Fairchild Air Force Base Article 120 Sexual Assault Court-Martial Lawyers
Table Contents
Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice governs a range of sexual offenses at Fairchild Air Force Base, distinguishing clearly between sexual assault—acts involving sexual conduct without consent—and abusive sexual contact, which covers non‑penetrative but still intentional and non‑consensual touching of a sexual nature.
Both categories are treated as serious, felony‑level offenses under military law, meaning an accused Airman may face a general court‑martial with the full range of punitive authorities available to the military justice system.
Prosecution of Article 120 offenses is command‑controlled, meaning commanders at Fairchild initiate and oversee the referral process, rely on military investigative agencies, and determine whether allegations proceed to court‑martial based on military evidentiary and readiness considerations.
This framework differs from civilian systems, where local prosecutors independently decide whether to file charges; in the military environment, the command structure, operational requirements, and unique disciplinary objectives shape how Article 120 cases are pursued.
Article 120 charges involve felony-level sexual assault allegations in the military, which can escalate quickly from investigation to court-martial. At Fairchild Air Force Base, service members face intensive inquiries, expert evidence reviews, and possible administrative separation. Gonzalez & Waddington offer guidance; call 1-800-921-8607.
Watch the criminal defense lawyers at Gonzalez & Waddington break down how they defend criminal cases and service members worldwide against Federal Charges, Florida State Charges, UCMJ allegations, CID/NCIS/OSI investigations, court-martials, Article 120 cases, administrative separations, and GOMORs. If you’re under investigation or facing charges, this video explains what your rights are and how experienced criminal defense lawyers can make the difference.
Fairchild Air Force Base operates within a zero‑tolerance culture for misconduct, and mandatory reporting obligations require commanders, first sergeants, and investigative agencies to act immediately once an Article 120 concern is raised. These structural requirements create rapid visibility and quick referral to formal investigative channels.
Commanders are also responsible for ongoing risk management, meaning they must assess unit impact, safety considerations, and mission readiness as soon as an allegation surfaces. This focus on command visibility often accelerates protective steps, such as issuing no‑contact orders or modifying duty statuses while the facts are examined.
In addition to the criminal process, members may face simultaneous administrative review, including potential exposure to administrative separation actions. Because these processes can run in parallel, involvement from multiple offices can make the situation feel like it escalates rapidly even during routine procedural steps.
If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges or a criminal investigation by federal authorities, the military, or the State of Florida, early defense matters. Gonzalez & Waddington provide disciplined, trial-focused criminal defense for high-stakes cases involving serious allegations and complex evidence. To speak with experienced criminal defense lawyers and get confidential guidance, call 1-800-921-8607 or text 954-909-7407 to request a no-cost, confidential consultation.
Cases often involve situations where alcohol use contributes to unclear recollections, with service members reporting memory gaps or differing perceptions of events that occurred during social gatherings on or near the installation.
Investigations may also include exchanges from dating apps, text messages, or social media communications, where digital conversations become central to understanding expectations, consent discussions, or the context of interactions.
Additional patterns can arise from life in the barracks or within close-knit units, where relationship disputes, blurred personal‑professional boundaries, and reports made by friends or peers can influence how concerns are raised and how investigators frame the initial inquiry.
Article 120 cases at Fairchild Air Force Base involve detailed investigative steps designed to document events, preserve evidence, and compile information relevant to the allegations. These inquiries often require coordination across multiple military and specialized agencies to ensure thorough collection and evaluation of materials.
The evidence gathered during these investigations can include physical, testimonial, and digital elements, each contributing to a comprehensive understanding of the circumstances surrounding the alleged offense. Investigators follow structured protocols to identify, preserve, and document all available information.
MRE 412 restricts the admission of evidence concerning an alleged victim’s past sexual behavior or predisposition, making it a key rule in shaping the evidentiary boundaries of Article 120 cases at Fairchild Air Force Base.
MRE 413 and 414, by contrast, allow the government to introduce evidence of an accused’s prior sexual offenses or child molestation allegations, expanding the scope of what may be presented to members when the charges involve sexual misconduct.
Because these rules require detailed motions practice and careful analysis of admissibility, both parties often engage in extensive pretrial litigation to determine what evidence can enter the record.
The resulting evidentiary rulings frequently define the contours of the case itself, influencing the narrative presented at trial and shaping how factfinders understand the allegations and the conduct at issue.
Article 120 cases at Fairchild Air Force Base often rely on specialized expert witnesses whose analyses can shape how fact-finders interpret complex evidence. Understanding the limits, methodologies, and potential biases of these experts is essential for accurately evaluating credibility in allegations involving sexual assault.
Defense teams frequently scrutinize how conclusions were reached, whether the expert’s field has recognized limitations, and whether investigative steps may have influenced witness memory or evidence interpretation. Thoroughly examining each expert’s role helps ensure that findings are grounded in reliable science rather than assumptions or improperly applied techniques.
Service members at Fairchild Air Force Base can face administrative separation based solely on Article 120 allegations, even without a criminal conviction. Commanders may initiate these actions when they believe the alleged conduct is incompatible with Air Force standards or undermines good order and discipline.
When separation is considered, the member may be directed to a Board of Inquiry or show‑cause hearing. These panels review evidence under an administrative, rather than criminal, standard, which means adverse findings can occur even when no court‑martial is pursued.
The resulting discharge characterization—whether Honorable, General, or Under Other Than Honorable Conditions—can significantly influence a member’s access to benefits, post‑service opportunities, and long‑term professional reputation.
Administrative separation also carries substantial career and retirement consequences, including loss of continued service eligibility, interruption of promotion pathways, and potential forfeiture of retirement benefits if the member is separated before qualifying service is reached.
Article 120 cases at Fairchild Air Force Base often intersect with broader sex crimes investigations, as Security Forces, the Office of Special Investigations, and command authorities coordinate to determine the scope of alleged misconduct and whether additional offenses or victims may be involved.
These cases may also trigger command-directed investigations, which run parallel to the criminal inquiry and focus on assessing unit climate, leadership responsibilities, and any administrative issues that contributed to the incident or require corrective action.
Depending on the findings, service members facing Article 120 allegations may also be subject to administrative measures such as Letters of Reprimand or more serious proceedings like Boards of Inquiry, which evaluate whether continued service is compatible with Air Force standards even if criminal charges are not ultimately pursued.
With decades of military justice experience, Gonzalez & Waddington bring a command of trial strategy and motions practice that is shaped by years of litigating complex Uniform Code of Military Justice issues. Their approach emphasizes early case analysis, targeted pretrial motions, and meticulous preparation tailored to the investigative and procedural environment at Fairchild Air Force Base.
The firm’s courtroom work is grounded in methodical cross-examination techniques and the careful impeachment of government experts. Their familiarity with forensic, medical, and digital evidence enables them to challenge assumptions and expose weaknesses in technical testimony, which is often central to Article 120 litigation.
In addition to their casework, the attorneys have published extensively on trial advocacy and military justice practice. This body of work reflects ongoing study of litigation methodology and contributes to the structured, research-driven strategies they employ when defending service members facing serious allegations at Fairchild AFB.
Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice outlines offenses such as sexual assault, aggravated sexual contact, and abusive sexual contact. It provides definitions for prohibited conduct and elements the government must address during a case.
Consent under Article 120 involves a freely given agreement by a competent person to engage in sexual activity. The statute explains circumstances where consent cannot be assumed, including situations involving force or incapacity.
Alcohol may be relevant when determining whether a person was capable of consenting or understanding events. Investigators often examine the level of impairment and each party’s behavior leading up to the incident.
Digital materials such as messages, photos, or location data can help establish timelines and context. Investigators frequently collect electronic devices to review communications and interactions associated with the allegations.
Experts may be used to explain topics such as memory, forensic findings, or alcohol effects. Their testimony can help a court understand technical or scientific issues that are not obvious to non‑specialists.
An allegation or related findings may prompt commanders to consider administrative action. Such processes are separate from courts‑martial and follow their own standards and procedures.
Investigations typically involve interviews, collection of physical or digital evidence, and coordination with legal and support personnel. Agencies such as the Office of Special Investigations manage fact‑gathering before any charging decisions occur.
Service members have the option to retain a civilian attorney in addition to appointed military counsel. Civilian lawyers may assist with communication, document review, or case preparation alongside the official defense team.
Fairchild Air Force Base sits in eastern Washington, just west of Spokane, placing it at the center of the Inland Northwest’s mix of forested terrain, open plains, and four-season climate. Its position near Airway Heights and the Spokane metropolitan area gives the installation access to a robust civilian workforce, healthcare network, and transportation infrastructure. The surrounding communities maintain a long-standing relationship with the base, supporting families, housing, and veteran services while benefiting from Fairchild’s economic and operational presence. The region’s expansive airspace and relatively low population density create ideal conditions for large-scale mobility and refueling operations.
Fairchild hosts a significant Air Force presence, anchored by units dedicated to global air mobility and aerial refueling. As the primary home of the KC-135 Stratotanker fleet, the installation plays a central role in enabling long‑range operations, supporting U.S. and allied aircraft across the Pacific, Arctic, and continental theaters. Tenant organizations contribute to survival training, maintenance, and mission planning, reinforcing the base’s reputation as a hub for both operational readiness and specialized instruction. Fairchild’s location on the nation’s western edge makes it strategically positioned for rapid response and trans-Pacific support.
The base supports a large active-duty population, including aircrews, maintainers, instructors, and personnel tied to global mobility and survival training pipelines. Rotational activity is constant, with aircraft, crews, and support teams frequently deploying or participating in joint exercises across the West Coast and overseas. Training tempos remain high due to Fairchild’s aerial refueling mission and its proximity to vast military training ranges in Washington and Idaho. This mix of operational units and training elements ensures continuous movement of students, transient aircrews, and mission support staff through the installation.
With an active operational environment, service members at Fairchild Air Force Base can encounter a range of military justice concerns. Investigations, administrative actions, Article 15 proceedings, courts‑martial, and separation boards may arise from on‑duty incidents, deployment cycles, or training demands unique to an aerial refueling and survival training base. The military defense lawyers at Gonzalez & Waddington represent servicemembers stationed at or passing through Fairchild Air Force Base, providing support for UCMJ matters that occur in this high‑tempo environment.
An Article 32 hearing is a preliminary proceeding where evidence is reviewed and witnesses may testify before referral to court-martial.
Text messages and social media often play a critical role because they can contradict or undermine allegation narratives.
Yes, many Article 120 cases proceed without physical or forensic evidence and rely heavily on testimony and credibility assessments.
Article 31(b) rights require investigators to advise you of your right to remain silent and consult counsel before questioning.
You are not required to speak to investigators, and invoking your rights cannot legally be held against you.
