Drill Instructors/Recruiters

For Drill Instructors and Recruiters:

Your cases present a unique challenge with significant consequences outside the norm of most military justices cases.  You have progressed in your career as a Non-Commissioned or Staff Non-Commissioned or Chief Petty Officer and have been successful in all of your prior jobs.  The service specially selected you for the competitive position of drill instructor, formal school instructor, or recruiter, and you have worked hard in a demanding environment.  Then allegations of misconduct arise—abusing recruits, having inappropriate relationships with prospective applicants or poolees, using unauthorized methods to bring applicants into the service--and suddenly you or the members of your team are the subject of an investigation, are threatened with relief for cause, and subject to disciplinary action.  Your decade or more of honorable service, your chosen career is suddenly at risk. 

The Investigation

Often investigations at recruit training centers, formal schools, and recruiting commands are conducted by officers who have not been given formal training as investigators, and who doing the investigation as a collateral duty.  The investigators, often unconsciously, start out with an “end result” in mind—that of substantiating misconduct-- and you may be the target of that mind set.  These officers often do not fully understand the requirements of the law about taking statements, forming opinions and make recommendations that have legal significance.  Yet their fact finding, opinions, and recommendations have a dramatic impact on your career and liberty.   

The Consequences

 If the command investigation substantiates misconduct, the unit commander has a number of options that have a direct and immediate impact on your legally and financially:

1. Relief for Cause and Voiding of Military Occupational Specialty—this is a significant legal event, wherein you run the risk of losing your MOS and, in an immediate financial impact, any special duty pay.  You have no right to military counsel for this process, although a civilian attorney can represent and assist you in exercising and preserving your rights.
2. Adverse Fitness Reports and Rebuttal—this has the potential of ending any potential promotion or reenlistment in the service.  Often, the ability to preserve remedies at the Board of Correction of Naval Records/Board of Correction of Military Records depends on you raising issuesaccurately and appropriately in a fitness report or performance evaluation rebuttal.  Failure to raise such issues may ultimately waive them.  Although a military counsel may be able to assist you if they have the time and resources in preparing this, there is no right to military counsel. 
3. Adverse Administrative Actions—the command can decide to take action outside of the disciplinary realm, including administrative separation for misconduct, or administrative reduction due to conduct or errors that does not meet the standards of a service member of your rank.  You have the right to military counsel appointed to you, and you may also be represented by a civilian attorney.  Too often, military counsel will be handling your type of case for the first time, and will be learning the process as they work hard to represent you.  
4. Non Judicial Punishment—this is the commands first disciplinary option.  For a person of your level of seniority, non-judicial punishment represents a significant, potentially career ending event above and beyond the immediate consequence of the punishment.  Such punishment can be used as the basis for denial of promotion or reenlistment, and be the trigger for administrative reduction or separation.  Although you have the right to consult with a military attorney prior to accepting or refusing non-judicial punishment, you have no right to military attorney representation at the proceeding.  You may have, however a personal representative such as a civilian attorney at the proceeding. 
5. Article 32 Investigations—this is a critical stage in the processing of any case.  By appointing an Article 32 investigation, the special court-martial convening authority is signaling that he finds the allegations to be so serious that that a general court-martial—a felony court—is appropriate.  For you, the investigation creates broad opportunities for discovery of the government’s case, and allows and experienced attorney to develop a factual basis for dispositions of the case other than a court-martial.  You have the right to both detailed military counsel and military counsel of your own selection, if that counsel is reasonably available.  This is the type of critical stage that experienced civilian counsel can make a major difference. 
6. Special and General Court-Martial—courts at a training center or recruiting command are different from other military courts, in that the pool of potential members contain drill instructors, instructors, and experienced recruiters who have a keen understanding of the unique challenges of your job.  At the same time, the convening authority may be seeking, in selecting members, to avoid persons who are sympathetic to you—putting recruiters of drill instructor cases or support personnel on recruiter cases.  An experienced civilian counsel can spot these issues and adapt accordingly. 

My Experience:  As the regional defense counsel for the East Coast, I represented drill instructors, recruiters, and formal school instructors at Perris Island and Camps Johnson and Geiger, as well as supervising the over 30 counsel who worked for me in providing this representation.  As the Director, MCRD Perris Island Law Center, I was involved in all levels of the legal issues involving drill instructors and recruiters, and gained an intimate familiarity with the factors involved in handling these cases.  As the Senior Judge for the Sierra District covering all Marine Corps installations in Southern California and Arizona from 2004 to 2009, I presided over the most significant drill instructor, school and recruiting cases that occurred in that time period, including the cases growing out the drowning of a drill instructor student during instructor training at MCRD San Diego, multiple recruiter misconduct cases from all regions, and the U. S. v. Sgt Glass court-martial in 2008.  

Contact me for assistance in a direct, aggressive defense.