Stephen King’s The Shining – a Coast Guard Version
U.S. v. Coast Guard E-7 – Juneau, AK
Allegations: Maltreating – sexually harassing a female E-4 (two specifications), Drunk and disorderly conduct
Maximum Punishment: 1 year in prison, Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD)
Result: NOT Guilty of maltreatment charges, Guilty of drunk and disorderly conduct
Sentence: NO JAIL TIME, NO DISCHARGE, one-grade reduction
Discharge: None
Location / Branch / Rank: Coast Guard Station Juneau, AK / U.S. Coast Guard / E-7
Case Overview
This case involved a senior Coast Guard petty officer — an E-7 with years of service — who faced two specifications of maltreatment by sexual harassment and a charge of drunk and disorderly conduct. The maximum exposure under the Uniform Code of Military Justice was one year of confinement and a Bad Conduct Discharge, either of which could have permanently ended his career and affected his retirement, benefits, and civilian future.
Military defense attorneys Michael Waddington and LT Warner Butkus represented the client before an enlisted panel (jury) and secured acquittals on the serious maltreatment charges. The client was found guilty only of drunk and disorderly conduct, received no jail time, and retained his ability to separate without a punitive discharge.
The Allegations: Trapped in a Remote Alaskan Village
The charges grew out of an unusual set of circumstances that would have seemed implausible if written as fiction. The client — a Coast Guard E-7 — had traveled on temporary duty (TDY) to a remote area of Alaska to participate in the Kids Don’t Float Program, a water safety initiative aimed at educating Native American communities. A female E-4 accompanied him on the trip.
While in the village, a volcano erupted. The eruption grounded all air traffic and left the two service members stranded together for four days with no way out. They shared a hotel room. Both consumed alcohol. And when they finally returned to their unit, the E-4 filed a complaint alleging that the E-7 had sexually harassed her on two separate occasions and had engaged in menacing, threatening behavior.
The government charged the E-7 with maltreatment — a serious UCMJ offense — along with drunk and disorderly conduct. The maltreatment specification under the UCMJ covers conduct by a superior that causes mental or physical suffering to a subordinate. The alleged victim’s account, as presented by the prosecution, was dramatic and disturbing.
The Accuser’s Story: A Scene Straight Out of The Shining
On direct examination, the alleged victim delivered what can only be described as a chilling narrative. She described being trapped for four days in a freezing, isolated village with no outside communication and no way to leave. She portrayed the E-7 as having completely lost control — drinking heavily, becoming erratic and aggressive, and creating an atmosphere of genuine fear.
She claimed that at one point she fled from a drunken assault and retreated to her room. She told the panel that the door lock was broken, so she dragged a large dresser across the room and barricaded herself inside while the E-7 allegedly screamed through the door and tried to force his way in. She described the experience as causing severe mental suffering.
The story was reminiscent of Stephen King’s The Shining — a person trapped in a remote location with someone who had become unhinged. The jury was listening carefully. Her delivery was polished, emotional, and convincing. That is, until cross-examination began.
Cross-Examination: Where the Story Collapsed
Effective cross-examination is one of the most powerful tools in a military defense attorney’s arsenal. In this case, attorney Michael Waddington used phone records and behavioral evidence to systematically dismantle the accuser’s account. The jury watched as her version of events became increasingly difficult to reconcile with objective facts.
Under cross-examination, the alleged victim was forced to admit the following:
She Had a Cell Phone and Wi-Fi the Entire Time
Despite claiming she had no means of communication and was completely isolated, she had an active cell phone and wi-fi access throughout the incident. She used both to communicate with her Army E-6 boyfriend during the very time period she described as a terrifying assault. In those communications, she told him that everything was going well. She did not report fear, harassment, or danger of any kind.
Her Actions Did Not Match Her Words
The alleged victim admitted that she was chain-smoking cigarettes with the E-7 throughout the evening and into the following day — hardly the behavior of someone who feared for her safety. She also admitted that she was buying drinks for the E-7 during the night in question, directly contradicting the image of herself as a passive victim.
The Day After the Alleged Assault
This was where the accuser’s credibility suffered the most damage. She admitted that the day after the alleged harassment and attempted forced entry into her room, she voluntarily went to a museum with the E-7, had lunch with him, had dinner with him, and then attempted to watch a movie at a theater — alone with him. She took no steps to separate herself from someone she had described as violent and terrifying.
She Bought Him Alcohol on the Flight Home
Perhaps most damaging of all, the alleged victim admitted that she purchased alcohol for the E-7 on the flight back. If the events she described had actually occurred, her voluntary decision to buy drinks for her alleged abuser on the trip home was simply incompatible with her story.
The Client’s Testimony
The E-7 took the stand and was straightforward with the panel. He acknowledged that they were both drinking whiskey and that both of them were significantly intoxicated. He did not deny the drunk and disorderly charge. What he denied — and what the panel ultimately agreed he had not done — was the maltreatment and sexual harassment.
His candor about his own conduct, combined with the defense’s effective cross-examination of the accuser, gave the panel a credible path to acquitting him of the serious charges while still holding him accountable for the conduct he admitted to.
The Outcome and What It Means for Service Members
The panel found the E-7 not guilty of both maltreatment specifications. They convicted him only of drunk and disorderly conduct. The sentence imposed was a one-grade reduction — he received no jail time and no punitive discharge. He left the proceedings without a Bad Conduct Discharge, preserving his ability to retire or separate with his benefits and record intact.
This outcome required more than good luck. It required careful preparation, the strategic use of phone records, and the ability to conduct a rigorous cross-examination that exposed the inconsistencies in the accuser’s account without alienating the jury. Skilled military defense representation made a concrete difference in what could have been a career-ending and freedom-ending result.
If you or a service member you know is facing court-martial charges — especially maltreatment, sexual harassment, or related allegations — contact an experienced military defense attorney as early as possible. The decisions made in the days immediately after an allegation can shape everything that follows.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is maltreatment under the UCMJ, and how serious is a charge like this?
Maltreatment under the UCMJ (Article 93) prohibits cruel, oppressive, or inequitable treatment of subordinates by those in authority over them. It can include verbal abuse, physical mistreatment, or conduct that causes mental suffering. A conviction can result in up to one year of confinement and a punitive discharge, depending on the circumstances. Because it involves an abuse of authority, it is taken seriously at all levels of the military justice system, and it can permanently damage a service member’s career and retirement eligibility.
Can phone records and electronic evidence actually change the outcome of a court-martial?
Yes — significantly. As this case demonstrates, electronic evidence such as text messages, call logs, and wi-fi activity records can directly contradict a witness’s testimony. Military panels (juries) are generally composed of experienced service members who understand the value of objective, verifiable evidence. When a witness’s story clashes with phone records, financial records, or other documented facts, their credibility suffers in ways that emotional testimony cannot easily repair. An experienced defense attorney will identify and subpoena this type of evidence early in the case.
What should a service member do immediately after being accused of sexual harassment or maltreatment?
The most important step is to say nothing to investigators, commanding officers, or anyone else about the underlying allegations until you have spoken with a qualified military defense attorney. Anything you say can and will be used against you. Do not attempt to contact the accuser. Preserve any evidence you have — including text messages, emails, receipts, and photos — and provide that information to your attorney. The earlier experienced legal counsel is involved, the more options are available to build an effective defense.