Court and Carpenter
Court and Carpenter

U.S. Coast Guard Court-Martial Results

Coast Guard, Master Chief, E-9, while underway in Alaska allegedly sexually assaulted three civilian women. Case disposed of by Mast, amended charges and one grade reduction. PSC approves Honorable Discharge. Court martial case dismissed.


Coast Guard LCDR, O-4, investigated for alleged inappropriate conduct while intoxicated. Allegations included alleged wrongful flashing and one instance of sexual touching. Defense focused on the specific circumstances that pervaded this conduct to provide proper perspective. Defense likewise highlighted an otherwise stellar career, and the likelihood that the touching could have been accidental. Client underwent Captain’s Mast, and not a court-martial, thereby avoiding concerns related to sex registration and a federal conviction. Client submits resignation request to PSC, which approves it. Client awarded “Honorable Discharge.”


Coast Guard, E-5, investigated by CGIS for maltreatment of two female subordinates. The underlying investigation was exceedingly voluminous, and therefore the case was likely to prove complex, lengthy and expensive for the Government to prosecute. Defense negotiated Client’s involuntary separation, without a federal conviction, without any jail time, and without the stigma of sex registration. Client eagerly accepts “OTH Discharge.”


Coast Guard Seaman, E-2, charged with various serious offenses surrounding solicitation. Defense entered into plea agreement, but protected the record to allow E-2 to appeal the adverse decisions issued by the military judge at trial. “Upon such review, the findings of guilty of Charges I and III and their specifications are set aside and those charges and specifications are dismissed with prejudice. The findings of guilty of Charge II and its Specification 2 are set aside, and Specifications 1 and 2 of Charge II are dismissed with prejudice. Specification 1 of Charge IV is dismissed with prejudice. The findings of guilty of Charge IV and its Specification 2 are set aside. Charge II and its Specification 3 and Charge IV and its Specification 2 are dismissed without prejudice.” E-2 wins appeal. Case is “dismissed.” (Link)


Coast Guard, Petty Officer, E-5, charged with sexually assaulting a female in the berthing of a cutter. Convening Authority “dismisses” sexual assault and only client pleads to "battery." Military judge does not sentence Client to jail and no sex registration required. Client retained in the service by the military judge.


Coast Guard Chief Petty Officer, E-7, investigated for "misrepresenting a fact" to his command on a matter of national security while cutter was underway. Coast Guard lawyers were unable to discharge member based on legal technicality. Member maintained his rate and transfers to a new unit; no federal conviction and “no” punishment.


Coast Guard Chief Petty Officer, E-7, implicated in a Preliminary Inquiry (PIO) related to a multi-automobile accident. PIO report was ascertained by use of a Freedom of Information Act Request. Negotiated with Deputy Staff Judge Advocate and this member's command resulting in an "alcohol incident" designation and disciplinary marks. Chief did not receive Captain’s Mast or was otherwise punished. Remains fully eligible for retirement and transfer.


Coast Guard Petty Officer, E-5, accused of aggravated sexual assault, wrongful sexual contact and obstructing justice. Case revolved around an alleged touching of the anus region during a volleyball game. Defense focused on inconsistencies in the alleged victim’s testimony and motives to fabricate instigated by his unhappy spouse. Client does not testify. Military jury "fully acquits client of all criminal charges and specifications."


Coast Guard Petty Officer, E-5, found guilty of rape and making false official statements. Prosecutor demands 19-year jail sentence and dishonorable discharge, but member receives 3-month jail sentence and BCD discharge. Member actually only spends 10-weeks in brig after good time reduction. Most importantly, defense prevents military jury from ever hearing about his prior alleged sexual assault of another claimed female years earlier, as well as his simple assault of yet another female the same day of this incident. Defense raises issues of panel selection. Case pending appeal. (Link)


Coast Guard Officer, LTJG, O-2, was involved in fight with a civilian law enforcement officer which resulted in a misdemeanor resisting arrest conviction. Client was heavily intoxicated at the time of the assault. Defense negotiated with his chain of command following the civilian conviction. Client will be allowed to "continue in service" until his end of service date. He will then receive Honorable Discharge with full GI Bill educational benefits.


Coast Guard Chief Petty Officer, E-7, faced rape allegation. Defense vehemently argued Government must drop rape charge after the Article 32 investigating officer (IO) recommended the rape charge not be forwarded to court-martial. Government agreed. Rape charge “dismissed.” Instead the case was referred to a Special Court-martial, upon agreement of the parties, whereby my client pled guilty to adultery and making two false official statements. Military judge sentences client to one rank reduction with no confinement. Client retained in Coast Guard.


Coast Guard Petty Officer, E-5, charged with issues related to the alleged nondisclosure of a medical ailment prior to enlistment. Defense drafts rebuttal. Client was inexplicably separated without due process of law. Defense drafts yet another rebuttal, to include multiple phone conversations with high level authorities at DHS. Vice-Admiral retrospectively “rescinds” unlawful separation. Client reinstated in the Coast Guard. Incredibly, Client was also reimbursed attorney’s fees after filing EEO complaint. Then, in the final chapter to her case, IPEB reverses its prior decision in finding E-5 "unfit" for continued service, based in part, upon the baseless allegations.


Coast Guard Captain, Officer, O-6, investigated for actions associated with his dereliction of his pharmaceutical related duties. Client only received a letter of censure. Retires with full benefits.


Coast Guard Petty Officer, E-3, charged with burglary, wrongful sexual contact, and being drunk and disorderly during a port call. Case “withdrawn” from a Special Court-martial and referred to a Summary Court-martial (i.e., we avoided stigma of federal conviction and/or sex registration requirements). Client sentences to serve 18 days in brig by summary court officer. Convening Authority agreed, by negotiated terms, to recommend my client keep his "top secret clearance" and he was likewise awarded a General Discharge under Honorable Conditions Discharge.


Coast Guard Petty Officer, E-3, charged with threatening to kill his commanding officer in violation of a Commandant’s Instruction. Defense negotiated pretrial agreement with Government that addressed the actions Client undertook, as well as the underlying threats. Defense focused on the intense stress this Guardian had been under leading up to the offense. Based upon further Defense plea bargaining, the case was resolved by Special Court-martial, and Client pled guilty to one offense under Article 134, UNCJ while the other offense was dismissed. In addition, Client was sentenced to serve 150 days in confinement, but was credited with 81 days of being in pretrial confinement, and thus was released within a few months. Client had faced a maximum sentence of three years. Client received bad conduct discharge. 16


Coast Guard Petty Officer, E-6, had his court-martial “dismissed” by military judge because Government failed to provide "fair notice" (Parker v. Levy) of the criminality of his conduct in light of Coast Guard Custom embodies within its Fraternization Policy promulgated in 8H. The appellate courts subsequently upheld this decision, however upon different legal grounds. Coast Guard authorities amend its (former) 8H regulation based upon this seminal case. (Link)


Coast Guard Petty Officer, E-5, is initially denied reenlistment by a Coast Guard Board. Defense submits an appeal raises issues of procedural unfairness. In sum Defense counsel argues several Coast Guard policies were violated in processing the case. EPM “vacates”


Coast Guard Board’s denial of reenlistment. Client later retires with full benefits.


Coast Guard Petty Officer, E-4, accused of reckless discharge of firearm (which resulted in a civilian conviction) false official statement, assault and unauthorized transportation of weapons faced a General Discharge and the loss of all educational benefits. Defense worked hard in currying favor with the command. Client receives Honorable Discharge, and GI Bill eligibility.


Coast Guard Captain, Officer, 0-6, formally investigated for conduct unbecoming an officer while in a Russian locale. Client was interrogated by several CGIS agents. Defense painstakingly negotiated with Government the ultimate withdrawal of any contemplated adverse actions. O-6 “cleared” of all wrongdoing and allowed to retire without any ramifications.


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