Recent Case Results
US Air Force vs. Captain USAF (General Officer Article 15): Captain USAF was falsely accused of stealing property of a cross-fit club she had operated. Mis-advised by military defense counsel, she was punished with a General Officer Article 15 for larceny and false official statement. Captain USAF contacted our firm. We researched the issue and found governing authority that proved her actions had been lawful. Our detailed submission convinced the commanding general to reverse his decision. All punishment was set aside.
US Army vs. Staff Sergeant USA (Administrative Separation Board): Sergeant USA had tested positive for cocaine but had never knowingly taken the substance. His command reduced him from E6 to E5 and tried to separate (chapter) him with an Other-Than-Honorable discharge. He then contacted our firm. We investigated and determined that SGT USA had unknowingly been given cocaine at a party. We secured affidavits from witnesses and presented the case to the administrative separation board, which retained SGT USA.
US Navy vs. Lieutenant USN (Sexual Assault Investigation): Lieutenant USN volunteered with a local sports program where a team member falsely accused him of sexual assault. The Navy opened a criminal investigation and placed him on legal hold. He then contacted our firm. Using evidence from private investigators and working with the client, we provided exculpatory information to NCIS and then persuaded Navy Prosecutors to not bring any charges against him.
US Army vs. CPT JAG (OER Appeal): CPT JAG received an unfair rating with multiple inaccurate comments in his OER. Although he knew what to do and had taken appropriate steps to advocate for himself, his command ignored his efforts. He then reached out to our firm. Involving outside counsel caused the command to reconsider the previously-submitted arguments, and the command made appropriate changes to some of the disputed OER comments. CPT JAG subsequently promoted to Major.
US Army vs. Mr. USA (DoD Civilian Employment Action): Mr. USA, a longtime Army civilian employee, was notified that his commander intended to terminate his employment for misconduct, based on a number of allegations that were either false, inaccurate, or mischaracterized. Mr. USA contacted our firm for help. After an extensive review of the allegations and all underlying facts, we prepared a detailed rebuttal, asking the command to not terminate Mr. USA’s employment. The command was persuaded and withdrew the proposed termination action. Mr. USA received a minor action to address undisputed issues, and continues to be a DoD Employee today.
US Navy vs. LCDR USN (Confidential Advice): In preparing for an active-duty mobilization, LCDR USN encountered a personal issue that carried potential legal, administrative, and security-clearance issues. After receiving advice from another law firm that concerned him, LCDR USN contacted our firm. We assessed the issue and provided detailed advice that allowed LCDR USN to mobilize without issue.
US Army vs. SGM USA (Sexual Harassment): SGM USA faced allegations of sexual harassment that included several false claims. The command wanted to take the case to court-martial and filed charges. We intervened and persuaded the legal office to re-assess the case. After interviewing witnesses, securing statements, and advocating to prosecutors, we were able to get all charges resolved through summary court-martial action, leaving SGM USA with a clean criminal record. SGM USA was reduced to E8 but was able to finish his tour and retire.
US Navy v. Seaman Apprentice (SA) USN (Investigation): SA USN was in a highly selective specialty training program when allegations of misconduct raised the possibility of him being involuntarily separated. He contacted the firm looking for assistance. Through informal advocacy with the unit legal advisor and assistance to the Sailor in preparing his remarks at captain’s mast, we were able to ensure that SA USN continued the specialty program after receiving minor punishment under Article 15.
US v. SPC USAR (Federal Civilian Arrest): SPC USAR drove across state lines on his way to a training exercise with his personally-owned weapon in his car, which he could legally carry in his home state. Arrested at the installation gate as a civilian, he faced a federal weapons charge when he called us. We leveraged our good working relationship with the local U.S. Attorney’s office and also reached out to the command to head off the potential prosecution. No charges were filed and no adverse action of any kind was taken against SPC USAR.
US Air Force v. SrA USAF (Command Investigation): SrA USAF, a female Airman who married just before deploying to CENTCOM AOR, was wrongfully accused by her husband upon her return. He then attempted to extort money from her and then made allegations against her to her command. She hired us. We helped her find a local family law firm to help her divorce the accuser, then we worked with her command to clear her of any serious misconduct. She received a locally-filed LOR for minor misconduct and was allowed to re-enlist for a choice assignment, leaving her (now-ex) husband behind.
US Army v. SFC USA (Sexual Assault Allegation): During a mission with a no-drinking GO1, SFC USA was invited out with two female officers who proceeded to get extremely intoxicated and acted unprofessionally. SFC USA made sure the officers got back to their room. The next morning, unable to remember due to intoxication and fearing that she would be in trouble for her antics the night before, one of the officers made sexual assault allegations against. SFC USA. He came to us. We coordinated with both CID and his command to provide exculpatory information. No criminal charges were filed. SFC USA faced a GOMOR for his GO1 violation only.
US Army v. SGT USA (Hot Urinalysis): After attending a family reunion, SGT USA came up hot for marijuana in his post-leave urinalysis screen, despite not having used. He came to us for help. We interviewed multiple witnesses and determined that he had unknowingly consumed a brownie at the family event that had been made with cannibutter. On our advice, SGT USA turned down the offered Article 15. The command then brought court-martial charges but withdrew them after we provided a legal analysis letter showing that their efforts to prosecute would end in failure.
US Air Force v. Capt USAF (Officer Misconduct): Capt USAF, an instructor pilot unpopular because of his tough standards for his students, was wrongfully accused of drinking before a flight, maltreating his trainees, and other false allegations. The command offered him nonjudicial punishment (Article 15). He turned to us for advice. We reviewed the case and told him to turn it down. The command then announced that it would court-martial him but reversed itself when we contacted and explained the weakness of their case. The commanding general then issued a LOR. We assisted Capt USAF in submitting a rebuttal. The LOR was then downgraded to a LOA.
US Army v. PFC USA (Hate Crime Allegation): A trainee barely in the Army, PFC USA was accused of a hate crime based on her verbal altercation with another trainee. Facing Article 15 punishment and possible separation, PFC AIT took the unusual step of seeking private legal help and found us. We investigated the matter and found multiple inconsistencies with the allegations, which we shared with the command. The unit listened to us and elected to not punish or separate PFC USA, who received only a verbal reprimand for his role in the incident.
US Army v. SSG USA (Sexual Assault Allegation): During a visit to his hometown, SSG USA faced allegations of physical and sexual assault form multiple accusers. Local police investigated. The county DA determined that the case lacked merit and declined to prosecute. The accusers then added new allegations and took the matter to Army CID. The Army took up the case, filing over a dozen charges of physical and sexual assaults. SSG USA came to our firm expecting the worst. We took the case head-on, challenging every claim and investigating every detail. After a series of successful motions, the government came to us looking for a deal. We rejected their offers and countered with terms favorable to our client. Ultimately, the government agreed to our demands and SSG USA was convicted of only a single misdemeanor-type assault. We then litigated a strong sentencing case and saved SSG USA from receiving a punitive discharge. Reduced to E4, he served only 75 days in jail. When the command tried to chapter him, we intervened again. He ETS’d with an honorable discharge.
US Air Force v. Mrs. USAF (Victim Representation): A military spouse, unhappy with the services she was receiving from her detailed special victim counsel (SVC) came to us for assistance. We helped her gain understanding and a sense of control that allowed her to make informed decisions as the named victim in domestic-violence charges being prosecuted against her estranged husband. We worked with her local divorce attorney so that her civil and military actions were coordinated, and she was able to obtain good outcomes in both matters.
US Army v. CPT USA (Sexual Assault Allegation): A company commander was wrongfully accused of sexual assault by a female member of a local sports club. The Army filed eight sexual assault charges against him. CPT USA came to us for legal help. We dug deep into the facts and found witnesses that had been overlooked by CID in their rush to prosecute. Following aggressive pretrial litigation, we fought the case at a week-long trial. CPT USA was found Not Guilty of all sexual assault allegations.
US Army v. Mrs. USA (Family Representation): Mother of a Soldier who suffered a head injury contacted our firm, desperately looking for help. She was concerned about the way her son was being treated after Army doctors determined that he was mentally incompetent. We coordinated with his command, unit legal advisors, and the Army hospital counsel to help her retain a sense of control and make plans to transition her son out of active duty and into long-term VA care.
US Army v. SSG USA (Criminal Investigation): Army NCO had an inappropriate relationship that went bad when he attempted to end it. The woman with whom he was involved then contacted law enforcement and made various claims against SSG USA and his wife. Worried he would be court-martialed, he hired us. We persuaded the unit legal advisor to not pursue the accuser’s allegations to military police. No charges were filed. He received an Article 15 for his role in the relationship only.
US Navy v. SCPO USN (Complaint Against Command): As the global coronavirus pandemic began to unfold, the Navy attempted to force a SCPO USN back to CONUS before he could receive necessary medical care. He called us from a foreign hospital seeking help as his command was threatening criminal action against him. We contacted the command and its legal advisor and brought clarity to the situation. His travel arrangements were modified to ensure his safe, comfortable travel home, and SCPO USN was allowed to seek care after his return to CONUS.
US Army v. SPC USA (Sexual Assault Allegation): After being called by the staff duty for help, SPC USA wound up having to restrain a drunk Soldier who was out of control in the barracks. Later, that Soldier tried to accused SPC USA of sexual assault in order to avoid getting in trouble for his outburst in the barracks. Because SPC USA had been in trouble before, the command believed the allegation and launched a CID investigation into the false claim. SPC USA came to us for help. We investigated the matter and found witnesses that cleared SPC USA. We took the information to CID, which closed the case without titling SPC USA for any offense.
US Army v. SPC USA (Command Investigation): Following a nasty divorce, SPC USA married a Soldier he had met while his divorce was pending. His ex-wife made allegations that SPC USA had been committing extramarital conduct and had violated a military protective order. After he came to us for representation, we intervened and pushed back on the allegations, citing law and policy that favored SPC USA. The command dropped the matter without any adverse action.
US Army v. CPT USA (Show Cause): During a long, drawn-out divorce from his first wife, CPT USA faced a show cause board for an inappropriate relationship. CPT USA had been upfront with the 15-6 Investigating Officer in the hopes that his honesty and transparency would satisfy his command. It did not. He was ordered to show cause for retention. He hired us to represent him at his show-cause board, where we showcased his high value to the Army and painted the full picture about his divorce. He was retained.
US Army v. WO1 USA (Promotion Review Board): WO1 USA was up for promotion to CW2 when an old Article 15 he had received years before was discovered and caused his promotion to be held up. He hired us to represent him at his promotion review board (PRB). We put together a strong packet that put his earlier misstep in perspective and highlighted his success in the years that had followed. He was cleared by the PRB and pinned on CW2 shortly thereafter.
US Army v. SPC USA (Attempted Murder): Following multiple shooting incidents, the command charged SPC USA with attempted murder and aggravated assault. He hired a local attorney who signed him up to a deal that guaranteed a dishonorable discharge and lengthy confinement. At the last minute, SPC USA realized he was in a bad position legally and backed out of the deal. The command retaliated by adding several additional serious charges and sent the case to a General Court-Martial. He then hired us. We pushed back, secured a better deal than SPC USA originally had, despite the new charges being added on. SPC USA avoided the aggravated assault and attempted murder charges, pleading guilty only to reckless endangerment, a much less serious offense. We then litigated sentencing before a military judge, who gave SPC USA the smallest amount of confinement in the range allowed.
US Air Force v. MSgt USAFR (Bar to Reenlistment): Following a rumor of misconduct that was never appropriately investigated, SMSgt USAF was hit with a series of administrative actions culminating in a bar to reenlistment that effectively ended his USAFR career. He then contacted us for help. We responded to a the administrative actions and then switched to the offensive, assisting MSgt USAF in filing a Military Whistleblower Protection Act Complaint and an Article 138 Complaint. Ultimately, his bar to reenlistment was set aside by a board.
US Navy v. ISTN USN (Administrative Separation): While struggling with a medical condition that had him on-track to a medical separation, ISTN USN missed an appointment. Believing him to be a malingerer, the command tried to end ISTN USN’s service through involuntary separation for misconduct after punishing him under UCMJ Article 15. He sought our assistance, and we took the matter up with both his unit and then the Navy PERS, which cleared him to leave through medical channels. As he was clearing and ready to leave, his unit again tried to pull him back into an active-duty status. We intervened again and ISTN USN was allowed to medically retire.
US Navy v. CPO USN (Sexual Assault Allegation): CPO USN faced false charges of sexual assault brought by the spouse of another Sailor. By the time he contacted us, NCIS had already decided that he was guilty and had processed him for arrest. We dug into the facts and pushed the unit legal advisor to re-assess, helping CPO USN to make a statement to investigators that provided valuable exculpatory information. The Navy prosecutor handling the case agreed with our assessment, and no charges were filed. CPO USN was able to continue his career without issue.
US v. Mrs. USA (Federal Criminal Assault): Following an incident were MPs were called to her on-post residence, Mrs. USA—the spouse of an active-duty Soldier—was cited for domestic violence assault and given a summons for federal court. She then came to us for legal help. Using our experience, knowledge, and good working relationship with the federal prosecutor, we were able to get Mrs. USA’s charges dropped after she participated in an online class for anger management.
US Army v. SFC USA (Criminal Investigation of Alleged Larceny): SFC USA was a designated pay agent of his deployed unit, a duty he was never properly trained for. When he was about to PCS, the unit alleged that he had stolen thousands of dollars and threatened to prosecute him at a court-martial. He came to us looking for legal help. We immediately opened a line of communication with the unit legal advisor to address the accounting discrepancies and then pulled in the unit finance representative to straighten things out. Ultimately, the unit balanced the books and SFC USA received only a locally filed GOMOR… which was destroyed a month later when he PCS’d to his next unit.
WA v. Mr. CIV (Resisting Arrest, Driving Under the Influence, Obstructing an Officer). Mr. CIV called our firm after spending two nights in jail. He was unable to remember all the details of how he got there, but the police report alleged that he was highly intoxicated when stopped and that he resisted with arresting officers and refused to submit to a breath test before a judge ordered an involuntary blood draw. Knowing we had a small window of time before the lab processed his blood test results, we quickly secured a deal with local prosecutors. The Resisting Arrest and Obstructing charges were dropped, and Mr. CIV got a time-served deal for misdemeanor DUI, allowing him to move on with his life.
US Army v. SGT USA (Sexual Harassment and EO Complaint): SGT USA was the NCOIC of a difficult Soldier who repeatedly got in trouble. Annoyed by SGT USA’s efforts to correct her poor performance, she alleged that he was harassing her. When the unit SHARP rejected her complaint, the problem Soldier made a complaint through EO channels against SGT USA, causing his PCS orders to be cancelled. He then called our firm. We gathered statements from witnesses that told the rest of the story and took that information to the unit leadership and their legal advisor. After reviewing everything, SGT USA’s command closed the EO investigation without any adverse action, and SGT USA was allowed to PCS to his next duty station.
US Army v. MAJ USA (OER Rebuttal): MAJ USA came to our firm after receiving a GOMOR for false official statements and other misconduct substantiated by an AR 15-6 Investigation. Following those adverse actions, MAJ USA received a referred OER that incorrectly summarized and unfairly characterized the conduct at issue. We assisted him in preparing his OER response and convinced his rating chain to alter the comments. We also provided MAJ USA with additional confidential legal advice to help him navigate his upcoming reassignment and manage the fallout of the GOMOR.
US Army v. SPC USA (Administrative Separation): SPC USA had been investigated for hazing one of the new Soldiers in his team. The unit did not plan to originally separate him and planned to resolve the matter through an Article 15. SPC USA went to the local TDS office after his first reading. Because of some formatting errors in the Article 15 document, TDS told SPC USA to turn it down. The command responded by initiating a Chapter (Administrative Separation) against SPC USA. He then hired our firm. We assisted him in preparing and submitting a written response to the Chapter packet. SPC USA was separated with a General Discharge under Honorable Conditions.
US Army v. MSG USA (Sexual Assault Allegation): MSG USA was battling depression and was self-medicating with alcohol when he found himself on the receiving end of a sexual assault allegation from a civilian Army employee who had interacted with him while he was drunk. We conducted our own investigation into the matter. We then took what we found to the unit legal advisor and argued that the case should not go to a court-martial because it would likely fail at trial. The legal advisor and command agreed. No charges were filed, and MSG USA received only a GOMOR for his actions.
US Army v. SPC USA (Article 15): SPC USA was facing an Article 15 for not being at his appointed place of duty and then lying about it to his unit leadership. He called us to see if there was anything we could do to help him. After reviewing his case, we advised him that he should not turn down the Article 15 but he that there were significant mitigating circumstances that he should present. We assisted him in preparing matters in extenuation and mitigation. He received a partially suspended punishment.
US Marine Corps vs. Pfc USMC (Desertion): A young Marine trainee, PfC USMC and his roommate decided they had made a mistake by enlisting, and the two left boot camp in the middle of the night with the plan to never return. When his family found out, they urged him to get legal help and put him in contact with us. We realized there was a small window to prevent the case from becoming a court-martial, so we contacted the unit leadership and coordinated for Pfc USMC to return to boot camp, where he received an Article 15 only. We then advised him on his options and ultimately guided him through the process of being separated from service. Pfc USMC left the Marine Corps with a General Discharge under Honorable Conditions.
Air National Guard v. MSgt ANG (Retaliation Complaint): MSgt ANG was a high performer in his unit. Unfortunately, his good performance threatened the AGR NCOIC who supervised him because it was likely that MSgt ANG would be selected to replace the AGR NCOIC as soon as MSgt ANG got promoted. The NCOIC then took several actions to derail MSgt ANG’s chances at promotion. MSgt USAFR tried to raise the issue to his leadership but was ignored. He then contacted our firm for help. We prepared a formal complaint and filed it on his behalf to the state TAG. The TAG’s legal advisor re-considered the earlier denial of MSgt’s original complaints and agreed with our assessment that retaliation had taken place. The TAG then ordered an investigation into the actions of the AGR NCOIC.
Past results are no guarantee for future results. Every case is different.