Comment on FR Doc # E6-16643

I noted with interest that all general, flag and commanding officers are exempt from serving on a state or local jury. The rationale given in the proposed rule is that ?such jury service necessarily would interfere unreasonably with the performance of military duties by these members and adversely affect the readiness of the unit, command, or activity to which they are assigned.? This is hogwash. I suspect, instead, the real rationale for this exception is that jury duty is often perceived as a hassle, and these senior personnel are excused in deference to their rank without regard to the impact on their ?unit, command, or activity.? Senior officers are often absent for extended periods of time from their commands for reasons ranging from personal leave to temporary assigned duties (TAD/TDY) to service schools to attendance at conferences or other similar professional obligations. Unlike more junior personnel, however, these senior officers have executive officers, deputies, chiefs of staff or the equivalent specifically to ensure that such absences to do not ?adversely affect the readiness of the unit, command, or activity.? How does a week spent on jury duty impact a general?s unit any more than a week spent on personal leave? On top of the transparent rationale offered for this exception, this provision is particularly offensive to junior military personnel because it fosters a ?Do as I say, not as I do? attitude about jury duty. If jury duty is, in the rule?s own language, a ?civic obligation,? senior leadership should be at the front of the line, leading by example and not hiding behind some exception not rationally related to its purported justification. Worse, the language of the rule appears to forbid such officers from performing their ?civic obligation? even if their own circumstances are such that their unit readiness would not suffer. Part 144.6(b) says ?such member SHALL be exempted . . . .? This apparently mandatory language would prevent a leader who, in his/her own judgment as the unit commander, could be absent for the necessary time to serve on a jury from voluntarily fulfilling that obligation. While some senior officers might be happy to avoid the ?hassle? of jury duty by using the blanket exception created for them, others might be willing or even eager to serve on a jury. The rule should explicitly allow them to waive the exception and serve should they deem it appropriate.