Each branch of the military offers administrative remedies to correct a service member’s military records. This includes everything from administrative discharges, punitive discharges as a result of a court-martial, medical retirement eligibility, non-judicial punitive actions, reprimands, evaluation reports, and so forth.
Correcting a service member’s military records can become confusing because there are various administrative boards and each have different authorities and jurisdictions to correct specific information. These different boards also have diverse legal standards, statutes of limitation, and evidentiary restrictions that cause further confusion.
Service members are given a limited number of opportunities to appeal to these boards, so it is important to speak to a lawyer well-versed in the nuances of military administrative law to maximize the chance of successfully correcting a service member’s military records.
United States Air Force, O-3, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records. Attorney Gordon successfully argued that negative information should be removed from his client’s Official Military Personnel File after he was denied a promotion. The BCMR ruled that the client’s name should be removed from the list of officers non-selected for promotion for the years 2012 and 2013, the client’s non-selections for promotion should be removed from the Military Personnel Data System and Automated Records Management System record, and the client should be considered for promotion by a Special Selection Board immediately.
United States Army, O-5, Board for Correction of Naval Records. Attorney Gordon successfully helped argue that his client should be retroactively awarded the Army Bronze Star Medal with “V” for meritorious service in a combat zone in 1968.
United States Army, E-1, Army Discharge Review Board. Attorney Gordon successfully argued that his client’s military discharge should be upgraded from a General under honorable conditions characterization to an Honorable characterization. The Discharge Review Board found that the client was the victim of a substantial error of fact by his chain of command. Attorney Gordon was able to convince the Discharge Review Board that his client’s discharge was too harsh based on his overall quality of service and was therefore inequitable.