Naval Base Kitsap at Bremerton anchors the Navy’s presence in the Pacific Northwest. It sits on the west side of Puget Sound, across from Seattle, and combines shipyard, submarine, and fleet support missions under a single installation. The base was created by merging the former Naval Station Bremerton and Naval Submarine Base Bangor, forming one of the Navy’s most diverse and strategically important commands. It provides homeport facilities for aircraft carriers, submarines, and surface ships, along with maintenance, logistics, and security functions for Pacific Fleet operations.
The Bremerton side of the base includes Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, a major maintenance and overhaul facility that performs work on nuclear-powered vessels. The shipyard employs thousands of civilian and military personnel and handles complex refits that keep the fleet operational. Across Sinclair Inlet, the Bangor area houses the Navy’s Trident submarine force, which includes Ohio-class ballistic missile and guided missile submarines. This combination makes Naval Base Kitsap unique: it is both an active fleet base and a key component of the nation’s strategic deterrent infrastructure.
The surrounding region includes several other major installations. Naval Air Station Whidbey Island lies to the north and serves as the primary home for P-8A Poseidon and EA-18G Growler squadrons. Naval Station Everett, near the city of Everett, provides additional surface-ship homeport facilities. Together, these bases form a connected system of commands that sustain operations across the Pacific. Sailors often transfer among these installations, and investigations or administrative proceedings can involve personnel from multiple commands within the region.
Bremerton itself is a working port city with strong ties to the Navy. The ferry link to Seattle connects the base to the broader metropolitan area, while nearby Silverdale and Port Orchard provide housing and services for thousands of military families. The local economy is intertwined with the shipyard and support facilities, and civilian interaction with the base is constant. Legal issues often arise both on and off duty, involving alcohol, property, or interpersonal matters in surrounding communities. NCIS maintains a strong presence in the area, coordinating investigations with local law enforcement and prosecution offices.
The shipyard’s size and complexity bring additional layers of command oversight and regulation. Civilian and military workforces share access to secure areas, and investigations sometimes involve both Navy and civilian jurisdictions. Administrative actions and UCMJ cases frequently originate from workplace incidents, computer-use allegations, or off-base conduct that affects security or readiness.
A dedicated Office of Special Trial Counsel (OSTC) operates at Bremerton, within Naval Base Kitsap, handling prosecutions of covered offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The OSTC reports directly to the Secretary of the Navy and functions independently from command legal offices. Its Special Trial Counsel are senior prosecutors assigned to evaluate evidence and determine whether a covered offense proceeds to court-martial.
Covered offenses include Articles 117a, 118, 119, 119a, 120, 120a, 120b, 120c, 125, 128b, 130, 132, and 134 of the UCMJ. These range from violent crimes such as murder and domestic assault to sexual offenses and the wrongful distribution of intimate images. The establishment of an OSTC office in Bremerton means that many of the Navy’s most serious Pacific Fleet prosecutions are coordinated or tried here. NCIS, command investigators, and OSTC prosecutors often work side by side, and proceedings are held both at Bremerton and nearby installations depending on the case and available facilities.
Hiring Counsel From Outside the Seattle Area
Our firm has represented Sailors and Coast Guard members at Bremerton and other installations across the Pacific Northwest for more than twenty years. We have handled courts-martial and administrative cases at Naval Base Kitsap, Bangor, and Joint Base Lewis–McChord, as well as cases tied to Whidbey Island and Everett. Over the years, we have spent many days in court in Bremerton, sometimes catching the ferry back across the Sound late at night, and sometimes missing it and driving the long way around back to the mainland.
There are capable civilian military lawyers in the region. Some are retired JAGs who maintain local practices near the bases and understand the basics of UCMJ representation. They are qualified to handle general matters, and for many service members, that may seem convenient. What distinguishes our firm is not proximity but experience. We have spent more than two decades focused exclusively on court-martial and administrative defense, including the cases now prosecuted by the Office of Special Trial Counsel. Our record in Bremerton and throughout the Navy speaks for itself.
Our background extends beyond military law. For over twenty years we have also practiced in federal court, handling cases that mirror the procedural model the military now follows. That dual experience allows us to navigate the modern UCMJ process with precision and confidence. Few firms can claim that combination of military and federal trial work.
Most of our cases can be managed remotely through a number of channels. Evidence review, client communication, conversations with investigators and government counsel, and strategy discussions do not require in-person meetings. If travel becomes necessary for hearings or trial, we discuss those costs in advance and include them in the fee agreement. The tradeoff: when you retain our firm, you get two senior defense attorneys with decades of experience, for a single fee that’s known in advance.
When the Navy Tries to Bypass Civilian Counsel
One of the most common tactics we see is the Navy’s attempt to resolve cases at the command level before civilian counsel gets involved. This happens through pressure to accept Mast (see below), agree to administrative separation, or provide statements during “informal” counseling sessions. The message is always the same: cooperate now, and it will go easier. Resist, and it will get worse.
That message is a trap. Once a sailor waives their rights or makes a statement, the case becomes harder to defend. Once they accept Mast or sign separation paperwork, the consequences are permanent. The Navy often counts on Sailors not knowing their options, not understanding the stakes, and not having access to counsel who can stop the process before it becomes irreversible.
We don’t let that happen. When a sailor calls us during an investigation or before a command disciplinary hearing, we step in immediately. We notify NCIS, the command, and the legal office that the sailor is represented. We stop informal interviews. We review proposed charges and separation paperwork. We engage with the chain of command and the OSTC to make sure you have a voice in how the case is handled, and that you’re not just left in a reactive posture.
How the Navy Uses Nonjudicial Punishment: Captain’s Mast
In a “nonjudicial punishment” action under Article 15 of the UCMJ, what the Navy refers to as Mast, the commanding officer acts as judge, jury, and sentencer. The Navy handles nonjudicial punishment differently from the other services, and the differences are significant.
In most branches, a service member offered Article 15 or nonjudicial punishment can refuse it and demand trial by court-martial instead, a process known as a “turn-down.” That option doesn’t always exist in the Navy. If you’re attached to a ship, you lose the right to refuse mast and demand trial. The rationale is that a ship at sea must maintain immediate discipline, and commanders can’t function if every disciplinary case can be forced to a court-martial.
It’s a significant limitation because demanding trial is often a high-risk but strategically useful countermove. It forces the government to decide whether it truly wants to proceed under formal charges and often reveals how strong the case really is. Sometimes, as we discuss below, it’s the better option if the sailor doesn’t have faith that the case will be resolved fairly at the command level. Shore-based Sailors retain the right to turn down an offer of Mast.
The Navy also stands apart in how it handles access to investigative material in a Mast proceeding. In many cases, the defense attorney is not provided a copy of the report of investigation before Mast. The command allows the sailor to review the report but not to keep a copy or share it with counsel, merely communicating it based on memory and a lay person’s understanding of the legal issues. The defense attorney is then expected to prepare and advise the sailor without meaningful access to the evidence.
Some commands disclose the file to the attorney, but this end-around happens often enough to compromise confidence in the process. When an accused sailor and his lawyer can’t review the government’s case file together, Mast begins to feel one-sided and rigged. It undermines the purpose of nonjudicial punishment, which is supposed to balance efficiency with fairness. Even when commands are acting technically within regulations, this little maneuver sends a bad message. It reinforces the perception that Mast can’t be trusted.
As for turn-downs, the decision to demand trial isn’t just about obtaining discovery. It’s about trust. When a command withholds the investigative file or restricts attorney access, it signals that the process is a kangaroo court. A sailor who feels shut out of his own defense figures the command can’t be trusted to resolve nonjudicial punishment fairly. In that situation, trial becomes the only venue where the government must actually prove its case: where evidence is shared, rules apply, and judgment is rendered by an independent authority. It’s a risky move, but for some Sailors, it feels like the only option.
Our Air Force Background: Why It Works for Sailors
We are former Air Force JAGs, not Navy. We’re direct about this because it helps your defense. The Uniform Code of Military Justice is uniform: the same law applies to every service member, regardless of branch. For more than twenty years, we’ve defended sailors under the UCMJ at commands from Norfolk to Yokosuka, and we understand Navy operations, investigative culture, and the institutional pressure that shapes how cases develop. Our external position gives us the freedom to challenge unlawful command influence, investigative overreach, and procedural violations without the career consequences that uniformed counsel might face. We don’t rotate to a new billet in two years. We don’t answer to the same chain of command as the prosecutors. We work for the sailor, and only the sailor.
We don’t claim time at sea we never had. We show respect for the Navy by staying professional, prepared, and ready to defend sailors when their careers are on the line. Our position outside the Navy chain of command is a tactical advantage, not a liability.
The Million-Dollar Comparison Trick Attorneys Use on You
The con works like this. The lawyer gets your rank and years of service and starts doing math. They figure your base pay, housing allowance, medical, dental, and vision coverage. They add your tax advantage, life insurance, and the “value” of professional military education. Then they pad it with your clothing allowance, the savings from shopping at the NEX or commissary, and even the convenience of the shoppette. By the time they’re done, you’re supposedly sitting on hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits and a retirement package worth more than a million. Then comes the punch line: compared to all that, what’s ten grand for a lawyer? It’s a script designed to turn fear into logic. And it works, which is why they keep doing it.
Q: Why don’t most law firms post their fees online?
Most firms don’t post fees because they know what would happen if they did. The numbers are high, and people would leave the page immediately. They prefer to get you on the phone first and into a conversation where they can gauge your stress, income, and ability to pay before naming a price, sizing you up for the Million-Dollar Comparison Trick.
Q: Is that unethical?
Not technically. It’s true that the potential loss justifies the price. A lawyer defending a service member against the loss of a career, pension, or freedom isn’t selling a lie. The problem is with how the conversation is staged to reach it, using exaggerated math to turn fear into leverage.
Q: So why do you publish your fees?
To avoid those sleazy tactics and because we’d rather talk about your case than break bad news about money after establishing a good rapport and both sides becoming emotionally invested in the potential relationship. Nothing kills a good consultation faster than the mention of a fee the caller can’t afford. By posting our fees, we filter out the misguided expectations before the first call. It’s fairer to both sides.
Q: Do you calculate a client’s “levers” before quoting a fee?
No. Your levers are none of our business. In more than twenty years of consultations, we’ve never played the game of emotional arithmetic: adding up your pay and benefits to frighten you into hiring us. Anyone facing a UCMJ allegation already knows what they can lose, and so do we. Pointing that out like a salesman pretending to “discover” your fear is beneath the work we do.
What an Attorney Can Cost
Based on reports we get from the field, this is what we believe market rates are, using a flat fee model as most criminal defense firms do, as of late 2025:
Initial/Investigative Stage: Market range of $4500 to $8000. Our usual fee: $6500.
Preliminary Hearing Stage: Market range of $8,000 to $20,000. Our usual fee is between $10,000 and $12,000.
Trial Stage: Market range of $15,000 to more than $100,000. Our usual fee is $25,000.
Administrative hearing: Market range of $10,000 to $50,000. Our usual fee is $15,000 to $20,000.
Travel costs for pretrial hearings, preliminary hearings, trials, and administrative boards are highly variable and billed separately, but they aren’t speculative. They will be discussed in any standard fee agreement.
Court-Martial: What You’re Facing in 10 Quick Points
- It’s a criminal trial under military law. A court-martial prosecutes violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and applies to every service member, active duty or reserve.
- Three levels exist. Summary courts (rarely used) handle minor offenses. Special courts address mid-level charges like drug use or fraud and can impose a Bad Conduct Discharge and confinement up to 12 months. General courts prosecute the most serious offenses, including murder and sexual assault, with penalties up to life imprisonment or death.
- It starts with an investigation. NCIS conducts most investigations. By the time you’re charged, they’ve already built their case.
- The Article 32 hearing is your first battleground. This preliminary hearing analyzes whether the case should proceed to trial. It uses a probable cause standard but it’s about much more than that, including a chance to show the case will not meet the higher burden of proof at trial.
- OSTC now controls serious cases. For certain offenses (sexual assault, domestic violence, murder), OSTC decides whether to prosecute. Command no longer has that authority.
- You get a military lawyer for free. Detailed defense counsel is assigned at no cost, if you receive court-martial charges, but their experience and availability vary. You also have the right to hire civilian counsel at any time.
- Trials follow strict rules. Evidence, procedure, and testimony are governed by the Military Rules of Evidence and formal rules of procedure, similar to federal court. The judge or panel decides guilt.
- Sentencing is now done by judges, not panels. The military judge determines punishment after conviction, not the panel members.
- Appeals are automatic for some convictions. Cases involving a punitive discharge or confinement over a certain threshold are automatically reviewed. Free/Appointed attorneys are provided for the appellate process.
- Early representation changes outcomes. The earlier a defense attorney gets involved, the more opportunities exist to influence the investigation, challenge evidence, present favorable evidence, and prevent charges from being referred. Waiting until trial surrenders most of your leverage.
Civilian Military Attorneys for Your Case at Kitsap/Bremerton:
If you are stationed at Naval Base Kitsap (Bremerton), or elsewhere in the Puget Sound region and facing investigation, court-martial, or administrative action under the UCMJ, call us at 800-319-3134 for a confidential case review. We have defended Sailors throughout the Pacific Northwest and around the world for two decades and understand the command structure, NCIS investigation process, and OSTC prosecution system in the region. Don’t face the Navy’s legal machinery without experienced counsel. Call now and speak directly with the attorneys who will defend you.