Fort Gordon 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 Fort Gordon, distinguishing clearly between sexual assault—acts involving sexual activity without consent—and abusive sexual contact, which covers nonpenetrative but still unlawful and nonconsensual touching. These classifications define the specific conduct at issue and the level of criminal exposure service members face.
Both sexual assault and abusive sexual contact under Article 120 are treated as felony‑level offenses within the military justice system. When charged, a service member may be tried at a general court‑martial, the highest level of military criminal proceeding, where penalties can include confinement, punitive discharge, and other severe consequences depending on the proven offense.
Prosecution of Article 120 offenses at Fort Gordon is command‑controlled, meaning the decision to investigate, prefer charges, and refer a case to court‑martial rests with commanding officers rather than civilian prosecutors. Commanders rely on investigative agencies such as CID but ultimately hold the authority to move a case forward within the military justice process.
This structure differs significantly from civilian criminal systems, where independent prosecutors make charging decisions and cases proceed through state or federal courts. In contrast, the UCMJ framework integrates discipline, readiness, and good order considerations, resulting in procedures and priorities distinct from those of civilian jurisdictions.
Article 120 covers felony-level sexual assault offenses under the UCMJ. At Fort Gordon, allegations can escalate quickly through military investigations, with expert evidence shaping charges and potential administrative separation. Gonzalez & Waddington provide guidance on navigating these processes. 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.
Fort Gordon operates within a zero‑tolerance culture for sexual misconduct, and mandatory reporting obligations require commanders, investigators, and specialized support personnel to act immediately once an allegation surfaces. These processes are designed to ensure safety, preserve evidence, and provide prompt access to resources, which naturally accelerates the pace of official action.
Commanders also face significant risk‑management responsibilities and heightened visibility requirements when handling Article 120 matters. Because these cases carry legal, operational, and readiness implications, leadership often moves quickly to document decisions, initiate inquiries, and implement precautionary measures that maintain good order and discipline.
In addition to the criminal investigation track, service members are frequently exposed to parallel administrative processes such as flagging actions, duty restrictions, or consideration for administrative separation. These mechanisms can run concurrently with judicial procedures, contributing to the perception that Article 120 cases advance rapidly at Fort Gordon.
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.
Reports often reference alcohol use and resulting memory gaps, with parties describing fragmented recollections of social events, off‑duty gatherings, or nights out in Augusta. These scenarios typically involve uncertainty about specific interactions, leading investigators to rely heavily on witness accounts, timelines, and digital evidence rather than definitive participant memories.
Digital communication is another recurrent theme, especially when service members initially connect through dating apps or messaging platforms. Screenshots, chat histories, and evolving online conversations can become central to understanding expectations, consent discussions, or misunderstandings that preceded an encounter.
Cases may also stem from dynamics within the barracks or a close‑knit unit, where existing relationships, disagreements, or breakups influence how an incident is perceived or reported. Third-party reporting—such as a friend, supervisor, or partner raising concerns—frequently plays a role in prompting official inquiries, particularly when interpersonal conflict or unit rumors are already present.
Article 120 cases at Fort Gordon rely on comprehensive investigative steps conducted by military authorities to establish what occurred and document all relevant facts. These inquiries follow standardized procedures designed to collect, preserve, and evaluate material that may bear on the allegations.
The evidence gathered in these cases can come from multiple sources, ranging from physical items to recorded statements. Investigators assemble this material into formal reports that become part of the official record and may be used during subsequent military justice proceedings.
MRE 412 restricts the admission of evidence concerning an alleged victim’s sexual behavior or predisposition, making it a major focus of litigation because parties must navigate narrow exceptions and justify why any such material should be considered at trial.
MRE 413 and 414, by contrast, allow the government to introduce evidence of an accused’s prior sexual assaults or child molestation offenses, creating a framework in which past conduct may be used to illuminate patterns or tendencies that would otherwise remain inadmissible.
Because these rules frequently require pretrial motions and detailed admissibility arguments, counsel must develop extensive factual and procedural records to demonstrate whether such evidence meets the standards for inclusion or exclusion.
The court’s rulings on these evidentiary questions often define the trajectory of an Article 120 case, as they determine the scope of the narrative presented to the panel and shape how jurors understand the relationships, conduct, and context underlying the charged offenses.
In Article 120 investigations and courts-martial at Fort Gordon, expert witnesses can significantly influence how fact-finders interpret technical, medical, or psychological evidence. Understanding the role and limitations of these experts is critical for evaluating both the credibility of the alleged victim and the reliability of investigative procedures.
Defense teams frequently scrutinize whether expert conclusions are based on sound methodology, whether alternative explanations were considered, and whether any investigative shortcuts may have contributed to misunderstanding or overstating the evidence. These credibility concerns often shape how the panel perceives the strength of the government’s case.
Service members at Fort Gordon can face administrative separation based solely on Article 120 allegations, even when no court‑martial conviction occurs. Commanders may initiate separation actions when they conclude that the alleged conduct raises concerns about good order, discipline, or suitability for continued service.
These actions often lead to a Board of Inquiry or show‑cause process, where the service member must respond to the government’s evidence and demonstrate why retention is appropriate. The administrative forum has a lower evidentiary threshold than a court‑martial, increasing the chance that separation proceedings will move forward.
The resulting discharge characterization—Honorable, General, or Other Than Honorable—can hinge on the findings of the board and the commander’s final decision. This characterization becomes a permanent part of the military record and shapes how the separation is viewed by military and civilian organizations.
Because discharge characterization affects access to benefits, long‑term career prospects, and potential retirement eligibility, administrative separation triggered by Article 120 allegations can have lasting consequences, even in the absence of judicial punishment.
Article 120 cases often unfold alongside broader sex crimes investigations, requiring coordination between military law enforcement, CID, and command authorities. Because the stakes in these cases are high, investigative steps taken early—such as interviews, evidence collection, and command notifications—can significantly influence both the criminal process and any parallel administrative actions.
In many situations, commanders initiate command-directed investigations to address misconduct concerns that may not meet the threshold for immediate criminal charges. Even while an Article 120 case is pending, these inquiries can examine related behavior, workplace climate issues, or professionalism concerns, creating multiple layers of scrutiny for the service member.
Administrative consequences frequently run parallel to the criminal case. Letters of Reprimand may be issued based on substantiated findings, even without a conviction, and more serious administrative reviews such as Boards of Inquiry can determine whether a service member should be retained in the Army. Thus, an Article 120 allegation at Fort Gordon often triggers a combination of criminal, administrative, and command-level actions—all of which can shape career and legal outcomes.
With decades of military justice experience, the team brings deep familiarity with Article 120 litigation, including the strategic use of pretrial and trial motions that shape the battlefield long before a panel hears testimony. Their approach includes critical analyses of charging decisions, suppression issues, and evidentiary challenges that often define the scope and tone of a contested case.
They are routinely engaged for their skill in cross‑examination and the impeachment of forensic and behavioral experts, using methodical questioning and prior statements to test the reliability of government evidence. This meticulous approach is designed to expose weaknesses in assumptions, methodology, and conclusions offered by prosecution witnesses.
Their published work on trial advocacy and courtroom technique is frequently used by practitioners seeking to refine their own litigation skills, reflecting a long-standing commitment to advancing best practices in military trials. Clients at Fort Gordon benefit from this depth of knowledge applied directly to the unique demands of Article 120 defense.
Article 120 of the UCMJ outlines criminal offenses related to sexual assault and abusive sexual contact. It defines various prohibited acts and the circumstances under which they may occur. The article applies to all service members, including those stationed at Fort Gordon.
Consent is understood as a freely given agreement by a competent person to engage in sexual activity. The absence of resistance does not automatically indicate consent, and certain conditions can render a person unable to consent. These standards are evaluated within the military justice system’s framework.
Alcohol can influence perceptions of events and whether a person was capable of consenting. Investigations often review the level of intoxication and its impact on decision-making. Statements, medical records, and witness accounts may be used to understand the role alcohol played.
Digital evidence can include text messages, social media activity, photos, videos, and metadata. Investigators may examine these materials to establish timelines or interactions between involved parties. Such evidence is typically collected and analyzed by specialized personnel.
Expert witnesses may provide insights on topics such as forensic evidence, psychology, or alcohol effects. Their testimony can help explain technical or scientific issues relevant to the case. Experts are selected based on their qualifications and the needs of the proceeding.
Administrative separation is a possible administrative action that can occur independently of criminal proceedings. Commanders review the circumstances and evidence when considering such actions. The decision process follows established military regulations.
Investigations are commonly conducted by law enforcement agencies such as CID, which gather statements, physical evidence, and digital records. The process typically includes interviews and forensic examinations when appropriate. Findings are forwarded through the chain of command for review.
Service members may choose to retain a civilian attorney in addition to their assigned military defense counsel. Civilian lawyers can participate in meetings, case preparation, and proceedings where permitted. Their involvement follows the rules governing representation in military courts.
Fort Gordon is located in eastern Georgia, just southwest of Augusta and within a short drive of the South Carolina border. The installation sits amid the rolling Piedmont terrain, where humid summers and mild winters shape year‑round training conditions. Its proximity to Augusta embeds the post closely within the civilian community, with service members regularly interacting with surrounding neighborhoods, schools, and businesses. The regional setting matters strategically because the installation is positioned near key southeastern transportation corridors, offering accessible routes for rapid movement of personnel and equipment.
Fort Gordon serves as a major hub for the U.S. Army’s cyber, communications, and electronic warfare missions. It hosts significant Army cyber and signal units along with joint-service partners focused on defending national networks and enabling secure global communications. The installation’s mission blends advanced technical training with operational support, making it a central point for developing cyber readiness and modern information capabilities. While not a traditional maneuver-post environment, Fort Gordon plays a decisive role in shaping the military’s digital and electromagnetic posture.
The active-duty population is substantial, with a mix of permanent party personnel, advanced trainees, instructors, and operational cyber forces. Training pipelines operate at a steady tempo, supporting incoming cohorts throughout the year. Many units on the installation maintain connections to overseas missions, particularly those involving cyber defense, intelligence support, and joint operational coordination. The base’s specialized focus drives a high level of technical activity rather than large-scale field maneuver operations.
The demanding training cycles and operational expectations at Fort Gordon mean service members may encounter a range of military justice issues. These may include command investigations, administrative actions, non-judicial punishment, or courts-martial tied to security protocols, technical responsibilities, or general military conduct. Separation proceedings and career-impacting administrative matters are also common in a high-accountability environment. The military defense lawyers at Gonzalez & Waddington represent servicemembers stationed at or passing through Fort Gordon, ensuring they have experienced legal support when facing UCMJ challenges.
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.
After an allegation is reported, investigators gather statements and evidence, and commanders decide whether to pursue criminal charges or administrative action.
