Posted on Jan 22, 2017
A Soldier’s Story of Survival after Being Falsely Accused of Sexual Assault in the U.S. Army -...
18.7K
77
26
7
7
0
Save Our Heroes’ (SOH) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization founded in 2015, and is devoted to passionately advocating, supporting, and helping military service members and their families, who are facing false allegations, wrongful military judicial action, and those who have been wrongfully convicted.
Our Directors, Advisors, and Volunteers are men and women from a wide variety of professions; including current, former, and retired service members from all branches, as well as former and retired law enforcement officers.
In a cooperative effort with similar organizations, we advocate on pending cases, work towards fact and evidence based solutions to improve and reform the military justice system, and to prevent future injustices and abuses.
Please like and share our SOH Facebook page, https://m.facebook.com/SaveOurHeroesProject/
You can learn more about SOH, our interests and efforts, by visiting our website, http://www.saveourheroesproject.com
Or read about what we have been doing to advocate for our service members on our blog, http://saveourheroesproject.org
Our Directors, Advisors, and Volunteers are men and women from a wide variety of professions; including current, former, and retired service members from all branches, as well as former and retired law enforcement officers.
In a cooperative effort with similar organizations, we advocate on pending cases, work towards fact and evidence based solutions to improve and reform the military justice system, and to prevent future injustices and abuses.
Please like and share our SOH Facebook page, https://m.facebook.com/SaveOurHeroesProject/
You can learn more about SOH, our interests and efforts, by visiting our website, http://www.saveourheroesproject.com
Or read about what we have been doing to advocate for our service members on our blog, http://saveourheroesproject.org
A Soldier’s Story of Survival after Being Falsely Accused of Sexual Assault in the U.S. Army -...
Posted from saveourheroesproject.orgPosted in these groups: 
Sexual Assault
UCMJ
Sexual Assault UCMJ
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 11
7
7
0
Sexual assault/harassment's never acceptable. But neither is abandoning due process. I'm a cop and it seems to me this is one type of crime in which many seem to be willing to sacrifice that. I've successfully investigated a few civilian sexual assault cases. Most victims are truthful. But that doesn't mean we ignore the Constitution and the rights of the accused.
(7)
(0)
GySgt Melissa Gravila
MAJ Byron Oyler - the March yesterday left a really bad taste in my mouth for several reasons. I am all for equal rights, don't get me wrong, but equal rights for all, not just a select group. I'm not into the male bashing, or the "you don't agree with me therefore you are wrong" groups, IMO they put women's rights back 50+ years. Some of those women were protesting other women out there for crying out loud!
We all just need to get along- we are wasting way too much energy on all of this hate and it's getting us nowhere fast.
We all just need to get along- we are wasting way too much energy on all of this hate and it's getting us nowhere fast.
(5)
(0)
MAJ Byron Oyler
I have felt for many years many areas such as abortion, women in combat units, women registering for the draft were discussions that were best decided amongst women and that men stay out of them. We may finally be getting to that point. There are plenty of folks out there that will say in regard to their gender or race that neither will hold them back nor unfairly advance them and I see larger battles ahead with the folks at the marches yesterday that want just that. I will stay quiet until women like you and my wife ask for my support and when you do, we will be right there.
(3)
(0)
MSgt Lisa Silva
The answer is NOT MAKE FALSE ALLEGATIONS to save your butt when you get caught underage drinking like in Chestnutt's case. What happens is either a wrongful conviction or you have to pay 30K-250K of your own money you shouldn't have to spend to save your ass from people making up stories. Why are so many enlisted in prison because they don't have the money to pay for a lawyer and they are niece enough to think the Court appointed is going to be able to help. In most cases that is not true because they are inundated with too many cases.
I have really been researching this subject for the last 2 years and there are more service members convicted of ex spouses or girlfriends when the member ended the relationship, asking for a divorce or there is a child custody battle. Most accused service members think they are going to get a fair trial, that if they aren't guilty the investigation and court martial will prove such. Wrong! It's about convictions to prove the military is tough on sexual assault allegations, it isn't about the truth anymore.
This is just 1 lawyers results he has posted, but without his help and just an (overworked) military assigned defense counsel these members would be in Leavenworth as well. Not all women/men are vindictive enough to make false allegations, but 1 is too many. Just like rape is wrong, 1 wrongfully convicted husband, brother, father, son, Hero is too many!
http://www.militarylawyer-defense.com
November 9, 2016, U.S. v. E-5, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. An agent (E-5 SGT) with the Criminal Investigations Division (CID) is at Fort Leonard Wood for investigative training when he is charged with assault and battery under 18 United States Code (“USC”) 113(a)(5). According to reports, another female CID agent who was also at Fort Leonard Wood for training alleged that the Sergeant physically assaulted her. Any misconduct on the Sergeant’s record will completely end his career in law enforcement. Sergeant retains Mr. Gapasin to represent him. Gapasin sees through the accuser’s real motives, which are to avoid punishment after his client had previously accused her of cheating on a test. Videotape footage of the accuser showing her using her cell phone to look up answers to cheat is provided to prosecutors. Gapasin and the client turn down Government offers to plead guilty and instead opt to proceed to trial in Magistrate’s Court. RESULT: Charges filed under 18 USC 113(a)(5) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (meaning they cannot be filed in the future). NO Federal Conviction, NO Confinement.
October 17, 2016, U.S. v. E-6, Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Army Staff Sergeant is accused of sexual assault while he and alleged victim are deployed to Kuwait. Staff Sergeant denies allegations and gives a statement to CID claiming their sexual activity was entirely consensual. Staff Sergeant tells CID to analyze the alleged victim’s cell phone because it would provide evidence that she consented. Nothing is done. Staff Sergeant advises his JAG lawyers to request the cell phone for analysis, however, no such discovery requests are made. Instead, JAG lawyer advises him to agree to 18 months of confinement and plead guilty for assault and battery in order to avoid sex offender registration. Staff Sergeant refuses and instead retains Mr. Gapasin to represent him. Gapasin immediately files a Request for a Digital Forensics Expert to conduct an extraction of the alleged victim’s cell phone. Government denies this request, and CID apparently claims they “found nothing of evidentiary value”. Gapasin files a Motion to Compel Production of Expert, and the Military Judge grants the Motion. Gapasin requests that all Voxer messages from the alleged victim’s cell phone be subpoenaed. Again, Government denies the request, and CID claims their “extraction of the cell phone failed”. Gapasin files a Motion to Compel Discovery, and the Military Judge grants the motion. Gapasin’s forensic digital expert examines the cell phone and digital evidence is extracted supporting the client’s claim that the sexual activity was, indeed, consensual. Evidence from the cell phone also revealed that the alleged victim committed the crime of perjury when she testified under Gapasin’s cross-examination in a prior motions hearing. After multiple additional motions and discovery requests filed by Gapasin, the alleged victim declines to participate and the Government dismisses all charges and specifications. RESULT: ALL Charges and Specifications DISMISSED. NO Federal Conviction, NO Sex Offender Registration, NO Confinement. Subsequent separation board alleging sexual harassment for separate, unrelated accusers was TERMINATED after the Staff Sergeant retained Mr. Gapasin a second time.
October 13, 2016, U.S. v. E-2, Naval Station Mayport, Florida. Seaman Apprentice is accused of sexual assault by his estranged spouse and ordered into pre-trial confinement. Mr. Gapasin represents him and they proceed to a General Court-Martial trial. Gapasin aggressively cross-examines his client’s accuser, exposing her lack of credibility and her attempts to evade questions. For up to two hours, this key witness refuses to respond credibly to Gapasin’s cross-examination questions. Gapasin also reveals what he believes to be her true motives to fabricate, i.e., her desire to falsely accuse Gapasin’s client of sexual assault in order to gain full custody of their then-unborn child. Gapasin argues how the “timeline” is circumstantial evidence of her motives to fabricate. RESULT: FULL ACQUITTAL, NOT GUILTY to ALL Charges and Specifications. NO Sex Offender Registration, NO Federal Conviction, NO Confinement.
September 30, 2016, U.S. v E-5, Rose Barracks, Germany.Sergeant is accused by the Government of BAH fraud, obstruction of justice, communicating a threat and fraudulent enlistment. Sergeant’s estranged wife is the source of the more serious charges, making false allegations against him to avoid trouble for having committed past fraud against the U.S. Army and trying to claim benefits at her husband’s expense. Charges are preferred to a General Court-Martial and Sergeant retains Mr. Gapasin. Gapasin represents his client at the Article 32 Preliminary Hearing and immediately exposes problems with the Government’s evidence. Gapasin reveals at the hearing that an email containing threats to hurt his estranged wife was actually fabricated. The email was doctored by his accuser wife to make it appear that Gapasin’s client was threatening to hurt her if she talked to law enforcement. Gapasin exposes multiple other fabrications on the part of the wife, to include lies about having gone to college, falsely claiming that Gapasin’s client was the father of her son, and conjuring false allegations of being the victim of domestic violence. RESULT: NO Federal Conviction, NO Confinement. Government agrees to Chapter 10 request two weeks before trial after Gapasin files multiple motions and discovery requests.
June 9, 2016, Fort Campbell, Kentucky, U.S. v. O-2. First Lieutenant is accused of forcible rape and several counts of assault and battery by estranged spouse, who is another Lieutenant whom he met in the Basic Officer Leadership Course (BOLC). The Government prefers 13 specifications for rape, sexual assault, assault and battery, conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentlemen, communicating a threat, extortion, and violating a lawful order. The Government also charges the client with the sexual assault of his first ex-wife. The First Lieutenant retains Mr. Gapasin to represent him in this case involving spiteful, bitter domestic issues. At a 4-day trial before an Officer Panel, Gapasin reveals a number of alarming facts: how the alleged victim had a male officer stay at her home just days after filing for divorce, how she and the client had an adventurous sex life seeming to show consent or mistake of fact, and most importantly, that she had a motive to fabricate when she reported. This is because she reported two days after receiving notice from her company commander that an investigation against her for adultery was inevitable. Gapasin also called an expert in cell phone forensics to testify that a text message stream that she took screenshots of and provided to law enforcement had been modified. Client adamantly denied sending a text that said, “you can’t rape your wife.” This was a text that was contained within the faked text message stream provided by the accuser. Gapasin’s cross-examination of the alleged victim revealed her evasiveness and a lack of credibility. The ex-wife declined to participate following the filing of Gapasin’s motions and discovery submissions. RESULT: FULL ACQUITTAL, NOT GUILTY to ALL 13 Specifications. NO Sex Offender Registration. NO Confinement. NO Federal Conviction.
SPC (Verify To See) -
I have really been researching this subject for the last 2 years and there are more service members convicted of ex spouses or girlfriends when the member ended the relationship, asking for a divorce or there is a child custody battle. Most accused service members think they are going to get a fair trial, that if they aren't guilty the investigation and court martial will prove such. Wrong! It's about convictions to prove the military is tough on sexual assault allegations, it isn't about the truth anymore.
This is just 1 lawyers results he has posted, but without his help and just an (overworked) military assigned defense counsel these members would be in Leavenworth as well. Not all women/men are vindictive enough to make false allegations, but 1 is too many. Just like rape is wrong, 1 wrongfully convicted husband, brother, father, son, Hero is too many!
http://www.militarylawyer-defense.com
November 9, 2016, U.S. v. E-5, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. An agent (E-5 SGT) with the Criminal Investigations Division (CID) is at Fort Leonard Wood for investigative training when he is charged with assault and battery under 18 United States Code (“USC”) 113(a)(5). According to reports, another female CID agent who was also at Fort Leonard Wood for training alleged that the Sergeant physically assaulted her. Any misconduct on the Sergeant’s record will completely end his career in law enforcement. Sergeant retains Mr. Gapasin to represent him. Gapasin sees through the accuser’s real motives, which are to avoid punishment after his client had previously accused her of cheating on a test. Videotape footage of the accuser showing her using her cell phone to look up answers to cheat is provided to prosecutors. Gapasin and the client turn down Government offers to plead guilty and instead opt to proceed to trial in Magistrate’s Court. RESULT: Charges filed under 18 USC 113(a)(5) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (meaning they cannot be filed in the future). NO Federal Conviction, NO Confinement.
October 17, 2016, U.S. v. E-6, Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Army Staff Sergeant is accused of sexual assault while he and alleged victim are deployed to Kuwait. Staff Sergeant denies allegations and gives a statement to CID claiming their sexual activity was entirely consensual. Staff Sergeant tells CID to analyze the alleged victim’s cell phone because it would provide evidence that she consented. Nothing is done. Staff Sergeant advises his JAG lawyers to request the cell phone for analysis, however, no such discovery requests are made. Instead, JAG lawyer advises him to agree to 18 months of confinement and plead guilty for assault and battery in order to avoid sex offender registration. Staff Sergeant refuses and instead retains Mr. Gapasin to represent him. Gapasin immediately files a Request for a Digital Forensics Expert to conduct an extraction of the alleged victim’s cell phone. Government denies this request, and CID apparently claims they “found nothing of evidentiary value”. Gapasin files a Motion to Compel Production of Expert, and the Military Judge grants the Motion. Gapasin requests that all Voxer messages from the alleged victim’s cell phone be subpoenaed. Again, Government denies the request, and CID claims their “extraction of the cell phone failed”. Gapasin files a Motion to Compel Discovery, and the Military Judge grants the motion. Gapasin’s forensic digital expert examines the cell phone and digital evidence is extracted supporting the client’s claim that the sexual activity was, indeed, consensual. Evidence from the cell phone also revealed that the alleged victim committed the crime of perjury when she testified under Gapasin’s cross-examination in a prior motions hearing. After multiple additional motions and discovery requests filed by Gapasin, the alleged victim declines to participate and the Government dismisses all charges and specifications. RESULT: ALL Charges and Specifications DISMISSED. NO Federal Conviction, NO Sex Offender Registration, NO Confinement. Subsequent separation board alleging sexual harassment for separate, unrelated accusers was TERMINATED after the Staff Sergeant retained Mr. Gapasin a second time.
October 13, 2016, U.S. v. E-2, Naval Station Mayport, Florida. Seaman Apprentice is accused of sexual assault by his estranged spouse and ordered into pre-trial confinement. Mr. Gapasin represents him and they proceed to a General Court-Martial trial. Gapasin aggressively cross-examines his client’s accuser, exposing her lack of credibility and her attempts to evade questions. For up to two hours, this key witness refuses to respond credibly to Gapasin’s cross-examination questions. Gapasin also reveals what he believes to be her true motives to fabricate, i.e., her desire to falsely accuse Gapasin’s client of sexual assault in order to gain full custody of their then-unborn child. Gapasin argues how the “timeline” is circumstantial evidence of her motives to fabricate. RESULT: FULL ACQUITTAL, NOT GUILTY to ALL Charges and Specifications. NO Sex Offender Registration, NO Federal Conviction, NO Confinement.
September 30, 2016, U.S. v E-5, Rose Barracks, Germany.Sergeant is accused by the Government of BAH fraud, obstruction of justice, communicating a threat and fraudulent enlistment. Sergeant’s estranged wife is the source of the more serious charges, making false allegations against him to avoid trouble for having committed past fraud against the U.S. Army and trying to claim benefits at her husband’s expense. Charges are preferred to a General Court-Martial and Sergeant retains Mr. Gapasin. Gapasin represents his client at the Article 32 Preliminary Hearing and immediately exposes problems with the Government’s evidence. Gapasin reveals at the hearing that an email containing threats to hurt his estranged wife was actually fabricated. The email was doctored by his accuser wife to make it appear that Gapasin’s client was threatening to hurt her if she talked to law enforcement. Gapasin exposes multiple other fabrications on the part of the wife, to include lies about having gone to college, falsely claiming that Gapasin’s client was the father of her son, and conjuring false allegations of being the victim of domestic violence. RESULT: NO Federal Conviction, NO Confinement. Government agrees to Chapter 10 request two weeks before trial after Gapasin files multiple motions and discovery requests.
June 9, 2016, Fort Campbell, Kentucky, U.S. v. O-2. First Lieutenant is accused of forcible rape and several counts of assault and battery by estranged spouse, who is another Lieutenant whom he met in the Basic Officer Leadership Course (BOLC). The Government prefers 13 specifications for rape, sexual assault, assault and battery, conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentlemen, communicating a threat, extortion, and violating a lawful order. The Government also charges the client with the sexual assault of his first ex-wife. The First Lieutenant retains Mr. Gapasin to represent him in this case involving spiteful, bitter domestic issues. At a 4-day trial before an Officer Panel, Gapasin reveals a number of alarming facts: how the alleged victim had a male officer stay at her home just days after filing for divorce, how she and the client had an adventurous sex life seeming to show consent or mistake of fact, and most importantly, that she had a motive to fabricate when she reported. This is because she reported two days after receiving notice from her company commander that an investigation against her for adultery was inevitable. Gapasin also called an expert in cell phone forensics to testify that a text message stream that she took screenshots of and provided to law enforcement had been modified. Client adamantly denied sending a text that said, “you can’t rape your wife.” This was a text that was contained within the faked text message stream provided by the accuser. Gapasin’s cross-examination of the alleged victim revealed her evasiveness and a lack of credibility. The ex-wife declined to participate following the filing of Gapasin’s motions and discovery submissions. RESULT: FULL ACQUITTAL, NOT GUILTY to ALL 13 Specifications. NO Sex Offender Registration. NO Confinement. NO Federal Conviction.
SPC (Verify To See) -
Military Lawyers | Military Attorney | Newsom & Gapasin
Newsom & Gapasin has a proven track record of success in the courtroom. They have positioned themselves among the top military lawyers in the world.
(2)
(0)
MSgt Lisa Silva
*** By the way I have never spoken to this lawyer and am not endorsing him, I just shared the link of his success stories and proof that he posted.
(2)
(0)
6
6
0
I'm all for prosecuting true predators but all to often the accused is "Guilty until proven Guilty". Evidence (or lack thereof) doesn't seem to matter. The simple act of someone saying, "I was assaulted!" appears to be all they need to pronounce guilt.
(6)
(0)
CPT Mark Gonzalez
MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P - Upon the initial allegation you will legal advice and law enforcement involvement if needed. You can gather a lot of information fairly rapidly. I would say based on how that initial information looks, that yes people are treated guilty until proven otherwise. However, if the initial information doesnt add up, it would depend upon the leadership. Either way they would be stuck in a purgatory hold until it is fully processed.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
An investigation and the handling can take months and the Soldier is flagged during this time. The authority is withheld at higher levels and therefore a local commander cannot lift the flag. Well meaning measures by congress have added several legal layers that add weeks/months to the process. Most of the cases I saw the accused was guilty, but one in particular it took forever and I truly believe the accused was innocent. Again, for most cases I believe the accused was guilty and if I had it my way the punishment would be extreme, but that is not our system.
It gets tricky, unwanted touching could be a handshake and sexual harassment can be a victim taking a completely innocent remark the wrong way. Not to mention there are people with mental health issues who make accusations. You have to presume the victim is being honest, but it is very real that due process punishes innocent people while proving they are innocent. A case that looks like nothing and is unfounded will still take multiple months to process. This is really tough especially when you are sitting flagged and unable to go to school, pcs or be promoted. Having witnessed the process it will mentally break people's desire to continue service as they feel betrayed by the country they serve and it doesn't surprise me that they would feel guilty until proven innocent.
It gets tricky, unwanted touching could be a handshake and sexual harassment can be a victim taking a completely innocent remark the wrong way. Not to mention there are people with mental health issues who make accusations. You have to presume the victim is being honest, but it is very real that due process punishes innocent people while proving they are innocent. A case that looks like nothing and is unfounded will still take multiple months to process. This is really tough especially when you are sitting flagged and unable to go to school, pcs or be promoted. Having witnessed the process it will mentally break people's desire to continue service as they feel betrayed by the country they serve and it doesn't surprise me that they would feel guilty until proven innocent.
(5)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google