Military Law

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
travellingboarder
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:58 am

Re: Military Law

Postby travellingboarder » Wed Dec 24, 2014 12:23 pm

dat209 wrote:
travellingboarder wrote:I got accepted into the Army Reserves!

2 times applying for AD (as a 3L and right after law school)
3rd time applying for Reserves (Last Fall, this Spring, and this Fall)

Awesome!


Where did you find out from?


I got an email from them this morning at 7:00 AM

dat209
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 10:43 pm

Re: Military Law

Postby dat209 » Wed Dec 24, 2014 12:25 pm

travellingboarder wrote:
dat209 wrote:
travellingboarder wrote:I got accepted into the Army Reserves!

2 times applying for AD (as a 3L and right after law school)
3rd time applying for Reserves (Last Fall, this Spring, and this Fall)

Awesome!


Where did you find out from?


I got an email from them this morning at 7:00 AM


Congratulations and thanks for the info! Was it from your FSO or was it from the JARO? Sorry for a million questions, just eagerly awaiting the results.

travellingboarder
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:58 am

Re: Military Law

Postby travellingboarder » Wed Dec 24, 2014 1:36 pm

dat209 wrote:
travellingboarder wrote:
dat209 wrote:
travellingboarder wrote:I got accepted into the Army Reserves!

2 times applying for AD (as a 3L and right after law school)
3rd time applying for Reserves (Last Fall, this Spring, and this Fall)

Awesome!


Where did you find out from?


I got an email from them this morning at 7:00 AM


Congratulations and thanks for the info! Was it from your FSO or was it from the JARO? Sorry for a million questions, just eagerly awaiting the results.


I got the email from my FSO. I haven't heard from JARO yet, but she said I should receive a notice soon.

travellingboarder
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:58 am

Re: Military Law

Postby travellingboarder » Wed Dec 24, 2014 2:07 pm

Does anyone know what the compensation is for Army Reservists during the 16.5 weeks of training (in GA and VA)? Since I have to step away from my practice for 4.5 months, I'm curious what the compensation will be.

User avatar
shintopig
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:09 pm

Re: Military Law

Postby shintopig » Thu Dec 25, 2014 12:50 pm

LSATmakesMeNeurotic wrote:Army AD selections are out


Didn't get it. Its okay though, I already got what I wanted.

I counted around 116 accepted for Army AD. This sounds about right for their yearly accessions.

jjm123
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 9:54 am

Re: Military Law

Postby jjm123 » Thu Dec 25, 2014 1:59 pm

shintopig wrote:
LSATmakesMeNeurotic wrote:Army AD selections are out


Didn't get it. Its okay though, I already got what I wanted.

I counted around 116 accepted for Army AD. This sounds about right for their yearly accessions.



I was selected as an alternate.

From what I have found on this thread and other forums is that typically many alternates do not get selected b/c there is a high offer acceptance rate. Is that the case? Either way, I was close so I will just reapply.

Happy holidays and gl to everyone else!

User avatar
TheSpanishMain
Posts: 4110
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:26 pm

Re: Military Law

Postby TheSpanishMain » Sun Dec 28, 2014 8:01 pm

When applying for an internship, the Navy and the Air Force both require a "full length photo." I have a good photo of myself against a neutral background, but it only comes down to my knees-ish. I've been in the military, so I know the primary purpose of officer portraits is a) make sure you're not a fattie and b) make sure you aren't slovenly/making the military look bad. It seems like a picture that shows 80% of my body would work for those purposes, but anyone think it's important to take a new picture that is literally head to toe?

Jules07
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 12:33 pm

Re: Military Law

Postby Jules07 » Sun Dec 28, 2014 8:09 pm

TheSpanishMain wrote:When applying for an internship, the Navy and the Air Force both require a "full length photo." I have a good photo of myself against a neutral background, but it only comes down to my knees-ish. I've been in the military, so I know the primary purpose of officer portraits is a) make sure you're not a fattie and b) make sure you aren't slovenly/making the military look bad. It seems like a picture that shows 80% of my body would work for those purposes, but anyone think it's important to take a new picture that is literally head to toe?


Definitely take another full-length photo that doesn't cut off even the top of your head or the bottom of your shoes. When I was applying, they specifically told me to make sure the printed photo was 100% full-length. Even if it doesn't make sense, that's the way they do things and if you don't follow the instructions to the letter it will reflect badly on your application. Welcome to the military. :)

User avatar
kay2016
Posts: 1121
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:23 am

Re: Military Law

Postby kay2016 » Sun Dec 28, 2014 8:16 pm

Jules07 wrote:
TheSpanishMain wrote:When applying for an internship, the Navy and the Air Force both require a "full length photo." I have a good photo of myself against a neutral background, but it only comes down to my knees-ish. I've been in the military, so I know the primary purpose of officer portraits is a) make sure you're not a fattie and b) make sure you aren't slovenly/making the military look bad. It seems like a picture that shows 80% of my body would work for those purposes, but anyone think it's important to take a new picture that is literally head to toe?


Definitely take another full-length photo that doesn't cut off even the top of your head or the bottom of your shoes. When I was applying, they specifically told me to make sure the printed photo was 100% full-length. Even if it doesn't make sense, that's the way they do things and if you don't follow the instructions to the letter it will reflect badly on your application. Welcome to the military. :)


on that note, for females, is it important to have your hair in some sort of Military approved style? I'm growing mine out so it's a little too long to be "short" but not quite long enough to be pulled up appropriately either. Should I get it cut before I take my picture? Or it okay as long it looks professional

User avatar
TheSpanishMain
Posts: 4110
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:26 pm

Re: Military Law

Postby TheSpanishMain » Sun Dec 28, 2014 8:31 pm

Jules07 wrote:
TheSpanishMain wrote:When applying for an internship, the Navy and the Air Force both require a "full length photo." I have a good photo of myself against a neutral background, but it only comes down to my knees-ish. I've been in the military, so I know the primary purpose of officer portraits is a) make sure you're not a fattie and b) make sure you aren't slovenly/making the military look bad. It seems like a picture that shows 80% of my body would work for those purposes, but anyone think it's important to take a new picture that is literally head to toe?


Definitely take another full-length photo that doesn't cut off even the top of your head or the bottom of your shoes. When I was applying, they specifically told me to make sure the printed photo was 100% full-length. Even if it doesn't make sense, that's the way they do things and if you don't follow the instructions to the letter it will reflect badly on your application. Welcome to the military. :)


Hm. In the Army our portraits ended just below the waist, so I guess I defaulted to that. Better safe than sorry though.

cg1995
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2014 8:20 pm

Re: Military Law

Postby cg1995 » Sun Dec 28, 2014 8:35 pm

Congratulations!

(and good job being tenacious).

travellingboarder wrote:I got accepted into the Army Reserves!

2 times applying for AD (as a 3L and right after law school)
3rd time applying for Reserves (Last Fall, this Spring, and this Fall)

Awesome!

Jules07
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 12:33 pm

Re: Military Law

Postby Jules07 » Sun Dec 28, 2014 10:40 pm

kay2016 wrote:on that note, for females, is it important to have your hair in some sort of Military approved style? I'm growing mine out so it's a little too long to be "short" but not quite long enough to be pulled up appropriately either. Should I get it cut before I take my picture? Or it okay as long it looks professional

I had mine pulled back, but if yours isn't long enough I think a conservative, professional style would probably be ok. Maybe half pulled back? Just make sure it's not all over your face or anything!

travellingboarder
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:58 am

Re: Military Law

Postby travellingboarder » Mon Dec 29, 2014 10:23 am

cg1995 wrote:Congratulations!

(and good job being tenacious).

travellingboarder wrote:I got accepted into the Army Reserves!

2 times applying for AD (as a 3L and right after law school)
3rd time applying for Reserves (Last Fall, this Spring, and this Fall)

Awesome!


Thanks!

User avatar
AT9
Posts: 1298
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: Military Law

Postby AT9 » Mon Dec 29, 2014 4:25 pm

kay2016 wrote:
Jules07 wrote:
TheSpanishMain wrote:When applying for an internship, the Navy and the Air Force both require a "full length photo." I have a good photo of myself against a neutral background, but it only comes down to my knees-ish. I've been in the military, so I know the primary purpose of officer portraits is a) make sure you're not a fattie and b) make sure you aren't slovenly/making the military look bad. It seems like a picture that shows 80% of my body would work for those purposes, but anyone think it's important to take a new picture that is literally head to toe?


Definitely take another full-length photo that doesn't cut off even the top of your head or the bottom of your shoes. When I was applying, they specifically told me to make sure the printed photo was 100% full-length. Even if it doesn't make sense, that's the way they do things and if you don't follow the instructions to the letter it will reflect badly on your application. Welcome to the military. :)


on that note, for females, is it important to have your hair in some sort of Military approved style? I'm growing mine out so it's a little too long to be "short" but not quite long enough to be pulled up appropriately either. Should I get it cut before I take my picture? Or it okay as long it looks professional


Along the lines of appearance, here's a possibly dumb question:

I've grew a beard a couple months ago. It's pretty short, conservative, and cleanly trimmed. I know that beards are generally a no-no in the military. Should I shave for the photo or let it be so long as it's trimmed professionally?

Edit: my appearance otherwise (hair cut is simple, no tats, etc.) is clean-cut and military friendly.

xfactor9169
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Military Law

Postby xfactor9169 » Mon Dec 29, 2014 5:04 pm

Does anyone have any update on when we can expect the National Guard results? Active duty and reserves were posted so I was expecting the NG to be posted as well. Luckily I was selected for the reserves but I still would like to know my results with the NG. All responses are greatly appreciated. Thanks

xfactor9169
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Military Law

Postby xfactor9169 » Mon Dec 29, 2014 5:06 pm

AT9 wrote:
kay2016 wrote:
Jules07 wrote:
TheSpanishMain wrote:When applying for an internship, the Navy and the Air Force both require a "full length photo." I have a good photo of myself against a neutral background, but it only comes down to my knees-ish. I've been in the military, so I know the primary purpose of officer portraits is a) make sure you're not a fattie and b) make sure you aren't slovenly/making the military look bad. It seems like a picture that shows 80% of my body would work for those purposes, but anyone think it's important to take a new picture that is literally head to toe?


Definitely take another full-length photo that doesn't cut off even the top of your head or the bottom of your shoes. When I was applying, they specifically told me to make sure the printed photo was 100% full-length. Even if it doesn't make sense, that's the way they do things and if you don't follow the instructions to the letter it will reflect badly on your application. Welcome to the military. :)


on that note, for females, is it important to have your hair in some sort of Military approved style? I'm growing mine out so it's a little too long to be "short" but not quite long enough to be pulled up appropriately either. Should I get it cut before I take my picture? Or it okay as long it looks professional


Along the lines of appearance, here's a possibly dumb question:

I've grew a beard a couple months ago. It's pretty short, conservative, and cleanly trimmed. I know that beards are generally a no-no in the military. Should I shave for the photo or let it be so long as it's trimmed professionally?

Edit: my appearance otherwise (hair cut is simple, no tats, etc.) is clean-cut and military friendly.


I usually have a beard as well but I fully shaved for the pictures and interview. I was selected for reserves. I didn't want to risk anything or give the Board any extra reasons to not select me.

User avatar
TheSpanishMain
Posts: 4110
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:26 pm

Re: Military Law

Postby TheSpanishMain » Mon Dec 29, 2014 5:11 pm

AT9 wrote:Along the lines of appearance, here's a possibly dumb question:

I've grew a beard a couple months ago. It's pretty short, conservative, and cleanly trimmed. I know that beards are generally a no-no in the military. Should I shave for the photo or let it be so long as it's trimmed professionally?

Edit: my appearance otherwise (hair cut is simple, no tats, etc.) is clean-cut and military friendly.


To be clear, I'm not JAG and am only beginning the internship application process. That said, I've been an officer in the Army, so here's my two cents.

This is the kind of thing that PROBABLY wouldn't hurt you. Yes, professional appearance is important in the military. Yes, things need to be just so ("your mustache must not extend beyond a vertical line drawn up from the corner of your mouth, etc.) However, most military personnel are not the retarded automatons some people think they are. If you have a neat, trimmed beard, most people aren't going to assume from that that you're a wild eyed hippie who will never be able to adapt to the military. On the other hand, you might be unlucky and get that one guy who does jerk off at night to AR 670-1, and will ding you for a beard. So, all things being equal, I guess I'd shave it just to be on the safe side.

Trust me, people in the military laugh at prospective boots who show up with a high and tight. I can't imagine you need to focus on looking TOO military in your portrait. It's more like you need to demonstrate that you know how to present a conservative, professional appearance. And reassure them you're not a fattie.

User avatar
AT9
Posts: 1298
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: Military Law

Postby AT9 » Mon Dec 29, 2014 5:22 pm

TheSpanishMain wrote:
AT9 wrote:Along the lines of appearance, here's a possibly dumb question:

I've grew a beard a couple months ago. It's pretty short, conservative, and cleanly trimmed. I know that beards are generally a no-no in the military. Should I shave for the photo or let it be so long as it's trimmed professionally?

Edit: my appearance otherwise (hair cut is simple, no tats, etc.) is clean-cut and military friendly.


To be clear, I'm not JAG and am only beginning the internship application process. That said, I've been an officer in the Army, so here's my two cents.

This is the kind of thing that PROBABLY wouldn't hurt you. Yes, professional appearance is important in the military. Yes, things need to be just so ("your mustache must not extend beyond a vertical line drawn up from the corner of your mouth, etc.) However, most military personnel are not the retarded automatons some people think they are. If you have a neat, trimmed beard, most people aren't going to assume from that that you're a wild eyed hippie who will never be able to adapt to the military. On the other hand, you might be unlucky and get that one guy who does jerk off at night to AR 670-1, and will ding you for a beard. So, all things being equal, I guess I'd shave it just to be on the safe side.

Trust me, people in the military laugh at prospective boots who show up with a high and tight. I can't imagine you need to focus on looking TOO military in your portrait. It's more like you need to demonstrate that you know how to present a conservative, professional appearance. And reassure them you're not a fattie.


Thanks for the input. I don't really want to shave it, am not a fattie, and am conservatively dressed/groomed...I'll probably keep it but the fear of being dinged for something dumb like that does make me nervous.

Also, I lol'd at the high and tight type remark - I knew a bunch of guys like that in high school.

User avatar
howell
Posts: 502
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:57 am

Re: Military Law

Postby howell » Tue Dec 30, 2014 11:08 pm

I would vote for shaving the beard, but it certainly doesn't mean you won't get in with a beard pic. I just wouldn't give them any reason to say no.

User avatar
MarineLaw
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:17 am

Re: Military Law

Postby MarineLaw » Thu Jan 01, 2015 11:45 am

Hi folks, I have a question about transferring schools as a future JAG and getting job experience in law school.

Bottom Line: would it be worth transferring from a T-3 to a T-1 school when the T-3 school has significantly more meaningful internship programs and clinics? I am looking at transferring; the tradeoff would be forfeiting the opportunity to do a D.A. internship and potentially an AUSA internship in a city for a higher-ranked school in a more rural setting (none of the clinicals/internships are comparable--plus I'd bottom of the selection totem pole as a transferee).

I'm trying to weigh the value of internships, and the potential advantage it would give me early on in practice, with the less immediate but more long term advantage of attending a higher ranked school in the same geographic location. Any insight on how much internships and clinicals during school actually help as a JAG would be really appreciated!

User avatar
TheSpanishMain
Posts: 4110
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:26 pm

Re: Military Law

Postby TheSpanishMain » Thu Jan 01, 2015 2:26 pm

MarineLaw wrote:Hi folks, I have a question about transferring schools as a future JAG and getting job experience in law school.

Bottom Line: would it be worth transferring from a T-3 to a T-1 school when the T-3 school has significantly more meaningful internship programs and clinics? I am looking at transferring; the tradeoff would be forfeiting the opportunity to do a D.A. internship and potentially an AUSA internship in a city for a higher-ranked school in a more rural setting (none of the clinicals/internships are comparable--plus I'd bottom of the selection totem pole as a transferee).

I'm trying to weigh the value of internships, and the potential advantage it would give me early on in practice, with the less immediate but more long term advantage of attending a higher ranked school in the same geographic location. Any insight on how much internships and clinicals during school actually help as a JAG would be really appreciated!


Are you a FLEP or guaranteed a spot as a JAG through some other program? And if so, are you planning on being a JAG lifer?

If you know for sure you're going JAG and plan on making a career of it, I wouldn't worry too much about transferring since the poor career outlook from a T-3 doesn't apply to you as much. In that case, I don't think you'd be wrong to prioritize clinics/experience. If you're just hoping you get picked up as a JAG, I'd strongly consider transferring if the T-1 school has better job prospects to give yourself better fallback options if you don't get JAG.

Just my 1L opinion though.

User avatar
MarineLaw
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:17 am

Re: Military Law

Postby MarineLaw » Thu Jan 01, 2015 3:14 pm

Yep--I'm doing a program similar to FLEP and just trying to get some input on correctly weighing the factors mentioned above. Not sure on the commitment aspect; Just trying to play the best hand possible right now...

User avatar
Patrick Bateman
Posts: 595
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:41 pm

Re: Military Law

Postby Patrick Bateman » Sat Jan 03, 2015 8:40 pm

TheSpanishMain wrote:
MarineLaw wrote:Hi folks, I have a question about transferring schools as a future JAG and getting job experience in law school.

Bottom Line: would it be worth transferring from a T-3 to a T-1 school when the T-3 school has significantly more meaningful internship programs and clinics? I am looking at transferring; the tradeoff would be forfeiting the opportunity to do a D.A. internship and potentially an AUSA internship in a city for a higher-ranked school in a more rural setting (none of the clinicals/internships are comparable--plus I'd bottom of the selection totem pole as a transferee).

I'm trying to weigh the value of internships, and the potential advantage it would give me early on in practice, with the less immediate but more long term advantage of attending a higher ranked school in the same geographic location. Any insight on how much internships and clinicals during school actually help as a JAG would be really appreciated!


Are you a FLEP or guaranteed a spot as a JAG through some other program? And if so, are you planning on being a JAG lifer?

If you know for sure you're going JAG and plan on making a career of it, I wouldn't worry too much about transferring since the poor career outlook from a T-3 doesn't apply to you as much. In that case, I don't think you'd be wrong to prioritize clinics/experience. If you're just hoping you get picked up as a JAG, I'd strongly consider transferring if the T-1 school has better job prospects to give yourself better fallback options if you don't get JAG.

Just my 1L opinion though.


SpanishMain hit it.

If you already have a JAG offer locked in, the value of clinics and the DA/USAO internships matter way less (from purely a JAG accessions perspective - they are still a great experience that can give you connections down the road). If you are are the fence in terms of a career or just a term, the most risk-adverse position is probably the T1 transfer.

A few pages back, I detailed my post-JAG employment experiences. Outside of the JAG Corps, the name on your JD does carry weight. I was very happy to have come from a T-25 when I was interviewing with DOJ and USAO. Maybe I would have been fine without a T-25 name given a still solid resume thanks to all my JAG experience but I was in a much stronger interviewing position with it.

lawhaze
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 9:13 pm

Re: Military Law

Postby lawhaze » Sun Jan 04, 2015 4:01 pm

Should Army AD selectees expect to receive further information later this month via snail mail? And does anyone know the date by which selectees typically have to accept or decline?

DannyBoy31
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 10:38 pm

Re: Military Law

Postby DannyBoy31 » Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:51 pm

I know it's a shot in the dark but has anyone heard rumors of when AF results will be released or when the board met?




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.