The Southeast Office of Gapasin, Capovilla & Williams, LLP is located in Roswell, Georgia, a suburb of Atlanta.
This office location allows GCW Law easy access to several military installations in the State of Georgia as well as the entire Southeastern United States. We are located near a number of military installations, to include Fort Benning, Fort Gordon, Fort Stewart, Hunter Army Air Field, Moody AFB, U.S. Army Camp Merrill, Dobbins Air Reserve Base, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay and Fort Rucker, Alabama.
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 in the Southeast, 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 Georgia and the Southeast:
U.S. v. O-2, United States Army, Fort Benning, Georgia. Second Lieutenant is charged with forcible sodomy and assault of his live-in girlfriend. The complaining witness alleges that the 2LT came home from work and forces her to have anal sex with him. Complaining witness also alleged that the Second Lieutenant choked her during intercourse without permission. Through cross-examination, Mr. Capovilla revealed that the complaining witness had lied to the investigating police officer on at least six different occasions about the facts of the case. Further, during the same line of questioning, Capovilla was able to establish that the complaining witness and the client had a fight days before the alleged assault which supported the client’s position that the complaining witness was fabricating the story to get back at him. Mr. Capovilla called the investigating officer to the stand who testified that the complaining witness had lied to him about many different aspects of the case. Further, Capovilla was able to show that the complaining witness had made several similar false claims against other soldiers. RESULT: NOT GUILTY of ALL Charges and Specifications, NO Federal Conviction, NO Confinement, NO Sex Offender Registration.
U.S. v. E-1, United States Army, Fort Rucker, Alabama. PVT is accused of sexual assault by another Soldier for allegedly penetrating her with his fingers while she was sleeping. The Government refers a charge of sexual assault Article 120, UCMJ, against this young PVT to a General Court Martial. At trial, Mr. Freeburg prepares a solid defense strategy. Though his client had in fact touched the complaining witness while she was sleeping, he does not touch her where he is charged with touching her. RESULT: NOT GUILTY of Sexual Assault. NO Confinement, NO Sex Offender Registration, NO Federal Conviction.
U.S. v. E-7, United States Army, Fort Benning, Georgia. Sergeant First Class is accused of the theft of a sensitive military weapon from Marine Special Forces (MARSOC) in Afghanistan. SFC is also accused of pawning the weapon in the United States. Mr. Freeberg represents the SFC and immediately recognizes problems with the Government’s case. Seeing holes in the Government’s story, Freeburg prepares a creative defense. He avoids opening evidentiary doors and opportunities for the Government to enter in valuable evidence. In order to do this, Freeberg limits the defense case. He instead argues how the prosecution failed to satisfy its high burden of proof and overcome the presumption of innocence. RESULT: NOT GUILTY of ALL Charges and Specifications.
U.S. v. E-5, United States Air Force, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Special Forces Sergeant is charged with multiple specifications of domestic violence under Article 128. Charges are for assault and battery and aggravated assault, to include choking his ex-wife with both hands with a force likely to cause death or serious injury. Sergeant is also accused of pulling her hair, and grabbing the back of her neck with the intent of throwing her down the stairs. At trial, Mr. Capovilla aggressively cross-examines the Government investigator, revealing that the investigator did not report the incident accurately to the Soldier’s chain of command. Through cross-examination, Capovilla reveals that the investigator showed a clear bias in favor of the ex-wife by exaggerating the report to make her injuries look more severe, and even provided unsubstantiated details that proved to be false under cross-examination. Capovilla also reveals that the Government’s investigator was not interested in the truth, but only interested in making the client look like a criminal. After cross-examination, the “crooked” investigator storms out of the room and while in public throws her copy of the investigation onto the floor. RESULT: FULL ACQUITTAL, NOT GUILTY of ALL Charges and Specifications. NO Federal Conviction, NO Confinement.
U.S. v. O-3, United States Army, Fort Polk, Louisiana. Officer is charged with 29 specifications under the UCMJ and faces life imprisonment for alleged violence and sexual assaults against girlfriend. Officer retains Mr. Gapasin who takes case to trial and client is acquitted of multiple specifications for the following offenses: attempt murder, rape, kidnapping, stalking and a majority of the assault and battery allegations. Though found guilty of additional minor offenses, e.g., military-specific offenses, client avoids life in prison as well as sex offender registration. Client to serve minimal confinement due to successful motion resulting in confinement credit of over 600 days. RESULT: Acquitted of Both Specifications of Attempt Murder. Acquitted of all Rape Charges. NO Sex Offender Registration.
U.S. v. E-7, United States Army, Fort Benning, Georgia. Sergeant First Class in the 75th Ranger Regiment, is accused of slamming his wife’s head into a wall two times, choking her, punching her in the face several times, and preventing her from leaving the house. SFC denies the allegations but a police officer who was dispatched to the SFC’s home states that the SFC admitted to the officer that he hit his wife several times which led to his arrest. The police officer also takes pictures at the scene that included dents in a wall and pictures of his wife’s face. The command immediately moves to separate SFC from the Army. SFC immediately retains GCW Law to represent him. Mr. Robert Capovilla and Mr. Mickey Williams begin working on his case. They discover that the story the client’s wife tells compared to the evidence collected does not match. Nothing in the photographs indicate that the wife was punched several times. They learn that the wife had been caught cheating on her husband numerous times and that most who knew her believed her to be a dishonest person. Capovilla and Williams also discover that client’s wife made a false police report in the past. Only two days before the scheduled hearing, the Government reveals that the wife would not be testifying and instead submitted a letter describing the events that occurred that night. The wife states in her letter that her injuries included knots on her head, hemorrhages in both her eyes, a concussion and bruises all over her body. She also makes additional allegations, including rape. At the hearing Mr. Williams aggressively cross-examines the police officer and elicits how client’s wife displayed virtually no injuries and how the police officer could not clearly recall what happened that night. Williams introduces character statements that describe the wife as dishonest and untrustworthy. He also displays photographs of the wife the day after the incident that demonstrate she suffered none of the injuries she claimed in her letter. RESULT: Allegations UNSUBSTANTIATED. Client is RETAINED. NO Involuntary Separation, NO loss of VA benefits, NO loss of Medical benefits, NO loss of military benefits, NO loss of retirement.
U.S. v. WO1, United States Army, Fort Rucker, Alabama. Warrant Officer is accused of forcible rape by his ex-wife and of multiple physical assaults with a firearm on several individuals. WO1 is acquitted in civilian court on the firearms charges. However, the U.S. Army refers the firearms charges to a General Court-Martial along with charges of forcible rape under Article 120, UCMJ. Mr. Freeburg fights his client’s case for an entire year, filing multiple motions and attending several motions hearings until the case goes to a week-long panel trial. At trial, Mr. Freeburg extensively cross-examines the government witnesses, exposing numerous lies and inconsistencies. RESULT: NOT GUILTY of Rape and Other Charges. Only found guilty of pointing an unloaded firearm. Only punishment was a partial forfeiture of pay for two months. NO Sex Offender Registration, NO Confinement.
U.S. v. E-5, United States Army, Fort Benning, Georgia. A SGT, a 27D JAG Paralegal in the 75th Ranger Regiment, is accused of distributing cocaine to numerous other Rangers within the regiment, introducing cocaine onto a Federal installation, attempting to distribute cocaine, and unlawfully storing a personally owned weapon in his vehicle. Even after the SGT’s ETS date had passed, the Government keeps SGT in the Army past his ETS date and prefers charges against him. SGT retains GCW Law to represent him. Mr. Mickey Williams begins investigating the case and contacting various witnesses. It becomes clear that the Government’s case heavily relies on the credibility of one witness, another Ranger. This witness had previously been punished for using cocaine. At the Article 32 Preliminary Hearing, the Government calls this witness to testify that he purchased cocaine from the client. Mr. Williams aggressively cross-examines this supposed “snitch”. During William’s aggressive and lengthy cross-examination, the “snitch” gives in, and finally admits to Williams in this open hearing that he originally told another Ranger that he got the cocaine from someone else at the party, not from the client. Williams pushes even farther, forcing the “snitch” to admit that he would absolutely lie to law enforcement before he would lie to another Ranger. Williams highlighted the “snitch’s” lack of credibility and inconsistencies during his closing argument at the end of the Article 32 hearing. Williams also hammers home how the Government failed to meet its burden of proof, and how the Government’s entire case relied on this “snitch,” an admitted liar. RESULT: Two days after the Article 32 Preliminary Hearing, the Government WITHDRAWS its Charges and DISMISSES THE CASE. NO Involuntary Separation, NO Federal Conviction. Client is allowed to head home after his ETS date with an Honorable Discharge and FULL MILITARY BENEFITS.
U.S. v. E-5, United States Air Force, Robins AFB, Warner Robins, Georgia. Staff Sergeant in Reserves tests positive for barbiturates following a voluntary urinalysis in support of her officer commissioning package. Staff Sergeant claims she never wrongfully used prescription medication. She asserts that she innocently ingested the substance when provided the medication from her sister-in-law for a migraine headache. Air Force proceeds with separation. Staff Sergeant retains Mr. Gapasin to represent her at the board. Gapasin aggressively argues the position of innocent ingestion and harps on the Government’s argument at closing when the Recorder argues, “we don’t know for sure whether she knew what she took.” Gapasin also argues that the seven (7) retention criteria were satisfied in light of several character letters Gapasin obtains for his client, to include one from a Vice-Wing Commander who was her former supervisor. RESULT: FULLY RETAINED.
U.S. v. E-6, United States Army, Fort Benning, Georgia. Staff Sergeant who served in the U.S. Army for eight years (8) as a Special Operator is charged with two specifications of larceny and two specifications of wrongful use of a controlled substance. Mr. Capovilla represents Staff Sergeant at his Article 32 Preliminary Hearing and the Hearing Officer (“PHO”) makes a favorable recommendation. Despite this, the Convening Authority refers the case to a General Court-Martial. At trial, Capovilla proves that his client’s unit had unlawfully and unjustly punished him by confining him to a basement for eight (8) days with no medical treatment despite having several diagnosed medical conditions, to include insomnia, PTSD and severe back pain. Capovilla also proves that his client’s chain of command further punished him by unlawfully banishing him from his unit. As a result, the Military Judge awards Capovilla’s client with over 100 days of confinement credit. Additionally, the Military Judge admonishes the Command from the bench by stating that the Command had “broken” the Soldier and how he, the Military Judge, “refused to break the Staff Sergeant further”. RESULT: NO Confinement, NO reduction in rank, NO discharge. Capovilla’s client completed his Medical Board and is leaving the Army with an Honorable Discharge.
U.S. v. O-3, United States Army, Fort Rucker, Alabama. Officer is accused of abusive sexual contact of female Soldier along with other allegations of conduct unbecoming an Officer and fraternization. Officer denies allegations and retains Mr. Gapasin to represent him. With Mr. Gapasin as counsel, Officer obtains minimal NJP punishment. Government subsequently proceeds to initiate show cause board to separate Officer but Officer requests an Honorable discharge rather than proceed with the Show Cause Board. Mr. Gapasin obtains Honorable Discharge on behalf of his client. RESULT: NO Federal Conviction. NO Sex Offender Registration. Receives HONORABLE Discharge.
U.S. v. O-1, United States Army, Fort Benning, Georgia. Second Lieutenant (2LT) in Officer Candidate School (OCS) is charged with 22 Specifications of Article 86, UCMJ, Failure to Go to Appointed Place of Duty, 4 Specifications of Article 92, Failure to Obey a Lawful Order, and 12 Specifications of Article 134, Disorderly Conduct, Drunkenness. In sum, the 2LT was being charged with 38 specifications of misconduct in violation of three difference Articles of the UCMJ. If convicted, the 2LT faced up to 10 years in prison, a possible Dishonorable Discharge, and total forfeitures of pay. Upon receiving the charges, Mr. Capovilla immediately met with the 2LT and his family, discussed every detail of every charge with them, and drafted a letter to the convening authority asking that the convening authority dismiss all charges and allow the 2LT to attend alcohol rehabilitation. After in-depth negotiations with both the military prosecutor and the chain of command, the convening authority agreed to DISMISS ALL CHARGES upon the 2LT’s completion of alcohol rehabilitation. RESULT: NO Court-Martial, NO Article 15, No separation, and NO Federal Conviction. All 3 charges and their 38 specifications have been dismissed and 2LT is hoping to apply for law school next year.
U.S. v. O-3, United States Army, Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, Alabama. JAG Captain (O-3) is accused of fraternization and three allegations of false official statement. She is accused of malingering and falsifying her condition to obtain medical benefits upon retirement as she had already received orders for a medical separation. Her Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) and Deputy Staff Judge Advocate (DSJA) push for her involuntary separation thereby denying her medical benefits upon discharge. This JAG retains Mr. Gapasin to represent her at a separation board. Gapasin aggressively cross-examines the SJA and many other Government witnesses revealing a toxic leadership and a lack of credibility. The board lasts approximately 17 hours. RESULT: FULLY RETAINED. Client to receive ALL medical benefits.
U.S. v. E-7, United States Army, Fort Benning, Georgia. Sergeant First Class is charged with three specifications of sexual assault under Article 120, UCMJ, and eleven other charges, to include violation of a lawful order (Article 92, UCMJ), maltreatment of subordinates (Article 93, UCMJ) and adultery (Article 134, UCMJ). After interviewing numerous witnesses, Mr. Freeburg prepares an aggressive case strategy for each of the government charges and specifications. Freeburg’s defense included technical legal arguments, alibi defenses and solid cross-examinations of the government witnesses. RESULT: NOT GUILTY or DISMISSAL of 13 Total Specifications. Only reduced one grade in rank for violating an order. NO Confinement, NO Discharge.
U.S. v. O-3, United States Air Force, Eglin AFB, Florida. Captain had been convicted on several charges in State civilian court and was now facing separation in a Board of Inquiry. Captain had served for over 18 years in the military. At the board, Mr. Freeburg strongly advocates on behalf of his client and argues the mitigating facts in support of his client’s case. RESULT: FULLY RETAINED and allowed to retire with all benefits.
U.S. v. E-7, Fort Benning, Columbus, Georgia. Soldier instructor is accused of sexually assaulting three different female trainees at Airborne School. Mr. Gapasin takes case to trial and aggressively cross-examines the female trainees on the stand. The client is acquitted of all sexual assault charges against each of the three female accusers and avoids sex offender registration. RESULT: NOT GUILTY to All Sex Assault Charges. NO Sex Offender Registration.
U.S. v. E-6, Fort Benning, Georgia. Staff Sergeant has a positive urinalysis for a controlled substance. He is notified of a career-ending Article 15 non-judicial punishment (NJP). Mr. Freeburg represents Staff Sergeant and after consulting with Mr. Freeburg, the client rejects the Article 15 and demands trial by court martial. Mr. Freeburg prepares a solid defense of innocent ingestion, arguing that his client never intended to use an illegal substance and that any such taking was inadvertent. Without this intent, Freeburg can prove the taking of the substance was not wrongful and would therefore lead to an acquittal. Freeburg aggressively advocates on behalf of his client before a military panel. RESULT: FULL ACQUITTAL. NO Federal Conviction for Drug Use, NO Conviction, NO Discharge.
U.S. v. E-3, United States Marine Corps, Marine Corps Support Facility, New Orleans, Louisiana. Lance Corporal is charged with sexual assault and assault and battery of a Sergeant E-5. Lance Corporal is also charged with violating a lawful regulation by engaging in an inappropriate relationship. Lance Corporal faces registration as a sex offender. He also gives a videotaped statement to NCIS. Lance Corporal then retains Mr. Gapasin to represent him. Mr. Gapasin aggressively requests certain discovery items, i.e., mental health records of the alleged victim and a diary of hers discovered 2 weeks before trial. Following Mr. Gapasin’s persistent discovery requests and within 2 weeks of trial, alleged victim declines to participate in court-martial. RESULT: ALL Charges and Specifications Dismissed and Withdrawn. NO Sex Offender Registration. NO Federal Conviction.
U.S. v. E-3, Fort Benning, Georgia. PFC is under investigation for over 6 months for sexual assault and abusive sexual contact. PFC’s command flags him, counsels him, and informs him that they will Court-Martial him for the above stated offenses. PFC hires Mr. Capovilla to represent him and to “get [him] out of the dark,” from the investigation. Shortly after being retained, Capovilla informs CID that the client revoked all consent to search or seize his phone or personal belongings. He files a preservation request requiring the military prosecutor to preserve possible exculpatory evidence. Mr. Capovilla meets with witnesses and uncovers the truth that the complaining witness had a boyfriend at the time of the assault and had lied about having consensual sex with the client to protect her reputation in the unit and her relationship. In light of these discoveries, the Government drops the case. RESULT: NO Court-Martial, NO Federal Conviction, NO Sex Offender Registration, and NO Separation Board. PFC is back at work and ready to PCS to his next duty station.
U.S. v. OCS Candidate, United States Army, Fort Benning, GA. Client retains GCW Law after accusations of sexual assault are made by a classmate in training. The client’s accuser claimed that he had grabbed her on her rear-end. The Government began the process of charging the client for grabbing her without her consent and for his own sexual gratification. After a thorough investigation, Robert Capovilla was able to show CID that the complaining witness had a motive to fabricate, i.e., that the alleged victim only made the allegation after his client terminated their relationship. Through the course of GCW’s investigation, GCW uncovered several text messages and photos sent to the client from the alleged victim clearly showing that any sexual contact prior to the breakup was with her consent. As a result of the allegation, client’s commacnd instituted an unlawful no-contact orde. Mr. Capovilla subsequently files an Article 138 Complaint against his client’s commander for the unlawful no-contact order. As a result, the client’s Commander was forced to apologize to the client and thereby destroyed the no-contact order. As a result of Mr. Capovilla’s proactive efforts, charges were not preferred against client. RESULT: ALL CHARGES DROPPED. Allegations found UNSUBSTANTIATED. Client was subsequently MEDICALLY DISCHARGED with HONORABLE Characterization. Received ALL Medical Benefits.
U.S. v. E-4, United States Army, Fort Benning, Georgia. Specialist had been serving for four years and had never before been in trouble for any type of misconduct. Despite this fact, the Specialist was pulled from her unit and told to report to her company Headquarters where MPI was waiting with supposedly incriminating information. MPI informs the Specialist that she was under investigation for stealing thousands of dollars from her ex-roommate and stealing her ex-roommate’s identity. Moreover, Specialist is informed that she would be removed from her job, flagged, barred from promotion, and likely court-martialed. Specialist retains GCW Law to represent her. Mr. Capovilla immediately went to work to find out the truth in her case. After a thorough investigation and several conference calls with our client, Mr. Capovilla discovers that the client’s identity had actually been stolen and that someone had opened up several fraudulent accounts in her name. Capovilla presents this information to both the Command and to law enforcement. Upon discovering this new information, law enforcement drops the case and client is found not guilty of any serious offenses during an Article 15 hearing. After hearing the full story and reviewing the evidence elicited by Capovilla, the Commander decides to suspend any remaining punishment and allow our client to continue with the unit, eventually restoring her place within the company. RESULT: NO Court-Martial, NO Federal Conviction, and NO Separation Board. Client is back at work, hoping to obtain a slot to Airborne School in the spring.
U.S. v E-7, United States Air Force, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Sergeant First Class receives two General Officer Memorandums of Reprimand (GOMORs) in his official military file. This results in the revocation of his Special Forces tab and notification that separation procedures would be initiated. Mr. Freeburg prepares a solid defense based on the mitigating nature of his client’s dedicated and honorable service. RESULT: FULLY RETAINED.
U.S. v. E-6, United States Army, Fort Benning, Georgia. Staff Sergeant (SSG) is accused of sexually touching underage girls in his neighborhood as they wait for the school bus. He is also accused of exposing his penis to another underage girl in the same neighborhood around the same time as the alleged grabbing. SSG purportedly runs around an undercover investigator while indecently fondling his penis. CID immediately apprehends the SSG and takes him to the CID station where they interrogate SSG for nearly two hours. During the interrogation, CID is able to illicit several damning admissions from SSG. CID then interviews several witnesses and accusers who participate in a photographic line-up. Several of the accusers identify the SSG in the line-up. SSG is subsequently charged with violating Articles 120 (Abusive Sexual Contact), 120c (indecent exposure) and 134 (indecent act). SSG immediately retains GCW Law to represent him. Mr. Mickey Williams represents the client at the Article 32 hearing and is able to persuade the preliminary hearing officer to recommend an alternate disposition other than a Court-Martial. Shortly after receipt of this successful recommendation, the client is arrested for assault against an NCO and for pointing a firearm at another NCO. Because of this subsequent alleged misconduct, the Government proceeds to refer the case to a General Court-Martial. Mickey Williams files several motions to suppress and exclude vital pieces of evidence. Williams was able to suppress a photo lineup, several statements by his client made to CID, and he was able to convince the Court to dismiss specifications. At trial, Williams aggressively cross-examined the Government witnesses and aggressively attacked their credibility. Once the Government rested its case, Williams moved the Court to dismiss the Abusive Sexual Contact charge because the Government was unable to produce any evidence of intent. The Court agreed with Williams. RESULT: Abusive Sexual Contact DISMISSED and found NOT GUILTY of indecent exposure. ALL Article 120 charges were DISMISSED or client found NOT GUILTY. As a result, NO Sex Offender Registration.
U.S. v. E-6, United States Army, Fort Benning Georgia. Government initiates a separation board against a Staff Sergeant after 12 years of service. Government seeks to separate this NCO for failing the APFT on two consecutive occasions. At the time of the APFT failures, Staff Sergeant is suffering from significant knee pain that inhibited his ability to perform well during the test. Wanting to be a good Soldier, Staff Sergeant did not go on profile but instead received treatment for his injury from Army medical staff. Mr. Capovilla aggressively defended his client, arguing that he was suffering from an otherwise undocumented medical issue. Because of this medical issue, the unit would be unable to separate Capovilla’s client. Capovilla consequently convinced his client’s Brigade Commander to terminate and dismiss the board. RESULT: FULLY RETAINED. No loss of benefits, no prejudicial discharge.
U.S. v. E-4, Fort Benning, Georgia. Specialist is charged with dereliction of duty in an Article 15 proceeding. Approximately one week before the first reading, a Soldier on the Specialist’s team is discovered to have an ammunition round in his possession after a range. The command wants to blame the Specialist for the unaccounted-for round alleging that the Specialist failed to properly check his Soldier’s gear before exiting the range. Mr. Capovilla represents the Specialist and conducts a counter-investigation that produces eye witness testimony that his client had, in fact, conducted all necessary searches and that he was not derelict in his duties. In negotiations, Capovilla argues for the Article 15 to be dismissed. RESULT: CHARGES DISMISSED, Article 15 terminated, NO rank reduction, NO forfeiture of pay, NO reprimand.
U.S. v. E-5, Fort Benning, Georgia. SGT is accused of the forcible rape and forcible sodomy of another Soldier in Kosovo. SGT had allegedly confessed to the crimes in pretext messages on Facebook but invoked his right to counsel and right to remain silent. Charges of forcible rape under Article 120, UCMJ, and forcible sodomy Article 125, UCMJ, are referred to a General Court Martial and the client is involuntarily recalled to active duty from the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). Mr. Freeburg develops a strategy for dealing with the apparent confession and exhaustively prepares the client for taking the stand in his own defense in front of a panel. RESULT: NOT GUILTY of ALL Charges and Specifications.
Call 1-888-919-UCMJ (8265) or Info@MilitaryLawyer-Defense.com.