The Warrior Law Team, led by the firm’s founder, Will M. Helixon, a seasoned Administrative Separation Board lawyer, recently defended a Sergeant First Class at an Administrative Separation Board at Fort Moore, Georgia. Facing separation for the “commission of a serious offense” under AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12(c), the team presented a compelling case for SFC Jason Snow (name used with permission), leading to a decision by the Separation Board to retain SFC Snow in the military. The Board, consisting of a Major, a Captain, and a former First Sergeant, now Master Sergeant from the 75th Ranger Regiment at Fort Moore, deliberated for 40 minutes to come to their unanimous judgment.
Factual Background of the Administrative Separation Board
Since 2021, SFC Snow has served as a Liaison Officer (LNO) for the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center (LRMC) in Germany. In this administrative role, he was tasked with coordinating essential support for SOCOM soldiers who were medically evacuated to Germany from forward-deployed locations around the globe and other SOCOM personnel requiring medical care at LRMC. SFC Snow organized housing for patients needing lodging and answered most non-medical logistic questions. SFC Snow operated under a relatively easy and non-demanding schedule, managing three 24-hour shifts followed by six days off. His responsibilities included tracking inbound flights, liaising with the Medical Transient Detachment (MTD) in Landstuhl, Germany, compiling patient biographies, and providing SOCOM with timely, non-medical status reports on each patient. Despite residing in Germany, SFC Snow remained under the command of the 75th Ranger Regiment at Fort Moore, Georgia, involving complex and far-reaching command responsibilities and challenges.
The position of LNO represented a dramatic shift for SFC Snow, transitioning from the high-operational-tempo environment in a Ranger unit to a significantly slower-paced and isolated role at LRMC. Unlike his previous unit-based assignments, SFC Snow operated independently, supported only by a Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC), without the benefit of a local chain-of-command or support network in Germany. This geographical separation from his wife, a registered nurse based in Southern Oregon, compounded his sense of isolation. For the first time in his over 15-year military career, SFC Snow experienced extended periods of unstructured downtime. Over time, this shift in routine led to the occasional consumption of alcohol, a behavior that was new to him. As his drinking increased, it drew the attention of his NCOIC, SFC Torrey Oscar (pseudonym), in August 2023. Concerned about the increased drinking, SFC Oscar counseled SFC Snow and recommended that he self-refer to the Substance Use Disorder Clinical Care (SUDCC) program. SFC Snow agreed, scheduling an appointment for the program, which was set for approximately 30 days later.
While awaiting his scheduled appointment with the SUDCC program, SFC Snow made notable improvements in his drinking and personal discipline. He stopped all alcohol consumption and recommitted to his physical fitness regimen. By the time his SUDCC appointment approached, SFC Snow believed that he had effectively addressed his drinking problem and, therefore, questioned the necessity of the upcoming counseling. As a result, SFC Snow canceled the SUDCC appointment and self-referral. However, despite maintaining his sobriety for approximately three months, SFC Snow’s commitment faltered as the holiday season drew near. During the week leading up to Christmas, he resumed drinking almost daily, demonstrating a troubling relapse in his efforts to maintain his sobriety.
On December 24, 2023, SFC Snow, serving as the on-call LNO, received notification of incoming SOCOM patients from a vehicle accident. After consulting with the SF Group surgeon, SFC Snow decided not to attend to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients due to the hospital’s staffing shortages, the likelihood that he could not see the patients, and the absence of his reporting entities during the holiday season. Instead, SFC Snow chose to remain in his house and began drinking.
The situation escalated when the LNO Officer in Charge (OIC) was informed that the SOCOM patients had not been accounted for at LRMC. The NCOIC, SFC Oscar, was alerted and unsuccessfully attempted to contact SFC Snow. Consequently, SFC Oscar left his family’s Christmas Eve celebrations, proceeded to the hospital with his wife, processed the incoming patients, and dispatched the necessary reports to SOCOM.
When SFC Oscar finally reached SFC Snow, he noted that SFC Snow appeared intoxicated and exhibited slurred speech solely based on his short telephone call with him. SFC Oscar did not believe he had sufficient evidence to request the MPs travel to SFC Snow’s off-post residence and administer a BAC. The following day, SFC Snow reported to the hospital to in-process the patients and was subsequently counseled by SFC Oscar for suspicion of being “drunk on duty.”
First Step Toward Rehabilitation: Inpatient Alcohol Treatment Target to Veterans
Following the holidays, the 75th Ranger Regiment was notified, and the command took decisive action by referring SFC Snow to a comprehensive 28-day in-patient alcohol rehabilitation program in Texas that catered to service members and veterans. To ensure oversight, his first sergeant from the 75th Ranger Regiment, 1SG Damion Harker (pseudonym), traveled to Germany to escort SFC Snow to the in-patient rehabilitation facility. This intervention was crucial in facilitating SFC Snow’s formal entry into the alcohol abuse program and underscoring what appeared at the time to be the command’s commitment to addressing his alcohol use issues with a structured and supportive approach.
The Command Directed Investigation (AR 15-6) Directed to “Drunk on Duty”
While SFC Snow was in rehab in Texas, the 75th Ranger Regiment initiated a command-directed investigation into the incident under AR 15-6. The Investigating Officer (IO) conducted thorough interviews with key personnel, including the LNO Officer in Charge (OIC), the LNO NCOIC, and other SOCOM support staff at LRMC in Germany. Additionally, the IO reviewed the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) detailing the LNO’s duties and responsibilities.
During the command-directed investigation, SFC Snow was interviewed and acknowledged consuming alcohol on December 24, 2023, after choosing not to attend to the patients at the hospital. However, he did not concede to being “drunk.” The IO’s findings confirmed that SFC Snow was “drunk on duty” that day. Despite this severe lapse of judgment, the IO recognized SFC Snow’s exemplary service as an outstanding Ranger and concluded that the incident was an isolated occurrence. While the IO recommended that SFC Snow be removed from the 75th Ranger Regiment, he recommended that he not be separated from the U.S. Army, reflecting a balanced consideration of his overall service record and the incident’s significance.
First Consequence: SFC Snow Was Relieved on LNO Duties
Upon completing the in-patient rehabilitation program in Texas, SFC Snow returned to Fort Moore, where he was on standby for nearly a month. During this period, he had no assigned duties but was subject to a “no drinking” order issued by his commander. SFC Snow eventually returned to Germany in mid-March, only to be informed by his LNO NCOIC, SFC Oscar, that he was no longer assigned as a SOCOM LNO and was required to remove all his personal belongings from the LNO’s office. This is the last time SFC Oscar talked or texted SFC Snow.
SFC Snow was reassigned to the Medical Transient Detachment (MTD) with specific restrictions on his duties imposed by the 75th Ranger Regiment. These limitations included prohibiting direct contact with soldiers other than the MTD cadre, participation in range activities, conducting training, and leading any soldiers. His role was strictly limited to administrative support, reflecting the regiment’s decision to restrict SFC Snow’s contributions to the MTD.
Second Step Toward Rehabilitation: Enrollment in Intensive Out-Patient Program at LRMC, Germany
After returning to Germany from the inpatient program in Texas, SFC Snow’s SUDCC counselor recommended that he enroll in the Intensive Outpatient (IOP) alcohol program at LRMC. This six-week program was designed to provide structured support and treatment for alcohol use. It required daily attendance from approximately 0800 to 1700, with a one-hour lunch break. SFC Snow agreed to participate and started the program the following week. Initially enthusiastic and engaged, he was eager to participate actively in the IOP program. However, his level of participation was interrupted by the “taskings” of his 75th Ranger Regiment first sergeant, 1SG Harker.
Initial Notice of an Administrative Separation Board: Second Consequence – Released for Standards from Regiment
During the first week of the IOP program, SFC Snow’s 75th Ranger Regiment First Sergeant, 1SG Harker, traveled to Germany to formally notify him of the Regiment’s decision to initiate separation proceedings from the Army. 1SG Harker informed SFC Snow that the separation process would be “completed within 21 days.” Additionally, SFC Snow was told he had been “Released for Standards” (RFS) from the 75th Ranger Regiment, though no official paperwork was provided to document this release.
Instead of fully allowing SFC Snow to engage in the IOP program, 1SG Harker directed SFC Snow to focus on completing pre-separation requirements. These “non-recovery” taskings included attending separation classes, VA briefings, transition training, and obtaining “green” status on all medical, dental, hearing, and eyesight examinations necessary for separation. These additional demands significantly impacted SFC Snow’s morale and recovery efforts. After completing his visit by the end of March 2024, 1SG Harker returned to Fort Moore, marking the last he would talk to or text SFC Snow.
Notification of Separation Board and Hiring an Administrative Separation Board Lawyer
In June 2024, SFC Snow received formal notification of his impending separation from the 75th Ranger Regiment, including the appointment of an Administrative Separation Board (ASB) and receipt of a local Letter of Reprimand (LOR) issued by the Regimental Commander. The reprimand cited “poor judgment” and drinking while on duty as the LNO as the primary reasons for the rebuke.
At this point, SFC Snow sought legal representation from an experienced Administrative Separation Board Lawyer from the Warrior Law Team at the Law Office of Will M. Helixon. Recognizing the complexities and unique challenges associated with cases involving service members struggling with alcohol use, Will M. Helixon personally took on SFC Snow’s case. Will’s decision to lead his representation was based on his thorough understanding of the issues surrounding alcohol abuse, recovery, and rehabilitation and his commitment to advocating for service members’ rights and interests throughout the administrative separation process.
Determining Jurisdiction: The Location of the Administrative Separation Board
In the context of military operations overseas, particularly within the Army in Germany, area jurisdiction dictates the control and authority over soldiers stationed in various locations. For example, soldiers deployed in Germany from a unit based in Italy or the U.S. fall under the General Court-Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA) located in Germany rather than the jurisdiction of their parent unit. Thus, soldiers from the 173d Airborne Brigade, headquartered in Italy, are subject to the GCMCA in Germany, where they are stationed.
Applying this principle to SFC Snow’s case, Will initially assumed that the LNOs at Landstuhl would be under the jurisdiction of a unit in Germany, specifically the 21st Theater Sustainment Command (TSC). He contacted the Chief of Justice (COJ) for the 21st TSC, who confirmed that the case would fall under their jurisdiction based on the area jurisdiction schema. However, he was later informed that, contrary to the initial guidance from the 21st TSC, the 75th Ranger Regiment at Fort Moore would be responsible for handling the case rather than the 21st TSC.
This development presented a significant challenge, as all witnesses in SFC Snow’s case, both fact and character witnesses, were in Germany. SFC Snow had resided in Germany for three years and had no direct connections to Fort Moore beyond the home of his “parent” unit and, thus, the home of his immediate commander and first sergeant.
Will M. Helixon contacted the Regimental trial counsel serving as the recorder with a proposal for the Regiment to consider conducting the Administrative Separation Board in Germany, utilizing a Standing Board from the 21st TSC to ensure fairness, given the circumstances. Despite general discussions, the Regiment declined the suggestion, preferring instead to keep the Board proceedings within the 75th Ranger Regiment at Fort Moore (can you say home cooking?) rather than using the Germany-based Standing Board comprised of broader conventional forces from the 21st TSC.
While Will contemplated officially requesting the 75th Ranger Regiment Commander to transfer the Separation Board to Germany, he ultimately decided against it. Given that the Regimental Commander’s legal team operates within a closed, “inward-looking” environment, it seemed unlikely that such a request would garner the support of the RJA or the recorder and, therefore, be a waste of time and effort.
First Conflict with the Recorder: Setting the Board Date
Based on scheduling, Will requested the Separation Board for the end of August. For no apparent reason, the recorder was uncooperative in scheduling the Administrative Separation Board to accommodate both SFC Snow and Will’s schedules. SFC Snow’s wife was planning a visit to Germany for most of August, and Will was unavailable until the end of the month. The recorder objected to Will’s request for a Board date at the end of August, citing the appointment memorandum he had drafted for the Regimental Commander, which mandated that the Separation Board be completed within 30 days of notification. He argued that delays should not be granted based on the availability of civilian defense counsel, implying that SFC Snow could get another CDC.
On July 13, 2024, in response to this objection, Will invested considerable time preparing a detailed 11-page request for the Board President, outlining why the Board should be scheduled for the end of August. With no response from the recorder, the Separation Board President agreed to accommodate this request, setting the Board date for August 27, 2024.
Getting TDS Counsel: Confusion on Detail Military Counsel
Will firmly believes that for every Administrative Separation Board for which he represents a respondent, there should be a detailed military counsel, in this case, TDS. Initially, SFC Snow was assigned a TDS lawyer in Germany, with whom he established an attorney-client relationship. When it was apparent that the Separation Board would be held at Fort Moore, the Germany-based TDS attorney informed SFC Snow and Will that he would not represent the respondent at the Separation Board at Fort Moore. Will was immediately concerned since the client controls the termination of an attorney-client relationship, not the detailed lawyer unless it is for one of a few specific circumstances. Ultimately, SFC Snow did not object to “changing” TDS counsel as the Separation Board drew near.
Preparing For the Board: Directions from the Administrative Separation Board Lawyer
Will M. Helixon provided SFC Snow with two detailed memorandums, one on preparing for the Board and one on preparing the “Good Soldier Book,” that laid the groundwork for his preparation duties for facing the Administrative Separation Board and working with civilian counsel. These documents were not mere instructions but vital roadmaps, guiding SFC Snow step by step through the complex process he was about to undergo. Additionally, he received a comprehensive preparation guide written by the Law Office of Will M. Helixon alongside these memorandums. This 187-page book entitled The Warrior’s Defense Playbook: Volume 7: Strategies for Involuntary Separation Boards (Table of Contents) was designed to demystify the entire Administrative Separation Board process, ensuring that SFC Snow was informed and empowered to actively participate in developing his defense.
The memorandums and book went beyond generic advice, emphasizing the critical importance of assembling a solid defense. They detailed the necessity of gathering a wide array of supporting materials, including photographs, videos, and the essential Army Military Human Resource Records (AMHRRs). The memorandums and book also stressed the need for SFC Snow to secure compelling letters of recommendation from those who could attest to his character and service, and to carefully identify and select witnesses who could provide powerful, firsthand testimony about his character and value of continued service during the Separation Board hearing. Moreover, they guided him in shaping a cohesive and persuasive narrative that would resonate with the Separation Board members, who would ultimately decide his fate.
Understanding the weight of the evidence against him was vital, and the memorandums provided clear instructions on analyzing this evidence and identifying weaknesses and areas where counterarguments could be effectively constructed. The importance of outlining a case for mitigation and extenuation was underscored, encouraging SFC Snow to provide substantial evidence of his rehabilitation efforts and commitment to personal improvement, including alcohol treatment.
Upon receiving much of the requested information from SFC Snow, Will immediately began developing a case for presentation at the Administrative Separation Board. This preparation was not just about assembling facts; it was about crafting a narrative that would humanize SFC Snow, highlight his strengths, acknowledge his challenges, and ultimately persuade the Separation Board that he deserved to continue his military service.
Legal Issues Identified by the Administrative Separation Board Lawyer
Upon reviewing the case, as a seasoned Administrative Separation Board Lawyer, WilI quickly identified two critical legal issues that could significantly impact the Board’s outcome. First, the offense of being “drunk on duty” hinges on the requirement that the service member is actually “performing” their duties while intoxicated rather than merely “being present” but not performing duties due to intoxication. This distinction is crucial because if SFC Snow had not been actively performing his duties while under the influence of alcohol, the charge would have been fundamentally flawed. Second, under AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12(c), “drunk on duty” appeared regulatorily insufficient to constitute “the “commission of a serious offense” required for separation. The regulation clearly states that a “serious alcohol-related incident” must be of such gravity that it must be punishable by confinement over 1-year, and the maximum punishment for “drunk on duty” does not meet this threshold as it only authorizes nine months confinement.
These issues presented a strategic dilemma. Should the Administrative Separation Board Lawyer raise them with the legal advisor before the Separation Board convened in an attempt to “kill” the case preemptively, or should he present them directly to the Board members during the proceedings as arguments to persuade them to retain SFC Snow? Raising the issues early could potentially end the Separation Board by forcing the government to correct its approach or abandon the case altogether. However, this risked giving the government time to regroup and strengthen its arguments, making it more challenging to achieve a favorable outcome.
After careful consideration, Will argued these points directly to the Board members. This decision was guided by the belief that presenting a compelling case to the Administrative Separation Board would not only increase the chances of retaining SFC Snow but would also ensure that the arguments were preserved for potential appeals to the approval authority and the Army Board of Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in the event of an adverse decision. By keeping these issues out of the legal advisor’s purview, Will aimed to prevent the government from correcting its course, thereby maintaining a tactical advantage.
This approach allowed the Warrior Law TeamTM to control the narrative and frame the legal issues in a way that highlighted the weaknesses in the government’s case while simultaneously preserving SFC Snow’s rights for future appeals. Will believed it was a calculated risk necessary to protect SFC Snow’s career and future.
Issues Between the Administrative Separation Board Lawyer and the Government Recorder
Will encountered significant challenges in his working relationship with the recorder representing the 75th Ranger Regiment, which was likely influenced by a combination of factors. The recorder, an infantry officer from the Funded Legal Education Program (FLEP), appeared to be navigating the complexities of military justice with either limited experience or “hands-off” supervision. His position within the insular environment of the 75th Ranger Regiment, coupled with minimal guidance from more seasoned judge advocates (military justice supervisors/SJAs), seemed to contribute to a lack of familiarity with the nuances of Administrative Separation Boards and the unique demands of working with an experienced civilian defense counsel. His “blind” commitment to securing a favorable outcome for the command, seemingly at any cost, only compounded these difficulties. The recorder appeared to be functioning as a staff action officer whose goal was to get to “yes” rather than an independent legal advisor providing tailored legal advice based on the unique circumstances of SFC Snow’s case.
The challenges faced by the Warrior Law TeamTM were numerous and unnecessary. Coordination issues plagued the scheduling of the Separation Board. When questioned about the selection process for Board members, the recorder refused to explain, noting the Defense can challenge any Separation Board member for cause, raising concerns about transparency and fairness. The recorder outright dismissed the possibility of relocating the Separation Board to Germany, a more convenient location where all witnesses could be present, showing little regard for the logistical realities of the case. The recorder’s rigid insistence that Will’s calendar conflicts were not sufficient grounds for a delay further strained their professional relationship, as did the recorder’s failure to provide the complete Board packet to include the AR 15-6 Investigation to either the Trial Defense Service (TDS) counsel or Will M. Helixon on time. Instead, he cited the fact that the unit had provided SFC Snow with a copy of the investigation before either TDS or Will was retained on the case, making his disclosure to the defense counsel irrelevant. This lack of cooperation extended to not providing civilian contact information for his proposed witnesses despite knowing that Will was SFC Snow’s lawyer and could not call Defense Switch Network (DSN) numbers. It also included delaying critical information about SFC Snow’s Release for Standards (RFS) status until the afternoon before the Board, directly impacting uniform preparations.
Throughout the process, the recorder seemed to possess an inflated sense of the case’s importance and the strength of his evidence. In a candid discussion, Will questioned the necessity of the Separation Board, given the lack of serious misconduct or a pattern of minor misconduct. He responded with a lengthy diatribe about the critical nature of the LNO position and its impact on SOCOM soldiers, ultimately concluding that SFC Snow had no place in the Army. The recorder seemed downright annoyed by Will’s refusal to submit a conditional waiver offer for an Honorable discharge – seemingly confident that separation was a forgone conclusion.
Due to the recorder’s relatively uncooperative nature, Will M. Helixon was forced to expend considerable time and effort producing detailed written requests and actions for the Board President—matters that could have been resolved amicably with more cooperative and collaborative government counsel. The recorder’s approach unnecessarily complicated the entire process, ultimately hindering what could have been a more efficient and fair proceeding.
That said, the recorder always remained professional, respectful, and measured in communicating with Will and his TDS co-counsel. The recorder was not a “hothead” or unpleasant to work with at all—merely uncooperative and seemingly unable to understand the “big picture” or the life-altering effect the proceeding would have on SFC Snow.
Showdown at Fort Moore: The Administrative Separation Board Hearing
The Administrative Separation Board started at 0900 despite the defense’s request to start hours earlier to accommodate that the defense witnesses were in Germany, six hours ahead of the Separation Board’s time zone. The recorder did not support starting the Separation Board earlier and instead forced the defense to call their witnesses between 1900 and 2100 Central European Time. The Board started at about 0900 and concluded at approximately 1930, lasting approximately 10½ hours.
Voir Dire of the Board Members by a Veteran Administrative Separation Board Lawyer
During the voir dire of the Administrative Separation Board members, Will prepared a comprehensive set of questions to emphasize the defense’s essential role in safeguarding SFC Snow’s rights and presenting a passionate case against his separation. Will made it unequivocally clear to the Separation Board that their responsibility was not just to assess whether SFC Snow had engaged in the alleged misconduct—being “drunk on duty”—but to do so based on a preponderance of the evidence and that under AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12(c), such conduct must be the “commission of a serious offense.” Moreover, Will underscored the necessity for the Separation Board members to carefully consider whether such misconduct genuinely warranted separation and, if so, to determine the most appropriate characterization of his service—Honorable or General—since the notification memorandum did not authorize an Other Than Honorable Discharge.
To strengthen the defense’s position, Will firmly reminded the Board that the burden of proof rests solely with the government. He tactically emphasized that their decision should be grounded in Army-wide standards, resisting any inclination to impose the stricter standards often associated with the 75th Ranger Regiment. Recognizing potential biases, Will extensively questioned the Separation Board members about their views on alcohol-related misconduct, probing whether they could objectively set aside their Ranger standards and fairly evaluate SFC Snow based on general Army standards.
Furthermore, Will ensured the Separation Board members would not unfairly discount the credibility of telephonic witnesses, considering SFC Snow was stationed in Germany. Will scrutinized potential personal and unit affiliation biases that could skew their judgment. He also focused on confirming their capacity to weigh the evidence of SFC Snow’s rehabilitation efforts and character post-incident against the alleged misconduct. Through these questions, Will sought to lay a solid foundation for the defense’s closing arguments, guarantee that the Separation Board members could approach the case impartially, and render a decision grounded solely in the evidence presented, not on whether SFC Snow should remain in the 75th Ranger Regiment.
The Defense Case: Factually and Legally Insufficient, and Mitigating Circumstances Warrant Retention
The defense presented 25 carefully selected exhibits, capturing SFC Snow’s exemplary service and character in what is known as his “Good Soldier Book.” This comprehensive collection included an assortment of personal and professional accolades, including a letter of recommendation from his MTD battalion commander, who had witnessed his dedication and integrity firsthand. The exhibits also featured many awards, badges, and certificates that SFC Snow earned over his distinguished career, reflecting his steadfast commitment to excellence in service. Further underscoring his military capabilities, Will included documents attesting to his language proficiency, highlighting his adaptability and skill in meeting the demands of diverse military environments. SFC Snow’s academic achievements were also showcased through college transcripts, demonstrating his intellectual capacity and pursuit of personal and professional growth. To offer a holistic view of SFC Snow’s life, the defense included family and military pictures that captured his role as a dedicated soldier and family man. Additionally, Will provided relevant excerpts from regulations, the UCMJ, and selected case law, ensuring that the Separation Board thoroughly understood the legal and regulatory framework underpinning our defense.
To complement these exhibits, the defense called eight witnesses to testify on SFC Snow’s behalf, each providing valuable insights into his character and conduct. This lineup began with testimony from three MTD cadre members serving with SFC Snow at LRMC in Germany (a sergeant and two staff sergeants) who offered detailed accounts of his professionalism, teamwork, the help he provided soldiers in the unit, and the respect he commanded among his peers. They all noted that he was volunteering to work with soldiers with drinking problems and spread his story throughout the unit and LRMC generally. Adding a deeply personal perspective, an NCO who underwent rehabilitation alongside SFC Snow testified to his resilience and determination to overcome personal challenges, demonstrating his commitment to self-improvement and accountability and concluding how he inspired others while in rehab at LRMC in Germany. Will then called SFC Snow’s MTD commander and first sergeant, who spoke to SFC Snow’s leadership qualities, discipline, and reliability, insisting that he would positively impact the Army if he were retained. His wife’s testimony provided an emotional narrative of his role as a devoted husband and father, further humanizing him in the eyes of the Administrative Separation Board. The defense concluded with SFC Snow’s own sworn testimony, offering him the opportunity to address the Separation Board directly, express his remorse for his poor judgment, and reaffirm his dedication to the military’s values.
As a knowledgeable Administrative Separation Board Lawyer, Will carefully sequenced presentation of evidence and testimony, designed to leave no doubt about SFC Snow’s worthiness of retention and the positive impact he continues to have on those around him.
Impactful Vulnerability: The Sworn Testimony of SFC Snow
Understanding the unique dynamics of an Administrative Separation Board composed entirely of Rangers assigned to the 75th Ranger Regiment, Will recognized that mere words or gestures would not easily sway these members. Although Will was never assigned or detailed to the 75th Ranger Regiment while on active duty, he was assigned to the 173d Airborne Brigade, a conventional brigade with a deep pride and history – and the 173d had several Regiment members who served as Sky Soldiers. Will knew they would seek to gauge SFC Snow’s sincerity, dedication, remorse, recovery, and genuine desire to continue serving, wanting to question him directly. While SFC Snow had the right to provide an unsworn statement, as a “time-tested” Administrative Separation Board Lawyer, Will knew that to truly connect with these Rangers, SFC Snow needed to “appeal to” them directly—face to face—and speak “Ranger to Ranger.” There was no room for formality or detachment; this had to be a conversation grounded in shared experiences and mutual respect.
In the weeks leading up to the Separation Board, Will M. Helixon worked closely with SFC Snow, preparing him for the proceedings and crafting his Warrior Diary Video. Through this process, Will came to know him personally, discovering that beneath his measured demeanor was an engaging, interesting, humble, and fascinating individual. The more Will spoke with him, the more he respected SFC Snow’s character, and Will was confident that the Separation Board would feel the same if given a chance to hear SFC Snow’s story in his own words.
Will designed SFC Snow’s sworn direct testimony to be anything but a stiff recitation. Instead, it was meant to flow like a genuine, heartfelt conversation—like two old friends catching up over coffee after years apart, covering every job, school, and duty he had in the Army – and the painful road of alcohol abuse, the promise of recovery and redemption, and his plans for the future. Will prompted SFC Snow with directed, often minimal questions, allowing him to do most of the talking. This approach transformed the 45-minute direct examination into an authentic dialogue, with emotions and reflections that only came from self-introspection and lived experiences. Will also instructed SFC Snow to walk the Board through each photograph in the “Good Soldier Book,” filling them with powerful meaning and vivid context. By sharing the stories behind the images, SFC Snow transformed each photograph into a testament to his character and dedication, compelling the Separation Board to see beyond the surface and truly understand the depth of his service.
When the government attempted a cross-examination, they were clearly unprepared for the depth and sincerity of SFC Snow’s testimony. Their questioning was brief, lasting less than five minutes, and largely ineffectual—unable to pierce the apparent connection between SFC Snow and the Separation Board.
Then came the Separation Board’s turn. For the next 20 to 30 minutes, they engaged SFC Snow with direct, nuanced, and probing questions—precisely the kind Will had anticipated. There were moments when SFC Snow did not have an answer, and he openly admitted as much, expressing that these were the same questions he wrestled with every day. His honesty, vulnerability, and willingness to confront his own shortcomings seemed to have a positive impact on the Separation Board.
By the end of his direct testimony, it was clear that the Separation Board did not see SFC Snow as just another soldier facing separation. They seemed to view him as a fellow Ranger—a man who had stumbled but was striving to learn from his mistake. They seemed to know the Ranger Will M. Helixon was defending and understood the depth of his commitment to his brothers-in-arms and the Army.
Acknowledging SFC Snow’s Sacrifice: The Government Argument
In their closing argument, the government emphasized the three questions at hand: Was SFC Snow “drunk on duty,” should he be separated from the Army, and if so, what should his characterization of service be? The government urged the Administrative Separation Board to balance the evidence presented with the best interests of both the Army and SFC Snow. While SFC Snow admitted to drinking, the government argued that he never fully acknowledged being “drunk on duty,” despite evidence suggesting otherwise. They argued that his admission that he avoided coming to work because he was not comfortable driving after drinking raised serious concerns about his accountability, particularly in a role where he is responsible for the lives of fellow soldiers with future service.
The government highlighted testimony indicating that SFC Snow was close to being an alcoholic, pointing out that his refusal to admit this issue was deeply troubling. Despite multiple opportunities to receive help and clear orders not to drink, SFC Snow’s behavior suggested disregarding these directives, especially while stationed in Germany. The government questioned whether he could maintain sobriety in a more stressful job, such as platoon sergeant or first sergeant, suggesting that his ability to thrive depends on not having responsibilities other than working on his sobriety, not on his self-discipline.
The argument also dismissed the idea of this case being a redemption story, stressing that it is not only about saving SFC Snow from himself but determining his suitability to continue serving. The government noted that while some witnesses supported SFC Snow, others, like 1SG Harker and SFC Oscar, who have known him for a more extended period, offered a more accurate assessment, both concluding that SFC Snow should not continue with military service. Finally, the government pointed out that SFC Snow’s potential for promotion is limited, implying that his continued service may not be in the Army’s best interest.
However, based on the presentation of the defense case, the Government recognized SFC Snow’s commitment and service to the Army and requested the Administrative Separation Board to separate him but characterize his service as “Honorable” to preserve his education and other benefits he earned with his service, a change from the General discharge requested in the opening statement.
Legal Insufficiencies and the Army Needs “Battle Tested in Life” Leaders: The Defense Argument
After refuting the main points of the Government’s closing, particularly the notion that SFC Snow’s future sobriety was dependent on a “stressless” job, Will pointed out that when SFC Snow was fully engaged in the military with daily responsibilities and structure, he thrived—it wasn’t until he was left without responsibilities and isolated that boredom and reflection on his deployments caused him to slowly start drinking.
Will then focused on three primary arguments: 1) SFC Snow was not “drunk on duty” because he never assumed or performed duties, 2) if the Separation Board believed SFC Snow was “drunk on duty,” the government failed to establish that such conduct was the “commission of a serious offense,” and 3) if it was the “commission of a serious offense,” the specific facts, extenuation, and mitigation of this case warranted retention.
SFC Snow Never Assumed or Performed Duties
The argument outlined that simply being present or reporting for duty in an intoxicated state does not necessarily meet the criteria for being “drunk on duty.” Will argued that the key element was whether SFC Snow was actively performing or engaged in his duties. In this case, based on the evidence offered by the government witnesses and the testimony of SFC Snow, he did not enter or perform their duties due to intoxication. Will reasoned that in that case, he should only be charged with incapacitation rather than being “drunk on duty,” which is considered a different and less severe offense. See Article 112 (10 U.S.C. 912); United States v. Goetz, 2015 CCA Lexis 585 (ACCA 2015) (unpublished); United States v. Hoskins, 29 M.J. 402 (CAAF 1990); United States v. Gonzalez, 60 M.J. 572 (ACCA 2004). Will concluded that since incapacitation was not punishable by a punitive discharge, it did not meet the basic requirements for the “commission of a serious offense” and could not be used as the basis for the separation of SFC Snow according to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12(c).
“Drunk on Duty” is not the “Commission of a Serious Offense”
If the Separation Board determined that SFC Snow’s misconduct did amount to “drunk on duty,” Will reasoned that such misconduct still could not be used to separate SFC Snow. His argument centered on whether being “drunk on duty” qualifies as a “serious offense” under Army regulations, particularly in the context of an involuntary administrative separation. According to Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, paragraph 14-12, an offense is deemed serious if 1) it justifies separation and 2) if a punitive discharge is authorized. Will further explained that specifically, for alcohol-related misconduct to be considered serious, it must be punishable by more than one year of confinement. Citing AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12(c), which governs the administrative separation of active-duty enlisted personnel, Will noted that only alcohol-related offenses warranting more than one year of punishment can be classified as serious. He pointed out that additional Army regulations support this contention, referencing AR 600-85, paragraph 10-6(a), the Army Substance Abuse Program regulation, which also requires that alcohol-related incidents be punishable by more than one year to be deemed serious.
Will presented the regulations as exhibits, noting that AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12(c)(2)(a)(2) defines a “serious incident” of “alcohol-related misconduct” as “any offense of a civil or military nature that is punishable under the UCMJ by confinement for a term exceeding one year.” He further directed the Separation Board to AR 600-85, paragraph 10-6(a) (same definition) and the glossary defining a “serious incident of alcohol-related misconduct” as “any offense of a civil or military nature that is punishable under the UCMJ by death or confinement for a term exceeding one year.”
As outlined in the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM, 2024 edition), Will explained the maximum punishment for being “drunk on duty” is nine months of confinement, falling short of the one-year threshold necessary to classify an alcohol-related offense as serious under these regulations. Will concluded that, by definition, being “drunk on duty” does not meet the criteria for the “commission of a serious offense.” The implications for separation were significant: since “drunk on duty” was categorized as a non-serious offense, it could not be considered a basis for the “commission of a serious offense.”
Will further argued that the “commission of a serious offense” would typically result in an Other Than Honorable Discharge under Chapter 14 of AR 635-200. However, even the government acknowledged the case was not serious since it was referred to the Administrative Separation Board with the minimum service characterization for the incident as “General under Honorable Conditions.” Given the referral limitations, his argument asserted that being “drunk on duty” should not be considered a serious offense under these circumstances since it could not lead to an “Other Than Honorable Discharge” reserved for the “commission of a serious offense” according to regulation. Will turned the government’s request for an Honorable Discharge on its head, suggesting that “drunk on duty” could not be serious if the government now requests an “Honorable Discharge.”
Based on these multiple arguments surrounding the definition of the “commission of a serious offense,” Will concluded that the government failed to establish by the preponderance of the evidence that SFC Snow’s misconduct rose to the level necessary to warrant separation from the Army.
Extenuation and Mitigation: Facts Warrant SFC Snow’s Retention
From a mitigation perspective, Will insisted that SFC Snow’s retention in the Army is not only justified but essential. He pointed out that his separation would result in the loss of a retirement package valued at over $1,000,000, a devastating financial blow for someone who has dedicated his life to military service. Moreover, Will advocated that separation would strip SFC Snow of his annual income, which is critical for a warrior with limited employability as a warfighter outside the Army. Beyond the financial implications, Will explained that the loss of prestige and honor associated with SFC Snow’s service would be a profound personal and professional setback, diminishing the legacy of a soldier who has given so much to his country, including four combat deployments to Afghanistan.
Additionally, relying upon his personal knowledge and experiences, Will emphasized that SFC Snow has demonstrated remarkable resilience and commitment to his rehabilitation. He successfully completed two alcohol treatment programs (inpatient and intensive outpatient) and has become an active participant in the recovery community. Will noted that his dedication to his recovery was evident by sharing his story with his command and fellow soldiers, using his experiences to educate and inspire others. Will also mentioned that this transformation speaks to his character and determination to overcome adversity.
Will also highlighted that it is crucial to recognize that SFC Snow was placed in an untenable position by the 75th Ranger Regiment, being left isolated without the support of a unit. This lack of support contributed to the incident, which remains a single event in an otherwise exemplary career. Noting that his service record is spotless, Will argued that those who have worked with SFC Snow since his recovery, including his MTD first sergeant, company commander, and battalion commander, unanimously recommended his retention. Will stressed that their endorsements were based on firsthand interactions with SFC Snow after his recovery efforts, and he has shown himself to be a valuable asset to the Army.
Will M. Helixon then put it bluntly that the “critics” (1SG Harker and SFC Oscar) who doubt SFC Snow’s future in the Army have had no interaction with him after his recovery. On the contrary, those who have seen his growth and dedication know he is a better soldier and leader today. Taking a stand, Will insisted that SFC Snow’s prior service, which includes four combat deployments to Afghanistan, warrants a second chance. Will reminded the Separation Board that SFC Snow’s experience and recovery journey uniquely positioned him to mentor and guide at-risk soldiers, particularly those struggling with similar alcohol issues. By retaining him, the Army not only recognizes a seasoned warrior but also gains a leader who can combat alcoholism and drinking problems within the ranks, not to mention his four deployments to Afghanistan.
As a widely-practiced Administrative Separation Board Lawyer, Will concluded that SFC Snow’s retention was in the Army’s best interest. He was rehabilitated, respected by his peers and superiors, and more capable of contributing to the mission than ever. Will articulated that SFC Snow will be able to take the lessons learned during his battle with his drinking problem and journey through recovery to improve his leadership skills, serving as an invaluable asset to counsel peers and subordinates with similar issues – saving future careers and making the Army a better fighting force. The Separation Board was left with a virtually irrefutable fact: SFC Snow’s separation would be a terrible loss, not just to him, but to the entire Army. Therefore, Will ended by noting that SFC Snow has earned and deserves the opportunity to continue serving with honor and distinction.
Defense Collaboration: Working With Detailed Counsel (TDS)
Although the case was referred to the Administrative Separation Board in late June 2024, a Trial Defense Service (TDS) counsel was not assigned to SFC Snow until August 12, 2024—just over two weeks before the Separation Board convened. Captain Lawrence P. Brieske, known as Paul, was chosen to represent SFC Snow despite being stationed at Fort Novosel rather than Fort Moore, where the Board would take place.
From the outset, CPT Brieske was fully engaged, immersing himself in the case’s details and collaborating on the defense strategy. With a background as a former enlisted 11B Infantryman and experience as a trial counsel at Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM), where he was responsible for advising the 2nd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, CPT Brieske brought an invaluable perspective to the defense. His experience allowed him to view the case through the lens of a “warfighter,” a crucial perspective in developing a strategy resonating with the Separation Board members, who shared similar backgrounds.
CPT Brieske’s warfighter’s insight proved essential in several key areas. It shaped the defense’s voir dire process, enabling them to identify potential biases and align their case with the values and experiences of the Separation Board members. It also formed the cross-examination of government witnesses, where CPT Brieske’s input helped refine questions to expose weaknesses in the government’s case. Furthermore, his unique perspective was instrumental in crafting the direct examination of the defense witnesses, ensuring that their testimony would “strike a chord” with the Separation Board members personally and professionally. CPT Brieske’s contributions were particularly valuable in finalizing Will’s closing argument, where CPT Brieske identified specific points that would “ring true” with the Rangers on the Separation Board, enhancing the overall persuasiveness of the case.
In an effort to improve relations with the government recorder, Will had CPT Brieske take the lead in communications regarding logistics and other Separation Board matters. Despite his efforts, CPT Brieske encountered the same challenges Will did—an apparent lack of understanding from the recorder about the case’s broader implications. Nevertheless, CPT Brieske’s diplomatic approach allowed the defense to maintain a professional front, even as they again firmly rejected the government’s last-minute suggestion for SFC Snow to submit a conditional waiver for an honorable discharge.
While Will conducted most of the Administrative Separation Board proceedings, CPT Brieske’s role was far from passive. He was critical in shaping the defense approach during the Board Proceedings, particularly during cross-examinations. After pausing to consult with him and SFC Snow after the defense crosses, CPT Brieske’s suggestions led to additional, pointed questions that further weakened the government’s position. His involvement in witness preparation ensured that the defense highlighted the key points most likely to influence the Separation Board’s decision. As Will finalized his closing argument, CPT Brieske’s keen attention to detail uncovered subtle yet significant aspects that could sway the Rangers on the Board, ensuring the defense’s closing argument was as compelling and persuasive as possible.
Perhaps most importantly, CPT Brieske’s combat arms background allowed him to forge a strong bond with SFC Snow, providing a “brother in arms” connection that was both calming and reassuring. This bond greatly affected SFC Snow, putting him at ease as he prepared for and delivered his crucial sworn testimony. CPT Brieske’s presence on the defense team was strategic and deeply supportive, contributing to a more grounded and confident SFC Snow. CPT Brieske’s contributions went beyond mere assistance; they were pivotal in shaping a powerful and convincing defense, ultimately enhancing the defense case’s credibility and effectiveness.
Finally, Will M. Helixon hadn’t worked with CPT Brieske before, and to be candid, he is usually cautious when collaborating with military defense counsel he hasn’t personally vetted or heard about from trusted colleagues. But CPT Brieske didn’t just meet Will’s expectations—he blew them out of the water. CPT Brieske wasn’t just a skilled advocate; he exemplified what it means to be an Army officer. He was respectful, composed, and genuinely likable, with a natural ease in communication that made collaboration seamless. Even when Will approached situations with a bit of “indignant” intensity, CPT Brieske handled it with grace and professionalism, never missing a beat. Will would be thrilled to work alongside him again, knowing that he in the company of someone who embodies the best of both legal acumen and military bearing.
Lessons Learned from SFC Snow’s Administrative Separation Board
As an Administrative Separation Board Lawyer, I painstakingly analyze each board proceeding, striving to elevate the quality of my representation and, by extension, the entire Warrior Law TeamTM. I methodically identify strategies that proved effective while pinpointing areas for growth, always with the goal of refining our practice. The ten issues outlined below form the core of my “after-action review” of SFC Snow’s case, highlighting key insights and actionable steps to enhance the impact and success of our future representation in Administrative Separation Boards.
Lesson 1: Be Proactive with Military Co-Counsel: Resolve TDS Detailing Issues Early
In this case, the uncertainty surrounding the assignment of the detailed Trial Defense Service (TDS) counsel created significant challenges that were only resolved two weeks before the Separation Board convened. This delay in finalizing the detailed counsel had considerable implications, underscoring the importance of resolving such detailing issues at the earliest possible stage.
The timely assignment allows for the full integration of the TDS or military detailed counsel into the defense team. This ensures their unique insights and expertise are leveraged from the beginning of the Administrative Separation Board case preparation. When detailed counsel is brought on board early, they can collaborate closely with the civilian counsel, developing a comprehensive defense strategy well-informed by military legal contributions and tactical considerations offered by active-duty military detailed counsel.
Conversely, delays in securing detailed counsel can severely hinder the defense’s overall effectiveness. Without early involvement, the detailed counsel may miss crucial opportunities to influence key aspects of the case, such as witness identification and preparation, evidence and investigation review, and the formulation of cross-examination strategies. The lack of early collaboration can also limit the civilian counsel’s ability to fully utilize the detailed counsel’s military-specific knowledge, particularly in understanding the perspectives of the Separation Board members, who may be serving on a Board for multiple cases or interpreting regulations and policies in a way that makes an impact with those making the final decisions.
Moreover, the early assignment of detailed counsel ensures that the defense team operates as a cohesive unit, with clear roles and responsibilities established before the Separation Board proceedings begin. This unity is vital in presenting a strong, coordinated defense that leaves little room for gaps or miscommunications. It also allows the detailed counsel to build a rapport with the respondent, fostering trust and confidence, which are essential when the stakes are as high as they are in Administrative Separation Boards.
Lesson 2: Shape the Battlefield: Craft Voir Dire that Educates, Persuades, and Identifies Bias
In the absence of rigid guidelines governing the voir dire of Separation Board members and with the broad standard of relevance as the only rule of evidence, defense counsel is afforded a unique and expansive opportunity during voir dire to shape the case. This “questioning of the Board members” phase is not merely a procedural formality but a strategic battlefield where the foundation of the defense can be conscientiously built. It is a defining moment where the Administrative Separation Board lawyer can educate, influence, and assess the panel members who will ultimately decide the outcome. More importantly, in the well over 100 Administrative Separation Boards I have conducted in my career, the government has never had follow-up or clarifying voir dire questions, so this is a defense-only process, presenting a unique opportunity for the defense team.
One of the most powerful uses of voir dire is to educate the Separation Board members on significant aspects of the law or applicable regulations that will guide their decision-making. By carefully framing questions, counsel can ensure that the Separation Board members understand and are prepared to apply the law as the legal advisor instructs. For instance, posing a question like, “The applicable regulation states ‘X’; will you be able to apply that regulation to the facts of this case as instructed by the legal advisor?” serves a dual purpose. It confirms the Separation Board members’ willingness to adhere to the legal framework. It also subtly reinforces the defense’s interpretation of the regulation, planting the seeds for how they should view the evidence and arguments that will follow.
Additionally, voir dire offers a strategic avenue to deftly preview and emphasize key facts or arguments central to the defense’s case. By asking, “Evidence will be introduced that the respondent performed in an outstanding manner after the misconduct; will you be able to consider that as a mitigating factor in determining whether the respondent should be retained, or if separation is warranted, to determine an appropriate characterization of service?” the Administrative Separation Board Lawyer begins to frame the narrative before a single piece of evidence is presented. This approach ensures that the Separation Board members are already contemplating the defense’s perspective, viewing the respondent’s subsequent positive conduct as a relevant factor in their deliberations.
Furthermore, voir dire is indispensable for uncovering potential biases or predispositions that could undermine a fair and impartial hearing. By directly addressing sensitive issues, such as alcohol abuse or Alcohol Use Disorder, with a question like, “This case involves the abuse of alcohol and Alcohol Use Disorder; have you had any personal experiences with alcohol, alcoholism, or AUD that would prevent you from being fair and impartial to the respondent?” defense counsel can identify members who may harbor biases that could influence their judgment. This not only safeguards the integrity of the proceedings but also serves as a basis for strategic challenges to the composition of the Separation Board, ensuring that those who remain are more likely to evaluate the case on its merits. In my last Separation Board, I successfully challenged a member based on bias discovered during the vior dire phase of the Administrative Separation Board.
A comprehensive and well-executed voir dire does more than inform the defense counsel about potential biases; it sets the stage for the entire defense. It outlines the case, emphasizes the defense’s key arguments, and inconspicuously directs the Separation Board members’ focus to the factors most favorable to the respondent. In doing so, defense counsel prepares the Separation Board to receive the evidence in a particular light and positions the defense for a more favorable outcome long before the first witness takes the stand, or the first exhibit is introduced. This proactive, finessed approach transforms voir dire from a mere procedural Separation Board step into a powerful strategic tool that can potentially significantly influence the course of the proceedings.
Lesson 3: Raising the Stakes: Consider Involving Superiors and Supervisors when Issues Arise with the Recorder
The numerous challenges the defense encountered during this Administrative Separation Board could have been significantly mitigated had I taken a more deliberate approach by involving the Regimental Judge Advocate (RJA), Chief of Justice (CoJ), or the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) responsible for the 75th Ranger Regiment from the outset. In hindsight, engaging with JAG leadership might have provided the leverage needed to navigate the procedural complexities and interpersonal conflicts that arose during the proceedings.
Initially, I opted to work directly with the government recorder, believing that maintaining a localized approach would streamline communication and keep the process more manageable. However, this decision led to considerable frustration. The recorder’s lack of responsiveness and understanding of the case’s broader implications forced me to draft a detailed request for a delay for the Board President. This additional work was time-consuming and avoidable had I involved higher-level JAG officials who may have exerted the necessary influence to resolve these issues more efficiently.
Moreover, involving the RJA, CoJ, or SJA might have preempted some unnecessary “fights” with the recorder, whose perceived limited military justice experience and narrow perspective often complicated rather than facilitated the process. With their broader authority and expertise, the RJA, CoJ, or SJA could have provided more straightforward guidance and possibly expedited resolutions to procedural disputes, reducing the friction that characterized many of our interactions with the recorder.
However, I consciously chose to keep these battles local, primarily because we were granted most of the relief we sought from the Board President. This decision was based on a calculated assessment that our requests were being met without needing to escalate matters to JAG leadership. Additionally, I recognized that the other issues I encountered with the recorder, while frustrating, were not ultimately dispositive. They did not fundamentally alter the course of the proceedings or significantly impact the Separation Board’s final decision.
Yet, the lesson learned from this experience is evident. While keeping the focus local seemed appropriate, involving higher-level JAG officials could have provided a more strategic, cohesive, and less contentious path forward, resulting in less unnecessary preparation. It is a reminder that in some cases, where the stakes are high, leveraging all available resources—including the expertise and authority of JAG leadership—can be crucial in navigating the intricacies of the Administrative Separation Board process. This approach may reduce unnecessary conflict and enhance the defense’s overall effectiveness, ensuring that the case is presented in the most favorable light from every angle.
Lesson 4: Be Persistent with the Respondent: Follow-up on Gathering Relevant Exhibits
In this case, SFC Snow’s distinguished career spanning over 15 years in the U.S. Army and the 75th Ranger Regiment was a cornerstone of our defense. His record of spotless service and dedication should have been powerfully conveyed to the Administrative Separation Board through compelling character letters from his former peers and supervisors. However, despite the critical importance of these testimonials, none were ultimately provided. I made the mistake of relying on general assurances from the client that “character letters were coming” without ensuring their timely submission. This oversight left a significant gap in our defense case that could have jeopardized our ability to represent SFC Snow’s exemplary service history fully.
In addition to the absence of character letters, another crucial element was missing from our defense: a complete Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). I had requested the full AMHRR from SFC Snow early in the preparation process. Still, knowing that obtaining this record should have been as simple as a quick download, I did not diligently follow up until just a few days before the Separation Board convened. Unfortunately, by that time, it was too late. SFC Snow had not downloaded his full AMHRR, resulting in a significant portion of his awards, badges, and evaluations being absent from our “Good Soldier Book.” In this case, SFC Snow had difficulty downloading the AMHRR, and since we were “on the road,” we were left with few options. This lack of comprehensive documentation of his service record meant that we could not present the full scope of his achievements and accolades, which could have significantly bolstered our case.
While these lapses did not ultimately affect the outcome of this case, they very well could have. The absence of these fundamental documents was a stark reminder of the importance of proactive and persistent follow-up in preparing a defense. It is incumbent upon the Administrative Separation Board Lawyer and defense team to ensure that all supporting evidence is gathered and presented, leaving “no stone unturned” in advocating for the respondent’s continued service. In this instance, SFC Snow apologized for not being more proactive in gathering the necessary documents, candidly admitting that he “just did not have it in him.” This admission underscores the reality that respondents, often overwhelmed by the magnitude of the situation, may struggle to find the motivation to complete these indispensable tasks independently.
Had I been more proactive in my approach, I could have provided the encouragement and support SFC Snow needed to muster the motivation to gather these required documents. A more assertive follow-up strategy would have ensured we had the full arsenal of evidence necessary to present the most robust case to the Separation Board. It is a poignant lesson that in matters of such significance, every detail counts, and it is the responsibility of the defense team to ensure that nothing is overlooked.
This experience reinforces the need for vigilance and thoroughness in case preparation. Ensuring that all documents are collected well in advance and that all client assurances are followed up with tangible results is crucial. By doing so, defense counsel can avoid the pitfalls of incomplete preparation and guarantee that the client is given the best possible defense, supported by every available document that highlights their service and character.
Lesson 5: Sworn or Unsworn: Critically Evaluate Whether the Respondent Should Testify Under Oath
While the respondent has the right to provide an unsworn statement during the Separation Board proceedings, thereby avoiding the potential scrutiny of cross-examination from the government recorder and Separation Board members, this approach often falls short of what is needed to truly sway the proceedings. In most cases, the Separation Board members are eager to hear directly from the respondent. They want to understand the respondent’s perspective on the misconduct and evaluate firsthand the sincerity and authenticity behind any extenuating and mitigating factors presented in the case.
While these factors can be conveyed through other witnesses or an unsworn statement, the impact is typically less compelling than when the respondent takes the stand under oath. Sworn testimony carries an inherent weight and gravity that an unsworn statement cannot match. It demonstrates the respondent’s willingness to confront the testimony head-on, to speak candidly, and to submit to questioning by both the government and the Separation Board members. This willingness can significantly bolster the respondent’s credibility, signaling sincerity, accountability, and a genuine desire to truthfully address the issues at hand.
For the Administrative Separation Board Lawyer, this decision requires careful consideration. The choice between having the respondent testify under oath or providing an unsworn statement should never be made lightly. It is a critical strategic decision that can influence the Separation Board’s perception of the respondent’s character and integrity. While an unsworn statement may be appropriate in rare and extraordinary circumstances, where the risks of cross-examination outweigh the benefits, in most situations, sworn testimony is far more meaningful.
By testifying under oath, the respondent can connect with the Separation Board on a personal level, explain their actions, and demonstrate their commitment to rectifying past mistakes subject to neutral and adverse questioning. It allows the Separation Board members to directly assess the respondent’s demeanor, sincerity, and honesty, which can be pivotal in determining the outcome. Therefore, defense counsel should critically evaluate the situation, weigh the risks and benefits, and, in most cases, encourage the respondent to take the stand under oath. This approach adds credibility to the defense and shows respect for the process and a willingness to be fully transparent, which can “leave a lasting impression” on the Separation Board members tasked with making such a consequential decision.
Lesson 6: Redefine the Narrative: Focus on Post-Misconduct Conduct and Performance
In reviewing the last six cases where I successfully retained the service member, a powerful and consistent theme emerges: each respondent demonstrated exemplary post-misconduct performance and behavior. This pattern is not merely coincidental; it underscores a crucial element in the defense strategy—the undeniable value of a respondent’s conduct after the incident.
In each case, current supervisors who have worked closely with the respondent after the misconduct testified that the respondent was among the best performers in their section. These supervisors didn’t just offer vague praise; they expressed a clear willingness to have the respondent back in their unit, emphasizing their trust and confidence in their continued service. This kind of testimony carries significant weight, as it comes from those who have observed the respondent’s day-to-day conduct, work ethic, and dedication after the misconduct occurred.
The impact of such testimony is particularly compelling when there has been a meaningful period—at least six months—between the misconduct and the Separation Board hearing. This timeframe allows current supervisors to truly evaluate the respondent, not just on past actions but on their current performance and potential for future contributions. Their positive endorsements do more than speak to the respondent’s character; they provide tangible evidence that the respondent has real, ongoing value to the military.
Moreover, this post-misconduct behavior showcases something even more enlightening: the respondent’s resilience. It demonstrates their ability to learn from their mistakes, adapt, and “bounce back” stronger than before. This resilience is a critical quality in any service member, reflecting personal growth and the kind of fortitude that is invaluable in military service. When a respondent can show that they have not only overcome their past missteps but have also excelled in their duties after that, it sends a powerful message to the Administrative Separation Board—that this is someone who has learned, grown, and is ready to continue serving in the military with distinction.
In essence, the pattern of exemplary post-misconduct performance is more than just a defense strategy; it’s a testament to the respondent’s continuing commitment to their role in the military and ability to contribute meaningfully in the future to the mission. It highlights their current worth and potential, making a convincing case for retention. This consistent theme of strong post-misconduct behavior, supported by the testimony of current supervisors, forms a cornerstone of a persuasive and successful defense.
Lesson 7: Live Witnesses are Critical: Demand In-Person, VTC, or Telephonic Testimony
Never underestimate the dynamic impact of live witness testimony, even if it is delivered via telephone or video teleconference (VTC). The difference between a written character letter and live testimony is monumental in building a credible defense. A live witness provides the Administrative Separation Board Lawyer with a significant tool to present favorable character evidence and actively refute specific facts presented by the government during their case-in-chief. The ability to adapt in real time to the unfolding narrative of the government during the Separation Board is invaluable.
Live testimony allows the defense to engage in a fluid and responsive strategy. When a witness is present in real-time, the defense counsel can ask targeted questions that directly counter the government’s claims recently revealed by their witnesses during the direct examination, providing immediate clarification or contradiction to these critical points. This adaptability is necessary, as it allows the defense to shape the narrative, correct misconceptions, and present a more robust and nuanced case that written statements cannot achieve.
Furthermore, live testimony allows the Separation Board to assess the witness’s credibility, demeanor, and authenticity—factors that are impossible to gauge from a character letter alone. Even when testimony is delivered over the phone or through VTC, the Separation Board members can pick up on subtle cues in the witness’s voice, tone, and manner of responding. This direct interaction allows the Separation Board to understand better the witness’s sincerity and reliability, which can significantly influence their perception of the respondent’s case.
In my recent cases, I have seen firsthand how impactful live testimony can be. Separation Board members have asked defense witnesses probing and insightful questions that addressed issues and concerns I did not anticipate. These interactions often revealed critical information that might have remained unexplored, giving the Separation Board a fuller picture and a deeper context to evaluate the respondent’s actions.
The presence of live witnesses also demonstrates to the Separation Board that the defense is serious, thorough, and confident in presenting the testimony. It underscores the defense’s commitment to transparency and its belief in the strength of the witness’s testimony. This, in turn, can positively influence the Separation Board’s decisions, making it more likely that the testimony will substantially impact the outcome.
In essence, live testimony amplifies the defense’s voice in a way that written statements cannot. It offers the flexibility to respond to the government’s case, allows for the assessment of witness credibility, and engages the Separation Board members in a more interactive and revealing process. For these reasons, securing live testimony whenever possible is a strategic advantage and a critical component of a persuasive and effective defense.
Lesson 8: Set the Proper Tone: Exercise Care with Attacking Command Failures
Some defense counsels adopt a “slash and burn” approach, aggressively attacking the command’s actions or inactions in treating the respondent both before the misconduct and during the separation process. While this tactic may “seem” powerful to highlight injustices or procedural errors, it carries significant risks. The unpredictability of how the Separation Board will perceive such an approach can ultimately undermine the defense. Suppose the Board views the command’s actions as essentially reasonable or justifiable. In that case, this aggressive stance can backfire, painting the defense as “out of touch” with the realities of military leadership and the complex demands placed on command teams.
In contrast, a more discerning and strategic approach is far more effective. By acknowledging the real-world challenges and pressures that command teams face, the Administrative Separation Board Lawyer can question their decisions in a respectful and persuasive way. This method does not shy away from holding the command accountable but does so in a manner that demonstrates a deep understanding of the broad-ranging nature of military leadership. For instance, instead of outright condemning a command decision, the defense might explore whether alternative courses of action could have been more appropriate under the circumstances, subtly encouraging the Separation Board to consider these possibilities without feeling forced into an adversarial stance.
This approach can resonate more strongly with the Board members, who will likely have firsthand experience with the difficult choices that come with command responsibilities. By framing the argument in a way that acknowledges the complexities of leadership, the defense positions itself as thoughtful, reasonable, and in tune with the military ethos. This builds credibility with the Separation Board and opens the door for a more constructive dialogue about the command’s actions rather than a confrontational one.
Moreover, this strategy helps to avoid the pitfall of appearing aloof or disconnected from the realities of military life, which is heightened when the lead defense counsel is a civilian. It shows that the defense respects the chain of command and understands commanders’ pressures, which can be crucial in earning the Separation Board’s trust and sympathy. By striking this balance, the defense can effectively hold the command to account while still maintaining a tone of professionalism and respect. The adage goes, “You attract more flies with honey than vinegar.” In the context of Administrative Separation Boards, a well-reasoned, respectful critique of command decisions is far more likely to gain traction than an all-out “slash and burn” attack. By acknowledging the challenges of command while carefully questioning the decisions made, the defense can present a compelling case that “strikes the right note” with the Separation Board, ultimately increasing the likelihood of a favorable outcome.
Lesson 9: Humanize the Respondent: Seriously Evaluate Benefits of Warrior Diary Video
In this case, the defense produced a professional, high-quality, and expertly edited Warrior Diary Video (WDV) that powerfully captured SFC Snow’s perspective on his misconduct, his journey through recovery and rehabilitation, and his aspirations for the future. This video was strategically played for the Separation Board members immediately after the defense’s closing argument, served as the exclamation point on our case, and left a lasting impression.
The WDV was crafted with inspiring attention to detail, set to uplifting music, and filmed in stunning 4K resolution, delivering a motivating and emotionally evoking message. The video featured SFC Snow and his wife, offering a deeply personal and honest account of their challenges. SFC Snow openly accepted full responsibility for his misconduct, providing a candid look at his struggles with alcohol treatment and his determined path to recovery. This was not just a video—it was a narrative of redemption designed to fully humanize SFC Snow in the eyes of the Separation Board members and to conclude the defense’s case with a powerful, indelible message.
The WDV acted as the grand finale of our defense, akin to the fireworks display that closes a concert or sporting event, leaving the audience in awe. It was a capstone that underscored the central themes of our defense, cementing SFC Snow’s story of resilience and personal growth. The emotional and visual impact of the video was designed to connect deeply with the Separation Board members, ensuring that the final image they were left with was one of a man who had faced his demons, taken responsibility, and emerged stronger.
Moreover, the strategic placement of the WDV at the very end of our presentation was a deliberate rhetorical decision to maximize persuasive dynamics. By concluding with this compelling video, the defense effectively neutralized any potential rebuttal argument from the government recorder. The WDV disarmed any last-minute attempts to undermine our case, leaving the government with little room to counter the powerful, emotionally charged narrative we had just delivered.
In essence, the WDV allowed us to seize control of the closing moments of the Separation Board proceedings, driving home our theme with an impact that was both profound and impervious to counterattack. The defense’s message of redemption, responsibility, and rehabilitation with the potential for future service was not just heard—it was felt, leaving a permanent mark on the Separation Board members and significantly enhancing our chances of a favorable outcome.
Lesson 10: Avoid Last-Minute Chaos: Prepare Exhibits Early
In this case, the defense faced an unexpected and challenging situation, relying on the local TDS office to make last-minute copies of our “Good Soldier Book” and crucial exhibits due to SFC Snow’s late submission of materials. This situation created undue stress for the defense team and placed us in a precarious position. We were forced to depend on external organizations with no vested interest in the outcome of our case (neither CPT Brieske nor myself were associated with the Fort Moore TDS office), which not only compromised our control over the process but also introduced the risk of not finalizing our exhibits in time for the Separation Board presentation.
Relying on others for such critical tasks can jeopardize the professionalism and effectiveness of our defense. The pressure of this situation highlighted the importance of maintaining strict discipline in the preparation process. Establishing firm, non-negotiable deadlines for receiving exhibits from the respondent is essential to ensure that every document is copied, collated, and bound in a manner that reflects the highest standards of professionalism.
Our exhibits must be visually appealing and impeccably organized, as they directly reflect the seriousness and thoroughness we approach the case. The presentation of these materials can significantly influence the Separation Board’s perception, and an incomplete or hastily assembled product could undermine the credibility of our defense.
An Administrative Separation Board Lawyer should adopt a proactive approach to gathering exhibits, setting clear deadlines well in advance, and holding the respondent accountable for meeting those deadlines. This will allow the defense team the time to prepare with precision the exhibits, ensuring they are polished and ready for presentation without the need for last-minute scrambling. By maintaining rigorous deadlines in the preparation process, the defense can avoid the pitfalls of relying on external parties and ensure that the defense is presented in the most compelling and professional manner possible, leaving no room for doubt in the Separation Board’s mind about their commitment to the case.
Conclusion: Final Thoughts from a “Battle-Tested” Administrative Separation Board Lawyer
I firmly believe that this Administrative Separation Board was heavily influenced by SFC Snow’s first sergeant, with considerable backing from the young 75th Ranger Regiment trial counsel who, in my assessment, lacked the depth of military justice experience necessary for a case of this consequence. In my 26 years as an Army judge advocate (JAG), and nearly a decade serving as a civilian defense counsel, I had never faced a situation where a separation was pursued based on the “commission of a serious offense” solely on a single incident of “drunk on duty,” especially when the incident involved no injuries or collateral misconduct. This case was an anomaly, highlighting the perils of allowing less experienced legal professionals to navigate impactful cases without the benefit of seasoned mentorship and guidance.
The basis for this Administrative Separation Board (ASB) struck me as legally insufficient from the outset. The Army’s regulations are clear about what constitutes a serious offense warranting separation, and a solitary instance of “drunk on duty” seemed not to meet that threshold, especially in the absence of any aggravating factors. However, rather than raising this issue with the legal advisor—a move that could have prompted the 75th Ranger Regiment to restart the process with new and potentially more damaging allegations—I chose a more calculated approach.
I recognized that challenging the sufficiency of the Separation Board’s basis at that stage could have triggered a “redo” of the entire process, allowing the Regiment to fortify its case with additional charges or evidence. Instead, I strategically decided to lay the groundwork for demonstrating legal insufficiency within the Administrative Separation Board proceedings themselves. My goal was to build a robust record that could serve as the foundation for a future appeal to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) if needed. This approach allowed me to undermine the government’s case during the Separation Board proceedings without directly provoking a more aggressive response from the command, with pre-Board proceedings arguing legal insufficiency.
This case should never have escalated to an Administrative Separation Board in the first place. The decision to do so underscores the inherent risks when young, apparently inexperienced brigade/regimental lawyers are left to operate with minimal oversight, often under significant pressure from regimental leadership. Without the benefit of mentorship from seasoned judge advocates (RJAs, CoJs, SJAs), these young counsels can become overly zealous, pursuing actions that are not legally or procedurally sound. This case is a glaring example of the dangers posed by such a dynamic, where the absence of experienced legal guidance can lead to decisions that are disproportionate and unsupported by the established standards of military justice.
This perception was powerfully validated by the findings of the Administrative Separation Board and further underscored by an extraordinary and uncommon gesture—each Board Member personally approached SFC Snow after the proceedings. This rare act speaks volumes about the impact SFC Snow made on them. While I won’t disclose the exact words exchanged, the Board members’ comments ranged from heartfelt encouragement to continue his mission of supporting fellow service members to commendations for his steadfast commitment to sobriety and even apologies for the unjust treatment he endured from the 75th Ranger Regiment command team. Their reactions reflect a deep respect and recognition of SFC Snow’s character and contributions.
In sum, while this case was fraught with legal and procedural missteps, I remained focused on preserving the integrity of the defense. By avoiding a direct confrontation with the legal advisor and embedding the argument for legal insufficiency within the Separation Board’s proceedings, I positioned the case for a strong appeal, should it be necessary. This strategy reflected my deep understanding of the military justice system and my commitment to ensuring that my client’s rights were protected throughout the process.
