Richard W. Vogler Technical Sergeant U.S. Air Force Convicted Sex Offender Rape Forcible Sodomy of a Child

Home > Sexual Crimes Against Children > Richard W. Vogler

Name: Richard W Vogler

U.S. V. Vogler No. ACM 37231

Date Of Conviction: November 13, 2007

Plea: Guilty

Charges: Rape, forcible sodomy of a child

Military Branch: U.S. Army

Listed In National Sex Offenders Registry? YES California

Sentence adjudged 13 November 2007 by GCM convened at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Military Judge: W. Thomas Cumbie (sitting alone).

Approved sentence: Dishonorable discharge, confinement for 20 years, and reduction to E-1.

Pursuant to his pleas, a military judge sitting as a general court-martial found the appellant guilty of one specification of divers rape, one specification of divers rape of a child, one specification of divers forcible sodomy, one specification of divers forcible sodomy of a child, one specification of divers indecent acts with a child, one specification of divers indecent assault, and one specification of willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer, in violation of Articles 120, 125, 134, and 90, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 920, 925, 934, 890. The military judge sentenced the appellant to a dishonorable discharge, thirty years of confinement, and a reduction to the grade of E-1. The convening authority approved the dishonorable discharge, the reduction to the grade of E-1, and, pursuant to a pretrial agreement, twenty years confinement.

On appeal, the appellant asks the Court to, alternatively: (1) order a sentence rehearing; (2) set aside the findings or a portion of the findings; (3) grant administrative credit toward his sentence of confinement; (4) grant meaningful relief by reducing his sentence of confinement; (5) reassess his sentence; and (6) set aside the sentence.

In early 1996, the appellant began a sexual relationship with SNV, his then eight-year-old stepdaughter. Over the course of several years, he fondled her vagina and breasts and forced her to fondle his penis.3 When SNV turned twelve years old, she and the appellant began to engage in oral sex. Over the course of several years, the appellant performed cunnilingus on SNV, forced SNV to perform fellatio on him, and on at least two occasions anally sodomized SNV.

When SNV turned thirteen years old, the appellant began coercing her to have sexual intercourse with him. His sexual intercourse with SNV continued until she was nineteen years old. On 20 July 2007, SNV, with the encouragement of her boyfriend, reported the appellant to law enforcement officials. On 22 July 2007, agents with the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) summoned the appellant to their office for an interview. After a proper rights advisement, the appellant waived his rights, agreed to answer questions, and admitted to having “consensual” oral and sexual intercourse with SNV since she was sixteen years old. On or about 26 July 2007, the appellant‟s commander, having been informed of the misconduct, issued the appellant a “no contact” order prohibiting him from having any contact with SNV. On or about 31 July 2007, the appellant violated the “no contact” order by sending SNV two text messages.

After the convening authority dismissed the divers forcible sodomy of a child specification and the divers indecent acts with a child specification, the appellant remained convicted of the bulk of the charges and specifications. Significantly, the appellant remained convicted of charges that carried a maximum period of confinement of life without the possibility of parole and, contrary to the appellant‟s assertions, the sentencing landscape did not change. In short, we find no error.

Over the course of many years, the appellant sexually assaulted, raped, and sodomized a child whom he was entrusted to protect. His crimes rank among the most heinous crimes recognized by society and severely compromise his standing as a non-commissioned officer, a military member, and a member of society. After carefully examining the submissions of counsel, the appellant‟s military record, and taking into account all the facts and circumstances surrounding the offenses of which the appellant was found guilty, we do not find the appellant‟s sentence, one which includes twenty years of confinement, inappropriately severe.

We have considered the additional assertions of error, find them to be without merit, and find them to be without worthiness of further discussion.