When a Navy veteran lost his base access at a major Navy installation, he also lost his ability to work, to provide for his children, and to continue supporting a mission he had already dedicated his career to. After we challenged that exclusion, his base privileges were reinstated.
This result matters for more than one client. It shows that an installation ban is not always final — and that commands can be persuaded to reverse themselves when the facts don’t support the restriction.
What Happened
Our client is a Navy veteran with an honorable record, multiple awards, and an active security clearance. Earlier this year, he was the victim of a domestic assault in his home. Law enforcement responded, documented his injuries, noted that the aggressor appeared intoxicated, and made an arrest.
A civilian court then issued emergency protective orders to protect him and his children, and later extended those orders. The court also granted him temporary primary custody and exclusive possession of the home. In other words, neutral authorities reviewed the situation and concluded that he was the one in need of protection — not the source of danger.
Shortly after those court rulings, the other party in that dispute filed a retaliatory criminal complaint against him. That complaint became the basis for a warrant, even though it directly contradicted the initial statements and physical evidence documented by responding officers. That allegation did not exist at the scene and surfaced only after custody and protective orders were granted.
When our client attempted to enter the installation for work, base security informed him of the allegation for the first time, detained him, and served him with a “temporary exclusion” letter — commonly referred to as a base barment — and told he was no longer allowed on the installation.
The consequences were immediate. He works as a cleared defense contractor supporting Navy systems. Without physical access to the installation, he could not do his job and was placed on furlough status. The exclusion effectively cut off his income and directly affected his ability to provide for his two children.
Later, the criminal charge that had been used to justify excluding him from the installation was dismissed in court. He is now seeking expungement of that charge.
Why Base Access Matters So Much
Installation commanders have broad authority to control who can and cannot enter a military base. That authority exists for legitimate reasons: force protection, good order and discipline, and mission assurance. Commands can issue exclusion letters quickly and unilaterally.
But loss of base access is not a minor inconvenience. For service members, veterans, dependents, and civilian employees, it is often the practical equivalent of being suspended from work — without pay, and without any formal adjudication of guilt.
In this case, exclusion from the installation meant:
He could not report to his job despite holding an active clearance.
He was furloughed and lost income.
His children lost his paycheck at the exact moment he had been given primary responsibility to care for them.
So even though a base-access revocation is labeled “administrative,” it can function like punishment. It can affect rent, food, healthcare, childcare, and family stability.
Our Reconsideration Request
We submitted a formal reconsideration request to the installation’s commanding officer and staff judge advocate, asking that the temporary exclusion be rescinded. That request made several key points.
1. We established what actually happened.
We outlined that our client was the victim of domestic violence, supported by direct physical evidence documented by responding officers. The officers recorded his injuries, noted the other party’s condition, and made an arrest. A court then issued and extended protective orders for his safety and the safety of the children. The court also granted him temporary primary custody. Those steps only happen when a judge confirms that the threat is against the person seeking protection — not from them.
2. We addressed the retaliatory allegation.
The criminal complaint against our client did not appear until after he received protective orders and custody. The allegation was inconsistent with the earlier police report and physical documentation. That charge has since been dismissed. Put simply: the supposed “basis” for the exclusion had collapsed.
3. We showed there was no ongoing security or discipline risk.
We argued that the continued exclusion no longer served any valid good-order, discipline, or security purpose:
There was no sustained allegation of violence or threat involving installation personnel, property, or mission assets.
Our client’s professional record reflects reliability, technical competence, respect for others, and integrity. People who have worked with him consistently describe him as patient, trustworthy, and fair.
He served honorably in the Navy, earning multiple personal awards — including formal recognition for critical communications support to fleet operations.
His security clearance remained active.
We also pointed out that Navy policy itself recognizes both the authority to exclude and the responsibility to revisit an exclusion. Under SECNAVINST 5500.35 (22 Feb. 2022), installation commanders may deny or revoke access to protect security, good order, and mission integrity — but those determinations can and should be reconsidered when the circumstances that originally justified exclusion have materially changed. The instruction also makes clear that exclusions cannot be arbitrary, discriminatory, or untethered from the permissible bases listed in the policy.
In our client’s case, the sole stated basis for exclusion was an unresolved allegation that has now been dismissed. The underlying facts show he was the victim, not the threat. Continuing to bar him from the installation would have served no legitimate protective purpose. At that point, it was only inflicting harm.
4. We emphasized both mission impact and real-world impact.
Because he could not access the installation, this cleared technician could not perform work in direct support of Navy systems — the very systems the installation exists to maintain and protect. The command lost a capable asset. His children lost his income.
When an action hurts the mission and punishes the wrong person, and the stated justification no longer exists, it’s time to correct it.
The Result
After reviewing the reconsideration, the command reversed course and restored his base access.
That decision allowed our client to return to work, resume supporting the mission, and provide for his children. That was his goal from the start.
What This Means Going Forward
If your base access or installation privileges are suspended or revoked, you’ve received a barment letter, or you’ve been otherwise told you are “barred from base,” you still have options.
A few takeaways:
Command authority is broad — but not untouchable. Commanders are allowed to act quickly in the interest of security; they are also allowed to correct an exclusion when the facts don’t support it anymore.
An exclusion must be tied to a legitimate risk. It should not become an all-purpose punishment for an allegation that later falls apart.
When charges are dismissed, and when you are not the threat, the command can and should reconsider. SECNAVINST 5500.35 explicitly allows reconsideration where circumstances have materially changed.
The human cost matters. A base ban can instantly cut off a paycheck, housing access, childcare access, medical access, or the ability to meet custodial obligations. Commands often do not fully appreciate that impact until it is articulated.
This is especially important for civilian employees, defense contractors, retirees with base privileges, separated service members working in support roles, and anyone whose livelihood requires physical access to an installation. Losing a pass can feel like you’ve been found guilty of something you never had the opportunity to defend. That is exactly when a targeted, factual, respectful challenge can work.
A Final Note
We’re proud of this outcome, and we’re proud of our client. This wasn’t about theatrics. It was about making sure the process actually looked at the facts — and what those facts meant for a real person and two children depending on him.