Mr. Kornacki is a former U.S. Army Judge Advocate with over 15 years of military personnel law and courts-martial experience. Before pursuing private practice in military law, Mr. Kornacki served as a judge advocate in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's Corps in 1st Armored Division Office of Staff Judge Advocate in Baumholder, Germany. He deployed to Contingency Operations Base Speicher, near Tikrit, Iraq, for 15 months (Task Force Iron - Multi-National Division North). After his deployment, he served in Wiesbaden, Germany, and Fort Lee, Virginia. During his active duty service, Mr. Kornacki defended Soldiers in courts-martial, separation boards, adverse personnel actions, provided legal advice on kinetic strikes and electronic attacks, administrative law, claims and fiscal and procurement law. His positions on active duty included trial defense counsel, part-time military magistrate, administrative law attorney, Foreign Claims Commission, Tax Center Officer in Charge, and Division Chief of Client Services. Before his active duty service, Mr. Kornacki served in 353rd Civil Affairs Command (CACOM) in Fort Wadsworth, Staten Island.
Presently, Mr. Kornacki represents Clients in correction of military records actions at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Board for Corrections of Military and Naval Records, Discharge Review Boards, Grade Determination Review Boards, Clemency and Parole Boards, U.S. Army Crime Record Center matters, Clearance Adjudications Facility responses, DFAS debt issues, military pay, promotion denials, cadet actions, investigations, and various other legal service actions related to the Department of Defense and its agencies.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. Court of Federal Claims
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Court of Federal Claims Litigation
Administrative Separation and Elimination boards
Adverse Personnel Actions Including GOMORs, Article 15s, and related matters
AR 15-6 and Commander's Inquiry Investigations
Base Access Denials/Barments
Board for Correction of Military and Naval Records Petitions
Cadet actions (ROTC and USMA)
Clemency and Parole Submissions
Debarment and Suspension Actions
Defense Accounting and Finance Service Debt and Recoupment Matters
Discharge Upgrade petitions
Expungement and Titling actions
Family Advocacy Program matters
Grade Determination Review Board matters
Investigations (criminal and administrative)
Military Pay and Military Pay Act claims
Promotion Denial and Promotion Review Board responses
Special Selection Board matters
Statement of Reasons submissions
Privacy Act / Freedom of Information Act requests
ROTC and Military Academy Recoupment issues
Wrongful Discharge Claims
Pace University, New York, cum laude
City University of New York School of Law at Queens College, New York
U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's Officer Basic Course, University of Virginia, Virginia
Kellogg College, Oxford University, United Kingdom
U.S. Court of Federal Claims Bar Association
New York State Bar Association
CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS AND CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO EACH CASE; CASE RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY FUTURE CASE UNDERTAKEN BY THE LAWYER.
Service member was notified that he was proposed for separation based on evidence showing sexual harassment relating to text messages. Action: Developed evidence in rebuttal, extenuation, and mitigation and represented the Service member during his separation hearing. Result: Service member was unanimously retained on active duty.
After representing an officer at an elimination board, the board recommended to eliminate him with a general discharge under honorable conditions. The officer was recommended for elimination based on substantiated misconduct and derogatory information in his official military personnel file (OMPF). Action: Appealed the board recommendation based on failure to review and consider the evidence, loss of impartiality, and failure to make specific findings. After the same board was directed to re-convene again and it made the same findings - appealed again. Result: The officer was allowed to retire but was directed by the Grade Determination Review Board (GDRB). Successfully assisted the officer with GDRB responses and submissions and he retired in his last rank.
Senior Enlisted Leader with close to 20 years of active duty service was charged with multiple UCMJ charges related to drug use overseas. Action: developed extensive evidence in mitigation and extenuation and presented numerous witnesses on behalf of Client. Result: The military judge found the Service member guilty but retained him, and subsequently the General Court-Martial Convening Authority allowed him to retire.
Former service member separated under other than honorable conditions (OTH), re-enlistment code 4, and narrative reason for separation as misconduct (drug abuse). Action: Reviewed the evidence and conducted legal research. Filed a lawsuit at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims alleging, in part, wrongful discharge and abuse of discretion. Result: After further negotiations with the U.S. Government, new DD Form 214 issued with characterization of service as Honorable, re-enlistment code 1 and narrative reason for separation as expiration of active duty obligation.
Former service member was separated based on fraudulent enlistment. Action: Reviewed the evidence, conducted legal research, developed additional evidence in rebuttal, and petitioned the Discharge Review Board (DRB). Result: Approximately 7 months later the Board found that the narrative reason for separation was unjust, and recommended to change it to 'erroneous enlistment'.
A Grade Determination Review Board considered a field grade officer for retirement grade based on substantiated misconduct in his official military personnel file. Action: Developed evidence in mitigation, extenuation, and rebuttal. Submitted written responses and submissions and over 40 exhibits. Result: The officer was allowed to retire in his current rank.
Officer was proposed for elimination based on derogatory information in his official military personnel file relating to a pattern of misconduct, sexual assault, abuse of authority, conduct unbecoming, and sexual harassment. Action: Conducted comprehensive review of the record, developed compelling evidence in rebuttal, and represented the officer during the elimination board. Result: The elimination board unanimously recommended retention.
Federal contractor was proposed for debarment by a Department of Defense agency based on a substantiated investigation that found that he mischarged over $300,000.00 over a number of years. Action: Developed persuasive evidence in rebuttal and mitigation, and scrutinized the underlying investigation by pointing out numerous inconsistencies; presented compelling facts and arguments to the Suspension and Debarment Official. Result: Proposed debarment was terminated after the hearing.
Former service member who was court-martialed and found guilty for financial fraud received a statement of reasons (SOR) from the Department of Defense Clearance Adjudication Facility (DODCAF). Action: Developed facts and arguments to mitigate the personal conduct and criminal conduct concerns. Result: Former service member was allowed to continue to have access to classified information.
Commander was administratively investigated based on multiple allegations of misconduct relating to toxic leadership, harassment, and failure to comply with various regulations. Action: Developed evidence in rebuttal and mitigation and submitted persuasive evidence denying in part and mitigating otherwise the allegations. Result: Investigation closed with no adverse action taken.
Military civilian was denied base access in Central Command area of operations (CENTCOM AO) for creating a hostile work environment. Action: Analyzed the allegations and developed additional evidence and to show strong work ethics. The initial request was denied, so appeal was pursued. Result: Base access denial was terminated .
Service member was proposed for separation based on substantiated drug abuse. Action: Developed evidence in mitigation and extenuation and engaged the Service member's chain of command to avoid separation. Result: Service member was allowed to continue his service.
Superb attorney with amazing legal talent Mr. Kornacki is an incredibly talented attorney - bar none!
Excellent Job Wojciech Kornacki is an outstanding and strong advocate for his clients. To the counter party, he is super tough and strong. To his clients, he is very patient and very pleasant to work with.
Excellent Suspension and Debarment Lawyer. Mr. Kornacki helped me put together a well thought out rebuttal to a suspension and debarment proceeding brought against me by an IC agency in late 2019. His legal aptitude and knowledge on the subject were key to providing the necessary details outlining my innocence which ultimately ended in the general counsel (GC) dropping the case (which judging by the statistics, is rare). You know you have a great lawyer when even the GC compliments you on how well presented the information was in the proceeding. With that said, I would highly recommend Mr Kornacki and am forever grateful for his representation in my case.
A very successful case thanks to quality legal representation I hired Wojciech Kornacki in 2014 to represent me, a government contractor in an adverse administrative law matter. Wojciech did an excellent job and the adverse action was terminated based on the submissions and representations alone. I truly believe that Wojciech delivered above the full value of every dollar I paid. His process is one of action and diligence. He clearly knows what he is doing and how to get favorable results. For an additional note: as a client, you should be ready to hold yourself to a similar standard of professionalism, dedication, and integrity. Wojciech wants to win - and when he is on your team, everyone needs to be performing with excellence.
Mr. Kornacki visits with Coalition Partners and a Republic of Korea Judge Advocate while on a mission.
Mr. Kornacki receives a certificate of appreciation after conducting a presentation on recent changes in federal law related to Government contractors.
This website and all information contained on it provided for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to be legal advice and it should not be used as legal advice. Legal advice is dependent upon the specific circumstances of each situation. No authorization is given to use this information for any legal advice. Because laws change all the time, information on this website may not be the most up to date information. No user, reader or browser of this website should act or refrain from acting based on reading any information on this website without first seeking legal advice from counsel. Pentagon Law Office specifically disclaims all liability from actions taken or not taken by any user of this website by any or all information on this website. Before taking or refraining from any action, any user or viewer of this website should consult with an experienced attorney in the right jurisdiction.
Use of this website or its resources does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader, user, browser and the law firm. By contacting the law firm, scheduling a free telephonic consultation, accessing the website or reading or downloading information from it no attorney-client relationship is created between you and Pentagon Law Office. Any attorney-client relationship is formed only by a written attorney-client engagement agreement. Any links or forms on this website are provided only as a convenience and the links or forms do not imply any responsibility for the links or forms. The website and all information on it is provided on ‘as is’ basis without any warranty, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to the implied warranty of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose or non-infringement.
Practice limited for federal military law only. If in any jurisdiction the contents of the website fail to comply with all laws and regulations of that jurisdiction, then the law firm does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based on the use, viewing, or review of the website.
No confidential, personally identifiable information or proprietary should be sent via the internet. The law firm assumes no responsibility for any such information. No guarantees are given that any confidential information will be secure when sent over the internet. ANY SUBMISSION OF PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION IS ONLY AT YOUR OWN RISK. Emails may be intercepted by persons other than the recipient.
Each case is different because it has different facts and circumstances. Past results do not predict future outcomes. No promises are made as to future results.
No warranties or representations are made regarding the use of this website. Any user of viewer of this information will use it at their own risk. The information is provided on 'as is' basis only. To the fullest extend of the law all warranties are disclaimed. The law firm specifically disclaims any damages resulting from the use or inability to use the website. Because some jurisdictions do not allow full disclaimers, some of this information may not apply to your jurisdiction. If any portion of this policy is determined invalid then the aggregate liability of the releases shall not exceed one hundred dollars ($100).
The only permitted use of this website and its contents is for general educational, non-commercial and non-fraudulent use. Individuals below the age of consent should not use this website.
By using and viewing this website, you agree to hold harmless the law firm, its officers and employees, from any claims or damages, losses or any other expenses, whether direct or indirect. in case any breaches of the policies and disclaimers occur, no waiver or continuing waiver is given.
Any questions concerning the policies and disclaimers should be directed to email@example.com
Pentagon Law Office and this website are not affiliated with the U.S. Government, they are not part of the U.S. Government and no affiliation should be implied.