Fort Greely Article 120 Sexual Assault Court-Martial Lawyers
Table Contents
Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice defines a range of sex offenses applicable at Fort Greely, distinguishing sexual assault—acts involving penetration without consent—from abusive sexual contact, which involves intentional sexual touching without consent. These distinctions guide charging decisions and reflect the severity of each alleged offense.
Both categories expose a service member to felony-level court-martial proceedings, where the allegations are treated as major offenses with the potential for significant punitive consequences under military law. The classification underscores the seriousness with which the military justice system treats conduct falling under Article 120.
Prosecution of Article 120 offenses is controlled by the chain of command, meaning commanders initiate and oversee decisions such as preferring charges, ordering investigations, and determining whether a case proceeds to court-martial. This command-centric structure shapes how cases are handled within the installation’s military justice framework.
Unlike civilian criminal systems that rely on independently elected or appointed prosecutors, the military’s approach places authority with commanders advised by legal officers. This creates procedural differences in case initiation, investigation, and adjudication that are specific to the UCMJ and distinct from state or federal civilian processes.
Article 120 covers felony-level sexual assault charges under the UCMJ, which can escalate quickly in the military system. At Fort Greely, service members face intense investigations, expert-evidence scrutiny, and potential administrative separation. Gonzalez & Waddington provide guidance; call 1-800-921-8607 for information.
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 Greely operates within a zero‑tolerance culture for sexual misconduct, and service members at every level have mandatory reporting obligations. Once an allegation is brought forward, these requirements trigger rapid notification to command authorities and specialized investigative channels, causing the matter to move quickly through established procedures.
Because Fort Greely is a small and strategically important installation, command teams place significant emphasis on risk management and visibility. Allegations that could affect personnel readiness or unit cohesion are addressed promptly to maintain operational effectiveness and meet leadership oversight expectations.
In addition to the investigative process, an allegation can expose a service member to parallel administrative actions, including potential administrative separation review. These concurrent pathways increase the pace and complexity of the overall response, leading to a perception of swift escalation once an Article 120 concern is raised.
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.
Investigations at Fort Greely often arise from situations where alcohol consumption, memory gaps, or differing recollections of events lead to uncertainty about consent, with service members describing limited recall and conflicting interpretations of interactions during social gatherings or off‑duty activities.
Digital communication is frequently relevant, as personnel may meet through dating apps or exchange messages that become central to determining the nature of prior interactions, expectations, or agreements, with screenshots and chat histories commonly reviewed during inquiries.
Allegations may also stem from barracks life or close‑knit unit dynamics, where relationship disputes, misunderstandings, or third‑party reporting by peers prompt command involvement and formal investigations, often influenced by the interconnected nature of small‑installation communities.
Investigations into Article 120 allegations at Fort Greely typically involve coordinated efforts between military authorities and specialized investigative agencies. These inquiries focus on gathering factual information, documenting evidence, and compiling records necessary for command decisions and potential legal proceedings.
Evidence collected during these investigations may span personal accounts, digital records, forensic findings, and official reports produced throughout the investigative process. Each source of information contributes to a comprehensive understanding of the circumstances surrounding the allegation.
MRE 412 restricts the introduction of evidence concerning an alleged victim’s sexual behavior or predisposition, making it a pivotal rule in shaping what background information the panel may hear during Article 120 proceedings at Fort Greely.
MRE 413 and 414, by contrast, allow the government to introduce evidence of an accused’s prior sexual offenses or child molestation when relevant, significantly expanding the range of conduct that may be considered in prosecutions involving sexual assault allegations.
Motions under these rules determine what evidence is admissible, and litigating them often becomes a major pretrial battleground because each side seeks to frame the narrative before any testimony is heard.
The resulting evidentiary rulings frequently define the contours of the case, influencing witness examination, the theory of prosecution or defense, and the overall scope of facts presented to the court-martial panel.
Article 120 cases at Fort Greely often hinge on the credibility of witnesses and the reliability of expert testimony. Because these cases frequently involve conflicting accounts and complex forensic questions, the role of specialized experts becomes central to both prosecution and defense strategies.
Defense teams commonly scrutinize the methods, assumptions, and conclusions offered by government experts, while presenting their own professionals to explain alternative interpretations. The credibility of each expert — and whether their testimony withstands cross‑examination — can significantly influence how fact‑finders understand evidence and evaluate claims.
Service members at Fort Greely can face administrative separation based solely on Article 120 allegations, even when no court‑martial conviction occurs. Commanders may initiate separation actions when they determine that the alleged conduct undermines good order and discipline or affects the service member’s suitability for continued service.
These cases often proceed to a Board of Inquiry or show‑cause board, where the government presents evidence to establish whether the member should be retained. The process is administrative rather than criminal, but the findings can carry significant professional consequences.
If the board recommends separation, the characterization of service—honorable, general, or other‑than‑honorable—can greatly influence how the allegation affects the member’s record. Each characterization reflects differently on the member’s military history and may shape how future employers or agencies interpret the circumstances.
A separation resulting from Article 120 allegations can impact long‑term career prospects, federal employment opportunities, and potential retirement eligibility. Loss of service time or an unfavorable characterization can alter access to benefits, making the outcomes of these administrative proceedings highly consequential.
Article 120 cases at Fort Greely often begin with sex crimes investigations conducted by military law enforcement or CID. These investigations not only determine whether a formal charge will be brought under the UCMJ but also influence how commanders respond administratively throughout the process.
In parallel with criminal inquiries, commanders may order command-directed investigations to assess unit impact, evaluate leadership issues, or address related misconduct. While these inquiries are separate from the criminal process, their findings can shape command decisions, including whether to initiate adverse administrative actions.
Even when Article 120 cases do not result in court‑martial convictions, soldiers may still face administrative measures such as Letters of Reprimand or further review through Boards of Inquiry. These actions allow the command to address concerns about judgment, conduct, or suitability for service, making them significant collateral consequences of sex‑related allegations.
The firm is frequently retained in Article 120 cases at Fort Greely because of its deep familiarity with trial strategy and motions practice in complex military justice matters. Their approach emphasizes detailed pretrial investigation, targeted motions to limit or challenge contested evidence, and careful preparation for the unique procedural issues that arise in sexual assault litigation under the UCMJ.
Gonzalez & Waddington are also known for methodical cross-examination techniques and the ability to impeach government experts using scientific literature, prior testimony, and methodological challenges. Their courtroom work reflects years of training in dissecting expert assumptions, exposing weaknesses in forensic conclusions, and presenting counter‑experts when necessary.
The attorneys bring decades of military justice experience, supported by published work on trial advocacy that is used by practitioners throughout the field. This combination of practical litigation background and contributions to professional education informs the strategies they apply when defending Soldiers facing Article 120 allegations at Fort Greely.
Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice outlines offenses such as sexual assault, abusive sexual contact, and aggravated sexual assault. It defines prohibited conduct and the elements the government must prove. Service members at Fort Greely face the same statutory framework applied across all installations.
Consent under Article 120 is described as a freely given agreement by a competent person to the conduct at issue. The statute emphasizes that lack of resistance does not equal consent. Whether consent existed is determined by the specific facts and circumstances of the event.
Alcohol use can influence how investigators and factfinders assess memory, perception, and decision‑making. Article 120 includes provisions related to incapacity due to intoxication. Determining impairment typically relies on witness accounts, medical records, or other evidence.
Digital evidence can include text messages, social media data, photographs, or location information. Investigators may use such material to verify timelines or communications between involved parties. Its relevance depends on how closely it relates to the alleged events.
Experts may address subjects such as forensic analysis, intoxication effects, or trauma responses. Their role is to help clarify technical or scientific matters that are beyond common understanding. The weight given to expert statements is determined by the factfinder.
An investigation or court‑martial under Article 120 can trigger administrative review processes. Commanders may consider the underlying allegations when evaluating suitability for continued service. Administrative actions follow procedures separate from criminal adjudication.
Investigations often begin with a report followed by interviews, evidence collection, and coordination with military law enforcement. The process may include forensic exams and digital data review. Findings are forwarded to command authorities for further decisions.
Service members may hire a civilian lawyer to participate alongside assigned military defense counsel. Civilian attorneys can engage with the process according to applicable military rules. Their involvement occurs in coordination with the existing defense team structure.
Fort Greely is located in interior Alaska, just south of Delta Junction and roughly 100 miles southeast of Fairbanks. Positioned along the Richardson Highway and surrounded by remote boreal forest and subarctic terrain, the installation sits in one of the coldest inhabited regions in North America. This isolated location provides strategic value for missile defense operations and extreme‑climate testing. The nearby civilian communities of Delta Junction and Big Delta maintain close ties with the installation, supporting military families with essential services while benefiting from the base’s economic and workforce presence.
Fort Greely plays a central role in national missile defense as a key site for the U.S. Army’s Ground‑Based Midcourse Defense system. The installation houses critical missile interceptor infrastructure and hosts a specialized military and civilian workforce dedicated to missile detection, tracking, and engagement readiness. Additional tenant elements support cold‑weather testing, sustainment, and security operations. Because of its mission and geographic position, Fort Greely contributes directly to homeland defense and interagency coordination across the Arctic and Pacific regions.
The active duty population at Fort Greely is relatively small compared to larger Army installations, but the operational demands are significant. Personnel support missile defense operations around the clock, maintain rapid‑response readiness, and work closely with remote command-and-control networks. The base experiences steady rotational activity from specialized units and contractors who support system maintenance, testing, and infrastructure modernization. Its extreme‑climate environment also draws units for cold‑weather training and evaluation, contributing to a unique operational tempo shaped by seasonal conditions and strategic requirements.
Service members assigned to or operating through Fort Greely may encounter UCMJ matters stemming from the installation’s high‑security mission, isolated environment, and continuous operational cycle. Investigations, administrative actions, non‑judicial punishment, courts‑martial, and separation proceedings can arise from incidents both on and off the installation. The remote setting can also influence how cases are processed and how quickly evidence and witnesses are assembled. The military defense lawyers at Gonzalez & Waddington represent servicemembers stationed at Fort Greely who are facing these types of military justice challenges.
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.
