grave 1003, in National Memorial Cemetery.

Ayotte, along with Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., have co-authored a letter to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel asking the five caskets be exhumed, and the remains identified.

VRAP gets cash to carry through school terms

A $65 million fix by the Veterans Affairs Department will keep thousands of unemployed veterans in job training programs through the end of this semester.

White House officials announced Wednesday that VA would shift new funding to the Veterans Retraining Assistance Program. More than 126,000 people have taken part in the program, aimed at veterans ages 35 to 60 who have no other VA education benefits.

Lawmakers and administration officials have lauded the retraining program as a success, helping unemployed and undertrained veterans get back into the job market. Participants receive 12 months of education benefits, equivalent to full-time Montgomery GI Bill payouts.

But when Congress finalized the program in 2011, it covered course payments only through March 2014. That left veterans in courses this semester wondering if they’d be able to continue training through the end of the school year, or if they’d be left to pay for the remaining weeks themselves.

Under the change announced Wednesday, those participants will be allowed to continue receiving payments until the end of the term or until June 30, whichever is earlier.

VA stopped accepting new applications to VRAP in October. To date, more than $740 million has been paid out through the program in training and education benefits.

On Wednesday, Reps. Julia Brownley and Mark Takano, Democrats representing California districts, introduced new legislation to extend the program through Sept. 30, to ensure all participants can finish their training. In addition, Senate Veterans’ Affairs Chairman Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has introduced legislation that would reauthorize the program for two more years.

Prosecutor in Army sex case wanted charges dropped

FORT BRAGG, N.C. — Less than a month before an Army general's trial on sexual assault charges was set to begin, the lead prosecutor broke down in tears as he told a superior he believed the primary accuser in the case had lied under oath.

Lt. Col. William Helixon had urged that the most serious charges against Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair be dropped because they rely solely on the woman's accusation that he twice forced her to perform oral sex.

But those above the seasoned sex crimes prosecutor overrode him, rebuffing an offer from Sinclair to plead guilty to lesser charges.

Helixon was then pulled from the case, after superior officer took him to a military hospital for a mental health evaluation, according to testimony.

With the trial set to begin this week, Sinclair's defense lawyers suggested in court Tuesday that top Pentagon officials had unlawfully ordered the case to go forward over concern for the political fallout that would result if the charges were dropped.

After a day-long hearing, a judge ruled Tuesday that the case should go to trial. Opening statements are set for Thursday.

The case against Sinclair, believed to be the most senior member of the U.S. military ever to face trial for sexual assault, comes as the Pentagon grapples with a troubling string of revelations involving rape and sexual misconduct within the ranks. Influential members of Congress are also pushing to remove decisions about the prosecution of sex crimes from the military chain of command.

Sinclair, the former deputy commander of the 82nd Airborne, has pleaded not guilty to eight criminal charges including forcible sodomy, indecent acts, violating orders and conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. He faces life in prison if convicted of the sexual assault charges.

Lawyers for the married father of two have say he carried on a three-year extramarital affair with a female captain under his command during war tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. The admission of an affair will almost certainly end his Army career.

In pretrial hearings, prosecutors have painted Sinclair as a sexual predator who abused his position of authority to prey on a subordinate and threatened to kill her and her family if she told anyone of their relationship.

The Associated Press does not publicly identify the alleged victims of sexual assaults.

Helixon, who was described as dealing with "personal issues," wasn't called to testify Tuesday.

But among those called to the witness stand was Brig. Gen. Paul Wilson, a high-ranking military lawyer stationed at the Pentagon.

Wilson said another general sent him on the morning of Feb. 8 to check on Helixon, who was then staying in a room at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Washington. He said he arrived to find Helixon appearing drunk and suicidal.

"He was in the midst of a personal crisis. He was crying. He was illogical," Wilson testified. "I truly believed if he could have stepped in front of a bus at the time, I think he would have."

The lead prosecutor had become convinced the accuser lied under oath when she testified in January about evidence collected from a cellphone.

The captain testified that on Dec. 9, shortly after what she described as a contentious meeting with prosecutors, she rediscovered an old iPhone stored in a box at her home that still contained saved text messages and voicemails from the general. After charging the phone, she testified she synced it with her computer to save photos before contacting her attorney.

However, a defense expert's examination suggested the captain powered up the device more than two weeks before the meeting with prosecutors. She also tried to make a call and performed a number of other operations.

Three additional experts later verified those findings.

Wilson testified that Helixon was distraught that the accuser had lied to him.

"I served with him in combat in Afghanistan, making targeting decisions with people's lives on the line. I have never seen another human being in a state like that," he said.

Wilson said he took Helixon the emergency room of a nearby military hospital at Fort Belvfor a mental health evaluation. Though a psychiatrist who interviewed the prosecutor declined to admit him for treatment, Wilson said he told Helixon's immediate superior back at Fort Bragg that the prosecutor was no longer fit to handle the case.

"He was not fit for any kind of duty. I would not have trusted him to drive a car," Wilson said.

In an unusual move, the defense called Richard Scheff, Sinclair's lead lawyer, to the stand.

Scheff testified that Helixon had confided in him that he was concered the case had become too politicized.

"He said everyone on his team had reasonable doubt," Scheff recounted. "He said, 'I'm going to be the guy who gets hurt in this. I'm going to have a problem."

To support the defense's claim of political interference, they introduced a December letter the military lawyer assigned to represent the accuser sent to Lt. Gen. Joseph Anderson, the commander at Fort Bragg. Under military law, it was up to Anderson to decide whether or not to accept Sinclair's plea offer and drop the sexual assault charges.

Writing on behalf of the accuser, Capt. Cassie L. Fowler urged Anderson to reject the deal, suggesting that to do otherwise would "have an adverse effect on my client and the Army's fight against sexual assault."

"Acceptance of this plea would send the wrong signal to those senior commanders who would prey on their subordinates by using their rank and position, thereby ensuring there will be other victims like my client in the future," Fowler wrote.

Military judge Col. James Pohl said Tuesday that Fowler's letter to Anderson was improper, but did not constitute evidence of unlawful command influence. Anderson is a three-star general, the judge said, while the special victim's advocate is just a captain.

After the ruling, Sinclair's lawyer suggested that the Army was sacrificing Helixon's career and reputation to pursue a flawed case.

"Today's testimony was deplorable," Scheff said. "The government undertook a vicious character assault against someone they previously called their 'rock star' sex crimes prosecutor, because he was the only Army leader with the integrity to stand up to politics. People should be rewarded for honesty, not punished for it."

Almost 1 in 5 had mental illness before Army enlistment, study says

Almost one in five U.S. soldiers had a common mental illness, such as depression, panic disorder or ADHD, before enlisting in the Army, according to a new study that raises questions about the military’s assessment and screening of recruits.

More than 8 percent of soldiers had thought about killing themselves and 1.1 percent had a past suicide attempt, researchers found from confidential surveys and interviews with 5,428 soldiers at Army installations across the country.

The findings, published online Monday in two papers in JAMA Psychiatry, point to a weakness in the recruiting process, experts said. Applicants are asked about their psychiatric histories, and those with certain disorders or past suicide attempts are generally barred from service.

“The question becomes, ‘How did these guys get in the Army?’ ” said Ronald Kessler, a Harvard University sociologist who led one of the studies.

A third study looked at the increased suicide rate among soldiers from 2004 to 2009. The study, which tracked almost one million soldiers, found that those who had been deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq had an increased rate of suicide.

But it also found that the suicide rate among soldiers who had never deployed also rose steadily during that time. The study did not explain the cause.

The Pentagon did not make officials available Monday to discuss the studies.

The three studies are the first from a massive research initiative started in 2009 by the Army and the National Institutes of Mental Health in response to the surge in suicides.

In 2011, a representative sample of soldiers was extensively questioned and assessed for a history of eight common psychiatric disorders.

Traditionally, the Army has been psychologically healthier than the rest of society because of screening, fitness standards and access to health care. Soldiers committed suicide at about half the rate of civilians with similar demographics.

But researchers found that soldiers they interviewed had joined the Army with significantly higher rates of post-traumatic stress disorder, panic disorder and attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder than those in the general population.

Most notably, more than 8 percent of soldiers entered the Army with intermittent explosive disorder, characterized by uncontrolled attacks of anger. It was the most common disorder in the study, with a pre-enlistment prevalence almost six times the civilian rate.

“The kind of people who join the Army are not typical people,” Kessler said. “They have a lot more acting-out kind of mental disorders. They get into fights more. They’re more aggressive.”

The researchers found that despite screening, pre-enlistment rates of depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder and substance abuse were on par with civilian rates.

Rates of suicidal ideation, planning and attempts were lower than in the general population but still significant, given the military’s practice of excluding recruits with a known suicidal history.

During their military service, the soldiers’ rates of most psychiatric disorders climbed well past civilian levels, several times the rate for some disorders.

A quarter of soldiers were deemed to be suffering from a mental illness — almost 5 percent with depression, nearly 6 percent with anxiety disorder and nearly 9 percent with PTSD. The percentage of soldiers who had attempted suicide rose from 1.1 percent to 2.4 percent.

Matthew Nock, a Harvard University psychologist who led the study on suicide, said more than 30 percent of suicide attempts that occurred after enlistment would have been prevented if the Army had excluded recruits with pre-existing mental health conditions.

Nock said he thought the Army should improve its screening of recruits, not to exclude them but to provide treatment to those who acknowledge a history of mental illness.

Screening out mentally ill recruits is not as simple as it sounds, because the military largely has to rely on applicants to disclose their mental health histories.

“People who want to come into the Army are no fools,” said Dr. Elspeth Ritchie, a former chief psychiatrist in the Army.

“They know if you say you had a past suicide attempt, you’re probably not going to get in.”

Dr. Eric Schoomaker, who served as surgeon general of the Army until 2012, said more stringent screening “would just lead to driving the problems further underground.”

In addition, the military would not meet its recruiting targets if it were able to identify and exclude everybody with a history of mental health problems, experts said.

During the peak years of war, as the military was struggling to fill its ranks, some recruiters were known to discourage applicants from disclosing such problems.

Helping troops find peace of mind in a place of war

GARDEZ CITY, Afghanistan — The senior medic found himself turning nauseous at the scent of blood. The young private slid into depression after his girlfriend in America dumped him. The first sergeant felt suffocated by memories of three close friends killed in Iraq.

Each man struggled alone until, heeding his inner voice or the less subtle advice of a concerned superior, he visited Capt. John Alamodin. A social worker stationed at Forward Operating Base Gardez in eastern Afghanistan’s Paktia province, Alamodin guided them as they searched for peace of mind in a place of war.

“Being deployed creates different kinds of stress for every soldier,” said Alamodin, who served with the 85th Medical Detachment, 1st Medical Brigade, during a nine-month tour that recently ended. “You try to help them in a way that allows them to stay focused.”

The Army released a behavioral health report last month showing a rise in morale and a decline in psychological problems among U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The experts who authored the review ascribed the changes largely to shorter tours and diminished combat action as the military prepares to withdraw most of its remaining forces by year’s end.

MORE: About our Present-Traumatic Stress series

A less obvious influence cited in the study has been the work of behavioral health providers, whose presence has grown here even as the U.S. war effort winds down.

The Army deployed nine providers in 2005, four years after the first American troops arrived in Afghanistan to oust the Taliban. By last summer, the number had climbed to 114, including social workers, psychologists and psychiatrists. (The Air Force and Navy had 22 providers, compared with none in 2005.)

About 20 percent of the almost 3 million veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder or related conditions, the lingering fallout of two distant conflicts on America.

The increase in providers offers evidence of the Army’s slow awakening to a mental health crisis within its ranks and the need to counsel soldiers before they return home. The nascent awareness, if emerging too late to benefit those who served earlier in Afghanistan, portends a more informed approach to behavioral health for future generations of troops.

“By talking with soldiers on the ground, we have an opportunity to address issues now instead of letting things fester,” said Alamodin, 49, of Honolulu. “We know what can happen if they wait.”

Shadows of past tours

Sgt. Frederick Schrom landed in eastern Afghanistan last summer with a clear sense of war’s depredations. He had survived a punishing tour three years earlier in the southern province of Helmand, one of the country’s most violent areas.

As a field medic, Schrom tended to more than 200 American and Afghan soldiers, their bodies disfigured by bullets, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades. On other occasions, he was the patient. He sustained three concussions while riding in armored trucks that hit roadside bombs.

Schrom went back as a senior medic in charge of an aid station at FOB Gardez, less than 50 miles from the Pakistan border. By chance, he had deployed again to a province besieged by fighting. He expected to adapt as before.

Casualties flowed into the aid station from the start. A sergeant lost a leg after stepping on a bomb buried in the earth; mortar shrapnel tore open another soldier’s torso as he slept in his barracks. The war looked the same. What had changed was Schrom’s reaction.

In his worst moments, the dense, iron-tinged odor of blood struck like a punch. His stomach convulsed, bile scalding his throat as he swallowed back vomit. At night, images of the injured and dead wrenched him awake. Fatigue numbed his mind.

As weeks passed and the unease persisted, he sought relief at the base’s combat stress clinic, a plywood hut that housed Alamodin’s office. The small space doubled as a sanctuary. The two men met a handful of times, and with each discussion, Schrom felt less burdened, less adrift.

“When something severe happens — when you see someone who has been wounded or killed — it’s a painful reminder of how your life is in jeopardy out here,” said Schrom, 23, of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.

“As a medic, you see that kind of thing constantly, and you have to figure out a way to keep doing your job, especially in a leadership position. Talking about some of those things with someone outside my unit helped clear my thoughts.”

Alamodin has the manner of an avid listener. Tall and thin, with a shaved head and silver-rimmed glasses, he possesses a calmness that invites others to fill silences. When he speaks, his tone is low and soothing, the voice of reassurance.

In more than two decades as a social worker, he has alternated between civilian and military practice, counseling couples and seniors, privates and colonels. Two years ago, intent on deploying, he joined the 85th Medical Detachment at Fort Hood in Texas. He hoped to prevent troops from imploding after war.

“I’ve seen the effects of PTSD on them and their families,” said Alamodin, who treated soldiers with combat-related trauma at the U.S. base. “I wanted to be involved on the front end to try to work through some of their problems here, which could help them with the transition when they go home.”

He circulated among a scattering of bases in Paktia province and found that, like Schrom, many soldiers fought shadows from past tours. He recalled his sessions with a sergeant whose return to combat rekindled anguish over the death of an Iraqi child a few years earlier.

During one conversation, Alamodin asked him to again recount his attempt to save the boy, who was severely wounded in a bomb explosion. The sergeant described his efforts to keep the child conscious and stop his bleeding. Retracing his actions, he exhumed a detail long buried in his memory. The boy had still been alive when the sergeant lifted him onto a medevac helicopter.

The soldier broke down. His guilt receded. “It was about remembering he had done everything he could,” Alamodin said. “It was about forgiving himself.”

‘I feel lighter’

Pvt. Patrick Cervantes began to spiral because of a less harrowing, more common source of distress among soldiers in Afghanistan. His girlfriend in America had sent him a text message that read, in part, “I need space.”

Relationship strife ranks as the principal reason combat troops meet with behavioral health providers and chaplains. The high-tech bridge linking soldiers to loved ones creates equal potential to bond or quarrel across thousands of miles.

“In the past, when troops went to war, they were disconnected from everything,” said Alamodin, the divorced father of three preteen sons. “Now, with cell phones, Skype, Facebook, they can stay in touch with everyone, and that can add to their stress.”

Tension between Cervantes and his girlfriend had smoldered for a couple of weeks before she sent her text. In the ensuing days, his platoon sergeant noticed the private was withdrawn and distracted, and after learning the cause, he urged Cervantes to sit down with Alamodin. Their sessions over several weeks restored his emotional balance.

“I was able to get a better perspective on the whole situation,” said Cervantes, 20, of Wrightwood, Calif. “I realized that, right now, there isn’t anything I can do to magically fix things. I just need to concentrate on what I can control.”

The platoon sergeant’s support of Cervantes illuminates the evolving attitude of senior officers toward behavioral health services. The change, though gradual and inconsistent across the Army, suggests a deeper understanding of how mental trauma affects them as much as younger soldiers.

“I work with a lot of people who are on their third or fourth deployment,” Alamodin said. “They came up being told to keep things to themselves. But with the Army emphasizing behavioral health, more of them have started getting help.”

First Sgt. Geoff Dukes lost three friends in 2008 during his second deployment to Iraq. Staff Sgt. Joseph Gamboa, a father figure to him, died in a mortar attack. Less than two weeks later, a grenade explosion killed Sgt. Michael Lilly and Cpl. Jason Kazarick, two men he regarded as brothers.

Dukes smothered his grief to finish the tour, and after returning home to Florida, he turned his mind to deploying to Afghanistan the following year. But with the end of that tour in 2010, and with no immediate prospect of a fourth, he had more time to brood. His life unspooled.

He lubricated his evenings with a 12-pack of beer, sometimes two. He argued with his wife over small matters, screamed at his two young children when they cried. On a family outing to Disney World, he scanned rooftops for snipers and looked for escape routes while grousing about the crowds.

His wife persuaded him to see a military therapist. Dukes shared little in their meetings and soon stopped attending. Another doctor prescribed sleeping and anti-anxiety medications. The drugs failed to relieve his symptoms or his anguish. As his outbursts intensified, his wife fled the house with their son and daughter for a week or two at a stretch.

“I was not easy to be around,” said Dukes, 37, of Leesburg, Ga. “There was a lot of anger, a lot of sadness, and I didn’t have a good way of dealing with those feelings.”

Last year, preparing for his second tour in Afghanistan, he worried in silence about his ability to cope in a combat setting. Not long after arriving in Paktia, he heard about Alamodin, and weary of fighting himself, he decided to give counseling another chance. Over the course of a dozen discussions, Dukes released his rage and sorrow and regret. He wept. He set down five years of pain.

“I feel lighter,” he said. “There are moments when I still feel bad because I think I could have done something, even though I wasn’t with those guys when they were killed. But mostly I think about the good times and how lucky I am that I knew them. I have a more positive outlook than I used to.”

His family sensed the difference from half a world away when they talked by phone or Skype. His darkness had lifted; they grew closer despite the distance. In his wife’s voice, he heard compassion. In his children’s laughter, he heard redemption.

“They tell their mom, ‘Dad seems happier,’” Dukes said. His eyes welled up. “That’s a big thing for me.”

martinkuz[at]yahoo.com

Twitter: @MartinKuz

news@stripes.com

System also on trial at Brig. Gen. Jeff Sinclair's court-martial

Two issues go on trial Tuesday at the same time, in the same courtroom, at Fort Bragg.

One is the court-martial of Brig. Gen. Jeff Sinclair, a battle-seasoned, once rising star in the Army. He is accused of sexually assaulting an officer under his command near the end of a long-running adulterous affair.

The second puts the military's criminal justice system to the test. Critics have accused the military of being soft on sexual misconduct and sexual predators in the ranks. Now, as powerful politicians, including President Obama, are exerting pressure for the military to take strong action in sexual assault cases, Sinclair's defense lawyers say the tide may be turning too far the other way.

Sinclair's court-martial — targeting, as it does, one of the Army's senior leaders — is certain to be closely watched. The trial begins this week as Congress prepares to act on a bill that would largely remove commanders from decision-making in military trials to avoid potential bias.

Sinclair's case is unusual in that he is accused of sexually assaulting a woman with whom he had an ongoing consensual relationship. The defense will use that relationship to try to undermine the woman's credibility.

Sinclair, 51, and his accuser, now a 34-year-old Army captain, met in Germany in 2008 and began their sexual relationship in summer 2009 during a deployment to Iraq, according to her testimony at an investigative hearing in fall 2012. The Observer is not naming the woman because it does not identify people alleged to be victims of sexual assault.

In 2009, Sinclair was a colonel in his late 40s, married with two young sons. The captain was a second lieutenant with prior enlisted service.

According to her testimony, their affair continued on-and-off, abroad and in the United States, until March 2012, when she reported their relationship to his superior.

At the investigative hearing in fall 2012, the woman testified that there were incidents in which Sinclair insisted over her objections on engaging in sexual activities in semipublic places where they could have been caught.

The woman said Sinclair told her he was in a loveless marriage and spoke of divorcing his wife.

She said Sinclair threatened to kill her and her family if she told anyone of their affair.

Before Sinclair made the threat, "I loved him. I know it sounds very messed up, but I still loved him. I mean, it was just — I just wanted to make him happy," she testified.

Sinclair, promoted to general, and the woman, promoted to captain, deployed to Afghanistan in September 2011. He was a deputy commanding general with the 82nd Airborne Division. She was one of his aides.

Their affair continued with encounters in his quarters and in offices, she said. But their personal relationship began to fray. She did not like that he flirted with other women, she said. They began to argue.

As the relationship deteriorated, she said, Sinclair sometimes fondled her when he encountered her or worked with her. Twice, she testified, he forced her to perform oral sex.

In March 2012, the woman discovered email messages on his computer between him and another woman, also an Army officer. These suggested another affair.

The captain became angry and vented to another soldier. That soldier told her that if she did not turn herself in, he would. Adultery is illegal under military law, and their relationship was inappropriate regardless.

She reported the affair to Sinclair's supervisor, Lt. Gen. Jim Huggins. That began the investigation that has led to the court-martial scheduled to begin this week.

Sinclair faces eight charges under military law, with 22 specific allegations of wrongdoing among them. The charges include adultery, improper relations with other women that stopped short of sex, and misusing government money to travel to see his girlfriend.

While the adultery charge is a crime in the military and can be a career ender, the most serious allegation is forcible sodomy. For that, Sinclair could get a life sentence, although military law experts have said Sinclair likely would face far less time.

But he could be dismissed from the Army. He and his family stand to lose the retirement pay and other benefits he has accrued in nearly 30 years of military service.

Five two-star generals will hear the evidence and decide Sinclair's fate. A military jury must outrank the accused, and at least two-thirds of the jury — four out of five, in this case — is required to convict him.

The defense

"It's very straightforward. It's not a complex case," said Richard Scheff, one of Sinclair's defense lawyers. The Sinclair team includes a military lawyer, several civilian lawyers, support staff and a public relations agency.

The case largely hinges on the credibility of the accuser, Scheff said.

He contends that Sinclair's girlfriend fabricated the sexual assault claims to avoid being prosecuted for adultery.

The woman testified Jan. 7 that she has been granted immunity.

"We'll be able to demonstrate that she's looking to save herself," Scheff said.

"The story that I'm going to tell the jury is that this was a three-year, consensual affair that really was no different than most consensual affairs," Scheff said. "It did not end the way (the accuser) wanted it to. It had its ups, it had its downs. But there was nothing coerced about it, and there were no forcible acts of sodomy that occurred. That is simply made up."

If the accuser had not been forced to turn herself in, she would never have reported the affair, Scheff said.

Entries from the accuser's personal journal and hundreds of text messages will demonstrate the nature of her relationship with Sinclair, Scheff said. Some show she was pursuing Sinclair, Scheff said.

The other women with whom Sinclair is accused of having wrongful relationships will not say anything bad about him, he said.

Scheff thinks Sinclair's defense is bolstered by the captain's testimony at a pretrial hearing in January followed by the lead prosecutor's sudden departure from the case in February.

The session was held to consider evidence from a cellphone that the woman turned over to prosecutors in December because it could contain evidence, such as text messages, relevant to the case.

Scheff thinks she lied under oath during that hearing.

The captain testified that on Dec. 9 she found the phone in a box, and it had been stored unused since she broke it in late 2010. She charged it overnight and powered it on the next day, Dec. 10, she said.

Forensic analysis of the phone suggests her statement was inaccurate, according to other testimony and a motion Scheff filed to ask the judge to dismiss the charges. Expert examinations of the phone's data said the phone's internal clock recorded usage in late November and early December.

Scheff thinks the captain perjured herself. He questions why the trial is moving ahead in light of the evidence that contradicts her testimony. He thinks Army commanders, whose careers depend on the good graces of other military leaders and Congress, feel pressure to move ahead with the case regardless of the facts and the advice of their lawyers.

The sudden departure in February of the lead prosecutor, Lt. Col. Will Helixon, gives this theory credence, Scheff said.

According to Scheff's motion to dismiss the case, Helixon concluded there is reasonable doubt about Sinclair's guilt. Scheff's motion says Helixon wanted to accept Sinclair's guilty plea to adultery, but Fort Bragg's commander, who makes the final call on any guilty plea, rejected it.

Prosecutor's dilemma

If Helixon truly has doubts — about Sinclair's guilt or the accuser's credibility — yet the commanders insisted that he prosecute anyway, he is in a difficult position, said lawyer Peter Yellin.

Yellin was a military prosecutor in the Marines in the 1960s and now teaches at Sandhills Community College in Moore County.

It is unethical for a prosecutor to prosecute a case if he has such doubts, Yellin said. Doing so could jeopardize his law license.

"My lawyer conscience would tell me if I couldn't proceed, I wouldn't proceed," Yellin said.

Yellin said his superiors backed him when he decided to dismiss a rape charge against a Marine in the 1960s. He said he found evidence that the alleged victim, a married woman, had sought and carried on a consensual affair with the accused Marine. She didn't report rape, Yellin said, until after the Marine broke up with her.

If Helixon left the Sinclair case because he truly had doubts about it, Yellin said, he should be commended for making the ethical choice.

But Yellin was surprised that Scheff's motion says Helixon told Scheff of his doubts.

"I would not express that doubt to a defense counsel. I would express that to a superior officer," Yellin said.

Helixon could not be reached for comment.

Fair system?

Some civilian lawyers who practice in military courts say the military justice system needs to be revamped. Prosecution decisions should not rest in the hands of commanders, they say.

While Scheff is trying to make the case that commanders are pressuring military lawyers to prosecute when they should not, advocates for sexual assault victims have complained that commanders have been too soft.

The military estimates that in 2012, there were 26,000 cases of unwanted sexual contact and sexual assault in the service.

Two Air Force generals sparked outrage when they overturned convictions in such cases. Commanders have that power in the military justice system. There is congressional action pending to take that power away.

One of the generals saw her pending promotion halted after her decision. The other announced his retirement in January.

"These very questions are why you need to have an impartial judicial system, not one that is so intertwined with the chain of command," said Susan Burke, a lawyer who represents sexual assault victims. Burke used to practice law with Scheff.

"This is a dysfunctional system that has been failing to incarcerate, failing to prosecute, failing to hold people accountable," Burke said.

The military justice system needs to be revamped, not just for sex crimes but to ensure all common-law crimes are handled fairly, she said.

Eugene R. Fidell, a former Coast Guard judge advocate who teaches at Yale Law School, has argued that the military justice system puts too much power in the chain of command. He suspects political pressure is influencing prosecutions.

"The series of comments, for example, from senior leaders, including the president ... have made it very difficult for commanders to think straight about what should be done," Fidell said in an interview in July. "I think it would take an extremely courageous commander today to discard an allegation without sending it to trial."

Fidell in May suggested an alternative.

"First, the antiquated power of military commanders to decide who is prosecuted for what, to pick jurors, and to review verdicts and sentences should be abandoned," he wrote in The New York Times. "Charging should be vested in senior lawyers independent of the chain of command, as is done in other democratic countries."

The proposed Military Justice Improvement Act would remove commanders from the prosecution decision-making process for many crimes punishable by one year or more in confinement, according to U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, the bill's sponsor. Instead, trained, professional military prosecutors would make the call.

That legislation will not affect the court-martial of Sinclair. But his case could be debated for years to come as officials wrangle over how the military handles sexual assault and the basic fairness of the system.

Vietnam veterans sue military over PTSD

NEW HAVEN, Conn. — Five Vietnam combat veterans and three veterans’ organizations filed a class action lawsuit in federal court on Monday, seeking relief for tens of thousands of Vietnam veterans who developed post-traumatic stress disorder during their military service and subsequently received an other than honorable discharge.

Tens of thousands of Vietnam veterans received an other than honorable discharge for conduct attributable to their undiagnosed PTSD, according to a news release.

Because PTSD was not a medical diagnosis until 1980, many Vietnam Era service members who suffered from PTSD and struggled to perform their assigned duties received “bad paper” discharges instead of the medical discharges they would likely receive today, the news release stated.

Students from the Veterans Legal Services Clinic at the Yale Law School have been working on the issue for some time and recently released a report that the Coast Guard engaged in the same policy decisions with regard to PTSD.

The class action suit names the U.S. Army, Navy and the Air Force.

The law clinic, the Vietnam Veterans of America and the National Veterans Council for Legal Redress put out the following press release.

“When I was in high school, I worked at the VA (Veterans Administration) hospital in the kitchen as a dishwasher. But after I came home from Vietnam, I couldn’t even get my job back as a dishwasher because of my bad paper,” said plaintiff Conley Monk. “My discharge status has been a lifetime scar. If I were discharged today, my PTSD would be recognized and treated — and I wouldn’t be punished for having a service-connected medical condition.”

“Tens of thousands of brave and honorable Vietnam veterans with post-traumatic stress have been doubly injured by the black mark of an other than honorable discharge, resulting in unjustly denied support, services and benefits,” said U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. “These heroic veterans are long overdue present day appreciation of modern mental health in the timely review of their discharge upgrade appeals.”

In addition to Monk, a New Haven resident and veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, the other individual plaintiffs are James Cottam (California, U.S. Army), George Siders (Georgia, U.S. Marine Corps), Kevin Marret (Indiana, U.S. Marine Corps), and James Davis (New York, U.S. Army). Vietnam Veterans of America, Vietnam Veterans of America Connecticut State Council, and the National Veterans Council for Legal Redress have also joined the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and their members.

Despite advances in understanding PTSD since 1980, the Pentagon has refused to apply medically appropriate standards in reviewing Vietnam veterans’ requests to upgrade their discharges based on PTSD attributable to service. The decades-long failure of the service branches to give fair consideration to these applications is discrimination against a group of veterans who not only have PTSD, but are also elderly and often indigent.

“These veterans served their country, but their country, through the service branches’ failure to upgrade their discharges, has not served them,” said Dr. Tom Berger, executive director of the Veterans Health Council, Vietnam Veterans of America. “It’s time to finally give them the upgrades and recognition they deserve.”

“We started the National Veterans Council for Legal Redress to rectify the injustices that veterans with less than honorable discharges have endured. Hundreds of thousands of veterans who served during the Vietnam Era returned home with bad paper, many unjustly,” said Garry Monk, executive director of NVCLR and brother of Conley Monk.

“Unfortunately, the Pentagon has refused to correct the decades of injustice experienced by tens of thousands of veterans who suffer from PTSD but were discharged before it was a diagnosable condition,” said V. Prentice, a law student intern in the Veterans Legal Services Clinic at Yale Law School, which represents the plaintiffs in this suit. “This action seeks to compel appropriate action by the military and to finally secure justice for these veterans.”

System also on trial at Brig. Gen. Jeff Sinclair's court-martial

Two issues go on trial Tuesday at the same time, in the same courtroom, at Fort Bragg.

One is the court-martial of Brig. Gen. Jeff Sinclair, a battle-seasoned, once rising star in the Army. He is accused of sexually assaulting an officer under his command near the end of a long-running adulterous affair.

The second puts the military's criminal justice system to the test. Critics have accused the military of being soft on sexual misconduct and sexual predators in the ranks. Now, as powerful politicians, including President Obama, are exerting pressure for the military to take strong action in sexual assault cases, Sinclair's defense lawyers say the tide may be turning too far the other way.

Sinclair's court-martial — targeting, as it does, one of the Army's senior leaders — is certain to be closely watched. The trial begins this week as Congress prepares to act on a bill that would largely remove commanders from decision-making in military trials to avoid potential bias.

Sinclair's case is unusual in that he is accused of sexually assaulting a woman with whom he had an ongoing consensual relationship. The defense will use that relationship to try to undermine the woman's credibility.

Sinclair, 51, and his accuser, now a 34-year-old Army captain, met in Germany in 2008 and began their sexual relationship in summer 2009 during a deployment to Iraq, according to her testimony at an investigative hearing in fall 2012. The Observer is not naming the woman because it does not identify people alleged to be victims of sexual assault.

In 2009, Sinclair was a colonel in his late 40s, married with two young sons. The captain was a second lieutenant with prior enlisted service.

According to her testimony, their affair continued on-and-off, abroad and in the United States, until March 2012, when she reported their relationship to his superior.

At the investigative hearing in fall 2012, the woman testified that there were incidents in which Sinclair insisted over her objections on engaging in sexual activities in semipublic places where they could have been caught.

The woman said Sinclair told her he was in a loveless marriage and spoke of divorcing his wife.

She said Sinclair threatened to kill her and her family if she told anyone of their affair.

Before Sinclair made the threat, "I loved him. I know it sounds very messed up, but I still loved him. I mean, it was just — I just wanted to make him happy," she testified.

Sinclair, promoted to general, and the woman, promoted to captain, deployed to Afghanistan in September 2011. He was a deputy commanding general with the 82nd Airborne Division. She was one of his aides.

Their affair continued with encounters in his quarters and in offices, she said. But their personal relationship began to fray. She did not like that he flirted with other women, she said. They began to argue.

As the relationship deteriorated, she said, Sinclair sometimes fondled her when he encountered her or worked with her. Twice, she testified, he forced her to perform oral sex.

In March 2012, the woman discovered email messages on his computer between him and another woman, also an Army officer. These suggested another affair.

The captain became angry and vented to another soldier. That soldier told her that if she did not turn herself in, he would. Adultery is illegal under military law, and their relationship was inappropriate regardless.

She reported the affair to Sinclair's supervisor, Lt. Gen. Jim Huggins. That began the investigation that has led to the court-martial scheduled to begin this week.

Sinclair faces eight charges under military law, with 22 specific allegations of wrongdoing among them. The charges include adultery, improper relations with other women that stopped short of sex, and misusing government money to travel to see his girlfriend.

While the adultery charge is a crime in the military and can be a career ender, the most serious allegation is forcible sodomy. For that, Sinclair could get a life sentence, although military law experts have said Sinclair likely would face far less time.

But he could be dismissed from the Army. He and his family stand to lose the retirement pay and other benefits he has accrued in nearly 30 years of military service.

Five two-star generals will hear the evidence and decide Sinclair's fate. A military jury must outrank the accused, and at least two-thirds of the jury — four out of five, in this case — is required to convict him.

The defense

"It's very straightforward. It's not a complex case," said Richard Scheff, one of Sinclair's defense lawyers. The Sinclair team includes a military lawyer, several civilian lawyers, support staff and a public relations agency.

The case largely hinges on the credibility of the accuser, Scheff said.

He contends that Sinclair's girlfriend fabricated the sexual assault claims to avoid being prosecuted for adultery.

The woman testified Jan. 7 that she has been granted immunity.

"We'll be able to demonstrate that she's looking to save herself," Scheff said.

"The story that I'm going to tell the jury is that this was a three-year, consensual affair that really was no different than most consensual affairs," Scheff said. "It did not end the way (the accuser) wanted it to. It had its ups, it had its downs. But there was nothing coerced about it, and there were no forcible acts of sodomy that occurred. That is simply made up."

If the accuser had not been forced to turn herself in, she would never have reported the affair, Scheff said.

Entries from the accuser's personal journal and hundreds of text messages will demonstrate the nature of her relationship with Sinclair, Scheff said. Some show she was pursuing Sinclair, Scheff said.

The other women with whom Sinclair is accused of having wrongful relationships will not say anything bad about him, he said.

Scheff thinks Sinclair's defense is bolstered by the captain's testimony at a pretrial hearing in January followed by the lead prosecutor's sudden departure from the case in February.

The session was held to consider evidence from a cellphone that the woman turned over to prosecutors in December because it could contain evidence, such as text messages, relevant to the case.

Scheff thinks she lied under oath during that hearing.

The captain testified that on Dec. 9 she found the phone in a box, and it had been stored unused since she broke it in late 2010. She charged it overnight and powered it on the next day, Dec. 10, she said.

Forensic analysis of the phone suggests her statement was inaccurate, according to other testimony and a motion Scheff filed to ask the judge to dismiss the charges. Expert examinations of the phone's data said the phone's internal clock recorded usage in late November and early December.

Scheff thinks the captain perjured herself. He questions why the trial is moving ahead in light of the evidence that contradicts her testimony. He thinks Army commanders, whose careers depend on the good graces of other military leaders and Congress, feel pressure to move ahead with the case regardless of the facts and the advice of their lawyers.

The sudden departure in February of the lead prosecutor, Lt. Col. Will Helixon, gives this theory credence, Scheff said.

According to Scheff's motion to dismiss the case, Helixon concluded there is reasonable doubt about Sinclair's guilt. Scheff's motion says Helixon wanted to accept Sinclair's guilty plea to adultery, but Fort Bragg's commander, who makes the final call on any guilty plea, rejected it.

Prosecutor's dilemma

If Helixon truly has doubts — about Sinclair's guilt or the accuser's credibility — yet the commanders insisted that he prosecute anyway, he is in a difficult position, said lawyer Peter Yellin.

Yellin was a military prosecutor in the Marines in the 1960s and now teaches at Sandhills Community College in Moore County.

It is unethical for a prosecutor to prosecute a case if he has such doubts, Yellin said. Doing so could jeopardize his law license.

"My lawyer conscience would tell me if I couldn't proceed, I wouldn't proceed," Yellin said.

Yellin said his superiors backed him when he decided to dismiss a rape charge against a Marine in the 1960s. He said he found evidence that the alleged victim, a married woman, had sought and carried on a consensual affair with the accused Marine. She didn't report rape, Yellin said, until after the Marine broke up with her.

If Helixon left the Sinclair case because he truly had doubts about it, Yellin said, he should be commended for making the ethical choice.

But Yellin was surprised that Scheff's motion says Helixon told Scheff of his doubts.

"I would not express that doubt to a defense counsel. I would express that to a superior officer," Yellin said.

Helixon could not be reached for comment.

Fair system?

Some civilian lawyers who practice in military courts say the military justice system needs to be revamped. Prosecution decisions should not rest in the hands of commanders, they say.

While Scheff is trying to make the case that commanders are pressuring military lawyers to prosecute when they should not, advocates for sexual assault victims have complained that commanders have been too soft.

The military estimates that in 2012, there were 26,000 cases of unwanted sexual contact and sexual assault in the service.

Two Air Force generals sparked outrage when they overturned convictions in such cases. Commanders have that power in the military justice system. There is congressional action pending to take that power away.

One of the generals saw her pending promotion halted after her decision. The other announced his retirement in January.

"These very questions are why you need to have an impartial judicial system, not one that is so intertwined with the chain of command," said Susan Burke, a lawyer who represents sexual assault victims. Burke used to practice law with Scheff.

"This is a dysfunctional system that has been failing to incarcerate, failing to prosecute, failing to hold people accountable," Burke said.

The military justice system needs to be revamped, not just for sex crimes but to ensure all common-law crimes are handled fairly, she said.

Eugene R. Fidell, a former Coast Guard judge advocate who teaches at Yale Law School, has argued that the military justice system puts too much power in the chain of command. He suspects political pressure is influencing prosecutions.

"The series of comments, for example, from senior leaders, including the president ... have made it very difficult for commanders to think straight about what should be done," Fidell said in an interview in July. "I think it would take an extremely courageous commander today to discard an allegation without sending it to trial."

Fidell in May suggested an alternative.

"First, the antiquated power of military commanders to decide who is prosecuted for what, to pick jurors, and to review verdicts and sentences should be abandoned," he wrote in The New York Times. "Charging should be vested in senior lawyers independent of the chain of command, as is done in other democratic countries."

The proposed Military Justice Improvement Act would remove commanders from the prosecution decision-making process for many crimes punishable by one year or more in confinement, according to U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, the bill's sponsor. Instead, trained, professional military prosecutors would make the call.

That legislation will not affect the court-martial of Sinclair. But his case could be debated for years to come as officials wrangle over how the military handles sexual assault and the basic fairness of the system.