I am tired of looking for this info and or hearing people ideas on this subject. Anyone on here who was or is a military lawyer, Can you tell us what crimes Don committed by assuming another soldiers ID (and afterwards) and if he can still be charged under those crimes and what if any statue of limitations are on those types of things.

You don’t have to know what the 1950’s or 1963 military criminal law was on that subject. Today laws are enough.

Thanks.

I'm not a lawyer, but off the top of my head, I would think impersonating an officer would be pretty high on the list of no-nos:

<link>

Just a law student poking around the UCMJ and Manuals for Court Martial from 2008 and 1951 (available here and here, respectively). Don's most serious offense is desertion. In a time of war it's theoretically punishable by death, but it looks like the maximum punishment (see Appendix 12 of either manual) is 2 or 3 years confinement depending on if he's caught or gives himself up.

He's also potentially guilty of being absent without leave, fraud, and so on, some of which would merge with other charges. I'm not really going to get into all that research, but those are the docs you need.

Looks like there's no limitation on going AWOL, butit's five years otherwise. If fraud is used in a time of war it looks like there's a 3 year statute of limitations that doesn't begin to toll until the Prez declares an end to hostilities, which technically never happened in Korea.

Basically, I'm not sure if the armed forces have ever prosecuted a case like Don's and they may prefer to let the civil courts have a crack at him.

I practice appellate criminal defense in a Federal Public Defender office. I have a bit of experience in military law, but it was scant, and years ago. Still, the following information and observations are a place to start.

The modern Uniform Code of Military Justice ("UCMJ") became effective 31 May 1951. Previously, military justice had been governed by the Articles of War. In the Mad Men timeline, Dick Whitman's offenses took place, or commenced, before the effective date of the UCMJ. I have no idea whether a military prosecution of Whitman in 1963 would proceed under the UCMJ, or the Articles.

The UCMJ is found in Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 47 of the United States Code. One may access it at:

<link>

The text is also available at:

<link>

Setting aside the Articles v. UCMJ question, Whitman should be subject to military justice, notwithstanding his nominal civilian status, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 802(c), which provides that "a person serving with an armed force . . . is subject to [the UCMJ] until such person’s active service has been terminated in accordance with law or regulations . . . ." It certainly appears that Whitman's service was never lawfully terminated; it was fraudulently terminated. Therefore, he is presumably still subject to the UCMJ.

The UCMJ statute of limitations is at 10 U.S.C. § 843. Subsection (a) provides that:

"A person charged with absence without leave or missing movement in time of war, . . . or with any other offense punishable by death, may be tried and punished at any time without limitation."

On the face of this provision, Dick Whitman, while presumed dead, is actually absent without leave, and thus is still subject to prosecution in a court martial. I believe he might also be subject to a charge of desertion. Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 885,

"(a) Any member of the armed forces who—

(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently; (2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; . . .

is guilty of desertion. . . . . (c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct . . . ."

Because the charge, desertion in time of war, would be punishable by death (even if that is not actually the punishment imposed), then no period of limitation would apply, and Whitman presumably could still be subject to military prosecution in 1963. Apart from those offenses, subsection (b)(1) of § 843 provides that:

"Except as otherwise provided in this section (article), a person charged with an offense is not liable to be tried by court-martial if the offense was committed more than five years before the receipt of sworn charges and specifications . . . ."

(Emphasis added.) That would seem to spare Whitman from the threat of prosecution for offenses committed in 1950 or 1951, as long as those offenses are not the ones specified in subsection (a) (i.e., absence without leave, or a capital offense). But he might still be at risk if the offense is considered a continuing offense. Another possible risk of prosecution -- one that's by no means clear from the information the show has given us -- might arise if he is receiving any veteran's benefits as Don Draper that he would not be entitled to as Dick Whitman. That type of fraudulent act would likely be prosecutable either in the military justice system, or by civilian federal prosecutors.

Keeping in mind that these may be outside the period of limitation, here are some offenses Whitman may have committed:

10 U.S.C. § 883 provides that:

"Any person who—

(1) . . . (2) procures his own separation from the armed forces by knowingly false representation or deliberate concealment as to his eligibility for that separation;

shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

Under 10 U.S.C. § 892, someone who:

"(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation; (2) . . . ; or (3) is derelict in the performance of his duties,"

is subject to military prosecution. 10 U.S.C. § 907 provides for the punishment of a person who makes false official statements -- such as, say, Dick Whitman signing discharge documents as Don Draper. 10 U.S.C. § 932 provides for the punishment of frauds against the United States. This is one that at least plausibly might be construed as a continuing offense; it would depend on facts of the case, such as whether Dick is receiving veteran's benefits as Don. I have not found any UCMJ provision that identifies the fraudulent assumption of another soldier's identity, or the impersonation of an officer, as a specific offense. It could be that those acts are chargeable only as violations of more general provisions, such as those I have cited above.

Thank you.

That's all I need to know Don's in deep doo-doo. He's now got someone who knows his story with a motive for making it public, or threatening to do so. Forget what the law says about divorce in NY in 1963; Betty's got him by the short hairs, and he will do whatever she says. He may not even be able to do a flit now; the logical place for him to run to is California, and Betty knows Anna's address. And she could easily have cops looking for him there. Don's getting a little old to just start over working in a garage or used car lot again; it's not 1951 anymore.

How much money is in that drawer again?

I don't think the doo-doo's all that deep. Don's smart. He's got a plan. Like he told Bobby: "I'll be fine."

First off, there aren't any cops looking for him, in California or elsewhere. All of his Dick Whitman relatives are dead, so don't have anyone looking. And the only Draper family member who matters -- Anna -- ain't talkin'. As far as the army is concerned, they had one dead guy, identified as Dick Whitman, who got buried by his family, and one injured guy, identified as Don Draper, who got discharged. End o' story. Who'd be looking.

Even if Betty tried to spill her tale, who'd be listening after all these years? Now, if Don was stupid enough to be collecting the original Don Draper's veteran's benefits, then that'd be a different story, but like I said -- Don's smart. I'll bet he never collected a penny. And I'm guessing he found a legal way to change his name, too.

Worst case scenario for Don would be that he contacts a good lawyer, and turns himself in. After all these years, a good lawyer could almost certainly get the charges dismissed.

How's Don going to go about not getting his benefits? "Sorry, these aren't mine" is going to raise some eyebrows back at HQ Wherever. And I don't think a military court would be too impressed with "but I didn't cash them".

The cops aren't looking for him NOW. But if he skedaddles, Betty's the one who's going to have a good lawyer, and that lawyer is going to be hollering "war deserter stole a dead hero's identity" to the press, and Don's going to have a very uncomfortable flight after that.

Think there's a false beard tucked away in that drawer? Maybe he can steal Paul's.

What veterans benefits?. There's no cash payment unless you're disabled. Don didn't go to college on the GI Bill. He hasn't used the VA medical system. No reason at all for him to interact with the VA.

But here's the buried landmine. When you go into the military, you're fingerprinted, and your prints go into the FBI system. Dick Whitman's prints are sitting down in Washington, with his name on them. If Don is ever fingerprinted for anything -- Bingo! Drunk driving arrest, anyone?

Good point. How sophisticated was the FBI system back then? No databases of any sort yet, right? Someone would have to know to check one against the other to make a match. Does Pete know this? He has a friend at the defense dept per season 1.

In an earlier episode, it was mentioned that Don had attended night school. Sounds like he might have dipped into the GI Bill on that one. Don is not exactly a big rule follower, so I do not know why you would believe him scamming the VA would be above him.

The finger print card from his military induction would take some real digging to find back in those days. Maybe not impossible, but the search would only occur if they were in fact trying to prove he had made the identity switch.

Back in 1963, Dick/Don would have had difficulty finding a "good" lawyer to take his case. His would have been a very unpopular case, especially in the months following the death of a war hero President. The New York Daily News would have torn Dick/Don apart. He would have been convicted in the press, long before he went to trial.

Do you really believe the Conservative Texan Hilton, or Navy man Roger Sterling would stand by this deserter. Also, the Manchurian candidate came out about that time. The movie got buried because of the Kennedy assasination, but the story line indicates how suspect a deserter of that conflict who assumed an officer's identity would be. People might even suspect he had a hand in the death of the real Cpt Draper. Hell, If MM had not actually shown the sequence of how Cpt Drapper was killed, I might suspect it myself.

Dick/Don would run. Nothing in his character indicates he would face the music.

At this point, four people know of Don's deception: Pete, Burt, Anna and Betty. Pete and Burt only know that Don's using an alias, they don't have any details about how or why, so legally they'd have to do some serious leg work to hurt him -- and neither seems inclined to do so at this point.

Anna will protect Don because she's fond of him and has a financial stake in his well being.

Betty could hurt him, but if she does, she loses her meal ticket and ruins not just her own social standing, but that of her three kids. She may be a neglectful, cold mother in many respects, but she won't want to scuttle her kids' future. While she might try to bully Don/Dick with threats, he'll call her bluff just the way he did Pete's. And he'll be the one to remind what ratting him out would do both to her and the children. She'll find other ways to hurt him that are much more vicious than turning him into the police or the military. Abandoning him emotionally and physically will do far more damage than the law could ever inflict.

A couple of weeks ago there was an article in the NY Times on Mad Men and Ossining NY. Sorry I don't have the link, but I think it was posted on the MM AMC web site. It was about how MM always tries to be authentic about times and places. In the last paragraph the guy they interviewed from the Ossining historical society said something like "I hope this isn't a spoiler but the last thing they asked me was about the Ossining city jail." I think poor Dick is going to jail in epi.13.

'Our worst fears lie in anticipation'. Would DD turn himself in?

Wow I got a lot of answers here. Thanks all. I see some cool points. I think Don would take VA money and that an ongoing fraud. Plus if he everywore his military uniform after leaving the servce to all event. That a charge of being in a uniform you are not entitled to wear. Some old guy by my me a few years ago made himself a Col in the USMC when he was just a sgt. They give him 5 years in the big house for that!