Can a military attorney file complaints against command harassment?

Yes, and when the source of the problem is a commanding officer, the military has a specific statutory remedy built for exactly that situation, plus other channels depending on the nature of the harassment. The key is matching the complaint to the wrong. A service member harassed by their own command is not without recourse; they have a defined menu of complaint avenues.

The signature tool: an Article 138 complaint of wrongs

The remedy designed for being wronged by your own commander is Article 138 of the UCMJ. Any service member who believes they were wronged by their commanding officer may use it, and it follows a strict sequence:

  • Request redress first. The member submits a written request for redress to the commanding officer who committed the wrong.
  • If refused, file a formal complaint. If the commander denies redress or fails to respond within about 15 days, the member may file a formal written complaint.
  • It rises above the commander. The complaint is forwarded to the officer exercising general court-martial convening authority (GCMCA) over the respondent, who is required to investigate and take appropriate action to correct the wrong.
  • Deadline. The complaint must generally be submitted within 90 days of the alleged wrong.

Crucially, commanders are prohibited from restricting these complaints or retaliating against someone who files one. Article 138 is powerful precisely because it routes the matter to an authority above the offending commander.

The other channels

Article 138 is not the only path, and the right one depends on the harassment:

  • Harassment-policy complaint. Harassment is addressed by Defense Department policy (DoD Instruction 1020.03), which provides a process to report and respond to harassment in the ranks.
  • Inspector General (IG). Where the conduct involves abuse of authority or similar wrongdoing, an IG complaint is an avenue, and IG channels also handle reprisal.

So part of an attorney’s value is triage: deciding whether a given situation is best pursued as an Article 138 complaint of wrongs, a harassment-policy complaint, an IG matter, or more than one.

A military attorney helps a service member document the harassment, choose the right channel, satisfy its procedural steps, and press the complaint to the authority empowered to act.

When a member is wronged by their commanding officer and refused redress, the attorney files an Article 138 complaint that is forwarded to an authority above the offending commander, who must investigate.

The throughline is that command harassment has real, structured remedies. Article 138 gives a statutory route to an authority above the offending commander, with anti-retaliation protection, and harassment-policy and IG channels supplement it, so the task is to fit the complaint to the wrong and follow its steps precisely.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is an Article 138 complaint?
A statutory complaint of wrongs available to a service member who believes their commanding officer wronged them, which, after a request for redress is refused, is forwarded to a general court-martial convening authority who must investigate.

What are the deadlines for an Article 138 complaint?
The member first requests redress from the commander, and if it is denied or unanswered within about 15 days, files a formal complaint, generally within 90 days of the wrong.

Are there protections against retaliation for complaining?
Yes. Commanders are prohibited from restricting the submission of such complaints or retaliating against a service member who files one.

This article is general information about complaints regarding command harassment. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Procedures and timelines vary by service and can change. A service member facing harassment should consult their legal assistance office or appropriate counsel.

Sources

…

How does a military attorney defend clients accused of drug offenses?

Most military drug cases rise or fall on a single piece of evidence: a positive urinalysis. Understanding exactly what that test does, and does not, prove is the foundation of the defense. A positive result is powerful, but it is not the automatic conviction many assume, and the gap between the two is where the defense works.

The charge and the urinalysis inference

Drug offenses are charged under Article 112a of the UCMJ, which covers the wrongful use, possession, and distribution of controlled substances. In a use case, the government often relies on a urinalysis, and here the key legal point is the nature of the inference it creates.

A confirmed positive test gives rise to a permissive inference, not a mandatory one, that the member knowingly and wrongfully used the drug. “Permissive” matters: the factfinder may draw the inference but is not required to. And because knowledge is a required component of wrongful use, the government must really be proving a knowing, wrongful use, not merely the presence of a substance.

The foundation the government must lay

The inference does not appear from a bare lab slip. When the case rests on the science, the government generally must offer expert testimony establishing that:

  • The detected metabolite is not naturally produced by the body or by any substance other than the drug.
  • The cutoff level and reported concentration are high enough to reasonably discount unknowing ingestion.
  • The testing methodology reliably detected the substance.

Each of these is a place to test the government’s proof.

The defenses

From that structure, the defenses follow:

  • Innocent (unknowing) ingestion, that the member consumed the substance without knowing it; courts ask whether a reasonable person in the member’s situation would have known or suspected. Credible evidence of innocent ingestion can be decisive.
  • Lack of knowledge more broadly, attacking the knowing element.
  • Attacking the test itself, the chain of custody, handling, and whether the scientific foundation for the inference was actually established.

A member whose only evidence against them is a positive urinalysis is not without a defense: the attorney attacks the permissive inference with evidence of innocent ingestion and gaps in the testing chain.

The throughline is that a positive urinalysis is a starting point, not a verdict. It creates only a permissive inference of knowing, wrongful use, the government must build a real scientific foundation for it, and the defense lives in the knowledge element, innocent-ingestion evidence, and the integrity of the test.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does a positive urinalysis automatically mean a conviction?
No. It creates a permissive inference of knowing, wrongful use that the factfinder may but is not required to draw, and the government must still lay a proper scientific foundation.

What is the innocent ingestion defense?
A defense that the member unknowingly consumed the controlled substance; courts consider whether a reasonable person in the member’s situation would have known or suspected they were consuming it.

What must the government prove beyond the test result?
Generally, through expert testimony, that the metabolite is not naturally produced, that the cutoff and concentration discount unknowing ingestion, and that the methodology reliably detected the substance, along with the knowledge element.

This article is general information about military drug offenses. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Application is fact-specific and the law can change. Anyone facing such charges should consult qualified defense counsel.

Sources

…

How does a military attorney prepare closing arguments in a court-martial?

A closing argument is the moment to tie the evidence together into a persuasive whole, but it is also one of the most rule-bound parts of a trial. Counsel may argue hard, yet several specific moves are off-limits, and crossing those lines can taint a verdict. Preparing a closing means building a powerful argument that stays strictly inside the boundaries, and being ready to police the other side’s.

What a closing may do

The legitimate scope is broad but defined: counsel may argue the evidence that was admitted and the reasonable inferences that flow from it. A good closing organizes that evidence into a coherent story, connects it to the elements at issue, and tells the panel why it points to the conclusion counsel urges. Persuasion built on the record is exactly what the closing is for.

What a closing may not do

The boundaries are where preparation must be most careful, because courts have repeatedly flagged recurring improper arguments. Among the clearest prohibitions:

  • No vouching. Counsel may not give a personal opinion about guilt or about a witness’s truthfulness, telling the panel “this witness is telling the truth” is improper.
  • No facts outside the record. Arguing facts not in evidence is misconduct; the argument must stay within what was actually presented.
  • No comment on the accused’s silence. Counsel may not improperly argue that the accused should be penalized for exercising the right to remain silent or the right to trial.
  • No inflaming the panel. Appeals designed to provoke passion or prejudice rather than reasoned judgment are out of bounds.

Knowing this list cold lets counsel build right up to the line without crossing it.

Preparation, and policing the other side

Preparation therefore runs in two directions. First, counsel drafts an argument that is forceful but clean, every point anchored in admitted evidence and fair inference, with no vouching, outside facts, comment on silence, or inflammatory appeal. Second, counsel prepares to object when opposing argument strays across these lines, because an improper argument left unchallenged can do real damage.

When the prosecution vouches for a witness in closing, the attorney objects, because counsel may argue the evidence and its inferences but may not offer a personal opinion that a witness is telling the truth.

The essential takeaway is that an effective closing is disciplined persuasion. It draws all its force from the admitted evidence and reasonable inferences, scrupulously avoids vouching, facts outside the record, comment on the accused’s silence, and inflammatory appeals, and is paired with the vigilance to challenge an opponent who does not show the same restraint.

Frequently Asked Questions

What can counsel argue in a closing?
The evidence that was admitted at trial and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from it, organized into a persuasive argument tied to the elements at issue.

What makes a closing argument improper?
Common examples include vouching with a personal opinion on guilt or a witness’s truthfulness, arguing facts not in evidence, commenting on the accused’s exercise of the right to remain silent, and inflammatory appeals to passion or prejudice.

What should counsel do about an opponent’s improper argument?
Be prepared to object in a timely way, because improper argument left unchallenged can prejudice the panel and harm the case.

This article is general information about closing arguments in courts-martial. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Application is fact-specific and the law can change. Anyone facing a court-martial should consult qualified defense counsel.

Sources

…

Can a military attorney handle social media misconduct cases?

The premise that drives every social-media case is one many service members forget: you are subject to the UCMJ at all times, and that includes what you post online. An ill-advised post is not a private act outside the reach of military law. Handling these cases means identifying which provision of the UCMJ the conduct implicates, and that often turns on rank.

The UCMJ reaches online conduct

There is no separate “social media offense.” Instead, ordinary punitive articles apply to online behavior just as they apply offline. Posts can implicate several articles, including Articles 88, 89, 91, 133, and 134, depending on what was said and who said it. The starting analysis is therefore the same as for any misconduct: which article’s elements does this conduct actually meet?

Rank often decides the charge

A distinctive feature of this area is that the applicable article frequently depends on whether the member is an officer or enlisted:

  • Article 88 (contempt toward officials) prohibits commissioned officers from using contemptuous words against figures like the President, Vice President, Congress, and the Secretary of Defense. It applies only to commissioned officers, enlisted members cannot be charged under it.
  • Article 133 (conduct unbecoming an officer) likewise targets officers.
  • Article 134 (the general article) and Article 117 (provoking speeches) are the avenues that can reach enlisted members for inappropriate or unbecoming online conduct.

So the same offensive post can lead to different charges depending on the poster’s status, which is one of the first things an attorney sorts out.

Speech is more limited in uniform, but facts still control

It is also true that a service member’s speech is more restricted than a civilian’s, so “free speech” arguments operate differently here. That does not mean every post is punishable, the government must still prove the elements of the specific article charged, and context, intent, and what was actually communicated all matter. Defending or advising on a case means testing the proof against the chosen article, not conceding that any controversial post is automatically an offense.

A military attorney handles a social-media case by establishing that the UCMJ applies, identifying the correct article given the member’s rank and the conduct, and then litigating the elements and the facts, including how the post is characterized.

Imagine an officer who posts contemptuous remarks about senior officials: the attorney identifies the applicable article, since some offenses, like contempt toward officials, apply only to commissioned officers.

The core point is that social-media misconduct is regular military-justice analysis applied to a new medium. The UCMJ reaches online conduct, the charge often depends on rank, with Article 88 and 133 for officers and Articles 134 and 117 reaching enlisted members, and the defense still turns on whether the government can prove the elements of the specific article.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a service member be punished for social media posts?
Yes. Service members are subject to the UCMJ at all times, and online conduct can be charged under ordinary punitive articles such as Articles 88, 133, or 134, depending on the facts.

Does the applicable article depend on rank?
Often, yes. Article 88 (contempt toward officials) applies only to commissioned officers, while enlisted members are typically addressed under articles such as 134 or 117.

Do service members have the same free-speech rights online as civilians?
No. A service member’s speech is more restricted than a civilian’s, though the government must still prove the elements of the specific offense charged.

This article is general information about social media and military discipline. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Application is fact-specific and the law and policies can change. Anyone facing such an allegation should consult a qualified military attorney.

Sources

…

Can a military attorney provide counsel in space operations law?

Yes, and the first thing counsel clarifies is a common misconception: space is not a weapons-free sanctuary, but it is also not a lawless one. A foundational treaty sets hard limits on what may be done in space, while leaving a great deal of military activity permitted. Advising in this field means knowing exactly where those hard limits fall.

The foundational framework

The cornerstone is the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, the basic framework of international space law, to which a large majority of states are parties. It does not ban military use of space wholesale; instead, it draws specific lines:

  • No weapons of mass destruction in orbit. States may not place nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction in orbit around the Earth or station them in outer space.
  • Celestial bodies are for peaceful purposes only. The Moon and other celestial bodies must be used exclusively for peaceful purposes, and the treaty forbids establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications, testing weapons, and conducting military maneuvers on them.

These are the firm prohibitions, and they are the anchor of any space-law analysis.

What the treaty does not prohibit

Just as important is what remains permitted, because that is where most real activity sits. The treaty does not expressly ban all military activity in space. It does not prohibit military reconnaissance, communications, or navigation satellites, the establishment of military space forces, or, by its terms, the placement of conventional (non-WMD) weapons in space. And the requirement to use celestial bodies for peaceful purposes is generally understood to allow for self-defense.

So the lawful space is wide: a great deal of military space operation is permitted, with the WMD ban and the demilitarization of celestial bodies as the principal hard stops.

Where the attorney fits

A military attorney advising on space operations applies this layered picture: confirming that contemplated activity respects the OST prohibitions, recognizing the broad zone of permitted military use, and bringing in the general law on the use of force and, in armed conflict, the law of armed conflict, since space operations are not exempt from those bodies of law. As space activity grows, careful classification of each operation against these rules becomes more important.

Where a commander asks whether a military satellite is lawful, the attorney explains that reconnaissance and communications satellites are not barred, even though weapons of mass destruction in orbit are.

The practical upshot is that space-law counsel is about precise limits within broad permission. The Outer Space Treaty forbids WMD in orbit and reserves celestial bodies for peaceful purposes, while leaving most military space activity, and self-defense, intact, so the advisor’s job is to keep operations on the right side of the firm prohibitions.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the Outer Space Treaty ban all weapons in space?
No. It bans placing weapons of mass destruction in orbit and reserves celestial bodies for peaceful purposes, but it does not by its terms prohibit conventional weapons in space or all military activity.

Are military satellites allowed?
Yes. The treaty does not prohibit military reconnaissance, communications, or navigation satellites, nor does it bar the establishment of military space forces.

Does the law allow self-defense in space?
The requirement to use celestial bodies exclusively for peaceful purposes is generally understood to allow for self-defense, and the broader law on the use of force applies to space.

This article is general information about space operations law. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. This is an evolving area and the law can change. It describes the field in general terms only.

Sources

…
Page 23 of 48
1 … 21 22 23 24 25 … 48