Military Law Center

06/24/2026

A divided federal appeals court has blocked the Pentagon from discharging currently serving transgender troops while the underlying legal challenge works through the courts. The court found the administration's ban on transgender service is likely unconstitutional as applied to those already in uniform, though it allowed restrictions on new enlistments to stand for now.

For the service members directly affected, this means the legal fight over their careers is ongoing. A court order blocking discharges is not the same as a final ruling, and the situation can change as the case moves forward.

This case is a reminder that administrative separation is not always the final word. When a separation is based on a policy, a regulation, or an executive action that is itself legally contested, the service member has grounds to challenge the underlying basis. The courts are one avenue. So is the formal administrative process within the military system.

Service members facing any administratively driven separation, regardless of the basis, have procedural rights worth understanding. Military Law Center advises service members on administrative separation proceedings.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2026/06/01/us-court-blocks-pentagon-from-removing-transgender-troops-for-now/

The court ruled that the Trump administration could, for now, bar transgender people from enlisting, but blocked the discharge of current service members.

06/22/2026

The Pentagon has ordered a sweeping review of the military justice system. According to Military Times, the review will examine how legal offices are organized across all branches, whether JAG authority should be restructured, and whether some roles currently held by uniformed lawyers should shift to civilian personnel.

The stated goal is to eliminate bureaucracy and refocus the military legal system on operational readiness. What that means in practice for service members facing court-martial proceedings or administrative actions is not yet clear.

What is clear is that the UCMJ and the procedural protections it provides currently exist in statute. Changes to the system can affect how command influence is checked, how independent military judges operate, and what access accused service members have to experienced defense counsel.

Military Law Center will be monitoring this review closely. Service members who have current legal matters should not wait for reform. The system in place today is the one that will govern their cases.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2026/05/22/hegseth-orders-broad-review-of-military-legal-system/

Hegseth formed a panel to "conduct an ongoing, long-term, department-wide review of all aspects of the military legal system as it affects our warriors."

06/18/2026

Not every disability evaluation in the military runs through the same process. Active duty service members typically enter the Integrated Disability Evaluation System, where DoD and VA ratings are developed simultaneously. Reserve and National Guard members mobilized on Title 10 orders generally have access to IDES as well, but those in a non-mobilized status may enter the Legacy Disability Evaluation System instead, where the VA rating comes after separation and the timelines differ significantly.

The difference matters because IDES is designed to produce a VA rating before the service member separates, reducing the gap between leaving service and receiving VA disability compensation. Under LDES, the service member may separate and then wait months for the VA rating to be established. During that waiting period, the service member has left the military without VA compensation in place.

The other critical variable is the DoD rating versus the VA rating. The DoD rating determines whether the service member qualifies for Chapter 61 retirement. The VA rating determines the level of disability compensation. They are evaluated under different standards and can produce different numbers for the same condition. A service member who receives a DoD rating below 30 percent cannot retire under Chapter 61, even if the VA subsequently rates the same condition above that threshold.

Military Law Center advises service members on disability evaluations, IDES and LDES proceedings, and PEB appeals. Free consultation: (760) 536-9038.

militarylawcenter.com/administrative-actions-military-law-center/military-va-disability/

06/17/2026

Article 128b was added to the UCMJ in 2019 to create a standalone domestic violence offense distinct from the general assault provisions of Article 128. The purpose was specific: to ensure that military domestic violence convictions trigger mandatory reporting to civilian law enforcement databases and, through the Lautenberg Amendment, the federal fi****ms prohibition.

Before Article 128b existed, the military's domestic violence convictions were sometimes charged under Article 128 in ways that did not generate the database reporting required to enforce the Lautenberg fi****ms ban. Congress closed that gap by creating a dedicated offense with its own charging structure and its own mandatory reporting pathway.

The practical consequence for any service member convicted under Article 128b is a lifetime prohibition on owning or possessing a firearm under 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(9). There are no exceptions for military duty. A service member in any combat arms, military police, or security forces role cannot perform the duties of that position without a weapon. The conviction effectively ends the career regardless of any other punishment imposed.

Military Law Center defends service members facing Article 128b charges. Free consultation: (760) 536-9038.

https://militarylawcenter.com/military-law-areas-of-practice/military-assault-charges/

06/16/2026

When a command offers a service member the option to separate administratively rather than face a court-martial, it can feel like relief. In many cases it is not.

Separation in lieu of court-martial is a negotiated administrative discharge. The service member requests to leave rather than stand trial. If the separation authority approves, the charges are dismissed and the service member is discharged. What the service member receives in return depends entirely on the characterization of discharge that accompanies the separation, and that characterization is not guaranteed to be favorable.

An Other Than Honorable discharge issued through a separation in lieu of court-martial carries the same long-term consequences as an OTH issued through any other process: loss of VA healthcare, loss of GI Bill benefits, loss of VA home loan eligibility, and loss of federal hiring preference. There is no criminal conviction on the record, but the discharge characterization follows the service member permanently.

Whether separation in lieu of court-martial makes strategic sense depends on an assessment of the government's evidence, the likelihood of acquittal, the risk of a punitive discharge at court-martial, and the specific characterization on offer. That calculation requires legal analysis, not a quick decision under pressure.

Military Law Center advises service members evaluating separation in lieu of court-martial across all branches. Free consultation: (760) 536-9038.

If you’re a Marine in Southern California or stationed overseas, facing disciplinary action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), you know the stakes are high. A court-martial is not just another military proceeding—it’s a formal criminal trial with potentially severe consequences...

06/15/2026

Fraternization is one of the most broadly defined and inconsistently enforced offenses in the UCMJ. Under Article 134, a commissioned or warrant officer can be charged for fraternizing with an enlisted member on terms of military equality. What that standard actually requires the government to prove is more specific than many service members realize.

The elements of the offense include that the accused was a commissioned or warrant officer, that the officer fraternized with an enlisted member in a way that violated the customs of the service, that the officer knew the other person was enlisted, and that the conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline or service-discrediting. All five elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The government's language in the Manual for Courts-Martial limits the formal charge to officers and warrant officers. But senior enlisted members can face related charges under related provisions, and every branch maintains its own regulations that expand on the baseline UCMJ standard. Accusations frequently arise not from the relationship itself but from command dynamics, unit gossip, or complaints filed by third parties.

Military Law Center defends officers and senior enlisted members facing fraternization allegations. Free consultation: (760) 536-9038.

https://militarylawcenter.com/military-law-areas-of-practice/military-fraternization-defense-attorney/

Facing allegations of Fraternization? Contact a military defense attorney at the Military Law Center today. San Diego based - Worldwide Representation.

06/12/2026

A Military Protective Order is not a court order. It is a written command order, issued by a commanding officer on a DD Form 2873, that directs a service member to avoid contact with a named individual. It does not require a hearing, a finding of fact, or any judicial review before it is issued.

That distinction matters for two reasons. First, an MPO can be issued immediately after any allegation, including allegations that are disputed or unsupported, because the command is not required to establish proof before issuing one. Second, violating an MPO is a violation of a lawful military order, prosecutable under Article 92 of the UCMJ. The consequences can include NJP, court-martial, and administrative separation.

An MPO is only enforceable on a military installation. Civilian law enforcement cannot enforce it off base. But the service member who violates the terms of an MPO off base is still subject to UCMJ prosecution for the violation.

Service members who believe an MPO was issued without lawful basis have recourse through an Article 138 complaint, which challenges command actions through the chain of command. Military Law Center advises service members on MPO-related proceedings.

https://militarylawcenter.com/article-90-defense-attorney/

Facing Article 90 charges for disobeying a superior officer? Our military lawyers fight for the best possible outcome in your UCMJ case. Free consultation.

06/11/2026

Foreign contacts are one of the most misunderstood triggers for security clearance revocation. The existence of a relationship with a foreign national is not, by itself, disqualifying. What adjudicators are evaluating is something more specific: whether that relationship creates a realistic vulnerability to coercion or divided loyalty.

Under Guideline B of the adjudicative guidelines, foreign influence concerns are assessed through a whole-person analysis. A service member with family members abroad, a spouse from another country, or professional ties to foreign nationals is not automatically at risk. The analysis turns on the nature and closeness of the relationship, whether the foreign contact has ties to a foreign government or intelligence service, and whether the service member has been fully transparent in their SF-86 disclosures.

That last point is where many clearance cases deteriorate. A foreign contact that was not disclosed on the SF-86 creates a personal conduct problem under Guideline E, which is substantially harder to mitigate than the foreign contact itself. Adjudicators treat non-disclosure as a reliability and honesty concern that goes beyond the underlying relationship.

Military Law Center advises service members on security clearance appeals involving foreign contact and foreign influence concerns. Free consultation: (760) 536-9038.

https://militarylawcenter.com/administrative-actions-military-law-center/security-clearance-appeals/

Has your security clearance has been denied, suspended or revoked? Contact the Military Law Center to discuss your options for a security clearance appeal.

06/10/2026

Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is known as the General Article for a reason. It is the military's catch-all charge, designed to criminalize conduct that does not fit neatly into any other UCMJ article but that the government considers prejudicial to good order and discipline or discrediting to the armed forces.

The breadth of Article 134 is what makes it distinctive and what makes defending against it require a different approach. A service member can be charged under Article 134 for conduct that is entirely legal in the civilian world. Off-duty behavior, personal relationships, speech, and online activity have all been prosecuted under the general article. The government does not need to prove that a specific law was broken. It needs to prove that the conduct was service-discrediting or that it harmed good order and discipline in a concrete, measurable way.

That element of proof is where Article 134 charges are most frequently contested. The defense must force the government to establish an actual, identifiable impact on military readiness or reputation, not a subjective moral judgment. Without that showing, the charge cannot stand.

Military Law Center defends service members facing Article 134 charges across all branches. Free consultation: (760) 536-9038.

https://militarylawcenter.com/military-law-areas-of-practice/article-134/

Charged with indecent conduct under Article 134 UCMJ? Our military defense attorneys fight for your rights, career, and future. Free consultations available.

06/09/2026

A BAH fraud investigation does not start with an accusation. It starts with an audit, and by the time a service member is notified that they are under investigation, the government has already been building a file.

The Defense Finance and Accounting Service conducts both random and targeted audits of housing allowance records. Targeted audits focus on service members whose LES data raises flags: high-cost-of-living areas like San Diego and Camp Pendleton, living arrangements that do not match the BAH rate being claimed, or patterns that suggest a dependent status or address no longer matches reality. When DFAS flags a discrepancy, the case moves to a criminal investigative organization, typically CID, NCIS, or AFOSI, for a formal investigation.

What many service members do not understand is that repaying the overpayment does not resolve the investigation. BAH fraud is charged as larceny under the UCMJ, not as an administrative overpayment error. The government's case is built on intent: whether the service member knew the claimed rate was not lawful. Repayment can actually be used against a service member as evidence of that knowledge.

Military Law Center has defended service members facing BAH fraud investigations and charges across all branches. Free consultation: (760) 536-9038.

https://militarylawcenter.com/military-law-areas-of-practice/bah-fraud-attorney/

Facing BAH fraud charges in California? Don't panic. Military Law Center defends CA service members. Free consultation. Protect your rights & career. Call today.