Top Law Schools

...

honestly, I'd just not do an addendum. I think it draws attention to a not so great incident. I'm female, so that really wasn't an issue for me, but I had to do some dumb computer training like everyone about human trafficking. I forgot what they called it. I don't know about Japan or South Korea, but in a lot of places not everyone who is working in a bar wants to be there. It is definitely annoying though how the rules are applied so arbitrarily. So many self righteous hypocrites in the military. Still, I would leave it out. Despite hypocrisy, there are good reasons to not allow military personal to engage in this type of behavior and I really think bringing it up at all is a bad idea.

.

niederbomb wrote:

mala2 wrote:honestly, I'd just not do an addendum. I think it draws attention to a not so great incident. I'm female, so that really wasn't an issue for me, but I had to do some dumb computer training like everyone about human trafficking. I forgot what they called it. I don't know about Japan or South Korea, but in a lot of places not everyone who is working in a bar wants to be there. It is definitely annoying though how the rules are applied so arbitrarily. So many self righteous hypocrites in the military. Still, I would leave it out. Despite hypocrisy, there are good reasons to not allow military personal to engage in this type of behavior and I really think bringing it up at all is a bad idea.

Any better suggestions?

Some LS apps ask explicit questions that require an answer.

What should I say in response to "Have you ever been discharged from the Armed forces other than by honorable discharge?"

I thought based on what you said the answer to this question would be no...

Maybe I misunderstood?

Also, you could just say "resigned after receiving a letter of reprimand for patronizing an off-limits bar." I feel like including the word hostess is the biggest issue with these addenda

.

I'm not coming from a military background, but, in college, I did extensively study the military policy that you ran afoul of.

That said, I think you need to disclose much more about the situation and be more contrite. I think if you want to show the adcom that you learned from the experience, then your current seemingly-defensive retrospective doesn't serve you well. Maybe it's just me, but when I read the "lessons learned" part of your statement, it sounds like you are still blaming the policy (which you seem to still disagree with) more than yourself. I think that type of false contrition comes across as a bit immature and won't help your case.

Whether you believe it or not, those juicy bar do deal heavily in human trafficking (and yes, it is largely sanctioned by the local government and culture in Korea). As a circumspect individual with awareness of how his own actions may affect others, I think -- at minimum -- you should demonstrate that you understand the rationale behind the ban, even if you think your actions didn't cut against it in your case. Law schools devote huge resources to human rights clinics, courses, and guest speakers to promote awareness of human trafficking issues; the last thing you want to do is come off as dismissive of them.

niederbomb wrote:

birdlaw117 wrote:

niederbomb wrote:

mala2 wrote:honestly, I'd just not do an addendum. I think it draws attention to a not so great incident. I'm female, so that really wasn't an issue for me, but I had to do some dumb computer training like everyone about human trafficking. I forgot what they called it. I don't know about Japan or South Korea, but in a lot of places not everyone who is working in a bar wants to be there. It is definitely annoying though how the rules are applied so arbitrarily. So many self righteous hypocrites in the military. Still, I would leave it out. Despite hypocrisy, there are good reasons to not allow military personal to engage in this type of behavior and I really think bringing it up at all is a bad idea.

Any better suggestions?

Some LS apps ask explicit questions that require an answer.

What should I say in response to "Have you ever been discharged from the Armed forces other than by honorable discharge?"

I thought based on what you said the answer to this question would be no...

Maybe I misunderstood?

Also, you could just say "resigned after receiving a letter of reprimand for patronizing an off-limits bar." I feel like including the word hostess is the biggest issue with these addenda

What about C&F? Is "off limits bar" complete enough information to satisfy them?

Also, you've made a mistake that I hope others will make also: Getting a "General-under honorable conditions" discharge is different than getting a fully "honorable discharge."

You aren't lying about it. You are just going into less detail about it, which is what you should probably do.

I would make the change I suggested, and I'm also not too big on the "what did you learn from this?" paragraph. I'm not too big on those for anyone. It is difficult to write one without it sounding insincere. I understand why it is there, and I'm not suggesting you remove it. However, I think you should make sure it sounds VERY sincere.

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

birdlaw117 wrote: 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.

Dont go to law school if you are not smart enough to not get caught with hookers as you will not be able to handle the big law lifestyle of hookers and blow, obviously. Haha im just laughing to myself that you got in trouble cause of a juicy haha

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

.

I don't understand why the OP needs to bring this up. They only ask if he received a dishonorable discharge. He didn't. End of story. Don't confess to shit you don't need to confess to. Part of being a lawyer is about answering the questions you were asked. If you can't do that, you've got bigger problems than the adcoms.

.

niederbomb wrote:

Drake014 wrote:I don't understand why the OP needs to bring this up. They only ask if he received a dishonorable discharge. He didn't. End of story. Don't confess to shit you don't need to confess to. Part of being a lawyer is about answering the questions you were asked. If you can't do that, you've got bigger problems than the adcoms.

I wish people would read my original post more carefully.

They ask if you received anything different than an "honorable discharge." A General discharge is not an honorable discharge.

They expect you to disclose the incident. When I called a Chicago about it (without giving any details), they said I would need to explain the situation fully.

I reread your original post, you didn't state the bolded. Given that fact, I don't like either of the things you wrote. Either clearly indicate that you were patronizing a prostitute, or fluff it up and just make it sound like you were at an off-limits bar (completely leaving out the human trafficking part). Either of your options right now straddle the line and sound confusing. If I were an adcom, I wouldn't be sure what you did but would assume it was really bad judging by the inclusion of the human trafficking part.

.

niederbomb wrote:

boushi wrote:

birdlaw117 wrote: 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.

How's this?

Resigned from the Armed Forces after receiving a letter of reprimand for paying a bar fine at an overseas hostess bar. Although I was not convicted of breaking any laws, I resigned in lieu of possible disciplinary actions. I left "under honorable conditions.”

I made a serious personal mistake that hurt me professionally. I signed a contract to abide by the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, and I violated a direct order during my off-duty time. I realize the regulation exists to help prevent human trafficking, and I was wrong to violate it. I have learned the importance of conducting myself morally and professionally in my personal life as well as at work.

I think it's much better, actually. It's ultimately your call, but I still think you should also give a brief run-through of the incident in a completely objective way. Here’s an altered version that I whipped up after reading your latest:

I resigned from the Armed Forces after receiving a letter of reprimand for paying a bar fine at an overseas hostess bar. [Here I think you could add a sentence or two about what exactly you did – going to the bar, buying drinks, paying the bills, etc.] I was not convicted of breaking any laws; however, I did resign in lieu of possible disciplinary actions. I left "under honorable conditions.”

I realize that my resignation came as a result of a serious mistake. I signed a contract to abide by the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, and, by visiting that hostess bar and paying fees there, I ran afoul of the ban on military personnel frequenting such establishments and thus violated my professional obligations. Moreover, I understand the bigger picture – that the ban exists to help prevent human trafficking – and, in that sense, I consider my violation to have been a personal failing. Through the ordeal of leaving the military and reflections on my actions, however, I have learned the importance of conducting myself more professionally in both my personal and professional capacities.

[I think you could substantiate that last sentence with an example of things you’ve gone on to do, etc.]

…

I think the language could be tightened up, but I think you get the idea. I hope this helps.

I realize that it's taken out, but in case it's suggested that it be re-added, I wanted to add something. The issue in this is your violation of orders (UCMJ), correct? You weren't charged with human trafficking or anything like that. The issue in your addendum is that you received a specific violation. Why the law exists isn't something you necessarily need to explore in your addendum.

Is it?

.

niederbomb wrote:

gens1tb wrote:I realize that it's taken out, but in case it's suggested that it be re-added, I wanted to add something. The issue in this is your violation of orders (UCMJ), correct? You weren't charged with human trafficking or anything like that. The issue in your addendum is that you received a specific violation. Why the law exists isn't something you necessarily need to explore in your addendum.

Is it?

Hard to say. I'm not going to get consensus on this.

I'm waiting for someone to comment who has experience either 1) as senior military or 2) has worked for law school admissions. I appreciate the effort people have put in, but I think this issue may be beyond common sense and require some real expertise to resolve.

I talked to a close friend whose on the student's admission committee. She told me that she'd opt for the one that doesn't mention human trafficking. She'd read that you went to an off-limits bar, resigned before being disciplined, and that was the end of it. To her, whose never been in the military, that would sound like a reasonable explanation and she wouldn't assume something was missing.

edit: she also wants to add this is just her opinion and they may vary

The second is better than the first

shastaca wrote:The second is better than the first, though I would delete: Although I was not convicted of breaking any laws, I resigned in lieu of possible disciplinary actions. I left "under honorable conditions.”

However, the nature of the application question demands that you explain the nature of your discharge. So it seems to me you want to say something along the lines that you were unusually given a General Discharge instead of the Honorable Discharge when your resignation was approved.

Then I would explain what you did that caused your resignation: violated a direct order during off-duty time by patronizing a bar you had specifically been ordered not to patronize.

Then another sentence explaining what you learned:

Your last sentence, " I have learned the importance of conducting myself morally and professionally in my personal life as well as at work," does a fine job.


No Adcom is going to care that your command disagreed with your choice of off duty establishment.

I feel like this indicates that, well, maybe a moral issue was brought up. I might leave it out altogether. You can speak to the importance of living up to the image of your profession, or your understanding of the agreement you made with the US government, or anything. But I wouldn't--wouldn't--indicate that you are a whoring, possibly sexually assaulting, former G.I. good for Raymond Carver shorts, bad for life, Brah.

JMO, but leaving out specifics while including wording like "I no longer engage in these kinds of activities" and stating that you resigned rather than facing the sanctions for whatever you did would make me wonder what exactly you were leaving out.

Hopefully someone with more direct experience will jump in here but that was just my first impression.

If you're not planning on fully disclosing the info you've already posted in this thread then you've already made a huge, huge mistake by posting this publicly. Sigh... It's already disclosed. Dumb. And honestly, what the hell man? You SHOULD be effing contrite. What you did was messed up.

I'd leave off the human trafficking part like some others have said. I don't really know anything about overseas prostitution so that isn't what would pop in my head. I think people would look more favorably on "I hired a prostitute and resigned instead of facing diciplinary actions" rather than "Fluff fluff fluff Fluff fluff fluff (round about way of saying it). I realize this is bad because sometimes it supports human traffickers." I'd take that part out even if you leave it with no remorse at all.

AreJay711 wrote:I'd leave off the human trafficking part like some others have said. I don't really know anything about overseas prostitution so that isn't what would pop in my head. I think people would look more favorably on "I hired a prostitute and resigned instead of facing diciplinary actions" rather than "Fluff fluff fluff Fluff fluff fluff (round about way of saying it). I realize this is bad because sometimes it supports human traffickers." I'd take that part out even if you leave it with no remorse at all.

I agree with this point. Hiring a prostitute where it's locally legal doesn't strike me as being especially heinous, provided the woman was of age and there wasn't any reason to believe "human trafficking" was involved. I wouldn't say anything remotely resembling "human trafficking" unless it's in a report somewhere. What does you DD 214 say, anyway? You absolutely need to ensure that the addendum does not conflict in any way with what your DD 214 and any DD 215s say, cause I'm 100% sure C&F is going to see those.

By the way, have you tried to get your discharge upgraded to honorable? I've heard that this can be done if you can show there was some error or injustice. I'd suggest seeing a lawyer specializing in military law to see if this is possible.

Furthermore, are you absolutely sure they want to hear about general discharges? Or could it be that they want to hear about OTHs, BCDs and DDs (and the office staff/people who proofed the form presumed any discharge that is not an honorable discharge is an OTH or worse)? I'd recommend clarifying in your addendum that it was a general discharge.

As to wording, I'm thinking something like:

"In (YEAR) I voluntarily took a general discharge from the (BRANCH OF SERVICE) after I was given a letter of reprimand for having been caught patronizing an overseas hostess bar in (HOST COUNTRY). While this was not a local crime, it was contrary to standing orders."

I don't have a military background, so my lingo probably isn't quite right. This may need to be longer, I don't know.