Volume XIV, No. 2, Fall 2013
The newsletter of the Military Lawyers Conference
of the American Bar Association’s Government and Public Sector Lawyers Division
Editor: Kiren Jahangeer
•
Designer: Anthony Nuccio
PROFILES IN MILITARY SERVICE –
COLONEL ALEXANDER W. PURDUE, USAF (Ret.)
G
PSLD Chair Alexander W. Purdue (USAF Ret.), orig- Litigation at the Air Force Legal Services Agency, Washington,
inally from Hackensack, New Jersey, is currently the DC. In that role, he was responsible for all Air Force contract
Deputy General Counsel for Los Alamos National and intellectual property cases then in litigation before the fedLaboratory, New Mexico, a position in which he has served eral courts, with a total of over $2 billion at risk. From 1997
since 2005. He is also responsible for managing the work of through 2000 he served as the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate,
the Business Law Practice Group. Colonel Purdue joined the Air Force Materiel Command, helped manage legal operaLaboratory in July 2003 as a Staff Attorney, shortly after retiring tions at the 17 bases that were then part of the command, and
from the U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Department.
personally assumed responsibility for defending a $1 billion
In 1970, upon graduating from the University of Wisconsin asbestos case filed at Kelly Air Logistics Center in San Antonio,
through a Naval ROTC program, he
Texas. Although defense of the Kelly case
was commissioned in the U.S. Navy and
consumed 4 years and cost over $10 milserved aboard an amphibious force flaglion, it ended with the complete vindicaship, the USS Eldorado, while the ship
tion of the Air Force. In August, 2000,
was deployed to Vietnam. After leavColonel Purdue was appointed as the Air
ing active duty in 1974, Colonel Purdue
Force Chief Trial Attorney where he was
attended law school at the University of
responsible for over 200 procurement cases
Tennessee and was elected by the faculty
appealed to the Armed Services Board of
to the Order of the Coif upon graduation
Contract Appeals and supervised the Air
in 1977. He returned to the military, servForce Contract Trial Team’s staff of 55
ing as an Assistant Staff Judge Advocate at
attorneys, paralegals, and support personboth George AFB, California and Ramstein
nel. He continued to serve as Chief Trial
Air Base, Germany. In 1984, he was transAttorney until retiring from the Air Force
ferred to Headquarters Ninth Air Force
in the summer of 2003.
at Shaw AFB, South Carolina, where he
Colonel Purdue is a graduate of
served as Assistant Chief of International
Squadron Officer’s School, the Air
Law. In that position, he drafted and
Command and Staff College and the Air
implemented the tri-service procurement
War College. His military honors include
system used to support “Bright Star 85” in GPSLD Chair Alexander W. Purdue (USAF Ret.) the Legion of Merit, the Meritorious
Egypt, Jordon and Somalia, as well as all
Service Medal with five Oak Leaf Clusters
subsequent operations in the theatre, and personally negotiated a and the Air Force Commendation Medal.
number of international agreements and contracts with governDespite his busy schedule, Colonel Purdue was happy to disments throughout Southwest Asia.
cuss his career path, and offer some guidance to those thinking
In 1987 Colonel Purdue received his LL.M. in Government about making the switch from the military to the civilian sector.
Procurement Law from George Washington University Law
School. He was then assigned as Chief of Contract Law, Air 1. How did you first get involved with the military and what
Force Contract Management Division, Kirtland AFB, New
attracted and motivated you to join? Could you share some
Mexico. From there, he moved to two consecutive Staff Judge
of your experiences? Were there any key turning points?
Advocate assignments at Lindsey Air Station in Wiesbaden,
Although I was an Eagle Scout and spent a long time in that
Germany and Andrews Air Force base outside of Washington, organization, the military really wasn’t something I seriously
DC. In 1995, he began serving as Chief of Commercial considered as a career. However, as a senior in high school I
Volume XIV, No. 2, Fall 2013
Staff Writer/Editor, Kiren Jahangeer
Designer, Anthony Nuccio
Comments, letters to the editor
and other suggestions
Editor, REVILLE,
ABA, Government and Public Sector
Lawyers Division
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
E-mail: [email protected]
Visit our homepage:
www.governmentlawyer.org
Reprint requests must be made in writing to
[email protected].
© 2013 American Bar Association
Editorial Statement
REVEILLE provides a forum for the discussion
of issues of special concern to military lawyers.
REVEILLE is edited by staff of the Government and
Public Sector Lawyers Division. Publishing and
editorial decisions are based on the editors’ judgment
of the quality of the writing, the timeliness of the
article, and the potential interest to the readers of
REVEILLE. The views in REVEILLE are those of the
authors and may not reflect the official policy of the
American Bar Association or the Government and
Public Sector Lawyers Division. No endorsement
of the views should be inferred unless specifically
identified as the official policy of the American Bar
Association or the Government and Public Sector
Lawyers Division.
Reveille is published four times a year by the
Government and Public Sector Lawyers Division
of the American Bar Association, 1050 Connecticut
Avenue, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC, 20036,
202-662-1023.
Keep up with the
Division through
Social Media
Join us on Facebook,
Twitter and LinkedIn.
Visit www.governmentlawyer.org
and just click on the icons to
stay connected!
2 – Reveille
began looking into how I was going to
finance a college education. One day a
close friend mentioned the Regular Navy
ROTC program as a possible path to college, and both of us applied. Although
I was offered a number of other scholarships, the Navy’s offer of a free ride at the
University of Wisconsin that even included
books and a (small) monthly pay check
in exchange for a 4 year service commitment was something I just couldn’t resist.
I graduated in 1970, was commissioned an
Ensign in the U.S. Navy on the same day,
and reported to my first ship – the USS
Eldorado. I served on that ship, primarily as a communications officer, for about
two years, including a 9 month rotation to
the Western Pacific for service in Vietnam.
After rotating back to San Diego, my next
assignment was all the way across the
country, at Beachmaster Unit TWO outside of Norfolk, Virginia. It was totally
different from my first assignment since it
involved commanding a group of seamen
and deploying to the Mediterranean to
handle communications during amphibious operations, performing beach salvage,
and both living and working with the
Marine Corps. I found the work fascinating and thoroughly enjoyable, but I also
began to understand that a career as a line
officer in the Navy would involve frequent
deployments. Nonetheless, the travel, the
opportunities to live in interesting places,
and the variety of possible assignments, all
convinced me that life in the service could
be pretty good. However, I had also long
been interested in attending law school
and that was ultimately the path I decided
to take. My plan was to pass the bar and
then rejoin the Navy in the JAG Corps. I
graduated and passed the Tennessee Bar
according to plan, but a very good (and
honest) Navy recruiter advised me that
since I was already a Lieutenant in the
Naval Reserve and would soon be eligible
for Lt Commander, I might have difficulty
competing for promotion with JAGs who
had a lot more legal experience than I did.
I took his advice to heart and decided to
apply for a direct commission as an Air
Force JAG instead – and they promptly
accepted, offered me commission and I
was off to my first JAG assignment.
2. What was your first impression of the
JAG Corps?
I pretty much loved serving as a JAG
from the get-go. I was lucky enough
that my first Air Force assignment was
to a great legal office at George AFB
in Victorville, California. The senior
JAG officer in the office (or Staff Judge
Advocate) and his number two knew how
to keep spirits high, made the work interesting and repeatedly demonstrated that
JAGs had an important role to play in
the Air Force system. Both men remain
close friends to this day, and within a few
months after arriving at George AFB I
was convinced that I had found the right
niche. It didn’t hurt that my wife, Sheri,
enjoyed the military lifestyle and was
super supportive, particularly after we discovered that most (though certainly not
all) Air Force assignments are “accompanied” and spouses are welcomed at most
overseas postings.
3. What are some of your fondest memories
of your work in the JAG Corps?
Having two assignments in Germany,
one in the early 80’s before the Berlin
Wall came down in 1989, and another
in the early 90’s right after that halcyon
event, were certainly highlights for both
of us. We loved living overseas and made
the most of our opportunity to live in and
explore Europe. Skiing is a sport we both
enjoy, and we visited a lot of the great ski
resorts over there. I was also fortunate
enough to serve as a base staff judge advocate twice, once at Lindsey Air Station
in Wiesbaden, GE and again at Andrews
AFB outside Washington, DC. Having
the opportunity to run a legal office, provide day-to-day advice to commanders on
the myriad issues that always arise, and act
as the base’s district attorney, always ranks
near the top of any JAG’s list of career
highlights, and I am no exception. And,
of course, the greatest part of being a JAG
was the opportunity to work with wonderful people on interesting issues. The sense
of a shared, common purpose – service to
the nation and commitment to something
larger and more important than yourself, is
an enormous benefit of service in the military and in other public sector settings, but
it’s something that often seems lacking in
the commercial world.
4. What surprised you most about working in the military?
Probably the biggest surprise was the
great diversity of potential career paths
that are available to JAGs. I assumed the
JAG corps would be all about military justice, with maybe a little international/
Continued on page 6
United States v. Apel
SCOTUS CASES TO WATCH
The question presented is: Whether 18 U.S.C. 1382, which
prohibits a person from reentering a military installation after
a commanding officer has ordered him not to reenter, may be
enforced on a portion of a military installation that is subject to
a public roadway easement. CASE BACKGROUND
Vandenberg Air Force Base (Vandenberg) is situated in a rural
area on the coast of central California, 170 miles northwest of
Los Angeles. Vandenberg is the site of sensitive missile and space
launch facilities and as such, is generally closed to the public. The
base is however intersected by two state roads – Highway 1 and
Highway 246, which are utilized by the public. Highway 1 is at
issue in this case. The Department of the Air Force (Air Force)
maintains control of the land intersected by the highways, and
has granted roadway easements to the State of California and
Santa Barbara County, which are common on military bases.
While Air Force retains jurisdiction over the roadways, it agreed
to exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the State and County.
Highway 1 extends past the main gate of the base. The base
commander allocated an area specifically for public protesting near the gate. This area falls within the boundaries of the
Highway 1 easement, and is part of the base. Litigation in the
1980s resulted in designation of a protest area for peaceful demonstrations. Stipulations exist that specify restrictions can be
placed on the area to limit activities that could create hazardous conditions or that interfere with the military mission. The
base commander had issued restrictions to enable orderly use of
the protest zone, including addressing permitted and forbidden
objects and parking. One restriction stated that anyone barred
from Vandenberg was not permitted to protest in the designat-
ed area. Furthermore, if someone who is barred from the base
entered regardless to protest, they would be cited and detained for
trespassing and would be subject to a fine and/or imprisonment.
John Dennis Apel had been barred twice from Vandenberg;
once in 2003 for trespassing and vandalism, and again in 2007
for trespassing. In 2010, Apel entered the designated protest
zone three times, in January, March, and April; however his second barment order was still in effect on these occasions. Each
time, Apel was reminded of his barment order, asked to leave,
and given two to three minutes to comply. Each time when he
failed to vacate the premises, he was cited for a violation of 18
U.S.C. 1382 and escorted off the base.
Apel moved to dismiss all three counts on First Amendment
grounds, stating that Section 1382 only applies to property which the United States has sole ownership over, and the
Highway 1 easement precludes the United States from having
exclusive possession of the area. The magistrate judge denied his
motion and he was convicted of the three offenses in two separate bench trials, and fined $355, though he served no jail time.
Apel appealed on constitutional and statutory grounds. The
district court affirmed Apel’s convictions, stating that though the
land is subject to an easement, the terms of the easement prescribe that its use is subject to base rules and restrictions. The
court of appeals reversed, stipulating that under their decision in
United States v. Parker, Section 1382 is only applicable to areas
which the federal government maintains an exclusive right of
possession. Due to the easement, the federal government lacks
the exclusive right of possession, and a conviction under Section
1382 cannot stand.
The petition for writ of certiorari was granted on June 3, 2013.
This case is set for argument on December 4, 2013. A decision is
expected before the summer recess begins in late June, 2014. R
MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR
On Tuesday, September 24, the Government and Public
Sector Lawyers Division and the Standing Committee on Legal
Assistance for Military Personnel presented the CLE webinar
Sexual Assault Prosecutions Under the Manual for Courts Martial:
A Primer for Civilian and Military Lawyers. Many thanks to the
panelists for the generous contribution of their time and talent:
Major Adam Kersey, USAF, Instructor, Military Justice Division,
Air Force Judge Advocate General’s School and Captain Adam
Bentz, USAF, Instructor, Military Justice Division, Air Force
Judge Advocate General’s School. The program was informative
and very well received.
In August, I announced my retirement from West Virginia
University, where I have served as Vice President of Student
Affairs since 1997. I am very proud to have seen such growth
in the university during my tenure. The number of domestic
and international students enrolled has increased, safety and
wellness programs have expanded, and mentoring opportunities
have grown. One program I am particularly proud of is WVU’s
Up All Night program, one of the first late-night alternative
programs in the nation. Every Thursday, Friday, and Saturday
night, students have access to safe, fun and free alternative weekend activities. This initiative is just one example of the diligence,
determination, and ingenuity of so many staff and coworkers I
have had the pleasure to work with these last 16 years.
I’ve also had the privilege to work with the dedicated staff
and members of GPSLD for many years. I look forward to continuing my involvement with the Division, and am pleased to
serve another year as Chair of the Military Lawyers Conference
(MLC). If you have any comments,
questions, or suggestions for Reveille,
please send them to Kiren Jahangeer at
[email protected].
Respectfully,
Major General Kenneth D. Gray
(USA Ret.)
Chair, Military Lawyers Conference
Reveille – 3
WOMEN LEADERS IN THE JAG CORPS
ARMY
NAVY
On September 3, 2013, the first woman in the United States
Army’s 238 year history was sworn in as the 39th Judge Advocate
General. Lieutenant General Flora D. Darpino received a promotion from a one-star brigadier general to a three-star lieutenant general, and will serve a four year term, leading over 3,400
full and part time attorneys. Prior to her appointment, Darpino
ran the Army’s law school – the Judge Advocate General’s Legal
Center and School in Charlottesville, Virginia. Darpino succeeds Lt. Gen. Dana K. Chipman.
Darpino received her B.A. from Gettysburg College in
Pennsylvania, her J.D. from Rutgers University in New Jersey,
and her LL.M. in Military Law from The Judge Advocate
General’s School. Darpino’s military education includes the
Senior Service College Fellowship (Department of Justice), the
Army Command and General Staff College, the Judge Advocate
Officer Graduate Course, Combined Arms and Services Staff
School, and the Judge Advocate Officer Basic Course. She is a
member of the New Jersey and Pennsylvania Bars.
Commissioned into the Army JAG Corps in 1987, Darpino’s
previous assignments include: Trial Defense Counsel and Chief,
Civil Law Division, VII Corps in Stuttgart, Germany; Training
Officer and Assistant Operations Officer for the U.S. Army Trial
Defense Service and Litigation Attorney, Litigation Division,
USALSA; Chief, Administrative Law, 101st Airborne Division
(Air Assault) at Fort Campbell, Kentucky; Assistant Executive
Officer, Office of The Judge Advocate General (OTJAG); Chief,
Judge Advocate Recruiting Office; Staff Judge Advocate, 4th
Infantry Division at Fort Hood, Texas and Tikrit, Iraq; Deputy
Staff Judge Advocate, III Corps at Fort Hood; Chief, Criminal
Law Division, OTJAG; Staff Judge Advocate, V Corps, in
Heidelberg, Germany; Staff Judge Advocate, United States
Forces-Iraq, in Baghdad, Iraq; Commander and Commandant,
The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School; Chief
Judge, U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA); and
Commander, U.S. Army Legal Services Agency (USALSA).
Darpino’s many awards include the Defense Superior Service
Medal, the Legion of Merit with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the Bronze
Star Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal with five Oak Leaf
Clusters, the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Achievement
Medal, and the Iraqi Campaign Medal. She has also received the
Air Assault Badge and the Army Staff Identification Badge.
Since 2012, Vice Admiral Nanette M. DeRenzi has been serving as the 42nd Judge Advocate General of the United States
Navy. Vice Adm. DeRenzi is the principal military legal counsel
to the secretary of the Navy and chief of naval operations, and
serves as the Department of Defense representative for Ocean
Policy Affairs (REPOPA). She also commands the 2,300 attorneys, enlisted legalmen, and civilian employees of the worldwide Navy JAG Corps community. In March of this year, Vice
Adm. Derenzi testified before the Senate Committee on Armed
Services, Subcommittee on Military Personnel, addressing sexual
assault in the military.
DeRenzi graduated magna cum laude from Villanova
University in Pennsylvania in 1983. She was commissioned
through the JAG Corps Student Program and in 1986 graduated
from Temple University School of Law. She received her LL.M.
in Environmental Law from George Washington University Law
School. She is a member of the New Jersey and Pennsylvania Bars.
DeRenzi began her career as a defense counsel and later as a
trial counsel (prosecution) in Newport, RI, followed by assignments in civil litigation and appellate defense in Washington,
DC. From 2009 to 2012, DeRenzi served as the deputy judge
advocate general of the Navy and commander, Naval Legal
Service Command. In this position, she led the judge advocates, enlisted legalmen, and civilian employees of 17 commands
worldwide, providing prosecution and defense services, legal
assistance services to individuals, and legal support to both shore
and afloat commands.
Among her other previous assignments, DeRenzi served as
the senior staff judge advocate for Commander, U.S. Southern
Command; special assistant for Legal and Legislative Matters
to the Secretary of the Navy; and legislative counsel for
Environmental Programs in the Navy Office of Legislative Affairs.
In command, she served as commanding officer, Naval Legal
Service Office, North Central. Afloat, she served as the fleet judge
advocate to Commander, U.S. 7th and 3rd Fleets, as well as staff
judge advocate to Commander, Carrier Group Seven.
She holds numerous awards, including the Navy
Distinguished Service Medal, Defense Superior Service
Medal, the Legion of Merit (four awards), the Meritorious
Service Medal (four awards), and the Navy and Marine Corps
Achievement Medal (two awards). R
Locked down: Security in uSing cLoud ServiceS and MobiLe deviceS CLE Webinar December 9, 2013 @ 1:00 PM Eastern
Attorneys have ethical and legal duties to safeguard information relating to clients. The latest technology, including cloud computing and
mobile devices, presents new challenges in data protection. Attorneys should embrace new technologies, but have to understand and
address the risks. This session will explore attorneys’ duties to secure data and best practices for security in the cloud and on the road.
•Learn about attorneys’ duties to safeguard confidential data
•Find out how attorneys are using the cloud and mobile devices
•Understand the risks presented by this current technology
4 – Reveille
•Learn current best practices for security in the cloud and
on the road, including specific safeguards that attorneys
should employ
CAAF NEWS
Recent Decisions of Interest
In United States v. Wilson, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), affirmed the decision of
the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, upholding
the conviction of appellant for drug possession and distribution, and failure to obey a lawful order, violating Articles 92 and
112a, UCMJ. Appellant was sentenced to forty months confinement, reduction to pay grade E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge.
Due to a pre-trial agreement, the convening authority agreed
to twenty-one months confinement and the balance of the sentence; Wilson was credited with 174 days confinement. Wilson
appealed, stating his right to a speedy trial had been violated
under Article 10, UCMJ. The CAAF determined appellant’s
Article 10 right had not been violated.
On August 17, 2010, a source conveyed that Wilson was selling
drugs from his barracks room in Fort Drum, New York. A search
authorization was acquired and drugs were found in Wilson’s
room. On the same day, Wilson was placed in pretrial confinement at a medium security civilian prison in Lowville, New York.
Wilson waived pretrial confinement review on August 22, 2010.
On September 22, 2010, charges were brought against
Wilson. On October 1, the special court-martial convening
authority (SCMCA) appointed an Article 32, UCMJ, investigating officer. On October 21, Wilson offered to plead guilty to
certain charges; on November 10 he submitted an amended offer
to plead guilty. His amended offer to plead guilty was denied
on November 30. On December 6, the SCMCA assigned a
new Article 32, UCMJ, investigating officer. On December
14, Wilson filed a demand for a speedy trial. On December
16, the new Article 32, UCMJ, investigating officer finished his
investigation; the staff judge advocate’s pretrial advice was prepared on December 22 and charges were referred the same day.
On January 4, 2011, Wilson was arraigned for a trial date of
February 7, resulting in pretrial confinement for 174 days.
On January 4, Wilson filed a “Motion To Dismiss For Speedy
Trial Violation,” and Article 39(a), UCMJ, sessions were held
on January 7, 18, and 25 to address this motion. The defense
held that the government violated Wilson’s Fifth and Sixth
Amendment rights to due process and a speedy trial, along with
Article 10 and Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 707. Wilson
only appealed to the CAAF on Article 10, relying on the fourpart Barker test the court uses to evaluate such claims. Wilson
further stipulated that he was subject to an oppressive environment, as he was the only African American among twenty
inmates, some of whom were white supremacists. He was held
in isolation and locked down for eight hours in his cell at night.
During the day he spent time in a large area with approximately
20 other inmates, of which only three or four were military.
Wilson testified that civilian prisoners made racial slurs at him,
yet he did not file an Article 13 motion concerning this, nor did
he complain to his chain of command.
The government provided details about their pretrial activities, including the investigation by Criminal Investigative
Division (CID) agents, the deployment of Wilson’s battalion
from September 22 through October 7, and the Article 32 investigation. The government stated the length of time between
pretrial confinement and arraignment was due to the investigation and the unit’s training for deployment to Afghanistan. The
military judge found the four-part Barker test weighed in favor
of the government and that they acted within reasonable diligence. The military judge stated he was responsible for sixteen
days of the delay, and the defense was responsible for fortythree days; the government was responsible for the remaining
115 days. While the length of delay was unusual and in some
instances troubling, the military judge found that other factors,
such as the complicated immunity issues for soldiers implicated
in the accused’s chargers, the testing of seized drugs, and the
unit’s deployment, constituted reasonable diligence. The CAAF
agreed, and further deemed the anxiety Wilson suffered to be
within normal incidents of confinement.
In United States v. Brown, the CAAF affirmed the judgment of the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals,
sustaining the conviction of the appellant on one specification
of aggravated sexual assault of a child, two specifications of child
endangerment, and three specifications of indecent liberties with
a child, in violation of Articles 120 and 134, UCMJ. Appellant
was sentenced to forty-five years confinement, reduction to pay
grade E-1, and a dishonorable discharge.
Witness attendants are permitted to accompany a child on
the witness stand if the prosecution presents good cause and the
trial judge makes a finding of substantial need. The military
judge allowed a victim advocate to serve as a witness attendant
for a 17 year old, and referred to the witness attendant as the
complainant’s “advocate”. Brown appealed on the grounds that
his due process right to a fair trial and presumption of innocence
was violated due to this procedure. The CAAF stated that the
military judge did not abuse his discretion under Military Rule
of Evidence 611(a) when he permitted the victim advocate to sit
next to witness AW during her testimony.
In July of 2003, Donald J. Brown met Ms. RB; they were married in August of 2004. When they were married, Ms. RB had four
children, none are the biological offspring of appellant: MMB, a
daughter, age 14; MB, a son, age 12; AW, a daughter, age 11; and
JW, a son, age 8. Ms. RB worked nights and appellant was often
left alone with the children, at which point he would provide them
with alcohol and play drinking games with them. Appellant also
provided MMB with pornography. Just a few months after appellant and Ms. RB were married, he had sexual intercourse with AW,
who was 11 years old at the time. The appellant continued to have
sexual intercourse with AW over approximately the next four years,
following a predictable pattern – appellant would drink alcohol with
the children, take AW upstairs under the guise of receiving a massage from her, and have sex with her instead. During appellant’s
deployment from November 2006 to November 2007, he sent AW
salacious emails. At one point over the four year span, AW thought
she was pregnant by the appellant; she consequently suffered a miscarriage. Appellant only stopped sexually assaulting AW when she
threatened to report him in 2008. In 2009, AW reported the molestation to her mother, at which point an investigation ensued. AW
was sent to live with her grandparents, but was forbidden by her
Continued on page 7
Reveille – 5
Alexander W. Purdue
continued from page 2
operational law thrown in, and not much
else. I just wasn’t aware of all the other
specialties that the military needs – areas
like labor law, environmental law, medical law and my own specialty of federal
procurement law. Although pursuing
one of those civil law specialties rather
than the more normal, military justice
and operational law path is often perceived as limiting a JAGs promotion
opportunities, that is not always the
case. Most of us who chose that route
thoroughly enjoyed the experience, liked
the intellectual stimulation afforded by
returning to law school for an LLM and
practicing in our specialty, and never
looked back. I know that was true for
me, and the choice led to some amazing assignments and the opportunity
to interact with some truly exceptional
people. In my case, it provided me with
the chance to lead two great contract litigation offices, one specializing in federal court cases and the other working
on cases appealed to the Armed Services
Board of Contract Appeals. It also introduced me to the ABA; gave me a chance
to work with some of the best procurement attorneys and jurists in the country;
and also led directly to my current job at
Los Alamos National Lab. So, from my
perspective, the hard right turn to procurement law was the right choice at the
right time.
5. Tell me about any challenges you faced
while serving. How did you deal with
these challenges?
The major challenge of any JAG career
is probably the fact that you move to a
new job, with new people, and generally
in a new place, every two to three years.
Of course, that’s also what keeps JAG
careers exciting. An associated challenge
is that those frequent moves can also
take a toll on a spouse’s career. Similarly,
pursuing career in the service usually
demands that long periods be spent far
from your extended family. While the
itinerant, military lifestyle worked for us,
it is probably the most frequent reason
that young JAGs opt to leave the service.
6. How was your experience working in
the military different when you served
prior to, and after, obtaining your law
degree?
6 – Reveille
Comparing the two experiences is a little difficult since being a line officer and
being a judge advocate are so different.
As a junior line officer in the Navy, I was
placed in charge of a division or detachment of enlisted personnel and was responsible for accomplishing our small part of
the command’s overall mission. I had very
little contact with senior officers like the
ship’s captain and his superiors, and very
little control over any of the major decisions that impacted our work. In contrast,
a JAG officer is generally part of a commander’s immediate staff, is much more
involved in mission planning rather than
mission execution, and interacts on a daily
basis with senior decision makers. In the
Air Force, at least, commanders rely on
their JAGs for significantly more than legal
advice, and frequently use “the Judge” as
a sounding board for practical, pragmatic
advice on a whole range of non-legal issues
that affect the unit.
7. What was the impetus for you to
switch from the Navy to the Air Force?
Although I loved serving as an officer in
the Navy, I never regretted switching services. In retrospect, I think that the Air
Force JAG was a much better fit for me
than the Navy JAG Corps would have been
because of the different way the services use
their JAGs. In my experience, the Navy
tends to use its judge advocates primarily
to handle military justice, international law,
and various investigations. The Navy then
turns to the civilian attorneys in the General
Counsel’s office for all manner of civil law
issues (labor law, environmental law, procurement law, etc.). In stark contrast, the
Air Force expects its JAG attorneys to practice in a wider variety of disciplines during
their careers and permits many of us to specialize in civil law matters.
8. What accomplishment are you most
proud of from your years of military service? What duties were most
rewarding? What were the key sources
of support you encountered?
Serving as the Air Force’s Chief Trial
Attorney, and getting to lead the superb
military and civilian litigators who made
up the Air Force Trial Team, was probably
the most professionally rewarding assignment I ever had. Over that 3 year period,
we handled some huge cases and were
pitted against many of the biggest aerospace companies in the world. We were
also early champions and adopters of the
use of Alternate Dispute Resolution, used
those techniques to appropriately resolve a
number of major cases much more quickly and cheaply than might otherwise have
been the case, and advocated the increased
use of ADR in other federal agencies and
contexts. Another great assignment was
at 9th Air Force, the USAF component of
the US Central Command that is responsible for operations in the Middle East.
In those days, the United States was prepositioning vehicles (from HUMVEEs
to tanks) and supplies in the region to
prepare for and counter a possible Soviet
move through Iran to the oil fields of the
Middle East. We successfully convinced
our operators that JAGs were important
to the planning and execution of both the
pre-positioning work and the planning
and execution of major exercises in the
region. As a result, I had the opportunity to travel repeatedly to Oman, Jordon,
and Egypt, and several other countries to
negotiate agreements and contracts with
host country military officials, and to participate in a number of exercises. Those
activities were both interesting and professionally rewarding. In a side note, most
of the assets we pre-positioned were eventually used during the buildup and conduct of Operation Desert Storm in the
Gulf War.
9. Tell me about some of the people
you’ve met during your many years of
service. Did you have any key mentors
or people who deeply influenced who
you are? Tell me about them.
I probably had as many mentors as I
did assignments – that’s just the way the
Air Force works. Most Senior JAGs are
constantly on the lookout for bright,
young attorneys who want to contribute, and they work hard to offer them
interesting assignments that will broaden their horizons and help them develop
into the JAG leaders of the future. In
my case, officers like Colonel Robert
Richards (later the Air Force’s Chief Judge
in Europe), Lt Colonel Jay Davis (now
a judge in Phoenix), and Colonel Pete
Newhouse (then the Staff Judge Advocate
at Ramstein Air Base in Germany) were
early mentors. All of them ran great legal
offices, knew how to get the best out of
their personnel, and made even the long
hours and difficult legal problems seem
like fun. Later, I tried to recreate that
atmosphere in my own legal offices and, I
hope, mostly succeeded.
10. What advice can you give military
lawyers who might be embarking on a
career change to civilian life?
Most JAGs find that they can seamlessly transition into a civilian practice
and, in fact, former JAGs are always in
high demand at law firms and corporate
law offices because of all the training that
they have received and the commitment
and work ethic that they are known to
bring to the job. That said, it has been
my experience that JAGs often find transitioning to a corporate practice easier and
more satisfying than moving to a private
firm – probably because it more closely replicates the experience they had as
JAGs. In addition, JAGs generally have
little or no experience in client development or how to work up a viable business
plan – and learning that side of the profession can be daunting and unattractive
to many. A lot of former JAGs also opt
for careers in public service or education
since both of them provide the same sense
of commitment to a higher purpose they
enjoyed in the JAG Corps.
These days, all of the services can
afford to be very selective in the attorneys
they accept for direct commissioning as
JAGs – I believe that recent selection rates
have been running at significantly less
than 10% of those who apply. It is abundantly clear that former JAGs are a pretty
hot commodity and are very likely to succeed in almost any practice setting. The
most important thing any JAG considering a career change can do is to honestly
evaluate what they liked about JAG and
what they didn’t, and then use that information to decide what practice setting
they would most enjoy. If they choose the
right kind of practice, and if they bring to
it the same commitment and work ethic
that got them into the JAG Corps in the
first place, they will do just fine.
11. If you could change one thing about
the JAG Corps, what would it be?
One major change that occurred
over the last 30 years or so has been the
increased number of women in the JAG
Corps. As a group, women have distinguished themselves as JAGs, and there
are now many women among the senior
leaders of the JAG Corps in all of the services. In fact, the current Judge Advocate
General of the Navy is a woman, VADM
Nanette DeRenzi. That change has
been very beneficial. There is not much
about the current JAG Corps that I
would change. JAG leaders are constantly tinkering with their organizations in
an effort to find the best way to deliver
quality legal services to commanders and
service members—and that is particularly true in this era of tightening budgets
throughout DoD. For the most part,
those changes have been positive, and the
leadership appears to be doing a great job.
If you asked the same question to commanders, however, most would probably
say “increase the number of JAG officers
in the service and particularly in my command.” The reason most would ask for
more JAGs is that an experienced JAG is
generally viewed as one of the most valu-
CAAF NEWS
continued from page 5
mother to report the rape until appellant left
her mother.
During the trial, AW was 17 years old,
set to turn 18 in a few weeks. After only
15 questions by the trial counsel, AW started crying and could not answer any more
questions, requesting a break. At this point,
the trial counsel requested that AW’s victim
advocate be seated next to her during testimony, to which the defense objected. The
military judge overruled, despite defense’s
protesting that AW’s testimony would
appear more credible with a victim advocate
seated beside her. The judge prohibited any
physical contact or verbal communication
between AW and her advocate, and AW was
able to continue her testimony without crying the following day. The judge further
instructed the members that they were not
to interpret the victim advocate’s presence as
an endorsement of AW’s credibility.
Though AW was not a young child, her
testimony became unintelligible due to sobbing and she could not divulge any information to the court. Furthermore, attempts at
not employing a victim advocate were made,
to no avail. In the interest of saving time
and obtaining the truth, a victim advocate
was instated. The CAAF agreed that the
facts of the case justified the need for a support person, and the military judge did not
abuse his discretion in appointing one. R
able officers on base, one who can fill any
number of roles, and an individual whose
legal training provides a great framework
for insightful decision making.
12. What do you wish other people knew
about the JAG Corps?
I’d like them to understand that the
JAG Corps is about more than courts-martial. That’s the view you get on television,
where JAGs are almost always portrayed
as either prosecutors or defense counsel. In
fact, military justice matters consume a relatively small percentage of most JAG officer’s daily tasks – and that percentage has
consistently decreased over time due to the
ever increasing quality of the enlisted force
and the concomitant, long term decrease
in the number of serious offenses committed by service members. In addition, commanders have come to understand how
important things like environmental law
and compliance are to the success and wellbeing of their commands. R
the Major generaL
kenneth d. gray
exceLLence in
juriSprudence award
The National Bar Association, the country’s
oldest and largest association of African
American lawyers and judges in the United
States, has named a new award in honor
of Major General Kenneth D. Gray. The
Major General Kenneth D. Gray Excellence in
Jurisprudence Award will recognize a leader,
jurist, or practitioner, who has exhibited
distinctive and exemplary service to their
community and/or nation. “Recognizing
Major General Gray’s outstanding military
record and holding the distinction of being
the first African American to serve as a Flag
Officer Judge Advocate in any branch of
service, we could think of no better person
to have named this award after,” said
president of the National Bar Association
Patricia Rosier. On November 7, 2013
at George Washington University, Gray
presented the inaugural award to Rear
Admiral James W. Crawford, III, who currently
serves as the deputy judge advocate general
for the United States Navy.
Reveille – 7
American Bar Association
Military Lawyers Conference
Government and Public Sector Lawyers Division
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
JUDGE ADVOCATE MEMBERSHIP OFFER
Did you know that membership in the American Bar Association
is free for recently licensed Judge Advocates?
If you are currently an active-duty Judge Advocate and have been
licensed to practice law for five years or less, you are eligible for a
free ABA membership. If you’re not eligible, but know someone who
is, please pass this valuable offer along!
• ParticipationinABAmembergroupsandprograms
geared toward military and government lawyers and
the practice challenges they face
• Careertransitionprogramming,accesstoABA
Career Counsel resources, including résumé and interview
tips, job listings and articles
• Onlineandin-personnetworkingopportunities
• ContinuingLegalEducationcoursesonarangeoftopicswith
manyformatoptionstochoosefrom:online,live/in-person,
teleconference, webcast and more
• ABAJournalandeReport,books,magazines,newsletters,
andthee-newsletter,YourABA
• Legislativeandgovernmentaladvocacyonissuesofimportance
to the legal profession and the ABA, including many issues in
support of military lawyers and servicemembers
• Opportunitiestoserveothersthroughlaw-relatedandpublic
service initiatives
And much more!
To join the ABA for free, go to
http://apps. americanbar.org/join/jag/lawyer_enroll.cfm
or call 1-800-285-2221.
Nonprofit Organization
U.S. Postage
PAID
American Bar Association
MLcc: Military Lawyers coordinating committee
Did you know that the ABA’s Military Lawyers Coordinating Committee (MLCC) was
created to help the association’s military lawyers find resources more easily?
The MLCC’s website serves as a portal for all things military in the ABA.
Members can view upcoming ABA programs, news items of interest, links to
allABAmilitary-relatedgroups,awardsprograms,membershipoffersandmore.
Visit the MLCC at http://www.americanbar.org/groups/government_public/
resources/military_lawyers_conference/military_lawyers_coordinating_committee.html.
2014 National Awards
The Government and Public Sector Lawyers Division’s annual
awards program is designed to recognize the extraordinary
achievements of government lawyers and to inform the general
public about the outstanding work performed and the positive
impact made by our nation’s public lawyers. The Dorsey Award
honors an outstanding public defender or legal aid lawyer. The
Hodson Award recognizes sustained outstanding service or a
specific extraordinary accomplishment by a government or public
sector law office. (This is not an award for an individual). The
Nelson Award recognizes outstanding contributions to the ABA
by an individual government or public sector lawyer. Nominations
for the 2014 National Awards which will be presented at the
ABA’s Annual Meeting in August 2014 in Boston are now being
accepted. See http://www.americanbar.org/groups/government_public/
awards.html for requirements. Nominations must be received by the
Division by April 7, 2014. Early submissions are encouraged.