Call Today
(800)580-8034
Local Phone
(254)221-6411

OUR CASE RESULTS

A TRACK RECORD OF SUCCESS

Below are the case results of Joseph L. Jordan, Attorney at Law, a military criminal defense attorney who serves active servicemen nationwide. Please be aware that your case result is not guaranteed. The case results on the following pages are examples of cases that Mr. Jordan has won for his clients. To see how Mr. Jordan can help with your unique case matter, please contact him right away.

Filter by Category

All
  • All
  • Adverse Military Administrative Actions
  • Board of Inquiry
  • Discharge Review Board
  • General Military Crimes
  • Military Sexual Assault

Discharge Upgrade Request – Discharge Review Board – UPGRADED TO HONORABLE!

U.S. Army v. E-2 (Article 112a) Wrongful Use of a Controlled Substance 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. Case Result: UPGRADED TO HONORABLE DISCHARGE!

BOI – Board of Inquiry – HONORABLE DISCHARGE RECOMMENDATION

US Army v. Warrant Officer (Board of Inquiry) Fort Hood, Texas This officer had a very unique career arc. He first started off in the Navy, where he ended up working in White House Communications for a long period of time. His service encompassed the overlap of two different serving Presidents. Then he decided to switch services in order to serve his country in a more visceral way. He ended up at Fort Hood Texas and completed three deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Suffice it to say, his last deployment was particularly difficult on him and was the eventual cause of the reasoning behind the Show Cause Board. When Mr. Jordan got involved he immediately noticed that there were some medical issues with his client. He asked if his client was seeking treatment which he was. However, he had not started the medical evaluation board process. Mr. Jordan helped him kick start the process. This officer was able to complete the medical board process in time for his BOI hearing. Without going through much detail about this case, it is enough to say that the Board was very reasonable in considering his overall career. The Board also considered the medical...

BOI – Board of Inquiry – RETAINED

US ARMY V. MAJ (BOARD OF INQUIRY) Fort Hood, Texas This Client hired Mr. Jordan to represent him in a board of inquiry. Boards of inquiry are initiated as an elimination action for officers who have unfavorable paperwork in their files. This officer was given a General Officer Memorandum of Record for violating a military protective order. Mr. Jordan and his team relentlessly dug into the facts behind this case. As it turned out, Mr. Jordan's client was going through an extremely contentious divorce. While deployed, his Client suffered the worst type of betrayal from his now ex-wife. She had cheated on him with numerous soldiers that were in his previous unit. Upon returning from the deployment, the Client discovered an empty home. What furniture and belongings that were left, were destroyed and vandalized. He began to rebuild his life. His ex-wife continued to hound his every step by making up false allegations, and insisting on a very contentious divorce. The Client's chain of command did not fully support the Client and decided to take the ex-wife's side. That is at least the perception of the Client and Mr. Jordan. Apparently that was the board's perception as well. While there...

BOI – Board of Inquiry Retained

Board of Inquiry Retained! US Army v. CPT(Board of Inquiry)(Show Cause Board) West Point Client is an awesome well accomplished female Captain. She found herself in trouble for an integrity violation. After careful analysis and preparation, the right witnesses were called to show that appropriate rehabilitation had occurred in this case. Case Result: RETAINED!!

BOI – Board of Inquiry – RETAINED

U.S. ARMY V. MAJOR (BOARD OF INQUIRY) Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA Client received a GOMOR for having drug paraphernalia in his home and for testing positive for THC. Client is a highly motivated, highly dedicated Nurse in the Army. He had exhibited a stellar career throughout his time in the military. We were able to successfully show that Client had not taken THC for recreational purposes but for healing purposes. More importantly, we were able to successfully advocate that Client had suffered from a sever mental break from reality causing him to make ill-advised decisions leading to his General Officer Reprimand. Lastly we were able to show that he met all the appropriate criteria for the limited use program and that even if the board voted to separate, the worst discharge he could receive was an Honorable Discharge. The board recognized this Soldier for who he was. The board recognized that this Soldier had made a mistake, not entirely of his own making. The board retained him. This Soldier had a stellar career, and the full support of his immediate chain of command. We were able to successfully advocate that he had worth the US Army and was a contributor...

BOI – Board of Inquiry – Retained

US Army v. CW2 (Board of Inquiry)(Show Cause Board) Baumholder, Germany Client is a trailblazer in the branch of Air Defense Artillery. Unfortunately, he found himself on hard times after suffering several heart - breaking losses in a row. Compounding his losses, his many head injuries over his lengthy career made him a candidate for traumatic brain injury and treatment. The genesis of his alleged misconduct centered around an alcohol related incident after a military ball. Pertinent details can be provided on request. He was given an officially filed GOMOR. The unit then immediately initiated a Show Cause Board / Board of Inquiry (BOI) against him. The board heard all of the evidence. The listened intently to the many witnesses we presented on behalf of our client. Ultimately the board decided to RETAIN him! Case Result: RETAINED!!

BOI – Sex Assault – Military Sexual Assault – Board of Inquiry – NOT GUILTY! RETAINED!

U.S. Army v. 0-2 (Article 120) Sex Assault Fort Benning, Georgia This case started at West Point during 500th night. Our client met a young lady who was visiting from UNC. She was supposed to be spending time with another West Pointer that she had been dating. That individual decided that he did not want to spend any time with her so she started to look around at our options. The night before the ball she met and spent a significant amount of time with our client. The next day after the ball they spent more time together. She ended up taking him to her room, where they engaged in consensual sexual acts. They were about to have sex and she said no and our client feeling awkward decided to leave. Apparently, she woke up the next day and regretted her actions…and decided to distance her self from our client. She was clearly distraught….and asked as such. When she got home, she was asked by her mother how the date and the ball went. Instead of telling her overly religious mother the truth, she decided to lie and state she was sexually assaulted. Further she said that she was bleeding profusely...

BOI – Board of Inquiry – RETAINED

US Army v. CW2 (Board of Inquiry) Fort Hood, Texas A 19 year veteran of the United States Army contacted Mr. Jordan because he was facing a BOI. This veteran had worked his way through the enlisted ranks until he felt motivated enough to become a Chief Warrant Officer. He spent his whole career in the food service. 2/3s through his initial tour in Japan, this Warrant Officer came under investigation and scrutiny for several allegations of inappropriate conduct towards local national women. The investigation was a farce. In fact, it was the worst investigation into an officer that Mr. Jordan had ever reviewed. The investigation's conclusions relied on 3 rd party hearsay. The investigator never interviewed the alleged complaining witnesses himself. He took the word of senior staff officers who allegedly interviewed these women, though they had no notes, or sworn statements to corroborate their claims. What's worse is the Commanding General that signed off on the eventual General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, was himself removed from his position due to the alleged mishandling of investigations. Nonetheless, due to the "bad paper" in this officer's file, a BOI was initiated. Mr. Jordan thoroughly investigated all of the problems and issues with...

BOI – Board of Inquiry – RETAINED

US Army V. CW2 (Board of Inquiry) Fort Hood, Texas This client’s case was a unique one. As he was going through a very contentious divorce child custody proceeding, it came out that somehow his wife obtained his medical records. He reported this case to the proper military authorities and his wife was court-martialed. During the preliminary hearing, it came out that Client had video taped his soon to be ex-wife in the bathroom and whilst she was in the shower. His intent did not matter to the chain of command. His intent apparently did not matter to the Commanding General as he handed the Client his officially filed GOMOR. His intent only mattered to the Board of Inquiry. The defense successfully showed that the complaining witness in this case had been videoing confrontations between the two of them. So, the Client opted to set up a camera where they had several confrontations before. He was protecting himself. Nothing more. Unfortunately, some of the video occurred when she was naked in the shower. The Defense also showed that he had a stellar enlisted career, and that he had served well as a Warrant Officer. He had been on numerous deployments....

BOI – Board of Inquiry – NOT GUILTY

Board of Inquiry NOT GUILTY! Retained! US Army v. CPT(Board of Inquiry)(Show Cause Board) Army Reserves, Texas Client is an awesome well accomplished female Captain. She serves as a Nurse. After coming up hot on a urinalysis, she was accused of taking unprescribed medications. After much research, digging and interviewing of witnesses, we presented her case before the board. We successfully showed the pharmacy she filled her script at incorrectly gave her the wrong medication. The medication she was incorrectly given looked identical to what she had been prescribed in the past, but it was a completely different drug. The drug has similar effects on the patient as well. We brought in a pharmacist to explain how this error occurs and how it often it occurs. The pharmacist also confirmed the effects of the drug. We also brought in witnesses who heard the pharmacist confess his error. We highlighted our client’s career and presented a long line of character witnesses on her behalf. She is now up for promotion to Major. Case Result: NOT GUILTY! RETAINED!!

Wrongful Use of Controlled Substance, Tampering with Urinalysis – General Military Crimes

US Army v. E-6 Article 112a, Article 92 Fort Carson Colorado Client was issued an Article 15 for tampering with his urinalysis and thus having ingested or used a controlled substance. Upon immediate review of his file, I advised that he turn down the Article 15 and request trial by Courts Martial. The reasoning was simple. When CID investigated this case, they interviewed the observer who watched Client urinate into his sample cup, cap the cup, seal the cup and hand it in. The observer saw nothing that was out of the ordinary. The unit withdrew the Article 15. They next decided to issue a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand. We drafted a personal statement, put together a Good Soldier Book and provided our own legal review as to the issues at hand. It took 10 months for this case to resolve as the unit was incredulous that our Client would turn down the Article and sought every avenue to skewer our client. His GOMOR was rescinded, his FLAG lifted and he can now move on with his career.

Unprofessional Relationship – General Military Crimes – NO PUNITIVE ACTION

US Air Force vs. E8 (Article 92, Unprofessional Relationship) 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 Felony Conviction.

Larceny – General Military Crimes – NO CHARGES

US Army v. E-6 (Article 121, Larceny; Article 108) Fort Hood, Texas Client came under investigation for larceny of medical supplies. Unfortunately the evidence was not working out in his favor. Rather than go to Courts Martial and risk a Federal Conviction, client opted to take a deal in which he was administratively separated from the Army. Result: No Charges Brought in favor of Administrative Separation. NO FEDERAL CONVICTION

Larceny – General Military Crimes – RESOLVED

United States Coast Guard v. E3 (Article 121, Larceny) US Coast Guard Station San Juan, Puerto Rico Client was accused of fellow Coast Guardsmen necklace. The alleged victim valued the necklace at over $5,000. Charges were preferred at a Special Courts Martial. Mr. Jordan successfully negotiated the case to be resolved at a Summary Court Martial. There, the Client was found guilty, but because he had immediately given the necklace back, and because of some special circumstances, the Client received minimal punishment. The unit did not initiate an adverse administrative separation action against Client. He still serves today. Result: Case was negotiated to be resolved at Summary Court Martial. Finding was Guilty. Sentence was extra duty for 30 days. No adverse administrative separation action was initiated against client.

Article 112a – General Military Crimes – 1 YEAR OF CONFINEMENT ADJUGED

US Air Force v. E-4 [Article 112a, Article 92, Article 89, Article 111, Article 134) 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...

AWOL – General Military Crimes – SENTENCE REDUCTION

U.S. Army v. E-3 (AWOL) The Client was charged with two AWOL's, and threatening a Superior Officer. The Client was allegedly AWOL for approximately 5 years before he was picked up on a warrant. Prior to Mr. Jordan's appearance in this case, a Senior NCO convinced the Client that his Military Defense counsel did not have the Client's best interests at heart and that he should go AWOL again. Upon the Client's second arrest on warrants, Mr. Jordan was brought on board to represent this client. Over the course of 5 months, a deal was reached that the maximum amount of time the Client would serve in confinement was 6 months. Result: Guilty, 3 months confinement, Reduction to E-1 and Bad Conduct Discharge. Mr. Jordan successfully beat the deal by effectively cross-examining the Government's sentencing witnesses on how they treated their soldier. Impressive mitigating circumstances existed prompting the Judge to have mercy upon Mr. Jordan's Client.

Larceny, BAH Fraud – General Military Crimes – CHARGES DROPPED

US Army v. E-8 (Article 121, Larceny, BAH Fraud) Fort Drum, New York This highly decorated veteran came under investigation for BAH Fraud when he submitted his travel claim tickets. CID claimed that because his weight during his DITY move was drastically more than when he first moved to the previous duty station, that he was committing fraud. CID went as far as to attempt to seize his banking documents through a subpoena. No banking documents were submitted. No statements were made. The Client held his ground, maintained his innocence. Result: The case was dropped before charges were even brought.

Manslaughter – General Military Crimes – CHARGES DROPPED

U.S. Army v. E-4 (MANSLAUGHTER) Fort Drum, New York The Client was charged with the criminal offenses of Manslaughter (Article 119) and Negligent Discharge (Article 134). The Client was accused of unlawfully killing a fellow Soldier while deployed. The fellow Soldier was the client's best friend. The original strategy was to try this case. The victim's family in this case fully supported Mr. Jordan's Client. They even testified at the Article 32 hearing, imploring the Army Prosecutors to not go forward to Courts-Martial. Of course, the prosecutors and the Convening Authority ignored such stirring testimony and the charges were referred to Courts-Martial. Through intense discovery requests, Mr. Jordan was able to learn that not one, but several negligent discharges had occurred within the unit in question without any repercussions. To make matters worse, NO corrective actions were ever taken against the individuals who was actually responsible for pulling the trigger! Mr. Jordan also pointed out the inequity of the Government regarding unfairly charging his client when he discovered that there was yet another case – IN THE SAME UNIT- where a Captain was negligently shot in the leg by his driver while on a routine patrol; however, that driver was...

Article 121 and 132 – General Military Crimes – CHARGES DROPPED

US Air Force v TSgT (Article 121, Article 132) Fairchild, AFB, Washington Client hired Mr. Jordan to defend against larceny and wrongful claims against the Government. The Client is a test parachutist who was in charge of managing contracted jumps. The Government attempted to allege that Client some how made false claims against the Government by over charging jump time. The government could provide no credible evidence to support this outrageous claim.

Assault with a Firearm – General Military Crimes – Case Dismissed

U.S. Navy v. E-5 (Assault with a firearm, failure to follow a lawful order, possession of a firearm in federal facilities). (Alleged violations of Article 92, Article 128, Article 134 of the UCMJ) NAS Pensacola / NAS Whiting Field Client allegedly held a firearm to a colleague’s head in an examination room. This case suffered the spark of rumor and spread of a wildfire. There were no witnesses. The client was not seized with the weapon on him. The Client’s girlfriend confirmed his alibi as well as where the weapon was at. In the end, after several rounds of litigation, this case ended in an alternate disposition and all charges were dismissed against the Client. Result: CASE DISMISSED!

Larceny, BAH Fraud – General Military Crimes – Case Dismissed

U.S. Army v. SGT (Article 121, Larceny, BAH Fraud) Fort Bragg, NC This non-commissioned officer had been in the service for almost five years, and was notified by CID that he was under investigation for BAH Fraud. Since he had been in the service for almost a handful of years he knew the rules and regulations as it pertains to BAH and never attempted to break them. When the SGT PCS'ed from Germany, his ex-wife moved to another state, he continued on with his career at his new duty station and began a new relationship. Since he was an E5 he was allowed to live off the installation with a non-dependent rate, which is what he was given. CID was issued a tip (by his ex-wife) that he was committing BAH Fraud. The SGT contacted our office and after consulting with us, he hired us, and we informed him not to speak with CID or anyone in his chain of command regarding this investigation. He complied with our directives. Our client had less than a year left on his contract. He provided us with the evidence we needed and maintained his 5 th amendment right to remain silent. Result: After five months...

Domestic Violence – General Military Crimes – Not Guilty

US Army v. E-7 (Article 128, Domestic Violence) Fort Hood, Texas Client was days away from retiring from the Army. He had a significant VA rating. Client and Client’s wife had an argument that caught the attention of the Military Police. The unit and unit trial counsel took the case very seriously. Client also took it seriously and brought Mr. Jordan’s team on board. Mr. Jordan and his team interviewed the wife, and effectively negotiated with the chain of command and prosecutors to allow this individual to retire with no charges. Result: Charges were not Preferred against Client. Investigation closed in favor of the Client. Client was allowed to Retire with Dignity.

Cruelty and Maltreatment – General Military Crimes – NOT GUILTY

US Army v. E-7 (Article 93 Cruelty and Maltreatment to Subordinates x4, Article 128 Assault x 6, Article 134 x 2) Fort Campbell, Kentucky The case revealed that Client had received a GOMOR for the same charges she faced at Courts Martial. Multiple soldiers accused our Client of assaulting, and maltreating them. The case clearly showed that there were some personality conflicts and that Client likely was too familiar with the Soldiers. However, the case also showed that the majority of the charges ultimately amounted to horseplay and were not in fact assaults. Unfortunately, under the UCMJ, an assault is any unwanted touching. Fortunately, the case was not as egregious as the Government counsel hoped. Result: NOT GUILTY of 2 out of 6 specifications of Article 128 Assault. NOT GUILTY OF ALL Article 134 Offenses, NOT GUILTY of 2 of the 4 Article 93 (maltreatment offenses). Sentence: Reduction to E-6. NO CONFINEMENT. NO PUNITIVE DISCHARGE!

Article 81, 132, and 134 – General Military Crimes – NOT GUILTY

U.S. Air Force v. E-7 (Article 81, Article 132, Article 134) Conspiracy, Making False Claims Against the Government, Obstruction Edwards AFB, California My client is a Test Parachutist for the Air Force. He happens to be one of the most experienced test parachutists in the military. He was accused of conspiracy to commit fraud against the Government, making false claims against the government, obstruction of justice and wrongful receipt of government funds. At the time I was brought on as counsel, my client was pulled off of terminal leave. The Government proceeded to investigate the case for 11 months before they charged my client with a crime. My client wisely heeded my advice and did not talk with investigators. In short, my client was accused of overbilling the government for services not rendered through a contract vendor known as Sky Dive Elsinore. Sky Dive Elsinore provided lift and jump services to the Test Parachutists at Edwards AFB. As the months passed by during the investigation, it became clear that I would need a very meticulous right hand man to assist in this case. I had my client put in an individual military counsel request for Capt Robert Crayne aka "Brad"....

Substance Abuse – General Military Crimes – Not Guilty

U.S. Coast Guard v. E-5 (SUBSTANCE ABUSE) The Client was accused of using crack cocaine by a fellow shipmate who was being questioned by CGIS. The investigation included testing, an invasive search of his residence along with multiple repeated attempts to get a statement. Client followed Mr. Jordan's advice to the letter.

Larceny and Conspiracy – General Military Crimes – Not Guilty

U.S. Army v. E-7 (LARCENY) Fort Benning, GA The Client was accused of conspiracy to steal over $84,000 and larceny of $84,000 worth of pay. Client was a 51year old E-7 facing over 20 years in prison. Result: Not Guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Larceny. Guilty of Larceny. The Client's sentence was reduction to E-4, a fine, and 45 days confinement. No Punitive Discharge! Due to the rules of retirement, it appears that he will keep his E-7 retirement.

U.S. Navy v. O-5 – General Military Crimes – NOT GUILTY

U.S. Navy v. O-5 NRD Portland, Oregon The Client came under investigation for violations of the Joint Federal Travel Regulation as and making a False Official Statement. The Client was accused of misappropriating thousands of dollars for an allegedly improper purpose. Result: No Charges Brought! While portions of the initial investigation were founded, several mitigating circumstances were highlighted allowing this fine officer to continue on in his career.

Larceny, BAH Fraud – General Military Crimes Not Guilty

US ARMY V. E-8 (ARTICLE 121, LARCENY, BAH FRAUD) Fort Drum, New York This highly decorated veteran came under investigation for BAH Fraud when he submitted his travel claim tickets. CID claimed that because his weight during his DITY move was drastically more than when he first moved to the previous duty station, that he was committing fraud. CID went as far as to attempt to seize his banking documents through a subpoena. No banking documents were submitted. No statements were made. The Client held his ground, maintained his innocence.

Drug Distribution – General Military Crimes – FULL ACQUITTAL

US ARMY VS. E1 (ARTICLE 112A, DRUG DISTRIBUTION) This Client was originally charged with a host of charges to include Obstruction of Justice, False Official Statement, Conspiracy to Distribute controlled substances and several specifications of drug distribution. Mr. Jordan filed a motion to suppress a certain statement that the government gathered from Mr. Jordan's Client. Mr. Jordan won his motion to suppress the statement in question because the Government failed to properly notify his client of his rights when they initially questioned him. Mr. Jordan carefully laid out the time line of events surrounding the taking of this statement. The timeline of events was key in unraveling the Government's intent behind taking the statement in the first place. Mr. Jordan's thorough investigation behind the Government's actions enabled him to win his motion to suppress on behalf of his client, successfully wiping away half of the charge sheet his client was facing. Not to be outdone, the Government attempted to file an Article 62 interlocutory appeal to challenge the Judge's ruling. About three weeks later, the Government withdrew their Article 62 appeal. All charges dealing with obstruction of justice and false official statement were effectively withdrawn and dismissed. Now, all that...

Larceny – General Military Crimes – FULL ACQUITTAL

U.S. Coast Guard v. E-7 (LARCENY) Mayport Naval Station, Florida The Coast Guard accused Mr. Jordan's Client of stealing and wrongfully appropriating over $12,000 worth of specialized Coast Guard equipment. Coast Guard approached this case with the mindset of securing a conviction. The Coast Guard ensured that the Command Master Chief for the convening authority in this case was on the client's Courts-Martial panel. Additionally, several Chief's and Chief Petty Officers working directly under the Command Master Chief were included on the total panel of 10. Lastly, several officers, who were rated by the convening authority, were included on the panel. Thru skillful questioning, Mr. Jordan successfully brought the panel down from 10 to 3 panel members. The Coast Guard opted to prosecute this case instead of taking a look at the unit's internal property accountability procedures. None of the property Client allegedly stole was accurately reflected on the books. But that is not the whole story. Client is a highly skilled, 20-year veteran of the Coast Guard. Unfortunately, his skills rubbed his superiors the wrong way. When he PCS'd, he left in a hurry. As he arrived to his next duty station he found out there was an investigation...

Drug Distribution – General Military Crimes – FULL ACQUITTAL

US Army vs. E1 (Article 112a, Drug Distribution) Fort Hood, Texas This Client was originally charged with a host of charges to include Obstruction of Justice, False Official Statement, Conspiracy to Distribute controlled substances and several specifications of drug distribution. Mr. Jordan filed a motion to suppress a certain statement that the government gathered from Mr. Jordan's Client. Mr. Jordan won his motion to suppress the statement in question because the Government failed to properly notify his client of his rights when they initially questioned him. Mr. Jordan carefully laid out the time line of events surrounding the taking of this statement. The timeline of events was key in unraveling the Governments intent behind taking the statement in the first place. Mr. Jordan's thorough investigation behind the Government's actions enabled him win his motion to suppress on behalf of his client, successfully wiping away half of the charge sheet his client was facing. Not to be outdone, the Government attempted to file an Article 62 interlocutory appeal to challenge the Judge's ruling. About three weeks later, the Government withdrew their Article 62 appeal. All charges dealing with obstruction of justice and false official statement were effectively withdrawn and dismissed. Now,...

Court Martial – General Military Crimes – CASE DIMISSED!

US Air Force v. TSgt, E-6 (Article 121, Wrongful Appropriation; Article 107, False Official Statement) Duke Field, Eglin AFB, Florida Client was accused of wrongfully appropriation of two parachute systems as well as lying about it. We thoroughly prepared the case for trial. We critically analyzed the file, interviewed witnesses. We scheduled the case for trial and we waited. Thru our analysis we were appalled that the Government lacked any evidence to prove their case. Two weeks out from trial, the Government dismissed the case. No further action taken. This TSgt has been allowed to continue on with his career!

Court Martial – General Military Crimes – CASE DISMISSED!

Army, SGT, E-5, Fort Campbell, Kentucky Client was accused of dereliction of duty regarding fire arm safety while on deployment. The case was scheduled for trial this fall. We successfully negotiated an alternate disposition in this case and this Soldier will be honorably discharged (general under honorable conditions) from the Army. NO FELONY CONVICTION! NO JAIL TIME!

Wrongful Use of Government Provided Credit Card and Benefits – Adverse Military Administrative Actions

Article 121, Article 134 Army Kansas Reserve E-6 was issued a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand Client was issued a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand for wrongful use of benefits obtained from the use and manage of unit GPC cards. After a thorough review of the case, it was noted that no training was provided by any one from the unit on the proper use of benefits. No published guidance existed at the unit level. We were able to successfully convince the General that without proper training, in order for this Soldier to know the proper procedures for use of benefits obtained from a GPC, they would have to be an attorney. Result: GOMOR filed in Unit Local File. No adverse effect on the this Soldier’s Career.

Letter of Reprimand – Adverse Military Administrative Actions – NO NEGATIVE IMPACT

U.S. Army v. SFC (Letter of Reprimand) Fort Leonard Wood, MO Our client was a drill sergeant at this training installation and allegedly hit a Soldier in training on the head. This seasoned non-commissioned officer knew he must protect his career, family and name. There were no sworn statements taken from any of the Soldiers in training nor the drill sergeants, it was a very informal commander's inquiry that led to the letter of reprimand. Shortly after being issued his battalion level letter of reprimand, he hired our office to assist with his rebuttal. With Mr. Jordan's assistance he was able to apologize for his actions, explain that the allegation was simply done to get the attention of a Soldier before committing a immense safety violation, and was not as dramatic as the Soldier in training portrayed it to be. The battalion commander directed that the letter of reprimand be filed in his local file, and there was no negative impact on his later NCOER. Result: The battalion commander directed that the letter of reprimand be filed in his local file, and there was no negative impact on his later NCOER.

GOMOR – Adverse Military Administrative Actions – LOCALLY FILED

U.S. Army v. CPT/ O-3 (GOMOR) Fort Hood, Texas Our client contacted us after he had been interrogated several times by an investigation team regarding potential secret documents brought home from deployment. We advised our client to cease all communication with the investigative team and to take the nickel from this point forward. Our client did as directed, the interrogations stopped, and the investigation was complete a few months later. The commanding general issued him a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) for his potential mishandling of the secret documents. After considering all evidence brought forth, Mr. Jordan drafted an apology statement for the CPT's review and signature. The apology statement and character witness statements were submitted to the chain of command for their recommendations to the commanding general for his disposition of the GOMOR. Result: The General then ordered that the GOMOR be filed in the CPT's local file. The CPT was not issued a bad OER either. This result has far wider affects for this officer's career. If the GOMOR had been filed in his official file, then a Board of Inquiry would have been ordered and this officer would have had to show cause why he should be...

Article 15 – Adverse Military Administrative Actions – LOSS OF ONE STRIPE

U.S. Army v. SGT (Article 15) Fort Drum, NY After receiving his initial Article 15 reading and attempting to complete his rebuttal on his own, our client contacted and hired us. This NCO was charged with wrongful use of marijuana. Up front this case does not seem easy to rebut; however, our client had some meditating factors. When the SGT had went home for leave he visited a friend. The friend had made brownies laced with marijuana unknowingly to our client. Our client consumed the brownies and later came up positive for a company wide urinalysis. Mr. Jordan consulted with our toxicologist that reviewed, confirmed, and wrote a letter in support of our clients statement. This toxicologist letter, with our clients sincere apology, our legal statement to the commander, and character letters were submitted to the Field Grade Officer at his second Article 15 reading. U.S. Army v. SSG (Article 15) Result: This SGT lost one stripe; however, was not issued extra duty, restriction forfeiture of pay, or recommended for administrative separation. Things could have been a lot worse for the NCO, but he was able to remain in the Army and the ability to earn his stripes back.

Administrative Separation Board – Adverse Military Administrative Actions – HONORABLE DISCHARGE

US v. E-7 (Administrative Separation Board for patterns of misconduct) Wiesbaden, Germany Client had ended up working in a very hostile work environment. The claim was that he was the individual making it a hostile work environment, however it was not true. His subordinates filed complaints leading to one of several reasons for the adverse separation board. Additionally the client had been accused by a State for child abuse. The State dropped those charges, yet the Army saw fit to attempt to pursue them…unsuccessfully. During the board the defense team was able to successfully outline that Client had a number of severe mental health issues that led to much of his conduct. Result: Honorable Discharge due to Medical Reasons. Board recommended General Discharge, however the defense was able to successfully advocate to the Commanding General that the medical discharge was more appropriate in our clients case.

GOMOR – Adverse Military Administrative Actions – LOCALLY FILED

U.S. Army v. 1LT (GOMOR) Arizona Army National Guard Our client contacted us immediately after receiving her GOMOR, and hired us the same day after being comforted by our knowledge of the military justice system and experience in cases similar to hers. Our client was charged with an inappropriate relationship with another officer within her unit. Mr. Jordan composed an apology from our client. Within the apology Mr. Jordan pin pointed mitigating factors that proved our client was not 100% guilty of the full accusation. The apology along with character witness statements were submitted to the chain of command for their recommendations to the commanding general for his disposition. Result: The GOMOR was locally filed, and she was able to continue her career.

GOMOR – Adverse Military Administrative Actions – RESUMED COMMAND

U.S. Army v. CPT (GOMOR) 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 his 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.

GOMOR – Adverse Military Administrative Actions – CONTINUED CAREER

U.S. Army v. CW3 (GOMOR) 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.

Article 15 – Adverse Military Administrative Actions – 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.

GOMOR – Adverse Military Administrative Actions – LOCALLY FILED

U.S. Army v. COL (GOMOR) Kuwait Client was given a general officer memorandum of reprimand for allegedly promoting hazing and for allegedly failing to report a serious incident report. Client is a medical professional who was in charge of a team. After thorough investigation of the case, we were able to determine that the individual alleged to have been hazed stated himself that he knew he was not being hazed. The incident was some horse play surrounding the Soldier’s promotion ceremony. As for the serious incident report, one of the Client’s Soldier’s suffered an injury. Client took the proper immediate actions to ensure the Soldier’s safety and treatment. However, the Client mistakenly believed that the report went up via a different agency. However in spite of that, we were able to show that Client was still diligently researching the issue as to what to do.

Article 15 – Adverse Military Administrative Actions – ORAL REPRIMAND

U.S. ARMY V. SSG (ARTICLE 15) Fort Hood, Texas This client called us the day he was counseled by his supervisor that he was being recommended to his chain of command for an Article 15 (NJP). Despite not having an Article 15 read to him or having it in hand yet, the move to hire us that night was utmost crucial to his case because his chain of command was notified immediately that he had hired us and that he was serious about fighting his Article 15. This veteran NCO wanted to make sure he had a good quality attorney and paralegal team in his corner because he had 17 years of honorable service at stake and this was his first mishap. Although the NCO was not given his first reading until several months later, our client constantly kept us updated and informed. Our client then began sending us documents to review, which allowed us to do research and our own investigation prior to his first reading. Once the NCO was finally given his first Article 15 reading, he was facing a single charge of dereliction of duty on a summarized Article 15. This meant that he was only looking...

Administrative Separation Board – Adverse Military Administrative Actions – HONORABLE DISCHARGE

US v. E-4 (Administrative Separation Board for patterns of misconduct) 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 different 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.

Article 15 – Adverse Military Administrative Actions – REDUCTION

U.S. Army v. SGT (Article 15) 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 client 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...

GOMOR – Adverse Military Administrative Actions – WITHDRAWN

US Army v. 03 (GOMOR) (Sexual Assault, False Official Statement) Fort Hood, Texas Client was originally accused of sexually assaulting and harassing an NCO. Client was subjected to 3.5 hours of CID interrogation where he adamantly denied these awful allegations. However, the GOMOR was issued for false official statement based on the interrogation. The root of this case stemmed from a disgruntled NCO who was not selected by Client to be his First Sergeant. Mr. Jordan and his team were able to successfully show that the NCO made false accusations against Client. More importantly, Mr. Jordan and his team were able to show that Client did not in fact lie during his interrogation. Result: The GOMOR was withdrawn and DESTROYED.

15-6 Command Directed Investigation – Adverse Military Administrative Actions – Case Dismissed

United States Army v. O-6 (15-6 Command Directed Investigation) Fort Jackson, South Carolina Client was asked to respond to Investigating Officers findings that the Client had an unhealthy command climate, unfair treatment of subordinates, and retaliation of the chain of command. The findings were seemingly detailed and were 6 pages long. Mr. Jordan carefully considered all of the factors that lead to the investigating officers findings. Mr. Jordan and his team thoroughly and expertly picked apart the findings of this investigation. Mr. Jordan’s team drafted a 13 page response, a legal review, and provided 45 attachments detailing and supporting the conclusions that drastically opposed the Investigating Officers findings. The investigating officer was sloppy. He picked and chose what was important without any proper analysis. It was also apparent that race played an unfortunate role in this case. The officers complaining about the Client were white. Client is African American. Obvious contradictions were not explored or even considered by the investigating officer. Result: The Investigation was thrown out.

Referred 15-6 Investigation – Adverse Military Administrative Actions – Case Dismissed

US v. 0-5 – US Army Recruiting Command (Referred 15-6 Investigation) Houston, TX Client received a referred 15-6 investigation report. This referred report was given in spite of the fact that the investigation officer had opined there was no substantiation to any of the claims made against our client. He was forced to respond to allegations of equal opportunity violations, discrimination and failure to follow a superior officer’s orders. Our client was the commander of a recruiting battalion at the time. He had a very troubled executive officer (XO). His XO was going through some significant family issues and our client thought it best that he be removed from the position in order for the XO to better handle his personal issues. The XO took issue with this and filed a number of unsubstantiated complaints against our client. Further, during the midst of all of this, our client’s commander was replaced by a new commander who gave unclear and ambiguous advice. This unclear and ambiguous advice was the basis for an unsubstantiated claim of failing to follow a superior officer’s orders. We took the time to interview all of the pertinent witnesses to this 15-6 investigation. We also interviewed the...

Sexual Harassment Claims – Adverse Military Administrative Actions – Case Dismissed

U.S. Navy v. LT (NJP) (Officer Misconduct, Sexual Harassment Claims) Port Hueneme, California This officer was notified that his command was pursuing a non-judicial punishment against him for four counts of sexual harassment in the work place. After receiving the run around and realized that he wasn't going to get any help from the JAG defense attorneys the officer decided to hire us. We then began interviewing each person from the work place and those that made these allegations against him, and he also began obtaining his "Good Sailor Packet" by getting character statements, reference letters, and awards. Once we began our investigation we discovered that many people in his work place didn't like him for personal reasons. He was a new LT that replaced a very relaxed CMDR, came into the work place and made some small changes that were within the Navy rules and regulations; however, most of the Sailors didn't like these new changes, and they needed to find a way to get rid of him fast. They decided to make up allegations of sexual harassment of things the LT allegedly said to the Sailors and did to them. (Please note that making any kind of sexual...
Scroll to Top