Naval Air Station Jacksonville lies along the St. Johns River about twenty miles inland from the Atlantic coast. It is the Navy’s principal East Coast base for maritime patrol and reconnaissance aviation, hosting P-8A Poseidon squadrons, reserve units, and several key logistics commands. The base also includes Fleet Readiness Center Southeast, which performs major aircraft maintenance and overhauls, supporting operations across the Atlantic and Mediterranean.
NAS Jacksonville spans more than 3,800 acres and houses both active-duty and reserve components. It serves as home to Commander, Patrol and Reconnaissance Wing Eleven, and its subordinate squadrons that deploy worldwide from this location. The base provides facilities for maintenance, training, and coordination of maritime patrol missions, anti-submarine warfare, and fleet surveillance. The adjoining runways and maintenance hangars handle constant aircraft rotation, with crews cycling between Jacksonville, overseas detachments, and allied installations. The Navy hospital, supply centers, and family housing areas make it a self-contained community within the larger Jacksonville metropolitan area.
The surrounding region is defined by the St. Johns River and its tributaries, which connect the base directly to inland Florida and the Atlantic. The city of Jacksonville, with its mix of port facilities, civilian airports, and industrial zones, forms one of the largest military-civilian corridors in the state. Service members often live throughout Duval, Clay, and St. Johns Counties, commuting from areas such as Orange Park, Middleburg, and St. Augustine. The local economy and infrastructure are heavily influenced by the Navy’s presence, and interactions between military and civilian authorities are routine.
NAS Jacksonville’s proximity to Naval Station Mayport and nearby Coast Guard units adds another layer of overlap. Many investigations or administrative cases involve personnel attached to commands that operate across both installations. Aviation and surface commands share legal, investigative, and administrative resources, often under the same regional chain of command. NCIS maintains offices in both locations, and investigations frequently involve joint coordination between Jacksonville and Mayport depending on where the alleged conduct occurred or where witnesses are located.
Fleet Readiness Center Southeast is one of the largest employers in Northeast Florida and performs depot-level maintenance on aircraft from across the Navy and Marine Corps. The workforce includes military, civilian, and contract personnel, and legal issues can arise from both on-base and off-duty conduct. Administrative separations, loss of clearance, and civilian-military jurisdiction questions occur regularly, especially when misconduct affects flight readiness or classified maintenance operations.
Because of its scale and concentration of aviation commands, NAS Jacksonville is a consistent source of UCMJ activity. Allegations related to alcohol, fraternization, or off-duty relationships are common, as are more serious investigations involving sexual assault or computer-based offenses. The base legal offices coordinate closely with the Office of Special Trial Counsel at nearby Mayport, which handles covered-offense prosecutions for the region. Judges determine on a case-by-case basis whether a court-martial will be held at Mayport or Jacksonville, depending on the unit involved and the courtroom schedule.
Our Work at NAS Jacksonville and Throughout the Region
For service members stationed at NAS Jacksonville, familiarity with both the base and its connected legal network is essential. Our firm has represented Sailors and Coast Guard members here since 2006, handling everything from administrative separations to fully litigated courts-martial. We have extensive experience with NCIS investigations, command proceedings, and the coordination between Jacksonville and Mayport that determines where cases are tried.
We have done cases at NAS Jacksonville, Naval Station Mayport, NAS Pensacola, and installations across the Gulf Coast and Atlantic seaboard. Before entering civilian practice, we served as active-duty JAGs along the Gulf Coast, traveling between bases from Biloxi to the Florida Panhandle, and we have continued that work ever since. Our experience extends beyond Florida. We have defended service members at Norfolk, Groton, San Diego, and Pearl Harbor, as well as overseas at Naples, Sigonella, and Yokosuka. These assignments have given us a complete view of how military justice is applied across commands, regions, and cultures.
Our practice remains focused on UCMJ defense and related administrative actions. We work directly with service members from the first notice of investigation through the close of trial or discharge. Whether a case begins in Jacksonville or on the other side of the world, our approach is the same: methodical preparation, clear communication, and a commitment to ensuring that every client receives a full and fair defense.
Although the Office of Special Trial Counsel (OSTC) for the region is housed at nearby Naval Station Mayport, NAS Jacksonville remains an active venue for military justice. Many investigations begin here, and cases involving aviation units or joint commands are often coordinated between Jacksonville and Mayport depending on the judge, witnesses, and command preferences. The close relationship between the two installations means that legal proceedings, NCIS investigations, and defense preparation often overlap.
NAS Jacksonville has also become known for its uneven handling of administrative and Mast proceedings. In recent years, we have seen commands push Sailors through investigations and hearings without affording them full due process. Some commands try to move cases forward before a sailor can consult with civilian counsel or even understand the consequences. They issue quick deadlines, deny extensions, discourage communication with attorneys, and apply command pressure to secure a fast signature or admission.
We do not let that stand. When commands attempt to block or bypass our involvement, we escalate. For Sailors not assigned to ships, we can demand court-martial, forcing the government to meet its burden, disclose its evidence, and afford true due process rather than allowing a command to impose punishment through an informal process. These counter-moves often stop the shortcuts and restore the balance that the UCMJ is meant to guarantee.
A disturbing trend has also emerged involving Sailors who are under medical evaluation. Some commands have tried to use Mast or administrative separation to terminate those Sailors before their medical boards are complete, hoping to cut off benefits or avoid long-term responsibility. We have fought those efforts directly and ensured that our clients’ rights were protected until the process reached a lawful conclusion.
Our approach at Jacksonville: we do not yield to pressure, and we do not allow commands to decide what level of representation a sailor deserves. Every service member has the right to counsel, to time for proper advice, and to make informed decisions based on fact, not command convenience.
Articles 117a and 120c: Common Questions
We get a lot of calls asking what kinds of misconduct fall under Articles 117a and 120c of the UCMJ. Both address non-contact sexual offenses tied to privacy violations or digital imagery. Article 120c covers acts like voyeurism, recording someone without their knowledge, or exposing yourself in a way meant to offend or degrade. Article 117a targets the wrongful distribution of intimate material: sharing or posting photos or videos without the depicted person’s consent, even when the content was originally created by mutual agreement.
People often wonder where the line falls between the two articles. Article 120c criminalizes the creation of recordings or images without consent. Article 117a criminalizes the sharing of recordings or images without consent. Both carry severe consequences: confinement, punitive discharge, and lifetime sex-offender registration.
Another common question involves unsolicited explicit images. Sending a sexual photo of yourself to another person without invitation is prosecuted as indecent exposure under Article 120c. The law treats the digital transmission the same as exposing yourself in public when done with intent to offend, humiliate, or gratify. The fact that the image depicts the sender, not the recipient, does not matter. The offense is the unwanted intrusion.
People also ask about sharing videos that were made consensually. Once you send or display that video to anyone else without the other person’s permission, you’ve violated Article 117a. The original consent to create the recording does not extend to distribution. The crime is the wrongful sharing, not the recording itself.
Finally, people ask whether convictions under these articles require sex-offender registration. The answer is almost always yes. Most states treat convictions under Articles 117a or 120c as equivalent to sex offenses, which triggers mandatory registration. That registration can last a lifetime and carries serious consequences for employment, housing, and travel.
These cases are defended the same way other UCMJ offenses are: by challenging the government’s proof of knowledge, intent, and wrongfulness. Digital forensics, witness credibility, and the circumstances surrounding the conduct all become critical. The earlier we’re involved, the more options exist for shaping how the case is investigated and prosecuted.
Gameplan for When NCIS Wants Your Phone
If NCIS asks for your phone, they likely already have digital evidence from a witness, service provider, or the person accusing you. The request isn’t exploratory. It’s confirmatory. They’re building a case, and your phone is the next piece.
- You don’t have to hand it over voluntarily. If they ask for permission, the answer is no. Don’t agree to a search without speaking to your lawyer first. This applies to phones, computers, vehicles, and living spaces. Consent eliminates your ability to challenge the search later.
- When investigators say they’ll get authorization if you don’t cooperate, let them. Tell them politely to do what they need to do, then stop talking. If they produce a written warrant or authorization signed by a competent authority, you must comply with the order to surrender the device. But compliance does not mean unlocking it.
- Verbal authorization works the same way. If your command directs you to turn over the phone based on oral approval from a magistrate or commander, follow the instruction. But notify your attorney immediately so the authorization can be verified and, if necessary, challenged. Mistakes happen, and investigators sometimes claim authority they don’t actually have.
- Keep the phone locked and do not provide your passcode. NCIS will ask you to unlock the device or give them access. That’s not a lawful order. Your passcode is testimonial communication protected by the Fifth Amendment and Article 31(b). You have the right to refuse, and you should.
- Biometric unlocking is different. Face ID and fingerprint sensors are not considered speech. They’re physical characteristics, like providing a DNA sample. Once NCIS has proper authority, they can compel you to use your face or finger to unlock the phone. If that’s a concern, disable biometric features before the phone is seized.
- Even a locked phone isn’t secure forever. NCIS digital forensics teams can recover deleted texts, pull GPS metadata, reconstruct app activity, and extract photos you thought were gone. Assume nothing on the device is permanently erased. If you have evidence that supports your defense—screenshots, timestamps, messages showing consent or contradicting the accusation—back it up to a secure location your attorney can access later.
- Be aware of how NCIS handles the accuser’s phone. In sexual assault investigations, they often don’t make a full forensic copy. Instead, they record video of the accuser scrolling through her device. That allows her to skip past anything that might undermine her story: enthusiastic texts, invitations, follow-up messages. You’ll never know what was omitted, and your attorney won’t be able to challenge what wasn’t preserved.
The rules are simple. Don’t consent. Don’t unlock. Don’t explain. Call your lawyer and let them handle communication with investigators. Every word you say and every action you take either protects you or gives NCIS more ammunition. Choose protection.
Why We Don’t Use Hourly Billing
Clients Can’t Plan: Hourly billing creates financial uncertainty that never resolves. No one knows what the final cost will be until the case is over and the damage is done. Even clients who understand legal fees intellectually still feel like they’re signing a blank check. Budgeting becomes impossible. The running clock also changes how clients communicate. They stop calling with questions. They hesitate before sending an email. They ration their own access to their lawyer because every interaction feels like it’s costing money.
The Incentives Are Backwards: Hourly billing rewards inefficiency. The slower the lawyer works, the more they earn. Clients sense this dynamic even when the lawyer is acting in good faith. A lawyer who can draft a motion in five hours earns less than one who takes twenty, which penalizes competence and rewards plodding. Collaboration also becomes suspect. When two lawyers bill for attending the same meeting, or when multiple attorneys “review” the same document, clients reasonably wonder whether the work required that many people or whether the firm is inflating the bill. Strategic discussions that should be routine start to look like padding.
Billing Practices Feel Extractive: Many firms bill in six-minute or fifteen-minute increments, which means a two-minute phone call gets rounded up to a quarter-hour charge. Two lawyers attending the same conference both bill their full time, doubling the cost of a single event. Minor edits get billed as “review and revise” cycles that look performative rather than substantive. Administrative tasks like scheduling, scanning, or organizing files appear on invoices as if they were legal analysis. Clients notice. What starts as a professional relationship begins to feel transactional. Every line item becomes a question mark, and the lawyer starts looking less like an advocate and more like a vendor.
The Lawyer’s Interests Compete With Yours: Hourly billing creates a subtle but real conflict of interest. The lawyer’s financial interest is in more hours, more meetings, more revisions. The client’s interest is in efficiency, resolution, and certainty. Those interests don’t align, and clients feel it. Even when the lawyer is ethical and restrained, the structure itself undermines confidence. Clients perceive hourly lawyers as detached service providers rather than advocates with shared goals.
Why We Use Flat Fees Instead
Flat fees realign the incentives. The lawyer’s goal becomes the same as the client’s: resolve the case efficiently and effectively. There’s no financial reward for dragging things out or padding the file. Communication becomes open again because clients can call, text, or email without worrying about the cost. Clarity replaces uncertainty. Everyone knows what the case will cost, what that fee covers, and when the next stage begins. A flat fee also signals confidence. A lawyer who quotes a fixed price is saying they know how much work the case requires and they’re willing to stand behind that estimate. It’s a commitment, not a guess. That confidence matters when you’re choosing someone to defend your career and your freedom.
How We Work When We Travel to Jacksonville
When a case requires us to be on-site, we operate from three locations to maintain control and connectivity throughout the process.
- The hotel becomes our primary workspace. This is where we prepare motions, analyze evidence, conduct witness interviews, and meet privately with family members. It’s secure, confidential, and outside the command structure.
- The detailed defense counsel’s office serves as our place for collaboration with appointed counsel, paralegals, and the client. It gives us direct access to government systems, secure communication channels, and base resources that aren’t available off-installation.
- The courtroom workspace is set up adjacent to the proceedings, either in a dedicated office or in the panel deliberation room when available. This location lets us coordinate with trial counsel, victims’ counsel, and witnesses during pretrial conferences or breaks without losing time to travel or delays.
The three-location structure keeps us responsive, organized, and in constant communication with everyone involved in the case: the client, appointed counsel, prosecutors, investigators, and court staff. It also keeps sensitive material compartmentalized and ensures we’re always positioned where decisions are being made
How the Navy Handles Mast Differently
The Navy’s approach to nonjudicial punishment diverges from other services in ways that directly affect your defense options.
- In the Air Force, Army, and Marine Corps, a service member offered nonjudicial punishment can refuse it and force the government to take the case to court-martial. That right exists in the Navy too, but only if you’re assigned to a shore command. Once you’re attached to a ship, that option vanishes. The Navy’s position is that shipboard discipline must be swift and final, and commanders can’t wait for courts-martial to resolve routine misconduct at sea.
- Losing the right to demand trial is a major constraint. Refusing Mast and forcing trial is a high-stakes maneuver, but it serves a purpose: it makes the government evaluate whether the evidence can survive due process and a higher burden of proof in a courtroom. Many weak cases collapse when commanders realize they’ll have to prove their allegations and might have to testify. Shore-based Sailors can still use that leverage. Ship-attached Sailors cannot. That procedural distinction shapes everything about how the case can be defended and it requires agility from the defense.
- The Navy (particularly at Jacksonville, as noted above) sometimes also takes a restrictive approach to sharing investigative files before Mast. In many cases, defense counsel never receives a copy of the report of investigation. Instead, the sailor is allowed to review the file in the command or legal office but not take it with them or share it with their attorney. Some commands permit note-taking. Others don’t. The lawyer is then expected to prepare a defense without ever seeing the government’s evidence firsthand.
- Not every command plays this game. Some voluntarily release the file. But it happens frequently enough to create systemic mistrust. When a sailor and their attorney can’t examine the investigative report together, Mast stops resembling a fair proceeding and starts looking like theater. The stated purpose of nonjudicial punishment is to balance speed with fairness. Restricting access to evidence does the opposite. Even when commands operate within the letter of the regulation, the practice sends a clear message: the outcome is already decided, and your input is meaningless.
Why Sailors Demand Trial Instead of Accepting Mast
For many Sailors, refusing Mast isn’t just a tactical choice. It’s a response to being locked out of their own defense. When the command withholds the investigative file or blocks counsel from reviewing it, and tries to undermine the sailor’s right to consult with counsel, the Sailor reasonably concludes that the process is rigged. Demanding trial forces the case into a system where evidence must be disclosed, rules are enforced, and judgment comes from an independent decision-maker instead of the same chain of command that brought the charges.
It’s a gamble. Trial carries higher stakes and harsher potential punishments. But for Sailors who believe the command can’t or won’t treat them fairly at Mast, it’s the only path that offers a real chance to defend themselves. In those situations, trial becomes less about strategy and more about refusing to participate in a process that’s already compromised.
Call Us for Your Case at NAS Jacksonville
If you are stationed at NAS Jacksonville or elsewhere in Northeast Florida and facing investigation, court-martial, or nonjudicial punishment under the UCMJ, call us at 800-319-3134 for a confidential case review. We have defended Sailors in this region for twenty years and know how to counter command pressure, challenge NCIS investigations, and force the government to meet its burden. Don’t let the Navy rush you through a rigged process. Call now and speak directly with the attorneys who will defend you.