202-640-3023 cmr@correctmilitaryrecords.com Correct Military Records and Back Pay
Prior cases
In the area of military personnel law, protecting your due process rights is vital to success.
DISCLAIMER: CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH MILITARY PAY CLAIM, ADVERSE ACTION, OR WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CASE; CASE RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY FUTURE CASE UNDERTAKEN BY THE LAWYER. REPRESENTATIVE CASES ARE LISTED SEPARATELY BY VENUE AND BY LEGAL ISSUES
Selected Published Cases:
Stahl v. United States, 167 Fed. Cl. 657 (2023)
Lowry v. United States, 153 Fed. Cl. 300 (2021)
Terry v. United States, 144 Fed. Cl. 150 (2019)
Selected Board for Correction of Military/Naval Records
ABCMR, decision docket number AR20230007553
ABCMR, decision docket number AR20180009438
ABCMR, decision docket number AR20210017494
BCNR decision docket number ND23-6323
BCNR, decision docket number 5237-22
Mr. Kornacki assisted a Client who received incorrect information concerning her administrative separation options and later requested to withdraw her separation request. The government moved to dismiss. The Court of Federal Claims denied the government's motion to dismiss. The Court granted Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the administrative record (in part), and denied in part. The Court directed the Air Force to explain why it did not follow its own instruction and found the number of typos in the Air Force's records as 'alarming.'
Mr. Kornacki filed a lawsuit contesting his Client’s wrongful discharge from the military and an other than honorable characterization of service. Client was separated from the military with an other than honorable characterization of service for ‘misconduct (drug abuse)’. Client’s separation code was ‘HKK’ and reentry code ‘RE-4’. After negotiations with the Department of Justice and making persuasive arguments, the Department of Justice contacted the Service Department and the Service Department agreed to issue a new certificate of discharge, DD Form 214. This new one had an honorable characterization of service and RE-1 code. There was no reference to misconduct and code ‘HKK’ was also changed. The case was voluntarily dismissed.
Mr. Kornacki filed a complaint on behalf of his Client who challenged his wrongful discharge and denial of retirement benefits. After Client’s case was referred to a Board for Correction of Military Records, Mr. Kornacki filed a petition there. The petition identified due process violations and contained additional evidence. In addition, Mr. Kornacki made compelling arguments as to why the retirement should be granted despite the court-martial conviction. The Board determined that Client’s retirement should be reconsidered. The Service Department reconsidered Client’s retirement and allowed Client to retire and receive back pay. The case was voluntarily dismissed.
Mr. Kornacki filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Client who did not receive correct pay despite multiple requests and communications with Defense Finance and Accounting Service. In support of the lawsuit, Mr. Kornacki presented a favorable case from the Board for Correction of Military Records (Mr. Kornacki was not involved in this case). After several months, Client received all pay requested in the complaint, and directed Mr. Kornacki to voluntarily dismiss the case.
Mr. Kornacki filed a lawsuit challenging his Client’s wrongful discharge from the military. Client argued that his due process rights were violated when the military separated him for failing to report his civilian convictions. At the time of his discharge, Client was close to his retirement. Mr. Kornacki assisted Client with petitioning the Discharge Review Board and the Correction Board but both boards denied relief. The Court of Federal Claims found that the Service Department violated its own regulations during the separation process. The Court also identified additional violations. Based on this, the Court concluded that the separation was invalid.
Mr. Kornacki assisted Client with filing a motion for judgment on the administrative record concerning his wrongful discharge and the Service Department’s failure to promote Client on multiple occasions. This case posed several challenges, in part, because Client initially had a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand filed in his records. Previously, Client petitioned the Board for Correction of Military Records several times but the Board denied relief each time. During litigation at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Mr. Kornacki argued that the Service Department argued capriciously and arbitrarily. The Court found that the continued presence of a reprimand in Client’s records was an error. The Court also found that the Service Department’s and Board for Correction of Military Record’s decisions amounted to ‘bold assertions’ without any explanation or reference. The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the administrative record, in part, and remanded the case to the Service Department for further action.
Mr. Kornacki filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Client who was wrongfully separated from the military. The case was remanded to the Board for Correction of Military Records. Mr. Kornacki filed a compelling petition with supporting evidence on behalf of the Client. The Board for Correction of Military Records agreed to correct Client's records and allow Client to be considered for promotion.
Selected Published Cases:
Stahl v. United States, 167 Fed. Cl. 657 (2023)
Lowry v. United States, 153 Fed. Cl. 300 (2021)
Terry v. United States, 144 Fed. Cl. 150 (2019)
Findings of Senior Leader Misconduct
Client was substantiated for misconduct for using improper language, not treating subordinates with dignity, respect, fairness, and consistently, and failing to recoup incentives. The investigation also substantiated Client for bullying, refusing to listen, displaying anger, and humiliating others. The investigating officer noted that 45 witnesses were interviewed. Mr. Kornacki worked with Client to develop evidence in rebuttal, extenuation, and mitigation. The final submission included over 46 exhibits and make powerful arguments. After the investigation and Client’s responses were reviewed by the Commanding Officer, no permanent adverse action was taken against Client.
Boards for Corrections of Military/Naval Records
Mr. Kornacki assisted Client in upgrading his other than honorable characterization of service. Client completed 2 deployments and engaged in misconduct related to substance abuse and driving under the influence, and other issues. Mr. Kornacki worked with Client to develop evidence in mitigation, extenuation and rebuttal. Mr. Kornacki also worked with Client to prepare him for the hearing. The Discharge Review Board considered all the evidence and thoroughly interviewed Client during a hearing. Subsequently, the Discharge Review Board decided to upgrade Client's characterization of service to general under honorable conditions.
Mr. Kornacki assisted Client in upgrading his characterization of discharge. Client tested positive for substance abuse and was discharged with a general discharge under honorable conditions. Mr. Kornacki assisted Client in developing evidence concerning due process violations during separation proceedings and also the allegation of substance abuse. Additional evidence was also developed to overcome the presumption of regularity. Finally, Mr. Kornacki assisted Client in preparing for the hearing. Board members had numerous questions that Client was able to answer. In addition, Mr. Kornacki made arguments in support of upgrading the characterization of discharge. The Discharge Review Board upgraded Client's characterization of service to honorable and the reason for discharge to secretarial authority.
Mr. Kornacki assisted Client with filing a petition with the Board for Correction of Military Records to, in part, remove a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand and correct Client’s evaluations. Client also requested a Special Selection Board, among others. Because of the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, Client was not selected for promotion. Previously, Mr. Kornacki filed a petition with the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board but this Board denied relief. Mr. Kornacki developed extensive evidence in rebuttal, mitigation and extenuation. During the time when the Board considered the evidence, additional submissions were made as well. After waiting for an extended period of time, the Board recommended to grant partial relief to Client by expunging the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand and evaluation as well as sending Client to a Special Selection Board.
Mr. Kornacki assisted Client with filing a petition at the Board for Correction of Military Records. The Client was court-martialed and wrongfully discharged. At the time, the case was pending at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims case and is also discussed above. In the process of filing the petition, numerous exhibits and evidence in mitigation and extenuation was developed to explain why Client should be granted retirement despite the conviction. After considering all the evidence, the Service Department recommended relief. Subsequently, Client waited for several more months to receive full relief based on the Board for Correction of Military Records’s decision. Once Client received full relief and retired, Client agreed to dismiss his case from the Court.
Mr. Kornacki assisted Client with petitioning the Correction Board to remove an adverse counseling that was permanently filed in Client’s records The adverse counseling related to making a false statement and violating a general Article. After preparing a well-documented petition and making legal arguments, the Board decided to grant relief. The advisory opinion also recommended to remove the adverse counseling. Based on this, the Board found an error and injustice and recommended to remove the adverse filing.
Mr. Kornacki assisted Client with petitioning the Corrections Board to change Client’s re-entry code, separation code and the narrative reason for separation that stated ‘Fraudulent Enlistment. After reviewing all the evidence and conducting legal research, Mr. Kornacki developed evidence to effectively argue that the requested relief should be granted. After the Board reviewed Client’s submissions and evidence, it recommended to issue a DD Form 215 – Correction to DD Form 214 that changed her narrative reason for separation to Erroneous enlistment. It also changed Client’s enlistment code and separation code.
Client was substantiated for misconduct related to sexual harassment. Because Client was a field grade officer, Mr. Kornacki assisted Client in providing responses and developing evidence to address specific allegations. In coordination wiht Client, additional legal arguments were made as well. The appointing authority reviewed all submissions and determined that the allegation was unsubstantiated and Client received a letter of concern that was not permanently filed.
Client was substantiated for misconduct for using improper language, not treating subordinates with dignity, respect, fairness, and consistently, and failing to recoup incentives. The investigation also substantiated Client for bullying, refusing to listen, displaying anger, and humiliating others. The investigating officer noted that 45 witnesses were interviewed. Mr. Kornacki worked with Client to develop evidence in rebuttal, extenuation, and mitigation. The final submission included over 46 exhibits and make powerful arguments. After the investigation and Client’s responses were reviewed by the Commanding Officer, no permanent adverse action was taken against Client. Absent Without Leave Mr. Kornacki assisted Client who was absent without leave for over 20 years. Mr. Kornacki developed evidence in mitigation and rebuttal and prepared and counseled Client for Client’s voluntary return and what actions to take upon return. Client was administratively discharged under conditions other than honorable and avoided any court-martial convictions, fines, and confinement.
Client had a civilian conviction that could preclude him from entering on a military base. Mr. Kornacki assisted Client in developing evidence in mitigation and extenuation concerning the conviction and additional evidence. The base commander reviewed the petition and allowed Client to enter on base.
Credentialing
A quality assurance investigation report substantiated allegations of lack of clinical competence against Client. Mr. Kornacki worked with Client to develop strong and persuasive evidence in rebuttal to contradict the findings. In addition, additional evidence was developed to highlight due process violations. Based on this, another quality assurance investigation report was prepared that also substantiated the allegation. Mr. Kornacki and Client provided strong and persuasive responses again. After the second response, the Service Department found that the allegations of lack of clinical competence and lack of medical were unsubstantiated, but the failure to apply ‘such knowledge’ was substantiated. The recommendation was to reinstate Client’s Clinical privileges with monitoring and evaluation.
Criminal Investigation
Client was investigated by special agents based on allegations of violating Article 120. Worked with Client to develop evidence in rebuttal and also contacted the trial counsel. After presenting the Trial Counsel with irrefutable evidence, Client learned that the investigation was terminated.
Erroneous/Fraudulent Enlistment
Mr. Kornacki assisted Client with petitioning the Corrections Board to change Client’s re-entry code, separation code and the narrative reason for separation that stated ‘Fraudulent Enlistment. After reviewing all the evidence and conducting legal research, Mr. Kornacki developed evidence to effectively argue that the requested relief should be granted. After the Board reviewed Client’s submissions and evidence, it recommended to issue a DD Form 215 – Correction to DD Form 214 that changed her narrative reason for separation to Erroneous enlistment. It also changed Client’s enlistment code and separation code.
Freedom of Information Act Appeals
Mr. Kornacki filed a Freedom of Information Act request requesting records related to Client’s criminal investigation. The request was completely denied. Based on this, Mr. Kornacki conducted legal research and filed an appeal. In this appeal, Mr. Kornacki established that the denial was improper. After the review of the appeal, the appellate authority determined that the action should be remanded to the initial denial authority for reconsideration. Subsequently, Client received the redacted investigation.
Client filed a Freedom of Information Act and received the investigation without any exhibits. Mr. Kornacki appealed this partial denial. Subsequently, the agency contacted Mr. Kornacki concerning the withdrawal of the appeal and the exhibits. Mr. Kornacki filed another Freedom of Information Act request and received the redacted exhibits.
General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand
Client was presented with a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand after an administrative investigation found that Client violated policies concerning sexual harassment and improper senior-subordinate relationships. Mr. Kornacki assisted Client with providing responses and developing extensive factual rebuttal evidence and also background evidence. After developing extensive evidence in mitigation, extenuation and rebuttal, and identifying specific due process violations, the General Officer directed to withdraw and destroy the reprimand.
Mr. Kornacki assisted Client with filing a petition with the Board for Correction of Military Records to remove the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand and to correct Client’s evaluations. Client also requested a Special Selection Board, among others. Previously, the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board denied relief. This case is also discussed in the Board for Corrections of Military Records section. Mr. Kornacki developed extensive evidence in rebuttal, mitigation and extenuation. During the time when the Board considered the evidence, additional submissions were made as well. After waiting for an extended period of time, the Board recommended to grant partial relief by expunging the GOMOR and evaluation as well as sending Client to a Special Selection Board. The Board specifically noted that some evidence presented in Client’s petition was very persuasive.
Client was proposed for debarment based on an allegation of timesheet fraud. Mr. Kornacki assisted Client with developing evidence in mitigation and extenuation and rebuttal. Mr. Kornacki also prepared Client for a hearing that was held with the Army. After reviewing all the evidence and listening to the Client, debarment proceedings were terminated.
Civilian Convictions
Mr. Kornacki filed a lawsuit challenging his Client’s wrongful discharge from the military. Client argued that his due process rights were violated when the military separated him for failing to report his civilian convictions. At the time of his discharge, Client was close to his retirement. Mr. Kornacki assisted Client with petitioning the Discharge Review Board and the Correction Board but both boards denied relief. The Court of Federal Claims found that the Service Department violated its own regulations. This case is also discussed in the Court of Federal Claims section. Further analysis revealed additional violations as well. Based on this, the Court concluded that the separation was invalid.
Court-Martial
Mr. Kornacki represented a Service-member in a court martial. The referred charges related to violating Articles 92 (violation of a lawful order) 107 (false official statements), 112a (wrongful use of controlled substance), and Article 120 (multiple violations). After making strong arguments during the Article 32 hearing, the military dropped the alleged violation under Article 120. On behalf of Client, Mr. Kornacki negotiated a pre-trial agreement where Client agreed to plead guilty to misconduct that was established very strongly in the evidence and that Client was guilty of. In addition, extensive evidence in mitigation and extenuation was developed. Client did not receive a punitive discharge and was administratively separated.
Client was charged with multiple thefts of AAFES property under Article 121. The evidence clearly pointed to Client’s misconduct. In addition, Client was charged impeding an investigation under Article 134. Mr. Kornacki negotiated a pre-trial agreement on behalf of Client. In addition, Mr. Kornacki submitted a resignation request on behalf of Client. The resignation request was approved after the court-martial. Client was sentenced to confinement for 75 days and a dismissal. However, because his resignation was approved, he received a general discharge under honorable conditions and was released early.
In a U.S. Court of Federal Claims case, assisted Client challenging his wrongful discharge and denial of retirement benefits. After Client’s case was referred to a Board for Correction of Military Records, filed a petition there presenting extensive evidence and making compelling arguments that relief should be granted. The Board determined that Client’s retirement should be reconsidered. The Service Department reconsidered Client’s retirement and allowed Client to retire and receive back pay. The case was voluntarily dismissed.
Reserve Officer Training Corps
Mr. Kornacki represented an ROTC Cadet who tested positive for substance abuse and was suspended from the ROTC program. Client was at the risk of having to pay back the entire ROTC scholarship and not getting commissioned. Mr. Kornacki worked with the Cadet and Cadet’s family to develop evidence in mitigation, extenuation and rebuttal. Mr. Kornacki also raised concerns regarding due process violations. After Mr. Kornacki made submissions on behalf of Client and requested a hearing, the Cadet was notified that the Cadet was allowed to rejoin the program and the separation proceedings were terminated.
Mr. Kornacki’s Client was notified of disenrollment due to lack of leadership, plagiarism, lack of integrity, deliberate propensity to provide false or misguiding information, frequent and unexcused absences, and inability to effectively communicate and overcome challenges. At the time of separation, Client received over $150,000.00 in scholarship funding. Mr. Kornacki worked with Client to develop evidence in rebuttal, mitigation, and extenuation for each of the alleged grounds. Mr. Kornacki also worked with Client to prepare Client for the hearing. After the hearing, the Client was notified that he did not breach the contract and the board recommended that Client be allowed to receive his commission.
Client received a statement of reasons stating that Client’s eligibility for access to classified information and assignment to duties would be revoked. The allegations related to multiple instances of mishandling protected information and sharing classified information with others. Mr. Kornacki and Mr. Cave developed extensive evidence in rebuttal, extenuation and mitigation. The case was particularly sensitive because of the Client’s duties. Subsequently, Client was advised that the proceedings stopped and he would continue to have access to classified information.
Client received a statement of reasons questioning Client's judgment, reliability and trustworthiness under Guideline E – Personal Conduct; Guideline J: Criminal Conduct (conduct unbecoming, failure to obey a General Order). Mr. Kornacki assisted Client in providing comprehensive responses and developing evidence in rebuttal and mitigation. In addition, substantial documentary evidence was submitted. One ground was dropped but the agency proceeded on another group and clearance was revoked. Client appealed. As the matter proceeded to the U.S. Department of Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals, the statement of reasons was withdrawn.
Substance Abuse
Mr. Kornacki filed a lawsuit contesting his Client’s wrongful discharge and an other than honorable characterization of service. Client was separated from the military with an other than honorable characterization of service for ‘misconduct (drug abuse), separation code ‘HKK’ and reentry code ‘RE-4’. After negotiations with the Department of Justice, presenting evidence and making persuasive arguments, the Service Department issued a new certificate of discharge. This new one had an honorable characterization of service and RE-1 code. There was no reference to misconduct and code ‘HKK’ was also changed. The case was voluntarily dismissed.
Mr. Kornacki represented a Service-member in a court martial. The referred charges related to violating Articles 92 (violation of a lawful order) 107 (false official statements), 112a (wrongful use of controlled substance), and Article 120 (multiple violations). After making strong arguments during the Article 32 hearing, the military dropped the alleged violation under Article 120. On behalf of Client, Mr. Kornacki negotiated a pre-trial agreement where Client agreed to plead guilty to misconduct that was established very strongly in the evidence. In addition, extensive evidence in mitigation and extenuation was developed. Client did not receive a punitive discharge and was administratively separated.
Mr. Kornacki represented an ROTC Cadet who tested positive for substance abuse and was suspended from the ROTC program. Mr. Kornacki worked with the Cadet and Cadet’s family to develop evidence in mitigation, extenuation and rebuttal. Mr. Kornacki also raised concerns regarding the Cadet not receiving all the evidence. This case is also discussed in the ROTC section. After approximately two months, the Cadet was notified that the Cadet was allowed to rejoin the program and the separation proceedings were terminated.