owens-and-kurz-llc

Privacy and your Cell Phone - United States v. Secord

Wed, 27 May 2026 15:19:38 GMT

On the small chance that a Military Justice nerd like me stumbles onto our humble blog, enjoy this Defense critique of the July 2025 CAAF opinion in United States v. Secord.

Rule for Court Martial 701(e)

(e) Access to witnesses and evidence. Each party shall have an adequate opportunity to prepare its case and equal opportunity to interview witnesses and inspect evidence, subject to the limitations in paragraph (e)(1) of this rule. No party may unreasonably impede the access of another party to a witness or evidence.

Facts

Army Staff Sergeant Alex Secord was convicted at court-martial for various offenses related to cocaine use involving junior enlisted soldiers. As part of the investigation, as is common in drug cases, the Central Investigation Command (CIC) seized SSG Secord’s cell phone pursuant to a search authorization from a Military Magistrate.

I must note that CIC is not a Division (nor even a television show), and that referring to themselves as CID is misleading.

Regardless, for unknown reasons (the best guess is that CIC—no, I will not call them CID—sorry) lacked the technology to unlock this latest iPhone. CIC was unable to access the phone at all to conduct any forensic analysis.

The Government then refused to grant the Defense team access to SSG Secord’s cell phone in a confidential setting. In response, Defense counsel filed a motion to allow the Defense team and a digital forensic expert to examine the phone while it was in CIC custody. The motion was grounded in equal access to evidence: because the Government had seized the phone as evidence, it could not prevent the Defense from inspecting it. The motion argued that exculpatory evidence might be on the phone, although did not specify or profer specifics of what that evidence could be. It also implied that the client would provide his passcode to his attorney, allowing the Defense expert to unlock the device and conduct a thorough examination or data extraction if needed. The Defense, rightly, never agreed to provide the Government with the passcode.

Trial Court Ruling

The Military Judge ruled that under Rule for Courts Martial 701(e), both parties should have equal access to evidence and ordered joint, simultaneous access to the cell phone, with both experts present. To access the phone, the Defense would be required to provide the Government with the passcode, and both parties would have to conduct their review of the phone in each other's presence. Failure to provide the passcode would result in the Defense being denied access. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) noted in the opinion:

However, the military judge also held that if Appellant declined to provide his PIN to permit mutual collection of his cell phone data by both the Government and the Defense, Appellant’s motion would be denied in its entirety. Appellant was given one week to make a decision, and ultimately decided not to provide his PIN.

Under the Military Judge’s plan, the Government might observe Defense counsel as they carry out their duties, and vice versa. (By the way, I have never seen lawyers openly perform attorney work-product privileged tasks in front of opposing counsel as it negates privilege.) The Military Judge’s plan would clearly require violation of the work-product privilege.

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

CAAF sided with the Government (though not the Military Judge). It held that it did not have to provide access to the Defense because, in a technical sense, the Government did not have “control” of the data, as it did not have access to it. Harkening back to the 90s Clinton-esque discussion of “it depends on what the definition of ‘is’” is, CAAF parsed RCM 701 with fine precision, finding that physical possession of the cell phone, without more (i.e., access to its contents), meant the Government did not have “possession, custody, or control” of the cell data.

Why this doesn’t work in Defense land under the Constitution

As a would-be grammarian, I fully understand the analysis of the disjunctive and the word “or.” RCM 701(e) is Defense-friendly in that if the Government has any one of the three attachments “possession, custody, or control” of a piece of evidence, it must allow the Defense access to that evidence. The Government does not need all three attachments for the discovery and disclosure requirements to be triggered.

However, nowhere in RCM 701(e) is there a knowledge-sharing requirement, nor is there any reference to joint or “in the presence of” equating to equal access to evidence. In supporting the lower court’s holding that the Government did not owe the Defense any disclosure or access to the Defendant’s phone, CAAF blows right past the last sentence of RCM 701(e), “No party may unreasonably impede the access of another party to a witness or evidence,” and straight past the Defendant’s 5th Amendment right to silence when it conditioned access to the Defendant’s own phone on the Defendant providing the Government the passcode.

The Government physically possessed the phone, which, in legal, philosophical, moral, and physical terms, is equivalent to having custody of the data. Since the Government’s physical control of the phone inherently prevented the Defense from accessing the data—which is problematic if the Defense needs it to find exculpatory evidence—there is an issue. CIC has a legal duty to keep its evidence room open to Defense counsel, and when it does, both sides have had equal access to the data.

It is important to distinguish access from intelligence. Having more knowledge or being more skilled—such as the Defense possessing the knowledge of how to access the phone data—does not mean the Government lacked legal access. The Government lacked the smarts to extract the data in its current form, and this is neither the Defense’s fault nor its concern.

More importantly, CAAF’s majority refused to address the real error, considering the case only under discovery rules. CAAF failed to address the trial court’s error in ordering SSG Secord to provide access to his phone so the Defense could obtain what it believed to be exculpatory evidence.

In doing so, CAAF buries its head and fails to address the issue that would expose the true inequities in what CIC does every day. In a case I tried several years ago, a military unit kept a client’s phone locked in the supply cage for months while he was in pre-trial confinement. He was allowed unfettered access to his own phone when he was brought back to the unit during his Article 32 hearing. Several weeks later, we asked the unit to ship the phone to counsel (with the client’s permission) to retrieve exculpatory text messages. Instead, trial counsel sent CIC in to seize the phone, specifically to prevent the Defense from accessing it - they even stated that was there intended purpose. Eventually, the charges were disposed of administratively, in part because of CIC’s blatantly unconstitutional seizure and motions that followed.

In Secord, by seizing the phone and preventing the Defense from accessing it, the Government is excluding the Defense from the evidence. The one criticism of the Defense in this case is that it should have placed a proffer on the record of the exculpatory evidence it believed it would find on the phone. The proffer could have been sealed and reviewed in camera - they did not even have to share it with the Government. I understand the rush of trial prevents even the best advocates from seeing 10 steps down the road into the appellate process, especially given that the motion was a discovery motion. Still, a rule of thumb is to make a proffer if you can and to litigate in trial with an eye for the appellate record. A proffer is not evidence, and the Government may not use it as such.

The Government does not have the right to demand and compel a Defendant to incriminate himself. Period. It is well-settled law that asking a Defendant to provide the passcode to a cell phone is covered by the 5th Amendment ( United States v. Painter, 2020 CCA LEXIS 474 at 35). Likewise, ordering counsel to conduct trial preparation in full view of opposing counsel is unconstitutional.

Cell phones are unique, and the law needs to evolve with them. The Supreme Court recognized this in Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018), when it protected individuals’ privacy in their cell phone location data. If the Government cannot compel a passcode from a service member, it should not be allowed to block access to the cell phone when the Defendant rightly declines to provide it.

Conclusion

CAAFs’ holding puts the Government and Defense in a game of Russian roulette: turn over the passcode without knowing whether equal access will give the client the exculpatory evidence they need or strengthen the Government’s case by providing access to inculpatory data. Once the phone is unlocked, Pandora’s Box is opened, and everything comes out. This gamble is both unfair and unconstitutional. I hope that Secord pushes the case forward for review by the Supremes, who, ironically, appear to be more tech-savvy than the CAAF.

DUI - Whatch Gonna Do When They Come for You? (cue music)

Fri, 17 Apr 2026 13:49:52 GMT

Driving Under the Influence - the Music has Stopped and the Fun is Over. What to Do?

I tell this to people all the time - when in doubt, leave your car and just take an Uber home. The $25 - $30 you spend on a ride is minuscule compared to the sheer pain and thousands you will spend on lawyers, court costs associated with a driving under the influence charge.

But, if you find yourself charged with DUI, here is a broad outline of what to expect.

You can be charged by civilian or state authorities and the military as well. In fact, you should expect both civilian and military consequences.

The state will charge you with an alcohol related offense. Your driver's license will likely be suspended for a period of time and you will not be allowed to drive.

The best thing you can do the day after you are arrested for an alcohol related offense is start counseling. Sounds touchy-feely, but it is a proven mitigation benefit in a case. Military One Source has confidential options, Tricare will cover most counseling, and there are resources through Behavioral Health (although private providers are best).

Self-refer to SUDCC (formerly ASAP) or whatever military alcohol program is available on post. The benefits of a self-referral is it keeps the command out of your treatment program, as opposed to command referrals, which give the command access to some of your records. AA or Smart Recovery are excellent programs, find a group you are comfortable with and stick with it. Sobriety is the best evidence in your case.

Get a local civilian lawyer to assist you with the local case. Make sure you find one who practices regularly in the county the incident occurred.

Get a lawyer for the separate military disciplinary process. Nearly all commands have policies that require initiation of separation and reprimands for alcohol related incidents, along with suspension of on-post driving privileges.

The biggest secret of the criminal justice process for DUI charges is individuals are rarely convicted of the actual offense of Driving Under the Influence or Driving While Intoxicated. A good lawyer can get the charge reduced or get you through alternate disposition.

The best thing you can do is get ahead of the issue with counseling and consulting an attorney - hoping it will go away is not the best course of action.

Call the Owens Law Firm for a free consult. In the Howard County/Baltimore area, Attorney Joe Owens can help you with your military and civilian case.

Security Clearance Suspensions - Just the Beginning of the Journey

Wed, 29 Oct 2025 23:05:15 GMT

Security Clearance Suspensions and your Statement of Reasons

The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.

Military Adverse Flags - No Longer a Dead Stop

Thu, 16 Oct 2025 14:35:23 GMT

A change in policy for military investigation flags

Historically, flags have been symbols meant to catch the eye. The word "flag" is literally mid-evil, possibly derived from the Middle English word "flakken" or to flap or flutter.

The military took it further.....

In the military flags (Army), codes (Navy) and an unfavorable information file and control rosters (Air Force) impose a blanket stop on any favorable action for a service member under investigation.

In the Army, if you are flagged for investigation of any sort, you cannot even go on leave - even for the birth of your own child - as leave is considered a favorable action. Soldiers and defense counsel have long railed against the unfairness of this blanket policy as the military has a way of dragging out UCMJ much longer than is just.

It was with interest that Owens Law learned that the Army had issued a new policy in September 2025 outlining a more lenient policy toward soldiers with an L code (law enforcement investigation) and an M code (misconduct allegation) for minor accusations. ALARACT 096/2025 states commanders may now waive restrictions and grant favorable actions to flagged soldiers.

The new policy makes common sense. If you are under investigation for a minor incident, you can still go to school, take leave, get an award or PCS. As a Defense Counsel, we see it all the time, a client is flagged, the investigation drags on and the client doesn’t get the chance to perform, get good ratings, take a new assignment or go on leave despite not having many duties.

Now, the command can waive the restriction on favorable actions, and, it seems, your counsel can request it on your behalf as well. Refreshingly good policy, we are interested to see how it plays out in practice.

** IRL ** An enlisted client had been flagged for an Article 15 for a petty and ultimately false allegation, which she eventually turned down (and rightly so). However, the flag remained in place for nearly a year while the Army decided to try to take her to court-martial. She was fully acquitted, but in that year, was taken off the promotion list and missed her scheduled PCS. If this policy had been in effect then, her proceedings could have been more just.

Search and Seizure - Beware the "Cut and Paste."

Wed, 01 Oct 2025 14:37:03 GMT

Search and Seizure Authorizations - Military Investigators and Evidence

I have written about this before, and in all likelihood, there will continue to be good material to write about as long as human beings keep trying to invent newer and more advanced technology.

It is not often that the Courts take a firm and proper limiting stand on the power of police investigators (including UCMJ military investigators like CID, NCIS, OSI) but one very recent case from the State of Oregon has floated to the surface and, as I read it, is a firm stand against sloppy cut and paste investigator work on search warrants.

The specifics of the case are not important, other than it was an allegation of assault involving two specific named victims, and it suffices to say that police were able to get a search warrant signed for a defendant's "mobile device, computer, laptop and accessories" to see if they contained evidence of a crimes against children, as in all children, everywhere.

As someone who has seen a lot of search authorizations, I know that military investigators and other drafters suffer from 1) a lack of original thought 2) a propensity to cut and paste.

It was the propensity to cut and paste that got investigators in trouble in Oregon. Instead of tailoring the search authorization to seize items that the investigator actually had probable cause to seize regarding two specific victims, investigators cut and pasted in language from other search warrants resulting in an overly broad document. They then seized all his electronic and started looking through them for evidence of crimes that there was no suspicion (aka no probable cause) that he had committed. Most troubling, investigators seized a paper sketchbook containing notes and journal like entries from the defendant. As an attorney, I may lack computer saavy, but I know the difference between a paper sketchbook and a MacBook, and the search warrant did not authorize the seizure of the sketchbook, yet into the evidence bag it went.

As an aside, since this was state court, the search warrant was signed by a Magistrate. A Magistrate is a county official, similar to a Judge, but with a more limited scope of duties, including probable cause reviews for arrests, search authorizations and bond determinations. They see hundreds of search authorizations, unlike military magistrates, who may sign two to three search and seizure authorizations over the course of a two year assignment. The Magistrate should have known better and pushed back on law enforcement to narrow the scope.

You do not have to consent to a search, and your refusal to consent cannot be held against you. If you are handed a search warrant by law enforcement, be sure to take the copy, take a picture of it, or at the very least, remember what law enforcement agency is executing the search and tell your attorney. Searches are always ripe for challenge by defense counsel. This is your military lawyer and defense counsel's job, but you need to be engaged in your defense as well.

Accusations of Domestic Violence

Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:24:54 GMT

Accusations of Domestic Violence - "She Said" Should Not be a Game of "Whack-a-Mole"

Domestic Violence is the most frequent allegation against military service members, per the December 2024 Report of the Military Justice Panel. The Panel also recognized the complexity of domestic violence cases, and the almost shocking lack of coordination amongst all of the entities required to be involved.

An allegation of domestic violence is easily made, usually in the context of relationship disagreement, tension, marital stress and divorce. Once the allegation is made to the command, it is difficult, if not near impossible to walk back. If one allegation is set aside by the command, more than likely, another will be made.

My personal observation having practiced extensively in civilian courts and military courts is that domestic violence actually occurs more frequently in the civilian sector than in any branch of the Armed Forces, despite how the military makes it seem. However, what the military has, that civilians lack, is an extensive network for accusers of financial support and resources that surround them as soon as they launch the allegation, giving them financial incentive to go through with the allegation, regardless of the level of truth.

A domestic violence allegation has many consequences, from a Military Protective Order, a flag or negative code on your record, civilian and/or military charges. An attorney will be assigned to assist the accuser spouse/intimate partner almost immediately, even before you are approached about the allegation.

If you remember only one thing from this blog, remember that CID/OSI/MPI/NCIS are not your friend, even if they act like they are on your side, say that they just want to hear your version of what happened, they will make a favorable recommendation to the chain of command, or that they are impartial fact finders. They are not. Everyone has Constitutional rights, never be afraid to use them.

It may be a long haul, or a game of whack-a-mole, but you will get through the process and civilian counsel can help you from day one.

** IRL **

A soldier separated from his spouse when their marriage became untenable. She began making allegations to his commander that the soldier assaulted her, assaulted their daughter, did drugs, had an affair - everything she could think of to get him in trouble. She said the events happened but had no other proof other than she said they did. Coincidentally, the soldier was in a separate country when a significant amount of the events happened, and a good chunk of the evidence was just a memorandum that the commander had written. The client had all allegations set aside when he appealed his Article 15 through our counsel. But a year later, the spouse came back with another set of allegations, again, set aside by the Investigating Officer after the client responded through counsel.

There is No Such Thing as an Automatic Upgrade of your Military Discharge

Fri, 05 Sep 2025 21:30:00 GMT

Staying proactive is the only way to maximize your chances of a discharge upgrade

Everyone makes mistakes. It could be that you regret eating that extra donut for breakfast, or more profoundly, you made mistakes during your military service that will follow you for the rest of your life because you have a General Discharge or an Under Other than Honorable Conditions Discharge.

You may have been told as you were being administratively separated from the military that you "can apply for an automatic upgrade of your discharge in a year." Automatic upgrades by the Board of Corrections for Military Records is a myth that have been circulating for decades. Attorney Joe Owens remembers those statements when he was a junior enlisted Infantry Soldier in the Army and he remembers fighting them as an Officer and a Judge Advocate in the Army.

The Boards of Correction for Military Records are formal and legal boards of review. They do no independent investigation, and they have to comb through literally thousands of petitions every year. They look for reasons to deny relief.

The best way to persuade a Corrections Board is to present it with a proper legal brief with exhibits, regulatory citations and legal argument from an attorney. A military lawyer's brief to the Board of Corrections gives them all the reasons, citations and regulatory authorities in the packet to grant you the relief you need. In other words, it takes the Board by the hand and leads them to the conclusion.

** IRL ** We wish we could have made this case up. A Marine was falsely accused by his ex-wife of assault and she pressed charges in civilian court. His case was dismissed by the prosecutor and fully expunged from his record. Two months before his retirement, the Marine Corps removed his approved retirement and retirement date from the personnel system and gave him less than 24 hours of an administrative separation hearing based on her accusations. Despite being represented by a Marine Defense Attorney (who did not show up to the hearing) and in full violation of his Due Process rights, he had to go before the board, which separated him from the Marine Corps, effective the next business day. After a full legal brief to the Navy Marine Board of Corrections for Military Records citing all the provision of the Marine Corps Instruction that were violated, exhibits, and affidavits obtained by the Owens Law Firm from his senior commanders in support of his petition, the Marine was granted full retirement, back pay and allowances and retired medical benefits.

An Experienced Military Lawyer Knows the Military Rules of Evidence

Thu, 04 Sep 2025 21:11:22 GMT

How can the recent changes to the Military Rules of Evidence affect your case?

When I was a young military lawyer just starting out in the Army JAG Corps, I tried reading the Military Rules of Evidence front to back. Needless to say, I didn't learn anything that way, nor did I retain anything useful.

It takes years of practice, research and being in court before a military lawyer has a sufficient familiarity with the Military Rules of Evidence to be an effective trial lawyer. The rules continue to evolve as well, so keeping up with changes and understanding why the rules changed and how they may benefit a client is crucial.

A recent but subtle change to the Military Rules of Evidence, also referred to as the MREs, involves character evidence. Years ago, under Military Rule of Evidence 404(b) it used to be that a prosecutor could bring up all sorts of bad facts or bad character statements about the service member client, ask the question in front of the jury and then if there was an objection, state the justification to the Judge. But... the question had already been asked in front of the jury... planting the seed of doubt that the service member was of questionable moral character.

Now, the prosecution has to give written notice of any prior bad conduct by the military service member that it wants to use in open court well in advance of trial. The prosecution is required by the rules to say what conduct it thinks it may use, and just as importantly, it has to say why it wants to use it, and how it complies with the Military Rules of Evidence. Your military lawyer should, indeed they must, challenge this evidence in court before the start of your trial and keep the prosecution within the bounds of the Rules of Evidence.

Why is this important? It is important because the law affords you, as the servicemember, protections and it takes an experienced military defense lawyer to stand up the military officers who as prosecutors and tell the Judge why they are wrong. A military trial is not supposed to be a smear campaign against you, and a civilian lawyer, someone who is outside the system, has both the experience and knowledge to lead the Judge through the correct arguments.

** IRL ** - Knowing the evolution of the rules of evidence and how they work in practice isn't just a nice theory, it can make or break a case for an Accused. In a recent Army Court Martial, the prosecutor filed a motion to admit alleged bad conduct by the service member client. Not only did the Judge find that the conduct was completely irrelevant to the charges and it was kept out of court, but the Judge noted that the prosecution lacked the ability to prove that it had even occurred in the first place. This meant that the prosecution could not simply call witnesses to say demeaning things about the client in order to leave a bad impression about the client's leadership with the jury. This ruling threw the prosectors for a loop, they had to revise their case at the last minute, and the client was found not guilty of all charges.

Sexual Assault Trials are formally removed from the U.S. military chain of command to independent authorities.

Tue, 06 Feb 2024 04:04:37 GMT

For years and today, service members can file two distinct types of reports involving sexual assault: unrestricted or restricted. If they file an unrestricted report of sexual assault, they may decide to take part in a criminal investigation and then support actions taken to hold the alleged perpetrator accountable. If they file restricted reports confidentially and without triggering an investigation, they will still be able to reach out for any medical, legal, or advocacy services they may need. They may also have the option of submitting their information to the Catch a Serial Offender Program.

But what happens next is entirely new! Sexual assault cases in the U.S. military are no longer being tried under the authority of the service member's chain of command. A new system that places independent lawyers in charge of these prosecutions took effect in January 2024, marking a significant change to the way the Department of Defense tries those accused of an offense.

The new office, called the Offices of Special Trial Counsel, is responsible for new cases where formal complaints are substantiated. In addition to sexual assault and misconduct cases, the office will also be responsible for cases that involve murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, domestic violence, and child pornography.

The change aims to ensure decisions are not influenced by the inherent conflicts of interest and political pressures faced by commanders tasked with prosecuting members of their unit. Of course, by making these changes, the Department of Defense has created a system that favors bringing service members to trial. The change also establishes that prosecutorial decisions made by the special trial counsel are binding and are entirely independent of the military chain of command. Of course, this so-called ‘independence’ favors an alleged victim and disfavors a holistic view to justice.

The changes were prompted by the findings of the Independent Review Commission on Sexual Assault in the Military, which was created in early 2021 at the direction of the Secretary of Defense. The White House signed an executive order resulting in changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which became effective on December 27, 2023. It is notable that many of the changes were politically motivated and favored by politicians with little to no military experience.

Each service will have sexual assault response coordinators available to help when reaching out to attorneys and any other persons or agencies that could aid.

Call Joe Owens and Margaret Kurz at 888-570-4612 to discuss how these changes affect you.

How Long Does a Court-Martial Take Anyway?

Thu, 18 Jan 2024 04:10:26 GMT

It is hard to pinpoint exactly how long a court-martial will take. Still, an experienced military lawyer can give you a good approximation of how long your court-martial will take based on several factors.

First is the type:

A Summary Court-Martial is the lowest level of court-martial and generally lasts a single day.

Next, in a Special or General Court-Martial. In this type of Courts Martial, charges are preferred using a charge sheet, which gives the accused notice of the specific allegations for which they are being prosecuted.

A Special Court-Martial is typically used for misdemeanor-level charges. Generally, Special Courts-Martial last anywhere from 3-6 months from the date of preferral all the way through the end of the trial. If a panel or court finds the accused guilty, they can receive no more than one year of confinement time.

The Special Court-Martial has two subsets. One is the ‘straight’ special, which is tried before a Judge. The ‘so-called’ normal Special Court-martial allows for a judge and a bad conduct discharge (“BCD”) characterization.

There are times that either Special Courts-Martial works to the advantage of the accused and times when it serves as a deterrent. It is hard to imagine a scenario when a service member could be facing either or not needing the assistance of an experienced counsel. At Owens & Kurz, we usually see a Special Courts Martial when the offenses involve drug use.

Finally, a General Court-Martial is usually convened with the preferral of felony-level charges. It can take three months to over a year from the date the charges are alleged until the end of the trial. These are more serious offenses where the maximum punishment can be death, and many charges can result in life in confinement, such as murder, rape, sexual assault, assault, battery, or domestic violence allegations.

General Courts-Martial take longer for a multitude of reasons. One is the General Courts-Martial, which requires a Preliminary Hearing to determine whether probable cause exists before sending charges forward to trial. The Preliminary Hearing, if handled correctly, serves as an additional layer of protection against an unjust case proceeding to trial.

Another reason for the longer timeline for General Courts-Martials is that counsel will likely have requested the appointment of expert witnesses and consultants.

Additionally, if the case involves the analysis of DNA or other forensic evidence, then the investigation can take even longer. This is because when forensic evidence is submitted to the USACIL Crime Lab, the evidence falls into a queue with all other evidence from cases all over the country and even from overseas installations. The waiting list of evidence alone can result in the delay of a case.

If you are facing charges – call Joseph Owens, and if you are terrified, call Margaret Kurz to discuss your options.

Phone: 888-570-4612

Discharged and Denied

Mon, 21 Feb 2022 03:40:58 GMT

Were you discharged and denied an upgrade from the Navy and Marine Corps between October 7, 2001, and March 1, 2012? If so, there is a new settlement in place that allows you to reapply to change your status.

Call Owens and Kurz at (888) 570-4612 , and let us help you!

On February 15th, 2022, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Haight approved a settlement in a class-action suit known as Manker v. Del Toro. This suit alleged that the Navy and Marine Corps wrongly discharged members for behavior that may have been related to trauma or an injury they endured while serving.

The Navy will now be required to review and reconsider all discharge upgrade requests made from March 2, 2012, to Feb. 15, 2022, that were partially or fully denied. Service members will not need to request a case as the review of these cases will be automatic.

If you were discharged and denied an upgrade from Oct. 7, 2001, through March 1, 2012, the settlement also gives you the opportunity to reapply for a change in your status with the Naval Discharge Review Board.

Recent changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice = Important impacts on Court Martial Procedures

Mon, 07 Feb 2022 03:51:55 GMT

On January 26, 2022, President Biden signed an Executive Order to amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is key to advancing the reform he signed into law through the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 included these important changes for Military Law:

Requires the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard to appoint special victim prosecutors.
Requires that a formal complaint alleging sexual harassment committed by a service member against another service member be investigated by an independent investigator.

The Executive Order President Biden signed establishes sexual harassment as a specific offense under the UCMJ. It also strengthens the military justice response in prosecuting cases of domestic violence, gender-based violence, and fully implements changes to the military justice code to criminalize the wrongful broadcast or distribution of intimate visual images.

This Executive Order reaffirms the law President Biden signed as part of the NDAA, which includes the historic shift of legal decisions from commanders to independent, specialized prosecutors in cases of sexual assault, domestic violence, and other serious crimes.

VA Adds Three New Presumptive Conditions Related to Agent Orange Exposure

Fri, 24 Sep 2021 13:40:13 GMT

Recently, Veterans Affairs (VA) added three new presumptive Agent Orange conditions . Presumptive conditions are those that VA assumes are related to qualifying military service.

The three additional presumptive conditions associated with Agent Orange and other herbicide exposure during the Vietnam War are:

Bladder cancer
Hypothyroidism
Parkinsonism

Vietnam Veterans with these or other previously identified presumptive diseases (or the Veteran’s survivors) may qualify for disability benefits through VA.

VA is automatically reviewing cases where a Veteran’s or their survivor’s claim was denied for any of the above conditions. The Department will send letters to those affected.

If you or a loved one is suffering from any of the Agent Orange presumptions, reach out to Owens & Kurz for help with the claims process. Our team has over 40 years of combined experience and is committed to assisting the brave men and women who risked their lives to protect our nation.

Schedule a free initial consultation by calling us at (888) 570-4612 or contacting us online today.