Blog

The Defense Base Act (DBA) provides critical workers’ compensation benefits to civilian employees working on U.S. military bases and government contracts overseas. While the DBA clearly covers physical injuries, many contractors and their families wonder: Does the DBA cover health conditions like Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI)? The answer is yes, but navigating the claims process for these conditions can be more challenging than for physical injuries.

What is the Defense Base Act?

The DBA extends the protections of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) to civilian contractors working on military bases, defense projects, or government contracts outside the U.S. This coverage includes medical treatment, disability benefits, and compensation for work-related injuries. Given the nature of these jobs, workers often face hazardous conditions, including combat zones, high-risk construction sites, and disaster relief efforts.

How PTSD and TBI Fall Under the DBA

PTSD and TBI are two of the most common yet complex injuries suffered by civilians working in war zones and high-risk environments. These conditions can have long-term effects on a person’s mental and physical health, affecting their ability to work and perform daily tasks.

PTSD Coverage - The DBA recognizes PTSD as a compensable injury if it is directly related to the claimant’s job duties or work environment. Civilian contractors exposed to combat situations, terrorist attacks, natural disasters, or other traumatic events may be eligible for benefits. However, proving PTSD claims requires strong medical documentation and evidence linking the condition to the worker’s experiences on the job.

TBI Coverage - Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI) often result from explosions, falls, vehicle accidents, or other high-impact incidents. Even if symptoms do not appear immediately, TBIs can cause significant cognitive, physical, and emotional impairments over time. The DBA covers medical care and disability compensation for these injuries, but claimants must establish a clear connection between their work and the injury.

Challenges in Proving PTSD and TBI Claims

Filing a DBA claim for PTSD or TBI is often more complex than for physical injuries. Some of the most common hurdles include:

1. Establishing Work-Related Trauma: Unlike a visible physical injury, PTSD and TBI rely heavily on psychological evaluations, medical history, incident reports, and witness statements. Claimants must demonstrate that their condition stems from their work environment rather than unrelated personal stressors.
2. Medical Diagnosis and Treatment: A formal diagnosis from a qualified medical professional is essential. Claimants must show that they have received consistent medical treatment and that their condition significantly impacts their ability to work.
3. Employer and Insurer Pushback: Insurance companies may dispute PTSD claims, arguing that symptoms are due to pre-existing conditions or unrelated life events. In TBI cases, insurers may contest the severity of the injury or claim that symptoms are exaggerated. Having strong medical records and legal representation is crucial in overcoming these disputes.

Steps to Take if You Suffer from PTSD or TBI

If you believe you have PTSD or a TBI due to your work as a civilian contractor, taking the right steps can protect your rights and strengthen your claim:

1. Seek medical attention immediately – Early diagnosis and treatment can improve your condition and provide essential medical records for your claim.
2. Document incidents and symptoms – Keep a detailed record of any traumatic events you experience, including dates, locations, witnesses, and symptoms.
3. Report your injury to your employer – DBA claims must be reported promptly, so notify your employer as soon as possible.
4. File a DBA claim – Ensure you complete the necessary paperwork and meet all deadlines.
5. Consult with an experienced DBA attorney – Legal guidance can help you navigate the claims process, gather the necessary evidence, and fight back against insurance disputes.

Why Legal Representation Matters

Navigating a Defense Base Act claim for PTSD or TBI can be overwhelming, especially when facing employer resistance or insurance pushback. An experienced DBA attorney understands the legal intricacies of these cases and can help you secure the compensation and medical care you deserve.

Contact Military Justice Attorneys Today

If you or a loved one are suffering from PTSD or TBI due to work covered under the Defense Base Act, you have legal options. Military Justice Attorneys is committed to helping civilian contractors secure the benefits they are entitled to. Our experienced team understands the challenges of DBA claims and is ready to fight for you. Call (843) 773-5501 today for a consultation.

Few things are more tragic and gut-wrenching than the death or injury of an unborn child. Under Article 119a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), a service member who commits a violent crime that results in the death or injury to an unborn child may be prosecuted not only for their crime against the mother but also for what happens to the child in their womb. If convicted, the punishment can be severe and life-altering for the service member.

Military Justice Attorneys (MJA) has defended service members facing investigation, court-martial, and discipline for the most serious offenses under the UCMJ, including manslaughter. Contact our military defense lawyers today to learn more about your rights and options if you have been accused of murder or the death of an unborn child.

What is Article 119a, UCMJ (Death or Injury of an Unborn Child)?

Article 119a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes it a crime if a service member causes the death or injury to an unborn child while committing one of the following serious offenses:

• Article 118 (Murder)
• Article 119(a) (Voluntary Manslaughter)
• Article 119(b)(2) (Involuntary Manslaughter)
• Article 120(a) (Rape)
• Article 122 (Robbery)
• Article 126 (Arson)
• Article 128 (Assault)
• Article 128a (Maiming)

To be found guilty, it is not required that the person know that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant or that the person intended to cause the death or injury to the unborn child.

What Offenses are Listed under Article 119a?

There are four potential charges under Article 119a, UCMJ:

1. Injuring an Unborn Child: To be guilty of injuring an unborn child, the Government must prove the following elements: (1) that the accused was engaged in the murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, maiming, assault, or arson of a structure of a woman; (2) that the woman was pregnant; and (3) that the accused caused bodily injury to the unborn child of that woman. Bodily injury is broadly defined and can include a “cut, abrasion, bruise, burn, or disfigurement; physical pain; illness; impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; or any other injury to the body, no matter how temporary.”
2. Killing an Unborn Child: To be guilty of killing an unborn child, the Government must prove the following elements: (1) that the accused was engaged in the murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, maiming, assault, or arson of a structure of a woman; (2) that the woman was pregnant; and (3) that the accused caused the death of the unborn child.
3. Attempting to Kill an Unborn Child: To be guilty of attempting to kill an unborn child, the Government must prove the following elements: (1) that the accused was engaged in the murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, maiming, assault, or arson of a structure of a woman; (2) that the woman was pregnant; and (3) that the accused intended and attempted to kill the unborn child of that woman;
4. Intentionally Killing an Unborn Child: To be guilty of killing an unborn child, the Government must prove the following elements: (1) that the accused was engaged in the murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, maiming, assault, or arson of a structure of a woman; (2) that the woman was pregnant; and (3) that the accused intentionally killed the unborn child of that woman.

What is an “Unborn Child” under Article 119a?

An “unborn child” is defined as a “child in utero” which is any child who is carried in the womb, at any stage of development, from the moment of conception to birth.

Is Knowledge of the Pregnancy Required under Article 119a?

No, depending on the charge, the accused does not need to know the woman is pregnant to be guilty under Article 119a. For example, the offenses of injuring an unborn child and killing an unborn child do not require proof that the accused knew or should have known that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant, or that the accused intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.

On the other hand, if a service member is being charged with attempting to kill an unborn child, the Government must prove that the accused intended by his conduct to cause the death of the unborn child.

Does Article 119a Criminalize Abortion?

Article 119a does not criminalize abortion. It is not a violation of Article 119a for a female service member to voluntarily have an abortion where she has consented to the procedure or undergoes any medical treatment which results in injury or death to the unborn child.

Are There Any Potential Defenses to Article 119a?

Rule for Court-Martial 916 provides multiple defenses to both Article 119a and underlying serious offenses which the Government must prove. These include justification (that the death caused was in the proper performance of a legal duty and is justified and not unlawful), obedience to orders, self-defense, accident, and lack of mental responsibility.

For example, a service member who shoots and kills a woman in self-defense could be charged with killing an unborn child under Article 119a, even if the accused did not know she was pregnant. In a case like that, the accused could argue at trial that using lethal force against the mother was legally justified and therefore they should be found not guilty of any unexpected death or injury to the unborn child.

Defenses do not, however, prove themselves. A successful defense to the charge of manslaughter will often require the use of experts in the fields of firearms, gunshot residue, bloodstain pattern analysis, crime scene reconstruction, forensic psychology, forensic pathology, and digital forensics, to name a few. A skillful attorney can identify the experts required to prepare a successful defense.

What's the Maximum Punishment under UCMJ Article 119a?

The maximum punishment for death or injury to an unborn child is dependent on the underlying offense but would likely carry the risk of a dishonorable discharge and years if not decades of confinement. The death penalty is not authorized for a violation of Article 119a.

Is Pretrial Confinement Authorized for Allegations of Article 119a?

Yes, service members suspected of the death or injury of an unborn child will likely be placed in pretrial confinement while awaiting court-martial based on the severity of the allegations. This is a devastating punishment that significantly impacts a service member’s ability to prepare for trial. Service members held in pretrial confinement beyond their end of active service (EAS/ETS) are not entitled to pay and allowances while in confinement.

Any commissioned officer may order any enlisted person into pretrial confinement. Officers may only be ordered into pretrial confinement by their commanding officer. Within 7 days of the imposition of pretrial confinement, a “detached and neutral” officer is required to independently review the confinement decision. The officer may order that the service member be released from pretrial confinement. Later, the military judge assigned to the case may also order their release.

MJA has successfully fought to have service members released from pretrial confinement for some of the most serious UCMJ offenses, including manslaughter. When properly litigated, a service member unlawfully confined may be entitled to significant sentencing credit and even back pay.

What Are My Rights When Accused under Article 119a?

Key rights that you can and should invoke while under investigation for a violation under UCMJ Article 119a include:

• Right to remain silent: Service members have an absolute right to remain silent if questioned about a suspected UCMJ violation. Providing a statement to law enforcement rarely helps and may result in additional charges. If the statement you make is different from that of the alleged victim, you may be charged with making a false official statement or obstructing justice. “Cooperating” with law enforcement won’t prevent the command from taking adverse action against you–it just makes the government’s case stronger.
• Right to counsel: Service members suspected of a crime have the absolute right to consult with an attorney, military or civilian, before waiving their rights. It is crucial to consult with an attorney if you are suspected of a crime. Remember that no matter the specific legal circumstances you are facing, you are entitled to legal counsel and should utilize it.
• Right to refuse consent: There is no obligation to consent to any search or seizure of your person or property. If investigators have probable cause to believe that there is evidence of a crime in a certain location, they must obtain authorization from a commander before conducting the search. Absent probable cause, the only way law enforcement can search or seize your property is with your consent. Providing consent gives law enforcement the right to search your phone, vehicle, residence, or person for evidence that they intend to use against you. Don’t be fooled.

Protect Your Freedom & Your Military Career

When your life, career, and future are on the line, get an experienced law firm in your corner immediately. The skilled and experienced military criminal defense attorneys at MJA have defended service members facing investigation, court-martial, and discipline for the most serious offenses under the UCMJ, such as Article 119a (death or injury of an unborn child). We can explore all avenues of defense and aggressively fight for your rights and reputation.

The litigation surrounding Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) continues to unfold, with significant developments in the multidistrict litigation (MDL) that impact military personnel, veterans, and others exposed to toxic firefighting foam. If you or a loved one have been affected by AFFF exposure, it is important to stay informed about your legal options—because it’s not too late to file a claim.

AFFF and Its Link to Health Risks

AFFF has been widely used by the military and civilian firefighting units for decades due to its effectiveness in extinguishing fuel-based fires. However, mounting evidence has linked its per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to serious health concerns, including kidney cancer, liver cancer, thyroid cancer, testicular cancer, as well as thyroid disease and ulcerative colitis. Many military bases, airports, and training facilities used AFFF extensively, leading to widespread exposure risks.

Where Does the MDL Stand?

The AFFF lawsuits have been consolidated into an MDL in the U.S. District Court in South Carolina. This consolidation helps streamline pretrial proceedings and ensures consistency in handling the vast number of claims. Recent updates indicate ongoing settlement discussions, scientific reviews, and expert testimonies, all of which play a crucial role in determining accountability and potential compensation for affected individuals.

We are still accepting new clients with qualifying medical conditions. If you were exposed to AFFF and have experienced qualifying medical conditions, you may still have the opportunity to pursue legal action.

Why Filing Now Matters

Many service members and veterans who worked in firefighting, hazardous materials handling, or on military bases may have unknowingly been exposed to PFAS through AFFF use. Filing a claim now ensures that your case is considered within the legal timeframe and that you don’t miss out on potential compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and other damages.

Stay Informed & Protect Your Rights

If you or a fellow service member have been affected by AFFF exposure, know that you have options. Military Justice Attorneys is committed to ensuring service members receive the fair treatment they deserve. If you have any questions about filing an AFFF claim or need legal guidance, please call (843) 773-5501 to connect with Military Justice Attorneys today.

When service members submit to a routine drug test, they expect a process that is fair, accurate, and transparent. However, recent reports suggest that the military’s urinalysis program may not be as reliable as it appears. In an investigative piece by Military Times, alarming discrepancies and mismanagement within a military drug screening lab have called into question the integrity of the entire testing system.

For those facing disciplinary action due to a failed drug test, understanding these issues is critical. At Military Justice Attorneys, we have seen firsthand how unreliable testing procedures can lead to wrongful accusations, jeopardizing careers and futures. Here’s what you need to know about the flaws in the military’s drug testing system and what you can do if you’ve been unfairly targeted.

Flaws in the Military’s Drug Testing System

1. Inconsistent Lab Procedures Across Branches

Each military department operates its own drug testing program, with some using different testing methods, cutoff levels, and lab protocols. This lack of standardization means that a soldier in the Army could have a different outcome than a Marine under identical circumstances. The inconsistency raises concerns about fairness and reliability, particularly when a positive test can result in administrative or punitive discharge, or charges under the UCMJ. 

2. Mishandling and Contamination Risks

The Military Times investigation uncovered instances of mislabeled samples, improper storage, and contamination. Even minor clerical errors can result in false positives, and without proper oversight, service members may be punished for drugs they never consumed. Unlike civilian drug testing, military labs operate with limited external regulation, reducing accountability for mistakes.

3. Lack of Transparency in Test Results

Unlike many civilian workplaces, military drug screening labs do not allow independent retesting or verification. Service members often have no access to their full lab records and must rely on a chain of command that may be more interested in maintaining “zero tolerance” statistics than ensuring accuracy. This makes it extremely difficult for service members to challenge questionable results.

A Case That Exposes Major Issues

The flaws in the military’s drug testing system aren’t just hypothetical—they have real consequences for service members. Take the case of Gunnery Sgt. Rory R. Hirst, a Marine with an 18-year career, who was convicted and sentenced to six months of confinement based on a positive drug test for cocaine. Hirst maintained his innocence, arguing that the test results were incorrect. However, his attempts to challenge the evidence were met with resistance.

The Military Times investigation later exposed shocking lapses at the Navy Drug Screening Laboratory in Great Lakes, Illinois—the very lab responsible for Hirst’s test. Whistleblowers revealed that urine samples were frequently left unrefrigerated for extended periods, documentation was falsified, and quality control protocols were ignored. Despite his conviction being overturned, Hirst still suffered irreparable damage to his career and reputation.

His case underscores the dangers of an unreliable system: a single, flawed drug test can lead to devastating consequences, even for service members with otherwise exemplary records. If it could happen to him, it could happen to anyone.

What You Can Do if You Fail a Military Drug Test

If you’ve tested positive for a banned substance, don’t assume the results are accurate or that your case is hopeless. Here are some critical steps to take:

1. Request Your Lab Records – While the military doesn’t always make this easy, you have the right to review the documentation associated with your test.

2. Seek Legal Representation – A military defense attorney can help you challenge the test results, identify errors, and protect your career.

3. Consider Alternative Explanations – Certain medications, supplements, and even poppy seeds have been known to cause false positives. A legal team can help build a defense based on scientific evidence.

4. Push for a Retest – While the military often resists independent testing, a skilled attorney may be able to challenge the original test’s validity.

Contact MJA Today

If you or a fellow service member are facing disciplinary action due to a drug test, know that you have options. Military Justice Attorneys is committed to ensuring service members receive the fair treatment they deserve. If you have any questions about challenging a military drug test or need legal guidance, please call (843) 773-5501 to connect with Military Justice Attorneys today. 

The COVID-19 vaccine mandate was a contentious issue within the U.S. military, forcing thousands of service members into difficult dilemmas—either comply with the order or face discharge. While the DoD’s 2021 vaccination requirement was framed as a necessary measure to ensure force readiness and protect personnel from COVID-19, it also led to significant hardship, particularly for service members who sought exemptions on religious or medical grounds but were denied.

Ultimately, many who refused the vaccine were administratively separated, often with general discharges that impacted their benefits, career opportunities, and future in the Armed Forces. The rapid rollout of the mandate, coupled with inconsistent guidance and a sham exemption process, left many feeling abandoned by the very institution they had dedicated their lives to serving.

At Military Justice Attorneys, we’ve seen firsthand the challenges service members endured during this turbulent time and have remained committed to fighting for service members were discriminated against and unjustly punished for their stance. If you were discharged for refusing the vaccine and have questions about reinstatement, contact us today for a consultation.

Background

On August 24, 2021, the Secretary of Defense mandated that all service members receive the COVID-19 vaccine. The Secretary of Defense later rescinded the mandate on January 10, 2023. Despite being rescinded, over 8,000 service members were discharged under the Biden administration due to their COVID-19 vaccination status.

Many, if not most, were discharged for “serious misconduct” and did not receive a fully honorable characterization. Prior to their discharge, these service members were shamed, mocked, ridiculed, discriminated against, and made to suffer incalculable personal and professional damage. They were then unceremoniously kicked out and forced to uproot their lives during a period of great uncertainty.

The Secretary of Defense’s recission memo required the removal of adverse information for individuals currently serving in the Armed Forces but required veterans who were discharged for refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine to petition their respective Discharge Review Board or Board for Correction of Military Records to request removal of adverse information

Executive Order Reinstating Service Members

Now, in 2025, the landscape has shifted.

On inauguration day, President Trump vowed to reinstate service members who were discharged for refusing to comply with the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

On January 27, 2025, President Trump delivered on that promise by signing an Executive Order aimed at reinstating service members who were discharged solely for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine. This marks a dramatic policy reversal and offers a new path forward for those affected by the mandate.

What the Executive Order Says

President Trump’s executive order, titled "Reinstating Service Members Discharged Under the Military’s COVID-19 Vaccination Mandate," directs the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to take concrete steps toward reversing the impact of the vaccine requirement. The order states:

"The vaccine mandate was an unfair, overbroad, and completely unnecessary burden on our service members. Further, the military unjustly discharged those who refused the vaccine, regardless of the years of service given to our Nation, after failing to grant many of them an exemption that they should have received. Federal Government redress of any wrongful dismissals is overdue."

In response to these concerns, the executive order mandates the following actions:

1. Reinstatement of Discharged Service Members. Service members who were involuntarily discharged solely due to their refusal to take the COVID-19 vaccine can request reinstatement. Those reinstated must be returned to their prior rank and pay grade and will receive full back pay, benefits, and any compensation or bonuses they would have earned had they not been separated.
2. Reinstatement for Those Who Voluntarily Left Service. Service members who chose to separate or allowed their service contract to lapse due to the vaccine mandate may also return to duty. If they provide a written, sworn attestation stating that the mandate was the reason for their departure, they will be reinstated without penalty or loss of rank, pay, or status.
3. Accountability and Implementation Timeline. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security must report back to the President within 60 days on their progress in executing this order. The order does not provide details on how reinstatement will be handled for service members who have since moved on to other careers or reenlisted under different terms. These details will likely be clarified as policies are developed.

Read the full Executive Order here along with a Fact Sheet further explaining the action.

What This Means for Discharged Service Members

For thousands of former military members, this executive order presents a potential opportunity for reinstatement, back pay, and restoration of lost benefits. However, it also raises important questions about how the reinstatement process will be carried out and whether all discharged service members will qualify.

Here’s what you need to consider if you were separated due to the vaccine mandate:

1. What Happens If You Were Discharged for Refusing the Vaccine? If you were discharged solely for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine, you now have the option to apply for reinstatement. If granted, you will be restored to your previous position, rank, and benefits. However, if your discharge was not solely due to vaccine refusal—such as if you also had other disciplinary actions—it is unclear whether you will be eligible for reinstatement.
2. What About Those Who Took General or Other-Than-Honorable Discharges? Many service members received general discharges instead of honorable ones due to their refusal to comply with the vaccine mandate. This has had serious repercussions, including loss of GI Bill benefits, VA healthcare eligibility, and future career opportunities. This executive order suggests that those individuals should be eligible to have their discharges upgraded if they return to service. However, the exact process for correcting discharge statuses remains to be seen.
3. What If You Already Moved On? Many service members who were discharged due to the vaccine mandate have since moved on to civilian careers, obtained new employment, or enrolled in higher education. The order does not force anyone to return—it is voluntary. However, those who have adjusted to civilian life may still want to explore whether they qualify for compensation or benefits restoration without necessarily rejoining the military.
4. Will There Be Any Compensation for Those Who Choose Not to Return? While the executive order ensures back pay for those who do return, it does not explicitly mention whether service members who decline reinstatement will receive any financial redress for their wrongful discharge. This could be an issue that courts or Congress will need to address in the coming months.

Next Steps for Affected Service Members

1. Stay Informed on Implementation Policies. This executive order sets the groundwork for reinstatement, but the actual process will depend on how the DoD and DHS implement these policies. Service members should monitor updates from the military branches regarding application procedures and eligibility requirements.
2. Consult Legal Counsel Before Making a Decision. The decision to return to service is not one to take lightly. If you were discharged under the vaccine mandate, it’s important to understand your eligibility for reinstatement, what benefits or pay you may be entitled to, and how this could impact your long-term military career. Speaking with a military law attorney can help clarify your options and determine the best path forward.
3. Prepare Documentation for Your Reinstatement Request. If you plan to seek reinstatement, gather all documentation related to your separation, including your DD-214, discharge paperwork, and any exemption requests you previously submitted. Being proactive will help speed up the process once applications open.

MJA is Here to Help

At MA we have been advocating for service members since the vaccine mandate was first implemented. If you or someone you know was discharged due to the vaccine requirement and wants to explore reinstatement or benefits restoration, we can help you:

• Determine eligibility for reinstatement
• Navigate the application process
• Advocate for discharge upgrades or lost benefits
• Assess your rights and options

This executive order marks a major shift, but the details still need to be worked out. Our team at MJA is actively monitoring new developments and is available to answer questions from veterans nationwide. To speak with a lawyer, call (843) 773-5501 or contact us online.

Attorney Jon Shelburne of Military Justice Attorneys has secured a not-guilty verdict for a Fort Cavazos Soldier who was charged with murder. Staff Sergeant Marlone Best fatally shot Larry Kidd Jr. in an altercation, but a self-defense argument posed by Attorney Shelburne convinced the jurors that his actions were justified, avoiding a conviction that would have changed his life dramatically forever. From all of us at Military Justice Attorneys, we congratulate Attorney Shelburne on this important case result for a military service member in a difficult situation.

Details of the Killeen Fatal Shooting

In February 2024, Staff Sgt. Marlone Best was in a fast food restaurant at night in Killeen, Texas, when Larry Kidd bumped into him and said, “I’m going to kill you.” The violent threat would have been random had Kidd not been harassing and threatening Best for several months because Best was dating Kidd’s ex-wife. Previously, Kidd sent Best threatening text messages, attempted to jump him at his home with several other men, and attempted to hit his car (occupied by Best and his two daughters) with his own vehicle.

Fearing that Kidd was going to attempt to imminently act on his death threat, Best struck him as he turned away, beginning a brawl that culminated in Best discharging his personal firearm four times in the parking lot, striking Kidd twice. Afterward, when people attempted to provide first aid to Kidd, Best brought a medical kit out of his car to assist them. He stayed at the scene and allowed the police to arrest him peaceably.

Best’s Criminal Charges & Trial

Following the shooting, Best was charged with two counts of murder: unpremeditated murder and murder that occurred while engaged in behavior that was dangerous and disregarded the safety of others (due to the shooting taking place in the parking lot of a busy restaurant). If he was convicted, he could have been sentenced to life in prison. The Army Office of Special Trial Counsel was set to prosecute the case, and the panel of jurors included four military officers, so Best sought the legal counsel of a criminal defense team with insight into military criminal proceedings.

Attorney Jon Shelburne, joined by Attorney Major Steven Dray, began to examine the details and available evidence of the altercation. Security footage from three cameras inside the restaurant helped show the truth of the scene, including Kidd’s death threat to Best. Other evidence, like the text messages Kidd sent to Best to threaten him in the past, proved just as important when preparing the case.

Ultimately, it was decided that a self-defense argument, including the defense of Best’s children, was the correct approach. With Kidd’s history of attempts to harm Best and his children, it was argued that the use of his firearm in the altercation was justified. After several hours of deliberation and a question to the judge about the definition of self-defense under the law, the jurors agreed and returned a not-guilty verdict.

With the harrowing incidents and the trial behind him, Best plans to resume his Army career. He was going to attend recruiting school the same week that Kidd threatened him in the restaurant, so he can now continue that plan. Again, we congratulate Attorney Shelburne and thank him for securing this important case result for a military service member who needed a strong defense and got it.

To learn more about this case, you can click here to read a full article from Stars and Stripes, a digital publication about news related to the military and veterans.

Contact MJA Today

When your career, freedom, and future are on the line, you need an experienced law firm in your corner. Military Justice Attorneys has defended service members facing investigation, court-martial, and discipline for some of the most serious offenses under the UCMJ. Contact us today and set up a consultation.

It was an exciting, fast-paced, and ground-breaking year for MJA, filled with battles won, clients we were proud to represent, and expansion into new and exciting practice areas.

In 2024, MJA fought victoriously for clients at courts-martial, administrative separation boards, and the military’s correction boards, as well as defended service members facing a host of adverse administrative actions—with specular results. MJA also represented active-duty service members and veterans in federal litigation for claims arising under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), Camp Lejeune Justice Act, and Defense Base Act.

Through it all, MJA has worked diligently to provide our clients with the highest quality representation and to fulfill our mission to Defend Those Who Defend Us.

Court-Martial Defense

MJA’s court-martial practice saw continued success in 2024, resulting in huge wins for clients including non-prosecutions and the dismissal of charges from numerous courts-martial.

One memorable case involved a non-commissioned officer in the United States Air Force who was charged at a general court-martial for allegations of sexual assault in violation of Article 120, UCMJ. MJA worked closely with the client throughout the trial and even pre-trial phases, including the felony investigation by the Air Force OSI and the Article 32 pre-trial investigation. MJA aggressively defended the client and litigated every aspect of the Government’s prosecution. At trial, all charges and specifications were withdrawn and dismissed “with prejudice” based on new developments in the case. The Airman’s Commander directed that no further adverse action be taken against the client and that his personnel hold be lifted, allowing him to continue to serve honorably in the Air Force.

MJA successfully fought for dismissal of charges in numerous other courts-martial across the Department of Defense with allegations ranging from drug abuse to sexual assault, resulting in careers and retirements being saved. Court-martial defense remains at the heart of MJA’s military law practice. It means the world to us that we are able to know our clients personally, fight for them in their darkest hour and share in their celebration when we succeed!

Administrative Separation Defense

MJA successfully represented numerous service members facing administrative separation in 2024, including multiple findings of “NO BASIS” for service members who tested positive for “Delta 8” THC.

In one case, a senior enlisted member in the United States Navy was processed for involuntary administrative separation after testing positive on a urinalysis for Delta-8 Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC 8). MJA argued key evidence that supported innocent (i.e., unknowing) ingestion of a hemp-derived substance lawfully sold and commonly found in vapes, edibles, and lotions. In light of the evidence—including character witness testimony—and the oral presentation of MJA counsel, the Administrative Separation Board had no choice but to find that the Government's evidence was insufficient to establish any basis for separation. The Board denied the command's recommendation for substantiation and retained the Sailor on active duty.

In another case, a Specialist in the United States Army was threatened with potentially career-ending consequences after testing positive for THC-8. After engaging the Soldier’s leadership, the command elected not to prefer charges to court-martial or take the Soldier to a separation board. MJA represented the client as their spokesperson for nonjudicial punishment in accordance with the Manual for Courts-Martial, UCMJ, and Army Regulation 27-10 and 15-6. In light of the rebuttal matters submitted to the Commander for consideration, the Commander directed that all rank reduction and forfeitures be suspended and that the Soldier be recommended for retention. Involuntary administrative separation was not initiated.

In a case involving a reservist, a non-commissioned officer in the United States Navy Reserve was threatened with an involuntary administrative separation and Other than Honorable (OTH) characterization of service after testing positive for Delta-8 Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC 8) on three occasions. MJA represented the Sailor at the board hearing and presented a compelling case of innocent ingestion of the substance. After hearing all the evidence, the Board determined that the Government’s evidence was insufficient to establish any basis for separation and retained the client in the United States Navy Reserve.

These are just a few of the many results MJA saw in its administrative separation defense. MJA is honored to fight for the careers of servicemembers.

Administrative Rebuttals / Appeals

in our administrative rebuttals and appeals practice, MJA helped numerous service members in 2024 overcome adverse administrative actions they were facing.

In one case, a senior enlisted Sailor in the United States Navy Reserve was improperly issued an adverse evaluation and counseling record for inclusion in his permanent military record. MJA expertly advised the client on the process for requesting redress or filing a Complaint of Wrongs, pursuant to Navy Regulation and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. On behalf of the client, MJA submitted a request for redress to the commanding officer. After carefully considering the facts and circumstances, as well as the firm’s legal analysis, the Commanding Officer granted the requested redress. This extremely favorable outcome will allow the Sailor to be meaningfully considered for promotion and to advance their military career.

In another case, a Specialist in the Army National Guard was threatened with dismissal from an Army school following a formal Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 investigation into the alleged use and possession of contraband/nicotine, as prohibited by the military school, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. MJA worked closely with the client and witnesses to avoid such career-ending consequences. MJA responded to the false allegations with the proper tone and highlighted key evidence in defense. In light of MJA’s rebuttal, the Commander directed that no permanent adverse action be taken against the client. The client graduated without any loss of rank or pay and will now be permitted to continue their Honorable service in the Army National Guard

In other administrative actions, MJA successfully worked to get sexual harassment allegations unsubstantiated, GOMORs rescinded or locally filed, and other adverse actions terminated.

Military Correction Board Appeals

At the military’s correction boards, MJA helped clients upgrade their characterization of service, expunge titling and indexing determinations, and remove unfavorable records from their official military records.

In a case before the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB), MJA represented a former Marine Corporal who was discharged with an Other than Honorable (OTH) characterization of service after receiving two NJPs and multiple counselings for violating Article 86 (AWOL) and 92 (Orders Violation), UCMJ. MJA provided substantial evidence to the NDRB that the Marine's rights were violated during the separation process and that an OTH discharge was unjust under the circumstances. The NDRB agreed with MJA that the Marine's service met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance and that MJA submitted substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity in government affairs. Based on these findings, the Board unanimously determined that an OTH discharge was inequitable and upgraded the Marine to a FULLY HONORABLE characterization of service.

In another case, MAJ represented a Sergeant in the United States Army before the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB). The Sergeant was administratively separated for misconduct (serious offense) under AR 635-200 and given a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, separation code JKQ, and reentry code 3 after refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine. MJA petitioned the ADRB for a discharge upgrade. The Board determined that the Soldier’s discharge was inequitable and upgraded the Soldier’s characterization of service to fully “Honorable,” changed the narrative reason for separation to “Completion of Required Active Service”, changed the separation code to “KBK,” and changed reentry code to RE-1 which would allow the Soldier to rejoin the military should he so choose.

Titling appeals, in particular, are extremely difficult. In one memorable case, MJA represented a former Marine who was voluntarily released from active duty, seemingly in good standing. However, criminal background checks showed otherwise, as the former NCO was investigated by NCIS for felony allegations of sexual assault while on active duty. MJA partnered with the client to clear their good name and reputation. Even post-service, the client’s name populated the subject block of the related NCIS investigation that appeared on criminal background checks and ultimately operated to prevent the client from securing civilian employment in law enforcement. MJA submitted a robust written appeal for removal, highlighting key evidence that justified the client’s request for subject titling removal. The petition was GRANTED.

Military Mass Torts

In 2024, the 3M defective earplugs litigation ended, resulting in MJA clients being compensated for their injuries. With the close of that litigation, MJA began pursuing claims for active-duty service members, veterans, civilians, and first responders who suffered injuries or illnesses caused by exposure to Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF).

Known commonly as firefighting or firefighter foam, AFFF has been linked to various types of cancers, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, and devastating consequences for victims and families. MJA is working to help members of the military community who were exposed to AFFF as a result of their military service and now suffer the effects.

One of the most groundbreaking legal developments over the past few years for Marine veterans was the passage of the Camp Lejeune Justice Act. In 2024, MJA continued to file claims and lawsuits on behalf of eligible clients and maintained an active role in representing Marines and their families in this litigation.

As background, for over 30 years, Marines, their loved ones, and civilian contractors living and working aboard at Camp Lejeune and MCAS New River were exposed to drinking water systems contaminated with industrial chemicals. Numerous types of cancer, Parkinson’s disease, birth defects, female infertility, and other health conditions have been linked to these contaminants. After years of denying justice to those harmed by the contaminated water, the Camp Lejeune Justice Act became law in 2022, creating a federal cause of action to allow those who suffered from water contamination to file lawsuits for compensation.

As Marines ourselves, MJA immediately became involved in the litigation and is proud to represent Marines and their families who were harmed by the contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune. MJA has already seen some of these cases resolved and anticipates that 2025 will be a ground-breaking year for litigation.

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) is one of the military’s longest-standing federal laws that aim to provide peace of mind to active-duty military members and their families. Under the SCRA, military members are granted temporary suspension from certain civil duties, including outstanding debts, mortgage payments, taxes, and termination of leases.

MJA has a long history of representing servicemembers under the SCRA. Most recently, MJA represented a Soldier whose vehicle was repossessed for an alleged breach of the purchase agreement while he was at boot camp. Upon investigation, MJA determined that the dealer failed to obtain a court order allowing the repossession prior to retaking the vehicle in violation of the SCRA. After filing a lawsuit in federal court, the dealer cooperated in resolving the matter. MJA obtained a favorable settlement that included compensation for financial and other harms and full release of all future obligations on the vehicle for the client

Defense Base Act

In 2024, MJA relaunched its Defense Base Act practice to represent civilians, military veterans, and local nationals who were injured overseas while working as contractors in support of the U.S. Government operations.

Adopted in 1941, the Defense Base Act provides workers’ compensation protection to civilian employees working outside the United States on U.S. military bases or under a contract with the U.S. government for public works or for national defense. Contractors who have been exposed to and incurred a physical or psychological injury due to their work overseas may be eligible for medical treatment or other benefits.

At MJA, it is our honor to represent the military community and those who support it, and we are excited to continue to represent clients under the Defense Base Act in 2025.

Thank You!

MJA is thankful for all the clients we were able to help in 2024 and looks forward to fighting for more service members in the new year. If you or a loved one need an experienced military attorney in your corner, contact us today for a consultation.

The Constitution grants the President of the United States the power to grant clemency or pardon individuals convicted of federal offenses, including military service members. The White House recently announced that President Biden will grant clemency to a record number of Americans. Earlier this year, President Biden pardoned military service members who were convicted under Article 125, UCMJ.

MJA is a veteran owned and operated law firm specializing in the representation of active-duty service members and veterans. If you are a veteran who was convicted at court-martial and want more information about requesting a presidential pardon, please contact MJA today.

Presidential Pardon for Article 125, UCMJ, Convictions

On June 25, 2024, President Joe Biden issued a Presidential proclamation that gave full and unconditional pardons to military service members and veterans who had been court-martialed and convicted under Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for sexual acts with consenting adults. The pardon also extended to service members convicted of “attempts, conspiracies, and solicitation to commit” such acts.

Under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” era of the U.S. Armed Forces, Article 125 included statutes that criminalized sodomy, including consensual acts of intimacy. For many, Article 125 felt like it was broadly and intentionally discriminatory against LGBTQI+ military service members because it criminalized acts that were entirely legal outside of the military. In 2013, it was repealed, but the damage was already done to countless military service members who had put their lives on the line to defend the freedom of Americans everywhere.

With President Biden’s proclamation, any service member convicted of violating former Article 125 based on conduct involving sexual acts with consenting adults has received a “full, complete, and unconditional” pardon (with limited exceptions that mostly involve other co-occurring UCMJ violations). The proclamation applies to all qualifying convictions that occurred between May 31, 1951, and December 26, 2013.

What are the Benefits of Receiving This Pardon?

By receiving a Presidential pardon, any negative consequence of court-martial and conviction will generally be removed, such as limitations imposed on:

• Military benefits
• Voting rights
• Ability to run for public office
• Earning and holding certain licenses
• Employment opportunities
• Much more

Importantly, the pardon does not expunge the court-martial conviction, so both would still appear on a pardoned military service member’s record. Also, the pardon does not automatically upgrade a pardoned military service member’s discharge status, nor does it qualify them for an automatic reconsideration of discharge status.

Can You Get a Certificate of Pardon?

President Biden’s pardon for convictions under Article 125 UCMJ may be broadly useful, but it still requires you to take steps to benefit from the pardon. You will have to apply for a certificate of pardon by using an Application for Pardon Following the Completion of the Sentence. To make certain you know how to obtain and fill out this application, start by talking with an attorney from Military Justice Attorneys, offering counsel to military service members and veterans from all branches and living anywhere in the world.

You can count on us for guidance throughout your Article 125 pardon application process, so you don’t have to worry about missing any important steps. We can also talk to you about possibly filing to have your discharge reviewed and upgraded.

Contact MJA Today

MJA is committed to ensuring that service members who were convicted under Article 125, UCMJ, get the relief they are entitled to. If you have any questions about the Article 125 UCMJ pardon proclamation given by President Joe Biden, including how to gain the benefits of the pardon, please call (843) 773-5501 to connect with Military Justice Attorneys today. Initial case consultations with our attorneys are FREE for military service members and their families.

Service members in leadership positions are held to the highest personal and professional standards, especially when it comes to dealing with military recruits and trainees. Leaders who engage in certain prohibited activities with those under their charge may be administratively punished or even criminally prosecuted for violating Article 93a, UCMJ.

When your military career, future, and freedom are on the line, you need an experienced law firm in your corner. The attorneys at MJA are all military officers who served on active duty and have defended drill instructors/sergeants, recruiters, and cadres against some of the most serious offenses under the UCMJ. Contact one of our military defense lawyers today to learn more.

Background and Intent Behind Article 93a, UCMJ

Article 93a is intended to criminalize situations that involve the improper use of authority by virtue of an individual’s position in either a training or recruiting environment. There are two categories of leaders who can be charged with an offense under Article 93a: military recruiters and those in a “training leadership position.” Each of these categories is discussed below.

Article 93a was created due to the inherent power differences between junior service members and leaders in the ascension and training pipeline. Article 93a explains that “military law, regulation, and custom invest officers, non-commissioned officers, drill instructors, recruiters, cadre, and others with the right and obligation to exercise control over those they supervise. In this context, inappropriate sexual activity between those potentially vulnerable persons and those with authority to exercise control over them is inherently destructive to good order and discipline.”

However, not all contact or associations between leaders and junior personnel are prohibited by Article 93a. Rather, the purpose of Article 93a is to prevent “inappropriate sexual activity” between leaders and recruits, trainees, students in military training, and other potentially vulnerable persons in the initial training environment. Article 93a recognizes that leaders may have preexisting relationships that are not prohibited by the article. Additionally, Article 93a “criminalizes only activity occurring when there is a training or recruiting relationship between the accused and the alleged victim.”

Servicemembers in “Training Leadership Positions”

Under Article 93a, service members serving in a “training leadership position” are prohibited from engaging in “inappropriate sexual activity” with certain junior service members. Those in a “training leadership position” generally include drill instructors, cadre, faculty, and staff at military academies, as well as others in the military training environment or schoolhouse who are in a position of leadership over junior service members.

For these leaders to be guilty of violating Article 93a, the Government must prove three elements:

1. that the accused is an officer, a noncommissioned officer, or a petty officer;
2. that the accused is in a training leadership position with respect to a specially protected junior member of the armed forces; and
3. that the accused engaged in prohibited sexual activity with such specially protected junior members of the armed forces.

Let’s break down the important definitions from those elements.

First, it’s important to note that not all senior leaders are covered by Article 93a. Rather, in order to be punishable under the UCMJ, the senior leader must be in a “training leadership position” over the junior service member. The term “training leadership position” means any of the following:

(A) Any drill instructor position or other leadership position in a basic training program, an officer candidate school, a reserve officers’ training corps unit, a training program for entry into the armed forces, or any program that, by regulation prescribed by the Secretary concerned, is identified as a training program for initial career qualification.

(B)  Faculty and staff of the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, and the United States Coast Guard Academy.

Specially Protected Junior Members

Likewise, Article 93a does not protect everyone serving in the military; it only protects “specially protected junior members of the armed forces.” The term “specially protected junior member of the armed forces” means—

(A) a member of the armed forces who is assigned to, or is awaiting assignment to, basic training or other initial active duty for training, including a member who is enlisted under a delayed entry program;

(B) a member of the armed forces who is a cadet, a midshipman, an officer candidate, or a student in any other officer qualification program; and

(C) a member of the armed forces in any program that, by regulation prescribed by the Secretary concerned, is identified as a training program for initial career qualification

Finally, in order for there to be a violation of Article 93a, the government must prove that the leader engaged in “prohibited sexual activity.” The term “prohibited sexual activity” is defined “inappropriate physical intimacy under circumstances described in such regulations. The individual services are required to determine and specify which actions are prohibited under this offense.

Military Recruiters Cannot Engage in Prohibited Sexual Activity

Military recruiters are the second category of leaders who can be charged under Article 93a, UCMJ. For a military recruiter to be guilty of violating Article 93a, the Government must prove:

1. the accused is a military recruiter and engages in prohibited sexual activity with an applicant for military service; OR
2. that accused is a military recruiter and engages in prohibited sexual activity with a specially protected junior member of the armed forces who is enlisted under a delayed entry program.

Article 93a defines the term “military recruiter” as a “person who, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, has the primary duty to recruit persons for military service.”

Once the government has established that the accused was a military recruiter, the government must show that the junior service member was either an “applicant for military service” or a “specially protected junior member of the armed forces.”

An “applicant for military service” is “a person who, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, is an applicant for original enlistment or appointment in the armed forces.”

Importantly, an accused must have actual or constructive knowledge that a person was a “specially protected junior member of the armed forces” or an “applicant for military service.” Knowledge may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

Defenses

Any defense under Article 93a is highly fact-specific. In some cases, there may be no direct or circumstantial evidence to corroborate the allegation, or it may be that the complaining witness has a motive to make a false allegation, all of which are relevant to defending against the charge. Importantly, consent is not a defense under Article 93a.

Commanders sometimes try to punish leaders for conduct that is merely inappropriate but does not constitute prohibited sexual activity. While such behavior may constitute fraternization of a violation of a military order, it would not meet the elements for a violation of Article 93a. A skillful attorney can identify deficiencies in the allegations and ensure that all relevant facts are brought to light.

Maximum Punishment

The maximum punishment for violating Article 93a is extremely serious and may include a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years.

Protect Your Freedom and Military Career

When your career, freedom, and future are on the line, you need an experienced law firm in your corner. The skilled and assertive attorneys at Military Justice Attorneys will zealously fight for you. We have defended drill instructors/sergeants, recruiters, and cadre facing investigation, trial, and discipline for the most serious offenses under the UCMJ and will ensure that every avenue of defense is aggressively pursued on your behalf. Contact us today for a consultation.