Senior officer (O-5) subject of flag officer attempt to file an adverse Matter of Interest (MOI) in personnel record for handling of complicated unit member sexual misconduct cases while in command. Thorough examination of facts, review of relevant law and directives, and careful drafting of client objection to MOI resulted in Bureau of Navy Personnel / Navy Military Personnel Command denial of flag officer request to include adverse MOI in personnel record.
Fort Story, also known as Joint Expeditionary Base East, is an installation connected to the United States Navy and Little Creek Amphibious Base. Fort Story is also the Army’s only facility that trains troops with amphibious equipment. The location of Fort Story in Virginia Beach, Virginia provides a variety of different terrains to train military units, including dunes, sandy trails, surf, deep-water anchorage, tidal changes, and cypress swamps as well as open land. In 1941 before World War II, the Harbor Defense Headquarters was moved to Fort Story, which greatly expanded the base and in 1944 the coast was heavily fortified. The base was declared a permanent installment in 1961.
With offices conveniently located in Norfolk and nearby Virginia Beach, our military defense lawyers have defended countless military members in courts-martial, discharge boards, and other military justice matters at Fort Story. If you or a loved one face military disciplinary action at Fort Story, we encourage you to contact our Fort Story military attorneys for a free consultation.
Army E-7 tested positive on a unit sweep urinalysis test for marijuana and his chain of command referred his case to a court-martial. Complicating matters, our client also tested positive on a urinalysis test for marijuana fifteen years earlier, which the government sought to introduce as evidence of a pattern of drug involvement. Our client also had been counseled on numerous occasions for integrity issues. As a result, if our client testified, the panel would have learned that he had a history of making false statements and had a previous positive test result for marijuana. Since we were significantly limited in what type of case we could present due to these prior incidents, our attorneys instead attacked the collection program at the command, highlighting numerous instances of non-compliance with AR 600-85. Result: Even without testifying, our client was found NOT GUILTY of wrongful marijuana use.
Category: Positive Urinalysis Success Stories
MIDDLE ATLANTIC: Client defense contractor was issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) under Adjudicative Guideline F – Financial Considerations, alleging three mortgage loan accounts, totaling approximately $935,000.00 in default/arrears, with all three being foreclosed upon and the Applicant being still liable for approximately $225,000.00 in outstanding debt. After working with client to resolve the outstanding financial liability, and presenting a strong case for responsible actions in incurring the debt, despite the substantial losses when the economy suffered a catastrophic downturn, the Administrative Judge found FOR THE APPLICANT and the clearance was granted.
Reserve O-5 issued Letter of Intent (LOI) to revoke clearance after having recently favorably appealed a previous revocation of security clearance and granting of clearance with caution. Initial denial was based upon allegations of child emotional and physical abuse, arrests for assault, assault and battery, domestic assault, assault and battery on a family member and obstruction of justice on five different occasions. Within two weeks of the previous granting of the clearance with caution, the officer was charged with felony hit and run as well as reports being received of the officer engaging in an inappropriate personal relationship outside of marriage and the unauthorized disclosure of classified information to that person. Coincidental with these issues arising in the military context, client was in the process of obtaining adjudication for a clearance as a civilian employee of a different Federal Agency. After presentation of a response package, in answer to the LOI, to the Military Service’s Central Adjudication Facility the CLEARANCE was REINSTATED, again with caution, and without the necessity of a personal appearance before an Administrative Judge. The client was then able to submit the response to the military LOI to the other Federal Agency and obtain a clearance.
Active duty E-6 received Letter of Intent (LOI)/Statement of Reasons (SOR) under Adjudicative Guidelines for Personal Conduct and Financial Considerations concerning eight accounts in arrears/collection/bad debts totaling approximately $25,000 as well as the omission of relevant and material facts on the SF86 and admissions during OPM background investigation to spending more money than was being earned. After submission of detailed response to SOR, Central Adjudication Facility (CAF) found FOR THE APPLICANT and granted the clearance without the necessity of a Personal Appearance before an Administrative Judge from the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA).