| 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.
• An Air National Guard E-6 with 17 years of service tested positive for cocaine. Our client denied ever using cocaine, and turned down the government's offer of a general discharge. At the subsequent administrative separation board, we presented evidence that someone could have placed cocaine in her drink without her knowledge. We also presented testimony from an expert toxicologist, who confirmed that the level at which our client tested positive was consistent with unknowing ingestion. The board found NO MISCONDUCT and RETAINED our client in the Air National Guard.
• First Class Petty Officer with over 16 years of military
service tested positive for cocaine. At his subsequent administrative
discharge board, we presented definitive evidence that he unknowingly
ingested cocaine in his morning coffee. We corroborated this
evidence of unknowing ingestion through the testimony of an expert
toxicologist, who confirmed that the nanogram level exhibited by
our client was entirely consistent with the amount of cocaine ingested
and the time between ingestion and the urinalysis test. As
a result, the members voted 3-0 that our client had committed NO
MISCONDUCT and he was RETAINED in the U.S. Navy.
• A Navy AT3 tested positive for cocaine on a random urinalysis.
A subsequent command investigation found zero inconsistencies in
the urinalysis test and ruled out the possibility of unknowing
ingestion. Despite those findings by the command investigation,
we were able to convince the members at our client's discharge
board that the preponderance of the evidence did not support our
client's knowing use of cocaine. The members found that our client
had committed NO MISCONDUCT and RETAINED him in the Navy.
• Two Navy E-4s tested positive for cocaine after a port
call in Central America and were found guilty at Captain's Mast.
At their subsequent Administrative Separation Boards, one Sailor
was represented by military counsel and the other retained our services
to represent him. The Sailor represented by military counsel was
found to have committed the misconduct and was administratively
separated from the Navy. The very next day, our client was found
to have committed NO MISCONDUCT and was retained at his administrative
discharge board. Later, we convinced the Commanding Officer to SET
ASIDE the results of the Captain's Mast, and our client was restored
to his previously held rank.
• A Navy E-9 with over 28 years of service tested positive
for cocaine on a random urinalysis. At his subsequent Special Court-martial,
we presented extensive evidence of our client's exceptional military
character and the possibility of an unknowing ingestion of cocaine
due to his low nanogram level. After only 50 minutes of deliberation,
the member panel found him NOT GUILTY of the charge.
• An Army E-7 retained our services after testing positive
for cocaine on a random urinalysis. Our investigation into the case
determined that his positive urinalysis was caused by his ingestion
of a homemade liquor, or "moonshine," in the days leading
up to his urinalysis. We secured government testing of the moonshine
at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, which confirmed the
presence of cocaine. At the court-martial, our client was found
NOT GUILTY of the charge against him.
• Air Force E-4 tested positive for cocaine after taking
leave in Mexico. At the ensuing Special Court-Martial, we successfully
attacked the Air Force's drug testing laboratory and highlighted
numerous errors and oversights that occurred on the same day that
our client's sample was tested. Further, we noted that one of the
individuals involved in testing our client's sample was later found
to be a marijuana user himself. Based on our attack of the laboratory,
when the government rested their case, we saw no need to present
any evidence at all. Our client was ACQUITTED of the charge against
him.
• 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.
• Navy E-6 tested positive for cocaine on a random urinalysis
test. At his AdSep board, we successfully demonstrated numerous
errors with the testing program and convinced the member panel that
NO MISCONDUCT occurred. Three years later, the Sailor tested positive
again on a random urinalysis test. After being informed of the results
of the urinalysis test, the Sailor provided a sworn statement admitting
that his civilian roommate used cocaine and marijuana in his presence
on a regular basis. Further, he admitted to feeling the effects
of cocaine on the day before the urinalysis test. At the AdSep board,
we successfully argued the possibility of an accidental ingestion
of cocaine. By a vote of 3-0, the member panel found NO MISCONDUCT.
• Frocked Navy E-4. Background includes difficult adolescence
to include being expelled three times, and flunking out one time
during four years of high school at three different schools, disclosure
of and enlistment waiver for pre-service underage drinking and DUI
and pre-service marijuana use. During first year in Navy, NJP for
underage drinking and incapacitation for duty due to consumption
of alcohol followed by disenrollment from Alcohol Rehabilitation
Program. Our firm successfully challenged disenrollment and obtained
retention on active duty. One year later sailor tests positive for
cocaine during random urinalysis testing. De-frocked and reduced
to E-2 at NJP and processed for administrative separation. After
initially waiving Administrative Discharge Board (ADB) we were retained,
were able to get case back before an ADB at which we avoided OTH
and obtained General Discharge.
• Navy Nursing officer with over 20 years in service was
charged with numerous offenses alleging theft and use of controlled
drugs while deployed on a ship, as well as while employed part time
at a civilian hospital. Prior to the Courts-Martial, civilian authorities
then charged our client with multiple felony counts of prescription
fraud. Tasked by our client to do all we could do to save his career
and retirement, we were able to do so by negotiating a PTA that
protected him against dismissal, and thereafter secured a sentence
that did not include a dismissal. We were also able to secure a
WITHDRAWAL of all civilian charges.
• Air Force officer was charged with three felony offenses
in state court related to prescription fraud. We secured a withdrawal
of one of the felony charges in one city, as well as a withdrawal
of another felony charge in a second city. We negotiated an agreement
as to the third felony charge to have the remaining charge reduced
to a misdemeanor after a year of probation. Upon our return to court
after the passing of one year, we secured an outright DISMISSAL
of the charge over the prosecutor’s objection. Our client’s
military records were not affected and he was recommended for promotion.
• A senior Air Force officer who was a department head was
charged with use of a controlled substance. Our client was offered
NJP, however upon our advice, he refused to accept NJP and demanded
Courts-Martial. The charge was WITHDRAWN one week prior to the Art.
32 Investigation.
• A Navy Second Class was implicated in an undercover drug
operation which involved allegations of distribution of marijuana,
introduction of marijuana on a Naval installation, and distribution
of one joint. Although the case was initially headed to a General
Courts-Martial, we were able to negotiate a deal for referral to
a Special Courts-Martial, with dismissal of all charges except distribution.
Our pre-trial agreement provided for a confinement cap of 90 days,
but at trial we were able to secure a sentence involving reduction
in pay grade, with NO CONFINEMENT and NO PUNITIVE DISCHARGE.
• Army Warrant Officer was charged with AWOL, as well as
use of drugs. We submitted a request for discharge in lieu of Courts-Martial,
however the command refused to accept that and referred the charges
to a General Courts-Martial. On the first day of trial we were able
to secure a delay due to some procedural problems with the charges,
at which time we then resubmitted the request for discharge in lieu
of trial and were able to get it approved.
• Navy E-6 came up positive for cocaine on a urinalysis.
Prior to his trial, he came up POSITIVE ON A SECOND URINALYSIS while
undergoing an "aftercare" program. He was found NOT GUILTY
of the first urinalysis by an officer jury (after we advised the
jury of the second positive urinalysis to cut off the prosecutor
from doing so first). Several weeks later, we appeared before an
Administrative Separation Board on the second urinalysis, which
found that he DID NOT COMMIT MISCONDUCT.
• Marine E-4 charged with distribution of 2 hits of LSD in
the barracks to an undercover informant, as well as introduction
of LSD onto the Marine base. We secured a pretrial agreement that
provided for DISMISSAL of the introduction charge and a sentence
of confinement for only 75 days, reduction to E-1, a BCD and forfeitures
of pay.
• Navy E-6 was court-martialed for a positive urinalysis
for cocaine. The officer jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.
Several months later, the same client came up positive on another
urinalysis for cocaine and a second Courts-Martial was convened.
Before the case got to trial, the client came up POSITIVE ON A THIRD
URINALYSIS FOR COCAINE, and an additional charge was referred for
that alleged use. The second Courts-Martial for the two separate
urinalysis resulted in a finding of NOT GUILTY to both specifications.
• Navy E-7 was court-martialed for a positive urinalysis
for marijuana in 1997. After establishing significant irregularities
with the collection process, we rested our case without presenting
any defense evidence. An officer jury returned a verdict of NOT
GUILTY. In 2001, our client, who was still at the same command,
came up POSITIVE A SECOND TIME FOR MARIJUANA. Upon our advice, our
client refused NJP and we secured a NO MISCONDUCT finding at an
Administrative Separation Board.
• Army officer was reported as positive on a urinalysis.
Upon our advice, he refused NJP and demanded Courts-Martial. The
command elected to give our client a Letter of Reprimand and directed
that he appear before a Show Cause Board. We were able to delay
the proceedings for several months, getting the client beyond the
expiration date of his service obligation. The Army was forced to
release our client from active duty without taking any further action
against him.
• Navy E-4 on a sea going command was taken to Mast for a
positive urinalysis. At his separation board, it was determined
that he DID NOT COMMIT MISCONDUCT. We were able to later get the
command to SET ASIDE the Mast that had been previously imposed,
and to restore his rank and lost pay.
• Army physician was reported positive for marijuana in his
last semester of medical school. After the charge was preferred
for Art. 32 Investigation, we negotiated disposition by an ART.
15, with the goal being to attempt to secure our client’s
graduation from medical school . Within a couple of weeks, our client
was not only allowed to graduate from medical school and receive
his medical degree, he was also PROMOTED to the rank of Captain.
• Naval reservist doing his two weeks of annual training
overseas was interrogated about spending time with a questionable
foreign national female. The reservist admitted to being with the
female when she smoked marijuana, but insisted he did not use any
drugs. He consented to provide a urine sample, which came up positive
for cocaine. The reservist was taken to Mast for use of cocaine,
was reduced in pay-grade and referred to an Administrative Separation
Board. At the Board, we secured a NO MISCONDUCT finding.
• Navy E-6 with over 19 years of service was charged with
wrongful use of marijuana. We advised our client to refuse NJP and
demand trial by court martial. At a trial with members, Mr. McCormack’s
cross examination of the urinalysis coordinator resulted in the
witness admitting she was derelict in the performance of her duties.
The cross examination of that witness, as well as the lab expert
went so well that our client presented no evidence and we rested
our case. An ACQUITTAL was returned shortly after the jury started
deliberations.
• A junior Navy seaman was apprehended for drunk and disorderly
conduct after a “friend” who was an informant advised
security that our client had taken LSD. Our client was directed
to take a urinalysis test and his urine tested positive for LSD.
At the separation board, the informant also testified he saw our
client use LSD two weeks earlier. The Board found that our client
DID NOT COMMIT MISCONDUCT.
• E-6 tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamines
during random urinalysis. At the administrative separation board,
we contested authority of the Urinalysis Program Coordinator (no
letter of designation, inadequate supervision while in training)
as well as defects in collection procedures and chain-of-custody
and discrepancies between what Coordinator(s) said occurred and
what participants in urinalysis said occurred, resulting in finding
of NO MISCONDUCT.
• 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 WITHDRAWL 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.
• An Administrative Separation Board recommended discharge
for a Navy E-6, with over 18 years of service, for Misconduct, Drug
Abuse (Amphetamines). We challenged the results of the board and
had it set aside based on improper constitution of the board. Thereafter
we secured a finding of NO MISCONDUCT at the new board allowing
this sailor to continue his career towards retirement eligibility.
• A former Navy First Class who had been taken to Mast and
separated by an Administrative Separation Board for a positive urinalysis,
came to us to assist in his efforts to maintain an action against
the Navy for his case. Finding an inconsistency between a Department
of Defense regulation and a Naval instruction, we filed suit in
Federal Court. The Government offered to settle the case prior to
trial for a financial payment which the client accepted.
• Navy E-4 was charged with using cocaine and was ACQUITTED
of the charge by an officer jury. Approximately eighteen months
later, the client came up POSITIVE AGAIN on another urinalysis for
cocaine, and this time the command took her to an Administrative
Separation Board after she refused Mast. The separation board found
that she DID NOT COMMIT MISCONDUCT.
• A Navy E-7 came up positive on a urinalysis for cocaine.
Due to problems with the case and his service record, it was recommended
that the client not take the case to Courts-Martial, but that it
be returned to Mast. After Mast, client was taken to an Administrative
Separation Board, where after two complete panels were disqualified,
the third panel found that the client DID NOT COMMIT MISCONDUCT.
• E-6 reduced in rate to E-5 at NJP and then processed for
administrative separation as result of unit sweep positive urinalysis
for cocaine. Numerous irregularities in collection process demonstrated
to include untrained observers, loss of control of individual samples
and defective chain of custody resulting in unanimous finding of
NO MISCONDUCT.
• Navy Third Class Air Traffic Controller was charged with
distribution of marijuana as a result of an undercover NCIS investigation
in which the informant turned over to NCIS a bag of marijuana with
our client's fingerprint on the bag. We secured a WITHDRAWAL of
the Courts-Martial charges, and then when the case was sent to an
Administrative Separation Board, we secured a finding of NO MISCONDUCT
from the board.
• Navy Lieutenant JG (registered nurse) reported to his first
command after commissioning as Naval Officer and came up positive
for marijuana on his check-in urinalysis. Officer jury found him
NOT GUILTY.
• Navy E-7 charged with use of cocaine as a result of a positive
urinalysis. Because our client had over 20 years of service, the
command refused to handle the case at NJP and insisted the case
proceed to courts-martial. At trial, our client was ACQUITTED .
• A Nevada National Guard officer came up positive on a urinalysis
for cocaine. After an extended hearing where grossly irregular procedures
were shown to have occurred in the collection process, the board
found that the officer DID NOT COMMIT MISCONDUCT.
• A Marine officer with 22 years of outstanding service was
charged with a positive urinalysis. A Marine jury found our client
NOT GUILTY.
• Air Force E-6 with over 18 years of service was admitted
to a civilian hospital. During her hospital stay, she allegedly
tested positive for marijuana. Her command issued her a Letter of
Reprimand (LOR), established an Unfavorable Information File (UIF),
and initiated a separation action against her. Without even needing
a board hearing, we were able to convince her command that the positive
urinalysis was unreliable, that the LOR and UIF should be rescinded,
and that separation action processing should cease immediately.
• A Navy SEAL first class petty officer was charged with
a positive urinalysis. When we appeared before a separation board,
the board recommended separation, although the discharge characterization
was a General under Honorable conditions. After the board, we filed
a petition for review before the Board of Corrections. After nearly
2 1/2 years of ongoing legal maneuvering, the Board of Corrections
found in our favor and REVERSED the finding of misconduct. The Navy
thereafter gave the sailor credit for pay purposes for all time
since he had been discharged and retained him with full retirement
pay and benefits, as well as cleared his record of any reference
to the alleged drug usage.
• A Navy first class was charged with a positive urinalysis.
Upon our advice, the sailor refused NJP and demanded Courts-Martial,
however several days prior to the trial, the command withdrew the
charges and took our client directly to an Administrative Separation
Board. At the board, we established clear violations of the regulation
related to collection of urine samples; however the board still
found that misconduct occurred and recommended he be discharged
with a General Discharge. Subsequent to the board, we immediately
filed complaints with numerous Naval agencies as to the irregularities
involved in the collection process. The complaints apparently went
unheeded and discharge orders were issued. We immediately submitted
additional complaints and several days before the discharge date,
the Naval Personnel Command ordered that the service member be RETAINED
and the misconduct finding be SET ASIDE due to the irregularities
we had established at the board.
• A Navy Warrant Officer with 24 years of service came up
positive for marijuana on a urinalysis. Upon our advice, our client
refused NJP. While we were waiting for the Show Cause Board to convene,
our client came up POSITIVE FOR MARIJUANA A SECOND TIME. Both allegations
were presented before the Board, where we obtained a NO MISCONDUCT
result.
• A Navy E-5 with 18 years of service came to us with a positive
urinalysis for cocaine. Our client had previously been acquitted
on a PRIOR URINALYSIS CHARGE for cocaine two years earlier. After
refusing NJP, we secured a NO MISCONDUCT result at an Administrative
Separation Board. Two years later, our client came up POSITIVE A
THIRD TIME for cocaine. The command was understandably not at all
inclined to allow our client to retire after THREE POSITIVE URINALYSIS
in 3 years. Because the second case went to an Administrative Separation
Board, no “double jeopardy” applied even though we beat
that charge, so the command referred the second use charge to the
Court-Martial. We eventually negotiated a PTA where the second urinalysis
charge was withdrawn, and our client “stipulated” to
the evidence on the third charge, with an agreement that protected
our client from confinement, but exposed him to a BCD and loss of
retirement. At the sentencing hearing, we secured a sentence of
a one pay grade reduction and no punitive discharge, so our client
was ABLE TO RETIRE.
• A Navy E-6 with 19 years of service came to us after he
had been discharged for a positive urinalysis. We filed a petition
before the Board of Corrections and secured a reversal of his discharge.
He was administratively REINSTATED INTO THE NAVY AND RETIRED, with
an award of back pay and lost retirement benefits.
• Navy E-7 tested positive for marijuana and before he retained
our services, requested to take a NCIS polygraph. Despite the fact
that the NCIS polygraph examiner testified that our client was in
his opinion deceptive on the polygraph, we secured a finding of
NO MISCONDUCT at the Board.
• Navy E-5 tested positive for cocaine and refused NJP. In
our preparation for Courts-Marital, numerous problems were discovered
which seriously increased the risk of conviction, confinement and
punitive discharge in a Courts-Marital. Upon our advice, our client
requested that the case be returned to NJP, with the intent to thereafter
litigate the case at a separation board. At the board, all of the
problems were disclosed to the board and we secured a NO MISCONDUCT
finding from the board.
• Navy E-7 with over 19 years of service came up positive
on a urinalysis and ADMITTED USE OF THE DRUG. At the separation
board, a 2-1 vote resulted in a recommendation that our client be
discharged. We continued in our efforts to get this Chief retired.
Although we were able to secure a recommendation from the Commanding
Office that our client should be allowed to retire, PERS refused
to do so and the Assistant Sectary of Navy ordered our client to
be discharged. Again we could have stopped there – but did
not do so. Through our cumulative efforts to delay the processing
of the case, we were able to limp our client over the 20 year mark
so that our client was able to RETIRE from the Navy.
• An Air Force E-6 with 19 ½ years of service retained
us to represent her for a positive urinalysis. The military attorney
had recommended our client accept NJP. We advised our client to
refuse NJP and demand Courts-Martial, which she did. At trial, we
secured an ACQUITTAL without putting on any evidence, relying upon
significant irregularities we were able to establish existed at
the Air Force drug-testing lab.
• E-5 tested positive for amphetamines during command unit
sweep and separated for Misconduct - Drug Abuse. Petition filed
with Board for Correction of Military Record based upon flawed chain
of custody; improper changes being made to batch and specimen numbers
after the fact; coordinator and observer submitting their own samples
in this testing and having access to their own specimens. Board
granted full relief to include setting aside of Misconduct Discharge,
revising discharge date to date of Board's approved decision, Honorable
Discharge, RE-1 reenlistment code and eligibility for back pay from
date of initial separation to date of approved Board decision granting
relief
***** 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.
|
