The primary option is to use that contradiction to destroy the credibility of the command’s entire case for separation. A recommendation for administrative separation must be based on facts. If the written rationale provided by the commander in their recommendation letter is directly contradicted by the credible evidence contained within the separation packet itself (such as witness statements or official records), the commander’s recommendation is shown to be factually baseless and biased.
The military defense attorney will make this contradiction the centerpiece of their defense at the separation board. In their written submission and their oral argument, the attorney will meticulously lay out every instance where the commander’s rationale is proven false by the evidence. They will create a side-by-side comparison, showing the board members the commander’s claim versus the actual evidence. This paints a picture of a commander who has either failed to review the evidence or is intentionally misrepresenting it.
This strategy attacks the good faith and credibility of the commander who is seeking to discharge the soldier. The attorney will argue that since the commander’s stated reasons for separation have been proven to be false, the board has no credible basis upon which to recommend separation. This is a very powerful argument that can lead a board to conclude that the entire separation action is unjust and that the soldier should be retained.