Bolling, officially known as Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling (JBAB), is on the banks of the Anacostia River in the heart of Washington, D.C. The installation is operated by the Department of the Air Force and is a joint base hosting both Air Force and Navy tenants. Unlike large operational bases focused on flying or training, Bolling operates primarily as a headquarters and support hub. Its mission focuses on command, control, and coordination rather than daily flight operations. That difference defines its culture, tempo, and legal environment.
The personnel assigned here are a cross-section of senior enlisted members, officers, staff specialists, and high-level civilians. Many work directly with the Pentagon, the Air Force District of Washington, or other national-level directorates. Daily activity is less about sorties or weapons systems and more about meetings, oversight, and inter-agency work. With that comes visibility and accountability far beyond what service members experience at most bases.
Because Bolling is inside the National Capital Region (NCR), it is in one of the most complex military legal corridors in the world. Every investigation, Article 15, or court-martial that starts here is immediately connected to the Air Force Judiciary, the Office of Special Trial Counsel (OSTC), and senior legal advisors stationed only a few miles away. The Inspector General and Public Affairs offices are often involved early, sometimes before the accused is even notified.
This is not an installation where problems fade undetected. The presence of senior leadership, congressional staff, and national media within a few miles of the gate can lead to over-charging, premature referrals, or disproportionate administrative actions.
Our firm has represented Airmen stationed at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling for more than two decades. For service members facing investigation or court-martial here, it is critical to work with counsel who can navigate that environment confidently, protect privacy, and anticipate how decisions made in the NCR differ from those at other locations.
Experience at the Top of the Brass Chain: Defense for General and Flag Officers
Q: Do your attorneys have experience representing General or Flag officers?
A: Yes. Our Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling UCMJ lawyers have defended general officers, admirals, and senior O-6s in a wide range of forums: OSI investigations, IG investigations, courts-martial, and adverse administrative processes.
These cases require complete discretion, strategic pacing, and a clear understanding of the issues that accompany high-rank proceedings, especially in the D.C. area, where visibility is intense. Our prior work includes representation before investigative bodies, responses to AR 15-6 and command-directed inquiries, and pre-referral negotiations concerning serious, career-ending allegations. We understand the unwritten internal dynamics of flag officer oversight and how reputational risk influences outcomes in ways that are never reflected on paper.
Article 133 at Bolling
The actual instruction military judges read to panels in a Conduct Unbecoming case:
“A military officer holds a particular position of responsibility in the armed forces, and one critically important responsibility of a military officer is to inspire the trust and respect of the personnel who must obey the officer’s orders. Conduct violative of this article is action or behavior in an official capacity that, in dishonoring or disgracing the person as an officer, seriously compromises the officer’s character, or action or behavior in an unofficial or private capacity that, in dishonoring or disgracing the officer personally, seriously compromises the person’s standing as an officer. This article includes misconduct that approximates, but may not meet every element of, another enumerated offense. An officer’s conduct need not violate other provisions of the UCMJ or be otherwise criminal to violate Article 133. The gravamen of the offense is that the officer’s conduct disgraces the officer personally or brings dishonor to the military profession in a manner that affects the officer’s fitness to command the obedience of the officer’s subordinates so as to effectively complete the military mission. The absence of a ‘custom of the service,’ statute, regulation, or order expressly prohibiting certain conduct is not dispositive of whether the officer was on sufficient notice that such conduct was unbecoming.”
If you don’t know what conduct is prohibited, that’s the point. The instruction is deliberately circular, self-referential, and impossible to apply consistently. “Dishonor” is defined by “disgrace,” which is defined by whether conduct “seriously compromises” something undefined. The panel is told to decide whether the officer was “on sufficient notice” that conduct was unbecoming, even if no rule, regulation, or custom prohibited it. This is the legal standard officers are prosecuted under. It’s not a standard at all. It’s permission for a panel to convict based on personal disapproval.
We’ve spent 25 years building working relationships with military prosecutors. When we engage OSTC early in an Article 133 case, they listen because they know we don’t bluff. We’ve tried hundreds of courts-martial. We’ve won cases they thought were unwinnable. We’ve conceded weak defenses when the evidence didn’t support them. That track record creates trust, and trust creates opportunities to resolve cases before charges are preferred.
OSTC attorneys don’t want to waste resources prosecuting vague conduct-unbecoming charges when stronger cases exist elsewhere. If defense counsel can show early that the conduct doesn’t rise to the level of disgrace the instruction requires, or that mitigating circumstances explain what happened, OSTC has the independence to dismiss or reduce charges. They won’t do that for attorneys they don’t know or don’t trust, but they will consider it when counsel has proven credibility over decades of practice.
Video Crimes: Articles 117a and 120c Explained
Q: What kinds of conduct are covered by Articles 117a and 120c?
A: Both articles deal with misconduct that happens through phones, computers, or cameras rather than direct contact. Article 120c focuses on invasions of privacy: secretly viewing, recording, or exposing someone without consent. Article 117a addresses the next stage: sharing or posting intimate material without permission. Even if the original photos or videos were made consensually, distributing them without consent is a separate offense.
Q: How are the two charges different?
A: Article 120c covers recordings or images that were made or viewed without permission. Article 117a covers the wrongful sharing of those images afterward. Both can lead to confinement, discharge, and sex-offender registration. What starts as a private mistake can quickly turn into a criminal case once the images move beyond the intended audience.
Q: Can I be charged for sending an explicit photo of myself?
A: Yes. Sending a sexual image to someone who didn’t request it is prosecuted under Article 120c as digital indecent exposure. The law treats an unsolicited image the same as exposing yourself in person when the intent is to offend, shock, or humiliate. At bases like Bolling, these cases often begin with screenshots or messages that spread quickly through command channels or social media.
Q: What if both people agreed to make the video or take the photo?
A: Consent to record doesn’t equal consent to share. The moment a private recording is shown, sent, or uploaded without the other person’s approval, it becomes a violation of Article 117a. The original consent becomes irrelevant, so the act of distribution itself is the offense. Many Airmen and Guardians face these charges after sharing a file with a single friend or saving it in a cloud account others can access.
Q: What if the photo or video was already out there?
A: That might affect how intent is judged but rarely excuses the conduct. If you knowingly repost or forward an image without the subject’s consent, it can still meet the definition of distribution. Defense work in these cases often depends on digital forensics, establishing when and how the image appeared online, who shared it first, and what your role really was.
A conviction under 117a or 120c requires sex-offender registration
These convictions are reported to civilian authorities, and many states treat them as registerable sex offenses. Registration can last for decades and restrict employment, travel, and housing opportunities. That’s why early, strategic defense work is critical before the case is fully referred for trial.
Defending the Client and the System
Q: Who is the client when your firm defends someone accused of a severe UCMJ crime?
A: The primary client is the person sitting next to us: the enlisted member or officer facing charges. Our job is to protect their freedom, defend them against false or exaggerated allegations, and reduce the damage when things go wrong.
But the work extends beyond that. As UCMJ lawyers, we also protect the integrity of the Constitution and the military justice system. When we provide a strong defense, even for someone who might look guilty on paper, we’re making sure the process stays fair. If we fail to uphold one person’s constitutional rights, we weaken the system for everyone who serves. Our commitment is to the client, but our responsibility is to the rule of law. One of the best ways we serve both is by holding the government accountable at every stage of the case.
The Ethics of Defense: Why the Billable Hour is Unfit for Crisis
Q: Why is the billable hour ethically a problem for a military criminal case?
A: Because the billable hour creates a fundamental conflict of interest that compromises your defense. The biggest vulnerability in any military case is the client holding back crucial information out of fear related to cost.
When every text and phone call becomes a financial liability, the client is forced to stop communicating, which includes critical details that might kill the government’s case.
A flat fee eliminates that problem. We want you to call us. We never want you to hesitate, even for a second, when you have a question.
Q: Does a flat fee mean my lawyer will want to resolve the case too quickly?
A: No. It means our incentives are aligned with yours: resolution and efficiency. When a lawyer charges by the hour, their financial incentive is to make the case drag on as long as possible. Our flat fee structure means we want to resolve the case successfully and efficiently. If we can win your case quickly in the investigation phase, you get your life back sooner and we move on to the next case.
Expectation Management: Our Flat Fee Commitment and Direct Access
We don’t use answering services or chat programs to screen clients. You will work exclusively with an experienced UCMJ defense attorney.
Total Coverage: We charge flat fees, not hourly rates. This removes the cost barrier from the attorney-client relationship. That flat fee covers everything for that phase: texts, phone calls, emails, legal research, drafting, negotiations, and court appearances. We want you to stay informed without worrying about the cost of reaching out.
Travel: Travel won’t be required during the investigation. If we need to travel to Bolling for a hearing or court date, travel expenses will be billed separately.
Case Escalation: How UCMJ Investigations Accelerate at JBAB
The Initial Complaint and OSI’s Opening Move
UCMJ cases at Bolling do not start when you receive formal charges. By the time you’re notified you’re under investigation, the case is already moving. Most investigations start when someone reports a concern to a SARC, a supervisor, or directly to OSI.
Opening the Case: Once OSI opens a file, they begin working with the base legal office or OSTC. Serious allegations, especially sexual misconduct or allegations against officers, are usually sent to OSTC. That office often takes over and starts driving the process.
Evidence Gathering and Interrogation
This phase is about evidence: interviews, subpoenas, phone searches, and digital forensics. The process looks routine on paper but is designed to wear you down.
- Meeting With OSI: At some point, OSI will ask to “talk.” They’ll call it an interview, not an interrogation. You’ll be read your rights, but they’ll frame it as a harmless formality. Some old timers might even suggest Article 31(b) protects them, not you. They’ll joke about old-school police abuse to make it sound absurd, even though everything is being recorded.
- OSI’s Setting: The room will be small, quiet, and intentionally plain. No clock. No windows. Camera over your shoulder. They’ll press for phone access, passwords, or permission to search your home.
- Administrative Hold: During this period, you’ll probably be flagged: promotion frozen, PCS orders delayed, duties limited. The system keeps you in place while it builds its case.
Final Report, Decision, and Administrative Fallout
When the investigation ends, OSI sends a Report of Investigation (ROI) to the legal office, the command, and sometimes OSTC. If OSTC is in charge, they decide whether to pursue General Court-Martial charges. If not, the command decides what to do next: Article 15, administrative separation, or a Special Court-Martial. Even when a case ends in a reprimand, the command often still tries to separate you.
Your Attorney Needs to be Reading and Controlling the Room
A courtroom isn’t a sound-proof room. Jet noise filters through the walls. A door creaks. The court reporter is working her equipment. The judge is watching. A panel member shifts in his seat. Someone in the gallery whispers. Co-counsel slides a note.
Your attorney is one of five lawyers at the tables, and he needs to track what the other four are doing at all times. And you. The bailiff matters too, as he often reads the room better than anyone. The gallery has its own rhythm; you can feel when sympathy shifts.
At the same time, your attorney is listening to the testimony. Every word, every pause, every shift in tone. He’s deciding when to object, what to save, what to use later on cross. He’s building his next questions while the witness is still answering the last one.
If he’s buried in his notepad or typing away, he’ll miss half of it. That’s what you see 99% of trial lawyers doing: making handwritten transcripts instead of paying attention. The job isn’t just listening. It’s reading people, posture, timing, and staying a step ahead of everyone in the room.
That’s part of what you’re paying for.
Use the Article 32 to Show Reasonable Doubt
If your case is heading for a General Court-Martial, you have a right to a preliminary hearing under Article 32. It’s not a formality. It’s the one structured moment where everyone (the investigators, trial counsel, and OSTC) sits in the same room, and you can shift the direction of the case before it gets referred to trial.
- The real work at an Article 32 isn’t proving the government lacks probable cause. They’ll clear that bar almost every time. The work is getting the PHO to document, in writing, that the case won’t survive trial.
- OSTC tracks win rates, not probable cause findings. When a PHO flags weaknesses that threaten proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that goes into OSTC’s risk assessment. It can be enough to get the case handed back to the command or dismissed outright.
- The hearing also functions as a negotiation table. Everyone who decides your fate ends up in the same room: prosecutors, the PHO, your lawyer, sometimes command. Your attorney uses that time to gauge who’s driving the case, who’s flexible, and where the pressure points are.
- Sometimes favorable evidence gets presented. Sometimes it doesn’t need to be. What matters is that the defense shows up prepared, credible, and unafraid of trial. That posture alone can change outcomes. We’ve won more cases at this stage than at trial.
Early Action Wins Cases
Early Action Wins Cases
Most defense lawyers tell you to stay quiet and wait. That’s half-right. You should stay quiet. But your lawyer shouldn’t.
While you’re lying low, investigators are interviewing witnesses, collecting evidence, and building a case. Waiting and hoping the storm passes means giving up ground before the fight starts.
Effective defense work begins early. Your lawyer contacts the other side discreetly, asks the right questions, and figures out where things stand. Sometimes that means presenting favorable evidence before charges are filed. Sometimes it means opening a line of communication with OSTC or the legal office. The goal is to disrupt momentum and create options.
Good lawyers know when to push and when to hold back. That judgment (reading people, timing, and leverage) is what separates a disciplined defense from a desperate one.
The Defense Team: Experience and What to Watch For in the NCR
Q: If an officer wants to strengthen his defense team for a case at JBAB, what should he look for and what should he avoid?
A: Start with lawyers who understand how things actually work in the National Capital Region: the politics, personalities, and staff-driven decisions that shape outcomes long before any charge is filed.
What to Look For:
Find counsel with deep familiarity with how the process really works: how investigations move, how commands think, and when decisions are actually being made. The best military defense lawyers in D.C. know how to read the room, speak the language of staff officers, and stay credible while pushing back quietly.
What to Avoid:
Avoid lawyers who build their strategy around media exposure, political noise, or “hardball” theatrics. None of that has an effect in the NCR. Real results come from credibility, respectful intervention, and knowing when to back off, skills that come only from experience, not seminars at Maxwell.
Twenty Years of Full-Time UCMJ Defense
We entered the JAG Corps in 2001, just after the attacks on the Pentagon and New York City that launched the Global War on Terror. From the very start, our focus was courtroom work under the UCMJ. We never rotated into administrative roles, a fact that distinguishes us from most other attorneys. We stayed in trial work.
In 2005, we left active duty and built a law firm focused entirely on defending service members across all branches.
- Federal Court Skill: Over the past several years, the UCMJ rules have been rewritten to look more like the federal criminal system. We’ve been handling federal criminal cases alongside military trials for two decades. The new system other attorneys are learning is familiar territory for us.
- Specific Expertise: Our entire career has centered on serious military defense work, including cases with: Article 120 (Sexual Assault), Article 133 (Conduct Unbecoming), Article 134 (CSAM, Enticement, etc.), Fraud, Murder, Child Abuse (Article 119b), and Desertion/AWOL.
- Wartime Context: Because we were in court throughout the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, we understand the intense legal and cultural dynamics that come with periods of active conflict.
No one should expect an Area Defense Counsel (ADC) to have this level of continuous, specialized litigation experience. The judgment needed for this kind of work only comes with time. Bringing us in is a way to level the field and relieve your ADC of some case work. They are already swamped with walk-ins, administrative tasks, and training.
Call a JBAB UCMJ Lawyer Now
If you’re under investigation, facing UCMJ action, or preparing for court-martial at Bolling, or anywhere in the National Capital Region, call 800-319-3134 for a free consultation. We’ve been representing Airmen stationed at Bolling for over 20 years and know how to handle cases in the heart of D.C.