Character Analysis: Why Sarah "Mac" Mackenzie isn't St. Mac the Divine

 St. Mac the Divine?
Custom Extra-Sized Halo can be ordered through The Marine Shop

I used to be a Harm/Mac Shipper. I really did. At one point, I used to write Mac as Mac the Invincible. The thing was...I grew out of it the more I watched the show.

Let's see what The Powers That Be (henceforth referred to as TPTB) wrote Mac as (or as I refer to her as "Canon(ical)-Mac". She was an alcoholic (full stop). She had to stay away from the bottle for fear of relapsing. She hasn't attended an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting in years. On top of that she is married, does not disclose her marital status to the Marine Corps when she joined (who the hell knows where Chris Ragle was all this time other than making enemies who want to kill him) - that is known as falsifying her marital status to join the Marine Corps. The seriousness of this offence isn't a matter of just saying "Oops, I'm sorry, I forgot that I was married." Married means being entitled to benefits. She may have opted to go without those benefits by saying that she wasn't married when she was. But what happens if the spouse all of a sudden appears showing documents that she was married. It's a black mark on the Corps. For this kind of offence the UCMJ prescribes charge under Punitive Article 83 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

“Any person who—

(1) procures his own enlistment or appointment in the armed forces by knowingly false representation or deliberate concealment as to his qualifications for that enlistment or appointment and receives pay or allowances thereunder; or
(1) Fraudulent enlistment or appointment.
(a) That the accused was enlisted or appointed in an armed force;
(b) That the accused knowingly misrepresented or deliberately concealed a certain material fact or facts regarding qualifications of the accused for enlistment or appointment;
(c) That the accused’s enlistment or appointment was obtained or procured by that knowingly false representation or deliberate concealment; and
(d) That under this enlistment or appointment that accused received pay or allowances or both.
Explanation: (1) In general. A fraudulent enlistment, appointment, or separation is one procured by either a knowingly false representation as to any of the qualifications prescribed by law, regulation, or orders for the specific enlistment, appointment, or separation, or a deliberate concealment as to any of those disqualifications. Matters that may be material to an enlistment, appointment, or separation include any information used by the recruiting, appointing, or separating officer in reaching a decision as to enlistment, appointment, or separation in any particular case, and any information that normally would have been so considered had it been provided to that officer.

 Maximum punishment. (1) Fraudulent enlistment or appointment. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years.

Compounding that problem, when she is assigned to Okinawa she has an adulterous affair with a senior officer; Grounds for an Article 133 charge

“Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
(1) That the accused did or omitted to do certain acts; and
(2) That, under the circumstances, these acts or omissions constituted conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman.

Explanation.

(1) Gentleman. As used in this article, “gentleman” includes both male and female commissioned officers, cadets, and midshipmen.
(2) Nature of offense. Conduct violative of this article is action or behavior in an official capacity which, in dishonoring or disgracing the person as an officer, seriously compromises the officer’s character as a gentleman, or action or behavior in an unofficial or private capacity which, in dishonoring or disgracing the officer personally, seriously compromises the person’s standing as an officer. There are certain moral attributes common to the ideal officer and the perfect gentleman, a lack of which is indicated by acts of dishonesty, unfair dealing, indecency, indecorum, lawlessness, injustice, or cruelty. Not everyone is or can be expected to meet unrealistically high moral standards, but there is a limit of tolerance based on customs of the service and military necessity below which the personal standards of an officer, cadet, or midshipman cannot fall without seriously compromising the person’s standing as an officer, cadet, or midshipman or the person’s character as a gentleman. This article prohibits conduct by a commissioned officer, cadet or midshipman which, taking all the circumstances into consideration, is thus compromising. This article includes acts made punishable by any other article, provided these acts amount to conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. Thus, a commissioned officer who steals property violates both this article and Article 121. Whenever the offense charged is the same as a specific offense set forth in this Manual, the elements of proof are the same as those set forth in the paragraph which treats that specific offense, with the additional requirement that the act or omission constitutes conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman.
(3) Examples of offenses. Instances of violation of this article include knowingly making a false official statement; dishonorable failure to pay a debt; cheating on an exam; opening and reading a letter of another without authority; using insulting or defamatory language to another officer in that officer’s presence or about that officer to other military persons; being drunk and disorderly in a public place; public association with known prostitutes; committing or attempting to commit a crime involving moral turpitude; and failing without good cause to support the officer’s family.

Maximum punishment : Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for a period not in excess of that authorized for the most analogous (similar) offense for which a punishment is prescribed in this Manual, or, if none is prescribed, for 1 year.

Right there, those two offences in itself would have drummed her out of the service, yet she is allowed to continue as a Marine and attain the rank of Captain, and further along Major. One cannot say Colonel John Farrow (the other party in the adultery) was wholly innocent, but he is not entirely guilty either. There are two parties to an act of adultery; both willing participants and as such would be 100% guilty of the Article 133 charge. Not to mention she would be co-charged under Article 134 (specifically Adultery) of the UCMJ.

The UCMJ says you can be charged with a violation if an extramarital affair has an adverse effect on unit "discipline, morale, or cohesion."
(1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person;
(2) That, at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone else; and
(3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Explanation.

(1) Nature of offense. Adultery is clearly unacceptable conduct, and it reflects adversely on the service record of the military member.
(2) Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. To constitute an offense under the UCMJ, the adulterous conduct must either be directly prejudicial to good order and discipline or service discrediting. Adulterous conduct that is directly prejudicial includes conduct that has an obvious, and measurably divisive effect on unit or organization discipline, morale, or cohesion, or is clearly detrimental to the authority or stature of or respect toward a servicemember. Adultery may also be service discrediting, even though the conduct is only indirectly or remotely prejudicial to good order and discipline. Discredit means to injure the reputation of the armed forces and includes adulterous conduct that has a tendency, because of its open or notorious nature, to bring the service into disrepute, make it subject to public ridicule, or lower it in public esteem. While adulterous conduct that is private and discreet in nature may not be service discrediting by this standard, under the circumstances, it may be determined to be conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. Commanders should consider all relevant circumstances, including but not limited to the following factors, when determining whether adulterous acts are prejudicial to good order and discipline or are of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces:
(a) The accused's marital status, military rank, grade, or position;
(b) The co-actor's marital status, military rank, grade, and position, or relationship to the armed forces;
(c) The military status of the accused's spouse or the spouse of co-actor, or their relationship to the armed forces;
(d) The impact, if any, of the adulterous relationship on the ability of the accused, the co-actor, or the spouse of either to perform their duties in support of the armed forces;
(e) The misuse, if any, of government time and resources to facilitate the commission of the conduct;
(f) Whether the conduct persisted despite counseling or orders to desist; the flagrancy of the conduct, such as whether any notoriety ensued; and whether the adulterous act was accompanied by other violations of the UCMJ;
(g) The negative impact of the conduct on the units or organizations of the accused, the co-actor or the spouse of either of them, such as a detrimental effect on unit or organization morale, teamwork, and efficiency;
(h) Whether the accused or co-actor was legally separated; and
(i) Whether the adulterous misconduct involves an ongoing or recent relationship or is remote in time.
(3) Marriage. A marriage exists until it is dissolved in accordance with the laws of a competent state or foreign jurisdiction.
(4) Mistake of fact. A defense of mistake of fact exists if the accused had an honest and reasonable belief either that the accused and the co-actor were both unmarried, or that they were lawfully married to each other. If this defense is raised by the evidence, then the burden of proof is upon the United States to establish that the accused's belief was unreasonable or not honest.".

As one can see this whole UCMJ statute here would open up a can of worms for Sarah Mackenzie as the adultery charge would bring up a whole other charge of her "fraudulent appointment" as an officer of the USMC. Just these two points alone were making me wonder if the character creators at JAG were having a day off or something. Because there is no way that Major Sarah Mackenzie would have kept her grade of 1st Lieutenant let alone advanced in grade to Major. And her story as far as JAG was concerned would be over before it began. Let's see what the penalty says...

Maximum punishment: Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.

 Ouch.

To Be Continued