Gapasin, Capovilla & Williams, LLP is located in the Regency Executive Center at 1465 Kelly Johnson Boulevard, Colorado Springs, Colorado.
We are located near a number of military installations, to include Fort Carson, Peterson AFB, The Air Force Academy, Schriever AFB, Buckley AFB, and Francis E. Warren AFB. If you are stationed near any of these installations, or if you have a family member stationed nearby who is facing an investigation or has been charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, come visit with us. We will schedule a time to have a face-to-face consultation to discuss your case and to answer any questions you may have. We consistently represent service members stationed at these installations and appear for our clients’ Article 32 Preliminary Hearing, Motions Hearing and Trial, or their Separation Board. If you are stationed at Fort Carson, Peterson AFB, The Air Force Academy, Schriever AFB, Buckley AFB, or Francis E. Warren AFB and if you are under investigation or have been charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, CONTACT US TODAY.
Map to This Location:
Consider some of the cases we have handled out of this area:
U.S. v. E-4, Fort Carson, Colorado. Soldier is accused of assault and battery, assault with a deadly weapon and disrespect of an NCO. Command presumes him guilty without considering the statements of a witness present at the scene of the incident. Client maintains from the beginning he was engaged in self-defense from an aggressive NCO. Unit on the verge of preferring charges against Soldier. Soldier retains GCW Law. Afterwards, the unit declines to prosecute and Soldier follows through on original plan to leave the Army. Refusal to prosecute allows Soldier his opportunity to leave the Army with Honorable characterization of discharge. RESULT: Charges Dismissed. Honorable Characterization of Discharge.
U.S. v. O-4, Fort Carson, Colorado Springs, Colorado: Army officer charged with wrongful sexual contact and assault and battery. Media coverage by Army Times, Stars and Stripes, and local papers due to allegations of hazing against the client and misuse of alcohol at officer function. GCW Law takes case to trial and the client is acquitted of the sexual offenses and assault and battery. The officer panel retains this Soldier with 15 years of service. RESULT: NOT GUILTY of Sex Assault Offenses. NO Sex Offender Registration. NO Discharge. At subsequent separation board, Officer FULLY RETAINED.
U.S. v. E-6, F.E. Warren AFB, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Tech Sergeant is accused by ex-wife of rape after drinks at a resort hotel in Guam. She makes the allegation when she is speaking with her commander. She “unintentionally” makes an unrestricted report of rape when discussing her concerns about being medically discharged from the Air Force. She alleges that the Tech Sergeant violently raped her resulting in significant hip injuries that affected her PT and other matters. This “unintentional” reporting results in an investigation and the preferral of a charge of rape. Tech Sergeant retains GCW Law to represent him in his court-martial. GCW attends the Article 32 Preliminary Hearing and argues that even with the low burden of proof at the Article 32 Preliminary Hearing, the Government fails to present sufficient evidence of “force” as is required for the offense of rape per the 2007-2012 version of the offense. The Preliminary Hearing Officer (PHO) agrees with GCW and recommends dismissal. However, whether prompted by her Special Victim Counsel (SVC) or someone else, the alleged victim provides a second interview with OSI. The Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) commits an ex parte violation by “unofficially” (as put by the SJA in an email) contacting the PHO and requesting his advice to conduct a re-hearing on behalf of the alleged victim. A second hearing is scheduled based on the alleged victim’s second statement to OSI. GCW objects on the basis of Unlawful Command Influence (UCI), the SJA’s ex parte violation and on other grounds. GCW preserves all objections should the Government refer the case to trial. GCW argues at the second Article 32 Preliminary Hearing that even with her second statement, the Government again fails to establish the “force” element of rape. He also notes contradictions and inconsistencies between both of her statements. Subsequently, the PHO issues another recommendation for dismissal. RESULT: Following two Article 32 Preliminary Hearings resulting in recommendations for dismissal, the Government DISMISSES the Charge and Specification of Rape.
Call 1-888-919-UCMJ (8265) or Info@MilitaryLawyer-Defense.com.