|
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 LIST OF SPECIFIC OR CUMULATIVE
CASE RESULTS IS PROVIDED FOR YOUR REVIEW. YOU NEED TO BE AWARE THAT
ACTUAL CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS THAT ARE UNIQUE
TO EACH CASE. THE CASE RESULTS PROVIDED DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT
A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY CASE UNDERTAKEN BY THIS LAW FIRM.
• Air Force O-4 reservist was ordered to active duty to face charges related to multiple counts of conduct unbecoming an officer concerning alleged larceny of AAFES funds through fraudulent returns, for full retail prices, of items purchased from the exchange at discount prices. Facing General Court-Martial, we submitted a RILO after the Art. 32 in an effort to secure an administrative separation in lieu of court-martial to avoid the risk of the conviction and sentence to include possible confinement and punitive discharge. Although it is extremely difficult to secure approval of a RILO in an officer case with the Air Force, our request for RILO was approved.
• Army Reserve O-5, recalled to active duty for charges preferred to trial by court-martial (violations of the UCMJ, while on active duty, Article 107, false official statement; Article 121, larceny of government money; and Article 132, false and fraudulent claim against the government). Through Mr. McCormack's representation, a resignation for the good of the service was negotiated (with restitution paid), submitted, and subsequently approved, by the Secretary of the Army. All court-martial charges were withdrawn, and all court-martial proceedings vacated.
• Navy E-7 with 11+ years of service assigned on an aircraft carrier was charged with false official statement and larceny of over $7,000 related to an accusation of BAH fraud. The command elected to take him to NJP, which he could not refuse due to being assigned on a ship. We were able to secure a dismissal of the charges after our client passed a civilian and NCIS polygraph.
• Coast Guard junior officer was facing charges of larceny, fraud and false official statements related to false travel claims of a value of approximately $ 50,000.00. Upon receipt of the Report of Investigation, it was apparent that the evidence against our client was significant and had the case proceed through trial by General Court-Martial, he would have faced a federal conviction, most likely with a period of confinement and dismissal (equivalent to a Dishonorable Discharge) from the Coast Guard. We were able bring this to a resolution, before he
was even charged, by securing approval of a Resignation in Lieu of Court-Martial.
• Active Duty Marine Corps E-3 was convicted by summary court-martial for violations of the UCMJ (larceny, attempt, false official statement, and unlawful entry). Upon application to the Judge Advocate General, pursuant to Article 69(b), UCMJ, the Judge Advocate General granted relief by disapproving all findings of guilty and sentence, and dismissed the charges.
• Army Lieutenant Colonel (0-5) reservist, with over 20 years of service, was implicated in a fraud investigation related to entitlements while on active duty. Our client was charged with 10 specifications of larceny, 9 specification of fraud against the US, 1 specification of false official statement, 1 specification of forgery, 2 specifications of violation of a general regulations and 1 specification of conduct unbecoming an officer. Due to some factors in the case, avoiding trial by court-martial was crucially important to our client, as well as trying to salvage our client’s retirement. In a very unusual tactical move, Mr. McCormack set up a meeting with our client and the prosecutor prior to trial by General Court-Martial – the belief here was that we could show the prosecutor that proceeding to trial was not the appropriate move with our client. Shortly after that meeting, it was apparently that our tactical move was successful and we now had the prosecutor on board with attempting to avoid the case going to trial. Despite the fact that the immediate level of command and the prosecutor supported a request for a resignation in lieu of trial by court-martial, which if approved would have resulted in an other than honorable discharge, that request was eventually denied by the Department of the Army, which put us right back on track for going to the court-martial. In a continuing effort to avoid court-martial, Mr. McCormack thereafter negotiated an alternative resolution where the government agreed to dismiss all charges and to terminate the court-martial proceedings upon our client accepting a General Officer Art. 15 on only 2 charge (1 specification of larceny and 1 specification of fraud). Our client appeared at the Art. 15, plead not guilty to the charges and was, as expected, found guilty by the General of both charges. Minor punishment was imposed, the court-martial charges were dismissed, and our client was thereafter permitted to retire from the Army without any criminal record whatsoever.
• Army E-7 charged with 17 offenses related to alleged theft
of a large quantity of Meals Ready to Eat, to include a second charge
of larceny of MRE's which were allegedly traded for a used car,
several specifications of obstruction of justice, as well as wrongful
appropriation, dereliction of duty, disobeying a lawful order and
false official statement to a CID agent. All efforts to reach an
alternate disposition failed and the case proceeded to a fully contested
trial with members. We were able to secure dismissal of several
specifications during the course of the trial and although the members
found our client not guilty of the larceny offenses, he was convicted
of negligent dereliction of duty, obstruction of justice, wrongful
appropriation and false official statement to the CID agent. At
the sentencing hearing, the prosecution argued that our client lost
his right to be a NCO and asked that the jury separate our client
from the Army with a Dishonorable Discharge. Our client was sentenced
to a one grade reduction to E-6, a reprimand, and a forfeiture of
less than a thousand dollars a month for 6 months. The sentence
will permit our client to remain in the service and to retire from
the Army.
• Naval officer was charged with larceny of U.S. currency
of a value of about $24,497.00, the property of the United States
Treasury related to allegations of BAH fraud. Additionally - in
connection with that charge, he was charged with signing an official
document, on three separate occasions, stating that his wife was
living at another residence. Prior to trial by General Court-Martial,
we had our client take a civilian polygraph test on the issue of
whether or not he knew the actual place of residence of his wife,
which he passed. We then were able to get the command to approve
a NCIS polygraph, which we were present for - he also passed that
polygraph. The command still refused to dismiss the charges although
our client offered to repay over $ 20,000, so we then had to secure
affidavits from his wife, as well as a male acquaintance, to support
our client's position. After extensive negotiations, ALL CHARGES
WERE WITHDRAWN.
• Our client, a Navy man with over 12 years of active service,
was charged with stealing materials from a major hardware store.
He pled not guilty to the charge of petty larceny at trial. The
store’s loss prevention manager testified that he saw our
client leave the store without paying. Our attorney argued that
it was a misunderstanding and that another individual was supposed
to pay before leaving the store. The judge decided to impose a deferred
finding and ordered that the charge be dismissed after six months
if he commits no further criminal offenses during this time.
• We were retained by a civil service employee to represent
her in court on a charge of obstructing justice. The employee was
accused of interfering with the military police in the performance
of their duties for not allowing them to search her vehicle and
otherwise non-compliance with their orders after being randomly
stopped for a car search. After several attempts by the police to
get her to allow them to search her vehicle, she steadfastly refused
to cooperate. This led to her being arrested and charged with obstructing
justice. At trial, we argued that due to the circumstances and our
client’s clean record, she should not be convicted and asked
the court to defer the finding. The court ultimately agreed and
imposed a deferred finding whereby the charge will be dismissed
if our client commits no other violations of the law during the
deferral period.
• Navy E-8 with well in excess of 20 years of service was
charged with larceny of over $ 60,000 from the Chief's fund on board
a Naval ship. Evidence showed our client wrote many checks from
the Chief's fund payable directly to himself and used for his personal
expenses. We were able to negotiate a plea agreement that provided
for partial restitution of the stolen funds, and a sentencing cap
to limit his confinement, but still exposed him to a punitive discharge
and resultant loss of his retirement benefits. After our plea agreement
was accepted, the Government counsel argued for a lengthy period
of confinement, and pressed hard to secure a punitive discharge.
We asked for a reduction to an intermediate pay grade, no discharge
and 89 days of confinement. The judge reduced our client to E-3,
gave him 89 days of confinement, and DID NOT DISCHARGE him. Our
client has RETIRED FROM THE NAVY.
• Navy E-7 was charged with conspiracy and theft of assorted
government property, all of which was recovered from his garage.
We negotiated a plea agreement that significantly limited our client’s
exposure at trial, and then secured a sentence of only 30 days of
confinement, reprimand and reduction to the paygrade of E-5. Our
client WAS NOT SENTENCED TO BE PUNITIVELY DISCHARGED.
• Navy E-7 was taken to a courts-martial where a Guilty plea
was entered on one specification of Dereliction of Duty in a case
involving the shooting death of a Navy SEAL. An enlisted jury returned
a sentence of NO PUNISHMENT.
• Naval officer was implicated in offenses related to conspiracy
to commit larceny and sale of military property, as well as hazing
of a junior enlisted member and falsification of personnel records.
After extended pre-trial negotiations, we secured a plea agreement
where the majority of the charges were dismissed and our client
was given protection as to imposition of a punitive dismissal or
confinement if he submitted a resignation request.
• An Army Warrant Officer who was the Commander of a small
vessel was charged with several counts of dereliction of duty and
other charges related to the discharge of several hundred gallons
of fuel oil into local waterways. After the Article 32 Investigation,
the charges were WITHDRAWN.
• USAF E-6 with 13 years of service reduced in rate to E-5
at NJP for forgery of superior NCO's signature on a performance
of duty report form. Service member had a previous incident related
to questions on TAD travel expense claims. We were able to secure
a "SET ASIDE" OF NJP, restoring client to previous status
as E-6 and, one year later, client PROMOTED TO MASTER SERGEANT.
• Navy Chief Warrant Officer was charged with assorted violations
of the UCMJ related to alleged theft of government computer equipment
from DRMO. Client had 20+ years of service and was advised of the
charges the day before his retirement ceremony. Two co-defendants
implicated the client as having received stolen government property.
Client was found NOT GUILTY of all charges by the jury and retired
the following week.
• Navy E-6 was implicated in an investigation concerning
the theft of military property which evolved from a kick-back scandal
with civilian suppliers. Our client was the supervisor of the person
who was stealing the property and eventually became embroiled in
conspiracies to wrongfully dispose of the property and obstruction
of justice. Through extended pre-trial negotiations, we secured
a pre-trial agreement which resulted in about half of the charges
being dismissed and limiting confinement to 9 months. At the sentencing
hearing, we secured a sentence from the military judge that DID
NOT INCLUDE ANY CONFINEMENT AT ALL.
• An E-5 in the Air Force faced a General Courts-Martial
for use of cocaine. Prior to trial, the Government preferred an
additional charge related to BAH fraud. We secured a withdrawal
of the fraud charge after the Art. 32, then when we went to trial
on the drug charge, our client was ACQUITTED. We secured the acquittal
without putting on any evidence in our case.
• E-6 Reservist, with 15 years of service, living overseas
charged with improper registration of POV through tax-free on-base
MVRO as well as multiple specifications of improper purchase of
tax-free items through Exchange System when no longer eligible as
result of demobilization. By unanimous vote of Administrative Separation
Board our client was RETAINED and permitted to continue career toward
achieving retirement eligibility.
• An E-6 in the Air Force was charged with offenses related
to compromising of performance testing materials. After an ART.
32 Investigation, the charges were referred to trial by General
Courts-Martial, however we secured WITHDRAWAL of the charges prior
to the trial.
• Navy E-6 with 18 ½ years of service was processed
for misconduct based upon 3 convictions for driving under the influence.
At an Administrative Separation Board, we secured a recommendation
that the separation be suspended, however the command was adamant
that our client be separated. Through continued representation after
the board, we were able to get the Naval Personnel command to RETAIN
our client so that he will be able to retire.
***** DISCLAIMER *****
THE FOLLOWING LIST OF SPECIFIC OR CUMULATIVE
CASE RESULTS IS PROVIDED FOR YOUR REVIEW. YOU NEED TO BE AWARE THAT
ACTUAL CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS THAT ARE UNIQUE
TO EACH CASE. THE CASE RESULTS PROVIDED DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT
A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY CASE UNDERTAKEN BY THIS LAW FIRM.
|
