Adverse Administrative Actions
There are many ways that the military will "fire" someone for bad performance, misconduct, or some other personal failure. Be alert, you have rights.
An Army Reserve NCO with over 20 years of service tested positive for drug use. The unit proposed him for an administrative separation board. Our in depth preparation and submission detailing his entire service record, and listing multiple facts in mitigation and extenuation persuaded his GCMCA commander to allow him to retire and avoid the separation board altogether.
A well prepared package from an experienced military lawyer can help you avoid the worst.
An AR 15-6 investigation found that an Active Duty NCO sexually harassed another person. The client had about 15 years of service. The unit proposed him for an administrative separation board. Our detailed preparation and investigation of the matter revealed new facts during the board hearing. Based on our argument, the Board members consisting of three officers found misconduct but voted to retain the NCO.
A well prepared presentation by an experienced military defense lawyer can be value added to your defense team.
A Sailor lost his clearance after receiving non-judicial punishment because the Sailor violated multiple articles of the Uniform Code of Military Conduct, including absence without leave, violating a lawful order, poor performance, and other misconduct. We developed substantial evidence in mitigation, extenuation, and rebuttal on the Sailor's behalf and submitted well-documented responses to the statement of reasons. The Sailor recently was told that his clearance was restored.
A well prepared rebuttal by an experienced military lawyer can improve your chances of success. In a security clearance case, a strong argument about "mitigating factors" can make your case.
Below we show some of the clients and cases we have dealt with as examples of how we can help you. Largely due to the excellent work of Mr. Kornacki we have been able to assist many servicemembers with adverse actions or other administrative matters that have not resulted in a court-martial. Mr. Kornacki has developed his skills and technique for a niche area of military law. Here is a selection.
Mr. Kornacki has once again effectively assisted a client rebut a proposal to bar him from dealing with or contracting with any government agency. The support here consisted of preparing a written submission and personal presentation. Mr. Kornacki has also been able to advise and assist those who have been barred from base for various reasons.
Mr. Kornacki has successfully represented at former military member before the Army Discharge Review Board and an Honorable Discharge has been substituted to characterize the clients prior military service.
Mr. Kornacki recently assisted a E-8 accused of assault, drug use, and drug possession. He was able to work with military counsel and obtain a favorable special court-martial pretrial agreement. No punitive discharge was adjudged. We were recently advised that the Service will allow him to complete his needed 20 years of service and retire, albeit it one pay-grade lower than expected.
and involve multiple avenues of redress
An Army officer received a GOMR. We were able to help keep that officer's security clearance. After that we were able to help successfully terminate a field directed show cause for retention board, as well as persuade DFAS not to recoup a debt for alleged fraudulent BAH received. The latest event is the DASEB has found the GOMR to be unjustly imposed and ordered it removed from the files.
United States v. Officer: Our client’s security clearance is pulled because of adverse information relating to debt and other misconduct. The alleged misconduct is based on an administrative investigation. Our in-depth investigation and detailed explanation allows our client to regain his top secret security clearance.
United States v. Federal Employee: Our client’s security clearance is pulled with over 10 reasons listed. Through our detailed fact analysis, and thorough investigation, we were able to directly rebut, mitigate, and extenuate each of the reasons. The end result is that our client is granted his top secret security clearance back and is allowed to return to work in the same organization, but at a different location.
United States v. Agent: Our client who is also an investigative agent is investigated by military criminal investigative services for misconduct. After our initial case investigation and fact analysis, we are able to establish that no misconduct has occurred. Several months later, the investigation against our client comes to an end, and our client can move on.
United States v. Enlisted: Our client is offered an Other Than Honorable discharge for multiple misconduct relating to his unexcused absences in the unit. After persuasive negotiation with the legal representative for the chain of command, our client is offered a general discharge under honorable conditions.
United States v. Federal Employee: Our client’s employer pulls his top secret security clearance based on several allegations of misconduct. Our investigation in the case reveals strong rebuttal, mitigation and extenuation case on behalf of our client. We are impeded in preparing responses due to limited access to the relevant records, but develop other evidence. Following thorough and comprehensive responses to the security office, our client informs us that the top secret security clearance has been restored.
State Agency v. Former Servicemember: Our client is notified of allegedly withholding information in his employment application relating to UCMJ matters while on Active Duty. After submission of our legal memorandum analyzing the UCMJ matters and showing that they were in fact administrative matters, our client is allowed to work.
United States v. Officer: Our client receives a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand for allegedly assaulting another officer while deployed. After receiving and collecting statements from approximately 25 witnesses and unit members, and pointing out evidence from an investigation showing that our client was in fact not the aggressor, the CA filed the letter locally.
United States v. Federal Employee: Our client received barment which affected our client’s ability to work. Our review of the evidence established multiple reliability and credibility issues. We worked with the client to document the issues. We prepared our legal memorandum pointing out all the issues, and after consideration by the chain of command, the barment was removed.
United States v. Enlisted: Our client is investigated by CID for sexual crimes after allegedly having sex with a drunk female Soldier on Active Duty. Early investigation of the case by the defense team allowed us to find digital evidence proving knowing consent. After several months of the ongoing CID investigation, and several discussions with the prosecution, our client was allowed to continue his military career.
United States v. NCO: Our client is found guilty of multiple assaults, drug use, and other misconduct. After our presentation of his case during a court-martial, he is retained, loses one rank, receives a written reprimand and no confinement.
Civilian v. Officer: Our client is owed debt an Active Duty member. After documenting the debt, applying the military law, and telephonic conference with the commander, the unit takes an immediate action and our client’s debt is satisfied in full.
United States v. NCO: Our client receives potentially career-ending non-judicial punishment for fraternization. The concern is that our client could be recommended for separation or barred from re-enlisting. On an appeal, through in-depth fact investigation, we are able to show to the CA, that this case was everything but ‘fraternization.’ The CA acquits our client of the charge.
United States v. Enlisted: Our client is denied video recordings relating to his alleged misconduct after we filed a FOIA request. After carefully documenting the reasoning, and applying the law, the denial is overruled on an appeal, and the initial FOIA authority is working to obtain the material.
United States v. Enlisted: Our client receives a punishment under Article 15 for assaulting an NCO, multiple failures to report for duty, violation of a general order, and other misconduct resulting in losing 3 ranks, forfeiture of pay, restriction, and extra duty. On an appeal, we are able to document our client’s medical history and how his combat related physical and mental injuries affected his behavior. Our client advised us that he regained 2 ranks after the superior authority reviewed our appeal.
Other results include.