US Army V. SGT (Adverse Enlisted Administrative Separation Board)
Fort Hood, Texas
Two different complaining witnesses at two different points accused client of cruelty and maltreatment as well as assault in time. Originally, CID investigated both cases. Both cases had elements of sexual assault to them, however neither case resulted in sexual assault charges being reported. It was vitally important to understand the timeline of events in this case. The first allegation resulting in an article 15 involved Client horsing around with the accuser and calling him chuckles. The accuser, a male, specifically said that any unwanted touching was a sexual touching. The punishment was suspended for that article 15. Then the 2nd allegation occurred. The interesting thing that the defense uncovered was that a very substandard Soldier who worked in the S-1 shop made the 2nd allegation. She made her allegation at the time that our client received his first reading of the first article 15. Her allegations were originally blown completely out of proportion, which sparked a sexual assault investigation. Additionally, thorough investigation revealed that the complaining witness had in fact told several inconsistent versions of events about what occurred, where it occurred and when it occurred. Additionally the defense dug up 9 witnesses who testified to the Client’s character for truthfulness as well as the complaining witnesses character for untruthfulness. Thorough investigation and hard work achieved victory for this Soldier.
Article 120 is the military statute which defines rape, aggravated sexual assault, aggravated sexual contact, and abusive sexual contact. These offenses include different types of unlawful, forced sexual activities on another person. Charges related to sexual misconduct involving a minor fall under Article 120b.