Military criminal defense case results

Attorney Robert Canoy represented a Marine Corps Lance Corporal who was the subject of an NCIS Investigation for Sexual Assault. Through early engagement with the prosecuting authorities Mr. Canoy successful achieved a deferral (non-prosecution) of all accusations. After the investigation was completed and closed, Mr. Canoy successfully petitioned for multiple expungements, all of which were granted. As a result, our client’s DNA, fingerprints, and biographical information were removed and expunged from all law enforcement databases. This will leave the client’s record perfectly clean for future background checks.

Attorney Robert Canoy represented a Navy E-6 who was the subject of an NCIS Investigation for Sexual Assault. Mr. Canoy was able to successfully convince the Navy prosecutors not to move forward with court-martial charges, but the Command determined that they would still impose Non-Judicial Punishment. Ultimately, Mr. Canoy was able to get the Non-Judicial Punishment charges dismissed, as well. After all matters were finalized, Mr. Canoy successfully petitioned for multiple expungements, all of which were granted, and client’s DNA, fingerprints, and biographical information were removed and expunged from all law enforcement databases. This will leave the client’s record perfectly clean for future background checks.

Attorney Robert Canoy represented a Navy O-3 who was the subject of an NCIS Investigation for Sexual Assault. After obtaining a non-prosecution, the officer still faced the administrative withholding of his promotion and adverse information in his background and official military record. After lengthy delays and multiple submissions to Navy Personnel Command, Mr. Canoy was ultimately able to get the officer his earned promotion to O-4 with retroactive date of rank. Mr. Canoy also successfully petitioned for multiple expungements, all of which were granted, and client’s DNA, fingerprints, and biographical information were removed and expunged from all law enforcement databases. This will leave the client’s record perfectly clean for future background checks.

Attorney Robert Canoy represented a Navy E-5 who was a member of the Naval Special Warfare (NSW) Community and who fell victim to the NSW’s new expanded drug testing protocols for performance enhancing drugs. The NSW expanded drug testing program began in late 2023 and within the NSW community only, it currently includes random testing for substances prohibited for use by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the same entity who provides the oversight for international sports competitions. The problem with the WADA banned substance list and the new NSW program is that military members are testing positive for “prohibited” substances which are found in supplements sold on base at the Navy Exchange! This particular E-5 had not bought the supplement at the Exchange, but the supplement that he ingested was not a controlled or illegal substance, and the E-5 was not aware that it contained any ingredients prohibited by the WADA. After thorough negotiation, written submissions, correspondence, and in-person meetings, Mr. Canoy was able to convince the E-5’s commanding officer to make a finding of no drug incident. This avoided the requirement for the E-5 to face the administrative separation process and resulted in his retention in the Navy with the removal of all adverse documentation from his service record.

A Navy E-6 Intelligence Specialist tested positive for THC-8 and THC-9. Shortly after being notified of the urinalysis test result, the E-6 retained Mr. Canoy who represented the E-6 from the initial command investigation through a contested administrative separation board many months later. In accordance with policy, the E-6’s command followed the “mandatory processing” Navy regulation which requires the command to initiate the administrative separation process. At the Board, based upon several missteps and failures to follow Navy regulations, Mr. Canoy achieved a verdict in which the senior board member submitted a documented “special finding” that the E-6 should not be separated because, amongst other reasons, the command failed to comply with procedural service regulations. Mr. Canoy convinced the Board that strict compliance with the procedures and regulations surrounding the urinalysis was required because it directly affected the reliability of the results. Mr. Canoy also presented compelling evidence through multiple witnesses that our client had a unique skill set and military accomplishments which were achieved while working as a supporting member of Naval Special Warfare (Navy SEALs) combat deployments. The Board verdict was a unanimous decision to retain the E-6.

A U.S. Navy Petty Officer Second Class (E-5) was charged with larceny, wrongful appropriation and wrongful disposition of government property. The Petty Officer retained Mr. Canoy shortly after he became aware that he was under NCIS investigation. After Mr. Canoy thoroughly reviewed the investigation, it was apparent that NCIS made critical mistakes and failed to follow crucial investigative leads. By essentially privately completing the NCIS investigation, Mr. Canoy discovered a critical missing witness whose existence and role was known by NCIS, but NCIS made nearly no efforts to identify, locate, or interview the witness. Mr. Canoy secured his participation in the hearing and his testimony completed vindicated our client. The Board returned a unanimous 3-0 verdict that our client did not commit any violations of the UCMJ. As a result, our client will remain in the Navy with his service record cleansed of any reference to any wrongdoing.

Mr. Canoy represented a Navy E-5 Hospital Corpsman who tested positive for synthetic cannabinoids with no idea how the substance got into his system. After background investigation into potential exposures based upon Mr. Canoy’s experience in this field, the suspected culprit was pinpointed to a specific electronic cigarette (Vape Device). Utilizing resources only available to attorneys, Mr. Canoy contracted with a specialized private laboratory to conduct testing of the device in the client’s defense. Despite the Vape company’s advertisement and market that their product contained no THC, the private laboratory confirmed that the product contained synthetic cannabinoids—exactly the chemical compound for which the E-5 had tested positive. The Navy nonetheless proceeded to zealously prosecute the E-5, with the Command’s JAG arguing to the Board that the E-5 committed misconduct and should be separated. Mr. Canoy’s strategic case presentation involved tactically waiting until a critical portion in the hearing to uncover the most compelling evidence. After the Board considered all the evidence, including the testimony of expert witnesses, the Board reach a 3-0 verdict that the E-5 did not commit any violations of the UCMJ of Navy regulations. Our client will remain in the Navy.

Attorney Robert Canoy represented a Navy E-6 beginning with an NCIS investigation. After Mr. Canoy achieved a deferral of prosecution due to insufficient evidence, the allegations grew from one alleged victim to four. The command ultimately referred the case for a contested hearing at an administrative separation board at which our client faced four charges of sexual assault and several additional charges of sexual harassment encompassing four junior sailors who made accusations against him over the course of about 12 months. During the hearing, Mr. Canoy brilliantly established the primary complaining witness’s motive to fabricate, and located evidence indicating collusion between the complainants. Mr. Canoy also discredited the entire NCIS investigation, revealing gaping holes and investigatory missteps. The board returned a unanimous 3-0 verdict of no misconduct/no violations of the UCMJ. Our client will remain in the Navy.

Attorney Robert Canoy represented a Navy Lieutenant (O-3) with 18 years of service at an Officer Board of Inquiry. Our client faced allegations of fraternization with a subordinate junior sailor. Because the accusations took place while our client was attached to a ship, our client could not decline Non-Judicial Punishment (Captain’s Mast). Before we were retained, our client faced an at sea Captain’s Mast and was found guilty of fraternization by the ship’s commanding officer. Attorney Canoy was retained to file an appeal of the Captain’s Mast result, and the appeal was denied by the appeal authority. Mr. Canoy helped the client conduct a relentless review of available ship’s records for the days of the suspected fraternization. Through exhaustive investigation and preparation, Mr. Canoy was able to prove to the Board that our client was innocent of the alleged fraternization, and he was actually being framed by another sailor. After a contested hearing, the Board returned a unanimous 3-0 verdict that the evidence did not support the allegations.

Attorney Robert Canoy represented a Navy E-7 who faced charges of false official statements and unauthorized foreign travel. Through an excellent presentation which placed the occurrences in context, Mr. Canoy was able to demonstrate that the severity of the offenses were minimal, and the situation was encompassed by mitigating circumstances. Ultimately the Board retained the Chief Petty Officer and he will be able to make it to retirement and receive his military pension. This outcome preserved a multi-million dollar military retirement plan for this Chief Petty Officer.

Attorney Robert Canoy represented a Navy Petty-Officer Second Class charged with solicitation of a minor in state court in Virginia. In the face of compelling evidence, Mr. Canoy was able to secure the client a favorable guaranteed resolution which avoided mandatory lifetime sex offender registration. At trial, the prosecution and Mr. Canoy litigated a contested sentencing hearing. The prosecution argued for our client to receive multiple years in prison for the offense. Despite the prosecution’s argument and evidence, Mr. Canoy’s impactful and persuasive presentation convinced the Court to adjudge a sentence with no active jail time. Due to Mr. Canoy’s advocacy, our client remains a free man.

Attorney Robert Canoy represented a junior Navy sailor who was charged with possession of child pornography. Through effective advocacy and knowledge of the law and tactics in these types of cases Mr. Canoy was able to achieve a near impossible result: despite overwhelming evidence of guilt our client’s case was resolved with no felony conviction, no sex offender registration, and no jail time.

Attorney Robert Canoy represented a Navy Petty Officer charged with multiple offenses of larceny, fraud, obstruction of justice, and false official statements. By identifying key legal issues missed by the Government, Mr. Canoy filed a compelling suppression motion in which he convinced the military judge that our client’s rights had been violated. The military judge agreed with Mr. Canoy’s analysis of the law and facts and entered an order suppressing the key evidence in the case, leaving the Government no choice but dismissal of the charges.

Attorney Robert Canoy represented a junior Navy sailor facing general court-martial for possession of child pornography. Although the sailor had already entered into a plea agreement with his military attorney, the sailor hired Mr. Canoy to take over the case because something just did not feel right to the junior sailor about the outcome he was to receive. When Mr. Canoy reviewed the evidence he immediately identified several problematic evidentiary concerns. With those issues identified, Mr. Canoy was able to secure the dismissal of the most serious charge and overall reduced our client’s ultimate sentence by several years.

Attorney Robert Canoy represented a junior sailor charged with assaulting a law enforcement officer. Focusing on a unique factual shortcoming surrounding the intent requirement, Mr. Canoy was able to secure a dismissal of the felony charge at the preliminary hearing.

Attorney Robert Canoy represented a Navy E-7 facing 10 allegations of child sexual assault in Virginia State Court. Due to the severity of the accusations, despite having no criminal history, our client was denied bond. Attorney Robert Canoy first took on the task of litigating a contested bond hearing. Having gained some exculpatory evidence quickly, Mr. Canoy called multiple witnesses and presented video evidence before the Court essentially turning the initial bond hearing into a mini-trial. Based on the evidence Mr. Canoy was able to shift what would usually be no-bond case into an unsecured, personal recognizance bond. By the preliminary hearing, Mr. Canoy was able to secure a full dismissal of all charges against our client.

Attorney Robert Canoy represented a junior sailor charged with public intoxication. Through excellent cross-examination of the arresting police officer Mr. Canoy was able to show inconsistencies in the officer’s testimony and memory, resulting in a not guilty verdict.

Attorney Robert Canoy represented a junior sailor charged with domestic assault in the midst of a contentious divorce and child custody dispute. By revealing certain improper motives and exculpatory evidence, Mr. Canoy was able to convince the prosecutors to drop the charges without having to go to trial.

A Navy Surface Warfare Officer faced UCMJ allegations of fraternization and false official statements. Attorney Robert Canoy first persuaded Navy Personnel Command to grant an O-2 probationary officer a Board of Inquiry, despite long-standing policy that probationary officers are not entitled to a BOI. With a robust written submission package, supporting documentation, and full legal analysis, Navy Personnel Command agreed to convene a BOI. Attorney Canoy then presented a focused defense that undercut the misconduct allegations. The Board unanimously voted 3-0 to retain the officer. That binding decision allowed the officer to continue serving and proceed to immediate promotion to O-3.

An Air Force Officer faced felony charges of strangulation, abduction, and domestic assault arising from an incident involving their spouse during divorce proceedings. Charges were pursued despite a significant delay in reporting. Attorney Robert Canoy navigated multiple contested legal issues, including an uncooperative witness, a key witness invoking Fifth Amendment protections, efforts to introduce inadmissible hearsay, attempts to violate the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, and attempts to introduce injury photographs without proper evidentiary foundation. The Court sustained the Defense’s arguments and granted a Defense motion to dismiss the charges with prejudice.

An E-6 Army Staff Sergeant faced involuntary administrative separation, with the command recommending an Other Than Honorable (OTH) characterization of service. The government alleged wrongful cocaine use and attempted distribution of controlled substances. Attorney Robert Canoy represented the soldier against an unusually aggressive approach by two judge advocates, including attempts to misstate what the government was required to prove. This required immediate and assertive countermeasures. After presentation of defense evidence, it became clear the government’s theory was flawed. Despite continued argument for separation with an OTH, the board voted 3-0 to retain the soldier. That decision was binding under the circumstances of the case.

An E-6 Navy Petty Officer with 12 years of service faced involuntary administrative separation, with the command recommending an Other Than Honorable (OTH) discharge. The government alleged a violation of Article 112a, UCMJ, based on THC use. Attorney Robert Canoy conducted a precise cross-examination of government witnesses and exposed significant gaps in the government’s case. After defense evidence was presented, the government still argued that misconduct had been proven and requested separation with an OTH. Following closing argument, the Board returned a 3-0 finding that no UCMJ violation occurred. Because the result is binding, the sailor remained in the Navy.

Attorney Robert Canoy represented a Navy LCDR (O-4) with 19 years of service charged with conduct unbecoming an officer under Article 133, UCMJ. The allegation involved a social media post containing profane language and raised middle fingers. Because no specific UCMJ article directly criminalized the conduct, the government used a novel charging theory that raised serious constitutional concerns involving First Amendment protections and due process notice of criminality. Defense motions to dismiss were denied, and the case proceeded to trial. At trial, Mr. Canoy cross-examined government witnesses and used the military rules of evidence to exclude significant portions of the prosecution’s evidence. After closing arguments, the panel quickly deliberated and fully acquitted the client.

Attorney Robert Canoy represented a junior service member in Virginia Beach General District Court facing reckless driving (30 MPH+ over the speed limit), a Class 1 misdemeanor, and an additional citation for driving an unlicensed vehicle. Due to the speed, location, and the client’s prior record, jail time and a permanent criminal record were realistic risks. After extensive pre-trial preparation, the Court dismissed both charges in full, avoiding even a reduced traffic infraction.

A Navy sailor was convicted of voluntary manslaughter by local authorities for the shooting death of his best friend. After completing the state sentence, the Navy charged him with murder and obstruction of justice, and he retained our firm for representation at a General Court-Martial. The case involved firearms handling, alcohol, and a shooting that occurred when the decedent asked the client—who was playing a video game—to look at a pistol. While attempting to place the firearm into a safe mode with one hand, the weapon discharged and struck the decedent below the eye, resulting in immediate death. The client called 911 and, in panic, stated the decedent shot himself and placed the pistol in the decedent’s hand. The prosecution pursued a murder conviction. Unable to secure a pretrial agreement, the case went to trial. Without putting the client on the witness stand, we secured an acquittal on the murder charge and a conviction on the lesser offense of manslaughter.

Two Navy enlisted members were charged with the premeditated murder of another sailor. We represented the service member who initiated the physical altercation and who, according to the evidence, kicked the victim in the face multiple times, with the kicking determined to be directly linked to the death.

After extensive jury selection and trial, we persuaded the jury to acquit on the murder charge. The case outcome resulted in a reduction to aggravated assault and an 18-month brig sentence. The co-defendant, represented by separate counsel, was convicted of murder by a different jury and sentenced to fifty (50) years.

A Navy Third Class was charged with premeditated murder in the beating death of his wife in Bermuda. Following the Article 32 investigation, we negotiated a plea to voluntary manslaughter and proceeded to an enlisted jury for sentencing. The jury returned a sentence of 268 days of confinement, exactly matching the time already served in pretrial confinement.

A Navy E-7 faced charges under Article 80 and multiple Article 134 specifications involving alleged online solicitation-related offenses and child pornography allegations. The case was initially headed toward a General Court-Martial, with high exposure to a dishonorable discharge and lengthy confinement. After our firm was retained, we negotiated a pre-trial agreement that resulted in referral to a Special Court-Martial and withdrawal of two Article 134 specifications. Although the military judge sentenced the client to a bad conduct discharge, 12 months of confinement, reduction to E-1, and a $10,000 fine, we later secured suspension of confinement in excess of six months. The client served only five months (less good time), and the fine was disapproved per the agreement. The client’s family was permitted to receive pay during confinement despite automatic forfeitures, and confinement was deferred until after the holidays.

A Navy Second Class faced Captain’s Mast and involuntary administrative separation following a positive random urinalysis. Because the client was attached to a Naval vessel, the client could not refuse NJP. We made the strategic decision to aggressively contest the Captain’s Mast process. The client pled not guilty, and the Commanding Officer found the client not guilty and dismissed the Article 15—an uncommon result given the lower burden of proof at Mast. We also secured a finding of “No Drug Incident,” ending what would otherwise have been mandatory administrative separation processing.

An E-7 Navy SEAL with 13 years of service faced involuntary administrative separation and the possibility of an Other Than Honorable (OTH) discharge. A combat veteran, the client would otherwise have been eligible for medical separation but for the misconduct allegation. At the Administrative Separation Board, the government argued for discharge with an OTH. The Board voted 3-0 to retain the client.

A Navy E-4 retained McCormack & McCormack after learning they were under NCIS investigation. Early representation helped the client avoid common pitfalls that can allow the government to build a case. Ultimately, no criminal charges were filed in connection with what could have been a serious felony-level matter.

A junior Naval enlisted member was charged with homicide in civilian court related to the death of a young sailor during a party where LSD had been ingested by some participants. Prosecutors alleged the client and others caused the death by restraining the victim for extended periods with a pillow over his face. After an extended preliminary hearing, we secured a withdrawal of the charge.

A Marine E-3 pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter, disobedience of a lawful order, drunk driving, and three counts of aggravated assault arising from an automobile accident that caused a fatality. The Marine had signed a pretrial agreement that did not provide meaningful protection regarding sentencing. After a sentence of 15 years of confinement (reduced to 13 years), the family retained our firm for appeal. We argued multiple appellate errors, including the government’s breach of obligations under the pretrial agreement. The appellate court ruled in our favor, set aside the sentence, and remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing.

A Navy SEAL faced charges related to detainee abuse. On the day before the Article 32 investigation, we secured an agreement to resolve the matter at non-judicial punishment, with the command agreeing the client would not be administratively separated. The client was permitted to complete the term of service and received an honorable discharge.

A junior Navy enlisted client was charged with assault and battery of an 8-year-old stepchild. The client admitted spanking the child with a hand and belt. We argued for a deferred finding based on the client’s clean record and lack of intent to injure. Despite the prosecution’s opposition, the court deferred the finding. If the client complied with all requirements and remained on good behavior during the deferral period, the matter would be dismissed.

A Navy enlisted client was charged with domestic assault after an argument with his wife. At trial, the wife admitted to poking her husband in the forehead. The client testified she jabbed him in the forehead and chest. After hearing the evidence, the judge dismissed the charge.

A Navy E-1 confessed to setting five fires on board a Naval warship. We secured a plea agreement that merged the offenses into a single charge and resulted in a sentence of four months of confinement with no punitive discharge. Although the client faced the risk of an Other Than Honorable discharge, the client ultimately separated with a General Discharge under Honorable Conditions.

An Air Force doctor faced allegations including dereliction of duty and multiple indecent assault specifications involving patients. After extensive cross-examination at the Article 32 hearing, the Investigating Officer recommended dismissal of all indecent assault charges. The recommendation was ignored and the charges were referred to a General Court-Martial with significant confinement exposure. Prior to trial, we negotiated a pre-trial agreement resulting in the indecent assault charges being withdrawn and dismissed with prejudice.

Greg McCormack represented Petty Officer Jonathan Keefe, one of three Navy SEALs charged in connection with alleged detainee abuse involving a high-profile detainee. PO Keefe faced allegations including failure to safeguard the detainee and false official statement. When the government refused to produce the detainee, the court ordered the trial to be held in Baghdad. The defense successfully moved to suppress the NCIS statement underlying the false official statement charge, resulting in withdrawal of that charge. At trial before a military judge alone in Baghdad, PO Keefe was found not guilty.

A Navy Master Chief (E-9) with 23 years of service faced an Article 32 involving multiple specifications of assault/battery and drunk and disorderly conduct. After referral to a Special Court-Martial, the prosecution presented a medical report, an argument recording, and testimony from additional witnesses. Through cross-examination, we undermined the medical evidence and credibility of the supporting witnesses, and argued the recording was effectively a setup that did not prove an assault occurred. After deliberation, the members returned not guilty findings on all charges.

A Navy Third Class Air Traffic Controller was charged with marijuana distribution based on an undercover NCIS investigation and fingerprint evidence. We secured a withdrawal of court-martial charges. When the matter proceeded to an Administrative Separation Board, we secured a finding of no misconduct.

A Navy Second Class was implicated in an undercover drug operation involving marijuana distribution allegations. The case was initially headed toward a General Court-Martial. We negotiated referral to a Special Court-Martial and dismissal of all charges except distribution, with a confinement cap of 90 days. At trial, we secured a sentence of reduction in paygrade with no confinement and no punitive discharge.

An Air Force E-5 faced a General Court-Martial for cocaine use, and the government later preferred an additional BAH fraud charge. After the Article 32, we secured withdrawal of the fraud charge. At trial on the drug charge, the client was acquitted without presenting any defense evidence.

A Naval reservist on annual training overseas was questioned about time spent with a foreign national. The reservist admitted being present while the individual smoked marijuana but denied drug use. A urine sample tested positive for cocaine. The reservist went to Mast, was reduced in rank, and was referred to an Administrative Separation Board. At the Board, we secured a no misconduct finding.

An Army Warrant Officer faced AWOL and drug use charges. A request for discharge in lieu of court-martial was initially denied and the case was referred to a General Court-Martial. On the first day of trial, we obtained a delay due to procedural issues and resubmitted the discharge request, which was approved.

An Air Force officer faced three felony charges in state court related to prescription fraud. We secured withdrawal of two charges in separate jurisdictions and negotiated a reduction of the remaining charge to a misdemeanor after one year of probation. After one year, we returned to court and obtained dismissal over the prosecutor’s objection. The client’s military records were not affected and the client was recommended for promotion.

An Active Duty Navy Medical Corps O-5 was required to show cause for retention due to allegations of wrongful cocaine use and substandard performance. At the Board of Inquiry, the panel voted 3-0 for no misconduct and no substandard performance, and the officer was retained.

A Navy SEAL accepted NJP for wrongful use of prescription drugs and was referred to an Administrative Separation Board. The client passed a polygraph regarding unknowing ingestion, but the command proceeded. At the separation board, we secured a 3-0 finding of no misconduct.

A Navy SEAL admitted wrongful cocaine use, and the focus shifted to securing the best characterization of service. At the Administrative Separation Board, government counsel argued against an honorable characterization. After presentation of the defense case and multiple character witnesses, the board voted 3-0 to grant an honorable discharge.

An Air Force E-6 with 19.5 years of service was advised by military counsel to accept NJP for a positive urinalysis. We advised refusing NJP and demanding court-martial. At trial, we secured an acquittal without presenting defense evidence, relying on irregularities in drug-testing lab procedures.

A Navy First Class faced a positive urinalysis allegation. After the command withdrew charges and sent the case to an Administrative Separation Board, we established clear violations of collection regulations. The board still found misconduct and recommended a General Discharge. Immediately after the board, we filed complaints with multiple Naval agencies. Several days before the discharge date, Navy Personnel Command ordered the service member retained and the misconduct finding set aside due to the irregularities established.

A Navy SEAL First Class was charged with a positive urinalysis. After the separation board recommended separation, we petitioned the Board for Correction of Military Records. After extended litigation, the BCMR reversed the misconduct finding. The Navy credited the sailor for pay purposes for time since discharge, retained the sailor with full retirement pay and benefits, and cleared the record of references to alleged drug use.

An Air Force E-6 with over 18 years of service allegedly tested positive for marijuana while admitted to a civilian hospital. The command issued a Letter of Reprimand, established an Unfavorable Information File, and initiated separation processing. We convinced the command the urinalysis was unreliable, the LOR and UIF should be rescinded, and separation processing should cease.

A Navy E-4 was acquitted by officer jury of a cocaine urinalysis charge. Approximately eighteen months later, the client tested positive again. After refusal of Mast, the case proceeded to an Administrative Separation Board, which found the client did not commit misconduct.

A former Navy First Class separated after Mast and an Administrative Separation Board for a positive urinalysis sought assistance in pursuing legal action against the Navy. We identified an inconsistency between Department of Defense regulation and Naval instruction and filed suit in Federal Court. The government settled prior to trial with a financial payment, which the client accepted.

A Navy E-6 with 18.5 years of service faced misconduct processing after three DUI convictions. At the Administrative Separation Board, we secured a recommendation that separation be suspended. When the command continued pressing separation, ongoing representation resulted in Naval Personnel Command retaining the client so the client could retire.

A Navy E-6 was implicated in a theft-of-military-property investigation involving civilian suppliers and allegations including conspiracy and obstruction of justice. Through extended negotiations, we secured a pre-trial agreement dismissing about half the charges and limiting confinement exposure. At sentencing, the military judge imposed a sentence that included no confinement at all.

A naval officer faced allegations including conspiracy, sale of military property, hazing, and falsification of records. Through extended negotiations, we secured a plea agreement dismissing the majority of charges and protecting the client against punitive dismissal or confinement upon submission of a resignation request.

A Navy E-7 charged with conspiracy and theft of government property entered a negotiated plea arrangement that limited exposure. At sentencing, the client received 30 days of confinement, a reprimand, and reduction to E-5. The client was not sentenced to a punitive discharge.

An E-6 tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamines during random urinalysis. At the Administrative Separation Board, we challenged the authority and designation of the Urinalysis Program Coordinator and identified defects in collection procedures and chain of custody. The Board found no misconduct.

A Navy member with over 12 years of service was charged with petty larceny. At trial, we argued it was a misunderstanding and requested a deferred finding due to the client’s clean record. The judge ordered that the charge be dismissed after six months if the client committed no further offenses during that period.

A junior Navy seaman was apprehended for drunk and disorderly conduct after an informant claimed the client had taken LSD. A urinalysis tested positive for LSD, and the informant also claimed earlier LSD use. At the separation board, the Board found the client did not commit misconduct.

A naval officer faced charges of larceny relating to alleged BAH fraud and signing official documents regarding dependent residence. The client passed a civilian polygraph and a NCIS polygraph, both addressing knowledge of the spouse’s residence. After affidavits and extensive negotiations, all charges were withdrawn.

A Navy E-6 with over 19 years of service was charged with wrongful marijuana use. We advised refusal of NJP and demand for court-martial. Cross-examination of the urinalysis coordinator and the lab expert was so effective the defense presented no evidence. The client was acquitted shortly after deliberations began.

An active duty Marine Corps E-3 was convicted by summary court-martial of larceny-related and false statement offenses. On application under Article 69(b), UCMJ, the Judge Advocate General disapproved all findings and sentence and dismissed the charges.

An Army Reserve O-5 recalled to active duty faced court-martial charges including false official statement and larceny. A resignation for the good of the service was negotiated, submitted, and approved by the Secretary of the Army. All charges were withdrawn and all court-martial proceedings vacated.

An Air Force O-4 reservist recalled to active duty faced General Court-Martial exposure involving alleged AAFES return fraud. We submitted a RILO after the Article 32 investigation to secure administrative separation in lieu of court-martial. The request was approved.

An Army officer was reported positive on a urinalysis. The officer refused NJP and demanded court-martial. The command instead issued a Letter of Reprimand and directed a Show Cause Board. We delayed proceedings until the service obligation expired, resulting in release from active duty without further action.

A Navy LCDR with over 18 years of active duty received NJP for willful dereliction of duty and conduct unbecoming an officer. At the Show Cause Board of Inquiry, we presented strong evidence supporting retention so the officer could retire. The Board voted 3-0 to retain the officer.

A Navy E-7 with over 20 years of service was investigated by federal and military authorities for alleged classified information disclosure. After extensive investigation and litigation, the government conceded and all charges were withdrawn, and the client retired. This client had also previously received a sentence of no punishment in a separate court-martial matter. A later Administrative Separation Board recommended retention, and command efforts to separate the client were stopped at the office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy.

A Navy E-6 was court-martialed for a positive cocaine urinalysis and found not guilty. Several months later, the same client tested positive again, and a second court-martial convened. Before trial, the client tested positive a third time and additional charges were preferred. At the second court-martial, the client was found not guilty of both specifications.

A Navy E-6 tested positive for cocaine, then tested positive again while in an aftercare program. The client was found not guilty of the first allegation at court-martial. The second allegation proceeded to an Administrative Separation Board, which found the client did not commit misconduct.

An Air Force officer (O-3E) with over 18 years of service faced a General Court-Martial for two specifications of wrongful marijuana use based on two positive urinalysis tests. The client passed two polygraphs, including one by OSI, but charges proceeded. We presented evidence of unknowing ingestion through marijuana-laced cigars. Without placing the client on the witness stand, we secured acquittal of both specifications.

A Navy Master at Arms Chief Petty Officer (E-7) with over 19 years of service tested positive for marijuana and admitted wrongful use to NCIS. Although we prevailed on a motion to suppress the statement, the case continued. We secured disposition at a Summary Court-Martial with a guilty plea, resulting in reduction to E-6, forfeitures, and 45 days restriction (later suspended in clemency). Seven months before retirement eligibility, administrative separation proceedings began. The board recommended suspension of separation for six months and ultimately an honorable discharge certificate.

• A SFC, USMC, seeking an officer commission received an honorable discharge from the USMC.
• An Army ROTC student obtained release from active duty obligation.
• An Army ROTC student secured release from active duty obligation due to medical reasons.
• A Navy ROTC cadet received waiver of educational expense recoupment.
• A LCPL, USMCR received an honorable discharge.
• A USMC E-4 obtained correction of DD214 narrative reason to remove court-martial indication.
• A Naval physician received an honorable discharge with no obligation to reimburse medical education expenses.
• An Air Force physician received an honorable discharge through representation.
• An Air Force physician received an honorable discharge involving postpartum separation anxiety.
• A Navy O-3 secured resignation for the good of the service.
• A Naval physician secured retroactive promotion through litigation and negotiated resolution.

A Navy SEAL faced administrative separation after NJP involving classified material-related offenses and other allegations. The government requested separation with an OTH. The board ruled in our favor and found the evidence did not warrant administrative separation.

An Army Captain faced a Show Cause Board for failure to keep pace with contemporaries. The initial board recommended discharge, and discharge orders were executed. After retention, we stopped the discharge, set aside the results, and secured a new board. We disqualified the first panel for bias, and the second panel recommended retention.

An O-6 active duty physician faced BOI/Show Cause proceedings involving substance-related allegations, unauthorized absence allegations, conduct unbecoming, drunkenness, and performance concerns. The matter was heard by a panel of three Flag/General Officers. The final recommendation was retention.

A Navy E-6 was separated for personality disorder. At personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board, we demonstrated an improper diagnosis and procedural noncompliance. The Board unanimously voted to change the narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority.”

An Army E-6 faced separation for alleged rehabilitation failure relating to prescribed pain medication. The government argued repeated rehab failure and sought discharge. We argued the record showed rehabilitation success rather than failure. The board found no rehab failure and retained the soldier.

A Navy E-6 Corpsman faced multiple allegations including narcotics-related offenses and other misconduct allegations. Following an Article 32 investigation, we secured withdrawal of all charges conditioned on NJP for limited allegations. At the Administrative Separation Board, we secured a finding of no rehab failure and a recommendation that the client be retained.

A Coast Guard E-5 tested positive for marijuana with a prior positive years earlier. The client refused Mast and demanded court-martial, and the command proceeded by administrative separation board. After challenging board members and presenting an unknowing ingestion defense, the board voted to retain the client.

A Navy E-9 Command Master Chief was relieved and detached for cause and directed to appear before an administrative separation board for unsatisfactory performance. We challenged the processing as improper due to lack of required counseling. After further argument and delays, the government conceded our position was correct. The board found there was no basis for administrative separation.

A Navy O-4 with 15 years of service, serving as an OIC overseas, was detached for cause and directed to appear before a Show Cause BOI for substandard performance. After presentation of evidence and argument, the officer was retained and permitted to continue the Naval career.

An Army E-5 separated for misconduct (drug abuse) received a General (under honorable conditions) discharge. We petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade. The Board granted relief, finding the characterization too harsh and inequitable, and upgraded the discharge to Honorable.

A Navy E-4 faced child pornography-related allegations and had been advised to accept a plea agreement that would have triggered sex offender registration, likely a punitive discharge, and extended confinement. After we were retained, we identified search and seizure issues and admissibility concerns regarding confessions, withdrew the Art. 32 waiver, and proceeded to an Article 32 hearing. After continued negotiation, we secured an administrative discharge with an OTH, avoiding federal conviction, punitive discharge, extensive confinement, and sex offender registration.

A Marine E-3 faced General Court-Martial charges involving child pornography and adult pornography possession in Afghanistan. After litigating a suppression issue, we negotiated a plea agreement preserving the right to appeal that issue. The judge sentenced the client to six months, and no punitive discharge was imposed.

A Navy E-4 was convicted at a General Court-Martial of child pornography-related offenses and sentenced to confinement, reduction, and a bad conduct discharge with sex offender registration implications. Our firm handled the appeal. The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals found reversible error relating to expert funding and set aside the findings and sentence, vacating the conviction and the registration obligation.

A USN E-5 was convicted at General Court-Martial and sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, confinement, and reduction. Our firm represented the client on appeal and secured a set aside of the conviction. The client was later retried and received a different sentence, followed by administrative separation. We then assisted the client in recovering back pay owed due to the successful appeal. Through follow-up work with DFAS and correction of errors, we secured $30,376.97 in total recouped back pay (after taxes).

A civil service employee was charged with obstructing justice following a refusal to permit a vehicle search by military police. We argued for a deferred finding based on the circumstances and clean record. The court granted a deferred finding, and the charge would be dismissed if no further violations occurred during the deferral period.

A Navy Lieutenant Commander was recommended for continuation by a continuation selection board, but the Secretary of the Navy withheld the nomination due to a previously reported criminal incident. With a response package addressing rebuttal and mitigation, the Secretary retained the officer for continued service.

Attorney Robert Canoy represented an active duty Navy E-3 charged with felony strangulation and misdemeanor assault. Through background investigation, Attorney Canoy uncovered evidence undermining motive and credibility of the complaining witness and secured dismissal of all charges with eligibility for expungement.

Attorney Robert Canoy represented a Navy Chief (E-7) SEAL charged with felony strangulation and domestic assault after a 911 call during an off-base incident. The prosecution proceeded despite the alleged victim’s wish not to prosecute and forced the witness to testify. After trial, the client was found not guilty of all charges.