Court and Carpenter
Court and Carpenter

U.S. Air Force Court-Martial Results

Air Force, Col, O-6, investigated regarding several "leave" related issues. Case was resolved by a letter of reprimand. Defense rebuttal focused on client's "good military character." Client allowed to retire at the fulll rank of Colonel. 


Air Force, Airman, E-2, charged with rape and sexual assault. Prosecutors claimed the alleged victim fell asleep, due to her intoxicated state, and suffered fragmentary memory loss, which the accused took advantage of by having sex with the unconscious female Airman. A Forensic Toxicologist was called by Government to testify about the likelihood of the alleged victim’s “black-out.” Defense called a Forensic Computer Expert to vilify the Government for conducting a shoddy investigation. Client does not testify. Military jury “fully acquits Airman of all charges.”


Air Force, SrA, E-4, charged with the attempted manslaughter of an unborn fetus. Government attempted to utilize a video-tape of the alleged assault, as well as statements from the accused in order to assure his conviction. Defense focused on the lack of physical injury to rebuke the government’s theory. Airman faced 15 years in confinement if he had been convicted of manslaughter, but he was only sentenced to serve 6 months, minus time served, and received a punitive discharge. Military jury “acquits Airman of attempted manslaughter, but he was found guilty of the lesser offense of assault and battery.”


Air Force, MSgt, E-7, government prosecutors contemplated charges of abusive sexual contact. Government alleged MSgt inappropriately and provocatively touched a lower enlisted Airman. After some negotiation, case was resolved by nonjudicial punishment. Client was reduced one grade. Defense drafts rebuttal to pending separation action attacking credibility of the alleged sexual assault victim. Wing Commander “withdraws” separation board. Security clearance reinstated. Client honorably retires from service.


Air Force, SSgt, E-5, charged with sexual assault and domestic battery. Government relied on the testimony of the former spouse, along with eye witness testimony of some of the charged events which spanned many years. Defense focused on the credibility of the complaining witness and worked hard to uncover inconsistencies with her story, to include hiring a private detective. SSgt found guilty of three instances of assault and battery. Military judge sentences him to serve 1 day in jail, and retains him in the service. As part of his announcement of sentence, the judge directs the prosecutors to ask the convening authority to disapprove the convictions. Client does not testify. Military judge “fully acquits Airman of all rape and sexual assault charges.”


Air Force, SrA, E-4, charged with the arson and complete destruction of commuter bus while on guard duty. Accused pled guilty to the offense. Defense calls mitigation expert who persuasively testifies to the totality of the circumstances that led to the burning of the security forces’ bus. Prosecutors demand a punitive discharge. Military jury “sentences SrA to serve an additional two months in civilian confinement, but retains him in the service.” No punitive discharge.


Air Force Technical Sergeant, TSgt, E-6, charged with procurement fraud related to client’s involvement in a private parachute club. Prosecutors convene Article 32, UCMJ, investigation which results in the case being resolved by non-judicial punishment. Convening Authority “withdraws” all court-martial charges and there specifications. Client avoids federal conviction, jail time, and continues with career following reduction in grade.


Air Force Captain, O-3, faced General Court-martial over alleged dereliction associated with a fatal accident involving a National Guard parachutist. Defense teams engage in aggressive cross examination of the Government experts during the Article 32 hearing, paving the eventual undermining of the government case at trial. Defense also engages1in extensive pre-trial discovery and tactical maneuvering to best position itself for contesting the charges at trial. Defense wisely forces the co-accused to be tried first, who is acquitted. Convening Authority “dismisses” all court-martial charges and there specifications in the accidental death case. (Link) Client gratefully retained in service.


Air Force Technical Sergeant, TSgt, E-6, charged with BAH fraud and making false official statements. Military judge “acquits TSgt of all charges, with the exception of a single specification of fraud.” Ironically, client was actually entitled to the monies associated with this fraud, as testified to by Defense’s

BAH/Finance expert witness. Defense highlights this oddity on rebuttal matters to the convening authority. Convening Authority “disapproves” BAH fraud court-martial conviction. Client retained in service. The withdrawn court-martial finding is alternatively resolved by Article 15, UCMJ proceeding, remarkably resulting in no loss of stripe.


Air Force Senior Airman, SrA, E-4, received three prior Letters of Reprimand (LOR) and two subsequent Article 15's related to dereliction of duty. Perhaps most notably, he was charged with dereliction of duty related to his role as a tow supervisor that resulted in damage the aircraft as it exited the hangar. As a result, SrA was reduced in rank (from TSgt to SrA) despite 17-years of otherwise solid service. Government initiates involuntarily separation action seeking to expunge his retirement, benefits and family health care plan. Airman retains law firm to represent him before the administrative separation board. “Separation Board retains Airman.” Board members “find Airman did not commit two of the three acts of dereliction.” Returned to duty. Update: Client promoted to E-5. (2014)


Air Force Technical Sergeant, TSgt, E-6, pleads guilty to four charges involving indecent liberties with a family member. Military prosecutor demands 30 year jail sentence, but military jury sentences Airman so that he is eligible for parole in 3.5 years. Based upon the pretrial agreement, Defense successfully prevented military jury from hearing other prior acts of alleged sexual misconduct and physical assaults upon his children.


Air Force Lt Col, Officer, O-5, convicted of engaging in indecent acts with boys by sucking toes. Government focused on the multitude of alleged victims that came forward in this case who alleged similar conduct. Retained by military judge.


Air Force Technical Sergeant, TSgt, E-6, missed a deployment based upon abject carelessness. Group Commander threatens TSgt with NJP. Race issue seemed to be at play is this missing movement case. Defense submits rebuttal explaining the attendant circumstances behind the dereliction of duty, and raises other issues of unit discontent, as Client basically just lost his ID card. Commander decides against taking "any adverse action." Client retained.


Air Force Major, Officer, O-4, a physician, received UIF for alleged acts of misconduct associated with flight status. UIF removed by Commanding General after appeal. Client retained. Update: Submitted request to Air Force Corrections Board to remove Article 15, UCMJ from Client’s OSR. (pending)(2015)


Disclaimer: Each case is different, thus prior results and successes should not create an expectation about results in any individual case. The above list is provided for illustration purposes only, and represents only some of the cases previously handled by said attorney. 



Court & Carpenter, P.C.

Defending Courts-Martial, Military Appeals & Boards For Active Duty Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, Navy and Coast Guard

CONUS - OCONUS Defense Services with Offices in Seattle & Tacoma, and Kaiserslautern, Germany

Contact us for a toll-free consultation

+1 (833) 446-UCMJ (x8265)


or send us your questions online

1700 Seventh Avenue,

Suite 2100
98101 Seattle

Master Card Visa American Express PayPal
MasterCard, Visa, American Express, Paypal
Druckversion | Sitemap
Every military case presents unique advantages and weaknesses.As such,often the historical results that this firm has enjoyed in representing uniformed members in courts-martial cannot be guaranteed to play-out in any given case. Accordingly, the use of the word "best" is the subjective opinion of this firm and the objective opinions and associated ratings of the renowned attorney evaluation tool (10.0 Superior Rating) (2008-2018) © Monika & Stephen Carpenter