An Army general who was accused of sexually assaulting his lover was reprimanded on Thursday and ordered to pay $24,100 in fines and restitution but will not face jail time or a demotion in rank.



Brig Gen Jeffrey Sinclair, 51, who is married with two children, pleaded guilty this week to reduced charges, in a plea deal which saw the dismissal of separate charges that he forced a military intelligence officer with whom he was having an affair into oral sex and threatened to kill her and her family.



He admitted having a three-year affair with a the officer – a 34-year-old captain – and two other inappropriate relationships with subordinates and pled guilty to maltreatment of the captain, disobeying a commander’s order and misusing a government credit card for trips to see his mistress.

Sinclair, thought to be the highest-ranking general ever to be tried for sexual assault, was deputy commander of the 82nd Airborne Division and of American forces in southern Afghanistan, when he was recalled in 2012.

Upon hearing the sentence, Sinclair smiled and hugged his two lawyers in the courtroom at Fort Bragg, according to the Associated Press. Outside the building, he said “the system worked” and all he wanted to do now was “hug my wife and sons.”

As part of the plea deal, Sinclair’s sentence could not exceed terms enclosed in a sealed agreement between defence lawyers and military attorneys. The agreement, unsealed Thursday, called for Sinclair to serve no more than 18 months in jail.



In closing arguments, prosecutors said that Sinclair should be thrown out of the Army and lose his military benefits, while his defence argued that would harm his innocent wife and children the most.



The two sides also offered contrasting arguments about the seriousness of the charges he was accused of.

“It’s not just one mistake. Not just one lapse in judgment. It was repeated,” said prosecutor Maj Rebecca DiMuro. “They are not mistakes. We are not in the court of criminal mistakes. These are crimes.”

After the plea deal, Sinclair could have faced a maximum penalty of 20 years, although the prosecution did not ask the judge for a prison sentence. The charges included requesting explicit photographs from female army officers, possessing pornography in a combat theatre and seeking a date with a lieutenant.

The judge could have dismissed the general from the army.

Sinclair pleaded guilty to adultery, which is a crime in the military, in addition to using a government-issued credit card to pay for trips to see his lover and other conduct unbecoming an officer.

The case against him began to unravel when it emerged that his accuser may have perjured herself in a pretrial hearing in January, amid questions of whether military officials improperly rejected a previous plea deal because of political concerns.

Amid what has been described as an “epidemic” of sexual assault in the military, Congress has been recently engaged in a heated debate over how best to tackle it, with a central issue being whether the prosecution of sexual assault should be taken out of the chain of command. Both sides in the debate have cited the problem-ridden case in arguments to support their case.

The defence had called a host of character witnesses this week to laud Sinclair as a selfless leader.

During his hearing, Sinclair broke down in tears multiple times, including when a letter from his wife was read aloud.



He apologized to his family and the women with whom he admitted inappropriate relationships.

“I’ve been frustrated and angry, but I don’t have to look any further than the mirror for someone to blame,” he said.

In the letter, Rebecca Sinclair, who hasn’t attended her husband’s hearings, said she hasn’t fully forgiven her husband but doesn’t want the army to punish him and his family further with a significant reduction to his pension and other benefits.

“Believe me when I tell you that the public humiliation and vilification he has endured are nothing compared to the private suffering and guilt that he lives with every day,” she wrote.

The case has dragged on for two years, amid an ongoing debate about how best to tackle rising numbers of sexual assault in the military.

Victims groups have long argued that independent military prosecutors should be in charge of deciding whether to go forward with cases, to avoid the conflicts of interest that having commanders in charge brings.

On Thursday, senator Kirsten Gillibrand said the case provided a argument for her recent unsuccessful bill, opposed by military leaders, to strip commanders of the authority to prosecute cases and put such cases instead in the hands of independent military lawyers.

In a statement, Gillibrand said: “This case has illustrated a military justice system in dire need of independence from the chain of command. It’s not only the right thing to do for our men and women in uniform, but would also mitigate issues of undue command influence that we have seen in many trials over the last year.”

Gillibrand is expected to renew her effort to change military law when the Senate begins work on a defence policy bill in the spring.

Brian Purchia, of Protect Our Defenders, a group supporting victims of military sexual assault, described the outcome of the case as “slap in the face” to victims. Purchia said: “This is showing the world that the Pentagon is serious about sexual assault? This man, who forces subordinates to send nude photographs of themselves and was accused of threatening the lives of families? This is the person they want in command?”



“This sends a very bad signal to the troops and those victims thinking of coming forward” said Purchia. It shows yet again why we need independent and impartial justice system for military sexual assault.”

Greg Jacobs, a former Marine and the policy director of the Service Women’s Action Network policy director said: “The General Sinclair case will go down in history as yet another reason we need Senator Gillibrand’s Military Justice Improvement Act.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report