Military Administrative Separations Attorney | Military Defense Lawyer

Military Administrative Separations

Involuntary administrative separation from military service is the manner by which the military fires or otherwise terminates its members from further service and employment. When a military member is referred for involuntary administrative separation, two questions are posed. First, will the service member who is referred for separation actually be separated from military service? Second, if the member is to actually be separated, how will the service member’s prior military service be characterized, meaning what type of discharge will he or she receive: Honorable Discharge, General Discharge under Honorable Conditions, or Other Than Honorable (OTH) Discharge? Involuntary separation from service results in disappointment, dishonor, and loss of pay and benefits, both current military and future veteran’s benefits. The characterization of service or type of discharge a service member receives upon separation will dictate the extent of future benefits losses.

Recent Client Testimonial

Mr. John L. Calcagni is the best legal representation to be had. He is calm, cool, precise and knows the legal system better than any attorney I have ever encountered. He provided a valuable service to me and my family, saved my career, and made it look easy. All at an affordable price. I highly recommend John L. Calcagni as the best attorney that one could retain.
- SFC, U.S. Army

See Case Results

There common bases for involuntary administrative separation are:

Criminal conduct (military or civilian);
Displaying a pattern of misconduct;
Illegal drug use;
Moral or professional dereliction;
Poor duty performance or participation; or
Failing to meet physical fitness and/or height/weight requirements.

Service members referred for separation may be entitled to due process known as an administrative separation board. A service member is entitled to a board hearing if either the Command seeks to separate him under Other Than Honorable Conditions (OTH) or where the service member, or if enlisted or a Non-Commissioned Officer, he has six or more years of service.

U.S. Army Recruiter Retained Following Administrative Separation Board.

U.S. Army Sergeant First Class Recruiter, with 17 years of service, was referred for administrative separation from military service. The Recruiter was alleged to have engaged in an inappropriate and unlawful relationship with a female recruit. The Recruiter's Commander initiated an investigation into specific allegations the Recruiter unlawfully took the female recruit to parties; invited her to his home; spent time working out with her at a local civilian gym; and engaged in romantic relations together. Once the recruit shipped off to basic training, the Recruiter allegedly maintained contact with her; assisted her with going AWOL; and stating lies and falsified documents to conceal the alleged misconduct. The Commander's investigation yielded sufficient evidence, in the investigator's opinion, to substantive charges against the Recruiter for fraternizing with the recruit, making false official statements, and falsifying a leave/pass form. The Recruiter was referred for Non-Judicial Punishment pursuant to Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The Recruiter's Brigade Commander served as the Article 15 Hearing Officer. After reviewing evidence presented by the government related to the charges, and "allegedly" reviewing exculpatory evidence submitted by the Recruiter in his behalf, the Article 15 Officer found the Recruiter guilty of all charges and specifications. Thereafter, the Commander relieved the Recruiter from his recruiting position and referred him for administrative separation from the U.S. Army with a recommendation that his military service be characterized as Other Than Honorable (OTH). The Recruiter demanded his right to an administrative separation board and hired Attorney John L. Calcagni III to represent him at this proceeding. At the hearing, the government relied upon both the recruiter's Article 15 convictions and related evidence to support the government’s request that the Recruiter be discharged from military service with an OTH. Attorney Calcagni delicately cross-examined each of three government witnesses, all whom testified that the Recruiter had committed inexcusable misconduct and therefore, should be separated from future military service. However, each witness conceded on cross-examination that their opinions and recommendations were based in whole on the Recruiter’s Article 15 convictions. In the Recruiter's defense, Attorney Calcagni and his military defense counsel counterpart, Captain Jason S. Ballard – with whom Calcagni has a longstanding working relationship and proven track record – called two character witnesses. Both witnesses, former members of the Recruiter's chain of command, testified that the Recruiter was a flawless Non-Commissioned Officer, exceptional asset to the U.S. Army and recruiting community, and should be retained without question for future military service. One character witness further testified that decisions to refer the Recruiter for both an Article 15 and administrative separation may have been product of a biased command climate. Attorney Calcagni presented further evidence that challenged the integrity of the Recruiter's Article 15 hearing, as well as the reliability of government’s evidence relied upon by the Article 15 officer, especially when compared to overwhelming evidence that exculpated the Recruiter from any wrongdoing. Attorney Calcagni – in a bold and brave manner – also challenged the credibility and veracity of the Recruiter’s chain of command, many of whom had made prejudicial remarks to recruiter before and during the Article 15 hearing; testified inconsistently with the evidence presented; and apparently engaged in coercion or other inappropriate actions during the course of investigation leading up to and following the Article 15 hearing. After sworn testimony from the Recruiter himself, and a passionate and compelling closing argument by Attorney Calcagni claiming that "perception is not realty," "members in uniform are not impervious to human weaknesses of misrepresentation, bias, prejudice and self-interest,” and that the Recruiter was “entitled to a fair shake” both at the Article 15 hearing and at his separation hearing, the separation board members voted that the Recruiter did not engage in the thrust of the charged misconduct and should be retained for further military service in his recruiting capacity. Congratulations to this Soldier!
See more Case Results

This is an adversarial hearing where the service member is given the opportunity to be confronted with evidence and/or witnesses against him, which the government argues favor separation from service. The service member is afforded to challenge and/or respond to this information in his or her defense in attempt to avoid separation and remain in the military.

Service members who are both referred for administration separation and entitled to an administrative separation board are afforded a series of rights to include, but not limited to, the rights to be represented by counsel at the hearing; to be present at the board hearing; to receive advance notice of the hearing date the identity of the government’s witnesses and/or evidence; to challenge and/or cross examine the government’s witnesses and/or evidence; to present witnesses and/or evidence the service member’s own behalf; to testify or not to testify on one’s own behalf; and to present argument in one’s defense. These rights are best exercised through the efforts of a dedicated, knowledgeable and experienced military defense lawyer like Attorney John L. Calcagni III.

If you are facing a military separation board in the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines you should have the assistance of an experienced Military Defense Lawyer.

Contact Military Administrative Separation Board Lawyer John L. Calcagni by Email or call today at (401) 351-5100 to schedule a FREE CONSULTATION.

A separation board is comprised of a minimum of three experienced, impartial military Officers or Non-Commissioned Officers who are senior in rank to the service member pending separation. These board members are appointed by the service member’s Commander who as referred the separation action. The board members are required to receive the evidence of the parties, the government and the service member, and thereafter make a recommendation to the referring Commander regarding first, whether the service member should be separated from service, and if so, second, what type of discharge the service member should receive at the time of actual separation.

Once the board concludes and its members make their final recommendations to the referring Commander, the Commander must take final action. This may include approving the board members’ recommendation in whole or in part. However, in accordance with army regulations, the referring Commander may not impose a final action that is less favorable that the board members’ recommendation. The Commander may, however, impose final action that is more favorable to the service member than recommended. This is an important distinction. If, for example, the board members recommend that the Soldier be retained for further service, the Commander must implement this as his final action. Alternatively, however, the recommendation was in favor of separation, the Commander could disregard it and retain the service member. Because the final procedural step in the separation process is for the Commander to take final action, the service member is afforded one last opportunity to address the Commander directly regarding the underlying reasons for separation; the board members’ recommendation; the contents of the administrative separation board; and any other extenuating or mitigating information the service member wishes the Commander to consider before imposing final action. Petitioning to the Commander before he or she takes final action is best done through an experienced lawyer with military law experience, and usually the attorney who represented the service member at the board hearing.

Attorney John L. Calcagni, III has extensive experience working with service members in all facets of military law, to include administrative separations, with outstanding results. Attorney Calcagni is intimately familiar with military substantive law and procedure. As a former active duty and now reserve U.S. Army Judge Advocate, he has both prosecuted and defended countless administrative separation hearings for reasons ranging from criminal conduct, positive urinalysis and unlawful drug use, to substandard military performance issues. Representing a Soldier before an administrative separation board is a delicate task that requires legal counsel who is versed in military law, investigations and trial advocacy. Attorney Calcagni masters these subject matters, and more. He will thoroughly investigate your case and the basis for which the government seeks separation. He will also work with you as a team to build and prepare your defense, and will fully interview and analyze all government witnesses and/or evidence that will later challenge on your behalf at the hearing. After the hearing, he will petition the Commander on your behalf for your retention for future military service. Attorney Calcagni’s dynamic approach has yielded a proven record of success that transpires over many years.

If you are referred for administrative separation, call Attorney Calcagni at (401) 351-5100 for a free consultation today and retain an experienced military defense lawyer who will start working on your case immediately and toward your ultimate retention for future military service.

ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN:

Rhode Island         2003
Massachusetts       2003
Connecticut           2005
New York              2005
Florida                   2008
U.S. District Court for Northern District of New York         2004
U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York            2010
U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York         2010
U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island              2008
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts            2008
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut               2009
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia                   2010
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit                           2004
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit                       2011
U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals                                 2011
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces                        2011
U.S. Supreme Court                                                             2009