Top Mistakes to Avoid at a Military Administrative Separation Board

1. Failing to Prepare Properly

One of the most common mistakes of service members is not adequately preparing for their Military Administrative Separation Board. Walking into the hearing without a well-prepared defense or gathering necessary evidence and witnesses can significantly reduce your chances of success. A strong defense requires thorough preparation, including document collection, witness preparation, and understanding the legal grounds for your case.

2. Not Hiring the Best ADSEP Board Attorneys

While you may be provided with military-appointed counsel, these attorneys often handle numerous cases simultaneously and may not have the time or specialization to focus entirely on your defense. By hiring one of the best ADSEP Board attorneys, you invest in a lawyer with extensive experience in Military Administrative Separation Boards and Board of Inquiry (BOI) lawyers. These attorneys provide personalized attention and strategic guidance, which can make the difference between a favorable and unfavorable outcome.

3. Underestimating the Impact of Discharge Characterization

Service members often overlook the long-term consequences of their discharge characterization. An Other Than Honorable (OTH) discharge can strip you of key benefits, including VA benefits, healthcare, and education assistance. It can also impact future employment opportunities. Hiring an experienced civilian lawyer can increase your chances of securing an Honorable or General discharge, ensuring access to vital post-service benefits.

4. Choosing a Hyper-Aggressive Lawyer

While it may seem like an aggressive attorney is the best choice for a board hearing, this approach can often backfire. Board members are looking for facts, respect, and professionalism. A hyper-aggressive or rude lawyer may alienate the board members, hurting your chances. Instead, choose a lawyer who is both skillful and diplomatic—someone who can present your case effectively without alienating decision-makers.

5. Not Utilizing Your Rights

Many service members are unaware of their rights during an ADSEP board. You can present evidence, call witnesses, and cross-examine the government’s witnesses. Failing to exercise these rights or overlooking key aspects of your defense can lead to an unfavorable outcome. Working with an experienced lawyer ensures you understand and utilize all the rights available.

Why Hiring the Best ADSEP Board Attorneys Matters

“It is Department of the Navy (DON) policy to promote the readiness of the naval service by maintaining authorized strength levels in each grade and competitive category, and by maintaining the highest standards of conduct and performance in the officer corps.”
—SECNAV Instruction 1920.6D

The best civilian ADSEP Board attorneys understand the complexities of military law, the specific processes involved in Military Administrative Separation Boards, and how to navigate the often intricate military regulations. Their experience ensures that no legal stone is left unturned in your defense. Moreover, they are skilled at building a strong, fact-based defense while maintaining the professionalism that appeals to board members.

• They can help secure an Honorable discharge rather than an Other Than Honorable (OTH) discharge.
• They provide expert guidance on navigating military regulations and procedures.
• They work to preserve your military career, benefits, and reputation.

Benefits of Preserving Your Discharge Characterization

The consequences of an unfavorable discharge can be devastating, particularly regarding your access to post-service benefits. For instance, without a favorable discharge, you may lose your eligibility for:

• GI Bill benefits for education
• VA home loans with zero down payment
• Full VA healthcare coverage, including access to medical treatments, surgeries, and prescriptions

A lawyer’s fee may seem high, but it’s a small investment compared to the lifetime of benefits you risk losing.

Statistics on Military Sexual Assault and Harassment

Sexual assault and harassment remain pervasive issues within the U.S. military, despite ongoing efforts to address and reduce these incidents. The Department of Defense (DoD) regularly releases reports detailing the scope of the problem, but many service members still experience these forms of misconduct. In this article, we’ll dive into the latest statistics and explore how widespread the issue is in the military, highlighting the impact on both male and female service members.

Military Sexual Assault Statistics

The Department of Defense’s most recent reports on sexual assault provide a troubling picture. In the 2020 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military, it was revealed that over 20,000 service members had reported being sexually assaulted in 2019. This statistic alone underscores the magnitude of the problem.

“In fiscal year 2020, the Department received 7,816 reports of sexual assault involving service members as either victims or subjects.”
—DoD Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military, 2020

Moreover, while 20,000 service members reported being assaulted, a far larger number, including those who did not report their assaults, are likely to have experienced sexual misconduct. The gap between reported and unreported cases remains a significant challenge. According to DoD data, only about 30% of military sexual assault cases are reported.

Increased Reports but Limited Convictions

While the number of reports has increased, it hasn’t necessarily led to more convictions. According to the same report, only 7% of sexual assault cases result in a conviction. This low conviction rate is concerning, as it suggests a systemic issue in effectively addressing and prosecuting these cases within military justice.

“Out of the cases that were prosecuted, only 7% resulted in a conviction, leaving the majority of cases unresolved or dismissed.”
—DoD Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military, 2020

The gap between the number of reports and convictions suggests significant barriers to achieving justice for victims. This issue raises concerns about the effectiveness of the military’s handling of sexual assault cases and whether service members feel confident in the system’s ability to hold perpetrators accountable.

Military Sexual Harassment Statistics

Sexual harassment is another widespread problem in the military, often seen as a precursor to more serious offenses like sexual assault. According to the Department of Defense’s annual report, more than 1 in 4 women in the military have experienced sexual harassment, compared to 1 in 16 men.

“In fiscal year 2019, 24% of military women and 6% of military men reported experiencing sexual harassment.”
—DoD Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military, 2020

This statistic highlights the gender disparity when it comes to sexual harassment, with women being far more likely to be affected. However, it is important to note that male service members also face sexual harassment, albeit at lower rates. The military’s culture and hierarchy, combined with the traditionally male-dominated environment, are factors that contribute to these disturbing trends.

Retaliation Against Victims

Retaliation is a significant issue for military personnel who report sexual harassment or assault. According to the Military Times, more than 50% of service members who report sexual assault experience some form of retaliation. This retaliation can take the form of professional setbacks, harassment by peers, or even personal attacks on credibility. This hostile environment discourages many victims from coming forward and reporting their experiences.

“In 2019, 64% of women who reported sexual assault indicated experiencing some form of retaliation for making a report.”
—Military Times

Retaliation not only discourages reporting but also perpetuates a culture where sexual harassment and assault can continue unchecked. It creates a climate of fear and silence, where service members may feel that reporting will harm their careers or reputations more than staying quiet.

Sexual Assault by Rank

One notable aspect of military sexual assault is the rank disparity between victims and perpetrators. Many cases involve perpetrators of higher rank abusing their authority over lower-ranking service members. According to the DoD’s report, the majority of perpetrators in reported cases held a higher rank than the victim, making it even more difficult for victims to come forward.

“In 2019, the majority of sexual assault cases involved a perpetrator of higher rank than the victim, which can complicate reporting and exacerbate power imbalances.”
—DoD Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military, 2020

This power imbalance can discourage victims from reporting incidents due to fear of retaliation or damage to their careers. It also speaks to a larger issue of how power dynamics within the military can be abused, making it crucial for higher-ranking officers to be held accountable for their actions.

Addressing the Issue: What’s Being Done?

The military has implemented various programs and reforms to combat sexual assault and harassment. Initiatives like the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) program have been developed to support victims and encourage reporting. Additionally, legislative changes are underway to increase accountability, such as moving the decision to prosecute sexual assault cases outside the chain of command.

However, progress remains slow, and more work needs to be done to build trust in the system. According to the Department of Defense, it is committed to creating a safer environment for all service members and reducing the prevalence of these serious issues.

Military Administrative Separation Boards for Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment

Sexual assault and harassment continue to be pervasive issues within the U.S. military. While awareness and reporting have increased, systemic issues such as low conviction rates, rank disparities, and retaliation against victims hinder real progress. It is clear that more needs to be done to protect service members and ensure that perpetrators are held accountable for their actions. Addressing these problems requires a comprehensive approach that includes cultural change, increased accountability, and stronger support systems for victims.

When facing an ADSEP board for allegations involving sexual misconduct, it is important to be aware of the statistics and seriousness of the issue. According to the Department of Defense’s Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military:

• Reports of sexual assault have increased by 13% in 2020 (DoD Report 2020).
• Over 20,000 service members reported being sexually assaulted in 2019 alone (DoD Report).
• Military sexual harassment affects over 1 in 4 women and 1 in 16 men in the armed forces (DoD Report).
• Only 7% of sexual assault cases in the military result in convictions (DoD Report 2020).
• More than 50% of military sexual assault victims experience some form of retaliation (Military Times).

These statistics show how seriously the military takes allegations of misconduct, making it even more critical to hire an experienced lawyer who can navigate such sensitive issues effectively.

1. Experience with Military Law

First and foremost, you need an Administrative Separation Board lawyer with extensive military law experience. A general attorney might be skilled in civilian law, but military law has its own set of rules, regulations, and nuances. The best attorneys for ADSEP or BOI cases are those who have in-depth knowledge of military procedures and have handled many separation boards successfully.

“This regulation establishes procedures for investigations and boards not specifically authorized by any other regulation or directive.”
—Army Regulation 15-6, Boards, Commissions, and Committees

Military law and Administrative Separation Boards are unique because it involves regulations like the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), DoD Instruction 1332.14 for enlisted administrative separations, and AR 15-6 investigations, among others. The attorney you choose should be familiar with these regulations, as well as the procedural aspects of how military boards function.

An attorney with military law experience will know the key arguments to make, the evidence to present, and how to appeal to board members in a way that enhances your case.

2. Proven Track Record of Success at Administrative Separation Boards

Another important factor to consider is the attorney’s track record in handling cases like yours. Look for attorneys who have successfully defended clients at Military Administrative Separation Boards or Board of Inquiry (BOI) hearings. A lawyer with a high success rate in similar cases will be more likely to help you achieve a favorable outcome.

For example, suppose your case involves allegations of misconduct or failure to meet performance standards. In that case, you want a lawyer who has experience defending service members in similar circumstances and who has helped clients secure Honorable or General discharges, thereby preserving their benefits and reputation.

Be sure to ask the lawyer about their prior cases and how they handled them. The more successful cases they’ve handled that are similar to yours, the better prepared they’ll be to navigate your situation.

3. Deep Understanding of the Separation Process

It’s crucial that your attorney understands the specific process of military separation boards. There are key steps, timelines, and procedural requirements that must be followed during an ADSEP or BOI hearing. An attorney who is well-versed in these processes will ensure that everything is handled according to regulation and that no procedural errors negatively impact your case.

“This publication provides guidance on the execution of voluntary and involuntary separations… This Instruction requires the collection and/or maintenance of information protected by the Privacy Act of 1974 authorized by Title 10 U.S.C. § 9013, Secretary of the Air Force, and E.O. 9397 (SSN).”
—USAF Separations DAFI36-3211

From the notification phase to the final decision, each step of an Administrative Separation Board must be carefully monitored by your attorney to ensure that your rights are protected. A lawyer with a deep understanding of these processes can spot potential procedural missteps that could affect the outcome of your case and use them to your advantage.

4. Strong Communication Skills at Administrative Separation Boards

Communication is another essential skill to look for in an ADSEP attorney. You need a lawyer who is not only a skilled advocate but also someone who can clearly explain your case to the board members. The ability to present a logical, well-organized argument in front of the board can greatly influence the final decision.

In addition, your lawyer should keep you informed throughout the entire process. A good attorney will explain the proceedings in a way that makes sense to you, outline your options, and keep you updated on any developments in your case. You should feel comfortable asking your attorney questions, knowing they’ll provide clear and honest answers.

Good communication also includes managing expectations. An experienced lawyer will help you understand both the strengths and weaknesses of your case, ensuring you are prepared for any possible outcome.

5. Diplomacy and Professionalism at Administrative Separation Boards

While an aggressive lawyer may seem like a good choice, it’s important to remember that diplomacy and professionalism are often more effective in military settings. Board members appreciate lawyers who are respectful, knowledgeable, and composed. An attorney who is brash or overly combative can alienate the board members, making it less likely that they’ll view your case favorably.

“Officers being processed for separation for cause will be processed expeditiously… standards and procedures established in execution of these policies are intended to achieve consistency of application in a naval leadership system based on command authority, responsibility, accountability, and discretion.”
—AR 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges

The best ADSEP Board attorneys know how to strike the right balance between being assertive and being diplomatic. They understand when to push hard and when to step back, maintaining a respectful demeanor that ensures the board members are open to considering your defense without feeling alienated.

6. Consider the Lawyer’s Fee in Relation to the Value of Your Case

The cost of hiring a civilian military lawyer might seem high at first glance, but it’s important to compare this cost with what you stand to lose. An Other Than Honorable (OTH) discharge can result in the loss of VA benefits, medical care, education assistance, and housing loans. The long-term financial impact of a negative discharge far outweighs the attorney’s fees.

The right lawyer can help you avoid the financial and emotional burden of losing your military benefits. Consider the investment in an Administrative Separation Board attorney as a way to secure your future, preserve your reputation, and protect your family’s financial well-being. It’s worth every dollar if it means retaining your career, pay, and benefits.

Hiring an Administrative Separation Board Lawyer

Choosing the best ADSEP Board attorney is one of the most critical decisions you’ll make if you are facing a Military Administrative Separation Board or Board of Inquiry (BOI). By considering factors like military law experience, a proven track record, strong communication skills, professionalism, and a deep understanding of the separation process, you can make an informed decision that maximizes your chances of a successful outcome. Remember, the right Administrative Separation Board attorney will defend your case and protect your future.

Tips for Hiring the Best ADSEP Board Attorneys

When choosing an attorney for your Military Administrative Separation Board, here are a few key factors to consider:

• Experience with Military Law: Ensure your Administrative Separation Board lawyer has extensive experience handling ADSEP and BOI cases.
• Track Record: Look for an attorney with a proven record of securing favorable outcomes in similar cases.
• Communication Skills: Choose an approachable Administrative Separation Board lawyer, communicates clearly, and keeps you informed throughout the process.
• Diplomacy: As discussed earlier, a Administrative Separation Board lawyer’s demeanor matters. Choose someone who is professional, respectful, and understands how to interact with board members effectively.

Remember, the right attorney can make all the difference between keeping your military career and facing separation with a damaging discharge.

Case 1: Misconduct at Fort Bragg

Branch: Army

Location: Fort Bragg, North Carolina

Situation: An enlisted soldier, Sergeant John Davis, is accused of using illegal drugs while stationed at Fort Bragg. A random drug test returned positive for cocaine, leading to the initiation of an administrative separation board to determine whether Sgt. Davis should be separated for misconduct.

Defense Strategy at the Administrative Separation Board:

A military defense lawyer could argue that the drug test results were improperly handled or that there was a chain of custody issue with the specimen. Additionally, the lawyer might present evidence that Sgt. Davis has been an exemplary soldier throughout his career, bringing in character witnesses to testify on his behalf. A defense strategy could focus on rehabilitation and retention rather than separation, possibly pushing for an Honorable or General discharge if the board insists on separation.

Case 2: Failure to Meet Fitness Standards at Camp Pendleton

Branch: Marine Corps

Location: Camp Pendleton, California

Situation: Corporal Sarah Thompson has failed her physical fitness tests three times in the past year. Her commanding officer has initiated an administrative separation board to determine if she should be separated for failure to meet military fitness standards.

Defense Strategy at the Administrative Separation Board:

The defense lawyer could focus on Corporal Thompson’s medical history, arguing that an undisclosed injury affected her ability to meet the fitness requirements. By securing testimony from medical professionals, the lawyer could push for a medical evaluation rather than immediate separation. Additionally, they could present evidence of Corporal Thompson’s previous fitness performance and show that her failure was a temporary issue due to extenuating circumstances. The goal would be to convince the board to allow her more time to meet the standards.

Case 3: Alcohol-Related Incident at Naval Station Norfolk

Branch: Navy

Location: Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia

Situation: Petty Officer Michael Ramirez was involved in an off-base DUI while stationed at Naval Station Norfolk. This incident led to an administrative separation board to determine whether Petty Officer Ramirez should be discharged for misconduct due to alcohol-related incidents.

Defense Strategy at the Administrative Separation Board:

A defense lawyer could argue that Petty Officer Ramirez has taken proactive steps to address the issue, including enrolling in an alcohol rehabilitation program. The lawyer could present character witnesses, such as his commanding officer or fellow sailors, who would testify to his excellent service record and argue that this incident was an isolated mistake. The defense might request retention in light of his willingness to seek treatment, suggesting that a second chance with close monitoring is the best course of action.

Case 4: Insubordination at Eglin Air Force Base

Branch: Air Force

Location: Eglin Air Force Base, Florida

Situation: Airman First Class Jessica Lee is accused of insubordination after refusing to carry out a lawful order during a high-stress training exercise at Eglin Air Force Base. The commanding officer has referred her case to an administrative separation board for potential separation for conduct unbecoming an airman.

Defense Strategy at the Administrative Separation Board:

The military defense lawyer could argue that Airman Lee’s refusal was not an act of insubordination but the result of confusion or misunderstanding during the chaotic training exercise. They could provide evidence that she has no history of disciplinary issues and has otherwise been an outstanding airman. The lawyer might also present mitigating factors, such as exhaustion from continuous training, and propose retention on the condition of additional leadership or communication training. The focus would be on demonstrating her potential for rehabilitation.

Case 5: Fraternization at Joint Base Lewis-McChord

Branch: Army

Location: Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington

Situation: Captain Daniel Wright has been accused of fraternization after engaging in a relationship with a lower-ranking enlisted service member. His chain of command has initiated an administrative separation board to decide whether he should be separated for violating the military’s fraternization policy.

Defense Strategy at the Administrative Separation Board:

The defense lawyer could argue that the relationship, though against regulations, did not negatively impact unit cohesion or the chain of command. By presenting testimony from colleagues and subordinates, the lawyer might show that Captain Wright remained professional in his duties. Additionally, the lawyer could argue for a lesser punishment than separation, suggesting that a letter of reprimand or temporary suspension of duties would be more appropriate. The lawyer could appeal to the board’s sense of fairness, highlighting Captain Wright’s long history of service.

Case 6: Unauthorized Absence at Fort Hood

Branch: Army

Location: Fort Hood, Texas

Situation: Private First Class Mark Collins was absent without leave (AWOL) for 10 days after missing his flight back from leave. His command initiated an administrative separation board to determine whether his absence warrants separation for misconduct.

Defense Strategy at the Administrative Separation Board:

A military defense lawyer could argue that extenuating circumstances, such as a family emergency or travel delays, caused the unauthorized absence. The lawyer could present evidence of PFC Collins’ otherwise excellent service record and argue that his absence was unintentional. The defense could also emphasize that Collins immediately returned to duty upon realizing his mistake, suggesting retention with non-judicial punishment as a more appropriate resolution than separation.

Case 7: Hazing Allegations at Marine Corps Base Quantico

Branch: Marine Corps

Location: Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia

Situation: Sergeant Michael Stevens is accused of hazing a junior Marine during a field exercise, resulting in an administrative separation board being convened to address potential separation for misconduct and hazing.

Defense Strategy at the Administrative Separation Board:

The defense lawyer could argue that the alleged incident was a misunderstanding or that the actions were part of routine military training, not hazing. By presenting testimony from other Marines who witnessed the event, the lawyer could establish that Sgt. Stevens was conducting training within established guidelines. Additionally, the defense could highlight Sgt. Stevens’ leadership record and propose corrective measures, such as additional training or counseling, instead of separation.

Case 8: Fraternization at Pearl Harbor Naval Base

Branch: Navy

Location: Pearl Harbor Naval Base, Hawaii

Situation: Lieutenant Jessica Monroe is facing allegations of fraternization for maintaining a personal relationship with an enlisted sailor in her unit. Her command has initiated an administrative separation board to determine whether she should be separated for violating the Navy’s fraternization policy.

Defense Strategy at the Administrative Separation Board:

A defense lawyer could argue that while the relationship did occur, it had no negative impact on the chain of command or unit cohesion. The lawyer could present evidence of Lt. Monroe’s excellent service record and leadership qualities. Furthermore, the defense could propose that a reprimand or reassignment would be a more suitable solution than separation. Testimonies from fellow officers and subordinates could help demonstrate that the relationship did not affect the professional environment.

Case 9: Inappropriate Social Media Posts at Keesler Air Force Base

Branch: Air Force

Location: Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi

Situation: Airman First Class Emily Carter posted derogatory comments about her superior officers on social media, leading to an administrative separation board for misconduct due to violation of the Air Force’s social media policy.

Defense Strategy at the Administrative Separation Board:

A defense lawyer could argue that the social media posts were made out of frustration and do not reflect Airman Carter’s overall conduct and professionalism. The lawyer could present mitigating evidence such as her clean service record, letters of recommendation, and an apology from Airman Carter acknowledging her mistake. The defense might propose a non-punitive letter of caution or mandatory social media training rather than separation, highlighting her potential for rehabilitation.

Case 10: Dereliction of Duty at Fort Carson

Branch: Army

Location: Fort Carson, Colorado

Situation: Specialist David Jones is facing an administrative separation board for dereliction of duty after being found asleep while on guard duty during a training exercise. His command initiated the separation process due to the severity of the offense and concerns about his reliability.

Defense Strategy at the Administrative Separation Board:

The defense lawyer could argue that Specialist Jones was suffering from severe exhaustion due to prolonged training without adequate rest. By obtaining medical records and testimony from fellow soldiers, the lawyer could build a case for mitigating circumstances. The defense might also propose retraining or a reduction in rank as an alternative to separation, arguing that the incident does not reflect Specialist Jones’ overall reliability or potential to continue serving.