Can a military attorney draft separation agreements in divorce cases?

A separation agreement is the contract that settles a divorcing couple’s terms, and for a military family it carries clauses that can quietly fail if drafted carelessly. A legal assistance attorney’s most valuable contribution here is usually reviewing and advising on that agreement, catching the military-specific problems before anyone signs, even though a contested divorce is generally finalized with civilian counsel.

What a separation agreement does

A separation agreement is the document that resolves the major questions of a divorce, property division, spousal and child support, and custody and parenting arrangements, in a single contract. A court typically incorporates or relies on it as part of the divorce. Because it sets terms that are difficult to change later, getting it right matters more than getting it done quickly.

The review role, and its value

Here the legal assistance contribution is concentrated. The office can review a separation agreement and advise on it before it is signed, which is often the single most valuable free service in a divorce. The attorney reads the agreement for problems, unfair or unworkable terms, missing provisions, and especially the military-specific clauses, then explains the consequences so the member signs with eyes open. For the litigation itself, the member generally retains a civilian family-law attorney.

The clauses that need special care

The military overlays are exactly where a generic agreement goes wrong, so an attorney pays particular attention to:

  • Pension-division language. Dividing military retired pay has to be drafted so it is enforceable under the governing federal rules, an improperly worded clause can be one the pay center will not honor.
  • Survivor coverage. Survivor Benefit Plan provisions, and the deadlines attached to them, should be addressed in the agreement, not left as an afterthought.
  • Timing and the SCRA. The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act can affect the timing of proceedings, which the agreement and the process should account for.

These are the clauses a civilian attorney unfamiliar with military issues is most likely to mishandle, which is precisely why the legal assistance review is worth seeking.

Consider a couple who agree on terms and want them written down: the attorney can review and strengthen the separation agreement, adding the military-specific pension and timing clauses, while litigation is left to civilian counsel.

The throughline is that a military attorney does not typically draft and litigate the divorce, but the review of the separation agreement, especially its pension, survivor, and timing clauses, is high-value, low-cost help. A member who brings the draft agreement to legal assistance before signing protects themselves from the errors that are hardest to undo.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a legal assistance attorney review my separation agreement?
Yes. Reviewing and advising on a separation agreement is one of the most valuable free services, even though a contested divorce is generally finalized with civilian counsel.

Which clauses in a military separation agreement need special care?
The pension-division language, survivor-benefit provisions, and timing issues affected by the SCRA, because errors in those are hard to fix later.

Is a separation agreement the same as the divorce?
No. It is the contract setting the terms, which a court then incorporates or acts on as part of the divorce.

This article is general information about separation agreements. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Divorce is governed by state law and varies, and military rules can change. Service members should have an agreement reviewed by their legal assistance office and consult a family-law attorney.

Sources

…

Can a military attorney represent service members accused of war crimes?

Yes, and a service member accused of a war crime is entitled to a vigorous defense no matter how serious the allegation. Much of that defense turns on one issue the public misunderstands, the “I was following orders” claim, which has a real but tightly limited place in the law. Understanding exactly where that defense begins and ends is central to defending these cases.

The superior-orders defense, and its limit

The defense of obedience to superior orders is narrower than its reputation. The governing principle is clear: obeying a superior order does not relieve a subordinate of criminal responsibility if the subordinate knew the act was unlawful, or should have known because the act was manifestly unlawful.

Two ideas sit inside that rule:

  • Orders are presumed lawful. A subordinate generally must obey, and disobeys at their peril, so following an order is not automatically wrongful.
  • But there is a duty not to obey a manifestly unlawful order. When an order is obviously, patently unlawful on its face, “I was told to” does not excuse carrying it out.

So for a manifestly unlawful act, superior orders is generally not a complete defense. The “manifestly unlawful” standard, the crime must be obvious on its face, is the line that decides whether the defense is available at all.

Mitigation, even where not a full defense

The defense is not worthless even when it fails as a complete excuse. Obedience to orders can be considered in mitigation of punishment if the court determines justice requires it. So a defense counsel may use the circumstances of an order both to contest guilt where the order was not manifestly unlawful, and to reduce sentence where it was.

The broader defense

Beyond superior orders, defending a war-crimes allegation involves the same rigor as any grave charge: testing whether the act was actually unlawful in its operational and law-of-armed-conflict context, challenging the government’s proof on each element, and scrutinizing the evidence. The seriousness of the charge does not lower the standard of proof; if anything, it raises the stakes of holding the government to it.

Suppose a member is accused of following an order to do something plainly unlawful: obeying does not excuse a manifestly unlawful act, though the circumstances of the order may still mitigate the punishment.

The practical upshot is that representing a service member accused of war crimes is real, demanding defense work. The superior-orders defense is available but bounded by the manifestly-unlawful standard, it can mitigate even when it cannot excuse, and the broader defense tests the government’s case element by element. Engaging experienced counsel early, before any statement, is critical given the gravity involved.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is “I was following orders” a defense to a war crime?
Only in a limited way. Obeying an order does not relieve criminal responsibility if the person knew, or should have known because the order was manifestly unlawful, that the act was unlawful.

Are orders presumed lawful?
Yes. Orders are presumed lawful and a subordinate disobeys at their peril, but there is a clear duty not to obey a manifestly unlawful order.

Can following orders reduce a sentence even if it is not a complete defense?
Yes. Obedience to orders can be considered in mitigation of punishment even where it does not excuse a manifestly unlawful act.

This article is general information about defending war-crimes allegations. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. These cases are complex and fact-specific and the law can change. Anyone facing such an allegation should consult qualified defense counsel immediately.

Sources

…

Can a military attorney guide clients in data privacy violations?

Yes. Service members’ personal information is held throughout federal systems, and a specific federal law governs how the government must handle it. When that information is mishandled, disclosed without authorization, or held inaccurately, the law gives the individual rights. Guiding a client begins with knowing what those rights are and what the government’s duties require.

The governing law: the Privacy Act of 1974

The framework is the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a), which establishes a code of fair information practices for how federal agencies collect, maintain, use, and disclose records about individuals kept in systems of records. For the Defense Department it is implemented through regulations such as the DoD Privacy Program (32 CFR part 310) and service-level rules. So personally identifiable information (PII) about a service member is not handled at the government’s discretion; it is governed by this statute and its implementing rules.

The individual’s rights

The Privacy Act grants concrete rights that are the heart of a client’s position:

  • Access. The right to review records the government maintains about oneself.
  • Amendment. The right to request correction of records that are inaccurate, unless a record is legally exempt.
  • Knowledge of disclosures. The right to learn whether records have been disclosed.

These rights turn a passive subject of records into someone who can inspect and fix them.

Disclosure limits and breaches

The Act also constrains the government’s conduct, which is where many “violations” arise:

  • Disclosure restriction. A record from a system of records generally may not be disclosed without the individual’s written consent, except under specific statutory exceptions.
  • Breaches. A breach, the actual or possible loss of control or unauthorized access to or disclosure of PII, is taken seriously, and breaches are to be reported to the appropriate privacy office.

So an unauthorized disclosure, or a failure to safeguard PII, can implicate the Act’s protections.

A military attorney guides a client by identifying whether the Privacy Act applies, exercising the access and amendment rights where records are wrong, and assessing whether an unauthorized disclosure or breach occurred and what response the rules require.

Suppose a member finds an error in a government record about them: the Privacy Act gives them the right to request a correction, and bars disclosure of the record without consent except in defined situations.

The bottom line is that service members have enforceable privacy protections, not just expectations. The Privacy Act governs how the government handles their records, gives them rights to access and correct that information and to learn of disclosures, and restricts disclosure without consent, which together form the framework an attorney uses to address a data-privacy problem.

Frequently Asked Questions

What law protects a service member’s personal information held by the government?
The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a), implemented for the Defense Department by regulations such as the DoD Privacy Program, governs how federal agencies handle records about individuals.

Can I see and correct records the government keeps about me?
Generally yes. The Privacy Act gives individuals the right to review records about themselves and to request correction of inaccurate records, unless a record is legally exempt.

When can the government disclose my records?
Generally only with your written consent, except under specific statutory exceptions; unauthorized disclosure or a breach of PII can implicate the Act’s protections.

This article is general information about data privacy under the Privacy Act. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Application is fact-specific and the law can change. Specific concerns should be discussed with a qualified attorney or the relevant privacy office.

Sources

…

How does a military attorney help a client facing NJP (Article 15) proceedings?

When a service member is offered nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, the most important decision often comes before any hearing: whether to accept the NJP or turn it down. That single choice shapes everything, and helping a client make it wisely, then handling the proceeding, is the core of the attorney’s role.

The pivotal right: refuse and demand court-martial

In almost all cases, a service member has the right to refuse an Article 15 and instead demand trial by court-martial. The one major exception is a member attached to or embarked on a vessel, who generally cannot refuse.

This right is consequential because it changes the standard. At NJP, the commander decides the matter under a lower standard; by refusing, the member forces the government to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt in a court-martial. That is a genuine strategic fork: NJP usually means lower stakes and a quieter resolution, while a court-martial carries higher risk but also the full protections of a criminal trial. Weighing that tradeoff for the specific facts is exactly where an attorney’s counsel matters most.

The right to consult counsel

Before deciding, the member generally has the right to consult counsel, though the details vary by service. Air Force and Army members generally have a right to consult a defense lawyer (including a civilian attorney at their own expense) before deciding whether to accept or refuse, with limited exceptions such as summarized proceedings; Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard members may not have a formal right to consult but are often encouraged to. This consultation is the moment to get advice on the accept-or-refuse decision.

The proceeding and the appeal

If the member accepts NJP, the proceeding itself carries real rights, though it is non-judicial:

  • The right to present evidence and call witnesses in defense.
  • Note that because NJP is non-judicial, there is generally no right to have counsel present at the proceeding itself, even though the member could consult counsel beforehand.
  • The right to appeal an Article 15 up the chain of command if the member believes the punishment was unfair or disproportionate.

Picture a member offered nonjudicial punishment on weak evidence: the attorney weighs whether to refuse it and demand a court-martial, which forces the government to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The key point is that Article 15 turns on a strategic choice. The member can usually refuse and demand a court-martial with its higher standard of proof, the right to consult counsel exists to inform that choice, and if NJP proceeds, the member can present a defense and appeal, which is the framework an attorney uses to protect the client.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a service member refuse an Article 15?
In almost all cases yes, by demanding trial by court-martial instead; the major exception is a member attached to or embarked on a vessel. Refusing forces the government to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Is there a right to a lawyer at an Article 15?
There is generally a right to consult counsel before deciding whether to accept or refuse (details vary by service), but because NJP is non-judicial, there is usually no right to have counsel present at the proceeding itself.

Can NJP be appealed?
Yes. A service member who believes an Article 15 punishment was unfair or disproportionate may appeal it up the chain of command.

This article is general information about nonjudicial punishment. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Procedures vary by service and can change. A service member offered an Article 15 should consult a military defense attorney before deciding.

Sources

…

How does a military attorney build a defense against desertion charges?

A desertion defense almost always comes down to a single word: intent. Desertion is one of the most serious absence offenses, but it is separated from a far lesser one, absence without leave, by the accused’s state of mind. Building the defense means attacking the specific intent the government must prove, because without it, desertion is not made out.

Desertion versus AWOL: the intent line

The distinction is the foundation. Article 85 (desertion) is a specific-intent offense: the government must prove not only an unauthorized absence but a particular mental state, that the accused intended to remain away permanently, or left to avoid hazardous duty, or to shirk important service. By contrast, Article 86 (absence without leave) is a general-intent offense, requiring only the unauthorized absence, with no permanent-intent requirement.

That difference is everything, because it means an absence, even a long one, is not desertion unless the required intent is also proven. The same facts that establish AWOL fall short of desertion absent that mental state.

Attacking the specific intent

Since intent is the dividing line, it is the center of the defense. The work is to show the government cannot prove the required mental state:

  • Intent to return. Evidence that the member meant to come back, contact with the unit, preparations to return, statements, undercuts intent to remain away permanently.
  • Circumstances beyond control. If the member could not return due to factors outside their control, the inference of intent weakens.
  • Mental health or crisis. A medical emergency, a family crisis, or a mental-health condition can negate or undermine the claim of criminal intent.

Where these succeed, the natural result is not acquittal of all wrongdoing but a reduction to AWOL under Article 86, a markedly less serious offense.

The strategic goal

So the defense’s realistic aim is often to defeat the intent element and move the case from desertion to AWOL. Because desertion is a specific-intent crime, if the government cannot prove the accused’s absence was accompanied by the intent to remain away or avoid service, the desertion charge fails.

Suppose a member left for three weeks during a family crisis but always meant to return: the attorney uses that intent to defeat desertion, leaving at most the lesser offense of unauthorized absence.

The throughline is that desertion is defended on intent. The offense requires a specific intent to remain away permanently or to avoid duty that ordinary AWOL does not, so a defense built on negating that intent can defeat the desertion charge and, at most, leave the lesser AWOL offense.

Frequently Asked Questions

What separates desertion from AWOL?
Intent. Desertion under Article 85 requires specific intent to remain away permanently, avoid hazardous duty, or shirk important service, while AWOL under Article 86 requires only an unauthorized absence.

How is a desertion charge defended?
By attacking the specific-intent element, using evidence of an intent to return, circumstances beyond the member’s control, or mental-health factors to show the government cannot prove the required intent.

What happens if the intent element fails?
The desertion charge fails, and the case is typically reduced to the lesser offense of absence without leave under Article 86.

This article is general information about desertion charges. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Application is fact-specific and the law can change. Anyone facing such charges should consult qualified defense counsel.

Sources

…
Page 21 of 48
1 … 19 20 21 22 23 … 48