GAPASIN LAW GROUP handles cases in Japan and Okinawa. When Mr. Gapasin was on Active Duty, he was stationed on Okinawa, so he is very familiar with the location and how legal matters are handled there. Gapasin frequently represents clients on Japan and Okinawa and will be physically present for any hearing or trial. If you are stationed in the Far East and under investigation, or if you have been charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, CONTACT US TODAY.
Fill out and Submit the "Contact Us Form" and we will contact you immediately for a No-Cost Consultation.
Here are some cases we have handled out of Japan and Okinawa:
U.S. v. O-3E, United States Marine Corps, Camp Foster, Okinawa Japan. A Captain in the Marine Corps with 22+ years of service is accused of an Article 89, UCMJ, violation by showing disrespect to his Commanding Officer. The Captain is also accused of committing conduct unbecoming an officer, in violation of Article 133, UCMJ. The Government hands the Captain a page 11, but subsequently initiates a Board of Inquiry. Knowing that he faces the potential loss of his retirement, and knowing that the Government was pursuing an Other Than Honorable Discharge (OTH) the Captain retains Mr. Gapasin to represent him at the board. The board is set to proceed on Okinawa, and Gapasin and his client manage to obtain approximately 32 character letters in support of his client. At the board, Mr. Gapasin focuses on the extremely stressful events of the entire day which then culminated in his client, the Commanding Officer, and the Managing Officer all standing on the parking lot of base lodging late in the evening. Mr. Gapasin provides the Officer Board a detailed chronology of the start of the day, and how his client is tasked to help reel in an intoxicated, disorderly Marine officer experiencing personal struggles. The client starts his morning locating this officer and driving around looking for him in his attempt to help him and to avoid getting PMO involved. The client is helping this officer to avoid getting arrested and to avoid any damage to that officer's career. Client reels him in multiple times and gets him to a hotel room away from the intoxicated Marines' family. Client disagrees with his leadership's decision to issue the intoxicated Marine a no contact order. This Marine is drunk, and his reaction could be dangerous not just to others but to himself. After the CO and MO speak with the intoxicated Marine once he is corralled in a hotel room, the Marine goes berserk striking Gapasin's client in the chest. Shortly after, the three of them meet in the parking lot of the hotel where the allegations involving Gapasin's client allegedly takes place. At the Board, Gapasin emphasizes his client's stellar career, and elicits positive testimony about his client's duty performance and good military character. Gapasin also brings home the idea that this incident simply is not the 4.8 million dollar mistake, which is the amount of money his client would earn by the time he reached 85 years old unless he was separated at this hearing. RESULT: Board Of Inquiry RETAINS Gapasin's client. NO Discharge, NO Other Than Honorable Discharge, and Mr. Gapasin SAVES CLIENT'S RETIREMENT after 22+ years.
U.S. v. E-5, Misawa AFB, Japan. Staff Sergeant is accused of the use and possession of illegally-obtained valium. Accusations of his illegal use are made shortly following a urinalysis that was conducted which resulted in a positive finding. Intensive investigation is made against the Staff Sergeant and notably against his wife, a nurse practitioner who purportedly had access to medications through the Air Force pharmacy system as well as through other channels. Charges are preferred against the Staff Sergeant and he retains Mr. Gapasin to represent him. Gapasin immediately files his request for the appointment of an expert toxicologist for purposes of trial. Primary defense, however, is innocent ingestion, in that the accused innocently took or ingested medications without the knowledge that the medication was taken illegally. Government requests that Gapasin stipulate to a number of witnesses in order to lay a proper foundation for entering evidence at trial against the client. Government also requests that Gapasin permit two important OSI agents to testify via video rather than be physically present. Gapasin rejects all Government requests and aggressively proceeds to trial. RESULT: ALL Charges are DISMISSED just before trial. NO Federal Drug Conviction, NO Confinement, NO Discharge.
Lieutenant O-3, Board of Inquiry, 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.
U.S. v. O-3, Camp Zama, Japan. Captain dentist is accused of the possession of illegal drugs, false official statement and the solicitation of others to distribute unlawfully prescribed drugs. Allegations were based on using his position as a dentist to illegally obtain drugs. Captain accepted an Article 15 but then faced separation with possibility of an “Other Than Honorable Discharge” in a subsequent Board Of Inquiry (“BOI”) initiated against him. Captain retains Mr. Gapasin to represent him. Gapasin seeks to argue how his client had overcome the reason for the show cause proceeding by emphasizing the client's performance and exemplary conduct since the initiation of the investigation against him. Gapasin drafts and submits a rebuttal to the Initiation of Elimination arguing that the elimination action be terminated and that he be retained pursuant to Army Regulation 600-8-4. Client prepares an affidavit and includes in the submission. Gapasin focuses on client's good military character, reasons he should be retained and how he has matured as an Army Officer and dentist. Following submission of Gapasin's rebuttal, the Convening Authority reconsiders the initiation of the Show Cause Board. RESULT: Elimination Action TERMINATED, Captain overcomes reason for the show cause proceeding. FULLY RETAINED, NO DISCHARGE.
U.S. v. E-5, Yokota AB, Japan. Fight between two Air Force members breaks out in “Bar Row” just outside of Yokota AB. The Government prefers serious felony assault and battery charges against Staff Sergeant. Alleged victim Airmen incurs a broken jaw resulting in multiple surgeries with extensive recovery. Government further charges the Staff Sergeant with the intent to inflict Grievous Bodily Harm, which carries additional years of confinement. With just 1-2 weeks before trial, Staff Sergeant retains Mr. Gapasin to represent him at court-martial. Gapasin moves the Court for a continuance which is subsequently granted. Gapasin finds clear self-defense on the part of his client. Gapasin aggressively cross-examines the alleged victim at trial and reveals his lack of credibility and exaggeration of facts. Witnesses whom Gapasin calls testify that the alleged victim bullied client's Airmen whom the client was defending, physically assaulted the client and yelled derogatory names at him while intoxicated. This Airman continues to “play the victim and not the bully” from the witness stand. Ultimately, serious assault and battery charges are dismissed and client is only found “administratively” guilty of disorderly conduct. RESULT: NO Federal Conviction. NO Confinement. NO Reduction in Rank. NO Discharge. Minor punishment of forfeitures and restrictions to base.
U.S. v. E-7, Torii Station, Okinawa, Japan, U.S. v. E-7. Sergeant First Class assigned to 1-1 Special Forces is accused of attempting to deceive his chain of command with false official documents. Sergeant First Class is accused of forging a fictional commander's name on his leave forms when he attended a HALO course in the States, and with attempting to deceive his command when he allegedly modified his evaluation reports (called NCOERs in the Army). He denies the allegations and retains Mr. Gapasin to represent him. Gapasin investigates Special Forces unit and finds a culture of “unwritten,” sloppy policies regarding the process of taking leave in the States. Gapasin also reveals major flaws in the evaluation process thereby revealing how his client did not intend to deceive anyone regarding his evaluation. Gapasin goes to trial and cross-examines several high-ranking members of this Special Forces unit. RESULT: NOT GUILTY of both Article 107 specifications for forging a fictional commander's name and for modifying an NCOER with the intent to deceive. NO Confinement. NO Reduction in Rank. Minor forfeiture of pay for unauthorized absence without leave.
U.S. v. E-6, United States Marine Corps, Iwakuni, Japan. Charges are preferred against Staff Sergeant for numerous offenses involving alleged sexual harassment and bullying of several female subordinates. Staff Sergeant is also accused of violating general orders for the manner in which he stored and transported explosives and flammable military property. He is charged under Article 92 for violatiWorsham & Gapasinful orders. Ultimately, Staff Sergeant is charged under eight (8) total specifications. He retains Mr. Gapasin to represent him. Client has only 18 months prior to retirement. His primary goal is to stay out of confinement and to simply retire after those 18 months. Gapasin represents his client aggressively, filing motions on his behalf, to include a Motion to Exclude Evidence under M.R.E. 404(b), in order to keep out aggravating evidence which includes allegations of his client engaging in inappropriate sexual conversations with multiple women at the Base Exchange and a restaurant. Gapasin goes to Iwakuni, Japan to litigate the motions. Multiple specifications are eventually deemed insufficient by the Military Judge and the Government opts to dismiss those specifications. Client enters a plea and accomplishes his goals. RESULT: NO DISCHARGE. Client is allowed to finish the remaining 18 months of his career and RETIRE, saving his military benefits.