CIVILIAN COURT-MARTIAL DEFENSE LAWYER: MILITARY OFFICER REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY RICHARD V. STEVENS RETAINED IN MILITARY AFTER FACING INVOLUNTARY ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE CASE

 

Military Defense Lawyer (Former JAG Attorney) News:

Recently, a military officer defended by attorney Richard V. Stevens (Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.) was retained in the military after facing involuntary administrative discharge action.      

In the military justice system, a military member can face involuntary administrative discharge action (“getting kicked out”) for a variety of reasons.  These reasons can include alleged misconduct.  If the military member is not authorized to have their case heard in an administrative discharge board hearing (“Show Cause” board, “Board of Inquiry” [BOI], “Officer Elimination” board), then the case is decided based on the member’s written rebuttal package. 

In this case, the military member had previously received a disciplinary action for alleged misconduct, but was a junior officer who was not authorized an administrative discharge board hearing.  We were hired to represent the officer client in preparing the written rebuttal package in response to the involuntary administrative discharge notice. 

A written rebuttal package for an administrative discharge case can include the member’s response statement and argument for retention, letters of support, awards and decorations, performance reports, other accomplishments and recognitions, and military career documents. 

The disadvantage of not being entitled to a board hearing is that the board deciding the case does not hear from the member personally, or hear from witnesses, or hear the attorney arguments.  Instead, they consider a written package, so it must be particularly compelling to achieve retention.    

In this case, we submitted a compelling package that included obtaining and submitting important letters of support.  Ultimately, after reviewing the rebuttal package, the officer client was retained in the military to continue serving.  Because this was an administrative case, more details cannot be provided to protect the client’s privacy. 

While this involuntary administrative discharge case was successfully defended, and the client was retained in the military, it is important to understand that every case has different facts, and success in previous cases does not guarantee success in any particular future case.  No military lawyer or civilian defense lawyer, including those who specialize in military law, can guarantee the outcome of any military trial or case. 

For more information about the military justice system, particularly cases involving administrative discharge actions, see:

https://militaryadvocate.com/practice-areas/administrative-discharge-separation/

We offer free initial consultations for a case you may be involved in.  Just call us. 

Thank you. 

Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.

Civilian Criminal Defense Lawyer and Military Defense Lawyer

https://militaryadvocate.com/

Blog postscript: I (attorney Richard V. Stevens) am a former active duty military lawyer (JAG). My perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon my experience as military defense lawyer and as a civilian criminal defense lawyer practicing exclusively in the area of military law and military justice. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens for a free consultation. These military defense law offices are located in the Washington DC, Northern Virginia, Maryland, National Capital Region (NCR), but the military defense representation is worldwide – when necessary, the attorneys travel to wherever the client is stationed around the world.

CIVILIAN COURT-MARTIAL DEFENSE LAWYER: MILITARY OFFICER REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY RICHARD V. STEVENS HAS ASSAULT AND SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE DROPPED (UCMJ ARTICLE 128 AND ARTICLE 120)

 

Military Defense Lawyer (Former JAG Attorney) News:

Recently, a senior military officer defended by attorney Richard V. Stevens (Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.) had the assault (UCMJ Article 128) and sexual assault (UCMJ Article 120) case he faced dropped by the military instead of preferring court-martial charges. 

The military client was accused of, and investigated for, allegedly assaulting and sexually assaulting his former wife during their marriage.  His wife made these claims when the officer client was seeking to divorce her and to obtain shared custody of the children.  Upon learning of the divorce/custody fight, she immediately became combative, vindictive, sought custody of the children, and made these allegations against the military officer.  She simultaneously attempted to use these allegations made within the military system to justify her custody of the children in civilian family court.  This is a very common scenario within the current military justice system.    

The military investigation into these allegations was lengthy, and we disputed the allegations on the military and civilian side of the case.  The accuser’s motives to lie were obvious, and she had significant credibility issues.  Ultimately, the Office of Special Trial Counsel elected not to prefer charges, and the command dropped the case altogether.  This allowed the military officer to retire honorably from the military.     

Had there been a court-martial trial and sex crime conviction in this case, the client could have been sentenced to a punitive discharge (dismissal for an officer), a lengthy term of confinement in prison and, in addition, he would have been required to register as a sex offender and would certainly have lost custody of his children.  Thankfully, the case was dropped and could not be used as leverage by the accuser.   

While this military court-martial and sexual assault case was successfully defended, it is important to understand that every case has different facts, and success in previous cases does not guarantee success in any particular future case.  No military lawyer or civilian defense lawyer, including those who specialize in military law, can guarantee the outcome of any military trial or case. 

For more information about the military justice system, particularly cases alleging rape and/or sexual assault in violation of UCMJ Article 120, type "rape" or "sexual assault" into the search bar above the blog posts and see:

https://militaryadvocate.com/military-offenses/sex-crimes/

We offer free consultations for a case you may be involved in.  Just call us. 

Thank you. 

By:  Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.

Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer

https://militaryadvocate.com/

Blog postscript: I (attorney Richard V. Stevens) am a former active duty military lawyer (JAG). My perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon my experience as military defense lawyer and as a civilian criminal defense lawyer practicing exclusively in the area of military law and military justice. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens for a free consultation. These military defense law offices are located in the Washington DC, Northern Virginia, Maryland, National Capital Region (NCR), but the military defense representation is worldwide – when necessary, the attorneys travel to wherever the client is stationed around the world.

CIVILIAN COURT-MARTIAL DEFENSE LAWYER: TWO MILITARY OFFICERS REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY RICHARD V. STEVENS HAVE DRUG USE CASES DROPPED (UCMJ Article 112a)

 

Military Defense Lawyer (Former JAG Attorney) News:

Recently, in two separate, unrelated, cases, military officers defended by attorney Richard V. Stevens (Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.) had the drug use cases they faced dropped by the military (UCMJ Article 112a).    

In the first case, the military officer client was accused of illegal drug use based on talk about what supposedly happened out at a social event one evening.  We disputed the claim and the rumors it was based on, and an investigation followed.  Ultimately, when the investigation closed, the drug use allegation was dropped. 

In the second case, the military officer client was accused of illegal drug use based on a positive urinalysis test.  The client was retirement eligible and faced an administrative discharge board action.  Based on the client’s previous exemplary record, the military agreed to allow the client to retire, instead of face the discharge board hearing. 

Because these were administrative cases, more details cannot be provided to protect the clients’ privacy. 

While these two military drug cases were successfully resolved, it is important to understand that every case has different facts, and success in previous cases does not guarantee success in any particular future case.  No military lawyer or civilian defense lawyer, including those who specialize in military law, can guarantee the outcome of any military trial or case. 

For more information about the military justice system, particularly drug offenses in the military, see our website at:

https://militaryadvocate.com/practice-areas/drug-crimes/

We offer free consultations for a case you may be involved in.  Just call us. 

Thank you. 

Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.

Civilian Criminal Defense Lawyer and Military Defense Lawyer

https://militaryadvocate.com/

Blog postscript: I (attorney Richard V. Stevens) am a former active duty military lawyer (JAG). My perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon my experience as military defense lawyer and as a civilian criminal defense lawyer practicing exclusively in the area of military law and military justice. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens for a free consultation. These military defense law offices are located in the Washington DC, Northern Virginia, Maryland, National Capital Region (NCR), but the military defense representation is worldwide – when necessary, the attorneys travel to wherever the client is stationed around the world.

CIVILIAN COURT-MARTIAL DEFENSE LAWYER: SENIOR MILITARY OFFICER REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY RICHARD V. STEVENS RETIRES HONORABLY, AT HIGHEST RANK, AFTER OFFICER GRADE DETERMINATION (OGD) REBUTTAL

 

Military Defense Lawyer (Former JAG Attorney) News:

Recently, a senior military officer represented by attorney Richard V. Stevens (Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.) retired honorably from the military, at the highest rank he served, after successfully rebutting the Officer Grade Determination (OGD) action he faced. 

When an officer retires from the military, but faced an investigation or disciplinary action prior to retirement, an OGD action can be triggered.  In this action, the military determines what rank to retire the officer in, and considers what highest rank the officer held “satisfactorily.”  In other words, the officer can retire at a lower rank than he/she held while serving. 

In this particular case, just prior to applying for retirement, the officer client received a military disciplinary action alleging fairly serious misconduct within the workplace.  Based on that disciplinary action, the officer faced an OGD when he applied for retirement.  In response to the OGD notification, we submitted a compelling rebuttal package, which detailed the quality service he provided to the military at his highest rank.  Given the nature of the alleged misconduct, however, the potential outcome of the OGD was far from certain.  Ultimately, after consideration of our rebuttal package, the officer was retired at the highest military rank he served in. 

Because this was an administrative case, more details cannot be provided to protect the client’s privacy. 

While this military OGD case was successfully defended, it is important to understand that every case has different facts, and success in previous cases does not guarantee success in any particular future case.  No military lawyer or civilian defense lawyer, including those who specialize in military law, can guarantee the outcome of any military trial or case. 

For more information about the military justice system, particularly cases involving administrative appeal actions, see:

https://militaryadvocate.com/practice-areas/b-c-m-r-other-military-appellate-boards/

We offer free consultations for a case you may be involved in.  Just call us. 

Thank you. 

Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.

Civilian Criminal Defense Lawyer and Military Defense Lawyer

https://militaryadvocate.com/

Blog postscript: I (attorney Richard V. Stevens) am a former active duty military lawyer (JAG). My perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon my experience as military defense lawyer and as a civilian criminal defense lawyer practicing exclusively in the area of military law and military justice. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens for a free consultation. These military defense law offices are located in the Washington DC, Northern Virginia, Maryland, National Capital Region (NCR), but the military defense representation is worldwide – when necessary, the attorneys travel to wherever the client is stationed around the world.

CIVILIAN COURT-MARTIAL DEFENSE LAWYER: MILITARY OFFICER REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY RICHARD V. STEVENS WINS BCMR APPEAL AND CLEARS MILITARY RECORD

 

Military Defense Lawyer (Former JAG Attorney) News:

Recently, a military officer represented by attorney Richard V. Stevens (Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.) won a BCMR appeal and cleared his military record. 

Each military service branch has boards for appeals of various adverse administrative actions.  For example, all service branches have Discharge Review Boards (DRB):

Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB):

https://afrba-portal.cce.af.mil/#afdrb

Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB):

https://arba.army.pentagon.mil/adrb-overview.html

Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB):  https://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/CORB/pages/ndrb/default.aspx

Coast Guard Discharge Review Board (CGDRB):      

https://www.uscg.mil/Resources/legal/DRB/

All military service branches also have Boards for Correction of Military Records (BCMR and BCNR):

Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR):

https://afrba-portal.cce.af.mil/#afbcmr

Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR):

https://arba.army.pentagon.mil/abcmr-overview.html

Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR):

https://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/bcnr/Pages/default.aspx

Coast Guard Board for Correction of Military Records (CGBCMR):

https://www.uscg.mil/Resources/Legal/BCMR/

The service branches have other administrative appeal boards as well.

In this particular case, the military officer was falsely accused of a serious criminal offense.  The client faced an involuntary administrative discharge board hearing, in which he was represented by attorney Richard V. Stevens.  The military was attempting to prove that he committed the alleged offense and kick him out.  At the litigated hearing, which included witness and expert testimony, the military officer client was victorious and the board members found that he did not commit the alleged offense and should be retained in the military. 

Despite the successful outcome of the board hearing, the military officer still had a military disciplinary action in his record claiming that he committed the offense he had been cleared of, a negative performance report, and he had been denied promotion to the next rank. 

We petitioned his command to clear his record based on the outcome of the administrative board hearing, but his command refused to do so.  Therefore, we had to appeal to the service branch Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR).  We submitted our appeal, and then we had to submit a rebuttal to the service branch advisory opinion.  Ultimately, the BCMR granted our appeal, cleared the military officer’s record, and granted our request for a Special Selection Board (SSB) to re-consider his military promotion. 

Because this was an administrative case, more details cannot be provided to protect the client’s privacy. 

While this military administrative appeal case was successfully defended, it is important to understand that every case has different facts, and success in previous cases does not guarantee success in any particular future case.  No military lawyer or civilian defense lawyer, including those who specialize in military law, can guarantee the outcome of any military trial or case. 

For more information about the military justice system, particularly cases involving administrative appeal actions, see:

https://militaryadvocate.com/practice-areas/b-c-m-r-other-military-appellate-boards/

We offer free consultations for a case you may be involved in.  Just call us. 

Thank you. 

Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.

Civilian Criminal Defense Lawyer and Military Defense Lawyer

https://militaryadvocate.com/

Blog postscript: I (attorney Richard V. Stevens) am a former active duty military lawyer (JAG). My perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon my experience as military defense lawyer and as a civilian criminal defense lawyer practicing exclusively in the area of military law and military justice. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens for a free consultation. These military defense law offices are located in the Washington DC, Northern Virginia, Maryland, National Capital Region (NCR), but the military defense representation is worldwide – when necessary, the attorneys travel to wherever the client is stationed around the world.

CIVILIAN COURT-MARTIAL DEFENSE LAWYER: MILITARY OFFICER REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY RICHARD V. STEVENS HAS EXTORTION COURT-MARTIAL CASE DROPPED (UCMJ Article 127)

 

Military Defense Lawyer (Former JAG Attorney) News:

Recently, a military officer defended by attorney Richard V. Stevens (Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.) had the extortion court-martial case he faced dropped by the military before court-martial charges were to be preferred against him.

The military client was accused of, and investigated for, allegedly extorting multiple people through an alleged online scheme.  After a long military investigation, it was clear there were significant issues regarding the multiple complainants’ credibility. 

Despite these issues, the defense was preparing for court-martial charges to be preferred and to proceed to an Article 32 hearing.  However, after the lengthy investigation closed, we were notified that the court-martial case was being dropped, and the issue would be handled administratively instead.    

Had there been a court-martial trial and conviction in this case, the client could have been sentenced to a punitive discharge (dismissal for an officer) and a lengthy term of confinement in prison.  Thankfully, the court-martial case was dropped and the client did not have to face that jeopardy.   

While this military court-martial case was successfully resolved, it is important to understand that every case has different facts, and success in previous cases does not guarantee success in any particular future case.  No military lawyer or civilian defense lawyer, including those who specialize in military law, can guarantee the outcome of any military trial or case. 

For more information about the military justice system, see our website at:

https://militaryadvocate.com

We offer free consultations for a case you may be involved in.  Just call us. 

Thank you. 

Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.

Civilian Criminal Defense Lawyer and Military Defense Lawyer

https://militaryadvocate.com/

Blog postscript: I (attorney Richard V. Stevens) am a former active duty military lawyer (JAG). My perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon my experience as military defense lawyer and as a civilian criminal defense lawyer practicing exclusively in the area of military law and military justice. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens for a free consultation. These military defense law offices are located in the Washington DC, Northern Virginia, Maryland, National Capital Region (NCR), but the military defense representation is worldwide – when necessary, the attorneys travel to wherever the client is stationed around the world.

CIVILIAN COURT-MARTIAL DEFENSE LAWYER: TWO MILITARY MEMBERS REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY RICHARD V. STEVENS HAVE SEXUAL ASSAULT COURT-MARTIAL CASES DROPPED (UCMJ ARTICLE 120)

 

Military Defense Lawyer (Former JAG Attorney) News:

Recently, in two separate, unrelated, cases, military members defended by attorney Richard V. Stevens (Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.) had the sexual assault court-martial cases they faced dropped by the military (UCMJ Article 120).

In the first case, an enlisted military member was accused of sexual assault by another military member after a night of drinking.  The complainant claimed she was taken advantage of by the client when she was too drunk to consent.  The client was placed on administrative hold pending court-martial and a long investigation followed.  Attorney Richard V. Stevens was hired by the client to represent him in the investigation.  During the investigation, as more information was uncovered about the complainant and her claim, the case grew weaker.  Finally, when the investigation concluded, the military elected not to pursue a court-martial.  The court-martial case was dropped, and the military addressed the case administratively instead. 

In the second case, a military enlisted noncommissioned officer (NCO) was accused of forcible sexual assault and domestic violence by a civilian he had a domestic relationship with, and her children alleged domestic assault as well.  The client was charged, his case proceeded through an Article 32 hearing, the case was referred to trial by general court-martial, and the defense filed multiple pretrial motions.  Those motions addressed issues regarding the complainant’s background and her serious credibility and reliability issues.  This included prior issues with civilian law enforcement, the civilian court system, and civilian welfare agencies.  The complainant’s motives to fabricate were obvious, as the complaints were made when the relationship went bad and child custody issues arose.  Ultimately, facing the defense motions, on the eve of the motion hearing the government elected to drop the court-martial charges and case, and address the case administratively instead. 

Had there been court-martial trials and sex crime convictions in these cases, the clients could have been sentenced to a punitive discharge (dishonorable discharge), a lengthy term of confinement in prison and, in addition, they would have been required to register as a sex offender.  Thankfully, the court-martial cases were dropped and the clients were spared this risk of significant negative impacts for their future. 

While these military courts-martial and sexual assault cases were successfully defended, it is important to understand that every case has different facts, and success in previous cases does not guarantee success in any particular future case.  No military lawyer or civilian defense lawyer, including those who specialize in military law, can guarantee the outcome of any military trial or case. 

For more information about the military justice system, particularly cases alleging rape and/or sexual assault in violation of UCMJ Article 120, type "rape" or "sexual assault" into the search bar above the blog posts and see:

https://militaryadvocate.com/military-offenses/sex-crimes/

We offer free consultations for a case you may be involved in.  Just call us. 

Thank you. 

Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.

Civilian Criminal Defense Lawyer and Military Defense Lawyer

https://militaryadvocate.com/

Blog postscript: I (attorney Richard V. Stevens) am a former active duty military lawyer (JAG). My perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon my experience as military defense lawyer and as a civilian criminal defense lawyer practicing exclusively in the area of military law and military justice. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens for a free consultation. These military defense law offices are located in the Washington DC, Northern Virginia, Maryland, National Capital Region (NCR), but the military defense representation is worldwide – when necessary, the attorneys travel to wherever the client is stationed around the world.

CIVILIAN COURT-MARTIAL DEFENSE LAWYER: TWO MILITARY MEMBERS REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY RICHARD V. STEVENS RETAINED IN MILITARY AFTER FACING INVOLUNTARY ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE CASES

 

Military Defense Lawyer (Former JAG Attorney) News:

Recently, in two separate, unrelated cases, military members defended by attorney Richard V. Stevens (Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.) were retained in the military after facing involuntary administrative discharge action.      

In the military justice system, a military member can face involuntary administrative discharge action (“getting kicked out”) for a variety of reasons.  These reasons can include alleged misconduct.  If the military member faces an administrative discharge board hearing – based on their years in the service or because of the negative discharge characterization the government seeks – those board hearings are similar to trials.  They are litigated hearings.  Evidence and witness testimony is presented.  There are opening statements and closing arguments.  The arguments are just about retention in the military versus conviction at trial.  Involuntary administrative discharge board hearings in the military are called by different names, in different branches, and based on different ranks.  This can include:  “ADSEP”  “Board of Inquiry (BOI)”  “Show Cause Board”  “Officer Elimination Action”

Both of the clients in these two cases faced involuntary administrative discharge board hearings. 

In the first case at issue, the military member was a retirement eligible field grade officer accused of misconduct.  The primary alleged misconduct was successfully challenged by our defense in the board hearing and multiple witnesses were called in support of the client.  Ultimately, after closing arguments in the hearing, the Board members concluded that the military officer client should be retained in the military to continue serving. 

In the second case at issue, the military member was an enlisted member accused of misconduct against a fellow military member.  We gathered multiple statements in support of the client.  Our defense challenged that complainant’s claims, including her credibility and motives to lie.  We submitted evidence to support our client’s side of the story, and fought to get it admitted in the board hearing.  After successfully arguing for its admission in the hearing, the hearing – and the case against the client – were dropped and he was cleared of the alleged misconduct.  He was retained in the military to continue serving. 

Because these were administrative cases, more details cannot be provided to protect the clients’ privacy. 

While these involuntary administrative discharge cases were successfully defended, and the clients were retained in the military, it is important to understand that every case has different facts, and success in previous cases does not guarantee success in any particular future case.  No military lawyer or civilian defense lawyer, including those who specialize in military law, can guarantee the outcome of any military trial or case. 

For more information about the military justice system, particularly cases involving administrative discharge actions, see:

https://militaryadvocate.com/practice-areas/administrative-discharge-separation/

We offer free consultations for a case you may be involved in.  Just call us. 

Thank you. 

Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.

Civilian Criminal Defense Lawyer and Military Defense Lawyer

https://militaryadvocate.com/

Blog postscript: I (attorney Richard V. Stevens) am a former active duty military lawyer (JAG). My perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon my experience as military defense lawyer and as a civilian criminal defense lawyer practicing exclusively in the area of military law and military justice. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens for a free consultation. These military defense law offices are located in the Washington DC, Northern Virginia, Maryland, National Capital Region (NCR), but the military defense representation is worldwide – when necessary, the attorneys travel to wherever the client is stationed around the world.

CIVILIAN COURT-MARTIAL DEFENSE LAWYERS: MILITARY OFFICER REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY RICHARD V. STEVENS FOUND NOT GUILTY OF ALLEGED SEXUAL ASSAULT IN COURT-MARTIAL TRIAL (UCMJ Article 120)

 

Military Defense Lawyer (Former JAG Attorney) News:

Recently, a military officer who faced a general court-martial (GCM) in which he was accused of sexual assault was found not guilty of that allegation (UCMJ Article 120).  The accused military member was defended by military law attorney Richard V. Stevens (Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.).

The military officer client was accused of sexually assaulting a female military member who came to his house that night to party with him.  The complainant brought another female military friend with her that night and, according to them, both of them partied with the client that night.  Many months later, both of them accused the client of sexual assault when one of their boyfriends found out and reported the events.  The client was charged with sexual assault regarding one of the friends, and the other friend testified as an uncharged complainant. 

The military officer faced a court-martial trial that lasted most of the week.  During trial, both of the complainants claimed they engaged in sexual behavior with the accused client, including in each other’s presence, and neither objected to it at the time.  In fact, they admit that they engaged in the activities.  But, they both claim that they were unable to consent because they were impaired.  This is an extremely common scenario in military sexual assault cases, and so is what unfolded during the trial. 

During the trial, both complainants were cross-examined about significant issues regarding their lack of credibility and reliability, and their motives to misrepresent what happened that night.  As both of the complainants were cross-examined by attorney Stevens, each admitted to all of the mental and physical capabilities they had that night – they were able to walk, and talk, and remember events, and text message coherently, and engage in an extended argument with each other, and engage in a text and phone call argument with each other immediately after one of them left the party and was able to walk all the way back home.  They admitted to all of this mental and physical capability, yet, they both claim they were too impaired to be able to consent to sex.  This is the common misunderstanding, or intentionally misleading, explanation of the law of sex and impairment.  This is often pushed by advocacy groups and briefings in which military members are told that they are unable to consent if they are impaired.  That is not the law!

During the defense closing argument, attorney Stevens had to defend against both the charged claim and the uncharged claim.  He focused on applying the testimony of the complainants, and their text messages that night, to the applicable law and asking that the law be followed.  Regrets after a night of partying and sex do not convert a consensual encounter into a non-consensual encounter.  Drunk people can have consensual sex. 

Ultimately, despite the environment in the military justice system regarding these issues, and despite the charged complainant being bolstered by her uncharged friend, the accused client was found not guilty of the charged sexual assault.  Had there been a conviction regarding this sexual assault allegation, the client would have faced the possibility of man years in prison.  Thankfully, the officer client was not convicted of this false claim. 

While this serious sexual assault allegation in this military court-martial case was successfully defended, it is important to understand that every case has different facts, and success in previous cases does not guarantee success in any particular future case.  No military lawyer or civilian defense lawyer, including those who specialize in military law, can guarantee the outcome of any military trial or case.

In addition to the sexual assault allegation in this case, Attorney Richard V. Stevens has defended many, many allegations of rape and sexual assault within the military justice system over the course of decades.  He has been practicing military law since 1995.  For more information about the military justice system, particularly cases alleging rape and sexual assault in the military, see:

https://militaryadvocate.com/practice-areas/sex-crimes/

We offer free consultations for a case you may be involved in.  Just call us.

Thank you.    

Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.

Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer

https://militaryadvocate.com/

Blog postscript: I (attorney Richard V. Stevens) am a former active duty military lawyer (JAG). My perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon my experience as military defense lawyer and as a civilian criminal defense lawyer practicing exclusively in the area of military law and military justice. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens for a free consultation. These military defense law offices are located in the Washington DC, Northern Virginia, Maryland, National Capital Region (NCR), but the military defense representation is worldwide – when necessary, the attorneys travel to wherever the client is stationed around the world.

CIVILIAN COURT-MARTIAL DEFENSE LAWYER: TWO MILITARY OFFICERS AND PILOTS REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY RICHARD V. STEVENS RECOMMENDED TO RETURN TO FLYING IN FLYING EVALUATION BOARD CASES (FEB)

 

Military Defense Lawyer (Former JAG Attorney) News:

Recently, in two separate, unrelated cases, military officers and pilots defended by attorney Richard V. Stevens (Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.) were recommended to continue flying in the Flying Evaluation Board (FEB) cases that each of them faced. 

Both of these cases were convened based on alleged flight incidents and violations of applicable flight rules.    

Military pilots – both fixed wing and rotary wing – can face adverse actions against their qualifications and authorization to fly for a variety of reasons.  Mishaps and crashes.  Alleged violations of flight rules.  Alleged safety violations.  Failure to progress in training.  In these adverse actions, the pilot could face being reassigned or even permanently grounded (disqualified from further aviation service).  In certain aggravated cases, the pilot could also face losing the right to wear their wings on their uniform. 

For military pilots, these boards go by different names.  In the Navy and Marine Corps, it is the Field Naval Aviator Evaluation Board (FNAEB).  In the Air Force and Army, it is the Flying Evaluation Board (FEB).  There are also other boards for military aviation issues, depending on the type of aviation incident involved.  This includes Safety Investigation Board (SIB), Accident Investigation Board (AIB), and/or Command Directed Investigation (CDI).

A FNAEB or FEB is a formal administrative hearing before fellow pilots in which recommendations are made about whether the respondent pilot should remain in aviation service, and whether that pilot can continue to wear his/her wings.  Based on that recommendation, the pilot could continue his/her military career, or he/she could face the loss of their flying career, military career, and be involuntarily administratively discharged from the service.

In the first FEB case at issue, the military pilot was a field grade officer who was accused of violating flight and safety rules.  He faced a litigated FEB board hearing in which videos were analyzed, evidence was submitted, and multiple witnesses were interviewed and/or called to testify.  Ultimately, after closing arguments in the hearing, the FEB Board members concluded that the pilot should be reinstated to continue flying his fighter aircraft. (To protect anonymity, the type of aircraft and service branch are not identified.)

In the second case at issue, the military pilot was a company grade officer who was accused of violating flight and safety rules, and was being removed from training.  We rebutted this action by submitting a statement/argument and evidence in support of the pilot.  Despite what was originally thought to be a certain training removal, after considering our submission the command changed course and returned the client to training – which he successfully completed and continued flying his fighter aircraft.  (To protect anonymity, the type of aircraft and service branch are not identified.)

While these military aviation cases resulted in positive recommendations, it is important to understand that every case has different facts, and success in previous cases does not guarantee success in any particular future case.  No military lawyer or civilian defense lawyer, including those who specialize in military law, can guarantee the outcome of any military trial or case. 

For more information about the military justice system, particularly cases involving aviation issues and Flying Evaluation Boards, see:

https://militaryadvocate.com/practice-areas/flying-evaluation-board/

We offer free consultations for a case you may be involved in.  Just call us. 

Thank you. 

By:  Attorney Richard V. Stevens

Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer

Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.

https://militaryadvocate.com/

Blog postscript: I (attorney Richard V. Stevens) am a former active duty military lawyer (JAG). My perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon my experience as military defense lawyer and as a civilian criminal defense lawyer practicing exclusively in the area of military law and military justice. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens for a free consultation. These military defense law offices are located in the Washington DC, Northern Virginia, Maryland, National Capital Region (NCR), but the military defense representation is worldwide – when necessary, the attorneys travel to wherever the client is stationed around the world.