U.S. Army v. 0-4
Our client is a West Point Graduate. He is very accomplished in his career and knows how to execute a mission and get things done. This case resulted from some very poor findings in a AR 15-6 investigation. After reviewing the investigation thoroughly, I found that the majority of the witnesses had overwhelming POSTIVE things to say about our client. The Investigating Officer chose to pick a few isolated incidents and make a mountain out of a mole hill.
The bulk of this case stemmed from another Major who actually is and was substandard. This individual (referred to as M2 for purposes of this review) was thrust into a role that he was ill suited for. Even his Battalion Commander thought M2 was ill suited for the role and said as much. Yet, the Brigade Commander admonished his subordinate Commander to make the best of it…and essentially go along to get along.
This substandard officer (M2) caused many problems for the Command. Our client was thrust into the role of executive officer and struggled mightily overcome M2’s routine deficiencies. M2’s biggest issues were his unavailability to do basic staff officer functions, his integrity and his active undermining of the battalion commander’s directives. Finally, our client had enough of M2’s nonsense and read him the riot act in a staff meeting. M2’s tongue lashing was earned…and we convinced the board that it was earned.
Thru a thorough analysis of the case, and the calling of key witnesses, we were able to show the board that our client was in fact an excellent leader. We were able to show that our client made the best of some bad circumstances. We highlighted 27 of 30 statements detailing what a great leader our client is. Finally, his former battalion commander showed up and testified in person on his behalf. We put on a powerful case, and he was retained! Now he can move on to ILE.
U.S. Army O-4 Board of Inquiry – Case FAQ
1. What was the central issue in the U.S. Army O-4 Board of Inquiry for alleged counter-productive leadership, and why did it matter for the officer’s career?
This case concerned an O-4 officer who faced a Board of Inquiry following an AR 15-6 investigation that alleged counter-productive leadership. The purpose was to determine whether the officer should be separated from service. The inquiry relied on selective findings instead of the full record of his performance.
2. How did the AR 15-6 investigation create allegations when most witness statements supported the officer’s leadership abilities?
The Investigating Officer emphasized a handful of negative incidents while ignoring the majority of testimony. Most witnesses described the officer as professional and effective, which exposed the weaknesses in the allegations. This contrast became the defense’s strongest point.
3. Why was the involvement of another Major (M2) significant in the outcome of the Board of Inquiry?
M2 was placed in a role he could not handle, as even his Battalion Commander admitted. His lack of reliability, poor integrity, and disregard for directives created repeated problems in the command. The officer facing inquiry had to take on extra burdens as Executive Officer to cover M2’s deficiencies.
4. Why did the confrontation between the Executive Officer and M2 during a staff meeting become such a key issue in the investigation?
After persistent failures from M2, the Executive Officer confronted him directly in a staff meeting. The investigation portrayed this incident negatively, but the defense showed it was a justified response to ongoing problems. Witnesses supported the officer’s reaction as earned and appropriate.
5. How did witness testimony shape the defense strategy in the O-4 counter-productive leadership case?
The defense highlighted 27 of 30 statements that described the officer as an excellent leader. These written testimonies, combined with live testimony from the former Battalion Commander, showed that the officer consistently demonstrated effective leadership despite difficult conditions.
6. What role did the Battalion Commander’s in-person testimony play in securing the outcome of the case?
The former Battalion Commander appeared and testified in support of the officer, confirming his strong performance under challenging circumstances. This testimony reinforced the credibility of the defense and carried significant weight with the Board members.
7. How did the defense team demonstrate that the officer acted responsibly despite challenging circumstances created by M2?
By showing how the officer worked to overcome routine deficiencies left by M2, the defense proved he acted with responsibility and leadership. The board saw that he made the best of poor circumstances, not that he was at fault for them.
8. What was the final decision of the Board of Inquiry, and what does it mean for the officer’s future in the Army?
The Board found no grounds to separate the officer. He was retained in service and allowed to move forward to Intermediate Level Education (ILE). This decision secured his career progression and confirmed the allegations lacked merit.
Protect Your Military Career
This case shows how an experienced defense can make the difference when facing an AR 15-6 investigation or a Board of Inquiry. An O-4 officer was able to continue his career because the facts and witness testimony were presented clearly and effectively.
Attorney Joseph L. Jordan is a former Army prosecutor who has defended service members worldwide in court-martials, administrative separation boards, and show cause hearings. He understands the military justice system from both sides and brings over a decade of experience to every case.
📞 Call 888-981-7295 or 254-853-0064 to learn more about how your situation may be evaluated.
🌍 Offices based in Fort Hood, Texas – representing Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen worldwide.
Disclaimer: This information is for general purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any individual case. Contacting this firm does not create an attorney-client relationship.