Source: http://militaryadvocate.blogspot.com/2017/04/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 12:51:02+00:00

Document:
Recently, in two separate cases, military officer clients represented by attorney Richard V. Stevens (Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.) were exonerated and cleared of the UCMJ allegations they were facing.
In the first case, a military officer faced a lengthy investigation into claims by his former girlfriend that she was sexually assaulted by him (UCMJ Article 120). However, as the investigation progressed and information surfaced, to include electronic communications between them and post-event behavior by the complainant – it became clear that there was no sexual assault as alleged, there was just a former girlfriend with a grudge and a platform (the military sexual assault narrative) to attempt to push her grudge. The case was dropped with no adverse action being taken against the officer.
In the second case, a military officer faced several rounds of investigation into claims of Violation of, or Failure to Obey, a Lawful General Order or Regulation, Willful Dereliction of Duty, and Maltreatment of Subordinates (UCMJ Articles 92 and 93). During the investigation, we submitted two rounds of responses and rebuttals to the allegations. Ultimately, based on those rebuttals, the officer client was cleared and no adverse action was taken against the officer.
While the defense was successful in these military cases, it is important to understand that every case has different facts, and success in some previous case(s) does not guarantee success in any particular future case. No military lawyer or civilian defense lawyer, including those who specialize in military law as we do, can guarantee the outcome of any military case.
Blog postscript: Attorney Frank J. Spinner and I (attorney Richard V. Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law and military justice. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens and The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation. These military defense law offices are located in Colorado Springs, Colorado and Northern Florida/Georgia areas, but the military defense representation is worldwide – when necessary, the attorneys travel to wherever the client is stationed around the world.
Recently, a senior, retirement eligible, military non-commissioned officer defended by attorney Richard V. Stevens (Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.) was found not guilty of the primary court-martial allegation that he committed BAH fraud (UCMJ Article 121, Larceny) worth tens of thousands of dollars. In the court-martial trial, the client was also accused of filing two partial fraudulent PCS travel vouchers (UCMJ Article 132, Voucher Fraud), which resulted in convictions, but were sufficiently minor in nature to merit clemency being granted by the Convening Authority; setting aside the convictions on those minor allegations and handling them with administrative discipline. This allows the client to retire from the military.
The main BAH larceny allegation involved litigation of the credibility and motives of the government’s star fact witness, as well as the interpretation and application of BAH regulations – in which different finance experts were called and re-called to testify. Based on this two-prong attack, the client was found not guilty of the BAH larceny by the court-members (military “jury”), and, based on the minor nature of the other allegations that he was convicted of, he was not sentenced to a punitive discharge or jail time. Then, in post-trial processing, the minor convictions were set-aside in favor of administrative discipline, which allows the client to retire.
While the defense was successful in this military larceny and voucher fraud case, it is important to understand that every case has different facts, and success in some previous case(s) does not guarantee success in any particular future case. No military lawyer or civilian defense lawyer, including those who specialize in military law as we do, can guarantee the outcome of any military case.

References: V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.