Fort Stewart Article 120 Sexual Assault Court-Martial Lawyers
Table Contents
Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice governs a broad range of sexual misconduct offenses at Fort Stewart, distinguishing between sexual assault—acts involving penetration without consent—and abusive sexual contact, which involves non-penetrative but intentional and nonconsensual touching of intimate areas. These distinctions structure how allegations are categorized and framed within the military justice system.
Both sexual assault and abusive sexual contact under Article 120 are treated as felony-level offenses within the court-martial system. Service members accused under this article may face general court-martial jurisdiction, which is the military’s highest level of criminal forum and carries the full range of punitive authority permitted under the UCMJ.
Prosecution of Article 120 offenses at Fort Stewart is controlled through the chain of command, meaning commanders initiate, oversee, and refer cases to court-martial. This command-driven structure places significant procedural authority in the hands of military leadership, from the initial investigation phase through referral decisions.
This command-controlled model differs substantially from civilian systems, where independent prosecutors make charging decisions. While both systems apply criminal law standards, the military framework integrates disciplinary, readiness, and command considerations, creating a distinct prosecutorial environment for Article 120 cases compared to civilian courts.
Article 120 covers felony-level sexual assault offenses under the UCMJ, which can escalate rapidly within the military system. At Fort Stewart, servicemembers may face aggressive investigations, expert evidence scrutiny, and potential administrative separation. Gonzalez & Waddington offer legal representation and can be reached at 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 Stewart operates within a zero‑tolerance culture for sexual misconduct, and mandatory reporting obligations require leaders, investigators, and support agencies to take immediate action once an allegation is raised. This structured response system is designed to ensure safety, transparency, and compliance with Department of Defense standards.
Command teams also prioritize risk management and visibility, meaning that even preliminary information can trigger rapid coordination between military police, legal offices, and unit leadership. These steps are intended to preserve evidence, maintain good order, and reassure the installation community that concerns are addressed promptly.
In addition to the criminal process, soldiers facing Article 120 allegations may be evaluated for administrative separation pathways, which can begin in parallel with an investigation. This dual‑track system increases the pace and scope of command involvement, contributing to the 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.
Cases often involve circumstances where alcohol was present and individuals report unclear or incomplete memories of events. These situations frequently require investigators to evaluate how intoxication, differing recollections, and the surrounding environment may have influenced perceptions and decision‑making.
Another recurring pattern includes interactions that begin on dating apps or through digital communication. Screenshots, message histories, and shifting online conversations can become central to understanding how expectations were formed, interpreted, or misunderstood by those involved.
Incidents may also arise within barracks settings or among close-knit units, where social relationships, prior disputes, or ongoing tensions can shape reporting dynamics. In some matters, a relationship disagreement or concern expressed by a friend, roommate, or teammate leads to third‑party reporting, adding additional layers to how the situation is viewed and assessed.
Article 120 investigations at Fort Stewart typically involve coordinated efforts by military investigative agencies and command authorities to gather factual information and document all relevant conduct. These inquiries focus on establishing a clear record of what occurred, using both testimonial evidence and physical or digital materials collected throughout the process.
Investigators work methodically to compile information from multiple sources, ensuring that all available evidence is preserved and analyzed. The materials gathered become part of an official case file, which may be reviewed by legal personnel as the matter proceeds through the military justice system.
MRE 412 restricts the admission of evidence concerning an alleged victim’s sexual behavior or predisposition, making it a key rule that shapes what the panel may hear in Article 120 cases at Fort Stewart.
MRE 413 and 414 allow the government to introduce evidence of the accused’s prior sexual assault or child molestation offenses, creating a significant exception to general character‑evidence prohibitions.
The motions practice surrounding these rules—particularly written motions, responses, and in‑court Article 39(a) litigation—determines which pieces of evidence survive the admissibility process and sets the boundaries for witness examination and case theory.
Because these evidentiary rulings dictate what the panel is permitted to consider, they often function as the defining framework of the case, shaping the narrative, the scope of testimony, and the overall contour of an Article 120 trial at Fort Stewart.
In Article 120 cases at Fort Stewart, credibility disputes often become central to both the prosecution and the defense. Because these cases frequently hinge on conflicting accounts, expert witnesses are commonly used to help the factfinder understand complex medical, psychological, and investigative elements that may affect the reliability of statements and evidence.
Defense teams and prosecutors each rely on specialized professionals to interpret technical findings, explain how memory and perception work under stress, and evaluate the methods used during the investigation. Understanding the role of these experts can be critical to assessing the strength of the government’s case and identifying potential weaknesses.
At Fort Stewart, soldiers facing Article 120 allegations may encounter administrative separation proceedings even without a criminal conviction. Commanders can initiate this process based on the underlying conduct, meaning a soldier may still be processed for separation despite the absence of court-martial findings.
These actions often begin through a show-cause notification or a Board of Inquiry, where the command evaluates whether the alleged misconduct warrants removal from the Army. The BOI procedure provides an opportunity to contest the evidence, but the threshold for administrative action is lower than that of a criminal trial.
Administrative separation decisions also involve determining the characterization of service, which may range from Honorable to Other Than Honorable. The chosen characterization reflects the command’s assessment of the alleged conduct and can shape the narrative recorded in the soldier’s military file.
Beyond the immediate separation itself, these outcomes can influence long-term career opportunities, future service eligibility, and access to retirement benefits. For service members near retirement, an adverse characterization may significantly affect the ability to complete the required years of service or retain earned entitlements.
At Fort Stewart, Article 120 cases often begin alongside broader sex crimes investigations, where law enforcement and military authorities examine allegations of sexual misconduct. These investigative steps can influence how evidence is collected, how witnesses are handled, and whether parallel or subsequent administrative actions are initiated while the criminal process is still developing.
In many situations, commanders may initiate command-directed investigations to address questions that fall outside the scope of the criminal inquiry, such as unit climate, professional boundaries, or leadership failures. These administrative inquiries do not replace Article 120 proceedings but can run concurrently, shaping command decisions and potentially affecting a service member’s standing even before judicial outcomes are reached.
Depending on the findings from both criminal and administrative reviews, soldiers may face additional actions such as Letters of Reprimand or even Boards of Inquiry. These measures can have lasting impacts on careers independent of the outcome of an Article 120 case, demonstrating how interconnected the criminal, administrative, and command responses can be within the Fort Stewart military justice system.
With decades of military justice experience, Gonzalez & Waddington bring a deep understanding of court-martial procedure and the unique demands of Article 120 litigation. Their approach emphasizes meticulous trial strategy, including the early development of defenses, targeted use of evidentiary rules, and carefully crafted motions practice designed to shape the courtroom environment from the outset.
The firm’s attorneys are known for detailed cross-examination grounded in behavioral evidence analysis, digital forensics, and the documented inconsistencies that often arise in complex assault cases. Their work also includes extensive experience challenging government experts, using expert impeachment methods to expose weaknesses in forensic conclusions and investigative assumptions.
Gonzalez & Waddington’s trial work is reinforced by their published writing on trial advocacy and military justice, which reflects their long-standing commitment to educating practitioners and refining courtroom techniques. This combination of scholarship and hands-on litigation experience is a key reason soldiers facing Article 120 allegations at Fort Stewart turn to the firm for representation.
Article 120 of the UCMJ outlines offenses involving sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, and abusive sexual contact. It defines prohibited conduct and the elements the government must establish for each charge.
Consent is generally understood as a freely given agreement to participate in the sexual conduct at issue. The standards focus on whether words or actions indicated permission and whether any factors affected a person’s ability to consent.
Alcohol can raise questions about an individual’s capacity to consent and may influence how events are interpreted by investigators and fact-finders. Statements, witness accounts, and behavior before and after drinking may become significant in the analysis.
Digital evidence can include messages, social media activity, phone data, or location information relevant to the events. Investigators often review such materials to establish timelines or context surrounding the allegations.
Experts may address topics such as forensic evidence, alcohol effects, or trauma responses. Their input can help explain technical or specialized issues that might not be readily understood by non-experts.
An investigation may prompt a command to consider administrative actions separate from any court-martial process. Administrative separation is evaluated under service regulations and can occur independently of criminal adjudication.
Investigations usually begin with initial reports followed by interviews, evidence collection, and review by military investigative agencies. Commanders may receive periodic updates while the inquiry proceeds toward a decision on next steps.
Service members may consult with or retain a civilian attorney in addition to their appointed military counsel. Civilian lawyers can participate in meetings or proceedings based on the rules governing representation on the installation.
Fort Stewart sits in coastal southeast Georgia, adjacent to the city of Hinesville and within driving distance of Savannah and the lowcountry marshlands. Its location places it in a region defined by humid summers, mild winters, and expansive pine forests that support year-round field training. The post’s proximity to Savannah’s port and major transportation corridors gives it strategic value for rapid deployment operations. Surrounding communities, including Hinesville, Richmond Hill, and smaller towns across Liberty and Bryan counties, maintain strong ties to the installation through employment, services, and shared infrastructure. This integration shapes a close military‑civilian relationship that is central to the area’s identity.
Fort Stewart is home to the U.S. Army’s 3rd Infantry Division, a mechanized force known for its deployment readiness and rapid maneuver capabilities. The installation supports large‑scale training exercises, gunnery ranges, and mission rehearsal activities that prepare units for global contingency operations. Aviation, armor, infantry, and sustainment elements all operate on the post, supported by tenant commands that contribute to operational planning, logistics, and medical readiness. Its extensive training lands and access to multimodal transportation make Fort Stewart one of the Army’s most important power‑projection platforms on the East Coast.
Fort Stewart hosts a substantial active‑duty population, including soldiers assigned to brigade combat teams, aviation units, and support organizations. The installation maintains a high operational tempo due to ongoing rotational deployments, multinational exercises, and the constant preparation cycles required for armored and aviation forces. The presence of advanced training facilities, airfields, logistics hubs, and medical units adds to the daily activity level and brings a steady flow of personnel who train, deploy, or transition through the post.
The demanding training environment and frequent deployment cycles at Fort Stewart create circumstances where investigations, administrative actions, non‑judicial punishment, courts‑martial, and separation proceedings may arise. Service members stationed at or traveling through the installation often require legal guidance as they navigate UCMJ processes linked to duty performance, operational stress, or off‑post incidents. The military defense lawyers at Gonzalez & Waddington represent servicemembers at Fort Stewart facing these challenges, ensuring their rights are protected throughout the military justice system.
Consent under Article 120 must be freely given and can be expressed through words or conduct, but it cannot exist if a person is legally incapable of consenting.
Sexual assault generally involves penetration or qualifying sexual acts, while abusive sexual contact involves non-penetrative sexual touching defined by the statute.
Article 120 of the UCMJ criminalizes sexual assault, abusive sexual contact, rape, and related offenses involving lack of consent or incapacity.
You should consult a civilian military defense lawyer as soon as you learn you are under investigation or suspected of an Article 120 offense.
A not guilty verdict does not automatically protect against administrative actions such as separation or loss of clearance.
