Source: http://militaryadvocate.blogspot.com/2010/12/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 12:15:39+00:00

Document:
End of Year Wrap Up and Thank You!
As another year comes to an end, we want to offer our clients our sincere thanks for allowing us the privilege of representing them and their families, and for the successes we have enjoyed in doing so.
We don’t measure “success” by financial bottom lines. As former active duty military JAG attorneys, we do what we do to help military members and their families during very difficult times. Therefore, we define success by how well we were able to help our clients and their families and by outcomes that positively resolved the case against them and set them up for future successes.
We are very thankful for the successful outcomes we have been able to secure for our clients. But, as we always warn, while the military trials/cases described in our blog posts were successfully defended against, it is important to understand that every case has different facts, and success in previous military courts-martial and military cases does not guarantee success in any particular future court-martial or military case. No military lawyer or civilian defense lawyer, including those who specialize in military law, can guarantee the outcome of any military case or military trial (court-martial).
As the new year approaches, I wish nothing but good fortune to you all. To those American service men and women out there, we are forever indebted to you for your sacrifices and service on our behalf. Thank you again.
Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation. Military defense law offices are located in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Military defense law practices are worldwide.
For those of you who follow our law firm news, I hope this is helpful. If you have any questions about cases you face, please e-mail us (militarylawfirm@gmail.com) or call us toll free (800-988-0602).
Initial case consultations are free.
Civilian court-martial lawyer blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG attorney/lawyer). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively, and specializing, in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens and/or The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation. Our military defense law offices are located in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Our military defense law practices are worldwide.
- A military officer accused of premeditated murder of wife by poisoning.
- A military NCO accused of solicitation, attempted murder and premeditated murder of Al Qaeda insurgent in Iraq.
- A military officer accused of solicitation and conspiracy of premeditated murder of Al Qaeda insurgent in Iraq.
- A military officer accused of murder of infant child by blunt force trauma.
- A military enlisted member accused of murder of toddler by smothering.
- A military enlisted member accused of murder, then manslaughter, due to DUI accident.
- A military NCO accused of murder of wife by strangulation.
- A military enlisted member accused of attempted murder by attempted decapitation.
Recently, a military officer facing court-martial charges/allegations of larceny and, generally, claims associated with alleged travel voucher fraud, had the charges and court-martial the officer faced dropped by the government. The accused military member was defended by military law attorney Richard V. Stevens (Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.).
At the time of the alleged misconduct, this reservist officer was mobilized on active duty orders. Originally, the accused officer faced three charges and 9 specifications in which the government claimed he stole money by receiving monetary benefits he wasn’t entitled to while activated on mobilization orders. It was immediately clear the government didn’t understand the Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR), but it took considerable effort and time to make them understand their mistakes. On the eve of the pretrial Article 32 hearing, the case was postponed and ultimately it was dropped when those responsible for authoring the JFTR issued an authoritative memo informing the government they were wrong.
Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for military attorneys and law enforcement to fail to understand the JFTR. In this case, however, the government chose not to check with the appropriate finance authorities before preferring court-martial charges that lacked any merit.
A senior NCO facing court-martial allegations of travel voucher fraud stemming from a period of active duty mobilization had his court-martial case dropped after the Article 32 hearing was litigated, and on the eve of trial. The government chose to address the case administratively instead of take the case to trial as previously planned.
A field grade officer facing court-martial allegations of travel voucher fraud stemming from a period of active duty mobilization had his court-martial case dropped after the Article 32 hearing was litigated, and on the eve of trial. The government chose to address the case administratively instead of take the case to trial as previously planned.
Those two previous court-martial cases also involved initial larceny and travel voucher fraud allegations stemming from the government’s failure to understand the JFTR. While these military cases were successfully defended against, it is important to understand that every case has different facts, and success in previous cases does not guarantee success in any particular future case. No military lawyer or civilian defense lawyer, including those who specialize in military law, can guarantee the outcome of any military trial. For more information on the military justice system, please see our other blog posts.
To all of you and your families, we wish you very happy holidays! Please keep our servicemen and women, and their families, in your thoughts and prayers this holiday season. As we enjoy time off from work and our family time together, there are countless American troops in Afhanistan, Iraq and other overseas locations who get no real holiday vacation this season and who are a world away from their nearest relatives. We need to keep their sacrifices and contributions in mind.
Recently, a company grade military officer represented by military law attorney Richard V. Stevens (Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.) obtained the maximum authorized medical retirement at the FPEB hearing they appeared before.
This medical retirement process had begun years ago with the initial Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) followed by the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) and Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) placing the client on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL). After a lengthy period on TDRL, the client faced the TDRL re-evaluation by the IPEB, and disagreed with their findings and recommendations. He then requested the FPEB hearing.
After the appearance and presentation by Richard Stevens and the client at the FPEB hearing, the disability rating/percentage by the IPEB was increased by 40% by the FPEB and the client was recommended to retire at the maximum disability rating/percentage authorized by statute. Due to the medical and administrative issues involved in a MEB and/or PEB case, no further details about this case can be provided for privacy reasons.
While the outcome of this military FPEB hearing was successful, it is important to understand that every case has different facts, and success in previous cases does not guarantee success in any particular future case. No military lawyer or civilian defense lawyer, including those who specialize in military law, can guarantee the outcome of any military trial or case. For more information on the military justice system, please see our other blog posts.
Recently, a military officer facing court-martial charges/allegations claiming larceny had the court-martial he faced dropped by the government. The accused military member was defended by military law attorney Richard V. Stevens (Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.).
The client was accused of stealing military property, valued in the multiple six figures, that was then sold to third parties. The accused client was served with court-martial charges alleging the larceny and the case proceeded to a pretrial Article 32 hearing. The Article 32 hearing was litigated and much more information about the situation was exposed at the hearing than was previously understood by the government. After the Article 32 hearing, the court-martial case was dropped. The maximum authorized punishment for a court-martial conviction on the allegations in this case would have included numerous years in prison and dismissal (dishonorable discharge).
While this military court-martial case was successfully defended, it is important to understand that every case has different facts, and success in previous cases does not guarantee success in any particular future case. No military lawyer or civilian defense lawyer, including those who specialize in military law, can guarantee the outcome of any military trial or case. For more information on the military justice system, please see our other blog posts.

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