Executive Officer, USS IOWA (BB61) during the investigation after the  turret explosion.
Navy 0-8 initially investigated for very serious offenses.

Navy 0-7 Joint Ethics Regulation issues.
Navy 0-6 commanding officer charged with negligent grounding of a vessel.
Commodore charged with negligence resulting in death and injuries during a Close-In-Weapons System exercise.
Represented/advised several Navy personnel who were Anthrax refusers. 

Army O - 3 - Gen. Off. Article 15.  Charge dismissed at hearing.
Army Nat'l Guard E - 8 - Gen. Off. Article 15.   Charge dismissed at hearing.

Army Chief, and a CPT retained on promotion list.

Examples of Military UCMJ Litigation Experience:  (Note:  each case is different.  A success in one case is no guarantee of success in another, even though they might be similar.  Also, the definition of a good outcome is different depending on the case.  In one case it might be a lesser sentence than expected, in another it might be acquittal on the more serious charges, but still result in a conviction and sentence for less serious charges, in another the case might start as a court-martial but end up in the administrative process.)

United States v. Army E-8:  SPCM for use of cocaine.  Negotiated to Article 15, where CG imposed $200 per month, times two months forfeiture.  Allowed to retire in grade (removed from SGM promotion list). 

United States v. Marine E-6:  Three page charge sheet of sexual harassment, indecent assault, and lying to investigators.

United States v. Navy E-5:  Rape, housebreaking, and lying to investigators.

United States v. Marine E-6:  Prosecuted for GBH to one of his Marines, two specifications of maltreating Marines, three specifications of pointing a Condition 1/Condition 4 rifle at his Marines at various times, and false statement to NCIS.  Found guilty of assault and battery vice GBH (there were four witnesses); false official statement; flagging a Marine with a Condition 4 rifle, and maltreatment based on the flagging and assault.  He was sentenced to 30 days confinement, and RIR to E3.

United States v. Army SF E-7(P):  Not guilty of sodomy and indecent acts with 8 year old daughter; guilty of an indecent act with teenage babysitter.  Sentenced to 179 days, RIR to E-5.

United States v. Navy E-5:  Initially investigated for rape, kidnap, assaults, and false official statements; prosecuted for assault, kidnap, and adultery.  Sentenced to RIR to E-3, and three months confinement.

United States v. Army E-6:  This case involved a Soldier with two Art. 15's, and a civilian conviction for domestic violence.  After an administrative discharge board, the Board recommended separation with a General Discharge.

United States v. Army E-7:  This case involved an HIV positive Army E-7.  He had become HIV positive many years OK on a mission.  He was accused of aggravated assault during an 18 month adulterous relationship with another Soldier, violating Art. 92, and of course the adultery.  Charges were withdrawn from GCM and referred to a bare-back SPCM as a result of pre-trial negotiations.  He was sentenced to Reduction in Rank to E-4.

United States v. Navy E-6:  This case began as an NJP refusal for falsifying an SF86, government credit card misuse, and false official statements.  Charges were referred to special court-martial, but then withdrawn.  The case was then referred to an administrative discharge board, with the addition of a DUI, seeking an OTH.   The Board found misconduct as to the SF86, but no misconduct as to the other allegations.  Client was recommended for retention.   Update:  not satisfied, the command took the case to the Bureau, and the Bureau ordered an Honorable Discharge.  (This is not unusual in Navy cases.  Besides never waiving the right to an administrative board, you have to contest the merits of the separation, not just the characterization.)

United States v. Army E-5:  Not guilty of rape.

United States v. Army E-7:  Convicted, after contested trial, of stealing over $65,000.00, in BAH, adultery and false statement offenses -- no punitive discharge, and 179 confinement.

United States v. Army E-5:  Convicted after contested trial of multiple allegations of sexual harassment with multiple victims, and indecent assault; no confinement and no punitive discharge.

United States v. Navy E-6:  Initially charged at Special court-martial with racial and extremist activity on the internet (MySpace account site), charges were withdrawn a few weeks from the trial date.  A "contested" administrative board resulted in a General Discharge.

United States v. USAF (E-7):   Not guilty to all charges of bribery, extortion, kick-backs, graft, theft, false official statements.  This case began over 3.5 years ago, and might be considered as fraud, waste, and abuse, in the prosecution.

United States v. USN (E-3):  Possession of CP; separation in lieu of trial.

United States v. USMC E-7 (E-8P):   Recruiter accused of sexual misconduct with Poolee, found Not Guilty -- contested enlisted members trial.

United States v. Army E-6: SSG accused of burglary, attempted rape, indecent assault.  Resolved by a separation in-lieu of trial.

United States v. Army E-6:  SSG accused of diverse (allegedly 40-50) forcible sodomies, sexual harassment of two soldiers, indecent assault, indecent exposure,  lying to AR15-6 investigator and CID:  found guilty of consensual sodomy, indecent acts, sexual harassment, and lying to investigators.  Sentenced to a Bad Conduct Discharge only.  This was an Enlisted Members case.  The issue here, which likely helped get the BCD, was the lying.  It's not always the crime itself, but the attempt to cover-up that gets the increased punishment.  Read this in conjunction with my guidance that it's NEVER in the service-members best interest to waive the right to silence (at least until you have talked with an attorney).

United States v. Army E-4: A combat deployed Soldier accepted Article 15, for disobedience of an order, and assault on a senior NCO.  We helped prepare his "presentation," including outlining his defenses.  At hearing, the charges were dismissed.  This is an excellent example of the cases where we have been able to assist at Article 15, proceedings.

United States v. USAF E-6:  Accused of physical assault on teenage son, and sexual assault on teenage daughter -- charges withdrawn day before Motions session.

United States v. USAF E-3:  SrA TDY to Incirlik AB, Turkey, found not guilty by enlisted members of rape.

United States v. USN (MA-3):  Accused of stealing a car on base.  After a contested trial, found guilty of wrongful appropriation: sentenced to RIRx1, Rest, HLWC, and $500.00x3.

United States v. USA O-5:  Possession and distribution of CP.  Accused of two instances of distributing CP; receiving CP; possessing CP; misuse of government computer; lying to investigators.  Mixed findings, and excellent sentence (no confinement, no dismissal).

United States v. USAF E-4:  Client found not guilty of rape and forced anal sodomy.

United States v. USN E-5:  Multiple allegations of physical spouse abuse over a two year period.

United States v. USAF E-6(P):  This was an Operation Falcon CP case, in which ICE targeted the credit card companies involved as well as the sellers of CP and buyers.  A number of important lessons were learned about how easy identity theft is on the internet, the perils of visiting pornography websites, and the complications of re-formatted hard-drives and using software such as Evidence Eliminator (which doesn't actually eliminate all the evidence).

United States v. Army E-3:  Rape, threat to kill commander, theft of drugs, damage to government property, and multiple 92's.  Sentence limited to 30 months.  In this case there were several confessions; yet it took the members almost 13 hours to decide the findings, and another 7 hours to decide sentence.  This is a case where -- once again -- CID "inadvertently" used the "I know he was lying" ploy at trial; and also the civilian Detective used the word "polygraph."  It's amazing how often experienced investigators inadvertently blurt out that "he was lying, etc."

United States v. USN E-8:  Naval Academy case in which the sentence was a letter of reprimand, because of improper relationship with a midshipman.

United States v. USN E-3:  Accused of intent to damage an MH53E #2EAPS/#2engine with FOD (a large rock) and endanger the lives of crew -- sentenced to 9 months confinement at special court-martial.

United States v. USMC E-5:  Letter of reprimand for importing a war trophy (pistol) in violation of GO#1.

United States v. Army E-5:  Not guilty of rape and housebreaking; guilty of indecent assault and sodomy; sentenced to BCD and three months confinement.

United States v. Navy E-5 (a Recruiter):  Rape of DEP, and DEP's sister.  Guilty as to DEP, not guilty as to sister.  Sentenced to 30 months confinement.  Paroled early.

United States v. Marine (E-2):  Marine not guilty of communicating a threat, assault, and reckless endangerment.

United States v. Army E-5:  Indecent assault, unlawful entry, and false official statements, resolved through administrative measures.

United States v. Navy E-6:  Male sailor prosecuted for forcible sodomy, indecent assault, and fraternization with five male sailors.  Acquitted of all but two.

United States v. Marine (E-5):  Marine charged with forcible sodomy and indecent assault of another male Marine.  Guilty at SPCM for indecent assault; sentenced to 270 days / BCD.  Recently received clemency.

United States v. Army E-3 (Ft. Carson):  Charged with rape and forcible sodomy of his 13 yo step-sister.  Found guilty of carnal knowledge and consensual sodomy.  Sentenced to 91 (91 ÷ 7 = 13 weeks) days confined / DD.

United States v. USAF E-7:  Excellent result in multiple allegations related to "inappropriate relationships."

United States v. Navy E-6:  Conviction over-turned of an appellate client convicted and sentenced for child abuse type allegations.  Conviction and sentence set-aside on appeal; although a retrial may be conducted.

United States v. Marine E-1:  Spousal rape (not guilty), spousal assaults (not guilty), kidnapping, various associated military offenses.

United States v. USAF E-4:  Computer CP.

United States v. USAF E-6:  Spousal rape, and rape of fiancée.

United States v. USAF E-4:  Use of cocaine, marijuana, percocet.   Convicted of the Percocet only; and no confinement or forfeitures adjudged by enlisted members.  Later Note:  Air Force Clemency & Parole Board has suspended the Bad Conduct Discharge, conditioned on one year of good behavior.

United States v. USAF E-2 (Qatar):  Not guilty of drug possession, theft, and alcohol offenses.

United States v. Army O-2 (Baghdad):  Theft and misuse of prescription medications, theft, dereliction.

United States v. Army E-2 (Korea):  Not guilty of carnal knowledge, sodomy, indecent acts/liberties with 13 yr. old.

United States v. USMC E-4:  Rape of spouse.

United States v. USMC E-6:  Rape.

United States v. Army E-7:  Internet solicitation of minor.

United States v. Army (E-5):  Indecent assault, sexual harassment, Chap. 10, General Discharge.

United States v. Navy E-6: $5K+  Supply fraud.  Withdrawn and referred to SCM forum, retained.

United States v. USMC E-4:  112(a), Not Guilty in enlisted members trial.

United States v. Navy E-4:  Indecent acts with child and alcohol related offenses disposed of at NJP.

United States v. Army E-7 (Iraq):  Murder, assault.

United States v. USAF E-4:  Insurance fraud.

Unied States v. Army O-3:  Indecent assault, sexual harassment.  Disposed of at Article 15, after Article 32 completed.

United States v. Army E-5 (Iraq):  Negligent discharge, orders violation, disrespect.

United States v. USMC (E-5): Forcible homosexual sodomy, indecent assault, fraternization.

United  States v. Air Force (03) :  Fraudulent procurement of commission, false statements, wearing of unauthorized medals.

United States v. Army O-4 (Iraq):  Theft and conspiracy to steal.  Dismissal disapproved in subsequent clemency action. 

United States v. Army E-4 (Iraq):  Attempt murder x 7 (118(3)), theft, aggravated assault.

United States v. Army E-6:  Computer CP.  Additional substantial sentence reduction during clemency and parole process.

United States v. Air Force E-5:  Rape and indecent assault; dismissed after Art. 32.

United States v. Army O-4:  Fraud of $27,000.00 in flight pay; dismissed after Art. 32.

United States v. Army O-3 (Iraq):  EPW and assault issues.  Dismissed with LOR, after Art. 32 report.

United States v. USMC (E-3):  112a.

United States v. USMC (O-3):  112(a) (hemp seed oil); not guilty in trial by Members.

United States v. USMC (E-6):  Maltreatment and fraternization.

United States v. USN (E-5):  120 x 2, 92, 134.

United States v. USAF E-3: Drugs.  Parents presence and testimony critical sentencing factor.

United States v. USCG E-4: sexual assault.

United States v. Navy O-5:  child sexual abuse, rape, 112a, obstruction of justice, computer crimes.

United States v. USAF E-4 (Malmstrom AFB):  indecent acts.

United States v. USMC E-6 (Iwakuni): fraternization, adultery, rape.

United States v. Army O-2 (Iraq):  Orders violation, detainee issues.

United States v. Army E-6 (Iraq):  Orders violation, detainee issues.

United States v. Army E-5 (Iraq):  Orders violation, detainee issues.

United States v. Army E-4 (Camp Zama, JP):  Computer crimes.

United States v. USAF E-3:  Theft, conspiracy, drug use.  (Sentence reduced on post-trial clemency request -- granted parole.)

United States v. Army E-4 (Ft. Richardson, AK):  Attempted murder and aggravated assault of child.  Ultimately the client was sentenced to 8 months confinement, and no discharge was adjudged, for aggravated assault on a child.

United States v. USMC E-6 (Pensacola, FL):  Fraternization and adultery.

United States v. Navy E-6:  Multiple rapes and a forcible sodomy.  Acquittal by Members.

United States v. Army E-6 (JTF Guantanamo Bay, Cuba):  Orders violation.  Acquittal by Members at trial.

United States v. Air Force E-1 (2d case)(Bolling A.F. Base):  Auto theft and auto insurance fraud.

United States v. Army E-7 (Ft. Belvoir):  Urinalysis.

United States v. USAF E-5 (Wright-Patt A.F. Base):  Theft and fraud under 123.

United States v. Army E-5 (Ft. Rucker):  GTC misuse, 123a, fail to pay.  Presence of parents and testimony a critical sentencing factor.

United States v. Navy E-5 (San Diego):  Theft of postal matter and check forgery.

United States v. Navy E-3 (Yokosoka):  Indecent acts w/minor.  W/drawn from SPCM, dismissed at NJP.

United States v. Navy E-6 (Sasebo):  Forcible sodomy and assault.  Mixed findings and good result on sentence.

United States v. USAF E-2(Bolling A.F. Base):  Charged with theft of military property and various assaults on law enforcement.  Mixed pleas.  Acquittal on the not guilty pleas.  Presence of six family members was important to the outcome.

United States v. USMC E-6 (Quantico):  Charged w/forcible sodomy, mixed findings, no confinement.

United States v. Navy E-6:  W/drawn from SPCM, GP at SCM, RIR and forf. one-third x one.

United States v. USMC (02)  Officer misconduct.   MJ noted that presence and support of family taken into consideration in arriving at sentence.

United States v. Navy E-6:  Black-marketing charges w/drawn from court-martial.

United States v. USMC E-3):  Drug use, distribution, and sale.  MJ noted that presence and support of family was helpful in arriving at sentence.

United States v. USAF E-1/II, computer pornography (18 USC 2252A).  MJ noted grandmother's testimony helpful.

United States v. USAF E-3/I, indecent acts w/child.

United States v. Navy E-5.  Child sodomy, computer pornography (18 USC 2252A).

United States v. USMC E-4.  MJ noted family support helped in deciding sentence.

United States v. Army (E-3).  MJ noted mother's support and testimony helpful.
United States v. USMC (E-2).  Drug use, distribution and sale.  Tried at SPCM.  MJ noted that family support was important when arriving at a sentence.

United States v. USMC (E-4).  Drug abuse.  MJ noted family support seemed to affect members in deciding sentence.
United States v. Navy (E-4), Multiple drug use and distributions.  MJ noted the support of family at trial was crucial to a lesser sentence than might have been warranted. 
United States v. USMC (E-5), Charged with Rape, Fraternization, Theft, and False Official statement.  Dismissed after Article 32.
United States v. USMC (E-6), Instructor hazing and assault. 
United States v. USAF (E-5), Orders violations.
United States v. Navy (E-4), Mulitple distributions of MDMA (ecstasy). 
United States v. Navy (E-4), Felony-murder  (robbery and premeditated murder) of a close Navy friend.
United States v. Navy (E-7). 35 M.J. 149 (C.M.A. 1992), cert. denied, McGuinness v. United States, 507 U.S. 951 (1993).   National security case.
United States v. Diraffaele, No. 88 3958 (N.M.Ct.Crim.App. March 9, 1990). Premeditated murder, Buffalo, New York, and attempted murder in Norfolk, Va.
United States v. Duncan, 36 M.J. 668 (N.M.Ct.Crim.App. 1992).  Charged with premeditated murder by strangulation: convicted of voluntary manslaughter.
United States v. Brown, E-5 charged with mailing (large) box of classified materials to his new duty station.  National security case.
United States v. Roberts. Premeditated murder.   Stabbing of friend while on a bout of marijuana/PCP/alcohol use.
United States v. Navy E - 5.  GCM conviction for conspiracy and theft of military property, while acting as law enforcement officer and using police vehicle.  Sentence to BCD, 6 months, RIR to E1, TF.  On clemency appeal to CA, BCD and RIR to E4 suspended for three years.  On a further note: one year later he's back at E5.  On another note:  he recently made Sailor of the Quarter.  On another note:  recently awarded a Navy Achievement Medal.
United States v. Navy E - 5.  Convicted of mailing classified material to a former shipmate, concealing evidence for another.

United States v. Dorman,  58 M.J. 295 (C.A.A.F. 2003).

United States v. Lee 54 M.J. 285 (C.A.A.F. 2000).  Argued for amicus the National Institute of Military Justice.  Question of quorum for CCA appellate judges.
United States v. USAF 0-3.  Convicted of bigamy, use of false official documents, falsifying immigration related documents.
King v. United States (May 4, 2000). Counsel for, and argued for amicus the National Institute of Military Justice. Writ appeal petition. CAAF All Writs jurisdiction, prejudicial pretrial publicity, and Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
United States v. Weiss, 36 M.J. 224 (1993), aff'd Weiss v. United States, 510 U.S. 163 (1994). Challenge to the designation of military trial and appellate judges as violating the Appointments Clause, Article II, U.S. Constitution.
United States v. Jordan.   Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, cert. denied Jordan v. United States, 510 U.S. 1177 (1994).
United States v. Smith, 43 M.J. 390 (1996).  Members challenge.
United States v. Saylor, 40 M.J. 715 (N.M.Ct.Crim.App. 1994). Case clarified the effect of post-trial misconduct on plea agreements and the procedures required to vacate a suspended sentence.
United States v. Collins, 39 M.J. 739 (N.M.Ct.Crim.App. 1994). Speedy trial issue under UCMJ, Article 10, 10 U.S. Code §810 (pretrial confinement delay). Case helped expand the rule for a showing of prosecutorial "diligence.".
United States v. Clemons, 39 M.J. 865 (N.M.Ct.Crim.App. 1994).  BCD not an authorized punishment.

            Contact us at philcave@earthlink.net, 703-928-8901, Toll Free (866)-404-6116

Questions or problems regarding this web site should be directed to philcave@earthlink.net.
Copyright © 1998 - 2006 ML&J. All rights reserved.