Anchorage is Alaska’s largest city, with a population of nearly 300,000. It functions as a critical transportation and command hub for operations across the Arctic and Pacific. Alaska is one of the regions we serve most often.
Alaska is one of the most strategically important regions in the U.S. military, especially for the Air Force. Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER), often called Elmendorf, drives that mission. The base houses the 3rd Wing, the 673rd Air Base Wing, and Alaska NORAD Region assets, including air defense, early warning, and fighter-intercept units tied to U.S. Indo-Pacific Command and Northern Command priorities.
Operations here include Arctic defense, air mobility, early warning systems, and rapid response. From this position, the Air Force maintains a forward presence that reaches across the Pacific and up into the polar region. Elmendorf is one of the first lines of response in any potential conflict with Russia or China, with fighter jets on alert and positioned to launch across polar or Pacific routes at a moment’s notice.
The base also operates in a region influenced by Alaska Native communities, state sovereignty issues, and environmental sensitivities that can determine how incidents are viewed and handled.
Alaska Defense Challenges: Distance and Logistics
Misconduct allegations at Elmendorf are governed by the UCMJ just like at any other U.S. base, but the unique conditions of Alaska create complications. Service members facing serious accusations or administrative actions often struggle with the legal process in an isolating environment.
- Isolation Factors: Travel delays, winter conditions, and distance from the lower 48 can make outside communication and coordination more difficult.
- Limited Local Counsel: Access to civilian military counsel is limited. Very few civilian attorneys near Anchorage have relevant experience with Air Force cases or courts-martial.
- The Logistical Cost: For attorneys who aren’t used to doing cases in Alaska, this setup can lead to delays in preparing defenses, interviewing witnesses, or collecting key evidence. Simple steps like reviewing files or coordinating schedules can become harder due to time zones and limited access. These challenges make it important to have civilian expertise that is prepared to work with those constraints rather than be constrained by them.
Q: Do You Take Cases in Alaska?
A: Yes. We’ve handled many military cases in Alaska, including courts-martial and administrative matters with Airmen and Soldiers stationed at JBER. Over time, it’s become a home-away-from-home. We’ve worked on a wide range of cases, including sex offense allegations, fraud, child-related crimes, and officer misconduct. None of this is new to us.
We’ve done trials in Anchorage during every season—long summer days and dark winter weeks. During the height of COVID, we conducted a court-martial in a hangar at Elmendorf with more than 30 witnesses, all while following strict protocols, including 6 feet of strict social distancing. We’ve worked in the most demanding conditions Alaska has to offer, both legally and logistically.
We don’t have a brick-and-mortar office in Alaska, but we know how to handle the travel, weather, and distance issues that come with long-range representation.
Q: Do you charge higher rates for cases in Alaska?
A: No. We charge the same flat legal fees for cases at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson as we do for cases in the lower 48. The legal work is no different, and we don’t believe service members should pay more just because they’re stationed in Alaska. And it’s often harder to find experienced civilian help in a remote location. We also give you two senior UCMJ lawyers for the price of one. The only additional expense is the second attorney’s travel expenses. The work is included.
We also recognize that bringing in a civilian military attorney from outside Alaska adds travel costs. That alone increases the financial burden, which is why we keep our fees consistent nationwide. Our goal is to keep pricing clear and consistent no matter where a case is being handled. We quote one flat fee for the entire legal defense, and we list travel expenses separately. That gives clients a full picture of what they’re paying for. Whether the case is in California or Alaska, the preparation, strategy, and consequences are just as serious. So the price for our work stays the same.
Mistake of Fact in a Military Sexual Assault Case
Q: What does “mistake of fact” mean in this context?
A: It’s a defense that turns on what you honestly and reasonably believed when the act occurred. If you genuinely thought the other person was consenting, and that belief would have seemed reasonable to a careful, sober person in the same situation, the law allows that as a defense.
Q: What makes that belief “reasonable”?
A: The test is not about what you hoped or wanted to believe. It is about what an ordinary, sober adult would think after seeing the same behavior, hearing the same words, and reading the same situation. The focus is on perception, not hindsight.
Q: Why does this defense exist at all?
A: Because not every misunderstanding is a crime. The law recognizes that two people can experience the same event differently, and that it is wrong to convict someone for an honest belief that any reasonable person could have shared at the time.
Alcohol and Capacity
Q: Does mistake of fact still work if both people were drinking?
A: Sometimes. Your own intoxication does not lower the standard. The law measures reasonableness through the eyes of a sober person, not a drunk one.
Q: What about blackouts?
A: A blackout is a memory failure, not unconsciousness. A person can talk, walk, and appear coherent but later remember nothing. What matters is how things looked in the moment, not what one person remembers afterward.
Q: What if both were too drunk to consent?
A: The law does not treat them equally. The accused cannot use being drunk as a defense. The standard of reasonableness is always measured as if the person were sober.
Physical Cues and the “Puke” Example
Q: What if the other person vomits before or during sex?
A: That is one of the hardest situations. Vomiting is an unmistakable sign that something is wrong. Continuing after that point almost never looks reasonable, no matter what is said.
Q: Could mistake of fact ever work in that situation?
A: Very unlikely. Once someone is physically sick, the law and common sense both expect you to stop and make sure they are safe.
Q: What is the right move in that moment?
A: Stop. Get them water. Let them rest. Leave. Follow up the next day, not as damage control but because that is what a decent, reasonable adult would do.
Interrogation Rights: Protection of Article 31(b)
Article 31(b) of the UCMJ protects service members when they’re suspected of misconduct. These are like Miranda rights, but they apply sooner and cover a wider range of situations. The same protections apply at Elmendorf and nearby Eielson as they do at any other military base.
Here’s what that means in simple terms:
You don’t have to talk. If you’re under suspicion, you don’t have to answer questions, and you shouldn’t. No one can force you to say something that could be used against you.
They have to tell you what’s going on. If they believe you broke a rule, they must tell you what the allegation is, at a minimum. They also have to make it clear that you don’t have to speak, and that anything you do say can be used against you. This applies even if you haven’t been arrested.
If OSI agents don’t follow these rules, what you say might not be admissible later, but it’s not always easy to show that a violation occurred. That’s why the safest answer is usually: “I’m not going to make a statement. I want to speak to a lawyer.” That ends the conversation. Agents are required to stop when you say that.
A few more points to keep in mind:
Article 31(b) protections start earlier than civilian Miranda rights. The rule was designed for the military, where command pressure and rank structure can make it hard to say no, even when you legally can.
Still, OSI won’t start the interrogation by reading your rights. They will start with informal questions, a pleasant chat, say they’re “just gathering context,” or suggest this is your one shot to “get ahead of the situation.” They might act like the warning is merely procedural and not really to protect you from them.
That’s by design. Don’t debate. Don’t offer partial answers. Just state clearly that you want legal counsel, and stop talking. That’s the strongest protection you have. And don’t sign anything unless it’s to confirm that you invoked your rights.
Options: From NJP to Court-Martial
Article 15 lets commanders punish misconduct without sending the case to trial. It’s called nonjudicial punishment, or NJP. It isn’t a criminal conviction, but the penalties still sting—loss of rank, pay, or base privileges. It can also appear on some civilian background checks. You can talk to a lawyer before deciding, and you can refuse NJP altogether. Turning it down means you’re asking for a court-martial instead.
If the command starts an administrative separation, you might get the chance to fight the discharge or the type of discharge being proposed. Whether you have that right depends on your time in service and the kind of discharge at issue. A separation board isn’t a court-martial, but it feels similar: there’s a panel, rules of evidence, and a structured hearing in a courtroom setting.
Serious allegations get sent to court-martial. The two main types are Special and General. A Special Court-Martial is not to be taken lightl: it’s still career-ending and likely to include a prison term. A General Court-Martial is for the most serious offenses and always begins with an Article 32 hearing, where a neutral officer decides if there’s probable cause to move forward. Those cases are run by OSTC and demand detailed, careful preparation.
Pretrial Leverage: Why Waiving the Article 32 is a Strategic Blunder
If your case is heading toward a General Court-Martial, you have the right to an Article 32 hearing. This is a preliminary step where the government must show there’s enough evidence to justify going forward. The hearing is conducted by a JAG called the Preliminary Hearing Officer, or PHO, who serves as a neutral evaluator. Their role is to assess whether probable cause exists, whether the charges are legally sound, and whether the case should proceed to trial.
What does “probable cause” really mean? It’s a low standard. People sometimes explain it using the “51%” idea, meaning the accusations seem more likely true than not. The PHO isn’t doing math, though. It’s more of a gut-level decision based on how the evidence comes across on paper.
Some less experienced defense lawyers might recommend waiving this hearing. They might argue it’s just a formality and not worth your time (his time), especially since the burden of proof is so easy for the government to meet. That kind of advice often reflects weak instincts or a lack of strategic thinking.
It’s true the government usually meets the probable cause threshold. Still, the hearing has critical importance beyond the legal test.
It allows your defense team to challenge the evidence and learn how a disinterested, trained lawyer reacts to it. A focus should be on demonstrating that the prosecution’s case will collapse when it’s subjected to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard at trial. The PHO will comment on that. While the PHO’s recommendations are not binding, any doubts they raise can influence OSTC’s math.
In our own practice, numerous cases have been dropped after the Article 32 phase, even when probable cause was not contested. Others resulted in reduced charges or better outcomes. None of that would have happened if the hearing had been waived.
Our Record in Alaska and Beyond
In 2001, shortly after the September 11 attacks, we joined the Air Force JAG Corps and immediately began handling courts-martial. We never rotated into administrative roles or left the courtroom. That focus has remained constant for more than two decades.
In 2006, we opened this firm to defend service members from all branches. Since then, we’ve handled cases at installations across Alaska, from Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson to Eielson AFB, Fort Wainwright, and Fort Greeley, as well as bases worldwide.
Our federal criminal court experience runs just as deep. The military justice system has adopted much of the federal framework, so while others are still adjusting, we’ve been operating in that environment for decades.
We’ve handled every major UCMJ offense, including:
- Article 120 (Sexual Misconduct)
- Article 134 (CSAM, Obscenity, Enticement, Solicitation)
- Larceny, Fraud, and DITY/Travel Claims
- Assault, Manslaughter, Murder, and Domestic Violence
- Child Abuse (Article 119b)
- Officer Misconduct (Article 133)
- Deployment-related charges from the Global War on Terror, including Desertion
We’ve defended Airmen, Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Coasties in nearly every region where the U.S. operates. When you hire us, you hire our name too. People understand that when we join a case, we bring skill, professionalism, and perspective.
Why Waiting Doesn’t Work
Most defense attorneys, whether military or civilian, will tell you to keep quiet, stay out of sight, and avoid talking about your case. We do too. That’s standard advice in criminal defense.
The problem is, while you’re keeping your head down, the government is moving. Investigators are collecting statements, shaping the story, and building a case against you without resistance. While you wait, they gain ground.
Strategy vs. Silence: Silence can help you avoid mistakes, but silence alone doesn’t move your case forward. It’s not a strategy. Hoping things settle on their own rarely works.
Action: Acting early doesn’t mean picking a fight. It means stepping in with care and purpose. It means knowing when to speak, how to read the room, and how to open the right channels with command, with legal, or with investigators, before the door closes.
OSTC as an Asset: OSTC prosecutors are professionals. If they see a real weakness in their case, or a credible defense position, they might be open to resolving the matter without trial. That opportunity exists early, not later. That’s when influence has the greatest impact.
What works at this stage is not aggressiveness or flash. It’s credibility. The best defense lawyers know how to be firm without posturing, persuasive without being adversarial. Success comes from judgment, timing, and emotional intelligence. If the system is already accelerating against you, the first step is finding someone who knows how to slow it down.
What You Can Expect From Having Us as Your Elmendorf UCMJ Lawyers
You will work directly with Keith Scherer or Greg Gagne. We don’t convince you to hire us and then pass you off to a less experienced lawyer.
You will speak with us directly, not a chatbot or answering service.
We use a flat-fee billing structure because it helps remove financial stress, worry, and ambiguity from the attorney-client relationship.
What a “flat” fee gets you: everything is included in the stage you are paying for. That includes every call, text, and email with us, and every call, text, and email we have with commanders, first sergeants, your family, prosecutors: all communications are covered. All legal work is included.
If travel is required to represent you in person, costs will be billed separately according to terms clearly laid out in the agreement, but we don’t bill more for travel time, even for cases in Alaska.
Call an Alaska UCMJ Lawyer Now
If you’re facing UCMJ charges or a court-martial at Elmendorf or Eielson AFB, call us at 800-319-3134 for a free case evaluation. We’ve defended Airmen and soldiers at JBER and across U.S. installations throughout the world for over 20 years and know how to handle cases in Alaska’s unique environment.