The Newsletter of North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, Inc.

Volume IX, Issue 1, January 2009

NCPLS

ACCESS

THE MILITARY: CAN I ENLIST

AS AN

EX-OFFEND ER?

BY MICHAEL G. AVERY, STAFF ATTORNEY
Many ex-offenders often find
that employment opportunities
upon release from DOC custody
can be limited. These limitations
certainly play a role in increased
rates of recidivism. According to
the most recent study conducted
by the United States Bureau of
Justice Statistics, an estimated
67.5% of persons released from
prisons were rearrested for a felony
or serious misdemeanor within 3
years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and
25.4% re-sentenced to prison for a
new crime.1

Each branch of the military is different when it comes to recruiting
standards, but they all have regulations regarding felonies. The
military maintains a high “moral”
standard for recruits and is the
basis for not allowing most felonies. It generally comes down to
the type of offense and how long
ago it was.2 It is important to note
that federal law requires applicants
to divulge all criminal history on
recruiting applications, including expunged, sealed, or juvenile
records.3

With these limitations in mind,
some ex-offenders question
whether they would be able to
enlist and serve within one of
the branches of the United States
armed forces. The answer is
maybe. However, in order to do so,
it is necessary to apply for a “moral
waiver” which is granted to individuals who otherwise would not
qualify for military service because
of a criminal background.

The process begins with an
interview by a recruiter, asking
the applicant about any records
of arrest, charges, juvenile court
adjudications, traffic violations,
probation periods, dismissed or
pending charges or convictions,
including those which have been
expunged or sealed. Providing
false information, or withholding
required information is a federal
offense, and individuals may
be tried by Federal, civilian, or
Military Court.4

It is important to note that applicants who require a waiver are not
qualified for enlistment, unless/
until a waiver is approved. The
burden is on the applicant to prove
to waiver authorities that they have
overcome their disqualifications for
enlistment, and that their acceptance would be in the best interests
of the military.

Waiver authorities will consider the
“whole person” concept (consideration of the circumstances surrounding the criminal violations,
the age of the person committing
them, and personal interviews with
the applicant and others, as well as
a recruit’s other aptitudes, experiences, and characteristics 5) when
considering waiver applications.

If a waiver is disapproved, there
is no appeal (the waiver process
itself is the appeal -- the individual
is not qualified for enlistment and
submits a waiver request, appealing
to recruiting authorities to make
an exception in his/her particular
case).6
Information released in April of
2008 by the House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee shows that in 2006 and 2007
Americans who were convicted
of serious crimes including sexual
offenses, manslaughter, “terrorist
(Continued on Page 8)

In this Issue:
The Military: Can I Enlist as an ExOffender?

1

NCPLS W elcomes New Executive
Director

2

NCPLS Continues to Work for Lost Jail
Credit
2
Sexual Abuse and Your Rights

3

NCPLS Obtains Relief in Two Sentence
Correction Cases
3
Recent Changes in Parole Review for
Certain Inmates
4
New Staff Members at NCPLS

5

Recent Rumors are Unfounded

5

Seeking Compensation for Wrongful
Convictions

6

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 2
ACCESS is a publication of North
Carolina Prisoner Legal Services,
Inc. Established in 1978, NCPLS is a
non-profit, public service organization.
The program is governed by a Board
of Directors who are designated by
various organizations and institutions,
including the North Carolina Bar
Association, the Academy of Trial
Lawyers, the ACLU of North Carolina,
and the Office of Indigent Defense
Services.
NCPLS serves a population of more
than 38,600 prisoners and 14,000 pretrial
detainees (with about 250,000 annual
admissions), providing information,
advice, and representation in all State
and federal courts to ensure humane
conditions of confinement and to
challenge illegal convictions and
sentences.

Executive Director
Mary S. Pollard
Editor
Ken Butler
Publisher
Mike Pearson

NCPLS W ELCOMES N

EW

At the end of an extensive search
process, the NCPLS Board of
Directors recently appointed Mary
Pollard as the new Executive
Director of NCPLS. Ms. Pollard is
a 1993 cum laude graduate of Wake
Forest University, where she served
on the Wake Forest Law Review
and earned the I. Beverly Lake
Award for Excellence in Constitutional Law. In the fall of 1993, she
joined the firm of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, where she
gained experience in a broad range
of complex civil litigation, from
mediation to pre-trial discovery to
trial.
During her time at Womble Carlyle, she began what has become
a fierce commitment to public
service litigation, particularly for
those accused and convicted of
committing crimes. She pursued
post-conviction work for James
Alan Gell, an innocent death row

NCPLS C
Articles, ideas
and suggestions are welcome.
Contact: ncpls@ncpls.org

Volume IX, Issue 1, January 2009

ONTINUE S TO

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

inmate whose direct appeals had
been exhausted. Using the new
capital post-conviction open-file
discovery law, she was able to
obtain prosecutorial files that had
been withheld from Gell’s trial
counsel but which proved that he
did not and could not have committed the murder. With that information, and the help of others in
the legal community, Ms. Pollard
secured a new trial for Gell, whose
subsequent acquittal was one of the
major factors that led to the adoption of pre-trial open-file discovery for accused people in North
Carolina. In 2002, Ms. Pollard left
Womble Carlyle and joined the
Center for Death Penalty Litigation, where she served as a staff
attorney representing defendants in
capital pre-trial and post-conviction
proceedings and consulted with
attorneys handling capital litigation
statewide.

WORK FOR LOST JAIL CREDIT

As has been reported in earlier
editions of Access, the NCPLS Jail
Credit Team works on requests
from inmates to obtain sentence
reduction credits
from time spent
in jail on a charge
for which they
were ultimately
convicted (jail
credit). Our Jail
Credit Team
consists of four
full-time paralegals, working
under the supervision of a senior
staff attorney, whose sole job is to
investigate claims by inmates that
they are entitled to additional jail
credit.

During fiscal year 2007 (7/1/07-6/
30/08) our Jail Credit Team found
26,794 days of jail credit that had
not been properly
applied to sentences. During
the first half of
the current fiscal
year, the Team
has found an
additional 9,382
days of credit.
Not only does
this mean earlier
release for our clients, but it also
results in a savings to the taxpayers
of North Carolina of over 2.7 million dollars.

Volume IX, Issue 1, January 2009

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 3

SEXUAL ABUSE AND YOUR RIGHTS
BY STAFF ATTORNEYS ELIZABETH ALBISTON AND MICHELE LUECKING-SUNMAN
For many years, NCPLS has
received significant complaints
from people housed within the
North Carolina Department of Corrections regarding sexual assaults
and abuse at the hands of correctional officers and staff. The Eighth
Amendment to the Constitution
prohibits cruel and unusual punishment and deliberate indifference
by prison officials to the welfare of
inmates. This includes sexual abuse
and inappropriate sexual contact
between inmates and officers or
staff. Make sure you know what
your rights are if you are confronted with a situation of sexual
abuse or contact by correctional
personnel.
In 2003, Congress passed the
Prison Rape Elimination Act
(PREA, P.L. 108-79) to address the

NCPLS O

BTAIN S

NCPLS was recently presented
with a case where a client had been
convicted, following a jury trial, of
second-degree murder, two counts
of armed robbery, and assault with
a deadly weapon with intent to
kill inflicting serious injury.
Following appeal, he was
awarded a new trial. Prior
to trial, he entered a plea
agreement under which
he would plead to the two
armed robbery counts. The client’s
plea agreement specifically stated
that the two terms would be consolidated for judgment, and would
run concurrently with sentences
from other counties that the client
was already serving. However, at
the time he wrote to our office, the
DOC had not changed the manner

problem of sexual abuse in prisons
and jails. PREA is legislation that
establishes a zero tolerance policy
for sexual assault and abuse in
prisons and jails. The major provisions of PREA include developing
standards for the prevention of
sexual abuse, collecting statistics,
and awarding grants to local and
state governments to help stop
sexual abuse.

reason for the sexual contact, the
state of North Carolina has recognized that sex between inmates
and correctional officers or staff
tends to be coercive. Thus, any
correctional officer or staff member
who engages in a sexual act with
an inmate can be charged with a
felony, regardless of whether the
inmate consented. N.C.G.S. § 1427.7(a).

Sexual contact between inmates
and prison officers or staff occurs
for many reasons. Sometimes
officers or staff offer promises
or gifts to inmates in exchange
for sex. Other times, inmates are
afraid to say no to an officer or
staff member because they fear
retaliation. Officers or staff may
even directly threaten inmates with
lock-up or harm. Regardless of the

Often victims are unwilling or
afraid to report what has happened to them. Unfortunately, this
reluctance allows the practice to
continue. Communication with
NCPLS is protected by lawyerclient confidentiality. If you have
been a victim of this type of abuse
and you would like information
about your rights, please write to
us.

RELIEF IN TWO SENTENC

E

in which the client’s sentences
were to run. Following review by
post-conviction investigator Bruce
Creecy, and NCPLS staff attorney
Nicholas Woomer-Deters, we were
able to get this error corrected. The

result for the client, following both
his direct appeal and our assistance
in correcting his sentences, was to
reduce his projected release date by
forty-nine years.
In a second case, we obtained
resentencing for a client by arguing that there had been an incor-

CORRECTION CASES
rect calculation of his prior record
points. The State did not prove
that the client’s Florida burglary
convictions were substantially
similar to North Carolina burglary
convictions. We were successful in
showing that the particular
Florida burglary offense was
substantially similar to the
North Carolina offense of
breaking and entering. Once
the prior record was recalculated the client went from a prior
record VI to a prior record V. After
resentencing, the client’s projected
release date was reduced by over 6
months.

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 4

RECENT CHANGES
NCPLS has received many letters from inmates asking about
changes in the frequency of parole
review. Felony parole only applies
to persons who were convicted of
felonies committed before October
1, 1994, the effective date of the
Structured Sentencing Act. For
most of those offenders, the PostRelease Supervision and Parole
Commission (the Commission)
conducts an annual parole review,
once the person becomes eligible
for parole.

IN

PAROLE REVIEW FOR CERTAIN INMATES

Inmates convicted of first or
second-degree murder under the
Fair Sentencing Act, or pre-FSA
law, have asked whether this
change in parole review violates
the constitutional principles barring
ex post facto laws. The U.S.
Supreme Court has considered
two cases in which there was a
retroactive change in the length
of time for parole hearings.
California Dept. of Corrections

During its last session, the North
Carolina General Assembly
enacted Session Law 2008-133,
which was signed into law by
Governor Easley on July 28, 2008.
This statute provides, in part, that:
The Commission
shall review cases
where the prisoner
was convicted of
first or second
degree murder, and
in its discretion,
give consideration
of parole and
written notice of its
decision once every
third year; except
that the Commission
may give more
frequent parole
consideration if it
finds that exigent
circumstances or the
interests of justice
demand it.”
This statute became effective on
October 1, 2008 and applies to
parole reviews conducted on and
after that date.

Volume IX, Issue 1, January 2009

v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499, 115
S.Ct. 1597 (1995), and Garner v.
Jones 529 U.S. 244, 120 S.Ct.
1362 (U.S.,2000). In both cases
the Court held that the increase
between parole hearings alone did
not violate the ex post facto clause
of the U.S. Constitution.
In each case the issue was
considered in light of the particular
parole statutes, regulations, and
practices in California and Georgia
respectively. See, Garner, 529
U.S. at 252, 120 S.Ct. at 1368 (
The case turns on the operation
of the amendment…within the
whole context of Georgia’s
parole system.) Any challenge
to changes in North Carolina’s
parole system would similarly look
at the relevant laws dealing with
parole in this state. The key for a
successful ex post facto challenge

is for an inmate to prove that any
amendment of the statutes creates a
“significant risk of prolonging [his]
incarceration.” Garner. 529 U.S.
at 251, 120 S.Ct. at 1368.
In North Carolina the decision to
grant parole is left to the discretion
of the Commission. There are no
formal hearings held where the
inmate is present and can offer
evidence. (An inmate or interested
persons can always submit relevant
information to the Commission in
writing prior to the review date.)
There are three Commissioners,
each of whom votes on whether
to grant parole, and at least two
Commissioners must vote in favor
of parole. Parole can be denied
without lengthy explanation,
simply by referring to one of the
four statutory reasons set out in
N.C. Gen. Stat. §15A-1371(d)
(1990) (repealed).
Given the relatively informal, and
highly discretionary, nature of
North Carolina’s parole process,
it would be difficult to prove
that a change in the frequency
of review creates a “significant
risk” of prolonging an inmate’s
incarceration. Furthermore, it must
also be noted that the new law
gives the Commission the option
of holding more frequent reviews
in appropriate cases, a factor that
would almost certainly count in
its favor in any constitutional
challenge.

NCPLS ACCESS

Volume IX, Issue 1, January 2009

N

EW

The past year has seen NCPLS add
several new members to its staff.
They are:
D. Tucker Charns is the new PostConviction Litigation Director. A
graduate of the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill for both
her undergraduate and law degrees,
she has been a criminal defense
attorney for 20 years. She was an
assistant public defender for 10
years and has been in private practice, handling trial work and direct
appeals.
Elizabeth Albiston is a new civil
attorney at NCPLS. She is a 2007
graduate of the UNC School of
Law, where she represented criminally charged juveniles and worked
as an advocate for transgender prisoners. Following her graduation,
Ms. Albiston worked as a criminal
defense attorney. In her spare time,
she volunteers with the Internationalist Books to Prisoners Collective,
a program that sends books and
resources to prisoners incarcerated
in Alabama and Mississippi.

STAFF MEMBERS AT NCPLS
Laura Grimaldi graduated from the
University of Iowa College of Law
in 2002. She worked as a public
defender with the Legal Aid Society in Brooklyn, NY until moving
to North Carolina in 2005. Prior to
taking her position with NCPLS,
Ms. Grimaldi had her own law
practice in Durham, NC, specializing in immigration and criminal
law. She started work with the postconviction team at PLS in August
of 2008, and is very excited to be
a part of NCPLS’s mission against
injustice.
Sarah J. Farber is the newest
member of the Postconviction
Team. Before joining NCPLS, she
was a criminal defense attorney
in private practice. She graduated
cum laude from North Carolina
Central University School of Law.
Prior to law school, she worked for
a non-profit organization mentoring
college students. She received her
B.A. from Penn State University.
Yolanda Carter is the newest
member of the NCPLS Civil Team.
She is a graduate of the North Car-

RECENT RUMORS ARE UNFOUND
NCPLS regularly receives letters
from inmates asking about various
prison rumors. One of the most
common is whether the “65% law”
will be reinstated. The term “65%
law” is used to describe the former
Fair Sentencing Act (FSA). The
FSA applied to felonies committed before October 1, 1994, which
was the effective date of the current
Structured Sentencing Act (SSA).
The FSA contained several provisions that allowed many inmates to

Page 5

serve a lower percentage of their
total sentence when compared to
the SSA These included day-forday good time (for obeying prison
rules), gain time (for working at
prison jobs), merit time, as well as
the opportunity for parole for many
classes of felony conviction.
At this time there has been no
legislation, either enacted or
proposed, that would reinstate
the FSA or which would require

olina Central School of Law. Her
employment prior to law school
included work as a correctional
officer at NCCIW.
Joy Belk is a NC Certified Paralegal with 4 years of experience.
She is a graduate of East Carolina
University and Meredith College’s
Paralegal Program. Her prior
positions included work as a correctional officer at both NCCIW,
and working at Central Prison as
both an officer and a Programs
Assistant. During 2006-2007, Joy
worked for the Department of Justice as a Tort Claims Paralegal.
Carlos Soria was born in Mexico
and obtained a degree in graphic
design from the Mexican-Italian
Studies Center on Graphic Design.
He came to the United States in
2000 where he worked at a variety
of jobs, and obtained additional
technical training. He has worked
as a legal assistant for the past three
years and currently works in the
NCPLS Intake Section as a bilingual English / Spanish interpreter.

ED
current SSA inmates to be resentenced.
Another rumor is that a new DOC
policy will require inmates with
dreadlocks to cut their hair. We
have contacted the DOC and been
informed that there has been no
official change of policy or regulations concerning dreadlocks at this
time.

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 6

SEEKING COMPENSA TION

FOR

Volume IX, Issue 1, January 2009

WRON GFUL CONVIC TIONS

BY STAFF ATTORNEY KEN BUTLER
NCPLS often receives inquiries,
from both present and former
inmates, about civil legal claims
relating to criminal convictions.
These ask about the possibility
of seeking money damages for
what are alleged to be wrongful
convictions, or violations of constitutional rights during a criminal
prosecution. In recent years several high-profile cases of wrongful
conviction, both in North Carolina
and other states, have led to compensation awards for the innocent
defendants.
North Carolina has a statutory
mechanism for compensating some
victims of wrongful convictions,
by providing that persons who
have been convicted of a felony
and imprisoned, and who are later
granted a pardon of innocence
by the Governor, can petition the
State for compensation. N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 148-82. These petitions are
submitted to the North Carolina
Industrial Commission. In 2008,
the General Assembly increased
the amount of compensation that
could be awarded in such cases to
$50,000 per year, up to a maximum
of $750,000. Sess. L. 2008-173.
Furthermore, in determining an
appropriate amount of compensation, the Industrial Commission
is permitted to examine the extent
to which imprisonment deprived
the individual of educational or
training opportunities. As part of
its consideration, the Commission
can provide compensation for job
skills training for at least one year
through an appropriate state program, as well as tuition and fees for
any North Carolina public university or community college. This

law became effective on August 4,
2008.
This type of statutory compensation only applies to a very specific
class of persons, namely those who
have received a pardon of innocence from the Governor. It does
not include persons who cases are
overturned on appeal, collateral
review (such as motions for appropriate relief or habeas corpus), or
similar forms of judicial action.
Furthermore, the compensation
under § 148-82 does not require a
showing of some type of misconduct on the part of members of the
criminal justice system. A person
seeking compensation in those
types of cases must bring an action
through more traditional tort or
civil rights remedies.
There are many types of claims
that can be made regarding wrongful criminal convictions. These
include claims of false testimony
by police officers at trial, failure
to turn over exculpatory evidence,
the fabrication or manipulation
of evidence, or knowingly having
witnesses give false testimony.
However, establishing liability
for damages on the part of law
enforcement or prosecutors often
faces an array of obstacles.
In such cases the first step is to
demonstrate that the original
conviction was actually improper.
The Supreme Court has held that
before a person can seek damages under the civil rights laws for
an unconstitutional conviction, it
must be shown that the “conviction
or sentence has been reversed on
direct appeal, expunged by execu-

tive order, declared invalid by a
state tribunal authorized to make
such determination, or called into
question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus,
28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.
Ct. 2364, 2372, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383
(1994). Put another way, a person
cannot make a civil rights claim for
damages based on a wrongful conviction as long as the conviction
is still stands and is presumptively
valid.
The next hurdle that a wrongfully
convicted person faces is the various forms of immunity defenses
that are provided by the law. These
immunities mean that a defendant
does not have to pay damages to
the injured party, even if the facts
otherwise show a wrongful act by a
defendant. Even though an injured
party may be left without a legal
remedy, these immunities have
been approved by the courts on
various policy grounds.
First among these are the related
doctrines of sovereign immunity
and Eleventh Amendment immunity. Sovereign immunity protects the states from being sued
in their own courts unless they
have waived the protection of such
immunity. Evans v. Hous. Auth.
of Raleigh, 359 N.C. 50, 53, 602
S.E.2d 668, 670 (2004). North
Carolina has enacted a limited
waiver of its sovereign immunity
protection through the State Tort
Claims Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. §
143-291, for cases where a party
claims to have been injured by
(Continued on Page 7)

Volume IX, Issue 1, January 2009

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 7

SEEKING COMPENSA TION FOR WRON GFUL CONVIC TIONS
(CONTIN UED)
actions taken as an advocate for the

(Continued from Page 6)

the negligence of a state officer,
employee or agent, acting in the
course and scope of his or her duty.
This waiver does not extend to
intentional acts or to claims of civil
rights violation. The Eleventh
Amendment to the Constitution
prevents a citizen from bringing
a lawsuit for money damages in
the federal courts, against a state,
a state agency, or a state official
in his or her official capacity.
Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v.
Halderman 465 U.S. 89, 97-102,
104 S.Ct. 900, 906 - 909 (1984).
Judges enjoy absolute immunity
from damages liability for judicial
acts unless done “in clear absence
of all jurisdiction.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 55 L.
Ed. 2d 331, 98 S. Ct. 1099 (1972).
Court clerks are also accorded
derivative judicial absolute immunity when they act in obedience to
judicial order or under the court’s
direction. See McCray v. Maryland, 456 F.2d 1, 5 (4th Cir. 1972).
Witnesses who testify at a criminal
trial are also entitled to absolute
immunity for their testimony. This
even extends to police officers
who are alleged to have given
false testimony. Briscoe v. LaHue,
460 U.S. 325, 103 S.Ct. 1108, 75
L.Ed.2d 96 (1983).
Prosecutors are entitled to absolute
immunity from civil liability for
conduct “intimately associated with
the judicial phase of the criminal
process.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424
U.S. 409, 430, 47 L. Ed. 2d 128,
96 S. Ct. 984 (1976). Therefore, a
prosecutor will not be liable for the
decision to pursue charges, or for

state. This type of immunity offers
broad protection even for acts that
clearly have the potential to affect a
defendant’s trial. See Reasonover
v. St. Louis County, Mo. 447 F.3d
569, 580 (8th Cir. 2006) (even if
prosecutor knowingly presented
false, misleading, or perjured testimony, or even if he withheld or
suppressed exculpatory evidence,
he is absolutely immune from
suit). However, absolute immunity
does not apply when a prosecutor performs other functions, such
as acting as an administrator or
investigative officer, or providing
legal advice to the police. Absolute
prosecutorial immunity has been
denied in cases involving a district attorney’s failure to establish
policies or adequately train subordinates concerning the manner
in which exculpatory evidence
is handled. Thompson v. Connick, 2008 WL 5265197 (5th Cir.
Dec. 19, 2008); Goldstein v. City
of Long Beach, 481 F.3d 1170,
1176 (C.A.9 (Cal.),2007).
In situations where absolute immunity does not apply, both police and
prosecutors may still be entitled to
qualified immunity. Under qualified immunity, an officer is not
liable for damages if his “conduct
does not violate clearly established
statutory or constitutional rights of
which a reasonable person would
have known.” Rish v. Johnson,
131 F.3d 1092, 1095 (4th Cir.
1997)(quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)).
Successful wrongful conviction
cases generally involve overcoming claims of entitlement to qualified immunity on the part of either

police, or prosecutors who were
acting in a capacity that does not
confer absolute immunity. See
Limone v. Condon, 372 F.3d 39, 4445 (1st Cir 2004)(denying qualified
immunity based on fundamental
concept that those charged with
upholding the law are prohibited
from deliberately fabricating evidence and framing individuals for
crimes they did not commit.).

An important point to note is that
absolute prosecutorial immunity, or
the qualified immunity for police
officers, apply only where a complaint is seeking damages against
the prosecutor or police officer in
their individual capacities. Some
complaints of wrongful conviction
liability can be asserted against a
local government entity, such as a
city or county police or sheriff’s
department based upon liability for
a policy that violated a defendant’s
constitutional rights. Gregory v.
City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725,
752 -753 (6th Cir. 2006).
Obviously any person who has
served time for a crime that he or
she did not commit wants, and
deserves, compensation for the
time they have lost. Where the
defendant’s actual innocence can
be proved, § 148-82 provides a
means for compensation. Where
the conviction was the result of
police or prosecutorial misconduct, obtaining compensation will
require negotiating the various
immunity defenses. In either case,
representation by counsel will be
essential to present the defendant’s
claim and to secure the best possible recovery.

THE N EWSLETTER OF N ORTH CAROLIN A
PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES, INC .

1110 Wake Forest Road
P.O. Box 25397
Raleigh, NC 27611
Phone: (919) 856-2200
Fax: (919) 856-2223
Email: ncpls@ncpls.org

Visit our website at:
http://www.ncpls.org
THE MILITARY: CAN I ENLIST AS AN EX-OFFENDER ?
(CONTIN UED)
(Continued from Page 1)

threats including bomb threats”,
burglary, kidnapping or abduction, aggravated assault and sexual
assault were allowed into the military under moral waivers granted
by the services.7
According to the data given to
the committee by the Department
of Defense, the Army allowed
the most waivers in 2006 and
2007. During this period, moral
or felony waivers were given to 3
soldiers who had been convicted
of manslaughter. One soldier was
allowed in following a kidnapping
or abduction conviction, 11 were
convicted of arson, 142 convicted
of burglary, 3 who were convicted
of indecent acts or liberties with

a child, 7 who were convicted
of rape, sexual assault, criminal
sexual assault, incest or other sex
crimes and 3 who were convicted
of terrorist threats including bomb
threats.8
In summary, although there is
no specific right to serve in the
armed forces, a criminal record
does not foreclose one’s ability to
enlist. According to recent data,
the military is increasingly granting “second chances” to those
ex-offenders wishing to enlist and
serve their country despite having a
criminal record.

(Footnotes)
www.ojp.gov/bjs/
crimoff.htm#recidivism
2
www.army.com/articles/may_faq_
felony.html
3
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/
armyjoin/a/criminal.htm
4
Id.
5
www.gao.gov/archive/1999/
ns99053.pdf.Id.
6
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/
armyjoin/a/criminal.htm
7
Military has Recruited More
Serious Ex-Offenders than
Previously Known, Palm Center
Research Institute, University of
California, Santa Barbara, April
21st, 2008.
8
Id..
1