Military Lawyers

Military Attorney Joseph L. Jordan is an accomplished and experienced lawyer who focuses exclusively on defending service members facing charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Based in Fort Cavazos (formerly Fort Hood), Texas, he represents Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and Guardians stationed across the United States and around the world.

A former Army JAG officer, Joseph Jordan brings firsthand experience from every level of the military justice system—having served as an enlisted Soldier, combat arms officer, and military prosecutor. This background gives him a rare and comprehensive understanding of how the system operates from the inside. Since founding his firm, Joseph L. Jordan, Attorney at Law, in 2011, he has represented over 650 clients and tried more than 190 cases to verdict.

His practice is dedicated to military criminal defense, including cases involving sexual assault (Article 120), drug offenses (Article 112a), assault, AWOL, manslaughter, and murder (Articles 118 and 119). In addition to court-martial trials, he handles Article 15 actions, administrative separation boards, and boards of inquiry. Jordan’s approach emphasizes early, aggressive defense strategies designed to protect careers, reputations, and futures.

Joining the firm in 2025, Attorney Nicholas C. DauSchmidt serves as Of Counsel and is based in Vicenza, Italy. A former JAG officer with over twelve years of experience, he has served as a defense counsel, prosecutor, and special victims counsel. His addition expands the firm’s global reach, providing representation for U.S. service members stationed in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

Together, the firm offers comprehensive legal defense for military personnel worldwide, combining deep knowledge of military law, operational experience, and independence from command influence. Their mission is straightforward: to provide professional, trial-tested defense for service members whose careers and freedom are on the line.…

Military Lawyers Crisp and Associates is a veteran-owned and operated worldwide military criminal defense firm that provides aggressive legal representation for service members across all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces. The firm defends Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen facing investigations, Article 15 actions, or court-martial proceedings under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Headquartered in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Crisp and Associates Military Law represents clients nationwide and overseas, traveling to any military installation where defense is needed. The firm’s attorneys are experienced former JAG officers, veterans, and law enforcement professionals who understand both the legal and cultural complexities of military justice.

Their practice areas include:

• Court-Martial Defense – General, Special, and Summary Court-Martials
• Sexual Assault and Article 120 Cases
• Article 15 and Non-Judicial Punishment Defense
• Violent Crimes and Murder (Article 118)
• Drug Offenses (Article 112a)
• Security Clearance and QMP Appeals
• Record Corrections and Administrative Actions

Crisp and Associates is recognized for its strategic, trial-focused approach. The team refuses to simply “plea out” cases—instead, they fight for the strongest possible outcome through independent investigation, tactical motion practice, and courtroom advocacy.

Founded by Attorney Jonathan W. Crisp, the firm includes lawyers with experience in both military prosecution and defense, giving them deep insight into how the government builds its cases. The attorneys are admitted to practice before multiple federal and military courts, including the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and the United States Supreme Court.

With a record of high-profile defenses and a commitment to protecting those who serve, Crisp and Associates Military Law delivers trusted, professional legal representation for service members whose careers, reputations, and freedom are on the line.…

Yes. A military attorney can help a service member facing a retention board, and that help is often essential. A retention board decides whether a service member should be allowed to continue serving. For an enlisted member, especially a noncommissioned officer, being identified for one of these boards can mean the difference between finishing a career and being involuntarily separated. The process can move quickly, and what the service member submits, and how it is framed, can shape the outcome. An attorney who understands how these boards work and what they are weighing can make a real difference.

What a Retention Board Decides

A retention board exists to evaluate whether a service member meets the requirements for continued service. In the Army, the Qualitative Management Program, known as the QMP, is a force management tool used to deny continued service to noncommissioned officers who no longer meet the overall requirements for staying in the Army. The board reviews a member’s record and decides whether that member should be retained or denied continued service.

Understanding what the board is actually deciding is the starting point. It is not a criminal proceeding and it does not determine guilt. It is an administrative decision about whether the member’s record supports keeping them in the force.

Why a Service Member Gets Flagged for a Board

Several kinds of issues can lead to a member being identified for review. Under the QMP, the discriminators include conduct incompatible with the values of the noncommissioned officer corps and the Army ethic, a lack of potential to perform in the current grade, a decline in performance over a continuing period as reflected in evaluation reports or failure of professional education courses, recent or continuing disciplinary problems shown by things like a court-martial conviction, nonjudicial punishment, or an administrative reprimand, and other factors such as a bar to reenlistment, inability to meet fitness standards, or failure to meet body composition requirements.

Knowing why a member was identified is critical, because the board is reviewing the specific adverse information in the record. The member’s response has to address that information directly.

How These Boards Actually Work

One feature of the QMP that surprises many service members is how the board operates. Rather than holding a live hearing with witnesses and testimony, the board reviews the member’s official record and the adverse documents in it. This kind of paper-based review means …

A bad conduct discharge, almost always shortened to BCD, is one of the most consequential outcomes a service member can face. It is not a routine personnel action and it is not an ordinary administrative separation. A BCD is a punitive discharge, meaning it can only be imposed as a sentence after a conviction at a court-martial. Because it is a criminal punishment that follows a finding of guilt, the role of a military attorney is central at every stage, from the trial that produces the conviction through the appellate and post-conviction processes that may later remove or upgrade it. The short answer is yes, a military attorney can help, and the more useful answer is to understand exactly where and how that help matters.

What a bad conduct discharge actually is

The military separates service members in two broad ways. Administrative separations are personnel actions that characterize service as honorable, general under honorable conditions, or other than honorable, and they do not require a criminal trial. Punitive discharges are different. They are punishments adjudged by a court-martial as part of a sentence. The two punitive discharges for enlisted members are the bad conduct discharge and the dishonorable discharge. A BCD sits below a dishonorable discharge in severity but well below any administrative characterization, and it carries the stigma of a criminal conviction.

A BCD typically follows a conviction for offenses under the punitive articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Because it is a sentence, it usually accompanies other punishments such as confinement, forfeiture of pay, and reduction in rank. The practical effects reach far beyond the end of service. A BCD can sharply limit access to many veterans benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and it appears on records that civilian employers may see.

Which courts can impose a BCD

Understanding the court is essential because it shapes what an attorney can do. There are three levels of court-martial: summary, special, and general. A summary court-martial handles minor misconduct and cannot adjudge any punitive discharge at all. A special court-martial, which is the intermediate level, can impose a bad conduct discharge along with limited confinement, forfeitures, and reduction in grade, but it cannot impose a dishonorable discharge. A general court-martial, the most serious level, can impose either a bad conduct discharge or a dishonorable discharge.

This means a BCD becomes a real risk the …

The United States and Canada are close allies with armed forces that often train and deploy together, yet their military justice systems grew from different legal traditions and are organized in distinct ways. The American system rests on the Uniform Code of Military Justice and tries cases through courts-martial convened by commanders. The Canadian system rests on the Code of Service Discipline within the National Defence Act and, after major reforms, now separates minor disciplinary matters from criminal-style offenses by routing them into a non-penal summary hearing process while reserving service offences for courts martial. Comparing the two shows two common-law democracies reaching similar goals through structurally different routes.

The American framework: the UCMJ and courts-martial

In the United States, military law for the active components of all the armed forces is consolidated in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the UCMJ, enacted by Congress and codified in Title 10 of the United States Code. The UCMJ defines purely military offenses such as desertion and absence without leave, and it also covers offenses that parallel civilian crimes, such as larceny, assault, and murder, all triable under military jurisdiction.

The UCMJ is implemented through the Manual for Courts-Martial, a presidential document supplying the Rules for Courts-Martial and the Military Rules of Evidence. Cases are tried by courts-martial in three forms under Article 16: summary, special, and general, escalating in the punishment they can impose. A general court-martial handles the most serious offenses and seats a military judge with a panel of members, and the accused may elect trial by military judge alone. The 2016 Military Justice Act, reflected in the 2019 Manual, fixed panel sizes by statute and modernized sentencing and voting procedures. The system is administered by the military and reviewed through a service Court of Criminal Appeals, then the civilian Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, with possible review at the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Canadian framework: the Code of Service Discipline

Canada governs its armed forces through the Code of Service Discipline, which is set out in the National Defence Act. The Code of Service Discipline defines who is subject to military law, the service offences they can be charged with, and the tribunals that hear them. As in the United States, Canadian military law reaches both distinctly military conduct and conduct that would be criminal under ordinary law, and it applies to members …

Receiving nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice can feel final, but it is not. The system builds in a right to appeal, and that appeal is the principal route for reversing or reducing an Article 15 decision. The question many service members ask is whether a military attorney protects them during that appeal. Understanding the answer requires knowing how the Article 15 appeal actually works, what role counsel plays at each step, and what realistic outcomes an appeal can produce.

What an Article 15 appeal is

Nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 lets a commander address minor misconduct without a court-martial. After a commander imposes punishment, the service member has the right to appeal that decision. The appeal goes to the next superior authority above the commander who imposed the punishment, not back to the same commander.

The appeal is time-sensitive. A service member is generally given a defined period, commonly five calendar days, to decide whether to appeal, and an appeal filed after that period may be treated as untimely. The next superior authority is then expected to act within a set period as well. While the appeal is pending, punishment generally continues to run, but if the appeal is not decided within the allotted time and the member requests it, certain punishments involving deprivation of liberty may be interrupted until the appeal is resolved.

The grounds that can reverse a decision

An appeal is not a simple request for mercy. It succeeds on recognized grounds, and identifying the right ground is where legal judgment matters. The accepted bases for appeal generally include that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of guilt, that the punishment imposed was unjust or disproportionately severe, or that the commander failed to follow proper procedures in imposing the punishment.

On appeal, the superior authority has several options. That authority can set aside the finding of guilt, reduce or mitigate the punishment, suspend the punishment, or leave the original decision unchanged. So reversal in the full sense, setting aside the finding, is possible, and so is the more common partial relief of reducing or suspending the punishment.

How a military attorney protects you in this process

Although Article 15 proceedings are not courts-martial, legal advice is available and valuable, and counsel protects the member in several concrete ways.

First, before the appeal, counsel helps you decide whether to …

Article 97 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice makes it an offense for a person subject to the Code to apprehend, arrest, or confine someone without legal authority. It is codified at 10 U.S.C. 897. The article exists because the military gives certain members the power to detain others, and that power must be exercised lawfully. When someone with that authority uses it improperly, Article 97 provides the means to hold them accountable. The questions and answers below explain what the offense requires, who it applies to, what it does not cover, and how it is defended.

The Basics of Article 97

1. What does Article 97 actually prohibit?

Article 97 prohibits a person subject to the UCMJ from apprehending, arresting, or confining another person except as authorized by law. In short, it criminalizes the unlawful exercise of the authority to detain. The wrong is using detention power without proper legal basis.

2. What is the statutory language of the offense?

The statute provides that any person subject to the chapter who, except as provided by law, apprehends, arrests, or confines any person, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. The phrase “except as provided by law” is the heart of the offense, because it distinguishes lawful detention from unlawful detention.

3. What are the elements the government must prove?

There are two elements. First, that the accused apprehended, arrested, or confined a certain person. Second, that the accused did so unlawfully, meaning the accused exercised the authority to detain without a proper legal basis. Both must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

4. What is the difference between apprehension, arrest, and confinement?

These are different forms of restraint within the military system. Apprehension is the taking of a person into custody. Arrest and confinement are forms of restraint that limit a person’s liberty in different ways and degrees. Article 97 reaches all three when they are imposed without lawful authority.

5. Why does the military need an article like this?

Because the military entrusts certain members with the power to detain others, that power can be abused. Article 97 ensures that those who hold the authority to apprehend, arrest, or confine use it only as the law permits, protecting service members from being detained without a proper basis.

Who Is Covered

6. Who can be charged under Article 97?

Any person subject to the UCMJ can be …

A call or a knock from the Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) is one of the most consequential moments in a service member’s career, and what you do in the first few minutes often matters more than anything that happens later. The practical question is not whether you can protect yourself during a CID interview but how, and that is where a military attorney earns the engagement. This article explains what those agents are permitted to do, what rights you carry into the room, and the concrete steps a defense lawyer takes to keep those rights intact.

Understanding what a CID interview actually is

CID agents investigate felony-level allegations involving Army personnel. When they ask to speak with you, they have usually already developed information that makes you a subject or a suspect, even if they describe the conversation as routine or as a chance to “tell your side.” An interview is an evidence-gathering tool. Agents are trained interviewers, they are not neutral, and they are not obligated to share everything they know. Recognizing the interview for what it is sets up every decision that follows.

The core protection: Article 31(b)

The most important right you carry is found in Article 31 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, codified at 10 U.S.C. 831. Article 31(b) requires that before anyone subject to the UCMJ interrogates a person suspected of an offense, that person must be informed of the nature of the accusation, told that they do not have to make any statement, and warned that any statement made may be used as evidence against them in a court-martial. This protection is in some respects broader than the civilian Miranda warning, because it applies whenever a person subject to the code questions a suspect, not only during custodial interrogation by police.

There is one feature service members frequently misunderstand. Article 31(b) by its terms does not require investigators to advise you of a right to a lawyer. That advisement obligation comes from other sources, such as the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and military rules of evidence in custodial settings. The gap is exactly why early legal consultation is so important. You should not assume that an agent will prompt you to call counsel.

Your right to remain silent and to invoke counsel

You can decline to answer questions, and you can ask to speak with a lawyer before answering anything. A …

Forcing a safeguard is among the most serious offenses in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It is defined in Article 102, codified at 10 U.S.C. 902, and it carries the possibility of death as the maximum punishment. The offense protects safeguards, which are protections established by military authority to shield persons, places, or property, often in the context of armed conflict or military operations. This guide explains what a safeguard is, what it means to force one, the elements involved, the punishment, possible defenses, and what a service member should do if facing such a charge.

What the Statute Says

Article 102 provides that any person subject to the UCMJ who forces a safeguard shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct. The statutory language is short, but the consequences attached to it are extraordinary. By placing death at the top of the punishment range, the law signals that violating a safeguard strikes at something fundamental to military honor and the law of armed conflict.

What a Safeguard Is

A safeguard is a protection or order established by military authority to secure persons, places, or property from harm by friendly forces. It is a formal protection, often arising in the context of armed conflict or military operations, that places certain people, locations, or property off limits to interference. A safeguard can take the form of a posted guard or detail assigned to protect something, or it can take the form of written orders or specific instructions intended to secure an area or to protect particular persons or property.

The purpose of a safeguard is to uphold discipline and the obligations that govern conduct in military operations, including obligations to protect persons and property that are not to be harmed. Honoring safeguards reflects the law of armed conflict and the honor expected of armed forces. When a safeguard is in place, friendly forces are bound to respect it.

What It Means to Force a Safeguard

To force a safeguard means to override, breach, or compel the violation of the protection that the safeguard provides. This can involve disregarding a posted guard or detail, or violating the orders or instructions that establish the safeguard, in a way that breaches the protection. The offense centers on the deliberate defeat of a protection that military authority has established.

The conduct is treated as a grave matter because it undermines …

The United States and Poland are close allies within NATO, but their military justice systems reflect different legal heritages and structural choices. The American system is a self-contained body of military criminal law administered by courts-martial, while Poland integrates military justice into its broader continental, code-based legal tradition. This article compares the two systems across their governing law, court structure, the relationship between military and civilian courts, the rights of the accused, the appeals process, and the role of civilian institutions. It is intended as a clear, accurate overview for service members, families, and students.

Legal Traditions and Governing Law

United States military law rests on the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), a federal statute enacted by Congress in 1950 and found in Title 10 of the United States Code. It is applied through the Manual for Courts-Martial, which the President issues and which contains the Rules for Courts-Martial, the Military Rules of Evidence, and the punitive articles. The American system is rooted in the common law tradition, with adversarial trials, rules of evidence, and a strong emphasis on case-by-case precedent.

Poland follows the continental, civil law tradition. Its military justice is not a separate code standing apart from the rest of criminal law in the way the UCMJ does. Instead, Polish military courts apply the country’s general criminal law and criminal procedure, including the Code of Criminal Procedure, with specific provisions that allocate certain cases to military courts. The Polish approach treats military jurisdiction as a specialized branch of the ordinary criminal justice system rather than as a wholly separate parallel system.

Structure of the Courts

Under Article 16 of the UCMJ, the United States uses three types of courts-martial. A summary court-martial is conducted by a single commissioned officer for minor offenses. A special court-martial involves a military judge and at least three members, or a military judge sitting alone, and handles intermediate offenses. A general court-martial, reserved for the most serious matters, involves a military judge and a panel, typically eight members in a noncapital case, or a military judge alone when the accused requests it and the judge approves. Court-martial panels are not standing bodies; the convening authority selects members for the case.

Poland organizes its military courts as standing specialized courts within the judiciary. The structure includes garrison military courts at the first level and district military courts above them, which broadly parallel the …