Source: http://militaryadvocate.blogspot.com/2012/09/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 12:57:03+00:00

Document:
Recently, a former military officer represented by military law defense attorney Richard V. Stevens (Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.) was notified that he won the Discharge Review Board (DRB) appeal.
Years ago, the officer client was accused of misconduct and was discharged by a military discharge board panel. At that time, the client was represented by appointed military defense counsel. The client hired civilian defense lawyer Richard V. Stevens for a Discharge Review Board (DRB) appeal. The appeal package was prepared, argued and submitted by Richard V. Stevens, and we recently received notice that the appeal was granted and the DRB upgraded the discharge characterization to an Honorable Discharge, the reason for discharge was changed to a non-adverse reason, and the reenlistment code (“RE Code”) was changed to a non-adverse code.
For more information and case descriptions about defending military clients accused of misconduct and filing administrative appeals with the military branch Discharge Review Boards or Boards of Correction for Military Records, please access our blog (http://militaryadvocate.blogspot.com/) and enter “discharge review board” or “DRB” or “board of corrections for military records” or “BCMR” in the blog search box above the top blog post and you will be able to review previous posts about these topics and case defenses. For more information on other aspects of the military justice system, please see our other blog posts. Thank you.
Recently, a military officer represented by military law defense attorney Richard V. Stevens (Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.) was notified that the criminal investigation and case against him was being dropped with no adverse disciplinary action to be taken – therefore, preventing any adverse impact on his military career progression.
The client was accused of financial fraud for allegedly applying for and receiving money and benefits the client was not entitled to (UCMJ Article 120, Larceny; UCMJ Article 107 False Official Statement; UCMJ Article; UCMJ Article 133, Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Gentleman). During the investigation of the case, the defense submitted two detailed rebuttal statements to the allegations, describing the truth of the situation and clarifying the misunderstandings and misinterpretations believed by the government.
For more information and case descriptions about defending military clients accused of fraud, larceny, wrongful appropriation and related offenses, please enter “fraud” and/or “larceny” in the blog search box above and you will be able to review previous posts about these topics and case defenses. For more information on other aspects of the military justice system, please see our other blog posts. Thank you.
I have represented members of Special Forces, Special Operations and elite Special Operations units. Some of these cases have involved classified and/or national security information. I have dealt with cases in which the government has claimed the classified information privilege (Military Rule of Evidence 505), I have prepared for court-martial hearings and trial in a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility), and I have had closed-door classified court-martial sessions. So, I have been exposed to the secrecy not only required within these communities, but expected of, and between, the warriors within these communities.
The coverage of the Bin Laden raid was both gripping and shocking, as normally protected information was publically reported and discussed by U.S. government officials. With the release of the new Bin Laden raid book, and past books by former operators, a debate is raging within the Special Operations community, particularly that of the Navy SEALs.

References: V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.