Joint Base Charleston is in Charleston, South Carolina. The Air Force side is home to the 437th Airlift Wing and the 315th Airlift Wing (Air Force Reserve), which fly the C-17 Globemaster III and form the largest C-17 operation in the Air Force. Base support operations are managed by the 628th Air Base Wing, with the Staff Judge Advocate’s office operating out of Room 135 of Building 16000, Wing Headquarters, on East Hill Boulevard.
The installation was officially renamed Joint Base Lindsey Graham in August 2026, but the change has not yet been fully implemented across dockets, signage, records, or customary usage.
The joint base also includes the Naval Weapons Station on the Cooper River. This page focuses on Air Force cases at Joint Base Charleston. Gagne, Scherer & Associates also represents Navy and Coast Guard members at the installation.
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), authority for the most serious allegations, known as “covered offenses,” belongs to the Office of Special Trial Counsel (OSTC), District 2, at Travis Air Force Base.
Gagne, Scherer & Associates at JB Charleston
Gagne, Scherer & Associates focuses on covered offenses and has handled cases at JB Charleston and across the Southeast for more than twenty years. The firm’s attorneys served their active-duty time in the region at Hurlburt Field and Keesler Air Force Base and often traveled to Charleston to defend Airmen at the base. Two recent JB Charleston cases show the kind of work our firm is doing there these days.
OSTC Drops General Court-Martial After Article 32 Cross-Examination at JB Charleston
A senior airman in the 437th Aerial Port Squadron was charged with abusive sexual contact under Article 120, maltreatment under Article 93, and two specifications of sexual harassment under Article 134. He was responsible for recording training progress for the Airmen involved. The allegations largely arose from a night of drinking at our client’s apartment. The group played spin the bottle, which led to one Airman kissing our client, and then two of the Airmen agreed to expose themselves in exchange for being signed off on training tasks they hadn’t completed. The investigation began with an unrelated Article 120 accusation from a different coworker. OSTC District 2 preferred all charges as a general court-martial.
Many attorneys believe the Article 32 preliminary hearing is a waste of time and advise their clients to waive it. We don’t. Never waive your Article 32. As part of our strategy, we always invite adult complaining witnesses to testify. We did that in this case, and two of them accepted, which rarely happens, but it’s why counsel should always give the invitation. The Article 120 accuser didn’t participate.
Attorneys almost always use a tightly controlled and scripted approach to cross-examination, with leading questions only, in an effort to put words in the witness’s mouth and avoid all risk (of the witness telling uncomfortable truths). Our approach tends to be more conversational, which juries and judges prefer. They want to hear witnesses talk. And it’s always fun when you can get the complaining witness to give you reasonable doubt in his own words. This conversational approach requires more preparation, patience, and flexibility, but it’s gotten great results for our clients. Using this approach, we got the first witness to admit our client’s conduct had been consensual. He also acknowledged that our client held no actual authority over him, and he admitted that he had no problem exposing himself to gain an unearned career advantage. He broke down in tears several times on the stand, despite our friendly demeanor. The second witness didn’t cry, but he didn’t do any better.
After the hearing, OSTC withdrew the Article 120 charge and the specifications involving the first witness. The case ended in an administrative resolution: the charges were dismissed, and our client agreed to separate. He left with no criminal record, on a timeline that let him take a lucrative civilian job.
Article 128b Dismissed at JB Charleston After Gagne, Scherer & Associates Demands Trial
An NCO and single mother was accused of assaulting her toddler while putting the child in a car seat, causing a nosebleed. The accusation came from a supposed eyewitness whose vantage point made it questionable whether she had seen the incident. Her unit declined to act on the allegation. OSTC took the case anyway and referred it to a special court-martial as domestic violence under Article 128b.
Gagne, Scherer & Associates offered to resolve it with a letter of reprimand, which would have left our client with no criminal record and no risk of a punitive discharge. In support of the offer, we sent OSTC what amounted to a full sentencing case months before the trial date: her service record, the names of character witnesses, an account of recent traumas that qualified her for a medical evaluation board, and the child’s documented history of spontaneous nosebleeds. Most defense counsel hold that material back for the court-martial. We made the offer to OSTC months in advance of trial to get the case dropped or resolved with an LOR. That didn’t work at first, but it paid off later: when the government’s case imploded, OSTC already knew who our client was, sympathized with her, and had no heartburn over dropping the case.
OSTC turned down our offer and countered with nonjudicial punishment, which could have cost our client rank and pay and could have supported an involuntary separation board. So we rejected the counteroffer and told OSTC we were going to trial. We had an expert in forensic psychology appointed to the defense team, and we kept preparing our case. In their pretrial interviews, two law enforcement officers who had responded to the incident contradicted the witness’s account. The eyewitness herself then backed off her original story. Shortly after that, OSTC dismissed the case outright.
If Gagne, Scherer & Associates had accepted the offer of NJP, our client would have ended up with a UCMJ entry in her record that future civilian employers could discover, a potential loss of rank and pay, and a basis for the command to convene a separation board that could have ended in an OTH. Rejecting NJP amounted to rolling the dice at trial. That carried the risk of a criminal conviction and a bad-conduct discharge. Either outcome, NJP or a conviction at trial, could have compromised her MEB and her ability to provide for her child. We rejected NJP anyway and forced the government to try the case or let it go. They let it go. With the case behind her, she was allowed to continue with the MEB and separate voluntarily at her ETS.
Docket Activity at Joint Base Charleston
From 2024 through mid-2026, Joint Base Charleston was in the middle tier for Air Force court-martial volume. Past trials leaned toward lower-level and special courts-martial. Current investigations and the pending docket show more covered-offense activity, with a surge in Article 134 child pornography and Article 120b cases that haven’t made it to the docket yet.
Pending general courts-martial not involving Gagne, Scherer & Associates include:
- Article 134 child pornography (possession, receipt, and viewing)
Past court-martial results not involving Gagne, Scherer & Associates include:
- Guilty findings on Article 112a drug use, including marijuana, cocaine, and fentanyl
- Guilty findings on Article 128b domestic violence
- Guilty findings on Article 92 failure to obey
- Convictions for drunk driving, reckless driving, leaving the scene of an accident, and destruction of property
FAQs by Airmen Facing Charges at Joint Base Charleston
Does JB Charleston see many covered-offense cases?
The covered offense docket at JB Charleston has been lighter than at the highest-volume bases, but current investigations there and the pending docket show rising covered-offense activity, including child pornography and other serious allegations under OSTC District 2. And District 2 recently assigned one of its most senior prosecutors to oversee covered-offense cases at JB Charleston.
What happens when OSTC District 2 at Travis defers a Charleston case?
Once OSTC D2 determines a covered offense doesn’t meet the standard for prosecution, the criminal case is effectively dismissed. Under current Air Force guidance, the JB Charleston SJA and convening authority can’t cleverly repackage the same underlying conduct (actus reus) into a non-covered lesser offense, such as Article 128 assault, to force a Special Court-Martial. This could change if the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) resolves the current inter-service circuit split differently (see United States v. Kruse, docket number 26-0156/MC, a Marine Corps case now pending).
Can a deferred JB Charleston case still cost me my career?
Yes, jurisdiction gets transferred to the base legal office strictly for administrative disposition, such as a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) or possibly an administrative separation. Some members are entitled to fight a separation action at a board, but some aren’t. Because the burden of proof at a discharge board is only a “preponderance of the evidence,” cases dropped by OSTC often become contested separation boards.
Can a civilian attorney represent me at JB Charleston without an office in South Carolina?
Yes, it just takes a law license from any state. Under UCMJ law, a license from South Carolina is no more valuable than a license from South Dakota. If the civilian counsel represents you in person, they just need to get sworn in by the court then and there. Gagne, Scherer & Associates represents Airmen at Charleston and other bases in the Southeast all the time. The firm’s attorneys served on active duty at Hurlburt Field and Keesler Air Force Base and have represented numerous JB Charleston Airmen.
Do I always need to hire a civilian military lawyer at Joint Base Charleston?
No, some cases aren’t worth the cost of hiring counsel, especially when the ADC is a free resource. JB Charleston’s past docket shows some of the case types an ADC is perfectly competent to handle. Minor misconduct, simple drug cases, or administrative separations that don’t trigger board entitlement usually don’t justify the cost of a private attorney. But for any OSI investigation, any covered offense, or any contested court-martial or board, an experienced civilian counsel is worth the expense and should be brought into the case if the member can afford it.
Are there civilian UCMJ lawyers available near JB Charleston?
Yes, the Carolinas have several civilian military counsel. What varies is what they cost and what OSTC prosecutors will tell them. Both are things you can check before you hire anyone. Gagne, Scherer & Associates publishes its fees, has completed two cases on the Charleston docket in 2026, and is defending an active covered-offense investigation.
Will you work with my Charleston ADC?
Yes, Gagne, Scherer & Associates works the case with the Area Defense Counsel at Joint Base Charleston or whichever ADC is assigned to the case. For hearings, trials, and boards, civilian counsel typically work at the ADC office in Building 503, room 119, alongside the detailed ADC and defense paralegal, and stay in contact throughout the case.
Gagne, Scherer & Associates: JB Charleston Lawyers
The former JAGs of Gagne, Scherer & Associates have defended courts-martial at JB Charleston and across the Carolinas for more than two decades. If you are under investigation for a covered offense or OSI wants an interview with you, call (224) 935-6172 to speak directly with an attorney about your options.