The Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center (MCAGCC) Twentynine Palms is not just a base; it is the Marine Corps’ ultimate laboratory for war. Sprawling across nearly 1,000 square miles of the rugged Mojave Desert, it is a vast, isolated domain where the silence of the wilderness is routinely shattered by the thunder of live ammunition. The drive from Twentynine Palms toward Palm Springs takes you through an ocean of solar panels and the spinning white turbines of the San Gorgonio Pass, the first real signs of civilization after miles of desert silence.
The landscape itself defines the mission: a harsh expanse of rocky hills, sun-scorched plains, and dry lake beds that provides an unparalleled training ground for modern combat. This world of intense military focus exists in stark contrast to the nearby desert resort cities of Palm Springs and Palm Desert, where a culture of leisure and luxury sits just an hour’s drive from the gates of the nation’s premier warfighting installation.
The singular purpose of Twentynine Palms is to host the most realistic and complex live-fire combined-arms training in the world. This is where the Marine Corps assembles all the elements of its Air-Ground Task Force (infantry, tanks, artillery, and aircraft) and puts them to the test. The cornerstone of this mission is the Integrated Training Exercise (ITX), a grueling, multi-week evolution that serves as the final exam for units preparing to deploy overseas. The training here is on an unmatched scale. Daily life is set to a soundtrack of F/A-18s screaming overhead on simulated bombing runs, massive artillery barrages echoing from distant ranges, and the rumble of armored vehicles maneuvering across the desert floor. From firsthand experience, we also know the desert environment itself can be a factor; when the infrequent but intense rains arrive, flash floods often wash out key roads, a practical reality that can disrupt a court-martial.
While geographically remote, Twentynine Palms is the operational center of a larger Southern California military ecosystem. It is the critical training destination for units based at Camp Pendleton, who make the pilgrimage to “the desert” for their most important pre-deployment workups. The exercises are impossible without the constant support of aircraft flying in from MCAS Miramar and MCAS Yuma. This creates a constant flow of thousands of Marines and sailors through the region, connecting these major installations into a single, integrated training complex focused on preparing for the next global conflict.
We have deep California roots. One of us attended DLI in 1989, long before our JAG careers began in 2001. Since leaving active duty in the mid-2000s, we’ve been defending Marines across Southern California (the Twentynine Palms-Pendleton-Miramar-Yuma circuit) for nearly two decades.
Q: Your firm isn’t from the Marine Corps and isn’t local. Why should a Marine at Twentynine Palms hire you?
A: You are correct on both points, and they are central to the value we provide. We are former Air Force JAGs, and our background gives us a critical external perspective on the unique pressures of the Marine Corps, especially concerning unlawful command influence (UCI).
Regarding location, the high desert has very few dedicated UCMJ specialists. The most common model you will find is the 20-year retiree. While their service is commendable, a full military career often means the vast majority of it was spent outside a courtroom. After an initial tour as a litigator, most career JAGs move into supervisory or administrative “desk jobs,” advising commanders and using a pen to put Marines in the brig.
Our path was the opposite. We have been trying courts-martial nonstop since 2001. No desk jobs. No supervisory tours. Our entire professional lives have been spent in the heat of the battle, defending service members in the courtroom. We are career trial lawyers, not retired administrators.
We’ve Been Doing UCMJ Work Since 9/11
A: Our careers as military trial lawyers began in the courtroom in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. We have been full-time UCMJ lawyers since 2001, with our formative experience coming from the peak of the Global War on Terrorism. This gave us firsthand experience with the unique legal issues that arise from high operational pressure, such as combat-related incidents and post-deployment misconduct.
Our commitment is to show up for the fight, no matter the conditions. We have tried cases in active prisons, during hurricane evacuations, and in the peak of the COVID lockdown. Our focus is on the most serious charges under the UCMJ:
- Article 120, 120b, & 120c (Sexual Assault and Related Offenses)
- Article 134 (CSAM, Enticement, Obstruction of Justice)
- Article 133 (Conduct Unbecoming an Officer)
- Article 128b (Domestic Violence)
- Larceny and Fraud (including DITY and travel claim fraud)
- Murder, Manslaughter, and Aggravated Assault
- AWOL and Desertion
Two UCMJ Specialists with Decades of Federal Criminal Experience
The value we offer is unmatched experience and overwhelming force. For every case, we provide two senior trial lawyers, each with over 20 years of courtroom experience, for the fee of a single attorney. This is our standard practice. Furthermore, the military justice system now mirrors the federal courts. We have been litigating in federal court for our entire careers; this is our home turf, not a new system we are learning.
While travel for a trial can add cost, most cases are won or resolved long before that stage. For the rare case that goes to trial, the investment in two decades of specialized experience is the most critical decision you can make when the consequences are career-ending.
Q: Why is Article 133, Conduct Unbecoming an Officer, considered such a difficult charge?
A: Its danger comes from its deliberate and extreme ambiguity. We call it the “wraith” charge because, like a ghost, it is shapeless and defined almost entirely by the subjective “eye of the beholder.” An effective defense requires understanding the three specific ways prosecutors exploit this ambiguity:
It relies on subjective standards. The charge is built on words like “dishonor” and “disgrace,” which have no clear legal definition. Your guilt is not determined by violating a specific rule, but by the personal and moral opinions of the jury members.
“Almost a crime” is good enough. The law allows for a conviction even if your conduct only “approximates” another crime without meeting all the legal elements. This gives prosecutors a backdoor to convict you on a weak sexual assault case, for example, by arguing the conduct was, at a minimum, “unbecoming.”
No clear rules are required. This is the most dangerous aspect. Article 133 does not require you to violate any written law or regulation. The jury is empowered to decide, after the fact, that you should have known your conduct crossed an unwritten line.
Q: How do you defend against a charge that is so subjective and based on opinion?
A: A standard defense is not enough. Because the charge is shapeless, the strategy cannot be just about arguing facts in a vacuum; it must be about controlling the entire narrative. The defense must demonstrate to the court the critical difference between a personal mistake and a genuine act of professional dishonor.
We have decades of experience showing military panels that a private error in judgment does not automatically affect an officer’s fitness to command. Our job is to give form to this “wraith” accusation and expose it for what it truly is: a subjective opinion that does not meet the high standard of a proven crime.
The Double-Edged Sword of the Adultery Defense
Tacking on a 133 charge in a case of an adulterous relationship is a common and cynical legal maneuver designed to secure a career-ending conviction, or leverage a different career-ending outcome, even if the prosecution’s primary sexual assault charge is weak. It works by forcing the accused officer into an impossible position.
Here is the setup: The case often concerns an officer accused of sexual assault (Article 120) where the encounter was part of an adulterous relationship. The most logical defense is to argue that the sex was consensual. Prosecutors not only anticipate this defense; they rely on it.
Before the trial begins, they will add an Article 133 charge, arguing that the adulterous relationship itself, even if consensual, was an act of professional dishonor and “conduct unbecoming an officer.”
This creates a no-win scenario. By arguing that the sex was consensual, the officer is forced to stand up in court and confess to the very facts that prove the Article 133 violation. Even if the officer is acquitted of sexual assault, they have already admitted guilt on the charge that will end their career and likely result in a punitive discharge. This gives prosecutors immense leverage to force an officer into accepting a one-sided plea deal.
The Path to Reasonable Doubt Goes Through OSTC
The era of relying on a local commander’s sympathies to resolve a serious accusation is over. Serious cases are now run by a remote team of elite, specialized prosecutors from the OSTC, whose primary mission is to maintain a high conviction rate. This new reality presents a formidable challenge, but it‘s also an opportunity.
The era of pocketing your game-changing evidence for trial is over too. The most important fact to understand about the OSTC is that its prosecutors are mandated to avoid losing. They have the professional independence to dump a case that poses a real risk of an acquittal at a General Court-Martial. Their focus on conviction statistics is their greatest strength, but it is also their greatest vulnerability. An experienced defense attorney exploits this by demonstrating, as early as possible, that the case is a losing proposition.
This starts by establishing a cordial, professional line of communication with the assigned OSTC prosecutor. The goal of these “offline” communications is to educate them on the realities of the case that the initial NCIS or CID report may have ignored or downplayed. It is the first formal chance to highlight exculpatory facts, introduce witness credibility issues, and explain how weaknesses in their evidence will fail to meet the higher burden of proof at trial. This dialogue requires a reputation for credibility; a prosecutor will only listen if they trust that the defense counsel is open and honest.
This early, informal engagement sets the stage for the Preliminary Hearing. This is where the weaknesses discussed privately are put on the record. While some lawyers dismiss the hearing as a lost cause because the prosecution is only required to show probable cause, it’s the best opportunity to formally expose critical flaws in the government’s case before a neutral JAG, the Preliminary Hearing Officer (PHO).
The goal here isn’t to beat probable cause; it’s to create reasonable doubt. The PHO has to analyze the case for a number of things, one of them being the likelihood of serving a higher level of proof at the next stage. So the real goal is to convince OSTC the case won’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt if it goes to trial. Create an off-ramp for the case to be dismissed, negotiated down to a non-criminal resolution, or deferred for lesser action.
Q: How do you challenge medical evidence that doctors claim is “consistent with abuse?”
A: We challenge it by exposing the vast difference between a medical opinion and a scientific certainty. The phrase “consistent with abuse” is an opinion, and it is highly debatable. Think of it this way: a cloudy sky is consistent with rain, but it is not diagnostic of rain. The clouds could also mean it’s simply an overcast day.
Just like with clouds, many innocent things can cause physical findings in a child that a doctor might initially flag as being “consistent with” abuse. Our job is to present the other possibilities. We work with a team of leading forensic medical experts (provided at government expense) to develop alternate theories. This means we provide the court with credible, science-backed alternative explanations for the findings, such as accidental or self-inflicted trauma, underlying medical conditions, or benign skin markings that can mimic injury. We do not just argue the law; we challenge the government’s medical narrative with superior science to create powerful reasonable doubt.
Q: The accuser’s story keeps changing over time. Won’t everyone see she’s lying?
A: Not necessarily, and this is a critical point to understand. Prosecutors will argue that minor inconsistencies are normal. The more significant danger is that science shows human memory is not a video recording; it is a highly suggestible and reconstructive process.
Think of a memory less like a video file and more like a Wikipedia page. After the initial event is written, every person the accuser talks to (friends, family, therapists, and investigators) can edit that page. They can add new details, change the emphasis, or subtly alter the narrative. After a few months, the story she tells in court can be fundamentally different from the original event, even if she has no conscious intent to lie. She may sincerely believe the contaminated version is the truth.
Q: The Family Advocacy Program (FAP) wants to talk to me. They say it’s not a criminal investigation. Should I cooperate?
A: No. Absolutely not. The statement that the FAP inquiry “is not a criminal investigation” is a dangerous half-truth. While the FAP counselor is not a criminal investigator, they are part of a system designed to gather information that will be used against you.
Think of the process as a two-lane highway heading in one direction: toward prosecution. Lane One is the criminal investigation run by OSI, NCIS, or CID. Lane Two is the administrative investigation run by FAP. While they look like separate lanes, they merge just ahead. Information flows freely and immediately from the FAP lane to the criminal lane.
FAP personnel are mandatory reporters. Everything you say to them, even during what feels like a supportive counseling session, will be documented and handed over to criminal investigators to be used as evidence. You will not be given Article 31(b) rights warnings because it is not their criminal investigation, but the consequences are the same. You must treat any conversation with FAP as a formal interrogation and make no statement without your lawyer present.
Call a Twentynine Palms UCMJ Lawyer Now
When your career is on the line, you need a lawyer who understands the entire operational environment. Our firm has spent two decades navigating the interconnected command structures of the Southern California Marine Corps complex, from the training grounds of Twentynine Palms to the amphibious base of Camp Pendleton. We bring an unmatched level of experience to every case. Contact us at 800-319-3134 to learn how our deep knowledge of this specific region can become your strategic advantage.