Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson 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 at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, distinguishing between sexual assault, which involves acts such as penetration without consent, and abusive sexual contact, which involves intentional, nonconsensual touching of specific body parts. These categories are separate offenses, each with its own statutory elements.
Because Article 120 offenses are categorized as serious felonies under military law, an accused service member faces the possibility of being tried at a general court-martial, the highest level of military criminal forum. The statute outlines strict evidentiary and procedural standards, reflecting the gravity with which the military justice system treats these allegations.
The decision to initiate, pursue, or refer an Article 120 case is controlled entirely within the military chain of command. Commanders determine the appropriate investigative path, rely on military law enforcement and legal advisors, and possess authority over referral decisions that shape how the case proceeds through the court-martial system.
These processes differ significantly from civilian criminal systems, where independent prosecutors hold charging authority and civilian courts manage trials. Under the UCMJ, the commander-driven structure, military-specific rules of evidence, and uniform federal jurisdiction create a distinct legal environment for evaluating and prosecuting Article 120 offenses.
Article 120 covers felony-level sexual assault offenses under the UCMJ, where cases can escalate quickly from initial reports to aggressive investigation at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson. Service members face expert-evidence inquiries and potential administrative separation. Gonzalez & Waddington provide guidance; 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.
Joint Base Elmendorf‑Richardson operates within a zero‑tolerance culture for sexual misconduct, and commanders have mandatory reporting obligations under military policy. Once an allegation is received, required notifications to investigative authorities occur immediately, which naturally increases the speed and visibility of the response.
Because leadership must manage risk to the unit and maintain good order and discipline, command teams often take prompt administrative steps such as no‑contact orders or duty adjustments. These actions are designed to ensure safety and transparency and can make the situation feel escalated even at the earliest stages of an inquiry.
In addition to any criminal investigation, service members may be simultaneously exposed to administrative processes, including potential administrative separation reviews. These parallel tracks can move quickly and independently, creating a multilayered response environment that contributes to the perception of rapid escalation for Article 120 allegations at the installation.
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 alcohol use during social events, where service members later report memory gaps or uncertainty about the sequence of events. These situations often lead to differing recollections and raise questions about consent, perception, and impaired judgment rather than establishing any specific allegation as fact.
Digital interactions also play a major role, with dating apps, text messages, and social media communications forming part of the narrative. Screenshots, message histories, and misunderstandings in online exchanges frequently become central to how each party interprets their interactions.
Incidents may arise in barracks settings or within close-knit units, where preexisting relationships, interpersonal conflicts, or chain-of-command dynamics can influence how concerns are raised. Sometimes disputes between partners or friends lead to third-party reporting, adding additional perspectives and complexity without determining the truth of any claim.
Article 120 investigations at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson involve detailed, multi‑agency processes designed to collect and document evidence related to allegations of sexual misconduct. These inquiries typically include coordinated efforts between military law enforcement, medical professionals, and command authorities to assemble a comprehensive factual record.
Evidence gathered during these investigations can originate from numerous sources, reflecting both physical and digital components. Each form of evidence contributes to understanding the circumstances surrounding the allegation and forms the foundation for decisions made during the military justice process.
MRE 412 restricts the introduction of evidence concerning an alleged victim’s sexual behavior or sexual predisposition, making it a key rule that limits what background information can be explored in an Article 120 case and channeling the focus toward the charged conduct.
MRE 413 and 414 allow the government to introduce evidence of an accused’s prior sexual offenses or child molestation, creating a framework in which patterns of behavior may be presented to the factfinder in ways generally prohibited in other types of criminal litigation.
Motions litigating these rules determine what information will be admissible at trial, and the arguments surrounding relevance, probative value, and potential prejudice often consume significant pretrial effort at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson.
Because these evidentiary rulings shape what the panel or judge can hear, they effectively define the boundaries of the case, influencing how the narrative is constructed and how the government and defense present their theories under Article 120.
Article 120 cases at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson often hinge on complex credibility assessments, making expert testimony essential for explaining technical evidence and contextual factors that influence how events are interpreted. Defense and government practitioners frequently rely on specialists to clarify medical findings, digital footprints, psychological dynamics, and investigative methods that may affect the perceived reliability of statements.
Because sexual assault allegations frequently involve minimal physical evidence and conflicting accounts, expert analysis can directly influence whether fact-finders view a complainant’s or an accused service member’s recollection as consistent, plausible, or compromised by external factors. The following expert areas play a particularly significant role in clarifying or challenging credibility in JBER Article 120 litigation:
Service members at Joint Base Elmendorf–Richardson can face administrative separation based solely on Article 120 allegations, even when no court‑martial conviction occurs. Commanders may initiate this process if they believe the underlying conduct raises concerns about good order, discipline, or suitability for continued service.
These actions often take the form of a Board of Inquiry or show‑cause proceeding, where the member must respond to the evidence presented by the command. The board evaluates whether misconduct is substantiated and whether separation is warranted under applicable service regulations.
If separation is recommended, the board also determines the characterization of service, which may include Honorable, General (Under Honorable Conditions), or Other Than Honorable. This characterization directly influences how the member’s service record is viewed by future employers and military authorities.
An adverse finding or unfavorable discharge can have lasting effects, including loss of certain veterans’ benefits, reduced post‑service opportunities, and potential impact on retirement eligibility for those with significant years of service. Understanding how administrative processes operate is essential when navigating allegations of this nature at JBER.
Article 120 allegations at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson are often intertwined with broader sex crimes investigations, which may involve both military and civilian law enforcement. These parallel inquiries can influence the evidence available to commanders and attorneys, as well as shape decisions regarding case disposition and potential administrative actions.
In addition to criminal inquiries, commanders may initiate command-directed investigations to address alleged misconduct or assess unit impact. These investigations frequently run alongside Article 120 processes and can generate findings that affect duty status, access to sensitive positions, and interim risk‑management decisions.
Even when an Article 120 case does not result in court‑martial charges, service members may still face administrative consequences such as Letters of Reprimand or formal Boards of Inquiry. These actions can rely on a lower evidentiary threshold than criminal prosecution, meaning the outcome of an administrative proceeding may differ significantly from the result of a sex crimes investigation or an Article 120 adjudication.
Decades of military justice experience allow the firm to build detailed trial strategies tailored to Article 120 allegations, including motion practice focused on evidence suppression, access to discovery, and challenging the admissibility of statements or forensic findings unique to cases arising at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson.
The defense team is known for methodical cross-examination techniques and the ability to impeach experts through careful review of forensic protocols, interview procedures, and potential inconsistencies in government analysis, helping service members understand how each witness may be tested under scrutiny.
The attorneys have published extensively on trial advocacy and courtroom practice within the military system, which informs their approach to preparing clients, shaping the narrative of the case, and addressing the complex evidentiary and procedural issues that frequently surface in Article 120 prosecutions.
Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice outlines offenses related to sexual assault and abusive sexual contact. It defines prohibited conduct, required elements, and the legal standards used during investigations and courts-martial. Service members at JBER are subject to these provisions regardless of duty status.
Consent under Article 120 is assessed based on whether a person freely and voluntarily agreed to the sexual conduct. Investigators and legal authorities examine verbal statements, behavior, and surrounding circumstances. The standard focuses on whether there was a clear and mutual agreement.
Alcohol can influence perceptions of memory, behavior, and the ability to provide or recognize consent. Investigators may review consumption levels, witness accounts, and physical evidence related to intoxication. Its presence does not determine guilt but becomes part of the factual evaluation.
Digital evidence can include texts, social media messages, location data, and phone records. Investigators may analyze these materials to understand communication patterns and timelines. Such evidence is evaluated alongside other information gathered in the case.
Experts may be called to explain subjects such as forensic findings, alcohol effects, or memory patterns. Their testimony provides context for technical or specialized information. They do not determine guilt but offer insights that may help clarify complex issues.
Administrative actions, including potential separation proceedings, can occur independently of criminal processes. Command authorities may review a service member’s conduct, duty performance, and other factors. These administrative steps operate within their own regulatory framework.
Investigations typically involve interviews, evidence collection, and review of relevant documents or digital materials. Agencies such as OSI or CID may conduct the inquiry depending on the service branch. The process aims to gather facts before any legal decisions are made.
Service members may consult or retain civilian counsel in addition to their appointed military defense attorney. Civilian lawyers can participate in meetings, case preparation, and representation during proceedings, subject to military rules. Their involvement is coordinated with the defense team handling the case.
Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) is located in south-central Alaska, positioned along the northern edge of Anchorage and extending toward the rugged Chugach Mountains. Its proximity to Anchorage places the installation directly alongside the state’s largest civilian population center, creating a close military‑civilian relationship through shared infrastructure, employment, and community services. The area is defined by subarctic conditions, long winters, and mountainous terrain, which shape both daily life and operational planning. JBER’s placement along the Pacific and Arctic air routes gives it strategic importance for homeland defense, rapid global mobility, and Arctic-domain operations, making its location uniquely relevant to national security.
JBER hosts both Air Force and Army elements, reflecting its joint operational focus. The installation supports missions connected to air superiority, airborne operations, and rapid deployment throughout the Indo-Pacific and Arctic regions. Key aviation, infantry, and support units operate from the base, enabling persistent readiness and the ability to respond to regional and global contingencies. The joint structure enhances interoperability, training coordination, and the execution of complex missions in extreme environments.
The installation supports a large and diverse active duty population, including aircrew, infantry forces, airborne units, medical personnel, and command staff. Aviation activity is constant due to the presence of fighter, transport, and support aircraft, while Army units conduct regular field and airborne training across Alaska’s extensive military ranges. Rotational forces from partner units frequently pass through JBER for cold‑weather and Arctic‑survival training, contributing to a high operational tempo and steady deployment cycle across the Indo-Pacific region.
Because of JBER’s demanding mission profile and steady flow of personnel, service members stationed at or transiting through the installation may encounter UCMJ matters involving investigations, administrative actions, non‑judicial punishment, courts‑martial, or separation proceedings. Training intensity, deployment pressure, and the unique challenges of remote duty can influence how legal issues emerge and are addressed. The military defense lawyers at Gonzalez & Waddington represent servicemembers at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in matters across the full spectrum of military justice.
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.
