Military Defense Lawyer (Former JAG Attorney) News:
Recently, in two separate, unrelated cases, military officers and pilots defended by attorney Richard V. Stevens (Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.) were recommended to continue flying in the Flying Evaluation Board (FEB) cases that each of them faced.
Both of these cases were convened based on alleged flight incidents and violations of applicable flight rules.
Military pilots – both fixed wing and rotary wing – can face adverse actions against their qualifications and authorization to fly for a variety of reasons. Mishaps and crashes. Alleged violations of flight rules. Alleged safety violations. Failure to progress in training. In these adverse actions, the pilot could face being reassigned or even permanently grounded (disqualified from further aviation service). In certain aggravated cases, the pilot could also face losing the right to wear their wings on their uniform.
For military pilots, these boards go by different names. In the Navy and Marine Corps, it is the Field Naval Aviator Evaluation Board (FNAEB). In the Air Force and Army, it is the Flying Evaluation Board (FEB). There are also other boards for military aviation issues, depending on the type of aviation incident involved. This includes Safety Investigation Board (SIB), Accident Investigation Board (AIB), and/or Command Directed Investigation (CDI).
A FNAEB or FEB is a formal administrative hearing before fellow pilots in which recommendations are made about whether the respondent pilot should remain in aviation service, and whether that pilot can continue to wear his/her wings. Based on that recommendation, the pilot could continue his/her military career, or he/she could face the loss of their flying career, military career, and be involuntarily administratively discharged from the service.
In the first FEB case at issue, the military pilot was a field grade officer who was accused of violating flight and safety rules. He faced a litigated FEB board hearing in which videos were analyzed, evidence was submitted, and multiple witnesses were interviewed and/or called to testify. Ultimately, after closing arguments in the hearing, the FEB Board members concluded that the pilot should be reinstated to continue flying his fighter aircraft. (To protect anonymity, the type of aircraft and service branch are not identified.)
In the second case at issue, the military pilot was a company grade officer who was accused of violating flight and safety rules, and was being removed from training. We rebutted this action by submitting a statement/argument and evidence in support of the pilot. Despite what was originally thought to be a certain training removal, after considering our submission the command changed course and returned the client to training – which he successfully completed and continued flying his fighter aircraft. (To protect anonymity, the type of aircraft and service branch are not identified.)
While these military aviation cases resulted in positive recommendations, it is important to understand that every case has different facts, and success in previous cases does not guarantee success in any particular future case. No military lawyer or civilian defense lawyer, including those who specialize in military law, can guarantee the outcome of any military trial or case.
For more information about the military justice system, particularly cases involving aviation issues and Flying Evaluation Boards, see:
https://militaryadvocate.com/practice-areas/flying-evaluation-board/
We offer free consultations for a case you may be involved in. Just call us.
Thank you.
By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian
criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military
Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.
Blog postscript: I (attorney Richard V. Stevens) am a former active duty military lawyer (JAG). My perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon my experience as military defense lawyer and as a civilian criminal defense lawyer practicing exclusively in the area of military law and military justice. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens for a free consultation. These military defense law offices are located in the Washington DC, Northern Virginia, Maryland, National Capital Region (NCR), but the military defense representation is worldwide – when necessary, the attorneys travel to wherever the client is stationed around the world.
