Fort Lewis Article 120 Sexual Assault Court-Martial Lawyers
Table Contents
Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice defines a range of sexual offenses, distinguishing sexual assault from abusive sexual contact based on the nature of the conduct, the presence or absence of penetration, and the circumstances under which the act occurred. Sexual assault typically involves penetration without consent, while abusive sexual contact involves intentional, non-penetrative sexual touching without consent.
At Fort Lewis, allegations under Article 120 are treated as felony-level offenses within the military justice system, meaning they can be prosecuted at a general court-martial. These proceedings allow for the full scope of punitive authority available under the UCMJ, reflecting the seriousness with which the military treats these allegations.
Prosecution under Article 120 is command-controlled, meaning commanders initiate and oversee the process, from reporting and investigation through referral to court-martial. Commanders hold significant authority in determining whether charges move forward, guided by legal advisors and investigative findings.
This command-driven structure differs markedly from civilian systems, where independent law enforcement agencies investigate and prosecutors decide whether to file charges. The military’s approach creates a unique legal environment in which disciplinary, operational, and institutional considerations play roles that do not exist in civilian jurisdictions.
Article 120 under the UCMJ covers felony-level sexual assault offenses, which can escalate quickly in the military system at Fort Lewis. Cases involve intensive investigations, expert evidence review, 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 Lewis maintains a zero‑tolerance culture for misconduct, combined with mandatory reporting obligations for commanders, first-line leaders, and military law enforcement. Once an allegation is received, required notifications and standardized response protocols activate immediately, creating rapid visibility across the chain of command.
Command teams also apply rigorous risk‑management practices to protect service members and maintain unit readiness. These measures often include temporary duty adjustments, no‑contact directives, and command‑directed assessments, which can make an allegation feel like it is moving fast even while the underlying inquiry remains methodical.
In parallel with any investigative process, soldiers may face administrative review pathways that are separate from the criminal system. These administrative actions—such as initiation of a flag or consideration for separation—can begin early, resulting in additional layers of scrutiny that contribute to a perception of swift escalation.
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.
Many cases involve situations in which one or more service members consumed alcohol, leading to memory gaps or differing recollections about interactions, consent discussions, or events that occurred during social gatherings on or off post.
Another frequent pattern includes the use of dating apps, text messaging, and social media communications, where screenshots or incomplete message histories become central to understanding expectations, intentions, or misunderstandings between the individuals involved.
Cases also often arise from barracks life or close‑knit unit environments, where existing relationships, interpersonal disputes, or concerns voiced by third parties can prompt reports, sometimes shaped by prior conflicts, rumors, or evolving interpretations of earlier interactions.
Article 120 cases at Fort Lewis involve detailed investigative processes focused on gathering and analyzing information relevant to the allegations. Military authorities follow standardized procedures to document events, preserve evidence, and compile materials for potential command and legal review.
These investigations typically incorporate multiple investigative tools and forms of evidence, each contributing different perspectives on the alleged incident and allowing authorities to form a comprehensive understanding of the circumstances surrounding the case.
MRE 412 restricts the use of evidence concerning an alleged victim’s past sexual behavior or predisposition, making courts focus closely on whether proposed evidence fits within narrow exceptions that permit its introduction without shifting attention away from the charged conduct.
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 the factfinder may consider patterns of behavior that would otherwise be inadmissible under general propensity rules.
Because these rules frequently require detailed motions, responses, and hearings, litigants must address how specific facts fit within the rules’ admissibility standards, and judges must make threshold determinations before a panel ever hears the contested evidence.
These evidentiary rulings often define the boundaries of what the panel will learn, meaning that decisions on admissibility can shape the narrative, the scope of testimony, and ultimately the contours of Article 120 cases tried at Fort Lewis.
Article 120 cases at Fort Lewis often hinge on how expert testimony shapes the fact-finder’s understanding of the evidence and the credibility of those involved. Because sexual assault allegations frequently lack eyewitnesses and rely heavily on interpretation of physical, digital, and behavioral evidence, experts can significantly influence perceptions of reliability and consistency.
Defense teams and prosecutors alike scrutinize the methods, qualifications, and assumptions underlying expert analysis. Courts evaluate whether an expert’s opinions are grounded in reliable science, whether the expert applied that science properly, and whether the testimony risks overstating what the evidence can truly show about credibility, consent, or memory.
Service members at Fort Lewis facing Article 120 allegations can encounter administrative separation proceedings even without a court-martial conviction, because the command may pursue removal based on a lower evidentiary threshold focused on suitability for continued service.
These actions often arise through a show-cause notification or a Board of Inquiry, where decision-makers review the underlying conduct to determine whether separation is warranted despite the absence of criminal findings.
If separation is recommended, the characterization of discharge—whether Honorable, General, or Under Other Than Honorable Conditions—can significantly affect a service member’s record, reputation, and post-service opportunities.
Removal under these circumstances can disrupt long-term military career plans, reduce or eliminate retirement eligibility, and affect access to benefits tied to years of service and discharge status.
Article 120 cases are often closely intertwined with broader sex crimes investigations at Fort Lewis, as allegations of sexual assault typically trigger simultaneous inquiries by both military law enforcement and the command structure. These investigative processes can run parallel to, and sometimes influence, the trajectory of a formal Article 120 prosecution.
Command-directed investigations may also arise from the same underlying conduct, allowing commanders to assess issues such as unit climate, misconduct patterns, or duty‑related implications even before criminal charges are finalized. While separate from the legal case, the findings of a command-directed investigation can shape command decisions and administrative actions.
Administrative measures such as Letters of Reprimand or the initiation of Boards of Inquiry often accompany or follow Article 120 allegations, even when criminal prosecution is still pending. These actions operate under a lower evidentiary standard, meaning service members can face career‑impacting consequences independent of the outcome of the criminal process.
With decades of military justice experience, the firm is frequently retained for complex Article 120 cases arising at Fort Lewis due to its detailed approach to trial strategy and motions practice. The team is known for developing comprehensive pretrial plans, scrutinizing evidence, and identifying procedural issues that can shape the direction of a contested case.
The attorneys place significant emphasis on cross-examination, including the nuanced impeachment of government experts. Their method focuses on analyzing forensic assumptions, exposing weaknesses in testimonial foundations, and using established evidentiary principles to challenge the reliability of key prosecution witnesses.
Gonzalez & Waddington’s published work on trial advocacy, frequently referenced by practitioners and cited in training environments, reflects the firm’s long-term engagement with the development of courtroom technique within the military justice system. This scholarship, paired with many years of courtroom practice, contributes to the firm’s reputation for handling demanding Article 120 litigation.
Article 120 of the UCMJ governs sexual assault and sexual contact offenses within the military. It outlines prohibited conduct, required elements, and definitions the government must rely on when bringing charges.
Consent under Article 120 is defined as a freely given agreement to the conduct at issue. The statute also specifies situations where a person is legally unable to consent, which can affect how an allegation is evaluated.
Alcohol use can become a key factor when assessing capacity to consent and interpreting events. Investigators often examine the level of intoxication and witness observations to understand the circumstances.
Digital evidence may include messages, photos, location data, or social media activity. Investigators can use this information to reconstruct timelines and communications surrounding the alleged incident.
Expert testimony may be introduced to explain topics such as memory, intoxication effects, or forensic evidence. Such testimony is used to help fact‑finders understand technical or specialized information.
Administrative separation can be initiated when commanders determine a service member’s conduct is incompatible with continued service. This is a separate administrative process from any court‑martial proceedings.
Article 120 allegations are usually investigated by military law enforcement agencies such as CID or OSI. The process may include interviews, evidence collection, and coordination with legal authorities before any charging decisions are made.
Service members are allowed to hire civilian counsel to assist alongside appointed military defense counsel. Civilian lawyers can participate in meetings and proceedings as permitted by military rules and command access policies.
Fort Lewis, situated in western Washington near the city of Tacoma and the southern reaches of Puget Sound, occupies a landscape defined by dense evergreens, rolling prairies, and views of Mount Rainier. Its location along the Interstate 5 corridor places it within a major regional population center while still offering expansive training lands uncommon in the Pacific Northwest. The surrounding communities—including Lakewood, DuPont, Lacey, and Olympia—maintain close ties with the installation, supporting a strong military‑civilian partnership. The region’s cool, wet climate and varied terrain influence year‑round training, particularly for units preparing for operations in temperate and mountainous environments.
Fort Lewis hosts a significant U.S. Army presence and serves as one of the service’s primary power‑projection platforms for the Pacific. Key operational and support units stationed here conduct missions tied to rapid deployment, ground combat readiness, and regional security cooperation. The installation’s training areas, airfields, and joint-use facilities allow forces to integrate maneuver, aviation, and sustainment operations in a realistic environment. Its strategic role is reinforced by its proximity to West Coast ports and airlift hubs, enabling timely mobilization for missions across the Indo‑Pacific.
The active‑duty population at Fort Lewis is substantial, with thousands of soldiers, family members, and civilian personnel supporting a high operational tempo. The installation supports a variety of activities, including brigade‑level combat training, aviation operations, intelligence functions, logistics support, and medical services. Units frequently rotate through field exercises across the post’s extensive training ranges, and many maintain direct ties to ongoing overseas commitments. This dynamic environment contributes to a steady flow of incoming and outgoing personnel.
Given the scale and tempo of operations at Fort Lewis, service members assigned to or transiting the installation may encounter military justice matters ranging from investigations and administrative actions to non‑judicial punishment, courts‑martial, or separation proceedings. Field exercises, deployment cycles, high personnel turnover, and joint‑service coordination can all influence how legal issues arise and how they are addressed under the UCMJ. The military defense lawyers at Gonzalez & Waddington represent servicemembers at Fort Lewis, providing counsel to those facing the complexities of the military justice system.
Expert witnesses can be used to explain memory, intoxication, perception, trauma, and investigative flaws.
You should not consent to a phone search without legal advice because digital evidence is frequently misinterpreted.
Failure to interview key witnesses can significantly weaken the government’s case and create defense leverage.
An accuser can recant and the case may still proceed if the command believes other evidence supports the allegation.
Article 120 investigations often take months and sometimes over a year, depending on complexity and command priorities.
