Result: AAIP Entry Removed

The accused, an Army 1LT, received a substantiated finding for sexually harassing a junior enlisted Soldier. After the  decision was already made, Attorney Barry drafted a request for reconsideration, focusing on the fact that the accused's conduct, even on its face, did not meet the definition of sexual harassment. Furthermore, Attorney Barry collected additional evidence which called into question the credibility of the alleged victim.  The previous investigation finding was unsubstantiated and the AAIP entry was removed.

Result: No AAIP Entry

The Accused, an Army 1LT, was under investigation for bullying a junior enlisted Soldier by questioning his profile status.  Attorney Barry drafted the accused's rebuttal, which included additional statements and demonstrated that he was simply trying to do his job as an Officer to ensure that junior Soldiers were not malingering and taking advantage of the profile system. The approval authority ultimately agreed with Attorney Barry and no AAIP entry was made.

Result: Allegations were not substantiated

The Accused, an Army O-2, was under investigation for allegedly having a sexual relationship with a noncommissioned officer while she was married. The Investigating Officer substantiated the allegations. Attorney Gittleman was able to review the investigation, interview additional witnesses, and gather evidence showing it was likely that the accuser made up the allegations. The command agreed with Attorney Gittleman and reversed the Investigating Officer’s findings. The Accused is continuing her career with no adverse information in her record.

Result: No adverse action taken

The Accused, an Air Force E-7, was under investigation for not treating his subordinates with dignity and respect. After he was given the opportunity to rebut the Command Directed Investigation, Attorney Gittleman drafted both a statement from the Accused as well as a legal memorandum addressing the issues in the investigation, including witness bias. After review, the Command determined that no adverse action was necessary.

Result: No EO violation found

The Accused, an Army O-1, was accused of bullying and violating the Equal Opportunity Policy. Attorney Gittleman submitted matters on the Accused’ behalf, showing serious issues with the evidence and explaining his actions. Ultimately, the Command agreed with Attorney Gittleman that the Accused did not bully his subordinates and did not violate the Army’s Equal Opportunity Policy. The Command issued a unit-level local reprimand to address the remaining issues, which did not become part of the Accused’s permanent military records.

Result: Credentials retained

The Accused, an Army E-5, was facing the revocation of his professional credentials within the Army after misconduct allegations were substantiated. Attorney Gittleman assisted the Accused in drafting his rebuttal matters, collecting statements on his behalf, and advocating to his supervisors. The credentialing authority allowed the Accused to keep his professional credentials, and he continues to serve in his MOS.

Result: Following the investigation, the accused was cleared of all wrongdoing related to the allegations.

The accused, a 2LT, was under investigation for several months after a female Officer in his unit made allegations of sexual harassment against him. Attorney Willard represented the accused for the entire investigation and provided appropriate advice to the accused when the accused elected to answer every question that the Investigating Officer had related to his case. Based on the evidence provided by the accused during the investigation, the Investigating Officer unsubstantiated all of the allegations, and the accused was able to continue his Army career without any adverse action in his permanent file.

Result: No violation found

The Accused, an Army E-8, was under investigation for allegedly violating the Army’s Equal Opportunity Policy. Attorney Gittleman worked with the Accused to answer the Investigating Officer’s questions and explain the Accused’s actions. Upon review, the Commander agreed with Attorney Gittleman that the Accused’s actions were not due to any sort of bias and found that no Equal Opportunity Policy violation occurred.

Result: Unsubstantiated; no AAIP filing

The accused, an Army MAJ, was served with proposed adverse findings for alleged unprofessional behavior and a violation of the command's security policy.  Attorney Barry drafted the accused's rebuttal, which included additional statements from Soldiers not interviewed who confirmed that the primary complaining witnesses were in a conspiracy to make false allegations against the accused.  Ultimately, the allegations were unsubstantiated and were not filed in the Army Adverse Information Program Database (AAIP).

Result: SHARP Allegation Unsubstantiated

The accused, an Army LTC, was under investigation for sexually harassing a subordinate NCO during a field training exercise. Attorney Barry drafted the accused's rebuttal to the AR 15-6 investigation, pointing out that the alleged comments, even if true, did not meet the definition of sexual harassment.  The Commanding General ultimately agreed with Attorney Barry, and the SHARP allegation was unsubstantiated, ensuring that the accused would not face elimination and limiting the effects on his career.

Result: No adverse action taken, no AAIP filing

The accused, an Army LTC, was under investigation for allegations of Government Travel Card (GTC) misuse. Attorney Barry represented the accused during the investigation, which included providing responses to the investigating officer (IO) and collecting additional evidence and drafting the accused's response to proposed adverse findings.  Attorney Barry was able to successfully point out the impossibility of the accused to comply with the GTC rules, based on his location and other external factors.  Ultimately, no adverse action was taken against the accused and the findings were not considered "adverse" in accordance with the Army Adverse Information Program.

Result: Allegations not substantiated, no adverse action taken, no AAIP filing

The accused, a 2LT, faced an AR 15-6 Investigation for allegations of dereliction of duty and fraternization with a Noncommissioned Officer. Attorney Willard represented the accused throughout the investigation and provided her with timely advice. In the end, while the investigating officer believed the accused should have reported her suspicion about another Soldier drinking alcohol during a training exercise, the command ultimately decided not to move forward with any adverse action against the accused. The investigation closed out favorably, and the accused was able to continue her military career.

Result: No Adverse Action Taken

The accused, a SFC with over twenty years of military service, faced an AR 15-6 Investigation for allegations of going AWOL, disrespecting his supervisor, disobeying a lawful order and improperly bringing his personally owned weapon into the workplace. Attorney Willard represented the accused throughout the nearly eighteen-month investigation, during which time he provided the accused with timely advice regarding the accusations and prolonged investigation process. Ultimately, while the investigating officer made adverse findings against the accused, the command decided not to move forward with any adverse action against the accused, and instead allowed him to retire. The accused was able to continue his military career and will retire honorably in the next few months.

Result: No Adverse Action filed in the Accused's AMHRR

The accused, a Senior Noncommissioned Officer, was under investigation for allegations of sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct with subordinates. Attorney Willard advised the accused for the duration of the investigation and provided him with timely advice, which ultimately led to a finding that the accused did not engage in sexual harassment. While the accused received a local Battalion Letter of Concern, the command elected not to pursue any additional adverse action, and the accused was able to continue his military career.

Result: Allegations not substantiated, no adverse action taken

The Accused, an Army E-7, was under investigation for allegations of forgery related to official military documents. Attorney Gittleman advised the Accused throughout the investigation, and after careful consideration, submitted written answers to the investigating officer’s questions. As a result, the allegations were unsubstantiated and no adverse action was taken against the Accused.

Result: Unflagged; no adverse action taken; no AAIP Filing

The accused, an Army MAJ, was served with proposed adverse findings for bullying/mistreating a subordinate and for making derogatory comments. Attorney Barry collected additional evidence and statements demonstrating that the allegations were being exaggerated by a biased group of individuals. Furthermore, Attorney Barry drafted the accused's rebuttal, demonstrating that his conduct, while not perfect, did not amount to a violation of any Army standard. The investigation approval authority agreed with Attorney Barry and the accused was unflagged with no filing of adverse information in the AAIP.

Result: Unflagged; Received a Local Letter of Concern

The accused, an Army CPT, was under investigation for assaulting another officer after a heated altercation in the workplace. Attorney Barry collected additional statements and medical records and drafted the accused's rebuttal, focusing on the exaggerated nature of the allegations as well as the accused's mental health conditions that factored into what happened. Ultimately, despite the serious nature of the allegations, the accused only received a locally filed letter of concern.

Result: Unflagged; no adverse action taken

The accused, an Army SFC, was being investigative by Army CID for domestic violence. Attorney Barry advised the accused throughout the duration of the investigation, and ultimately the accused was not "titled" and no adverse action was taken against him. He continues to serve with no adverse information in his AMHRR and a clean criminal background.

Result: No elimination initiated

The accused, an Army CPT, was under investigation for having a sexual relationship with the married spouse of a deployed Officer.  Attorney Barry drafted the accused's rebuttal to the allegations, highlighting that the accused was mislead about the nature of the relationship, as well as his mental health struggles during the time period in question.  While the accused did receive a GOMOR, Attorney Barry was able to achieve the accused's goals and he was unflagged without facing the initiation of elimination.

Result: Unflagged; no adverse action taken

The accused, an Army SPC, was being investigative by Army CID for drug possession and distribution after he bought vape juice allegedly containing illegal substances. Attorney Gittleman advised the accused throughout the duration of the investigation, and ultimately no action was taken against him.

Result: Unsubstantiated and unflagged; no adverse action taken

The accused, an Army SFC, was placed under investigation based on allegations made against him for allegedly saying inappropriate comments. Attorney Barry received the questions in writing from the IO and assisted the accused in drafting his answers. Based on the answers provided, the allegations were ultimately unsubstantiated and the accused continues to serve with no adverse information filed in his AMHRR/OMPF.

Result: Medical Retirement without facing Elimination

The accused, a CPT with more than twelve years of service, was reprimanded for allegations of forging legal documents. Attorney Willard represented the accused throughout the investigation and GOMOR process related to her case, during which time Attorney Willard provided the accused with timely advice and assistance regarding the allegations in her case. Although the Commander permanently filed the GOMOR in the accused’s file, the Commander did not initiate elimination against the accused, but rather allowed her to medically retire with full benefits.

Result: Unsubstantiated and unflagged; no adverse action taken

The accused, an Air Force Lt Col, faced an equal opportunity CDI. Attorney Barry coordinated with the investigating officer and received the questions in advance of the interview. Attorney Barry prepped the accused for his interview and was present during.  The allegations were unsubstantiated with no adverse action taken against the accused.

Result: Unsubstantiated; Removal from AAIP

The accused, an Army MAJ, previously was the subject of a founded 15-6 investigation that was filed in the AAIP (Army Adverse Information Program) Database. Attorney Barry drafted a request for reconsideration, which pointed out the legal error that was committed during the investigation. The approval authority agreed with Attorney Barry, resulting in the allegation unsubstantiated and his name being removed from the AAIP database.

Result: Unflagged; no adverse action taken

The accused, an Army CPT, was under investigation for counterproductive leadership. The IO substantiated the allegations and Attorney Barry drafted the accused's rebuttal to the proposed adverse findings. Attorney Barry's rebuttal included collecting numerous additional statements that indicated that the accused did nothing wrong. Because of the rebuttal submitted, the accused received no adverse action and a "highly qualified" OER.

Result: Unsubstantiated and unflagged; no adverse action taken

The accused, an Army LTC, faced an allegation of inappropriate behavior relating to his access to a building without a badge and disrespect to a Civilian. Attorney Barry represented the accused during a 15-6 investigation, which included getting the questions in writing from the investigating officer and drafting his answers, as well as providing supporting documentation. Ultimately, the IO unsubstantiated the allegations. The accused was unflagged and continues to serve with nothing filed in the Army Adverse Information Program Database (AAIP).

Result: No evidence of wrongdoing, and the accused was cleared of allegations.

The accused, a Captain, faced an AR 15-6 Investigation for allegations of sexual harassment and making inappropriate comments towards another female Officer. Attorney Willard advised the accused for the duration of the investigation and assisted him with providing a detailed sworn statement in response to the investigating officer’s questions for the command’s consideration. Ultimately, the accused was cleared of all allegations and potential wrongdoing, and he was able to continue his military career with no adverse action taken.

Result: Unflagged; no adverse action taken; promoted to LTC

The accused, an Army doctor and MAJ, faced a CID investigation for illegal drug use. Attorney Barry accompanied the accused to his CID interview and represented him for the duration of the lengthy investigation. Ultimately, he was unflagged, faced no adverse action, and was promoted to LTC. The accused continues to serve with no adverse information in his AMHRR.

Result: Unflagged; no adverse action taken

The accused, an Army MSG, was under investigation for unknown reasons. Attorney Barry interceded by contacting the Command. The accused was almost immediately unflagged. He received a non-referred NCOER and PCS'd to a new assignment. He continues to serve with no adverse information filed in his AMHRR.

Result: No adverse action taken

The accused, an Army LTC, was under investigation for counterproductive leadership after she had already left her Command position. Attorney Barry drafted the accused's rebuttal to the proposed adverse findings, which included additional evidence and statements.  Ultimately, the accused was unflagged and faced no adverse action. The accused received a non-referred OER and retired in her current rank/grade, which she was planning to do regardless.

Result: No probable cause found, and no adverse action taken

The accused, a SFC, was under investigation by CID for allegations of sexually assaulting his ex-spouse. Attorney Willard advised and assisted the accused throughout the CID investigation, which ultimately resulted in the allegations being unsubstantiated. The accused was unflagged favorably and allowed to continue his military service.

Result: Allegation unsubstantiated; no adverse action; retired in current rank and grade (COL)

The accused, an Army COL pending retirement, was under investigation for allegedly violating the Army's EO policy. Attorney Barry represented the accused during the investigation and worked with the investigating officer to get the questions in writing. Attorney Barry assisted the accused in drafting his answers and provided the IO with additional evidence. Ultimately the allegation was unsubstantiated, there was no AAIP entry, and the accused faced no adverse action; he was allowed to retire on his desired timeline in his current rank and grade (COL).

Result: Remained in Command; Local Letter of Concern

The accused, an Army CPT and Company Commander, was under investigation for counterproductive leadership. Attorney Barry was retained after the accused received an AAIP referral. Attorney Barry collected additional evidence and drafted the accused's response.  After reading Attorney Barry's rebuttal, the accused remained in Command and only received a locally filed letter of concern.

Result: Allegation unsubstantiated; no adverse action

The accused, an Army Special Forces SFC, was under investigation by CID based on serious allegations made against him by his ex-wife. Attorney Barry advised the accused for the duration of his investigation, which ultimately resulted in the allegations being unsubstantiated. No adverse action was taken and the accused continues to serve in Special Forces.

Result: Allegation unsubstantiated; no adverse action

The accused, an Army LTC, was under investigation for allegedly violating the Army's EO policy. Attorney Barry represented the accused during the investigation and worked with the investigating officer to get the questions in writing. Attorney Barry assisted the accused in drafting his answers and provided the IO with additional evidence. Ultimately the allegation was unsubstantiated, there was no AAIP entry, and the accused faced no adverse action.

Result: Allegation unsubstantiated; no adverse action

The accused, an Army MSG, was flagged and approached by an investigating officer for allegations that were unknown to the accused (all he was told is that it related to some emails that were sent). The accused retained Attorney Barry, who reached out to the IO and asked for the questions in writing.  The IO responded that the allegations were unsubstantiated and that the accused would be unflagged.

Result: Allegations Unsubstantiated

The accused, an Army SFC, was under investigation for an alleged assault and sexual harassment. Attorney Barry represented the accused during his investigation, getting the questions in writing from the investigating officer and drafting the accused's answers for him.  Ultimately, the allegations were unsubstantiated and the accused faced no adverse action.

Result: No adverse Action; Accused Promoted to LTC

The accused, an Army Major, was served with proposed adverse investigative findings that detailed numerous allegations of counterproductive leadership.  Attorney Barry drafted the accused's rebuttal, collecting a substantial amount of new evidence and providing it to the approval authority.  The majority of the adverse findings were disapproved and no adverse action was taken against the accused. The accused was promoted to LTC without referral to an Special Selection Review Board (SSRB).

Result: Equal Opportunity Violation unsubstantiated

The Accused, an Army First Lieutenant, was served with proposed adverse investigation findings that concluded she discriminated against a subordinate. Attorney Gittleman submitted a legal memorandum explaining that her actions were not because of discrimination, but rather an attempt to confront the subordinate about an issue. The command ultimately agreed with Attorney Gittleman, finding her actions did not violate the Equal Opportunity policy.

Result: No probable cause found and no adverse action taken

The accused, a SGT, was under investigation by CID for allegations of fraud and defrauding the United States Government of tens of thousands of dollars by allegedly lying about his promotion status and forging his promotion points. 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.

Result: Unflagged without facing adverse action

The accused, an Army SSG, was under investigation for being AWOL.  Attorney Barry coordinated with the investigating officer and got the questions in writing.  Attorney Barry also assisted the accused in answering the questions.  Despite the accused's lower level of command recommending a GOMOR, she was unflagged without facing adverse action.

Result: Unsubstantiated; no adverse action

The accused, an Army SPC, was under investigation for BAH Fraud. Attorney Barry coordinated with the investigating officer to get the questions in writing and drafted the accused's answers for her.  Attorney Barry also included additional documentation, showing the accused's innocence. She was ultimately unflagged without facing any adverse action.

Result: Unsubstantiated and no AAIP Filing

The accused, an Army Major, was was under investigation for counterproductive leadership and an alleged EO violation. Attorney Barry drafted the accused's matters, which included collecting numerous additional statements from individuals that the investigating Officer did not.  After reviewing the rebuttal that Attorney Barry drafted, as well as all of the additional statements, all allegations were unsubstantiated. The accused was unflagged with no adverse action and no AAIP filing.

Result: Unsubstantiated and no AAIP Filing

The accused, an Army Major, was was under investigation for counterproductive leadership. He was served an investigation with a single allegation which related to him making an inappropriate comment about a Warrant Officer in front of a Captain.  Attorney Barry drafted a rebuttal, which included an additional statement from said Captain as well as a legal letter explaining how the accused's conduct did not meet the definitions of what information should be filed in the AAIP database. The approval authority agreed and the accused was unflagged with no AAIP filing and no adverse action.

Result: No adverse action taken and the Accused Remained in Command

The accused, an Army Captain and Company Commander, was under investigation for counterproductive leadership and alleged assault of a subordinate. Attorney Barry collected additional evidence and drafted the accused's rebuttal to the 15-6 investigation that was served on him.  After reading the accused's rebuttal, it was decided that he would stay in Command, receive no adverse action, and receive a non-referred OER.

Result: Allegations unsubstantiated

The accused, an Army SSG, was under investigation for extramarital sexual conduct.  Attorney Barry represented the accused during the investigation, getting the questions from the investigating officer in writing and convincing the accused to not answer them, despite his inclination to do so.  Ultimately, the allegations were unsubstantiated and the accused never faced any adverse action.

Result: Unsubstantiated

The accused, a West Point Cadet, was under investigation for an alleged equal opportunity violation.  Attorney Barry represented the accused during the investigation, getting the questions from the IO in writing and drafting his responses. Attorney Barry also provided the IO with additional evidence to consider. The allegations were unsubstantiated and the accused continued at West Point with no adverse actions taken against him.

Result: Unsubstantiated; no AAIP filing

The accused, an Army LTC, was under investigation for counterproductive leadership.  Attorney Barry drafted the accused's rebuttal to the proposed adverse findings, which included collecting additional evidence and statements.  After reading the accused's rebuttal, the proposed adverse finding was disapproved. The accused received no AAIP filing and he kept his upcoming slot to take Battalion Command.

Result: No Adverse Action; Top Block OER Received

The accused, an Army LTC, was under investigation for counterproductive leadership.  The accused was eventually served with the investigation file with proposed adverse findings relating to several allegations of counterproductive leadership. Attorney Barry collected additional information and statements and drafted the accused's rebuttal.  Based on the additional information provided, no adverse action was taken. Additionally, Attorney Barry educated the accused's rater and senior rater on the fact that they were not required to put any negative comments on the accused's OER, despite pressure from higher. The accused ultimately received a "most qualified" OER.

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.

Result: Unflagged without any adverse action filed in the accused's AMHRR

The accused, an Army SFC, was under investigation for allegedly falsifying scores on a PT test.  Attorney Barry worked with the IO to get the questions in writing and prepared the accused's written response to the questions.  Attorney Barry also provided additional records to the IO. Ultimately, the accused only received a local letter of concern.  She will continue to serve without any adverse information in her AMHRR.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Result: Ticket revoked and privileges restored

The Accused, an Army First Lieutenant, was cited for negligent driving for speeding. Attorney Gittleman submitted an appeal on behalf of the Accused, showing that the charge was not supported by the facts. The traffic ticket was repealed, and the Accused’s driving privileges were restored.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Result: No Adverse Action Taken

The Accused, an Army First Lieutenant, was served with proposed adverse investigation findings that concluded he fraternized with two noncommissioned officers. Attorney Gittleman submitted a legal memorandum explaining that the Accused’s actions were not in violation of the customs of the Army. As a result, no adverse action was taken against the Accused.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Result: No Adverse Action Taken

The Accused, an Army Major, was served with proposed adverse investigation findings that concluded he assaulted a subordinate. Attorney Gittleman drafted the Accused’s rebuttal, explaining what actually occurred and how it was not an assault. No adverse action was taken.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Result: No Adverse Action Taken

The Accused, an Army Major, was served with proposed adverse investigation findings that concluded he violated a general order by drinking while on an exercise. Attorney Gittleman drafted the Accused’s rebuttal, explaining the mitigating circumstances and the confusing nature of conflicting orders. No adverse action was taken against the Officer, and the Brigade Commander specifically recommended in writing that this have no hinderance on the Accused’s career.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Result: Determination changed to in the line of duty.

The Accused, an Army PFC, sustained a gunshot wound to his leg. The investigation determined that the wound was due to his own misconduct. Attorney Gittleman submitted a rebuttal on the Accused’s behalf, as well as a witness statement, showing that it was not misconduct. The determination was changed to state the wound was received in the line of duty.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Result: Credentials retained

The Accused, an Army Major, faced the revocation of her medical provider credentials. Attorney Gittleman submitted matters of mitigation on behalf of the accused, explaining that she suffered from a previously unknown but now treated condition. Her credentials were not revoked.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.