Joint Base Andrews Article 120 Sexual Assault Court-Martial Lawyers
Table Contents
Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice defines a range of sexual offenses applicable to all service members stationed at Joint Base Andrews, distinguishing between acts categorized as sexual assault and those classified as abusive sexual contact. Sexual assault covers conduct involving penetration committed without consent, while abusive sexual contact involves intentional, non‑penetrative touching done without consent or under prohibited circumstances.
Allegations under Article 120 can expose a service member to felony‑level prosecution at a general court‑martial. The charge structure and statutory elements allow the government to pursue significant punitive exposure, reflecting the seriousness with which the military justice system treats all forms of non‑consensual sexual conduct.
At Joint Base Andrews, as with other installations, prosecution decisions for Article 120 offenses are driven by the command structure. Commanders initiate and oversee the investigative and judicial process, including the decision to prefer charges and refer cases to court‑martial, operating within investigative support from military law enforcement and legal offices.
This command‑centered model differs from civilian criminal systems, where independent prosecutors make charging decisions. Under the UCMJ, the commander’s authority, combined with military‑specific procedures and evidentiary rules, creates a distinct framework for how Article 120 cases are pursued and adjudicated on base.
Article 120 covers felony‑level sexual assault offenses in the military, where cases can escalate quickly from investigation to court‑martial. At Joint Base Andrews, service members may face intense inquiries, expert evidence scrutiny, and administrative separation risk. Gonzalez & Waddington provide legal 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.
Joint Base Andrews operates within a zero‑tolerance culture that emphasizes prompt reporting and mandatory notifications. Once an Article 120 concern is raised, trained personnel must elevate the information through established channels to ensure compliance with military reporting obligations and to protect all involved parties.
Command teams at the installation also maintain heightened visibility over these matters as part of risk management requirements. This means leaders often act quickly to initiate safety measures, preserve evidence, and coordinate with investigative organizations, which can make the process feel fast‑moving.
In addition to the criminal investigative pathway, service members may be simultaneously exposed to administrative procedures. Administrative reviews, including potential separation actions, run parallel to the investigative process and can add to the sense of rapid escalation even before any findings are reached.
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 reports involve alcohol use at social gatherings where one or more individuals later express uncertainty about events due to memory gaps. These situations often lead to differing perceptions of consent and require investigators to reconstruct timelines from partial recollections and witness accounts.
Another recurring pattern involves interactions that begin through dating apps or other digital communication platforms. Messages, images, and shifting online conversations can become central to understanding how expectations were formed, whether boundaries were communicated, and how the interaction progressed.
Cases may also arise within barracks environments or close‑knit units, where social proximity, prior relationships, and ongoing interpersonal disputes can influence how events are interpreted or reported. Sometimes third-party reporting—such as a friend, roommate, or supervisor raising concerns—plays a significant role in initiating an inquiry, especially when relationship tensions or misunderstandings are already present.
Article 120 investigations at Joint Base Andrews typically involve coordinated efforts between military law enforcement and command authorities to gather and evaluate all available information. These inquiries follow standardized procedures designed to document events, preserve evidence, and obtain statements relevant to allegations of sexual misconduct.
Investigators may use a range of tools and methods to build a comprehensive record of the circumstances surrounding an allegation. The types of evidence collected can vary depending on the nature of the report, the location of events, and the individuals involved.
MRE 412 is central in Article 120 cases because it restricts the admission of evidence concerning an alleged victim’s prior sexual behavior or sexual predisposition, forcing litigators to address privacy, relevance, and constitutional considerations before such information can enter the record.
MRE 413 and MRE 414, by contrast, allow the government to introduce evidence of an accused’s prior sexual offenses or child molestation, creating a powerful exception to the general ban on propensity evidence and reshaping how past conduct may be used in a current prosecution.
Because these rules operate in tension—one limiting access to sensitive information and the others expanding admissibility of prior acts—motions practice at Joint Base Andrews often turns on detailed arguments about what evidence may be presented, how it may be framed, and whether its probative value outweighs potential prejudice.
The resulting evidentiary rulings frequently define the scope of the trial itself, influencing what the members hear, how narratives are constructed, and which facts become central to evaluating the charged conduct under Article 120.
Article 120 cases at Joint Base Andrews frequently hinge on expert testimony that shapes how fact-finders interpret physical evidence, memory, digital data, and the investigative process. Because these cases often involve limited witnesses and complex human behavior, the credibility of both the alleged victim and the accused can be heavily influenced by expert explanations of medical findings, psychological patterns, and forensic methodologies.
Defense teams and prosecutors alike rely on specialists to clarify technical issues, challenge assumptions, and address common misconceptions. Understanding the strengths and limitations of each type of expert evidence is critical for evaluating the reliability of the government’s case and identifying areas where misinterpretation or investigative bias may affect the outcome.
Service members at Joint Base Andrews can face administrative separation based solely on Article 120 allegations, even without a court-martial conviction. Commanders may initiate these actions when they believe the alleged conduct undermines good order and discipline or brings the service into disrepute.
These actions typically move forward through a Board of Inquiry or show-cause process, where evidence is reviewed to determine whether retention is appropriate. The administrative forum uses a lower evidentiary standard than a criminal trial, which can increase the likelihood of separation proceedings being pursued.
If separation is recommended, the resulting characterization of service—Honorable, General (Under Honorable Conditions), or Other Than Honorable—can significantly affect a member’s access to veteran benefits, future employment opportunities, and overall record.
For those nearing key service milestones, including retirement eligibility, an unfavorable characterization or separation can interrupt career progression and may prevent the service member from reaching retirement status, creating long-term professional and financial consequences.
Article 120 cases at Joint Base Andrews often originate from broader sex crimes investigations, which may involve both military law enforcement and specialized investigative units. These investigations frequently serve as the starting point for determining whether alleged misconduct meets the threshold for criminal charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
In parallel with criminal inquiries, command-directed investigations may be initiated to assess unit impact, evaluate professional standards, or address related misconduct that does not rise to the level of an Article 120 offense. These administrative inquiries can run concurrently with criminal investigations, and their findings may influence decisions regarding a service member’s duty status or suitability for continued service.
Even when an Article 120 case does not result in court-martial charges, commanders may impose administrative measures such as Letters of Reprimand, or initiate Boards of Inquiry to evaluate long-term retention. These actions underscore how Article 120 allegations can trigger a broad spectrum of legal and administrative consequences within the military justice system at Joint Base Andrews.
Service members facing Article 120 allegations at Joint Base Andrews often seek counsel with deep experience in trial strategy and motions practice, and Gonzalez & Waddington bring decades of involvement in military justice that helps them analyze charging decisions, identify evidentiary issues, and develop defense strategies grounded in the unique demands of courts-martial.
The firm is frequently retained for its methodical approach to cross-examination and expert impeachment, including work with forensic, medical, and digital‑evidence specialists. Their familiarity with how these experts operate allows them to probe assumptions, test methodologies, and highlight limitations in a way that supports a clear and disciplined defense theory.
In addition, Gonzalez & Waddington’s published work on trial advocacy has contributed to the broader professional community by addressing techniques relevant to litigating complex military cases. Combined with the partners’ long tenure practicing within the military justice system, this background equips them to guide service members through the procedural and practical challenges of Article 120 litigation.
Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice outlines several sexual assault‑related offenses, including abusive sexual contact and rape. It defines prohibited conduct and the elements the government must address during a case.
Consent is viewed as a freely given agreement by a competent person. Investigators and courts consider verbal statements, actions, and surrounding circumstances when assessing whether consent was present.
Alcohol use may affect how investigators evaluate memory, awareness, and the ability to consent. Statements from witnesses, timelines, and level of impairment are often reviewed during the process.
Messages, photos, location data, and social media activity may be collected if considered relevant. Such material can be used to help reconstruct timelines or interactions surrounding the alleged incident.
Experts may be called to explain topics such as forensic findings, memory, or behavioral patterns. Their role is to provide specialized knowledge that helps fact‑finders understand technical or scientific information.
Service members may face administrative review processes that run separately from the criminal case. Commanders may consider conduct, duty performance, and other factors when evaluating whether administrative action is appropriate.
Investigations typically involve interviews, evidence collection, and coordination with legal offices. The process is governed by military regulations that outline how allegations are examined and documented.
Civilian attorneys may work alongside appointed military defense counsel if a service member chooses to retain one. Their involvement is subject to base access rules and coordination with the military legal team.
Joint Base Andrews is located in Prince George’s County, Maryland, just southeast of Washington, D.C. Its proximity to the nation’s capital places it at the center of federal operations, diplomatic activity, and national-level defense coordination. Surrounding communities such as Camp Springs and Clinton maintain close ties to the base, supporting a large population of military families and civilian personnel. The region experiences a mid-Atlantic climate with four distinct seasons, a factor that shapes year-round airfield operations and training schedules. Because of its strategic position within the National Capital Region, the base plays a vital role in both domestic and global missions.
Joint Base Andrews is best known as the home of Air Force One and key units of the United States Air Force responsible for executive transport and global mobility. The installation hosts missions aligned with the 316th Wing, Air National Guard elements, and other joint organizations that operate in support of national command authorities. Its airfield supports a wide range of high-level movements, including senior leader travel, rapid response operations, and specialized aviation activities. This presence makes the base a central hub for coordination between military, federal, and diplomatic entities.
The base supports a substantial active duty population, along with Guard, Reserve, and civilian personnel. Activity across the installation is marked by a steady tempo of flight operations, medical readiness efforts, logistics support, and mission planning tied to both routine and emergent national priorities. Personnel often operate in a high-visibility environment, with rotational aircrews, security forces, and support units maintaining readiness for global deployment or rapid tasking.
Because of its operational pace and the sensitive missions conducted on the installation, service members at Joint Base Andrews may face a range of UCMJ matters, including investigations, administrative actions, non-judicial punishment, and courts-martial. The unique pressures associated with executive airlift support, security operations, and joint-service coordination can influence how military justice issues arise and proceed. The military defense lawyers at Gonzalez & Waddington represent servicemembers at Joint Base Andrews and understand the complex demands placed on personnel stationed there.
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.
Intoxication alone does not prove sexual assault, despite how cases are often framed during investigations.
Alcohol does not automatically eliminate consent, and the analysis focuses on capacity, awareness, and the specific facts of the encounter.
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.
