Assumptions and verification notes

• Fort Bragg vs Fort Liberty terminology: This page uses both names because the installation was redesignated Fort Liberty in 2023 and renamed Fort Bragg again in 2025. Some official pages and contact listings still display Fort Liberty. ^[2]citeturn1search1
  ^[3]citeturn1search0
  ^[11]citeturn1search3
• Local resources are informational: Fort Bragg legal assistance pages are official, but legal assistance is not the same as criminal defense. The Trial Defense Service (TDS) is the uniformed defense resource for Soldiers and is listed publicly for Fort Liberty. ^[10]citeturn1search2
  ^[11]citeturn1search3
• Lawyer profiles: Lawyer credentials and “notable cases” can change. This page relies on publicly available bios, bar listing pages, and firm pages. If a case name or outcome cannot be independently verified through reliable reporting or official records, it is marked unspecified, or, if stated in marketing materials, marked self reported, verify. ^[40]citeturn3search0
• No personalized legal advice: This page explains common procedure, evidence issues, and defense dynamics. It does not tell any specific reader what to say, what to do, or how their case will end.
• Deskbook caution: The Army TJAGLCS Criminal Law Deskbook is a respected training reference, but it explicitly states it is not official policy and encourages practitioners to consult primary sources and Shepardize case law. ^[25]citeturn9search13

Fort Bragg and Fort Liberty context

Fort Bragg’s identity is inseparable from its operational mission and the XVIII Airborne Corps community. When UCMJ enforcement is discussed at Fort Bragg, it is often discussed through a readiness lens, because commanders are responsible for unit discipline and deployability.
That context does not change the legal burden of proof, but it does change the speed and posture of decisions. ^[1]citeturn1search34

For accuracy and SEO, it is important to address the installation name sequence plainly.
The U.S. Army officially redesignated Fort Bragg to Fort Liberty on June 2, 2023.
The U.S. Army later announced that Fort Liberty was renamed Fort Bragg effective immediately in February 2025. ^[2]citeturn1search1
^[3]citeturn1search0

A practical takeaway is that you will still see “Fort Liberty” in official contact directories, defense pages, and legal listings. That is not a contradiction, it is a transitional artifact of how government websites and internal systems update. ^[11]citeturn1search3

What a UCMJ case is, and what it is not

A “UCMJ case” is any adverse action or criminal proceeding governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and related rules. Some UCMJ processes are noncriminal or quasi disciplinary, such as nonjudicial punishment, while others are criminal trials, such as courts-martial.
The Manual for Courts-Martial is the consolidated primary source that provides the Rules for Courts-Martial and Military Rules of Evidence used in courts-martial. ^[6]citeturn0search0

A key concept for readers is that “military justice” is a pipeline of decision points, not a single event.
Many cases never go to court because they resolve through command action, administrative measures, negotiated outcomes, or dismissal.
The defense goal is not always “trial,” it is the best achievable outcome given facts, evidence, and risk. The best defense counsel understand this and build leverage early.

Common Fort Bragg UCMJ pathways

At Fort Bragg, a service member might encounter:
an investigation by Army CID, Military Police, or other law enforcement,
a command directed inquiry or administrative investigation,
nonjudicial punishment under Article 15,
an administrative separation process,
or preferral and referral toward trial by court-martial.
The details vary by offense category and by whether a matter is treated as a “covered offense” under special trial counsel authorities. ^[5]citeturn12search0
^[7]citeturn10search0

Who investigates serious offenses

In the Army, Army CID is the Military Criminal Investigative Organization that investigates serious crimes affecting Army personnel and resources.
CID publishes its mission as identifying, disrupting, and defeating criminal threats, and it describes itself as the MCIO and protection providing organization. ^[16]citeturn6search0

Many readers have joint exposure.
The Navy and Marine Corps use NCIS, which publicly describes common investigative steps in sexual assault investigations, including interviews, crime scene examination, evidence collection, and electronic media analysis.
The Air Force uses the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI), which publishes fact sheet descriptions of its investigative role.
These official pages matter for “how investigations work” sections, even when the primary installation is Army, because the investigative culture and evidence concepts carry across the Department. ^[17]citeturn2search3
^[18]citeturn6search4

Court-martial procedure with a Fort Bragg timeline

The Manual for Courts-Martial (2024 edition) is the procedural backbone for courts-martial, including rules governing preferral and referral, discovery and production, motions, panels, evidence, findings, sentencing, and post trial proceedings.
If you publish about Fort Bragg court-martial procedure without citing the MCM, your page will not read as authoritative. ^[6]citeturn0search0

Many Fort Bragg cases are shaped by reforms in who controls serious prosecutions.
The Department of Defense implemented independent special trial counsel structures for many serious covered offenses.
The Secretary of Defense memorandum on OSTC policies describes the mission as expert, specialized, independent, and ethical representation of the United States in investigation and trial litigation of covered offenses.
The GAO describes this reform as removing certain prosecutorial decision authority from commanders and placing it with independent special trial counsel. ^[7]citeturn10search0
^[4]citeturn10search29

The MCM supplemental materials also incorporate and reflect special trial counsel procedural rules, including provisions describing notice to convening authorities and special trial counsel authority over covered offenses and related offenses.
That matters because it changes practical defense sequencing and who you must persuade at each stage. ^[8]citeturn10search23

Visual timeline: typical Fort Bragg UCMJ case

The diagram below is a general model, not a guarantee of how any specific case will move.
In practice, timelines vary dramatically depending on offense type, investigative urgency, confinement posture, digital evidence complexity, and whether the matter is treated as a covered offense. ^[6]citeturn0search0

flowchart TD A[Incident or allegation] --> B{Initial report pathway} B --> C[Command awareness and immediate actions] B --> D[Law enforcement or MCIO intake] B --> E[SAPR reporting and services, where applicable]

D --> F[Investigation: interviews, physical evidence, digital devices] E --> F

F --> G{Charging decision point} G --> H[Covered offense: special trial counsel decision] G --> I[Other offenses: traditional referral workflow]

H --> J[Preferral of charges] I --> J

J --> K[Article 32 preliminary hearing, when applicable] K --> L[Referral to court-martial] L --> M[Arraignment, discovery, scheduling] M --> N[Motions practice: evidence, suppression, experts] N --> O[Trial: findings by members or judge] O --> P[Sentencing and post trial submissions] P --> Q[Appellate review and collateral consequences] 

php-template
Copy

Ten defense layers table and how to use it

The ten layer model is intended as a practical defense roadmap for Fort Bragg UCMJ cases across offense categories, including drugs, assault, fraternization, fraud, domestic incidents, and sexual assault allegations.
The model is built to match how military judges and litigators think: rights, evidence, procedure, admissibility, and decision maker psychology.
It aligns with the MCM’s procedural structure and with Army JAG training references that summarize discovery and motions frameworks. ^[6]citeturn0search0
^[20]citeturn9search0
^[21]citeturn9search1

Read the table as a layering stack: you rarely “win” with a single tactic.
You win by compounding multiple credible advantages, while avoiding unforced errors early.
The strongest defense counsel also use professional standards as a benchmark for competence, including the ABA Criminal Justice Standards for the Defense Function, which emphasize diligence, investigation, client counseling, and effective advocacy. ^[19]citeturn7search0

Note that discovery and motions are central because they are the procedural levers that force the government to show its work.
Army deskbook modules summarize discovery and motion practice points, including witness statement production rules and waiver pitfalls.
Use them as a starting point, then cite the MCM and controlling cases for publication. ^[20]citeturn9search0
^[21]citeturn9search1
^[25]citeturn9search13

Evidence strength, digital proof, memory science, and experts

Most modern Fort Bragg cases are evidence cases, even when they look like credibility disputes.
The National Institute of Justice emphasizes that digital evidence is now used to prosecute all types of crimes, not only “electronic crimes.”
That is exactly why defense counsel and investigators must treat phones, messages, geolocation, and cloud artifacts as first order evidence categories. ^[29]citeturn7search2

For device work, NIST guidance describes mobile device forensics as recovering digital evidence under forensically sound conditions and discusses validation, preservation, acquisition, examination, analysis, and reporting.
This matters in UCMJ litigation because incomplete or sloppy extractions can distort timelines and create misleading narratives. ^[30]citeturn7search1

Evidence issues are not just technical.
Memory and perception science is one of the most misunderstood parts of military justice, especially in alcohol involved allegations and in delayed reporting scenarios.
Research on alcohol induced blackouts explains that alcohol can impair memory formation and recall.
Separate research on the malleability of memory discusses the misinformation effect, describing how exposure to misleading post event information can alter memory.
This does not mean allegations are “false.”
It means that honest people can have incomplete, reconstructed, or altered recollections, and court systems must treat memory evidence carefully. ^[33]citeturn8search22
^[34]citeturn8search10
^[35]citeturn8search3

Visual chart: typical corroborative power by evidence type

The chart below is a heuristic for readers, not a legal rule and not a prediction.
Admissibility is decided by the military judge, and weight is decided by the factfinder.
The purpose is to teach a basic litigation reality: objective, time stamped, independently verifiable evidence tends to be more corroborative than evidence that depends entirely on memory under stress or intoxication. ^[6]citeturn0search0
^[29]citeturn7search2

Sexual assault evidence requires precision, not slogans

Fort Bragg UCMJ practice includes sexual assault cases, and those cases are uniquely sensitive.
An authority page should be balanced: respect victim services, note the policy infrastructure, and still explain the defense burden of proof and evidence limitations.
DoD policy includes SAPR directives and instructions, and adult sexual assault investigations have DoD wide investigatory policy frameworks. ^[12]citeturn0search2
^[13]citeturn0search3
^[14]citeturn0search1

Injury evidence is commonly misunderstood.
Peer reviewed research notes that genital injury findings are variable and provide only partial descriptions of what occurred.
A more recent systematic review compares anogenital injury rates following sexual assault and consensual intercourse using similar examination techniques.
The defense point is not “injury means nothing.”
The defense point is that injury findings are not a simple truth machine, and overstated medical conclusions can be challenged with literature and qualified experts. ^[36]citeturn8search8
^[37]citeturn8search1

Key motions that shape UCMJ outcomes

Motions practice is where most high stakes Fort Bragg cases are actually decided.
A well prepared defense team uses motions not just to exclude evidence, but to force the government to clarify its theory, produce its proof, and stop argument by assumption.
Army TJAGLCS deskbook training materials summarize motion categories and waiver pitfalls, and the MCM provides the primary rules. ^[21]citeturn9search1
^[6]citeturn0search0

Discovery and production enforcement

Discovery is a major battlefield in courts-martial.
Article 46 provides that trial counsel, defense counsel, and the court-martial have equal opportunity to obtain witnesses and other evidence in accordance with presidential regulations.
In modern practice, discovery disputes often involve digital evidence, third party records, and witness statement production timing. ^[22]citeturn10search5

Army deskbook guidance highlights witness statement production after testimony (RCM 914 concepts) and consequences when statements are not produced.
While a deskbook is not official policy, it is useful for showing readers how litigators frame discovery disputes, and it provides entry points for research. ^[20]citeturn9search0
^[25]citeturn9search13

Unlawful command influence and process integrity

Unlawful command influence is sometimes called the “mortal enemy of military justice,” and modern doctrine is anchored in Article 37 and implementing rules.
The statutory text prohibits coercion or unauthorized influence on court-martial action, and it also contains structured provisions about superior authority and prejudice.
In high command density environments, UCI literacy is part of elite defense readiness, even if you never file a UCI motion. ^[23]citeturn10search2
^[24]citeturn10search6

Army deskbook materials also define unlawful command influence as improper use or perception of superior authority interfering with the court-martial process, and they cite Article 37 as the primary legal source reproduced as RCM 104.
That linkage is important for explaining to readers how “policy pressure” can become litigable influence in the courtroom. ^[26]citeturn9search3

Propensity and other acts evidence in sexual offense cases

In Article 120 cases and related sexual misconduct cases, the admissibility and use of propensity evidence is one of the most important issues in modern military appellate law.
In United States v. Hills, CAAF held that admitting charged conduct as MRE 413 evidence and providing propensity style instructions created constitutional error that was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in that case.
Any Fort Bragg page that attempts to be authoritative on sexual assault defense should cite Hills directly. ^[27]citeturn2search8

Consent, incapacity, and charging theory discipline

United States v. Pease remains a core appellate discussion for “incapable of consenting” and how that term is defined and applied in factual sufficiency review.
It is routinely cited in intoxication and incapacity litigation.
The key authority takeaway for an article is not to debate slogans, but to force precision: what is the charged theory, and what must be proven for that theory.
When the government charges one theory but tries another, defense counsel may have strong due process and notice arguments depending on the case record. ^[28]citeturn2search0

Choosing counsel at Fort Bragg: TDS and civilian defense

Fort Bragg Soldiers generally have access to uniformed defense counsel through the Trial Defense Service.
TDS publishes its Fort Liberty listing with address, phone, and email, and it provides general information about its role.
This is a critical point for a balanced page because it signals that the military system includes defense counsel resources, not only prosecutors and investigators. ^[11]citeturn1search3
^[15]citeturn1search7

Many service members also hire civilian defense counsel for additional bandwidth, for specialized evidentiary or forensic capability, or for perceived trial skill differences.
The decision is personal and fact dependent.
A responsible authority page should not pressure a specific decision.
It should instead explain how to evaluate counsel based on verifiable factors: court-martial experience, motion practice depth, familiarity with Fort Bragg processes, knowledge of digital evidence, and ability to coordinate experts.
ABA defense function standards emphasize competence, diligence, and investigation as core expectations, which can be used as a benchmark when interviewing counsel. ^[19]citeturn7search0

Promotional build section (generic, customize carefully)

Ten Fort Bragg focused military defense lawyers

This list is designed to help readers compare options for civilian defense counsel who market services for Fort Bragg and the Fayetteville, North Carolina area,
or who explicitly reference Fort Liberty or Fort Bragg in their service pages.
It is not an “official ranking.”
You should verify licensing, availability, and fit.
Any case outcomes or “notable case” claims that are not independently verified are marked as unspecified or self reported. ^[40]citeturn3search0

Editorial caution: attorney pages are marketing by nature, so use “credentials snapshot” language and verify claims through bar directories, court filings, and independent reporting before repeating them as fact.
Marking details as unspecified is a credibility amplifier, not a weakness.

SEO kit, internal anchors, authority links

Suggested internal link anchors (build related pages or in-page anchors)

• Fort Bragg court-martial process (what happens from investigation to trial)
• Fort Bragg Trial Defense Service contact (how to reach defense counsel)
• Article 31 rights and military interviews (statements, warnings, voluntariness)
• Fort Bragg digital evidence and phone searches (forensic extraction and preservation)
• Unlawful command influence (Article 37, apparent vs actual concepts)
• Article 120 defense (Hills, Pease, consent vs incapacity)
• Administrative separation boards at Fort Bragg (strategy, mitigation)

Ten outbound authority links (primary or official), with suggested anchor text

Legal and ethical constraints

A credible Fort Bragg UCMJ page should explicitly address ethics.
Avoid guarantees and avoid “outcome promises.”
If you publish “results,” label them clearly, avoid misleading impressions, and comply with attorney advertising rules in your jurisdiction.

Balance matters.
In sexual assault and domestic violence cases, victim rights and SAPR processes exist and are grounded in DoD policy and statute.
A defense focused page can still respect victim services while explaining that the accused is presumed innocent and the government must prove the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt in a court-martial. ^[12]citeturn0search2
^[13]citeturn0search3
^[14]citeturn0search1

Finally, professional expectations for defense counsel are not just rhetorical.
The ABA Criminal Justice Standards for the Defense Function provide a structured framework on defense responsibilities and performance.
You can cite those standards as a credibility anchor when explaining what “competent defense” looks like, without giving individualized advice to any reader. ^[19]citeturn7search0

FAQ

What is the difference between a Fort Bragg Article 15 and a court-martial?

Article 15 is nonjudicial punishment. A court-martial is a formal criminal trial under defined procedures and evidence rules found in the Manual for Courts-Martial. ^[6]citeturn0search0

Who should a Soldier contact first for defense counsel at Fort Bragg?

Soldiers can contact the Trial Defense Service (TDS). The Fort Liberty listing provides contact details and is the official directory entry relevant to Fort Bragg. ^[11]citeturn1search3

Why do Fort Bragg and Fort Liberty both appear in resources?

The installation was redesignated Fort Liberty in June 2023 and renamed Fort Bragg again in February 2025. Many pages and systems still use the prior designation. ^[2]citeturn1search1
^[3]citeturn1search0

Do commanders still decide whether serious offenses go to trial?

For many serious covered offenses, DoD reforms shifted prosecutorial decision making to independent special trial counsel structures.
The Army publicly describes the Army OSTC role, and GAO describes the broader transition of decision authority for certain cases. ^[4]citeturn10search29
^[5]citeturn12search0

Is this page legal advice?

No. This is general information for publishing and education.
Consult qualified defense counsel about your specific facts.

Sources

Sources are listed with full URLs for publishing. Footnotes in the text link to these entries.

1. XVIII Airborne Corps OSJA page (Fort Bragg official listing): https://home.army.mil/bragg/units-tenants/xviii-airborne-co/xviii-airborne-corps-osja
   citeturn1search34
2. U.S. Army: Fort Bragg redesignates to Fort Liberty (June 2, 2023): https://www.army.mil/article/267236/fort_bragg_redesignates_to_fort_liberty_in_historic_ceremony
   citeturn1search1
3. U.S. Army: Fort Liberty is renamed Fort Bragg effective immediately (Feb. 14, 2025): https://www.army.mil/article/283111/fort_liberty_is_renamed_fort_bragg_effective_immediately
   citeturn1search0
4. GAO: Military Justice reforms and special trial counsel shift (GAO-24-106165, May 2024 PDF): https://www.gao.gov/assets/d24106165.pdf
   citeturn10search29
5. U.S. Army: Army Office of Special Trial Counsel (OSTC): https://www.army.mil/ostc
   citeturn12search0
6. Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 edition) PDF (JSC): https://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/2024%20MCM%20files/MCM%20%282024%20ed%29%20%282024_01_02%29%20%28adjusted%20bookmarks%29.pdf
   citeturn0search0
7. Secretary of Defense memo: Policies Governing Offices of Special Trial Counsel (Mar. 11, 2022 PDF): https://www.sapr.mil/Portals/156/SecDefMemo-Policies%20Governing%20OSTC__11MAR2022.pdf
   citeturn10search0
8. MCM (2024) supplemental material PDF (includes STC related provisions): https://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/2024%20MCM%20files/Supplemental%20Material%20-%202024%20ed.pdf
   citeturn10search23
9. XVIII Airborne Corps OSJA office listing (includes military justice and legal assistance links): https://home.army.mil/bragg/units-tenants/xviii-airborne-co/xviii-airborne-corps-osja
   citeturn1search34
10. Fort Bragg Legal Assistance Office (Army garrison page): https://home.army.mil/bragg/units-tenants/xviii-airborne-co/xviii-airborne-corps-osja/legal-assistance-office
    citeturn1search2
11. Trial Defense Service public listing, Fort Liberty: https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/Sites/usatds.nsf/homeContent.xsp?documentId=ED8C88D1C5756909852587300040B439
    citeturn1search3
12. DoDD 6495.01 SAPR Program (PDF): https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/649501p.pdf
    citeturn0search2
13. DoDI 6495.02 Volume 1 SAPR Procedures (PDF): https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/649502_vol01.PDF
    citeturn0search3
14. DoDI 5505.18 Investigation of Adult Sexual Assault (Change 5 effective July 26, 2024 PDF): https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/550518p.pdf
    citeturn0search1
15. Trial Defense Service general page (JAGCNet): https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/TDS
    citeturn1search7
16. Army CID mission page: https://www.cid.army.mil/About-Us/Our-Mission/
    citeturn6search0
17. NCIS investigative steps for sexual assault investigations: https://www.ncis.navy.mil/Resources/Sexual-Assault-Investigations/Investigative-Steps/
    citeturn2search3
18. AFOSI fact sheet: https://www.osi.af.mil/About/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/349945/air-force-office-of-special-investigations/
    citeturn6search4
19. ABA Criminal Justice Standards for the Defense Function (4th ed.): https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/resources/standards/defense-function/
    citeturn7search0
20. TJAGLCS Criminal Law Deskbook: Discovery and Production: https://tjaglcs.army.mil/criminallawdeskbook/topic/11_Discovery_and_Production
    citeturn9search0
21. TJAGLCS Criminal Law Deskbook: Motions: https://tjaglcs.army.mil/criminallawdeskbook/topic/16_Motions
    citeturn9search1
22. 10 U.S.C. § 846 (Article 46), Cornell: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/846
    citeturn10search5
23. 10 U.S.C. § 837 (Article 37), Cornell: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/837
    citeturn10search2
24. 10 U.S.C. § 837 (Article 37), House (older extract example): https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=2010&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-2010-title10-section837
    citeturn10search6
25. TJAGLCS Criminal Law Deskbook foreword caution: https://tjaglcs.army.mil/criminallawdeskbook/topic/00_Foreword
    citeturn9search13
26. TJAGLCS Deskbook: Unlawful Command Influence topic: https://tjaglcs.army.mil/criminallawdeskbook/topic/02_Unlawful_Command_Influence/loc/TopicHistory/ShowHistory/58
    citeturn9search3
27. CAAF opinion, United States v. Hills (PDF): https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/opinions/2015SepTerm/150767.pdf
    citeturn2search8
28. CAAF opinion, United States v. Pease (PDF): https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/opinions/2015SepTerm/160014.pdf
    citeturn2search0
29. NIJ Digital and Multimedia Evidence overview: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/forensics/digital-multimedia-evidence
    citeturn7search2
30. NIST SP 800-101 Rev. 1 Guidelines on Mobile Device Forensics (PDF): https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/specialpublications/nist.sp.800-101r1.pdf
    citeturn7search1
31. Loftus, “Planting misinformation in the human mind” (2005 PDF): https://learnmem.cshlp.org/content/12/4/361.full.pdf
    citeturn8search22
32. Challies et al. misinformation effect discussion (PMC, 2011): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3213001/
    citeturn8search10
33. National Academies report PDF: Identifying the Culprit (Eyewitness ID, 2014): https://www.innocenceproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/NAS-Report-ID.pdf
    citeturn8search3
34. Sommers, “Defining patterns of genital injury from sexual assault” (PMC): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3142744/
    citeturn8search8
35. Naumann et al., anogenital injury systematic review (PMC): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10570717/
    citeturn8search1
36. Mangan Law Fort Bragg page: https://www.defendyourservice.com/fort-bragg-military-defense-attorney
    citeturn3search0
37. Mangan Law court-martial defense page: https://www.defendyourservice.com/practice-areas/military-criminal-court-martial-defense
    citeturn3search32
38. UCMJ Defender Fort Bragg page: https://www.ucmj-defender.com/contact/fort-bragg-military-defense-attorney/
    citeturn3search9
39. Will Helixon attorney bio: https://helixongroup.com/military-attorneys/will-m-helixon/
    citeturn4search0
40. Robert Capovilla attorney bio: https://www.military-defenseattorney.com/our-team/robert-f-capovilla/
    citeturn4search1
41. Michael B. Hanzel attorney bio: https://www.hanzellawfirm.com/staff-profiles/michael-b-hanzel/
    citeturn4search2
42. Patrick J. McLain Fort Liberty page: https://www.mclainmilitarylawyer.com/fort-liberty/
    citeturn3search2
43. Peter Kageleiry, Jr. Fort Liberty page: https://www.ucmjlaw.com/military-lawyer-fort-liberty/
    citeturn3search3
44. Todd C. Conormon bio: https://www.militaryjusticecenter.com/attorney/todd-c-conormon/
    citeturn4search3
45. UCMJ Lawyers Fort Bragg page: https://ucmjlawyers.com/army-bases/fort-bragg-lawyer/
    citeturn5search3