About Those Dishonorably Discharged . . .

I've been thinking lately about those soldiers who are dishonorably discharged from the service. This train of thought started with the recent killing of the Wal-Mart clerk by a former Marine who had been dishonorably discharged; her death was the first act of a crime-spree that took the man from Texas to Arizona and ended with his arrest after he sought medical treatment from a gunshot wound from someone who didn't wish to be robbed. All I know about the man's military service is that he was discharged for smoking pot, although I assume that he had more infractions than that on his record.

What I'm wondering is whether soldiers dishonorably discharged, especially those who have committed crimes, should be on some kind of oversight, almost like probation. I know very little about how the military deals with soldiers it has to kick out: do they first undergo a criminal penalty, like 30 days in the brig for pot smoking, then get discharged? Are they discharged first, then dealt with by civilian law enforcement? Or are they just discharged, period? Does the procedure differ based on the reason they are being kicked out? I assume it does.

Sociologists could probably tell us if those dishonorably discharged commit crimes at a higher rate than the general population--it would be interesting to know. Part of my thinking runs like this: if the military can't make them behave, do we really want them back as civilians with no oversight?

Tell me if I'm on the right track, or if I'm overreacting to one tragic incident.