Osan Air Base, where you go out for soju and hot chicken and wake up with a court-martial, is in the city of Pyeongtaek, about an hour south of Seoul, South Korea. It is one of the most strategically important air bases in the Pacific theater, sitting within close range of North Korea, China, and the Taiwan Strait. Osan plays a central role in regional deterrence and rapid response. Its location alone makes it a high-alert assignment, and its operational tempo reflects that.
The base is home to the 51st Fighter Wing, a permanently forward-deployed combat wing that provides close air support, interdiction, and air base defense. Osan also hosts a major USAF intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) hub, along with Army and joint service units focused on missile defense and theater communications. While not as isolated as Kunsan, Osan runs an intense mission with round-the-clock readiness requirements.
Because of the base’s proximity to Seoul, service members at Osan are often exposed to both military and civilian law enforcement environments. Time in the surrounding area can lead to issues off base, including bar fights, alcohol-related incidents, curfew violations, and run-ins with Korean police. The legal consequences can be significant. The Uniform Code of Military Justice still applies overseas, and many cases begin with off-base trouble that quickly escalates. The Office of Special Trial Counsel (OSTC) is very active at Osan, so there is always a high need for a good civilian military lawyer.
Osan is also a hub for temporary duty assignments, joint exercises, and rotational deployments. The base sees a steady flow of new arrivals, which creates a high-turnover environment where people don’t always know each other well. That can lead to misunderstandings, complaints, or accusations in the dorms or workplace. Many Article 120 allegations begin in this kind of setting: during TDYs, after bar nights in the ville, or following poor communication between coworkers. Cases that would be resolved informally stateside can take on a life of their own overseas.
We’ve handled cases at Osan, Kunsan, Camp Casey, and Camp Humphreys, along with Yokosuka, Okinawa, and other bases across the Pacific Theater. We’ve been out for hot chicken in Songtang and know what it’s like to be in South Korea when North Korea decides to run provocative exercises.
If you’re stationed at Osan, Camp Humphreys, or anywhere near Pyeongtaek, take five minutes to read our full page on Soju, Songtan, and the Juicy-Girl Trap. It explains how “harmless” nightlife leads to Article 120 and 134 charges, trafficking allegations, and even international incidents. A few drinks, a shoulder rub, or a step behind the bead curtain can end a military career.
[Read the full guide → Soju, Songtan, and the Juicy-Girl Trap]
Q: If an accuser’s story changes, doesn’t that prove they’re lying?
A: Not necessarily. Science shows that human memory is not a video recording; it is an active, reconstructive process. Each time a memory is recalled, the brain rebuilds it, and the memory can be subtly altered by post-event information from friends, investigators, or even news reports. This process of contamination can change the details of a story without any conscious intent to deceive, making the witness’s final testimony an unreliable version of the original event.
Q: You mention “confabulation” on your site. What is that?
A: Confabulation is the brain’s process of unconsciously inventing details to fill in gaps in a memory. The brain doesn’t like empty spaces; to create a coherent story from fragmented pieces, it will create plausible but false details. This is especially common when memory is impaired by alcohol or trauma. The key point is that the person who is confabulating genuinely believes the fabricated parts of their story are true, which is why their testimony can sound so confident and convincing. Their brain builds imaginary bridges to connect the islands of things they recall.
Q: What is the difference between an alcohol-induced blackout and passing out?
A: A blackout is a state of amnesia, not unconsciousness. It occurs when alcohol intake chemically prevents the brain from recording new long-term memories. A person in a blackout is still awake, talking, and interacting, but no memory of those actions is being saved. We distinguish between two types: a complete blackout, where no memory is formed at all, and a fragmented blackout, where recall is patchy. A fragmented blackout is exceptionally vulnerable to being “filled in” later by the brain through confabulation. People will adamantly believe things that didn’t happen during a blackout, and sometimes being confronted with objective proof they’re wrong won’t change their testimony.
Q: How do cognitive biases create a false sense of certainty for a witness?
A: This is often the result of powerful cognitive biases. If a person wakes up with memory gaps and a feeling of distress, Confirmation Bias can cause their brain to unconsciously search for and prioritize any piece of information that confirms they were assaulted, while ignoring contradictory evidence. Hindsight Bias can also cause them to revise their memory of the events leading up to the incident, making ambiguous social cues seem like obvious “red flags” in retrospect. These biases create a sincere belief that is not supported by a reliable memory.
Get the White Knights Down From Their High Horses …
… By politely but firmly exposing the logical fallacies in the prosecution’s case. We must force the panel to separate emotion from evidence. A common error is the Appeal to Emotion, where the intensity of a witness’s pain is mistaken for proof of the facts. Another is the False Cause fallacy, such as arguing, “She was upset the next day, therefore the sex was criminal.” Our job is to equip the panel with the scientific framework to understand that a witness can be genuinely distressed by an event that was tragically misremembered or misinterpreted, but which did not meet the legal standard for a criminal act. Lawyers with a lot of experience handling Article 120 cases will have a good grasp of the science, but some of them are so busy taking notes that they forget to really pay attention to what’s being said.
Q: How does the prosecution use Article 133 to box in officers accused of sexual assault (Article 120)?
A: This is a powerful legal maneuver designed to secure a conviction even if the officer wins on the primary charge.
- Exclupatory Confession: When an officer is accused of sexual assault following an adulterous relationship, the defense often argues, “The sex happened, but it was consensual.” This strategy necessarily admits to the adulterous relationship.
- Anticipatory Charge: The prosecution anticipates this. They will have already tacked-on Article 133, stating the consensual, adulterous relationship was an act of professional dishonor, regardless of consent.
- Losing by Winning: Even if the officer secures an acquittal on the Article 120 charge, they have admitted the violation of Article 133. This secures a conviction that still ends the officer’s career and often results in a punitive discharge. This creates tremendous leverage for the prosecution in securing one-sided plea deals, guilty pleas, or other outcomes you won’t love.
Q: What are the primary child porn offenses and punishments under Article 134?
A: The UCMJ aggressively prosecutes offenses related to Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM). The charges and maximum punishments escalate based on your actions:
- Possessing, Receiving, or Viewing CSAM: This is the most common charge. A conviction carries a maximum punishment of a Dishonorable Discharge and 10 years of confinement.
- Possessing CSAM with Intent to Distribute: This more serious charge indicates an intent beyond personal use and carries a maximum of 15 years of confinement.
- Distributing or Producing CSAM: The most severe offenses. Distribution carries a maximum of 20 years, while producing the material carries a maximum of 30 years of confinement.
Q: “Ugh. She was a cop. A dude!” What UCMJ charges result from online undercover cases?
A: Sting operations typically lead to charges under Article 134 for Solicitation or Enticement of a minor.
- Solicitation is the crime of wrongfully asking someone (even an undercover agent) to commit a sexual offense, like sending an explicit photo.
- Enticement is the crime of trying to lure someone you believe is a minor to a location for a sexual purpose.
- It is critical to understand that the crime is complete the moment you send the communication with wrongful intent. It does not matter if the “minor” was actually a police officer or if the planned meeting never happened.
Q: What are my rights if OSI demands to see my phone?
A: In most instances, they will have or can get authorization to seize your phone. Odds are high they already have some digital evidence from another person, a service provider, or a previous investigation. That kind of information is often used to get search authorization. Sometimes that paperwork is already signed before they ask for your consent. Other times, they get it later. Either way, your approach should not change:
- You always have the right to say no when they ask to see or search your phone.
- We tell clients never to give consent, no matter what OSI says.
- If a phone is going to be turned over, we insist on reviewing it first, in private and with full legal protection.
- If they say they can get authorization anyway, let them do that.
- If they show you a written order, give them the phone.
- If they say they have verbal approval, still comply, but tell your lawyer right away so we can document when it happened and who approved it.
Keep your phone locked. Do not unlock it for them. They will be recording. Do not give up your passcode. That is protected under your right to remain silent. Biometrics are different. If they get approval, they can require you to use a fingerprint or face scan to open the phone. All they really need to do is hold the phone up to your face. Facial characteristics are treated more like giving a DNA sample or being photographed.
Q: Does hiring a civilian lawyer make me look guilty in a warfighting environment like Osan AB?
A: No. The allegation itself is what makes people suspicious. Once you are under investigation, the shift has already happened. Most people assume you did something. The rules say you are presumed innocent, but that is not how it feels on base. At Osan, just like other installations, an accusation changes how others see you. The system tends to lean toward guilt early on. That is why hiring a civilian lawyer does not make you look worse. It shows you are serious and are not going to let the system roll over you. Getting outside counsel shows you understand the ramifications and are prepared to protect yourself. Nobody at Osan will be surprised if you bring in private counsel. In serious cases, especially those with OSTC, prosecutors expect it.
Q: Been looking for a lawyer near Osan. No dice.
A: We’re not aware of any in the area, none with any real stature anyway. The more important question is not location, it’s experience. What matters most is whether your lawyer knows how military cases work, Air Force cases especially. That includes Article 32 hearings, sentencing rules, digital evidence issues, and how OSTC prosecutors handle high-level cases (and what might persuade them to drop yours). Travel costs are real, though. If the case goes to court, bringing in a U.S.-based lawyer could add several thousand dollars. But if your rank, career, or freedom are at risk, choosing a lawyer based only on location can backfire. If hiring strong civilian counsel is not realistic financially, it is usually better to stay with your ADC than to bring in someone who competes on cost alone. If you’re shopping around, note that we bring two senior civilian defense lawyers to every case, both with deep Air Force backgrounds and decades of experience. We have done many cases in Korea, Japan, Okinawa, Italy, Germany, and England. The grind of intercontinental travel is never a problem for us.
Our Firm’s Commitment to Service Members in Korea
We have been defending service members for more than twenty years. Our work began in the Air Force JAG Corps shortly after 9/11, and we have stayed active in the courtroom ever since. We have been to a number of bases in the region for general courts-martial, including Osan several times. While other attorneys shifted to remote work during the COVID shutdowns, we kept showing up in person. We go where we’re needed.
We also bring deep experience from the federal criminal system. That matters now more than ever, as the military justice system has adopted many of the same rules used in federal court.
Talk to a UCMJ Attorney about Your Case at Osan Air Base
If you are stationed at Osan and facing investigation or charges under the UCMJ, send us a request for a consultation or call us at 800-319-3134 for a confidential case review. We have represented Airmen at Osan, Kunsan, Camp Casey, Camp Humphreys, and around the world for over two decades and know how to handle serious cases overseas. We are based in the U.S., but we travel wherever we’re needed.