This edition of The Army Lawyer is devoted to our National Security Law Practice. Members of the Regiment should take notice. The Army Lawyer is not simply an excellent collection of eclectic writings on our practice of law. Foremost, it is designed to catalyze thought and focus energies on premier lawyering in uniform.

Unselfishness, as far as you are concerned, means simply this—you will put first the honour and interests of your country and your regiment; next, you will put the safety, well-being, and comfort of your men; and last—and last all the time—you will put your own interest . . . .-Field Marshall Sir William Slim (1957)

1. BG Berger Visits NTC Brigadier General (BG) Joseph Berger, the Commander of the U.S Army Legal Services Agency, led a team of JAG Corps leaders on an Article 6 inspection to the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California, to assess the legal office’s readiness and effectiveness in supporting the U.S. Army’s mission of training our Soldiers for conflict. During the Inspection the team enjoyed an early morning hike up Mount Blackie, led by Private First Class Custer-Jones, for physical training. The team then conducted an aerial orientation of “The Box” while Lieutenant Colonel Eric Husby briefed them on changes to the National Training Center’s direct action training scenarios, designed to make training more realistic to what our Soldiers face in combat. Upon their arrival at “Gilmore Gulch” the Fort Irwin Staff Judge Advocate, Lieutenant Colonel Phil Staten, led the dedication of a memorial to Chief Warrant Officer Five Sharon Swartw ...

The last “Lore of the Corps” in The Army Lawyer (Issue 1 2019) featured the infamous theft of the Hesse Jewels and a brief look at the follow-on courts-martial against Colonel (COL) Jack W. Durant, Captain (CPT) Kathleen B. Nash Durant,1 and Major (MAJ) David F. Watson. 2 All three were convicted at separate trials and all three were dismissed from the service and sentenced to terms of confinement at hard labor. Colonel Durant’s term of imprisonment was fourteen years; CPT Nash Durant and MAJ Watson were sentenced to five and three years, respectively.3 What happened after the three officers were convicted, however, is every bit as interesting as the crime itself, especially since President Dwight D. Eisenhower would ultimately grant a full and unconditional pardon to one of the three. What follows is the “rest of the story” surrounding the theft of Hesse family’s jewels.4

The pen is mightier than the sword. As lawyers, we want to believe this. We must believe this. Words matter. Words have consequences. Words can damage just like weapons. Like a weapon, email can be quickly employed in the heat of passion, often without thinking, and with disastrous consequences. But unlike the sword, where we have rules of engagement (ROE) to guide its use, we have no rules for the use of email.

The judge advocate career model calls for continual professional development throughout the course of one’s service. This includes broadening assignments to develop the capability to see, work, learn, and contribute outside one’s own perspective or individual level of understanding for the betterment of both the individual and the institution.1 For the past year, I had the privilege to see, work, learn, and contribute in an environment vastly different from the unit and installation Office of the Staff Judge Advocate assignments in which judge advocates spend much of our time—as a Deputy Legal Advisor on the National Security Council (NSC) staff at the White House.

Ten years ago, as a single, healthy, adventurous twenty-something finishing up law school, none of the benefits offered to military members and their families factored into my decision to join the Army. I joined to serve my country and for the exciting legal career opportunities. I stay because I enjoy it, take pride in it, and now more than ever I understand the value of the benefits, especially health care.

In 2006, the 9th Circuit, in Ilio’ulaokalani Coalition v. Rumsfeld, ruled that the U.S. Army’s plans to stand up a Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) at a Hawaiian base violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because the Army failed to consider other Army locations to station the team.

In a Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) procurement, award is made to the lowest priced offeror who is also deemed to be technically acceptable.1 When quotations are received, procuring agencies typically rank the offerors by price, technically evaluating each offeror until a technically acceptable offeror is found. At that point, the temptation is to stop evaluating. The LPTA has been identified and award can be made. Most people might think the contracting team’s job is finished, but the end of source selection is often not the end of the process. The best practice is to continue evaluating offerors for technical acceptability until a second, and perhaps even a third, technically acceptable offeror is identified. Having additional offerors who are “next in line” provides the agency with a basis to have potential bid protests dismissed.

The explosion of electronically stored information (ESI) has dramatically affected our Corps’ practice, creating a myriad of challenges on how we preserve, collect, and process information for litigation. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have expanded to address ESI, and our attorneys must keep pace with technological developments, or face sanctions by the courts. Additionally, most state bars have adopted rules regarding technology, such that the ethical obligation of competence now requires each of us to be cognizant how ESI and electronic discovery affects our practice.