When a person is in the military, they must abide by civilian laws PLUS the UCMJ.

When I was in the military a thousand years ago, an Airman was charged with Rape downtown, but cleared of the charges.

The AF, held its own jurisdiction on the matter and the guy went to Leavenworth for a really long time.

I am sure there are many cases like this; is it fair to subject our people to this standard of adherence to two separate sets of laws?

I know of a case ..Navy... the Sailor was charged with rape in Oakland, California. He was exonerated in the Civil Court. The Navy declined to prosecute. He told me he was told in advance that if found innocent in Civil Court he would not be further prosecuted.
I am wondering if this may be handled on a case by case basis?

The only way one could point to double jeopardy is if the civil court retried him on the exact same charges after finding him innocent. What the military prosecuted him for was violation of the UCMJ. It may have been the rape charge, but could also have been a UA charge for being held in jail until trial, or any other assorted articles that were appropriate for him. In the AF case, they simply exercised thier option to prosecute, whereas in the Navy case, they didn't.

That Airman should of retained his lawyer that got him aquitted in the civilian case, when it came to the court martial.

One can be charged with anything, it's the conviction or aquital that counts.

Double jeopardy or not? Military members must be held to the higher standard.

I agree that military personnel should be held to high standards; however not to the extent that such standards are unconstitutional; that's my point.

Military personnel do not lose all their rights when they raise their hand and swear in; they take on additional responsibilities and special obligations, that's part of the oath and should be, however there are some things about UCMJ that don't seem to be quite right.

Here's an example: For certain offenses, a discharged Vet can be called back to active duty to be tried for a crime committed while on active duty. I think the military has a responsibility at discharge to insure that the trooper is 'clear'. They can't have it both ways, IMHO.

As you know, there are some crimes, that demand justice be done, regardless of whether or not it is obtained via civil courts or military courts.

Just because one is discharged from the military, doesn't mean that anything that military member did illegally while on duty, gets wiped off the slate.

On the AF dude .. if part of the crime was committed in ciuvilian turf, and another part pof the crime was comitted on government turf, it might be a case of two separate jurisdictions with two separate crimes ie, he abducted her on base and raped her in town ...