| GREG MCCORMACK HAS BEEN REPRESENTING CLIENTS
IN MILITARY COURT-MARTIALS, ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION ACTIONS
AND OTHER CRIMINAL CHARGES, AS WELL AS IN CIVILIAN COURTS, SINCE
HE LEFT ACTIVE DUTY AS AN ARMY LAWYER IN 1982. A REPRESENTATIVE
SAMPLING OF SOME OF THE RESULTS OF OUR CASES IS PROVIDED FOR YOUR
REVIEW.
***** DISCLAIMER ***** The following listing of specific case
results is provided for your review. You need to be aware that case
results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. The
listing of the case results noted below do not, in any respect,
guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case which may
be undertaken by this law firm.
• Navy SEAL had accepted Non-Judicial Punishment for violations of Art 92 – 3 specifications of violating a lawful general regulation by wrongfully possessing and storing classified material, Art 107 – 3 specifications of false office statements; Art 121 – 6 specifications of wrongful appropriation of government property, and Art 134 – violate Title 18, U.S. code by removing classified materials to an unauthorized location. We were retained after our client received notification for administrative separation proceedings. At the administrative separation board, the Government counsel requested separation for misconduct with an OTH. The board ruled in our favor and found that the evidence did not warrant administrative separation of our client .
• Reserve Air Force O-5 was subject to involuntary separation proceedings due to misconduct - successfully negotiated retirement in lieu of separation. The officer then faced a Retired Grade Determination, and was allowed to retire as an O-5.
• Active Duty Air Force O-3 was subject to show cause for retention action due to homosexuality, with an Other Than Honorable characterization of service. Through our efforts, the officer was ultimately allowed to resign in lieu of show cause proceedings, with an Honorable discharge.
• Navy 0-3, a Naval Academy graduate, was taken to Mast
(NJP) on a Naval ship for charges related to failure to comply
with Liberty-Buddy regulation, as well as fraternization, false
official statement and conduct unbecoming an officer for abandoning
his liberty buddy. Our
office was retained to represent him at his Show Cause Board of
Inquiry. At the BOI, we were able to secure a NO MISCONDUCT
finding on the charges of false office statement and fraternization. Although
the Board did find misconduct on the 2 remaining accusations, as
well as substandard performance of duty, the Board found by a vote
of 3-0 that our client would be RETAINED in the Naval service.
• Exceptionally successful Navy E-6 administratively separated
for Personality Disorder. Upon presentation of case at Personal
Appearance before Discharge Review Board, we were able to demonstrate
that improper medical diagnosis was made negating factual basis,
as well as failure by command to comply with procedural requirements
for that reason for administrative separation. Result was
unanimous vote by Board, based upon both propriety and
equity, with approved decision to change narrative reason
for separation to non-adverse basis of "Secretarial Authority."
• Active duty LCDR, represented by military attorney, originally
sentenced to life in prison for sexual offenses. After several appeal
proceedings, the original sentence was set aside and a different
military attorney represented the accused at a re-sentencing hearing,
with the accused being re-sentenced to 20 years confinement. Subsequent
to being re-sentenced to 20 years in prison our firm was retained
by the accused to address the issue of an unconstitutional ex post
facto application of the change to good time credit calculation
as it pertained to client's offenses. By clearly demonstrating that
changes to good time credit calculations can only be applied to
"offenses committed" after the change in good time credit
calculation instruction; not for "sentences adjudged"
after the date of change in good time credit calculation instruction
we were able to obtain the release of our client 20 months earlier
than government calculations would have provided.
• A military member may be processed for administrative separation
by reason of either being a homosexual (i.e., a "status"
case) or by engaging in homosexual acts (i.e., an "acts"
case). If a person is either homosexual or has engaged in homosexual
acts, that person will be separated from the military unless all
specified "retention criteria" are met. Prior to contacting
our firm, an Army O-3 self-referred and requested administrative
separation based upon "being homosexual" (i.e. a "status"
case). At that time the officer was represented by an attorney and,
because that attorney provided very limited information to the administrative
separation Board of Inquiry, the end result was that the officer
was retained in the service. This result occurred because, by limiting
the information presented, the Board found that all of the "retention
criteria" were met, which permits a homosexual member to be
retained in the service. Sometime after that administrative separation
process was concluded, we were retained to assist the officer and
we were able to obtain an Honorable Discharge on the basis of engaging
in homosexual acts (i.e., an "acts" case). Because there
had been a previous processing of the case, there were substantial
concerns with the possibility of false official statement allegations
or other possible adverse consequences that would not normally be
present in handling a separation on the basis of homosexuality or
homosexual acts. By our handling of the case, we were able to achieve
the client's desired result of separation, with an Honorable Discharge
and no adverse consequences.
• Active Duty Army O-5 issued Letter of Reprimand that was
placed in Official Military Personnel File and detached for cause,
with Referred OER, as result of allegations of multiple incidents
occurring over an extended period of time and after consuming alcohol,
to include inappropriate touching, obscene comments and vulgar suggestions
to a number of officer and civilian personnel. Allegations and government
response resulted in determination by the Officer Retirement Grade
Determination Board. After consideration of response package prepared
by our firm, officer was permitted to retire as an O-5.
• O-6 Active Duty Physician recommended for Administrative
Separation through "Board of Inquiry/Show Cause" procedures
for polysubstance abuse (alcohol and prescription drugs); alcohol
rehabilitation failure; Misconduct - Violation of UCMJ Art. 86:
Unauthorized Absence for 3 days and Unauthorized Absence for 7 days;
Art. 133: Conduct Unbecoming an Officer; and, Art. 134: Drunkenness;
as well as Substandard Performance of Duty and Failure to comport
with expected standards for an officer of that grade and experience.
Case determined by panel composed of three Flag/General Officers
with final recommendation for Retention in the Military.
• Army COL Detached For Cause, Administratively Reprimanded,
issued referred Officer Evaluation Report and processed for "Elimination"
after being identified to show cause for retention based upon personal
misconduct by engaging in an inappropriate relationship and conduct
unbecoming. We were able to obtain a voluntary retirement in lieu
of elimination, with retirement Grade Determination Review Board
recommending, and the Secretary of the Army approving, retirement
as a Colonel.
• An Army Major with 15 years of active duty service engaged
in repeated alcohol-related incidents over the course of 3 years.
These incidents included allegations of passing out in an airport
while TDY, verbally abusing a subordinate over the telephone, falling
down stairs and injuring himself while TDY, and failing to report
to the start of a course due to severe intoxication. At the Board
of Inquiry, we successfully demonstrated that he did not qualify
as an alcohol rehabilitation failure. By a vote of 3-0, the member
panel recommended RETENTION.
• Army medical services officer was given a General Officer
Memorandum of Reprimand, relief for cause and adverse OER as a result
of an AR 15-6 investigation after a complaint of sexual harassment
of a subordinate officer and a civilian employee, as well as falsification
of patient records. Upon receiving notification that he would have
to appear before a show cause board of inquiry, he retained our
firm to represent him in an effort to save his retirement. On the
day of the BOI, we asked for a delay as a result of late notification
of witnesses to be called by the Government, as well as late notification
of the intention to present evidence as to alleged misconduct at
his last 2 prior commands - that request was granted. Immediately
after the continuance was granted, the Government served our client
with notice that the additional alleged misconduct at his prior
commands would also be considered by the BOI. Several days prior
to the scheduled hearing, the Government disclosed that another
15-6 investigation had been conducted, and although the report was
not finalized, they intended to use the findings and statements
obtained in that 15-6 against our client. The night before the hearing,
the Government counsel provided numerous documents to us for the
first time, advising of the intention to use those documents at
the hearing. On the morning of the hearing, we argued that the Government
again failed to provide sufficient notice to our client of the additional
15-6 investigation, as well as its intention to use the documents
in question against our client. The president of the BOI, agreeing
that the notice was not sufficient, indicated that he would bifurcate
the proceedings, with the intention to proceed on that date with
the original evidence, but to also continue the hearing to a later
date for presentation of the new evidence by the Government. After
our extensive argument against that procedure, the president of
the BOI finally accepted our position and directed that the BOI
would proceed to completion that date, and that the “new”
evidence obtained from the second 15-6 investigation could not be
used by the Government. The Government called nine witnesses against
our client, including a one star General, in an effort to separate
our client from the Army, despite the fact that he had 19 years,
3 months of active duty, and more than 30 years of cumulative service
with reserve time. The BOI returned findings that the evidence did
not support the majority of the accusations, and recommended that
our client be retained in the Army with a rehabilitative transfer.
Our client will now be able to complete his 20 years of active duty
and retire in his current paygrade of 0-4.
• An Army Captain was taken to a Show Cause Board for failure
to keep pace with his contemporaries. He was represented by military
counsel at that Board and the Board resulted in a recommendation
that he be discharged. Client retained us after discharge orders
were executed. We were able to stop the discharge, SET ASIDE THE
RESULTS OF THE BOARD, and get a new a Board convened. At the new
Board, we disqualified the first panel for bias. The second panel
returned a recommendation of RETENTION.
• Navy reservist was notified of mobilization. We secured
an administrative discharge based upon homosexuality, with an HONORABLE
DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE.
• Army ROTC student was ordered to active duty after being
disenrolled from the ROTC program. Our client had attempted to secure
her release for medical reasons, but her request was denied. We
were able to accumulate the requisite records and to secure our
client’s RELEASE FROM HER ACTIVE DUTY OBLIGATION.
• Army ROTC student was terminated from the ROTC program
and upon graduation from college, was ordered to serve on active
duty in an enlisted status. We secured a RELEASE FROM THE ACTIVE
DUTY OBLIGATION.
• We were able to secure an HONORABLE DISCHARGE for an Air
Force physician who experienced separation anxiety and initially
resisted returning to her duties after the birth of her child.
• Naval physician was denied Special Professional Pays and
Bonus, as well as promotion, due to noncompliance with PRT (body
fat) standards. We filed a legal action with the U.S. Court of Claims.
While the claim was pending, the officer came within standards and
was given his Special Pays. We thereafter secured RETROACTIVE PROMOTION
in a negotiated resolution of the claim.
• Air Force physician retained us to assist in securing release
from active duty. Though extensive efforts, we were able to secure
an HONORABLE DISCHARGE for the doctor.
• Naval physician desired to be discharged after birth of
a child. We secured HONORABLE DISCHARGE with no obligation to reimburse
the Navy for her medical education paid for by the Navy.
***** DISCLAIMER *****
The following listing of specific case
results is provided for your review. You need to be aware that case
results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. The
listing of the case results noted below do not, in any respect,
guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case which may
be undertaken by this law firm.
|
