Lock me please Forum

[gwuorbust]

Edit: Also, don't listen to the above poster. She is coming from an emotional viewpoint because she studied about the human trafficking side of this, which is not your issue. My $.02

I'm not coming from an emotional standpoint. I don't know enough about the OP to make any reasonable judgment about him or his situation on any ethical or moral level. All I know about is what he wrote here. Based on that writing, I think adcoms will be scratching their heads about what exactly he did and what he learned from it. The Ivey guide, the TLS guide, and probably just about every other guide on the subject warn about exactly that problem -- coming across as dismissive of past troubles. There is a difficult line to draw between too much disclosure and not enough, but if the OP should probably err on the side of more disclosure and not let the adcom simply assume the worst.

This isn't some little, "bump in the road," ooops, I got a bad grade because I partied too hard. This is a major, life-changing incident that occurred as a direct result of the OP's choices.

No. No they won't.

Adcoms care about three things: LSAT, GPA, URM status.

an short, honest explanation will be fine.

[Drake014]

Edit: Also, don't listen to the above poster. She is coming from an emotional viewpoint because she studied about the human trafficking side of this, which is not your issue. My $.02

I'm not coming from an emotional standpoint. I don't know enough about the OP to make any reasonable judgment about him or his situation on any ethical or moral level. All I know about is what he wrote here. Based on that writing, I think adcoms will be scratching their heads about what exactly he did and what he learned from it. The Ivey guide, the TLS guide, and probably just about every other guide on the subject warn about exactly that problem -- coming across as dismissive of past troubles. There is a difficult line to draw between too much disclosure and not enough, but if the OP should probably err on the side of more disclosure and not let the adcom simply assume the worst.

This isn't some little, "bump in the road," ooops, I got a bad grade because I partied too hard. This is a major, life-changing incident that occurred as a direct result of the OP's choices.

No. No they won't.

Adcoms care about three things: LSAT, GPA, URM status.

an short, honest explanation will be fine.

Eh, they also seriously seem to care about military service.

[gwuorbust]

Edit: Also, don't listen to the above poster. She is coming from an emotional viewpoint because she studied about the human trafficking side of this, which is not your issue. My $.02

I'm not coming from an emotional standpoint. I don't know enough about the OP to make any reasonable judgment about him or his situation on any ethical or moral level. All I know about is what he wrote here. Based on that writing, I think adcoms will be scratching their heads about what exactly he did and what he learned from it. The Ivey guide, the TLS guide, and probably just about every other guide on the subject warn about exactly that problem -- coming across as dismissive of past troubles. There is a difficult line to draw between too much disclosure and not enough, but if the OP should probably err on the side of more disclosure and not let the adcom simply assume the worst.

This isn't some little, "bump in the road," ooops, I got a bad grade because I partied too hard. This is a major, life-changing incident that occurred as a direct result of the OP's choices.

No. No they won't.

Adcoms care about three things: LSAT, GPA, URM status.

an short, honest explanation will be fine.

Eh, they also seriously seem to care about military service.

sure its a nice soft, but its not going to give a URM-like boost. I think at worst Adcoms won't like this, but if OP has the numbers..do you really think they are going to be like ding!, ding!, ding! ? Considering that people with criminal convictions get into many LS w/o it change their cycles dramatically, I'm of the opinion this prob won't either.

[Army2Law]

OP, just leave it at "off-limits bar/establishment" if that is what you were disciplined for. From the experience I had with doing Article 15s I had to do for my soldiers when they would do something stupid it generally was under a broader provision under the UCMJ. Since "going to juicy bars" isn't really in the UCMJ, I would just say what portion of the UCMJ you were disciplined under and say it was for going to an off-limits establishment. Either keep it vague like that or fully explain it, I wouldn't try and downplay it with the other fluff. It's up to you though.

[Rotor]

I agree with Army2Law. Keep it short, sweet and factual: "I was accused of violating a General Order (Article 92 of the UCMJ). I visited a locally-legal establishment that had been placed off-limits by the Commander US Forces Korea [or whoever it was]. I elected to take an administrative discharge (General Discharge, Under Honorable Conditions) in lieu of facing formal disciplinary proceedings."

A short mea culpa/I've learned my lesson sentence or two may be warranted but like someone else above mentioned the longer/more emphatic it is, the more it may come off as insincere.

(I'm a retired O-5 and a current 2L. I have no special insight to admissions though).

[niederbomb]

...

[Army2Law]

I think that version should be good. If you're mirroring the language in your reprimand, you should be fine since you're disclosing exactly what it was you were disciplined for.

[niederbomb]

Thanks everyone! I'm going to wait for a few more responses, then delete my posts and change the title of the thread.

[originalmutt]

I wouldn't get into whether the establishment was legal at the local level -- comes across as making up excuses. You violated military policy; whether it is legal locally is irrelevant.

I wouldn't put the words "human trafficking" anywhere in the addendum. I think you do have to disclose the nature of the offense, but the committee doesn't need to hear from you the reason behind the policy. That phrase produces creepy vibes you don't want the reader to have.

You may not want to hear this, but I wouldn't apply to any schools where you have to disclose this. While folks with criminal records often get into law school, supporting human trafficking (even if unwittingly) goes far beyond a DUI or a youthful indiscretion some 10 or 20 years ago. That said, you'll have to face the issue again come time for the bar. If I were you, I'd start volunteering at one of these anti-human trafficking groups ASAP and continue volunteering through law school so you can show the bar examiner (and future employers) some contrition.

This is one of those occasions where it may be worth the money to hire one of those professional law school admissions consultants. I'm not a fan of them but this is a unique circumstance.

Good luck!

[ATR]

I agree with Army2Law. Keep it short, sweet and factual: "I was accused of violating a General Order (Article 92 of the UCMJ). I visited a locally-legal establishment that had been placed off-limits by the Commander US Forces Korea [or whoever it was]. I elected to take an administrative discharge (General Discharge, Under Honorable Conditions) in lieu of facing formal disciplinary proceedings."

A short mea culpa/I've learned my lesson sentence or two may be warranted but like someone else above mentioned the longer/more emphatic it is, the more it may come off as insincere.

(I'm a retired O-5 and a current 2L. I have no special insight to admissions though).

No expert either, but this seems like very good advice.

[niederbomb]

.

[niederbomb]

...

[niederbomb]

...

[mala2]

You've gotten some good advice from the jag guy, I'd do what he said. In my opinion it would read better if it sounded like you had an actually relationship and it makes your tone sound better since it comes off like you really don't think you did anything wrong. Last thing I would say is you're still very young don't let this be a big deal forever, disclose but don't bring up more than needed.

[Voyager]

look: only disclose EXACTLY what you were ultimately found guilty of and discharged for.

Also, which service dishonorable discharged you for that? Marine Corp sure as hell wouldn't. I mean, military guy hires prostitute? Oh the horror. You must be the only dude ever to get discharged for that. Seriously. The entire economy of the Phillipines was supported in the 1980s and 90s by Navy and Marine bar tabs like that.

I imagine there is probably a LOT more to this story, but we'll just leave that there. Won't even speculate, although I have some guesses.

EDIT: Wait, this was a violation of a local unit order? Holy shit your CO is crazy. I get banning the hiring of prostitutes, but there a ton of ways to handle that short of bringing you up on charges.

[niederbomb]

look: only disclose EXACTLY what you were ultimately found guilty of and discharged for.

Also, which service dishonorable discharged you for that? Marine Corp sure as hell wouldn't. I mean, military guy hires prostitute? Oh the horror. You must be the only dude ever to get discharged for that. Seriously. The entire economy of the Phillipines was supported in the 1980s and 90s by Navy and Marine bar tabs like that.

I imagine there is probably a LOT more to this story, but we'll just leave that there. Won't even speculate, although I have some guesses.

It's hard to disclose "exactly" what I got discharged for. Ultimately, I resigned and got a General Discharge. If I just leave it at that, they're going to speculate why and make all sorts of negative inferences, and my DD 214 lists "serious misconduct" as the reason for the sicharge, so I'll get in trouble for "hiding shit" with C&F. If I say, I just "went" to an off limits bar. C&F will raise hell once they look at my records and see it was more than that. Ultimately, I don't think I can get away with less than the amount of disclosure I made in the post above. But if anyone has any other ideas, I'd love to hear them.

You're right. Marine Corps is different than the AF. However, there has been a huge effort in the past 5 years to clean up the "juicy bars" after Fox News ran an expose in 2002, and more than 200 GI's from my branch of service in this theatre have been discharged since USFK instituted the new policy in 2004. They even run freakin' TV ads warning of the consequences on AFN threatening GI's with prison. And no, I wasn't the only one. My buddy who was with me tried to fight it and got an OTH.

And whatever your speculation is is probably wrong. Any kind of sexual assault leads to prison time and a BCD these days. I did not do anything like that, and at no time was there any question about this.

[Paichka]

Not that it really matters at this point, but if you hired a prostitute, you DID violate the UCMJ. Soliciting a prostitute is a violation of Article 134, paragraph...97 or something. It was added in 2006 as part of a general overhaul of military regulations in the wake of investigations that revealed a huge problem with human trafficking in Korea, Germany, Afghanistan and Iraq. Soliciting a prostitute, even if legal in the host country, is punishable by up to a year's confinement.

I only mention that just to clarify. I'm an Army Captain, current 2L, and this punitive article forms the basis of my law review note. Since the UCMJ applies to all services, even the Marine Corps could/would give a dishonorable discharge for violation of the article, though DD would probably only come in if we were talking multiple specifications and the accused couldn't mount a good soldier defense or took a bench trial. Anyhoo.

I'd err on the side of disclosure -- you do not want to run into C&F problems down the road. I think the last version you posted is the best, honestly...it sounds contrite without getting into human trafficking (which is a buzz word you do NOT want as part of your application). Good luck!

[originalmutt]

Here's a thought:

What if I noted in passing that I was dating this "bar girl"? That way, it doesn't sound quite as bad as if I was just an ordinary whoring American GI.

If that's true, than I think that's mitigating evidence and should absolutely be included. I think you should only mention it in passing, as you suggested, and not dwell on it. Don't get into how other GIs marry the girls -- comes across as making excuses.

[joebloe]

Not that it really matters at this point, but if you hired a prostitute, you DID violate the UCMJ. Soliciting a prostitute is a violation of Article 134, paragraph...97 or something. It was added in 2006 as part of a general overhaul of military regulations in the wake of investigations that revealed a huge problem with human trafficking in Korea, Germany, Afghanistan and Iraq. Soliciting a prostitute, even if legal in the host country, is punishable by up to a year's confinement.

I only mention that just to clarify. I'm an Army Captain, current 2L, and this punitive article forms the basis of my law review note. Since the UCMJ applies to all services, even the Marine Corps could/would give a dishonorable discharge for violation of the article, though DD would probably only come in if we were talking multiple specifications and the accused couldn't mount a good soldier defense or took a bench trial. Anyhoo.

I'd err on the side of disclosure -- you do not want to run into C&F problems down the road. I think the last version you posted is the best, honestly...it sounds contrite without getting into human trafficking (which is a buzz word you do NOT want as part of your application). Good luck!

A bit OT, but it is utter bullshit that bolded took place. Didn't we learn how well preventing our soldiers from hiring prostitutes worked during WWI? There has to be a better damn way of keeping our soldiers from supporting human trafficking than ruining pretty much the only fun our soldiers can have. All my granddad's good stories about WWII were about the whorehouses in Panama, Hawaii and Australia.

Anyway, back on topic, Paichka totally has the right idea, especially WRT the whole use of buzzwords.

Oh one last thing; you'd mentioned that the rule/law is inconsistently enforced. Did you see a lawyer about this?

[starbucksjunkie]

Here's a thought:

What if I noted in passing that I was dating this "bar girl"? That way, it doesn't sound quite as bad as if I was just an ordinary whoring American GI.

In the small towns up near the DMZ, there really aren't any other women (even GI's since it's an Infantry Division), we're rarely allowed to go to Seoul, and it's quite common for GI's to develop real relationships with these girls, rescue them from the establishments, and marry them.

So I've worked as an adcom for two universities, one a medical school. I've seen similar stuff. Your concern shouldn't be getting into law school. Unfortunately, they let just about anyone with numbers in. Even predators. You should really think about shelling out 100K+ in loans with the possibility of not being able to practice if you get denied admission for the bar.

Also, you really need to stop making excuses and trying to come up with ways to rationalize this. These things happen, but your continued excuses just demonstrate your lack of remorse. Most of us aren't buying it, and hopefully no adcom will either. Someone with a proven history of exploiting a person in a desperate situation has no business being an advocate for others. You weren't "dating" that poor girl. If you were paying a fine. You were a regular customer, not her boyfriend. She didn't like you. She was playing you, ensuring her survival. Though "everyone else was doing it" is the oldest excuse in the book and irrelevant to your own behavior, I seriously doubt it is remotely common that a GI develops a "real" relationship with any of these girls. They may "rescue" them from these establishments by marriage, but what price? Its sad that you act like your comrades were doing these girls a favor. Do you not understand how supply and demand works or why the military has such policies?

Obviously, you are not sorry for preying on a likely underage girl tricked into selling her body. I doubt you asked to see her ID, or even asked her age before buying her from the bar. You are just sorry you got caught, so just stick to the facts and hope that no one calls you out.

[niederbomb]

...

[Gotti]

This is just...just...thank god for the internet.

+1

[originalmutt]

You are not the first lawyer to see a hooker, and you certainly won't be the last. The bigger issue is the human trafficking issue.

Again, I'd start volunteering somehow at one of these organizations ASAP. And I'd work my tail off so somebody at one of these orgs can give you a good reference. Maybe you should delay law school a year. Not what you want to hear, but the passage of time does help your cause.

In terms of how the bar examiners will handle it, I can't speak to that. Perhaps you should consult attorneys who represent other attorneys in bar disciplinary matters. They may have some insight.

But I agree with the other posters. Your biggest concern should be getting past the bar, not getting into law school.

[niederbomb]

..

[starbucksjunkie]

No, the girl was not underage. She was older than me by 1 year. It's illegal in Korea for anyone under the age of 19 to come in on an entertainment visa.

Honestly, getting admitted to the bar is something I'm really worried about. A convicted killer got admitted to the bar in Texas a few years ago, so who knows?

I've applied to the #1 law school in another common law country with a decent legal market, and I'm debating back and forth whether I should just go there. Only concern is that the immigration people will do a background check on me when I apply for permanent residency and investigate my military service, so I might have some problems there, too, but if I DO get through that, I'll never have to worry about my U.S. military record again.

Just because its illegal doesn't mean that it stops it. Their government is pretty corrupt and its not difficult to get the right papers. Many use someone else's passport for ID. I'm sure you know that. Most of the girls that work those establishments start out underage. Look it up.

I never questioned the fact that GIs marry these girls. I reject the premise of establishing "real" relationships. How does one really establish a healthy, functional relationship founded on buying a girls body a few nights? Does he really like her because she plays the game well or does he just want an exclusive piece of a** while he is there. Less risk of STDs if he pulls her off the market and she'll do "anything" to get the ultimate payoff of a marriage proposal. Is she really into him or does she see an opportunity to get out of slavery by being a GI's slave for 3 years and then divorcing after a greencard? I urge you to look at the divorce rate after 3 years, before trying to justify the validity of these "relationships" as reason to support human trafficking. For someone that wants to be a lawyer, you lack logic and fact-finding skills.

Doing school and practicing in another country might be a solid strategy. It is likely that Americans would be concerned about your character when you consider exploiting girls and women in third-world countries to be an acceptable risk. They wonder if you thought it was worth destroying your military career and having it follow you forever.