U.S. Army v. E-2 (Article 112a) Wrongful Use of a Controlled Substance
N/A
OUTCOME: UPGRADED TO HONORABLE DISCHARGE!
This client was a great Infantry Soldier who served honorably while deployed fighting our nations wars. He wanted to go into the Special Forces. He started conducting special training to do so. Several... of his peers were training for the same thing. They started taking supplements. They did not hide it. They were open with hit. Before long the Chain of Command caught wind, and our client was given an Article 15 and reduced to E-2. As with all wrongful use of controlled substances cases, Soldiers must be processed for separation. Our client was processed for separation and his Colonel directed that he be retained. Inexplicably he was separated about a month later with a General Under Honorable Conditions. Given the fact that his Colonel directed he be retained, the Discharge Review Board saw fit to upgrade his general discharge to a Honorable Discharge.
Military law
US v. E-4 (Administrative Separation Board for patterns of misconduct)
N/A
OUTCOME: Honorable Discharge
Fort Hood, Texas
Client was originally an E-5 but was reduced for very minor misconduct. She had missed a change of command rehearsal, and her uniform was not in order for an inspection on two diffe...rent occasions. After missing a couple of medical appointments, the unit decided to initiate separation paperwork. Client was about to ETS shortly after the schedule board date. The Board realized two things. The client was leaving the Army shortly, and that her service was honorable. The board by their decision also realized that the unit was being extremely petty by their treatment of this Soldier.
Result: Honorable Discharge. Client's benefits were retained, additionally client received her separation pay.
Military law
U.S. Army v. SGT (Article 15)
N/A
OUTCOME: REDUCTION
Fort Hood, Texas
Our client contacted us after he had been giving his first reading for an Article 15. After our initial consultation, he hired us and we began diligently working on his case. Our cl...ient was charged with failure to report to duty and failure to obey a lawful order. There were some underlying circumstances that needed to be addressed to the Field Grade officer who was holding the Article 15 hearing.
The NCO had been accounted for as AWOL prior to the initial reading of his Article 15; therefore, the "second" failure to report to duty was taken to the chain of command for non-punitive action. This "AWOL" was not and should have never been defined as an AWOL. The NCO was in-processing the unit and had not met his new supervisor or had been given any information as to his place of duty. He believed his place of duty was to in-process and to take care of the administrative and housing items he needed to.
The NCO was abruptly informed that he had been accounted as AWOL and he needed to obtain some 4187s and sign some re-enlistment documentation stating that he had been AWOL. The NCO not wanting to make a big deal out of the matter did so as told. He then began reporting to his appointed place of duty until the "second" failure. The NCO's "second" failure was his on wrongdoing and openly admitted it; however, this should have been his first, one, and only mess up throughout his time at his new unit and his entire Army career for that matter.
At the second reading, the NCO was prepared with a well written rebuttal statement from our office detailing the events that led the NCO to the Article 15. The Field Grade officer agreed with the NCO, found him guilty of the failure to report to duty and dismissed the charge of failure to obey a lawful order due to semantics.
Due to financial hardship that the AWOL had caused on the NCO, the Field Grade officer issued the following punishment: Reduction to E4, suspended for 180 days; Forfeiture of half month's pay for two months, suspended for 180 days; and extra duty for 30 days. Since the Article 15 closing the NCO has not had any of his punishment vacated, successfully completed his extra duty, and is looking forward to honorably leaving the service to pursue other dreams. Currently he still retains his rank as an E-5.
Military law
US Air Force v. E-4 (Article 112a, Article 92, Article 89, Article 111, Article 134)
N/A
OUTCOME: 1 YEAR OF CONFINEMENT ADJUGED
Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska (JBER)]
Client was originally facing an article 15 and possibly administrative separation for spice use. The client made multiple statements to OSI hoping to ...cut a deal. However, his conversations with OSI resulted in a search of his car and room. OSI however seized multiple items from his room that was not part of the original search warrant which would have violated Article 92 and possibly Article 121. Because these items were not part of the search warrant, a Judge would have suppressed the items from being entered as evidence. Ultimately, the defense successfully negotiated those alleged offenses away. As the case progressed, the client continued to commit misconduct. His continued misconduct resulted in 5 months of pretrial confinement at the Anchorage Confinement Facility. Over the course of the confinement, the defense team learned that the Anchorage Jail was not following procedures laid out in a memorandum of agreement that it had agreed to follow when housing Air Force Airmen in confinement. A thorough search of the case law revealed that our client was not the first client that had issues with the Anchorage Confinement Facility. In our brief to the Judge for Pre-trial confinement credit, we cited U.S. v. Zarbatany, 70 M.J. 169 (C.A.A.F. 2011) where another airman was subjected to unacceptable standards while in confinement at the Anchorage confinement facility. Ultimately the Judge ended up giving our client 11 months of confinement credit. Over the course of the case, the defense team negotiated a deal on behalf of the client for 24 months of confinement.
Result: Guilty Plea. 1 year of confinement adjudged. The Air Force decided to forgo the remaining confinement credit and the client was able to go free the very day of the Courts Martial.
Military law
US Marine Corps vs. E-6, (Article 120, Sexual Assault)
N/A
OUTCOME: NO CONFINEMENT
Okinawa Japan
Client was facing 3 Sexual Assault Charges in addition to an Adultery. Client was facing 70 years in prison and a dishonorable discharge.
Trial Result: Client was found not guilty o...f all Sexual Assault Charges (60 years worth of confinement alone knocked off a potential sentence) and Not Guilty of Adultery. Guilty on Fraternization and Guilty of Consensual Sodomy.
Result: Reduction to E-1 and a Bad Conduct Discharge. No confinement. The Bad Conduct Discharge is appealable. Stay tuned for more details.
Military law
Article 15
N/A
OUTCOME: REDUCTION OF PAY
Fort Belvoir, VA
After receiving her initial Field Grade Article 15 reading, our client contacted us and hired us immediately after the initial consultation. Our client was charged with conspiracy (...Article 81) and false and official statement (Article 107). After reviewing all the evidence that was discovered in the CID investigation, Mr. Jordan designed an apology statement to the Field Grade Officer from our client. This apology along with in-person testimony was given to the Field Grade Officer for his consideration at our client's second Article 15 reading.
Result: The Field Grade Officer only reduced our client on pay grade and she was later informed that she will not be administratively separated.
Military law
US Air Force vs. E8 (Article 92, Unprofessional Relationship)
N/A
OUTCOME: NO PUNITIVE ACTION
Tucson, Arizona
Client was accused of an unprofessional relationship with a Airman of a lower rank.
Result: Client plead guilty at a Summary Courts Martial, no punitive action taken. No Federal F...elony Conviction.
Military law
U.S. Army v. CW3 (GOMOR)
N/A
OUTCOME: CONTINUED CAREER
Afghanistan/Fort Belvoir
After being informed she was under investigation for falsifying her flight records this pilot contacted us immediately to protect and defend her career. This mere oversight ...was discovered by her most recent command, of whom accused her of falsifying or altering her records, and did no further investigation into the matter. She was then issued a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand for falsifying/altering her flight records. Mr. Jordan revealed that not only was our client not guilty of the accusation, but also revealed that the AR 15-6 investigation was extremely poorly done.
Result: The GOMOR was locally filed, and she was able to continue her career as an Army pilot.
Military law
US Army v. E-7 (Article 93 Cruelty and Maltreatment to Subordinates)
N/A
OUTCOME: SENTENCE REDUCTION
Fort Wainwright, Alaska
Client accused of verbally abusing a lower enlisted individual. Unfortunately the individual committed suicide for unknown reasons. Client was charged with 6 specifications o...f Article 93. Client had served almost 20 years, deployed multiple times as a 11B and served as a drill sergeant for 3 years.
Result: Guilty. The judge condensed all 6 specifications into one charge. He cut the language that client was not guilty of.
Sentence: Reduction to E-5. NO CONFINEMENT! NO PUNITIVE DISCHARGE!
Military law
U.S. Army v. CPT (GOMOR)
N/A
OUTCOME: RESUMED COMMAND
Hawaii
Our client received the following simultaneously: 1) Results of the AR 15-6 Investigation; 2) Notice of intent for Relief for Cause OER; and 3) a GOMOR. This officer knew he had to protect hi...s future career in the U.S. Army and obtained our services. He was accused of knowingly having a relationship with a female officer that was married. However, this was not the case. During their short relationship the female officer lied and deceived our client into believing she was single. He was not confronted with this information that she was married until after her divorce was finalized. In our clients response, Mr. Jordan illustrated in a very articulated manner to the commanding general why and how our client did not knowingly have a relationship with a married woman.
Result: The commanding general filed his GOMOR in his local file, he resumed command and was not issued a relief for cause OER.
