Investigation Case Results

Our Case Results

Below are summaries of cases that Attorneys Barry and Willard have worked on. Results cannot be guaranteed and each case’s results depend on its specific facts and circumstances. Contact us today for a free case consultation on your specific case!

Investigation Case Results

May 2024: The accused was under investigation for disrespect and sewing seeds of dissention

Result: Allegation Unsubstantiated; no AAIP Entry

The accused, an Army 1LT and Chaplain, was under investigation for disrespect and sewing seeds of dissention. Attorney Barry was retained after the accused submitted a rebuttal drafted by a different Defense Counsel that the accused found to be substandard. Attorney Barry convinced the legal office to consider a new rebuttal. Attorney Barry then collected additional evidence demonstrating that the accused's Battalion Commander was personally biased against the accused and that there was little to no evidence supporting the allegations. After reading Attorney Barry's rebuttal, the allegation was unsubstantiated and no entry in the Army Adverse Information Program (AAIP) Database was made.

May 2024: The accused was under investigation for violating the Army leave and pass regulation

Result: Allegation Unsubstantiated; no AAIP Entry

The accused, an Army CPT, was under investigation for violating the Army leave and pass regulation. (AR 600-8-10). Specifically, he was accused of not returning to his duty location after his pass ended before his leave started. The investigating officer recommended an adverse finding against the accused. Attorney Barry collected additional evidence and statements, demonstrating that members of the Command Team, as well as the accused's peers, were unaware of the policy in question.  After reading Attorney Barry's rebuttal, the allegation was unsubstantiated and nothing was inputted into the Army Adverse Information Program (AAIP) Database.

May 2024: The accused was under investigation for reprisal

Result: Allegations Unsubstantiated

The accused, an Army CPT and Company Commander, was under investigation for committing multiple reprisals against members of his Command.  Attorney Barry coordinated with the investigating officer and received the questions in writing. Attorney Barry worked with the accused to collect additional information and provide a lengthy response to the questions from the investigator.  Ultimately, the allegations of reprisal were unsubstantiated, calling into question the accused's removal from Command and proposed referred OER.

May 2024: The accused was under investigation for counterproductive leadership and bullying

Result: The accused was unflagged, remained in Command, and faced no adverse action

The accused, an Army MAJ and Company Commander, was under investigation for alleged counterproductive leadership and bullying.  After obtaining the questions in writing from the investigating officer (IO), Attorney Barry worked with the accused to draft appropriate responses.  Attorney Barry also reviewed and submitted supporting documentation to the IO.  Ultimately, the allegations made against the accused were unsubstantiated and not filed in the Army Adverse Information Program (AAIP) database. The accused remained in Command and faced no adverse action.

May 2024: The accused was under investigation for violation of lawful orders and being AWOL

Result: The accused was unflagged and faced no adverse action

The accused, an Army 1LT, was under investigation for violation of multiple lawful orders and for being AWOL. Attorney Barry coordinated with the investigating officer to receive the questions in writing and worked with the Accused to draft his answers. Attorney Barry also reviewed multiple supporting documents and provided the relevant ones to the investigating officer. The allegations against the accused were all unsubstantiated and the accused with unflagged without facing any adverse action.

April 2024: The accused faced allegations of improperly augmenting unit funds and improperly soliciting a gift

Result: The accused was unflagged and faced no adverse action

The accused, a Commissioned Officer, faced an investigation for allegations of improperly augmenting unit funds and improperly soliciting a gift. Attorney Willard represented the accused throughout the investigation and then assisted her with providing a thorough response with supporting evidence to combat the allegations in her case. In the end, the investigation was closed out favorably, and the accused never faced any adverse action.

April 2024: The accused was under investigation for alleged drug use

Result: The accused was unflagged and faced no adverse action

The accused, an Army MAJ and Doctor, was under investigation for alleged drug use. Attorney Barry represented the accused during the lengthy CID investigation and accompanied the him during his interrogation with CID.  At the end of the investigation, the accused received no adverse action and was unflagged.

April 2024: The accused faced allegations of making inappropriate comments and engaging in counterproductive leadership

Result: The accused was unflagged and received no GOMOR/Article 15

The accused, a Commissioned Officer and Commander, faced an investigation following a command climate survey for allegations of making inappropriate comments and engaging in counterproductive leadership. Attorney Willard represented the accused from the onset of the investigation and advised him throughout the process. Attorney Willard also worked with the accused to draft a detailed response to the allegations, which ultimately led to the command’s decision not to reprimand the accused or initiate elimination proceedings against him, and the accused was permitted to continue his service with his unit. The investigation was later referenced in his evaluation report.

April 2024: The accused was under investigation for sexual assault

Result: The accused was unflagged and faced no adverse action

The accused, an Army SPC, was under CID investigation for sexual assault.  Attorney Barry represented the accused for the duration of the investigation.  Ultimately, the accused was unflagged and faced no adverse action.  Additionally, the accused was not "titled" in the NCIC database, meaning that no probable cause was found to believe that accused committed any offense.

April 2024: The accused was under investigation for unknown allegations

Result: The accused was unflagged and faced no adverse action

The accused, an Army NCO, was under investigation for an unknown reason.  Attorney Barry was retained and learned from Brigade legal that he was under investigation by a local Police Department. Attorney Barry contacted the Police Department and they said that they were unaware of any active investigation.  Attorney Barry relayed this to Brigade legal, and the accused was ultimately unflagged without facing any adverse action.

March 2024: The accused faced allegations of bullying and counterproductive leadership.

Result: All allegations unsubstantiated, and the accused was cleared of all wrongdoing.

The accused, a Senior Noncommissioned Officer, was under investigation for allegations of bullying trainees and counterproductive leadership. Attorney Willard advised the accused for the duration of the investigation and assisted her with providing detailed responses with supporting evidence to all of the investigating officer’s questions for the command’s final consideration. In the end, the accused was cleared of all allegations and unflagged with no adverse action taken against her.

February 2024: The accused was under investigation for counterproductive leadership

Result: Findings Disapproved; Unflagged; No adverse action taken; Remains in Command

The accused, an Army COL and Brigade Commander, was under investigation for counterproductive leadership.  The IO returned adverse findings and recommendations and served them on the accused for rebuttal. Attorney Barry drafted the accused's rebuttal, highlighting additional evidence that corroborated the accused's innocence and the bias of the IO and higher-level Commander. The allegations were unsubstantiated and the accused remains in Command.

February 2024: The accused was under investigation for abusive sexual contact

Result: Unflagged; No adverse action taken; No probable cause

The accused, an Army SFC, was under investigation for abusive sexual contact of a subordinate. Attorney Barry represented the him for the duration of the CID investigation.  The investigation was ultimately unsubstantiated and no probable cause determination was reached. The accused was placed back into a leadership position and faced no adverse action.

February 2024: The accused was under investigation for assault

Result: Unflagged; No adverse action taken

The accused, an Army SSG, was under investigation after an altercation at a bar.  The Command attempted to force the accused to answer questions before Attorney Barry intervened.  Despite repeated attempts by the Command to force the accused to answer questions and provide evidence against himself, they ultimately admitted that they could prove nothing. The accused remained unflagged and faced no adverse action.

January 2024: The accused was under investigation for allegedly assaulting a subordinate

Result: Unflagged; No adverse action taken

The accused, an Army SSG and drill sergeant, was under investigation for allegedly assaulting a subordinate. Attorney Barry advised the accused during the investigation, ultimately opting to answer questions from the IO. Attorney Barry also advocated for the accused after the investigation was complete, resulting in him being unflagged with no adverse action taken.

December 2023: The accused was under investigation for alleged equal opportunity violations and improperly changing a rating scheme

Result: Unflagged; no entry into the AAIP

The accused, an Army LTC, was under investigation for alleged equal opportunity violations and for improperly changing a rating scheme. The investigating officer (IO) only substantiated the allegation relating to the rating scheme.  Attorney Barry drafted the accused's rebuttal, demonstrating that the rating scheme actually was changed before the IO claimed.  Ultimately, the accused only received a letter of concern and no entries were made into the Army Adverse Information Program database, ensuring that the accused will continue her career without impediment.

December 2023: The accused was under investigation for counterproductive leadership and an alleged inappropriate relationship

Result: Unflagged; all but one allegation unsubstantiated; accused allowed to remain in Battalion Command

The accused, an Army LTC and Battalion Commander, was under investigation for counterproductive leadership and an alleged inappropriate relationship. Attorney Barry collected substantial additional evidence and drafted the accused's matters. All allegations, except for one about the misuse of Government resources at a dining out (added later), were unsubstantiated.  The accused received a locally filed letter of concern and was allowed to stay in Battalion Command.

December 2023: The accused was under investigation for alleged steroid use

Result: Unflagged; no adverse action taken; accused put into 1SG position

The accused, an Army MSG, was under investigation for alleged steroid use.  Attorney Barry drafted the accused's response to the investigation, demonstrating that the accused had never tested positive for steroid use and had legitimate reasons to Venmo a suspect steroid dealer.  After reading the accused's rebuttal, he received no adverse action, kept his Special Forces tab, and was placed into a 1SG position.

December 2023: The accused was under investigation for sexual harassment

Result: Unflagged; no adverse action; allegation unsubstantiated after an appeal

The accused, a SFC, was under investigation for sexual harassment because he sent a fire emoji in response to an Instagram story. Attorney Barry drafted an appeal to the investigation, demonstrating that sending a fire emoji is not necessarily sexual in nature.

November 2023: The accused was under investigation for multiple equal opportunity violations

Result: Unflagged; no adverse action; allegation unsubstantiated after an appeal

The accused, a SFC, was under investigation for multiple equal opportunity violations.   An investigation was served on the accused after the allegations were substantiated; however, Attorney Barry drafted an appeal to the next higher authority after collecting additional statements and evidence that demonstrated that the complaining witness  was not credible. The allegations were ultimately unsubstantiated and the accused was returned to his duty position with no adverse action.

November 2023: The accused was under investigation for an equal opportunity violation

Result: Unflagged; no adverse action; allegation unsubstantiated

The accused, an Army MAJ, was under investigation for an alleged equal opportunity violation.  Attorney Barry drafted the accused's 15-6 rebuttal and included the complete text message history between the accused and the complaining witness. The complete text history demonstrated that the complaining witness was actually the one who started all of the alleged inappropriate conversations. The allegation was unsubstantiated.

November 2023: The accused was under investigation for an alleged equal opportunity violation

Result: Unflagged; no adverse action

The accused, an Army SFC, was under investigation for an allegedly issuing a referred NCOER based on gender instead of performance. Attorney Barry advised the accused during the investigation and drafted his answers after receiving the questions in writing from the investigating officer. The allegations were unsubstantiated.

November 2023: The accused was under investigation for counterproductive leadership and an alleged equal opportunity violation

Result: Unflagged; no adverse action

The accused, an Army SFC, was under investigation for counterproductive leadership and an equal opportunity violation.  Attorney Barry assisted the accused in drafting his answers to the IO's questions and included supporting documentation demonstrating that the complaining witness in question was mischaracterizing what occurred regarding her NCOER. The allegation was unsubstantiated and no adverse action resulted.

October 2023: The accused was under investigation for counterproductive leadership and an alleged equal opportunity violation

Result: Unflagged; no adverse action

The accused, an Army LTC, was under investigation for counterproductive leadership and an alleged equal opportunity violation. Attorney Barry received the questions from the IOs in writing and assisted the accused in responding, which included supporting documentation. Attorney Barry also assisted in getting the co-accused legal representation and worked together with that counsel. Ultimately, both investigations were unsubstantiated and the accused was unflagged with no adverse action pending.

September 2023: The accused faced allegations of false official statement, harassment, bullying, and counterproductive leadership

Result: The accused received a local letter of concern, but no official adverse action. The accused was unflagged and allowed to continue her career without adverse information in her permanent file or record.

The accused, a Senior Noncommissioned Officer, was under investigation for allegations of false official statement, harassment, bullying, and counterproductive leadership. Attorney Willard represented and advised the accused for the duration of the investigation. He also assisted the accused with providing evidence and a detailed response to the command during the investigation, ultimately persuading the command that the accused did not commit the allegations as alleged. The accused was received a letter of concern but no official adverse action, and she was able to PCS and continue her military career.

August 2023: The accused was under investigation for several allegations of counterproductive leadership

Result: Allegations unsubstantiated after submitting a Rebuttal

The accused, an Army COL, was served adverse findings after a 15-6 investigation.  Attorney Barry gathered significant new information, primarily in the form of additional statements and drafted the accused's written rebuttal.  Ultimately, the investigation approval authority disapproved the adverse findings recommended by the investigating officer.

August 2023: The accused was under investigation for several allegations of counterproductive leadership

Result: Unflagged and faced no adverse action

The accused, an Army LTC, was suspended from his position and put under investigation for several allegations of counterproductive leadership. Attorney Barry interviewed numerous witnesses that were not interviewed by the investigating officer and collected statements from them. Attorney Barry used these statements to demonstrate that the allegations should have been unsubstantiated. The accused was unflagged, faced no adverse action, and received a non-referred OER, allowing him to continue to serve with no hinderance.

August 2023: The accused was under investigation for sexual assault

Result: Unflagged and faced no adverse action

The accused, a PFC, was under investigation by CID for a sexual assault. Attorney Barry represented the accused during the investigation, which included reviewing and safeguarding favorable evidence and helping the accused navigate CID and his Command. The allegations were ultimately unfounded and the accused was unflagged without facing any adverse action.

August 2023: The accused was under investigation for maltreatment, bullying, counterproductive leadership, and violating the EO policy

Result: Unflagged with no adverse information in the Accused's AMHRR

The accused, an Army Company Commander, was under investigation for maltreatment, bullying, counterproductive leadership, and violating the EO policy.  Attorney Barry drafted the accused's rebuttal to the investigation and collected numerous additional statements and pieces of evidence that supported the accused's version of events. Due to the rebuttal, the accused was unflagged, faced no adverse action, was not relieved for cause, and received a non-referred OER.

August 2023: The accused was under investigation for having an inappropriate relationship

Result: Unflagged with no adverse information in the Accused's AMHRR

The accused, a 1LT, was under investigation for having an inappropriate relationship with a CPT.  Attorney Barry assisted the accused with her investigation rebuttal, collecting additional information which refuted the findings of the investigation.  The accused only received a local letter of concern and was unflagged.  She continues to serve with no adverse information in her Official Military Record.

July 2023: The accused faced CID investigation for allegations of illegal drug use

Result: CID found no probable cause to believe an offense was committed, and the accused was unflagged and never faced any adverse action

The accused, a CPT, was under CID investigation for allegations of illegal drug use after testing positive for codeine and amphetamines. Attorney Willard represented and advised the accused throughout the duration of the CID investigation, which included assisting the accused with submitting a thorough statement with supporting evidence during the investigation. Ultimately, CID determined that No Probable Cause existed to believe the accused engaged in illegal drug use. The accused never faced any form of adverse action and continues to honorably serve with no adverse information in her file.

July 2023: The accused was under investigation for alleged sexual harassment

Result: Allegation unsubstantiated, and no adverse action taken against the accused

The accused, a SSG in the Army Reserve, was under investigation for eight months followed an allegation of sexual harassment. Attorney Willard represented and advised the accused during the investigation, and the investigation and allegation were eventually closed out as unsubstantiated. The accused was unflagged and never faced any adverse action.

July 2023: The accused was under investigation for sexual harassment

Result: Allegations Unsubstantiated

The accused, an Army SFC, was under investigation for alleged sexual harassment. Due to the nature of the accusations (SHARP), the accused was allowed to appeal their results to the Commanding General. Attorney Barry collected additional evidence, including multiple statements from NCOs who stated that the complaining witness had questionable integrity. The CG ultimately granted the accused's appeal, unsubstantiating the accusations. The accused was unflagged and faced no adverse action.

July 2023: The accused was under investigation for making a racist comment

Result: Unflagged with no adverse information filed in the accused's AMHRR

The accused, an Army 1LT, was under investigation for making an alleged racist comment. Attorney Barry collected additional evidence and drafted the accused's investigation rebuttal, resulting in the investigation approval authority unflagging the accused. The accused faced no adverse action and continues to serve in the Army.

June 2023: The accused faced two investigations for counterproductive leadership, sexual harassment, and fraternization

Result: Unflagged with no adverse information filed in the accused's AMHRR

The accused, an Army MAJ, was under investigation for counterproductive leadership, sexual harassment, and fraternization.  Attorney Barry assisted the accused during two separate investigations; this included assistance with answering questions from the IO and submitting a rebuttal.  Attorney Barry collected additional evidence indicating that the primary complaining witness lied.  Ultimately, the accused was unflagged with no adverse information in his AMHRR; he continues to serve in the same position with his career unaffected.

June 2023: The accused was under investigation for child endangerment and driving while intoxicated

Result: Accused was allowed to medically retire

The accused, an Army E4, was under investigation for child endangerment and driving while intoxicated. Attorney Barry advised the accused during the investigation, preventing him from making his situation worse and providing potentially incriminating evidence to his Command. Despite the serious allegations he was facing, the accused was allowed to medically retire without even receiving a GOMOR.

May 2023: The accused was under investigation for counterproductive leadership

Result: Accused unflagged; no adverse action taken; remained in Command

The accused, an active duty Company Commander, was under investigation for alleged counterproductive leadership. Attorney Barry assisted the accused throughout the investigation, including collecting additional statements from individuals the IO ignored. Attorney Barry also drafted a 15-6 investigation rebuttal to the adverse findings.  Ultimately, all adverse findings were disapproved by the Commanding General and the accused remained in Company Command.

May 2023: The accused was under investigation for discriminatory harassment

Result: Allegations unsubstantiated

The accused, an Army SSG, was under investigation for discriminatory harassment.  Attorney Barry assisted the accused in collecting additional evidence, demonstrating the multiple lies told throughout the investigation.  After two appeals, the allegations were unsubstantiated.

April 2023: The accused was under investigation for sexual assault and domestic violence

Result: Accused unflagged; no adverse action taken

The accused, a SSG, was under investigation for sexual assault by CID after his spouse made an accusation during a sensing session. Attorney Barry represented the accused for the duration of the CID investigation. Ultimately, the accused was unflagged with no adverse action take.

April 2023: The accused was questioned during an investigation for his conduct as a Commander previously

Result: No adverse action taken

The accused, an Air Force Captain, was questioned after leaving Active Duty for a situation that occurred under his Command. Attorney Barry advised the accused during the investigation, resulting in no adverse action taken against him.

April 2023: The accused was under investigation for sexual assault

Result: Accused unflagged; no adverse action taken

The accused, a SSG, was under investigation for sexual assault by CID. Attorney Barry advised the accused throughout the duration of the investigation. Ultimately, the accused was unflagged and promoted.

April 2023: The accused was under investigation for sexual harassment of a subordinate

Result: Finding Modified and OER Changed

The accused, an Army Company Commander, was under investigation for sexual harassment of a subordinate.  After being removed from Command, the accused retained Attorney Barry. Attorney Barry collected additional evidence as part of the accused's GOMOR rebuttal, ultimately convincing the General to locally file said GOMOR.  Afterwards, Attorney Barry successfully advocated for the sexual harassment finding to be modified. The accused ultimately received a normal, non-referred, change-of-rater OER. The accused continues to serve with no derogatory information in her AMHRR.

March 2023: The accused was under investigation for an unprofessional interaction with a Cadet

Result: Allegations Unsubstantiated

The accused, an Army MAJ at West Point, was under investigation for an unprofessional interaction with a Cadet.  The Commandant notified the accused that he intended to approve an adverse finding against him. Attorney Barry drafted the accused's rebuttal to the investigation, ultimately convincing the Commandant to change his mind and unsubstantiate the allegations.

March 2023: The accused was under investigation for failure to meet required flying hours

Result: No adverse action taken; accused granted a waiver

The accused, an Army CW2 and pilot, was under investigation for a failure to meet required flying hours, as well as for his conduct while off duty. Attorney Barry got the questions from the investigating officer in writing, and assisted the accused in formulating his response. Ultimately no adverse action was taken and the accused was granted a waiver due to the facts and circumstances highlighted in his answers to the IO.

February 2023: The accused was under investigation for sexual harassment

Result: Allegations Unsubstantiated

The accused, an Army CW4, was under investigation for making multiple offensive comments. The investigating officer returned adverse findings against the accused.  Attorney Barry drafted the accused's appeal, highlighting the lack of specifics regarding what was actually said, the desires of the two complaining witnesses, and that the allegations were handled at the lowest level. Despite the IO's initial findings and recommendations, the CG disapproved the investigation. The accused was unflagged and proceeded to retire in his current rank and pay grade.

February 2023: The accused was under investigation for counterproductive leadership and bullying

Result: Investigation closed with no adverse action taken

The accused, an Army O6, was under investigation for counterproductive leadership and bullying. Attorney Barry worked with the investigating officer to get written questions for the accused and then assisted in drafting his detailed response.  Ultimately, he was unflagged with no adverse action taken.

February 2023: The accused was under investigation for sexual harassment

Result: Investigation Closed with only a letter of concern issued

The accused, an Army SFC, was under investigation for allegedly making inappropriate comments about a subordinate. Attorney Barry drafted an appeal to the IO's initial findings, resulting in only a letter of concern, instead of a GOMOR that could be filed in the accused's AMHRR.

February 2023: The accused was under investigation for harassing his subordinates, counterproductive leadership, and reprisal

Result: Investigation closed with only a letter of concern issued

The accused, an Army O4, was under investigation for harassing his subordinates, counterproductive leadership, and reprisal. Attorney Barry assisted the accused with his investigation rebuttal, collecting additional statements and evidence.  Due to the new information and the accused's rebuttal, he only received a letter of concern, which was not filed in his AMHRR.

February 2023: The accused was under investigation falsifying a range card

Result: Investigation closed with no letter of concern or GOMOR

The accused, an Army Company Commander, was under investigation for falsifying a range card.  Attorney Barry drafted her response to her notice of proposed relief after collecting additional evidence on her behalf. While she was not placed back in Command, Attorney Barry's response to the investigation ensured there was no letter of concern or GOMOR issued, thereby minimizing the negative effects on the accused's career.

February 2023: The accused was under investigation counterproductive leaderhsip

Result: Investigation closed with no letter of concern or GOMOR

The accused, an Army Company Commander, was under investigation for counterproductive leadership, specifically for having anger outbursts in front of his subordinates and forcing an unrealistic OPTEMPO. Attorney Barry drafted the accused's response to his notice of proposed relief, highlighting the pressure he was receiving from his higher headquarters and personal hardships he was facing. While he was not placed back in Command, the accused's response ensured no letter of concern or GOMOR was issued, thereby limiting the negative effects on his career.

February 2023: The accused was under investigation for refusing to publish certain orders relating to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate

Result: Investigation closed and the accused was allowed to REFRAD Honorably

The accused, an Army Captain, was under investigation for refusing to publish certain orders relating to the COVID-19 Vaccine mandate. Attorney Barry assisted the accused with his rebuttal to the accusations, demonstrating legitimate issues with the orders that he was being asked to publish. While his GOMOR was filed in his AMHRR, he was unflagged and allowed to REFRAD Honorably, which was his goal.

September 2022: The accused was under investigation for being a counterproductive leader and for being a substandard performer

Result: Investigation close with only a locally filed letter of concern

The accused, an Army 1LT, was under investigation for being a counterproductive leader and for being a substandard performer.  A 15-6 investigation commenced, and substantiated the two allegations.  Attorney Barry assisted the accused with his investigation rebuttal, which led to the accused's Company Commander being placed under investigation.  After that investigation was completed, the accused was issued a letter of concern, filed locally, and was unflagged and allowed to PCS to the Captain's Career Course.

September 2022: The accused was under CID investigation for alleged BAH Fraud

Result: Investigation closed and no adverse action taken

The accused, an Army E5, was under CID investigation for alleged BAH fraud.  Attorney Barry advised the accused throughout the duration of the investigation, ultimately resulting in no adverse action being taken. The accused was allowed to continue his Army career.

August 2022: The accused was under CID investigation for sexual assault

Result: Investigation closed, no adverse action taken, and the accused ETS'd with an Honorable Discharge

The accused, a junior enlisted Army Soldier, was recalled off of terminal leave to be considered for Court-Martial based on a sexual assault allegation.  Attorney Barry advised the accused throughout the duration of the investigation and communicated with CID and the accused's Commander. Ultimately, the allegations were not prosecuted and the accused was allowed to ETS with an Honorable Discharge.

July 2022: The accused was under CID investigation based on allegations of sexual assault by a civilian

Result: Investigation closed, and no adverse action taken.

The accused, a retired Commissioned Officer subject to the UCMJ, was under investigation by Army CID for nearly a year regarding allegations of sexually assaulting a civilian while the accused on active duty. Attorney Willard advised and assisted the accused throughout the duration of the CID investigation, which ultimately resulted in the case not going forward.  The investigation in the accused’s case was closed without any adverse action.

July 2022: The accused was under CID investigation based on allegations of sexual assault by another Servicemember’s wife.

Result: No adverse action taken 

The accused, a SSG, was under investigation by CID for allegations of sexually assaulting the wife of another Servicemember in his unit. Attorney Willard advised and assisted the accused throughout the CID investigation, which ultimately resulted in the allegations being unsubstantiated.  The accused was unflagged and allowed to continue his military service.

June 2022: The accused faced CID investigation for allegations of illegal drug use.

Result: No adverse action taken and the accused was permitted to ETS honorably.

The accused, an NCO, was under CID investigation for allegations of illegal drug use. Attorney Willard advised and assisted the accused throughout the duration of the CID investigation.  Ultimately, the accused never faced any form of adverse action, and he was permitted to ETS normally with an honorable discharge.

June 2022: The accused was under CID investigation based on allegations of sexual assault.

Result: No adverse action taken

The accused, a Junior Enlisted Soldier, was under investigation by CID for allegations of sexual assault by a female Soldier in his unit. Attorney Willard assisted the accused throughout the CID investigation, which ultimately resulted in the allegations being unsubstantiated.  The accused was unflagged and allowed to continue his active duty service.

June 2022: The accused was under investigation by CID for abusive sexual contact

Result: No adverse action taken

The accused, a basic training Soldier, was under investigation by CID for multiple accusations of abusive sexual contact.  Attorney Barry assisted the accused throughout the investigation, ultimately resulting in the allegations being unsubstantiated.  The accused was unflagged and moved on to AIT.

May 2022: The accused was under investigation for Sexual Harassment and creating a Hostile Work Environment

Result: No adverse action taken

The accused, a Company Commander, was under investigation for sexual harassment and creating a hostile work environment.  Attorney Barry assisted the accused in answering questions from the investigating officer and advised him for the duration of his investigation. Ultimately, he remained in Command and was unflagged with no adverse action taken.

May 2022: The accused was under investigation for Falsifying a COVID Test and Lying

Result: No adverse action taken

The accused was under investigation for falsifying a COVID test and lying.  Attorney Barry assisted the accused in answering questions from the investigating officer and advised her for the duration of her investigation. Ultimately, she was unflagged with no adverse action taken.

May 2022: The accused was under investigation for driving while intoxicated

Result: No separation initiated; retirement protected

The accused, a SFC with over 18 years, was under investigation for driving while intoxicated during a TDY.  Attorney Barry assisted the accused with his GOMOR Rebuttal, collecting eye witness statements, credit card receipts, restaurant menus, and the breathalyzer test which showed that the machine was not calibrated properly.  While the Commanding General still filed the reprimand in the accused's permanent file, he did not initiate separation.  The accused will retire with full benefits.

April 2022: The accused was under investigation for Desertion

Result: No adverse action taken

The accused was under investigation for deserting his unit more than a decade prior.  Attorney Barry negotiated with the prosecutors, ultimately determining that the Command could not prove the allegations.  An agreement was ultimately reached and the accused faced no adverse action.

March 2022: The accused was under investigation for counterproductive leadership

Result: Unflagged and Adverse Findings Disapproved

The accused, an Army Major, was under investigation for counterproductive leadership and for making derogatory comments.  Attorney Barry assisted the accused in his investigation rebuttal, ultimately convincing the Commanding General to disapprove the adverse findings and to return the investigation back down to the COL level.  The accused faced no adverse action.

March 2022: The accused was under investigation for driving while intoxicated

Result: Separation not Initiated

The accused, a MSG, was under investigation after the General found out about a DUI arrest that occurred months earlier.  Although a GOMOR was received and filed in the accused's OMPF, the Command did not initiate separation, therefore ensuring that the accused was going to retire as an E8.  The accused achieved his desired outcome.

March 2022: The accused was under investigation for counterproductive leadership and sexual harrassment

Result: Unflagged and the accused allowed to retire with full benefits

The accused, a retirement eligible E7 in the Army, was under investigation for counterproductive leadership and sexual harassment.  The accused received a GOMOR, and Attorney Barry assisted the accused with a thorough and lengthy rebuttal.  Although the GOMOR was filed permanently, the Command was convinced to not initiate separation. The accused will continue to serve until she decides to retire.

February 2022: The accused was under investigation for the alleged rape of his stepdaugther

Result: Unflagged, no adverse action taken from the military, and the accused allowed to retire with full benefits

The accused, a senior E7 in the Army, was under investigation for eight months for the alleged rape of his stepdaughter. Attorney Willard advised the accused for the duration of the investigation, and he was eventually unflagged and allowed to retire without court-martial or initiation of separation.  The accused maintained his full retirement benefits as an E7.

January 2022: The accused was under investigation for having an inappropriate relationship with a trainee

Result: Retained as a Drill Sergeant

The accused, a drill sergeant, was under investigation for having an inappropriate relationship with a trainee.  Attorney Barry drafted a rebuttal, ultimately convincing his Brigade Commander to retain him as a drill sergeant and only issue a local letter of concern.

January 2022: The accused was under investigation for plagiarism

Result: Unflagged and allowed to graduate

The accused, a senior field grade officer and student at the U.S. Army War College, was under investigation for plagiarism. Attorney Barry was retained after an Academic Review Board recommended disenrollment. Attorney Barry assisted the accused in drafting a lengthy appeal and prepare for a sit-down with the Commandant.  Ultimately, the Commandant agreed with Attorney Barry, and the accused was allowed to graduate.

December 2021: The accused was under investigation for two instances of workplace misconduct

Result: Unflagged and no adverse action taken

The accused, an Army LTC, was under investigation and suspended from his position pending a 15-6 investigation for workplace misconduct.  Attorney Barry drafted two extensive rebuttals to the investigations, ultimately resulting in the accused being unflagged and returned to his position without any adverse action taken.

November 2021: The accused was under investigation for sexual assault

Result: Unflagged and no adverse action taken

The accused was under CID investigation for sexual assault. Attorney Barry advised the accused for the duration of the investigation and coordinated with CID and the Prosecutor to provide favorable evidence.  Ultimately, the accused was unflagged and allowed to re-enlist and continue his career.

November 2021: The accused was under investigation for abusive sexual contact and sexual harassment

Result: The accused was allowed to continue to serve without a separation board

The accused, an E9 in the Army, was under multiple investigations for abusive sexual contact and sexual harassment.  Attorney Barry advised the accused for the duration of all investigations.  Ultimately, the abusive sexual contact allegations were unsubstantiated. Attorney Barry assisted the accused with a lengthy rebuttal to the sexual harassment allegations, and he was eventually unflagged and allowed to continue to serve without the initiation of separation. The accused maintained his retirement benefits as an E9.

November 2021: The accused was under investigation for unapproved international travel, security violations, maltreatment of his subordinates, and making disparaging/offensive comments against females

Result: Allowed to Continue to Serve without Facing Elimination

The accused, a company commander, faced allegations of unapproved international travel, security violations, maltreatment of his subordinates, as well as making disparaging and other offensive remarks against females. Attorney Willard worked with the accused to collect evidence, as well as numerous support letters from senior commanders, to present a strong case for the accused before the Commanding General.  Although the CG ultimately filed a GOMOR permanently, the matters submitted on the accused’s behalf convinced his local command not to initiate elimination proceedings, and the accused continues to serve with his unit.

November 2021: The accused was under investigation for domestic violence

Result: No adverse action taken

The accused, a Captain in the Army, was under investigation for a domestic violence incident.  Attorney Barry advised him for the duration of the investigation, as the accused provided his Command and DoD CAF (Security Clearance) with the appropriate information.  Ultimately, the accused was never flagged and no adverse action was taken against him.

November 2021: The accused was under investigation for sexual assault of a minor

Result: Unflagged and no adverse action taken

The accused was under a CID investigation for sexual assault of a minor.  Attorney Barry advised the accused for the duration of the investigation.  Ultimately, because the accused took the right steps during the investigation, he was unflagged with no adverse action taken against him.

October 2021: The accused was under investigation for forgery and false official statement

Result: Unflagged and no adverse action taken

The accused, a Commissioned Officer, was under investigation for false official statement and forgery. Attorney Willard advised the accused for the duration of the investigation and assisted him in providing evidence and a response to the command, ultimately persuading the command that the accused was innocent of all allegations.  The accused was cleared of all wrongdoing and unflagged with no adverse action taken

October 2021: The accused was under investigation for sending sexually charged text messages to multiple women in his organization

Result: The accused was allowed to continue to serve without a board of inquiry or a letter of reprimand in his AMHRR

The accused, an Army Major, was under investigation for allegedly sending sexually charged text messages to multiple women in his organization.  Attorney Barry drafted a lengthy and thorough response to the 15-6 Investigation, ultimately resulting in no letter of reprimand being filed in the accused's AMHRR and no initiation of elimination.

September 2021: The accused was under CID investigation for sexual abuse of a child

Result: Unflagged and no adverse action taken

The accused, a Warrant Officer, was under investigation by Army CID for sexual abuse of a child.  Attorney Barry advised the accused for the duration of the investigation and assisted him in providing evidence of his innocence to CID.  Ultimately, he was unflagged with no adverse action taken.  A no probable cause opinion was returned by the prosecutor's office.

August 2021: The accused was under investigation for Driving While Intoxicated

Result: Unflagged without facing separation

The accused, a senior SFC, was reprimanded for driving while intoxicated after a single-car crash and for refusing a breathalyzer test.  Attorney Barry assisted the accused in his reprimand rebuttal, ultimately convincing the chain of command to not even initiate separation, an uncommon occurrence.  Attorney Barry also convinced the command to remove the accused's bar to reenlistment. The accused was unflagged and changed units, for a fresh start.

July 2021: The accused was under investigation for toxic leadership

Result: The accused was allowed to continue to serve without a board of inquiry

The accused, an Army Captain and the OIC of a health clinic, was under investigation for toxic leadership.  More than one of her subordinates wrote a statement corroborating the allegations.  Attorney Barry assisted the accused with her response, ultimately persuading the Command to issue a reprimand that was not filed in her OMPF.  The accused was allowed to continue through the medical evaluation board process without having to face elimination for misconduct/substandard performance of duty.

July 2021: The accused was under investigation for cheating on exams

Result: Unflagged and no adverse action taken

The accused, an Officer at BOLC, was under investigation for cheating during exams.  Attorney Barry provided legal advice during the investigation, ultimately leading to the accused being unflagged with no adverse action taken.

June 2021: The accused was under investigation for falsifying awards, adultery, and possible BAH fraud

Result: Unflagged and No adverse action taken

The accused was under investigation for falsifying awards, adultery, and possible BAH fraud.  Attorney Barry coordinated with the investigating officer and assisted the accused in his responses.  No adverse action was taken as a result of the investigation.

May 2021: The accused was under investigation for allowing Soldiers to abuse alcohol in his unit

Result: The accused left the military voluntarily and honorably

The accused, a Company Commander, was under investigation for allegedly allowing his subordinates to abuse alcohol.  Attorney Barry assisted him during the investigation, and for several follow-on actions.  Ultimately, elimination was not initiated and he was allowed to ETS with an Honorable Discharge and normal DD214.

April 2021: The accused was under investigation for alleged racist comments

Result: Allegation unsubstantiated

The accused was under investigation for alleged racist comments.  Attorney Barry assisted the accused in making his statement to the investigating officer and advised him for the duration of the investigation, ultimately leading to the allegations being unsubstantiated.

April 2021: The accused was under CID Investigation for Abusive Sexual Contact

Result: Unflagged and no adverse action taken

The accused was under CID investigation for Abusive Sexual Contact.  Attorney Barry was retained and the accused was ultimately unflagged with no adverse action taken against him.  He was allowed to continue his Army career.

April 2021: The accused was flagged by HRC after being selected for promotion to Major

Result: Unflagged and promoted

The accused was flagged by HRC after being selected for promotion to Major.  Attorney Barry assisted her with her response to the promotion review board, ultimately resulting in the board unflagging her.  She was promoted to Major and awarded back-pay

March 2021: the accused was under investigation for falsifying training records and not completing annual training requirements

Result: The accused was unflagged and allowed to continue to serve

The accused, a retirement eligible Major, was under investigation after a DoD IG Complaint was filed against him.  Attorney Barry advised him during the investigation, providing advice that ultimately resulted in him being unflagged with no adverse action taken against him.  The accused was allowed to retire on schedule.

February 2021: The accused was under investigation for sexual harassment, acting inappropriately, and having inappropriate relationships with Soldiers

Result: The accused was allowed to continue to serve without a board of inquiry

The accused, a Major who served for over 17 years, was under investigation for his conduct while on a deployment.  Attorney Barry assisted the accused from the beginning of the investigation, preparing a multitude of responses for a variety of actions.  Ultimately, the accused was allowed to continue to serve without a Board of Inquiry, almost assuring he would reach 20 years of Service.

January 2021: The accused was under investigation for showing his Soldiers nude photos and making lewd comments

Result: The accused was allowed to continue to serve without a board of inquiry

The accused, a Company Commander, was under investigation for showing his Soldiers nude photos and making lewd comments.  Attorney Barry assisted the accused with his multiple responses that he had to submit, ultimately mitigating the misconduct to the point that a board of inquiry was not initiated.

December 2020: The accused was under investigation for soliciting gifts from various organizations while deployed

Result: The accused was allowed to continue to serve without a board of inquiry

The accused, a Company Commander, was under investigation for soliciting gifts from various organizations while deployed.  Attorney Barry assisted the accused in responding to multiple adverse actions administered by the chain of command.  Ultimately, the Command allowed the accused to redeploy without initiating a board of inquiry, allowing him to continue to serve without facing elimination.

October 2020: The accused was under investigation for having an inappropriate relationship and sexual harassment

Result: The accused was allowed to continue to serve without a board of inquiry

The accused, a MAJ with close to 18 years of service, was under investigation for having an inappropriate relationship and for sexual harassment.  Attorney Barry assisted the accused in responding to the investigating officer's questions, submitting a rebuttal to the investigation, and a follow-on adverse action from the chain of command.  Ultimately, some of the allegations were unsubstantiated and the accused's responses convinced the Command to allow him to continue to serve without having to face elimination.

August 2020: The accused was under investigation for her political activities and for violating the COVID-19 stop-move order

Result: The accused was exonerated on all allegations except for one General Article 134 offense; elimination was not initiated and the accused continued her career

The accused was unjustly under investigation because the Command did not agree with her political views. Attorney Barry successfully advocated on her behalf, ultimately convincing the Commanding General that she could not be punished for her political views and that she did not violate the COVID-19 stop-move order.  The accused was allowed to continue her military career.

August 2020: The accused was under investigation for failing to report a negligent discharge and other misconduct within his Command

Result: The accused was allowed to continue to serve without a board of inquiry

The accused, a Company Commander, was under investigation for failing to report a negligent discharge and other misconduct within his Command.  Attorney Barry assisting the accused in responding to the investigation, ultimately convincing the Chain of Command and Commanding General to allow the accused to continue to serve.  The accused was allowed to PCS without being forced to face a board of inquiry.

January 2019: The accused, a combat surgeon and senior leader, was under investigation for allegedly having a toxic command climate while forward deployed to an active combat zone.

Result: No punishment, no bad evaluation, no letter of reprimand, unflagged and allowed to continue to serve with no bad paper in her file.

Attorney Barry worked with the accused to provide multiple written responses to the investigating officer and command. He also gathered multiple witness statements demonstrating the bias of the investigation and that multiple people lied in their sworn statements because they had professional disagreements with the accused. Attorney Barry also personally advocated to the accused’s Brigade Commander.

August 2018: The accused, the unit chaplain, was under investigation for allegedly having a sexual relationship with a Soldier’s wife.

Result: The accused was allowed to separate with an Honorable Discharge and full benefits.

Attorney Barry met with the accused multiple times and advised him throughout the duration of the investigation and subsequent separation action. Attorney Barry effectively assessed the situation, out-maneuvering the Command and finding an alternative discharge for the accused before the Command could carry out an unjust action.

June 2018: The accused, a Sergeant Major, was under investigation for alleged sexual harassment.

Result: No punishment, the accused was unflagged and allowed to continue to serve.

Attorney Barry helped the accused respond to the investigating officer, successfully demonstrating that the complaining witness was exaggerating what happened because she was upset that the accused did not recommend her to go on a deployment.