The BOI Case Study: Redemption and Recognition

Securing Justice Against All Odds: The Case of CW3 Samuel Wilson and the Flaws in HRC’s Board Process

In June 2021, CW3 Samuel Wilson, an Army Aviator, Instructor Pilot, and Standardization Pilot, faced a career-defining challenge: a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) for violating a local alcohol policy during his deployment to Task Force Sinai. Nearly four years later, the Army Human Resources Command (HRC) directed a Board of Inquiry (BOI) to determine whether he should be separated from service. What followed was a battle not just for CW3 Wilson’s career, but against systemic flaws in how the Army administers justice. This case underscores the critical importance of skilled legal representation in navigating bureaucratic processes that too often prioritize procedure over people.

A Technical Violation, a Disproportionate Response

CW3 Wilson’s ordeal began with relatively minor infractions. During a unit function at a location where alcohol consumption was restricted, he handed beers from a unit refrigerator to fellow soldiers, some junior to him. No drunkenness, violence, or misconduct accompanied the act. The violation was purely technical: the area lacked approval for alcohol consumption outside designated events, and according to the policy, handing a beer to someone was considered “distribution” of alcohol – never mind the fact that one could purchase beer in the Shoppette and consume it in “designated” areas. Additionally, CW3 Wilson admitted to drinking beer on the beach, another “no drinking” zone, only 50 feet from an on-post bar, and at a location where unit functions involving alcohol happen several times a week. Shockingly, despite admitting fault and submitting a rebuttal emphasizing his exemplary record, the GOMOR was filed in his official file (AMHRR) by the 21st Theater Sustainment Commander.

Critically, CW3 Wilson’s aviation chain of command in Sinai recommended against filing the GOMOR. His immediate commander highlighted his value as a standardization pilot and leader. Yet, higher headquarters non-aviator commander overruled this recommendation, setting a precedent that would haunt CW3 Wilson years later.

Ironically, this misconduct was only brought to light as a collateral issue in an investigation looking into inappropriate relationships and sexual harassment involving other soldiers, and CW3 Wilson was a witness in that investigation – and it was during that investigation, not focused on him, alcohol, or the alcohol policy – that he admitted violating these prohibitions.

Excellence After Adversity: A Track Record of Redemption

For three years following the GOMOR, CW3 Wilson’s performance was unimpeachable. Stationed at Hunter Army Airfield and later Joint Task Force Bravo in Honduras, he earned:

• “Most Qualified” ratings on subsequent Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs),
• Four military awards, including a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM),
• Praise from superiors as a “top 20%” aviator and critical asset to Army aviation.

His post-GOMOR record reflected a soldier who had learned from his “relatively” minor mistake and doubled down on service. Despite this, HRC initiated a BOI in February 2025, three and a half years after the incident, threatening his retirement and legacy.

Building an Unassailable Defense: Our BOI Strategy

Facing a BOI with no Trial Defense Service (TDS) resources in Honduras, CW3 Wilson turned to the Law Office of Will M. Helixon. Our approach was multipronged, well-rounded, and meticulous:

1. The “Good Soldier” Defense

We compiled a 168-page “Good Soldier Book” showcasing CW3 Wilson’s post-GOMOR achievements, including:

• 25 letters from senior leaders (including a JTF-Bravo commander and an Aviation Branch colonel),
• Performance evaluations rated him “excellent” in leadership and technical skill, and “most qualified,”
• Proof of the Army’s $2–5 million investment in his flight training.

This evidence reframed the narrative: separating CW3 Wilson wasn’t just unjust but fiscally irresponsible.

2. Witness Testimony: Quality Over Quantity

While the government called no witnesses and merely admitted the 2021 GOMOR packet, we presented:

• 7 telephonic witnesses, including the former TF-Sanai Commander who replaced the commander recommending the original GOMOR, describing it as unjustified, a former commander for CW3 Wilson describing him as the best aviator he has worked with, and a retired CW5 who called Wilson “the finest aviator I’ve mentored.”
• 6 in-person witnesses flown to San Antonio, some at their own expense, demonstrating unmitigated support for CW3 Wilson, including an Aviation Branch Colonel, a Major who served as his company commander in Honduras, and a CW4 standardization pilot who has known him for 15 years.
• CW3 Wilson’s wife articulated the personal toll of the protracted process on CW3 Wilson, herself, and the long-term consequences on their family if CW3 Wilson were separated.

3. Legal Strategy: Attacking the Process

We highlighted HRC’s procedural failures:

• No consideration of post-GOMOR rehabilitation,
• A 44-month delay violates Army values of fairness,
• Disregard for AR 600-20’s emphasis on “the total soldier.”

A 14-Minute Verdict: Vindication and Validation

The BOI panel took merely 14 minutes to retain CW3 Wilson – less time than it would take to skim his defense packet. This swift decision underscored the absurdity of HRC’s pursuit. By their quick decision, the board members’ actions said loudly: “This wasn’t just a waste of time; it was a waste of talent.”

HRC’s decision to convene a BOI in 2025 revealed systemic issues plaguing the Army’s administrative separation system when they are HRC-directed:

Ghosts of Misconduct Past: Four-Year-Old Allegations Weaponize Decayed Evidence

A four-year gap between alleged misconduct and HRC-directed Board of Inquiry proceedings appallingly undermines a respondent’s ability to mount an effective defense, transforming what should be a fair evaluation into a systemic miscarriage of justice. This unconscionable delay erodes the very foundations of due process, privileging bureaucratic convenience over service members’ rights. At the heart of this injustice lies the irreversible decay of evidence. Peer-reviewed studies reveal that human memory degrades exponentially over time, with even a six-month delay reducing recall accuracy by 30–40% for moderate-difficulty questions. By year four, critical details – the clarity and knowledge of the alcohol policy, the tone of conversations, the chain of command’s intent – fade into ambiguity. The government’s burden of proof – a mere 51% likelihood of misconduct under the “preponderance” standard – becomes disturbingly easier to meet when respondents lack access to fresh exculpatory evidence, leaving them to fight allegations with little more than skeletal records and hazy recollections.

Asymmetric Legal Warfare: HRC’s Paperwork Creates an Unjust Echo Chamber

The burden placed on the respondent, CW3 Wilson, is asymmetric and crushing. While HRC slowly reviews and gathers stale and dated paperwork, respondents face financial ruin, career paralysis, and psychological attrition. CW3 Wilson spent “tens of thousands” of dollars tracking down witnesses scattered across multiple duty stations and continents – a cost HRC never bears, in responding to the original GOMOR and defending himself at the BOI. Despite his “Most Qualified” evaluations, promotion opportunities evaporated as “HRC” flags prevent board consideration. From our experience, most BOI respondents develop anxiety or depression symptoms, directly impairing their ability to collaborate with counsel effectively. Meanwhile, organizational memory loss takes hold: original investigating officers retire, commanders rotate assignments, and new HRC staff recycle allegations without scrutinizing their merit. Local commands ordered to host BOIs for soldiers they never supervised lack the incentive to challenge HRC’s timeworn claims, creating a bureaucratic echo chamber where context dies and allegations morph into unchallenged truths.

Accountability in Action: Why HRC Must Bear the Costs of Boards They Initiate

The current practice of the Army Human Resources Command (HRC) directing Boards of Inquiry (BOIs) while shifting the logistical and financial burden onto uninvolved local commands is a glaring flaw in the military justice system. When HRC orders a BOI, as in CW3 Wilson’s case, where U.S. Army South was compelled to conduct proceedings for a soldier entirely outside their chain of command during the misconduct, it externalizes the actual cost of accountability. This structure allows HRC to initiate separation actions without feeling the impact of those decisions, while local units are left to absorb the disruptions and expenses. The lack of alignment between authority and responsibility distorts fiscal discipline and undermines the very fairness the Army claims to uphold. HRC must be required to resource the boards it directs if the system is to embody genuine accountability.

The Bureaucratic Shell Game: How Externalized Costs Distort Justice

By delegating the execution of BOIs to commands with no prior involvement in the case, HRC creates a bureaucratic shell game with serious consequences. Operational readiness suffers as local commands like U.S. Army South divert aviation trainers, legal professionals, and administrative staff away from their core missions to prosecute cases like CW3 Wilson’s. These are resources intended initially for flight operations and troop readiness, not legal proceedings for incidents that occurred years prior and in entirely different theaters. This practice contradicts the Army’s policies, which mandate treating soldiers with dignity and respect; in reality, it forces subsequent units into proxy litigators, undermining their primary mission and stretching their resources thin.

Due Process at Risk: The Perils of Institutional Amnesia

The fairness of the process is further eroded when unfamiliar commands are tasked with evaluating allegations. U.S. Army South, for instance, had no access to CW3 Wilson’s original chain of command in Sinai, including the commander who initially opposed the GOMOR. This lack of institutional memory means that boards are pressured to rely almost exclusively on HRC’s stale paperwork, rather than a holistic understanding of the facts. As a result, the hearings risk becoming little more than rubber-stamp exercises, violating the Department of Defense’s requirement for fair and impartial hearings. When resource-strapped commands cut corners, opting for a “paper file” over in-person witnesses, or limiting the scope of evidence collection, the respondent’s defense is weakened by default, and the promise of due process rings hollow.

HRC’s Lack of Scrutiny: The Incentive to Prosecute Weak Cases

Perhaps most troubling is that HRC escapes all scrutiny for initiating weak or meritless cases. In CW3 Wilson’s BOI, the government called no witnesses at all, relying solely on a four-year-old GOMOR. If HRC had been required to bear the costs associated with flying in witnesses and legal teams, the case would likely never have proceeded. The current “free” BOI model encourages bureaucratic complacency and incentivizes HRC to pursue actions without the rigor or self-reflection that true accountability demands. This lack of internal cost creates a perverse incentive to prosecute cases that do not stand up to meaningful scrutiny, wasting time, money, and talent across the Army.

Disregarding Ground Truth: How HRC’s Top-Down Approach Ignores Local Command Insight

One of the most troubling aspects of HRC-directed Boards of Inquiry is the systematic disregard for the informed input of local command teams who know the respondent best. In CW3 Wilson’s case, his chain of command in Honduras – from his company commander and battalion commander to the leadership of JTF-Bravo and aviation peers – unequivocally supported his retention. These leaders, who worked alongside CW3 Wilson daily and witnessed his professionalism, dedication, and indispensable contributions to aviation operations, submitted compelling letters attesting to his value and the negative impact his removal would have on mission readiness. Yet, HRC’s “ivory tower” approach ignored this ground truth, prioritizing bureaucratic “check-boxing” over a holistic evaluation of CW3 Wilson’s service and character.

This disregard for local command input is not merely a procedural oversight but a profound failure of military leadership philosophy. The Army’s mission command doctrine emphasizes empowering those closest to the action, trusting subordinate leaders to exercise judgment, and valuing their nuanced understanding of the soldier and the operational environment. When HRC sidelines the voices of those best positioned to assess a soldier’s current performance and potential, it substitutes centralized, risk-averse decision-making for genuine leadership. This tendency toward micromanagement and over-centralization, rooted in a culture of extreme risk aversion, undermines trust, stifles initiative, and reduces the Army’s agility to respond to complex personnel challenges.

Moreover, the consequences for the respondent are severe. Local commanders, who have observed rehabilitation, growth, and ongoing exemplary service, are stripped of meaningful influence in the BOI initiation process. HRC does not even seek their endorsements, which should carry considerable weight in any fair assessment. This not only demoralizes the respondent but also sends a chilling message throughout the ranks: even the strongest support from your immediate leaders may be powerless against the faceless machinery of HRC.

CW3 Wilson’s case exposes critical flaws in HRC’s BOI directive process:

• Accountability for HRC: Boards should be convened at HRC’s home station (Fort Knox), forcing the command to internalize costs and logistics.
• Statute of Limitations: A 2-year window for initiating BOIs would prevent zombie cases like this.
• Rehabilitation Recognition: AR 600-8-24 must mandate consideration of post-misconduct performance.

For HRC, the lesson is clear: paper files don’t tell the whole story.

Restoring Fairness: Aligning Authority with Responsibility

Requiring HRC to resource the boards it directs would restore balance and fairness to the process. If HRC faced direct budgetary impacts for each BOI, it would be forced to rigorously vet cases before proceeding, rather than treating separation actions as costless exercises. Institutional expertise would be concentrated at HRC, allowing for more efficient and knowledgeable handling of cases, while transparency in BOI expenditures would expose patterns of waste or abuse. This would empower Congress and senior Army leaders to demand corrective action, ensuring that the system serves justice and efficiency.

The Path Forward: Regulatory Reform Anchored in Equity

The solution is straightforward: Army regulations should be amended to require HRC to fund and host the BOIs it initiates, with proceedings held at HRC’s home station and all associated costs deducted from its budget. This would not only streamline the process but also ensure that HRC cannot escape the consequences of its decisions. Annual audits of HRC-initiated separations would further enhance transparency and accountability, check the system, and ensure alignment with Army readiness goals.

Ending the Bureaucratic Bait-and-Switch

CW3 Wilson’s case starkly illustrates why the current model is indefensible. When commands are forced to foot the bill for HRC-directed BOIs, justice becomes a zero-sum game, pitting units against their own personnel and undermining the Army’s core values. The Army cannot credibly claim fairness while allowing HRC to wield separation authority without bearing any of the associated costs. Proper accountability and fairness demand that HRC pay its own way, aligning authority with responsibility and restoring integrity to the administrative separation process.

Local Commanders Must BE Involved

HRC’s approach, in which local command input is ignored, transforms the BOI into a bureaucratic exercise rather than a genuine search for truth and justice. It perpetuates a culture where “checklist compliance” trumps critical thinking and where the people most qualified to judge a soldier’s worth are rendered voiceless. In CW3 Wilson’s case, the Army came perilously close to losing a highly skilled, mission-critical aviator not because of current performance or risk, but because of a distant, disconnected process that refused to listen to those who knew him best.

If the Army is to uphold its values and maintain the trust of its soldiers, HRC must fundamentally change its approach. The voices of local commanders and peers – those who see the daily reality of a soldier’s contribution – must be heard and given the decisive weight they deserve. Anything less is not just a failure of process; it is a failure of leadership and justice.

This case exemplifies why service members need advocates who understand both military law and bureaucratic warfare. Our approach delivered results through:

• Deep Army Institutional Knowledge: Leveraging 200+ years of combined military experience, and decades working with HRC processes to anticipate their tactics.
• Aggressive Evidence Gathering: Transforming a “minor” GOMOR into a story of redemption through painstaking documentation.
• Witness Coordination: Securing testimony from senior leaders who may otherwise be inaccessible to TDS counsel.
• Strategic Narrative Control: Reframing the BOI from a misconduct hearing to a referendum on HRC’s wastefulness.

Your Career Deserves More Than a Checklist

The Army’s administrative separation process is increasingly weaponized against good soldiers who make isolated mistakes. As CW3 Wilson’s case shows, surviving this system requires more than a clean record – it demands a legal team capable of fighting bureaucratic battles with equal parts rigor and creativity.

At the Law Office of Will M. Helixon, we don’t just defend cases but dismantle injustice systems. If you’re facing a BOI, MEB, or administrative separation, contact us. Your career and legacy are worth every ounce of effort we put into the fight.

This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Service members facing Boards of Inquiry, Show Cause Boards, Administrative Separation Boards, or other legal challenges should consult qualified legal counsel.