An Air Force noncommissioned officer faced five specifications in a contested special court-martial. Four did not result in convictions. The sole conviction concerned a six minute late arrival, and the sentence was a reprimand.

The broader dispute

The service member had raised concerns about command practices and disciplinary treatment through military channels. The court-martial followed a series of workplace and disciplinary disputes, beginning with his arrival approximately six minutes late to a meeting he had requested with his commander. The defense developed evidence that he had been at work supervising personnel and supporting mission requirements, and that he had attempted to address a scheduling conflict before the meeting. He had declined nonjudicial punishment and exercised his right to trial; additional specifications were later brought.

The firm investigated the history of the dispute and filed a motion arguing that escalating disciplinary action after protected complaints and the exercise of procedural rights amounted to vindictive prosecution. The motion assembled contemporaneous memoranda, witness statements, disciplinary records, and the chronology of complaints through command and Inspector General channels. It argued that the service member's protected communications and exercise of rights provided essential context for the charges. Vindictive prosecution remained a defense theory; no finding to that effect is claimed here.

The contested findings

The matter went to trial on five specifications involving attendance, disrespect, and alleged false statements. The service member was found guilty only of the Article 86 specification arising from the late arrival. The other four specifications did not result in convictions. The adjudged sentence was limited to a reprimand.

Result

Four of five specifications ended without conviction. The sole conviction concerned approximately six minutes of tardiness, and the sentence was a reprimand.

View additional Case Results and information about the firm's Courts-Martial and Appeals practice.

Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Results depend on the particular facts and legal circumstances of each matter.