October 21, 2020, U.S. v. E-6, United States Army, Fort Knox, Kentucky. Supply Staff Sergeant with the New York City Recruiter Battalion is accused of larceny under Article 121 and under Article 107 for false official statement for purportedly lying to CID. Staff Sergeant asserts his innocence and retains Mr. Gapasin to represent him. Gapasin had been retained on a previous BAH fraud case from the same battalion for a different client. The Government accuses Gapasin’s client of stealing approximately $100,000 over a period of two years by collecting BAH that he should not have been collecting because he lived in Coast Guard Housing. Mr. Gapasin proceeds to trial. He cross-examines the Government’s expert in Defense Finance and Accounting as well as his client’s estranged, hostile spouse. The spouse provides the Government with a number of legal documents. She tries to help the Government prove that her husband had the mental state of mind to steal from the Government and had knowledge of the wrongful, excess BAH payments he received. Gapasin cross-examines additional witnesses that the Government puts on the stand. Ultimately, however, Mr. Gapasin argues before an Enlisted Panel why the Government failed to satisfy its burden of proof to show his client intended to steal. RESULT: NOT GUILTY of ALL Charges and Specifications. NO Federal Conviction.

August 26, 2020, U.S. v. E-6, United States Army, Fort Knox, Tennessee.  Staff Sergeant who is a DA-selected recruiter with the New York City Recruiter Battalion is accused of larceny under Article 121 and of giving a false official statement to a CID agent under Article 107.  The Government prefers charges against him for allegedly committing BAH fraud against the United States by knowingly collecting twice as much as his typical base pay and not contacting the Army to inform them that he was incorrectly getting paid double for over 25 months.  In an interrogation video, the Staff Sergeant claimed he did not know that he was getting paid twice of what he should have made.  He also claimed that he properly turned in all of his paperwork for Coast Guard Housing and if there was a problem with his pay, then his pay should have been stopped by the Army or by the Coast Guard.  The Government prefers charges and the Staff Sergeant retains Mr. Gapasin to represent him.  At trial, Gapasin exposes weaknesses in the Government’s case and its failure to satisfy their high burden of proof.  Gapasin attacked the Government’s case because it only used statements made by his client at the video interrogation, and because it only focused on his LES’s and the increase in entitlements that they claim Gapasin’s client should have noticed after 16 years of military service.  Gapasin argued before an Enlisted Panel that  merely “assuming” what his client thought or believed was not the hard, solid facts needed under the law to satisfy the high burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt. RESULT:  NOT GUILTY of ALL Charges and Specifications.  Gapasin’s 16-year NCO continues with his career and has the opportunity for retirement.

July 24, 2020, Board of Inquiry, Lieutenant O-3, United States Navy, Commander Fleet Activities Sasebo, Japan.  Lieutenant becomes the subject of a sexual assault investigation that takes place onboard a ship.  An allegation is made by a junior enlisted sailor against this officer, claiming that he forced himself on her in his stateroom which was located on the O-6 level of the ship.  Because the alleged victim tells the Government that all she wants is for the officer to get separated, the Government decides not to prefer charges to a General Court-Martial.  The Government does, however, NJP this officer and initiates a Board of Inquiry to separate him from the Navy after over 20 years of service as both an enlisted member and an officer.  The Lieutenant retains Mr. Gapasin to represent him and to save his career.  Gapasin focused on the seemingly absurd facts of the allegations, i.e., how she ended up on the O-6 deck without being seen, how she wasn’t heard by a witness who lived in an adjacent stateroom, and how she immediately received an expedited transfer from Sasebo to San Diego.  Gapasin also called the ship’s commander to testify about negative observations he made of the accusing sailor, to include incidents of malingering, lying to her mother about not receiving proper care on the ship, and expressing feelings of illness but still taking liberty when the ship arrived at the Philippines.  RESULT:  3-0 Vote by the Board that the allegations were UNSUBSTANTIATED.  Client with 23 years in the Navy is RETAINED and will receive FULL RETIREMENT BENEFITS.

June 20, 2020, U.S. v. E-5, United States Marine Corps, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia.  Government prefers four charges against Sergeant of filing false and fraudulent claims (Arts. 132 and 124), false official statement (Art 107) and larceny (Art 121).  A combined number of 32 total specifications are preferred against him.  Sergeant faces considerable confinement and the possibility of a punitive discharge after being charged with allegedly submitting false lodging receipts for seeking reimbursement for utilities and other living expenses that he purportedly was not entitled to.  Sergeant maintains his innocence and retains Mr. Gapasin.  Gapasin immediately files a Motion to Dismiss due to Unlawful Command Influence (UCI) and enters into evidence a clandestine recording of the First Sergeant taken by another Marine in his client’s unit.  In the recording, the First Sergeant admits to the lack of guidance by the leadership, and he attempts to strong arm a number of Marines to take NJP to avoid a “court-martial and a dishonorable discharge”.  Although the motion was denied, Gapasin reveals a number of flaws in the Government’s case through witness testimony and evidence admitted during litigation of the motion.  Gapasin’s client continues to maintain his innocence although other Marines in similar circumstances accept NJP.  By accepting NJP, they later deal with DFAS’s recoupment of more than 30,000.00 dollars for each Marine due to their alleged fraud.  Gapasin proceeds to trial and focuses on the “sloppy, rushed administration of travel vouchers” as well as the lack of proper guidance by the command and its “one receipt policy” that resulted in countless mistakes to the financial detriment of the Marines.  Gapasin cross-examines the Government’s DFAS expert as well as the First Sergeant who admits there are a number of “gray areas” in the travel voucher process.  RESULT:  FULL ACQUITTAL of ALL 32 Specifications.  NO Federal Conviction, NO Confinement, NO Discharge.

March 9, 2020, U.S. v. E-2, United States Air Force, Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. Airman is accused of the serious offense of the distribution of illegal substances in Alamogordo, New Mexico. Airman adamantly denies participation in any such activity and retains Mr. Gapasin to represent him. According to two other Airman, one of which agrees to testify under a grant of immunity, Gapasin’s client provides the name and contact information of the seller, then takes the other Airman to an apartment complex in town, and directs the sale of drugs from this seller to the two Airmen. Both give statements to OSI that the client was present and arranged the distribution, but client continues to deny participating. Gapasin conducts his investigation and learns that both committed false official statements to OSI in order to save their own skins. Both are well-known drug users at Holloman AFB, yet the Government never even obtained a positive urinalysis on Gapasin’s client. Not only did Gapasin expose several contradictions and inconsistencies in the two “snitches'” expected testimony, but Gapasin’s review of the data extraction on the cell phones did not reveal texts from the client to the buyers as he was accused of having. Lastly, Gapasin presented the Government with its “Alibi” witness, who was expected to testify that Gapasin’s client was not even in Alamogordo, NM at the time of the alleged distribution. RESULT: ONE WEEK BEFORE TRIAL, charges against Mr. Gapasin’s client are DISMISSED AND WITHDRAWN. No Federal Conviction, NO Confinement.

February 18, 2020, U.S. v. E-7, United States Army, Camp Humphrey, South Korea. Sergeant First Class is charged by the Government for a DUI under Article 113, UCMJ and for violating Army Regulation 58-1 and therefore wrongfully using a Government-owned motor vehicle for other than official purposes under Article 92. Both allegations stem from events occurring on the same evening. The Government proposed that this Sergeant First Class take a deal by pleading Guilty to both counts in exchange for a cap on confinement, but for multiple months that simply was not equal to the punishment. SFC retains Mr. Gapasin to represent him. Rather than simply accepting the deal, Gapasin continued to push forward to trial, requesting that a forensic toxicologist be appointed to the Defense Team. The Defense also did not waive the Article 32 Preliminary Hearing but instead argued for dismissal or reducing the level of court-martial to a Special rather than a General Court-Martial. The Preliminary Hearing Officer agreed and recommended that the level of disposition be changed from a General Court-Martial to a Special Court-Martial. With the level of disposition reduced to a Special, and with Mr. Gapasin continuing to push to trial, the Government agreed to negotiations favorable to Gapasin’s client. RESULT: REPRIMAND ONLY. No Federal Conviction, No Separation for DUI, NO Confinement.

December 10, 2019, U.S. v. O-4, United States Army, Joint Forces Training Base, Los Alamitos, California. Reservist Major is accused of engaging in reprisal against a senior NCO in his company. This is after the senior NCO reported alleged misconduct by members of the company when deployed. Videos were taken by the NCO showing Soldiers allegedly violating the Rules of Engagement. These videos were somehow “leaked” to the press and eventually shown by television media and also went viral. Footage showed Soldiers in Humvees firing non-lethal bean bags into nearby vehicles on the highway. Major is accused of reprisal against this NCO under the DoD Whistleblower regulations. Major retains Mr. Gapasin to represent him. Gapasin strategically represents his client with the primary goal to result in unsubstantiated findings that the client took personnel actions against the NCO for making protected communications, e.g., hindered promotion, transferred his duty position, wrote up negative NCOERs. Client faces court-martial or other adverse action such as a separation board if findings are substantiated that the client did violate whistleblower regulations. Gapasin engages the DoD IG appointed to investigate this high-profile Whistleblower case. Gapasin is present to represent his client for what will be a grueling 6-hour interview held at Los Alamitos and conducted by the DoD Inspector General. RESULT: Client found NOT to have violated DoD Whistleblower Regulations, and allegations of such violations are held UNSUBSTANTIATED. 

See More Case Results From 2008 To Present (click here)

2 Scott Air Force Base MPs Face Courts-Martial For Trafficking Drugs On Base And In Soulard

Mr. Gapasin is interviewed as Subject-Matter Expert for High-Profile case out of Scott AFB

Why Hire Worsham & Gapasin?

Focused On Military Criminal Defense And Separation Boards.

WORSHAM & GAPASIN is an aggressive, top-quality Law Firm with cases that have been reported on by hundreds of media outlets across the country and around the world, to include: CNN, Fox News, Newsweek, The Washington Post, Rolling Stone, Time, USA Today, 60 Minutes, Stars and Stripes, Air Force Times, Army Times, Navy Times, Associated Press, The New York Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal and Las Vegas Sun, among many others.

(Note:  Your Location Does Not Matter.  We Represent Clients Wherever The Military Is Stationed.) 

The Best Defense Is An Early Defense. Having The Right Military Lawyer On Your Side From Day 1 Is The Key To A Successful Defense.

Are You Facing A Similar Legal Situation?

• Military law enforcement wants your permission to search your home, computer, and personal things?
• You are the next target of the military’s overly aggressive sexual assault policy?
• You are being investigated and no one has told you why and even your command refuses to give you any details?
• Your commander orders you to write out a “sworn” statement about what happened even though you want legal advice?
• You go to an off-post restaurant and see the prosecutors in your case having lunch with your detailed JAG lawyer?
• An officer was appointed to investigate your legal situation and wants you to come in and write out a statement?
• Your detailed JAG lawyer keeps telling you to sign off on the discharge for an Other Than Honorable Discharge even though you want to stay in the military?
• Military law enforcement told you that agreeing to do a polygraph was the best way of closing the investigation against you?
• Your chain of command, the prosecutor and your detailed JAG lawyer tell you that taking nonjudicial punishment is your best choice even though you are innocent and want to fight the allegations?
• You are being told that if you agree to nonjudicial punishment rather than a court-martial, your unit promises not to initiate separation proceedings afterwards — but they don’t want to put it in writing?
• Did you sign a sworn statement against your will or without knowing your rights?
• Your detailed JAG lawyer is trying to convince you that you will be convicted if you don’t sign the guilty plea even though you already told him that you are in fact innocent?

If so, call Worsham & Gapasin so you know your rights and what to do when you are facing these life and career-threatening situations. Fill out the form to the left, click “Submit”, and we will call you shortly for your free telephone consultation.

Remember, a quick plea deal may not be in your best interests, and may wreck your life down the road. Ask yourself: 5 years from now, when you look back on this decision to take the deal and not to fight the charges, is that a decision you’re going to regret? The answer is almost always yes — especially when your free military lawyer forces you to take a deal you don’t want. Call us. We will discuss all of your options with you, not just a guilty plea.

If you are facing an investigation or if you are pending charges for any of these offenses, whether it is for nonjudicial punishment (e.g., Article 15, Mast, Office Hours or a Summary Court-Martial), or for Special or General Courts-Martial, call Worsham & Gapasin as soon as possible. Be warned, any mistakes you or your free, detailed military lawyer make early in the process will haunt you for the rest of the case.  It is critical that you have experienced counsel right away.

What A Recent Client Had To Say . . . 

“I was facing serious charges of UCMJ Article 120 for sexual assault and rape. It was an extremely long process that lasted years. I retained Ernesto and he immediately began working my defense and was very upfront about the conviction I could be facing. Ernesto was with me every step of the way and was available 24/7 whenever I needed any help or had any questions. Ernesto’s professionalism, analytical skills, cross examination, and overall performance was simply outstanding. I would not trust any other attorney with my case other than Ernesto. During the court martial, Ernesto stood out well above anyone else and proved to be an extremely valuable member of the defense team from his preparation to his execution; he left nothing on the table and gave it all he had. In the end the court found me NOT GUILTY and acquitted all charges. Ernesto’s overall performance was the best anyone could ask for. I would highly recommend Ernesto to anyone who is facing serious charges if you are looking for a serious defense attorney who will do anything he can to protect you.” — 4 Nov 2017, posted on AVVO.

(**Read other testimonials by clicking the “Resources” tab above, and then clicking on “Client Testimonials”).

You, your family, and your career are our top priorities.  Worsham & Gapasin will aggressively defend you to protect your rights, to win your case, and to give you your day in court. If you are serious about hiring a military defense attorney to defend you, call or email us now and we can discuss your matter privately and in confidence. We focus on winning tough cases.