Charleston Air Force Base

Joint Base Charleston has become one of the busier courts-martial destinations in the Air Force. OSTC counsel log serious frequent flier miles to Charleston and spend considerable time on VTC handling sexual assault, child sexual abuse material, domestic violence, and maltreatment cases that have made this installation a recurring presence on the military justice docket.

We did our active duty time at Hurlburt Field and Keesler Air Force Base and have been working Southeast courts-martial ever since. We always have Charleston and other South Carolina destinations on our docket for sexual assault, CSAM, domestic violence, child abuse, fraud, maltreatment, drugs. The cases OSTC exists to prosecute.

Joint Base Charleston is shared terrain. The Air Force side is home to the 437th Airlift Wing and the 315th Airlift Wing (Air Force Reserve), both flying the C-17 Globemaster III. Together they form one of the largest C-17 operations in the world, supporting global airlift, humanitarian relief, and rapid deployment for combatant commanders. The joint base structure also includes a Naval Weapons Station on the Cooper River side, with submarine support and Navy logistics adding to an already demanding operational environment.

Charleston in summer can be something like a jungle deployment. PT ends soaked before the sun clears the tree line. Walking from the parking lot to the BX, you’re already damp. The humidity arrives in May and squats through October, and the afternoon thunderstorms (two inches in forty minutes, just passing through) just make things steamier. DampRid becomes a staple purchase. You keep it in the closets, scattered through the house. 

Hurricane season runs June through November. Anyone who has been through the pre-storm scramble knows the drill: accountability formations, flight line security, aircraft evacuation decisions, packing up the family photos, and the long crawl out on I-26 with half the Lowcountry doing the same thing. Coming back in after landfall means damage assessment, mold, and an installation trying to reconstitute itself while the mission keeps humming. We have been through that routine more than once and ran cases in the middle of it.

Just getting to and from base on an ordinary Tuesday can be an ordeal. Dorchester Road is the main gate and usually moves, but if you’re coming from Summerville heading southeast it can stack up badly. The Rivers Avenue gate handles commercial truck inspections and is generally reliable unless you take Ashley Phosphate Road to get there. That road is a potholed mess under normal conditions, and a freight train at the railroad crossing can turn a ten-minute trip into forty. The local workaround is Rivers Avenue to Midland Park Road to the back gate, which holds up better than the alternatives. None of this shows up accurately in navigation apps. Budget time you don’t expect to need.

The buildings on base are weather-beaten and overdue for a scrub and a coat of paint. The DFAC is one exception. People actually like the chow on base, and the salad bar is worth the trip, especially coming off a deployment where you spent nine months eating MREs out of a helmet. And base lodging has been updated and no longer looks or smells like 1974.

The region around Charleston is distinctly military. Parris Island and Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort are an hour south. Fort Stewart is two hours down I-95 toward Savannah. Fort Jackson, the Army’s largest basic training installation, is two hours northwest in Columbia. Camp Lejeune, Cherry Point, and Seymour Johnson are within a few hours north. Coast Guard Sector Charleston operates out of the area as well. The Naval Weapons Station on the Cooper River side of the joint base adds submarine support and Navy logistics to the mix. This is one of the most militarily saturated areas of the country.

Charleston itself is one of the oldest cities in America. The historic downtown is well-preserved and well-trafficked, with antebellum architecture, cobblestone streets, and a tourism industry thriving on nostalgia, aesthetics, and food. Myrtle Beach is ninety minutes up the coast. The Lowcountry landscape runs flat and marshy to the horizon, Spanish moss in the live oaks, tidal creeks through the coastal plain. It’s a choice assignment if you make your peace with the weather and stay out of trouble. 

Article 120 Prosecutions at Joint Base Charleston

What is the most common Article 120 charge at Joint Base Charleston?

Sexual assault under Article 120(b)(3), specifically sexual assault of a person incapable of consenting due to intoxication. Drunken-hookup scenarios are common everywhere, but they can be especially common here. These are cases OSTC prosecutors pursue aggressively, and they are the cases where early, experienced intervention by a smart defense attorney will often be the difference between freedom and getting sent to the Charleston Brig for a few years. 

What does “incapable of consenting” actually mean?

It’s not the same as being “drunk.” The statute requires that the alleged victim was either incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct, or physically incapable of declining or communicating unwillingness. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has stated that intoxication, even heavy intoxication, doesn’t automatically equal incapacity. The benchmark, drawn from United States v. Pease, is whether the person lacked the cognitive ability to appreciate the sexual conduct or the physical or mental ability to make and communicate a decision about whether to agree to it. That is a higher bar than the prosecution usually acknowledges in the early stages of a case.

What else does the government have to prove?

Even if incapacity is established, the government has to prove something more: that the accused knew or reasonably should have known of that condition. This is where the battle really is. If both parties were drinking in a social setting, the alleged victim appeared functional, and the evidence of incapacity comes primarily from memory gaps the alleged victim reports after the fact (“blackout”), proving what the accused actually perceived in real time can be difficult. Blackout is a memory-encoding failure, not unconsciousness. A person in a blackout can walk, talk, and appear fully engaged, even sober, while retaining no memories afterward. Prosecutors hope the panel will equate alcohol consumption with incapacity, regardless of how the person appeared. We demonstrate that the accused had every reason to believe the encounter was consensual.

What is the difference between rape and sexual assault in these cases?

If the accused caused the incapacity (spiked a drink, applied pressure, administered something without the victim’s knowledge) the charge is rape under 120(a)(5), with a maximum of life without parole. If the alleged victim became intoxicated voluntarily in a social setting and the government’s theory is that the accused took advantage of that condition, the charge is sexual assault under 120(b)(3), with a maximum of 30 years. Both carry a mandatory dishonorable discharge or dismissal and trigger sex offender registration upon conviction.

You talk about “mistake of fact” on your site. What is it?

It’s when the accused argues he honestly and reasonably believed the other person consented. Once this defense is raised by the evidence, the government must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. But the accused’s own intoxication is irrelevant to this issue, and the mistake has to be reasonable: a mistaken belief must be one a sober, reasonable adult would have held under the circumstances. The accused’s own intoxication doesn’t make an unreasonable belief reasonable; it actually increases the likelihood that poor judgment was involved and the incident happened. 

What should I do if I’m under investigation for this at Charleston?

Call us before you speak to anyone. Before OSI. Before your chain of command. Even before you talk to your loved ones. You need a plan. Going it alone and hoping things will blow over without anyone finding out isn’t that plan. 

The Integral Role of Expert Witnesses in Court-Martial Defense

OSTC doesn’t go to trial at Joint Base Charleston without experts. In Article 120 cases they use forensic psychologists to address victim behavior, memory, and trauma. In drug cases they use toxicologists. In CSAM cases they use digital forensics specialists and, in cases involving minors, pediatricians and child psychologists. In assault and homicide cases they use pathologists and medical examiners. These experts shape the concept of the case before trial, advise prosecutors during investigation, and take the stand with credentials designed to close off reasonable doubt before the defense gets a word in.

A defense attorney who isn’t operating at the same level isn’t defending the case. He’s roadkill, getting you squished with him. 

The defense has the right to request government-funded experts when necessity can be demonstrated. The standard requires showing that the expert is necessary for a fair trial, not merely helpful. Meeting that standard requires knowing the issue exists in the first place, having a network of qualified experts to consult in order to evaluate necessity and cost, drafting a request that frames the need precisely, and bringing it before the military judge with enough force to compel funding or dismissal when the request is denied by the prosecution. Judges don’t grant these requests automatically. Prosecutors resist them. The attorney has to fight for them.

Once an expert is retained, the real work begins. Counsel needs to be conversant in the relevant scientific literature, able to distinguish a rigorous study from one that won’t survive cross-examination, and capable of communicating with the expert at a level that produces something useful at trial. In an alcohol-related Article 120 case (a common serious charge at Charleston) the forensic psychology issues related to perception, memory encoding, the meaning of “blackout” versus “passout,” and what a person in a blackout state actually looks like to an observer aren’t intuitive to panel members. They require expert testimony that reframes what the panel thinks it already knows.

Just as not every former JAG is as good as the next, not every expert is right for every case. Within forensic psychology alone, an expert who is outstanding on alcohol and memory might have no business testifying in a case involving a child victim. Matching the expert to the case type, getting them funded, preparing them to testify, and using them effectively inside the war room even when they never take the stand is a distinct skill set, and it takes years to build.

We have spent twenty-five years developing a sourcebook of experts across every discipline. We know who judges and panels will find credible. Which experts can hold up under a belligerent cross-examination. The experts that are an invaluable asset in the war room even if they don’t testify. That network is part of what you are hiring when you call us.

Using the Article 32 to Stop an Article 120 Case Before Trial

In a well-defended incapacitation-based Article 120 case, the forensic psychology issues (memory encoding, blackout versus passout, what an intoxicated person actually presents like to an observer in real time) aren’t backloaded for trial. They’re raised as early as possible, with the goal of making OSTC do better math before they commit to taking the case to trial. 

OSTC doesn’t take cases to trial just to appease accusers or satisfy a command. They try cases they believe they can win. They track their conviction rate, and they aren’t interested in bringing a case to a panel if the evidence reeks of reasonable doubt. If they can see the acquittal coming, they will defer the case back to command rather than take the loss.

The Article 32 preliminary hearing is where that calculation happens. The Preliminary Hearing Officer is directed by rule to address not just probable cause but whether admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction when viewed by an unbiased factfinder. That language is the opening for the defense. A defense attorney who understands forensic psychology, who has already retained or consulted an expert, and who arrives at the 32 with the memory and perception issues fully developed can put those issues directly in front of the PHO and through the PHO, in front of OSTC.

Probable cause is easy for the prosecution to establish. In many cases it takes nothing more than the accuser sticking with the allegation. So beating the probable cause standard isn’t the true goal of the 32. The goal is to get the PHO to note in his report that the case has weaknesses and won’t survive the reasonable doubt standard if OSTC takes it to trial. OSTC prosecutors read that report, and so do their bosses, and a strong, defense-friendly recommendation from a PHO will be weighed heavily. Ideally, the PHO report will merely be third-party confirmation of what your attorney has been telling OSTC all along. Ideally, OSTC will go into the hearing already doubting the case. 

We speak OSTC’s language because we have been doing this for twenty-five years. We can see a case through their eyes and understand the institutional pressure they’re under. By communicating with them honestly and assertively, we can anticipate how they will assess a case’s long-term odds, and that includes the impact of potential expert testimony. 

Domestic Violence at Joint Base Charleston: Article 128b

These accusations often arise the moment divorce or custody proceedings begin. Allegations of misconduct that were never mentioned in years of marriage suddenly become the centerpiece of a criminal complaint: sexual assault, violence against children, cruelty to pets, a pattern of emotional and verbal abuse that materialized the moment they called a family law attorney and started seeing dollar signs. 

These cases often require coordination with the civil attorney handling the family court case, and that coordination has to be strategic. Invoking your right to silence in the criminal case is the correct move, but silence in a criminal proceeding can create problems in civil litigation: default judgments, adverse inferences, custody outcomes that lock in before the criminal case resolves. The two tracks have to be managed together, not in isolation. The criminal case has to take priority, but an attorney who handles only the court-martial and ignores what is happening in family court isn’t seeing the full picture.

Contacting OSTC early is particularly important in an Article 128b case. Prosecutors aren’t always aware of the full picture when they receive a case. They have the complaint and a sense of the investigative file in progress, but they might not know about the divorce filing that preceded the allegation by two weeks, the text messages in which the accuser discusses using the legal process to gain financial leverage, or the communications showing a deliberate intent to exploit the protections available through VWAP or the Family Advocacy Program. 

The broader context is crucial to a prosecutor’s vision of whether a case will survive the reasonable doubt standard at trial. We have the credibility and the relationships to make that approach effective. A phone call from an attorney they’ve worked cases with, backed by documentary evidence that reframes the allegation and the credibility of the accuser, can cause a case to be dropped before it gets charged. Getting that information in front of the right people before people commit ego and resources to a court-martial is one of the most valuable things we can do for a client in this situation.

Why Article 128b Can Be More Serious Than Its Civilian Counterpart 

Domestic violence in the military isn’t handled as a family matter or a routine assault. Article 128b of the UCMJ created a separate, standalone charge with penalties deliberately harsher than the underlying violent act. Every domestic violence prosecution at the General Court-Martial level now belongs to OSTC. These cases go to the military’s elite prosecution squad and are treated as serious cases from the first allegation. The typical civilian prosecutor’s office looks at domestic violence complaints as a sinkhole, because in most cases the complaining witness eventually drops the case or recants. That’s not how it goes in the military in the OSTC era. 

Who the Article covers

Article 128b applies to acts committed against a spouse, a current or former intimate partner, anyone with whom the accused shares a child, a household member, or an immediate family member living in the home. The intimate partner definition is broad enough to cover relationships that ended years ago.

What the Article criminalizes

The charge covers any violent UCMJ offense committed against a protected person, psychological abuse carried out through criminal conduct intended to threaten or intimidate, violation of a protective order with intent to threaten or commit violence, and strangulation or suffocation, which the statute treats as categorically severe and as a marker of future lethal risk.

Prison, Loss of Rank, Loss of Career, Loss of Job Opportunities, Loss of Gun Rights

The penalty structure is punitive by design. A conviction adds three years of confinement on top of the maximum for the underlying offense. A Bad Conduct or Dishonorable Discharge is the near-certain result at court-martial. Under the Lautenberg Amendment, any domestic violence conviction (including a misdemeanor) triggers a lifetime federal firearms ban. For a service member, that ban ends the career regardless of what else happens.

MPOs, FAP, and Fighting on Multiple Fronts 

You’ll be fighting on multiple fronts. The Family Advocacy Program opens its own case and conducts its own investigation. FAP will pressure an accused to make a statement, sometimes by suggesting their process isn’t a criminal investigation. That’s a tactic to get you talking. Nothing you say to FAP stays contained. Anything you say to FAP gets relayed to OSI. 

A commander can issue a Military Protective Order immediately, removing the service member from the home before any charges are preferred. Violating an MPO by a single phone call or a text sent through a third party becomes a separate UCMJ offense. Even an acquittal at court-martial doesn’t close the administrative track. A service member can still be separated on the underlying conduct.

How to Shut Down OSI 

Say nothing to investigators. OSI agents are trained to build rapport before they ever get to a rights advisement, softening the target so that by the time they read the warnings, waiving feels comfortable and moral. The moment you are read your rights, invoke them. Use the exact words: I’m not going to make a statement. I want to talk to a lawyer. Don’t consent to searches. don’t contact the alleged victim through any channel. don’t attempt to use rank or connections to influence the outcome. 

Call us before you say anything to anyone.

Child Sexual Abuse Material and Sextortion at Joint Base Charleston

CSAM cases (including AI-generated material) have become one of the most aggressively prosecuted categories across all services. Joint Base Charleston isn’t an exception. 

Article 134 covers the full range: traditional CSAM, digitally altered images, and fully synthetic AI-generated depictions. The manner of creation doesn’t determine whether something can be prosecuted. If the image appears to depict a minor in sexually explicit conduct, it qualifies. Service members have been charged for material generated entirely by AI, with no real child involved at any stage of production.

Sextortion cases add additional charges on top of Article 134. A typical case might layer Article 127 (extortion), Article 120c (sexual misconduct via communication device), and Article 120b (sexual abuse of a child) depending on the age of the victim, whether the accused believed they were communicating with a minor, and what they attempted to obtain. An accused can be charged with attempted offenses even when no actual minor existed. The belief that the other party was a minor is enough. And it’s enough for sex offender registration. 

Investigators in these cases rely on digital forensic tools built to recover deleted files, reconstruct app histories, match images across datasets, and identify grooming patterns in chat logs. Phones, computers, cloud accounts, gaming platforms, and messaging apps are all within scope. Material the accused believed was gone is often recoverable.

The defense in a CSAM case requires someone who understands how forensic tools work, what they can and can’t reliably identify, and where the analysis is vulnerable to attack. It requires knowing the difference between viewing, possession, receipt, and distribution under the law, and whether the government can actually prove what it claims the evidence shows. In AI-generated cases specifically, the question of whether an image legally qualifies as CSAM and whether the accused knew what he had is where the fight will be. This is a constantly evolving area of the law, so attorneys need to stay current on the developments in technology, investigative techniques, and the law. 

We Have Been Doing This Work Since Long Before OSTC Came Into Existence 

We’re former Air Force JAGs who have been doing military criminal cases full time since 2001. We both joined the JAG Corps that year, prosecuted first, then switched to defense, and left active duty to start this firm. We have tried hundreds of cases across every branch, at installations across the country and overseas. Keith was stationed at Ellsworth and Keesler. Greg started at Hurlburt. The Southeast is probably our most frequent destination, we communicate almost daily with OSTC prosecutors who do cases for AMC installations, we have had a lot of cases at Charleston specifically.

Every client gets both of us. We consult on every case, prepare together, and bring two sets of experience to every problem. One of us is in Chicago, the other in Connecticut. We travel wherever US service members are. Distance isn’t a factor; courtroom experience is.

What It Costs and How It Works

Do you charge by the hour?

No. We charge flat fees by stage. A court-martial has three potential stages: investigation, Article 32, and trial. The fee is set before we start and doesn’t increase. For example, a four-day trial costs the same as a seven-day trial. We don’t charge more for court days that run into the night, and we don’t charge more if a case spills into the weekend. 

Why is it better for me if my attorney charges a flat fee instead?

Because hourly billing creates incentives to cheat the client. A lawyer billing by the hour profits from delay. We profit from efficiency. For a lawyer working on an hourly fee arrangement, the longer it takes to get the job done, the more money he makes. Any time you call, text, or email him, it costs new fees. And he has to figure out a way to bill for the time he’s tallying your bill, so he’ll round up here and there to make up for that time. For most attorneys, time is what they sell, and this is why many lawyers in the UCMJ market charge for consultations: they don’t want to spend any time that won’t be compensated. 

But with a flat fee agreement, the job takes as long as it takes; there is no incentive to stretch things out. And you can contact us when something’s on your mind without worrying about the bill. (And we don’t charge for consultations.)

What do you charge? 

Investigation stage: $6,500. Article 32 process: $10,000 to $12,000. Trial: $25,000. If you hire us early and the case goes all the way through a General Court-Martial, the total will likely be roughly $50,000. Travel (flights, lodging, ground transport) is billed separately at cost. Legal work is based on these flat, inclusive rates; travel is reimbursement based on market rates. Note that most cases don’t go all the way to trial. 

I’m price shopping. I know there are cheaper former JAGs.

Some cost more, some cost less, but you don’t need to hire a civilian at all, since you’ll be entitled to the services of an ADC. If you’re price shopping, you can stop now. Just use your ADC. At some point, hiring someone based on price alone will leave you with someone with significantly less skill, judgment, and institutional knowledge than your ADC.

You can always find a former JAG willing to undercut the last quote you got by a dollar. Try it and you’ll see. But you need to know that “former JAG” isn’t a real credential. It’s a category. 

Not all surgeons are the same. Not all pilots are the same. A doctor who spent twenty years doing surgeries isn’t the same as one who spent twenty years pushing paperwork at a regional clinic. A JAG who prosecuted and defended serious general courts-martial for years isn’t the same as one who reviewed contracts, processed administrative actions, or got an LLM in Environmental Law. 

If cost is genuinely a barrier, this is the time to ask for help. Ask your family. Tap your TSP. Talk to your bank. You don’t have to commit today, but you should know what is possible before you decide.

Why hire attorneys from Chicago and Connecticut for a case at Charleston?

Most UCMJ work, including trial work, even in cases where no civilian attorney is involved, doesn’t happen at the courthouse. It happens over phone calls, texts, emails, VTC, written motions, and relationships with OSTC prosecutors who rotate nationally. 

The alternative to our firm for a case at Charleston isn’t the attorney down the road who handles DUIs and divorces and lists military law as a practice area. It’s other former JAGs, some of them well-credentialed, some of them located in the Carolinas or Virginia, who will tell you that proximity to the base is an advantage. Tally the numbers before you believe that. A former JAG in Raleigh or Savannah who drives to Charleston isn’t going to commute to and from court every day. You will be billed for mileage, tolls, hotel, and a daily per diem for miscellaneous expenses. We bill for air, hotel, rental car, and a per diem. When you do the math, the true cost difference is a few hundred dollars, in exchange for getting two attorneys with vastly broader and deeper experience. When you go local, what you’re buying is the emotional comfort of proximity. And it won’t last. 

There is nothing unusual about being represented by attorneys from outside of the region. Every real UCMJ lawyer does cases around the country. The experts, judges, and even the prosecutors come from outside the region. So we would advise against making proximity to base your top priority. 

I Have Never Hired a Lawyer. How do I know if I’m asking the right questions when I call around?

don’t ask for a success rate. Any lawyer who gives you a percentage is either lying or making the numbers lie. Ask instead: how do you approach an Article 120 case involving alcohol and memory? How do you handle OSTC? What is your strategy for an Article 32? How do you get an expert funded? The answers to those questions will tell you more than any statistic ever will. 

Check our Resources menu for a guide to asking the right questions.

Call Us

If you are stationed at Joint Base Charleston and under investigation or facing charges under the UCMJ, call 800-319-3134. You will speak directly with attorneys who try these cases for a living. The consultation is free and confidential.