Fort Greely Boards of Inquiry & Administrative Separation Lawyers
Table Contents
A Board of Inquiry for officers and an administrative separation board for enlisted personnel are formal fact‑finding bodies convened by the military to determine whether a service member should be retained or separated. At installations such as Fort Greely, these boards operate under service‑specific regulations but follow a common structure: three impartial members review evidence related to alleged misconduct, performance issues, or other grounds for separation, and they deliberate solely on whether the underlying basis for separation is supported and, if so, whether separation is warranted.
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests with the government, which must establish the alleged basis for separation by a preponderance of the evidence. This evidentiary standard—requiring that the allegation be more likely true than not—differs from the criminal standard used in courts‑martial. Boards may consider a broad range of materials, including personnel records, witness testimony, and documentary evidence, provided it is relevant and reliable.
Unlike courts‑martial, Boards of Inquiry and administrative separation boards are administrative rather than criminal processes. They do not adjudicate guilt or impose punitive sentences. Instead, they determine whether the service member has met military standards and whether continued service is appropriate. Procedural rights are more limited than in a criminal forum, and rules of evidence are less restrictive, allowing the board to evaluate information that would not be admissible in a judicial setting.
Because these boards directly assess both the factual basis for separation and the member’s overall suitability for continued service, they often represent the decisive moment in a service member’s career. Their findings and recommendations typically guide the final command decision on whether the member will be retained, separated, or separated with a specific characterization of service, making the board a pivotal administrative crossroad.
A Board of Inquiry or administrative separation is a command‑initiated process that can end a service member’s career without a court‑martial, affecting rank, retirement eligibility, and discharge status. At Fort Greely, Gonzalez & Waddington can help members understand procedures and requirements. For information, call 1-800-921-8607.
Watch the criminal defense lawyers at Gonzalez & Waddington break down how they defend criminal cases and service members worldwide against Federal Charges, Florida State Charges, UCMJ allegations, CID/NCIS/OSI investigations, court-martials, Article 120 cases, administrative separations, and GOMORs. If you’re under investigation or facing charges, this video explains what your rights are and how experienced criminal defense lawyers can make the difference.
Fort Greely’s small‑installation environment results in high command oversight and close unit visibility, meaning leadership often becomes aware of performance or conduct concerns quickly. This enhanced situational awareness can lead to earlier initiation of administrative processes designed to maintain readiness and accountability.
When issues are formally documented through investigations, written reprimands, or nonjudicial punishment, those actions can serve as the basis for separation consideration. Even when corrective measures are intended to address behavior or performance, the accumulated record may trigger mandatory review thresholds that move a case into the administrative separation or Board of Inquiry process.
Leadership risk tolerance and long‑term career management decisions also play a role. Command teams may determine that certain patterns of conduct or performance present risks to mission execution or future service viability, prompting them to pursue administrative pathways that align with Army policy and maintain force effectiveness.
If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges or a criminal investigation by federal authorities, the military, or the State of Florida, early defense matters. Gonzalez & Waddington provide disciplined, trial-focused criminal defense for high-stakes cases involving serious allegations and complex evidence. To speak with experienced criminal defense lawyers and get confidential guidance, call 1-800-921-8607 or text 954-909-7407 to request a no-cost, confidential consultation.
The administrative separation process at Fort Greely follows structured procedures designed to review alleged misconduct or performance issues. These steps outline how a service member’s case moves through notification, board review, and final command action.
The Board of Inquiry functions as a fact-finding body that evaluates evidence, hears testimony, and issues recommendations based on the circumstances presented. The sequence below summarizes the essential stages involved.
Boards of Inquiry and separation boards at Fort Greely commonly review a wide range of documentary evidence, including materials generated during command-level investigations, formal reprimands such as GOMORs, and records of nonjudicial punishment (NJP). These documents provide the board with a written history of the underlying conduct, the unit’s response, and any prior administrative or disciplinary actions that may contextualize the case.
Witness testimony is also a central component, as boards often call supervisors, peers, subject-matter experts, or individuals directly involved in the events at issue. The board members assess each witness’s credibility by examining consistency, firsthand knowledge, demeanor, and any potential bias. Sworn statements or prior testimony may also be used to evaluate whether a witness’s account aligns with other evidence.
Administrative records, such as evaluation reports, counseling statements, training files, and duty performance documents, are weighed to help the board understand the servicemember’s broader professional history. These records are considered alongside investigative findings and witness testimony to establish a complete factual picture of the circumstances under review.
Administrative separations at Fort Greely can result in one of three primary discharge characterizations: Honorable, General (Under Honorable Conditions), or Other Than Honorable (OTH). An Honorable discharge reflects full compliance with military standards, a General discharge indicates satisfactory service with minor issues, and an OTH discharge is issued when significant misconduct or performance deficiencies are documented.
Characterization directly affects retirement considerations because administrative separation may interrupt the continuous service needed to reach retirement eligibility. Even when a Soldier is close to a qualifying service threshold, an adverse characterization can lead to separation before the necessary time in service is accrued, impacting the ability to obtain retired status and associated benefits.
A General or OTH discharge can also influence access to certain post-service benefits. For example, educational, medical, or transition-related benefits may be limited or subject to review based on the characterization of service, and an OTH characterization typically carries greater restrictions.
The long-term consequences of administrative separation records extend beyond immediate benefits. Future employment, professional licensing, and background checks often consider discharge documents, and adverse characterizations may require ongoing explanation. Maintaining accurate documentation and understanding the implications of each characterization is essential for service members navigating the administrative separation process.
At Fort Greely, administrative separation actions and Boards of Inquiry often arise after preliminary fact‑finding, most commonly through command-directed investigations. These investigations do not impose punishment themselves, but their findings frequently serve as the evidentiary basis for determining whether a service member’s conduct or performance warrants further administrative review or the initiation of separation processing.
Boards of Inquiry also intersect with corrective administrative measures such as Letters of Reprimand. While a Letter of Reprimand may stand alone as a non-punitive action, it can be used as supporting documentation during a Board of Inquiry to demonstrate a pattern of behavior or substantiated concerns about duty performance, thereby influencing recommendations regarding retention or separation.
Administrative separation proceedings exist alongside punitive systems, including non-judicial punishment and court-martial proceedings. Although non-judicial punishment and court-martial actions address alleged misconduct through disciplinary channels, their outcomes can prompt or strengthen the case for administrative separation. Conversely, a Board of Inquiry does not determine criminal guilt but evaluates whether continued service is appropriate in light of prior misconduct, adverse findings, or disciplinary action at Fort Greely.
The firm brings decades of military justice experience to board-level litigation, allowing service members to rely on counsel who understands the unique procedures, evidence standards, and strategic considerations that shape Boards of Inquiry and administrative separation actions at Fort Greely. Their background spans numerous contested board cases across multiple branches, providing insight into how decisions are made and how records are evaluated by board members.
An essential part of their approach is meticulous witness examination and record-building. They focus on developing clear, legally grounded narratives supported by testimony, documents, and service history. This attention to the administrative record is critical, as board findings often depend on the strength, accuracy, and credibility of the evidence presented.
Their representation is also integrated with related actions such as reprimands, nonjudicial punishment, and investigative processes under AR 15‑6 or similar authorities. By coordinating defense efforts across these interconnected proceedings, they help ensure that statements, evidence, and strategic decisions in one forum do not inadvertently create problems in another, providing continuity and consistency throughout the broader administrative landscape.
Answer: Administrative separation can occur without a court-martial when commanders believe a service member’s conduct or performance warrants review. This process is separate from criminal proceedings and uses its own standards. It does not require a conviction or judicial finding.
Answer: A BOI is an administrative fact‑finding process to determine whether separation is appropriate, while NJP is a disciplinary action used to address minor offenses. NJP can precede a BOI but does not automatically trigger separation. Each process has different procedures and potential consequences.
Answer: The burden of proof in a BOI is a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the board must find it more likely than not that the alleged basis for separation occurred. This standard is lower than what is required in criminal proceedings. The board applies this standard to each allegation presented.
Answer: A BOI is typically composed of three commissioned officers who outrank the service member being reviewed. One officer serves as the board president and leads the proceedings. All members evaluate the evidence and vote on findings and recommendations.
Answer: The board may consider documents, witness testimony, service records, and any other relevant materials offered by the government or the service member. The rules of evidence are more flexible than in a court-martial. The board determines the weight and relevance of each item presented.
Answer: A BOI may review whether a service member is eligible to continue service long enough to reach retirement. Administrative separation before qualifying service is complete may affect retirement eligibility. The board’s recommendations influence how the command proceeds.
Answer: The board recommends a characterization of service based on the member’s overall record and the findings related to the case. Possible characterizations range from Honorable to Other Than Honorable. The final characterization decision is made by the separation authority.
Answer: Service members may retain a civilian lawyer at their own expense to participate in the BOI process. Civilian counsel can appear alongside appointed military counsel. Their involvement is subject to the board’s procedural rules.
Fort Greely sits in interior Alaska, south of Delta Junction and along the Richardson Highway. Its remote Arctic setting includes subarctic terrain marked by long winters and expansive training land. This location is strategically tied to missile defense operations and cold‑region military research.
The installation connects closely with Delta Junction and nearby rural communities that support personnel with services, housing, and seasonal employment. Both military and civilian populations rely on shared infrastructure in this sparsely populated region. The base’s presence influences local economic and community planning.
The U.S. Army maintains the primary mission at Fort Greely, supported by joint-service personnel tied to national defense activities. Its operations center on strategic missile defense readiness and cold‑weather support functions. These roles give the installation a unique place in northern security operations.
The installation hosts key missile defense assets that contribute to homeland protection. It also provides training and testing grounds for Arctic and subarctic operations. These missions require specialized facilities and continuous coordination with national defense commands.
Fort Greely maintains a modest active-duty presence compared to larger Army posts, supplemented by civilian contractors and rotational personnel. Activity levels fluctuate with missile defense requirements and seasonal training schedules. The population supports both operational and technical functions.
Personnel support missile defense operations, cold-weather testing, and mission‑critical maintenance tasks. Training rotations add periodic increases in operational tempo. These activities require coordination among military, civilian, and contractor teams.
Service members stationed at or transiting through Fort Greely remain subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Investigations, administrative actions, and courts‑martial may arise from incidents occurring during operations or within the installation’s controlled areas. The remote environment can influence how such matters are managed and processed.
The military defense lawyers at Gonzalez & Waddington represent servicemembers stationed at Fort Greely. They handle cases involving UCMJ actions, administrative matters, and courts‑martial linked to the installation’s mission and operational tempo. Their experience includes work within the unique legal landscape of remote Alaska posts.
Statements from prior investigations are commonly introduced in separation proceedings. These statements may be used even if they were never tested in a court-martial.
Yes, a service member has the right to present witnesses and evidence at a Board of Inquiry. Witness testimony can play a significant role in credibility and character assessments.
Letters of Reprimand and Non-Judicial Punishment are frequently used as evidence to support separation. They are often presented as proof of a pattern of misconduct or poor judgment.
Yes, a Board of Inquiry can have a direct impact on retirement eligibility, especially for service members close to retirement. In some cases, separation may prevent retirement entirely.
Possible discharge characterizations include Honorable, General (Under Honorable Conditions), or Other Than Honorable. The characterization directly affects post-service benefits and employment.
