Army medical services officer was given a General Officer Memorandum of
Reprimand, relief for cause and adverse OER as a result of an AR 15-6
investigation after a complaint of sexual harassment of a subordinate
officer and a civilian employee, as well as falsification of patient records.
Upon receiving notification that he would have to appear before a show
cause board of inquiry, he retained our firm to represent him in an effort
to save his retirement.
On the day of the BOI, we asked for a delay as a result of late notification
of witnesses to be called by the Government, as well as late notification
of the intention to present evidence as to alleged misconduct at his last
2 prior commands - that request was granted. Immediately after the continuance
was granted, the Government served our client with notice that the additional
alleged misconduct at his prior commands would also be considered by the
BOI Several days prior to the scheduled hearing, the Government disclosed
that another 15-6 investigation had been conducted, and although the report
was not finalized, they intended to use the findings and statements obtained
in that 15-6 against our client.
The night before the hearing, the Government counsel provided numerous
documents to us for the first time, advising of the intention to use those
documents at the hearing. On the morning of the hearing, we argued that
the Government again failed to provide sufficient notice to our client
of the additional 15-6 investigation, as well as its intention to use
the documents in question against our client. The president of the BOI,
agreeing that the notice was not sufficient, indicated that he would bifurcate
the proceedings, with the intention to proceed on that date with the original
evidence, but to also continue the hearing to a later date for presentation
of the new evidence by the Government.
After our extensive argument against that procedure, the president of the
BOI finally accepted our position and directed that the BOI would proceed
to completion that date, and that the “new” evidence obtained
from the second 15-6 investigation could not be used by the Government.
The Government called nine witnesses against our client, including a one
star General, in an effort to separate our client from the Army, despite
the fact that he had 19 years, 3 months of active duty, and more than
30 years of cumulative service with reserve time. The BOI returned findings
that the evidence did not support the majority of the accusations, and
recommended that our client be
RETAINED in the Army with a rehabilitative transfer. Our client will now be able
to complete his 20 years of active duty and retire in his current pay
grade of 0-4.
