Military Discharge Attorneys | Military Lawyers | Lawyers for Administrative Discharge Hearings

Law Offices of James Culp & Timothy Litka, LLP | Worldwide Representation | Call now for a FREE Consultation - Available 24/7 (888) 246-1515


	ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION BOARDS ENLISTED MEMBERS An administrative separation board is the process required when the command desires to separate an enlisted service member when the enlisted member has either more than six years of total combined (reserve and active) service or when the command wishes the member receive an Other than Honorable characterization of service. In most scenarios, an administrative separation board comes after the service member has already received a prior action that has been filed in one's official record, whether in the form of nonjudicial punishment (known in some branches as Article 15, NJP, or Captain's Mast), from an officially filed letter of reprimand, or from a negative evaluation. The administrative separation board consists of three members that hear evidence to decide if misconduct occurred, and if misconduct occurred (by a preponderance of evidence, or 51% or greater), they decide whether the servicemember should be permitted to stay in service. If the administrative separation board recommends separation, the board must also make a recommendation as to what the characterization should be, i.e. Honorable, General, Under Honorable Conditions or Other Than Honorable. As the drawdown impacts the various branches more and more, there is an increase in the number of administrative separation boards that are initiated by the command; there are also a rising number of boards that are being initiated by Human Resources Command, or the branch-specific equivalent. These boards are springing up as a result of the previous "bad paper" even though the command did not specifically elect to initiate separation before. The character of service that is listed on a service member's DD214 (military discharge certificate) can have lasting effects in many areas of civilian life, including one's ability to obtain meaningful employment. Characterization of service can also deny the member federal and state tuition assistance for college. The notion that the member can easily obtain an upgrade to their discharge is inaccurate; upgrades to discharge are increasingly difficult to obtain and the service boards presume that the characterization from the original discharge is correct and just. BOARDS OF INQUIRY - OFFICERS An officer show cause board (also referred to as a Board of Inquiry or "BOI") is a difficult thing to go through. In many cases the officer facing the show cause board has several years of service, and is hoping to be able to serve until retirement. If you have been given notice that you are required to "show cause" why you should not be administratively separated from the Army at a Board of Inquiry, you should consider hiring an experienced civilian military defense attorney. An officer show cause board is either initiated by the Department of the Army (DA generated) or by the General Officer Show Cause Authority (GOSCA) at your installation (locally generated). The basis for the separation action is usually either substandard performance of duty, misconduct, or professional dereliction. Your notification memorandum will list the specific reason why the officer show cause action is being initiated. There has been a significant increase in the numbers of boards of show cause/boards of inquiry initiated against officers. The Army's Human Resources Command (HRC) and other branch equivalents initiates an elimination proceeding against an Officer that is found to have "bad paper" in the Officer's official file. Examples of "bad paper" that would generate an elimination action include letters of reprimand (GOMOR), a relief for cause evaluation report, or any "referred" evaluation report that includes derogatory information. Once an Officer receives notification of an elimination action, they have several options of how, if at all, to respond. The Officer can submit a resignation in lieu of elimination; the Officer can also respond in writing to the underlying allegations to request that the elimination action be rescinded; and the Officer can request, if the written matters do not convince the initiating commander to rescind the action, the Officer can opt for personal appearance and counsel's representation at the board of inquiry. In most cases, the Officer has only thirty (30) calendar days to respond to the initial notification of elimination proceedings. Typically, after notice that a board will be convened, the board must occur within ninety (90) days. The rights to counsel before a board of inquiry closely mirror those for a court-martial: the right to detailed (assigned) military counsel at no cost, the right to hire civilian counsel at the Officer's cost, and the right to both working on the case. Unlike courts-martial, an Officer will not typically receive two detailed military attorneys like he would at a court-martial if he does not hire civilian counsel. There are many strategies to combating elimination at a board of inquiry. Strategies vary according to the overall goal of the Officer. In some cases, the Officer has already acknowledged that he or she committed the underlying misconduct so that the goal at the board is to convince the members that the misconduct does not warrant elimination. In cases where the Officer has not acknowledged guilt and will not acknowledge committing the misconduct (whether because the Officer did not commit it, does not wish to admit it, or the evidence is not strong enough to convince the Officer that he or she should admit to it), the goal is to undermine the government's evidence to appeal to the members for a finding of "no misconduct." The required finding of the members at a board of inquiry or enlisted administrative separation is first to determine if by a preponderance (more likely than not) of the evidence the misconduct was committed by the "respondent." The "respondent" is the term for the person facing elimination or separation. If the board concludes the respondent committed the misconduct, next the board must make a finding as to whether or not the misconduct warrants separation. If the board finds that elimination is warranted, then the board votes to determine the characterization of service. The methods of fighting elimination are many and varied, and a defense is only as limited as the imagination and devotion of the counsel representing the respondent. There are no rules of evidence at a board of inquiry or administrative separation and it is incumbent on the attorney to leverage as much evidence against the government's counsel (called the recorder) as possible. Despite the truncated rights a member has in administrative processes when compared to those involved at courts-martial, Congress has required the military to establish due process rights in all administrative procedures. Unfortunately, while Officers and enlisted members are entitled to advice and representation from appointed military lawyers, these actions are labeled "priority 2 and 3 actions" and are put behind the court-martial duties of military defense lawyers. When you retain Mr. Culp, he will make your career his highest priority. If you are facing an officer show cause board, you have the right to be represented by an experienced civilian military defense lawyer. In many cases, an aggressive defense by a good civilian attorney can make a huge difference in the outcome of your case. Mr. Culp is a civilian military defense attorney with extensive experience in show cause boards. Over the past 17 years, Mr. Culp has successfully represented numerous service members facing administrative separation.

HADITHA
LCpl Justin Sharratt was one of four Marines charged with murder on December 21, 2006 in connection with the killing of 24 Iraqi men, women and children in Haditha, Iraq. It was the U.S. military's deadliest criminal case to emerge from the Iraq war. LCpl Sharratt faced a life sentence if convicted.

ISKANDARIYAH
On July 1, 2007 Army Sergeant Evan Vela, a Ranger qualified sniper with the 1st Battalion, 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment, was charged with the premeditated murder of an Iraqi who had compromised his team’s hide position in the Triangle of Death. Sergeant Vela faced a life sentence if convicted.

RAMADI
On June 25, 2006 the Army charged Specialist Nathan Lynn of the 1st Battalion, 109th Infantry Regiment with the wrongful killing of an Iraqi who was shot to death while moving tactically on SPC Lynn’s position. SPC Lynn was also charged with conspiracy for his alleged role in planting an AK-47 at the scene.

CHARLES JENKINS
In the early morning hours of January 5, 1965, Sergeant Charles Robert Jenkins deserted his U.S. Army unit in South Korea and walked across the DMZ to North Korea where he remained until 2004. When he escaped North Korea in the summer of 2004, he was charged with desertion and aiding the enemy and faced a possible life sentence.

MAHMUDIYAH
The Al-Mahmudiyah killings occurred on March 12, 2006 in a house located south of Baghdad, Iraq in which four United States soldiers with the 101st Airborne Division raped and murdered a 14 year-old Iraqi girl after murdering her mother, father and 5 year old sister. All four Soldiers faced the possibility of the death sentence.

JALALABAD
On March 4, 2007, a convoy of Special Operations Marines was attacked outside of Jalalabad, Afghanistan. They responded in self defense. After the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission issued a report stating that 12 civilians were killed and 35 wounded, the NCIS initiated an investigation

BAGHDAD
In the Spring of 2007, an infantry First Sergeant, a Platoon Sergeant, and the company medic executed four Iraqi detainees in South Baghdad. SSG Jesse Cunningham revealed the murders and erroneously became one of seven Army soldiers charged with the killings. He faced a mandatory minimum sentence of life in prison.