If CID, NCIS, AFOSI/OSI, CGIS, or your command is already gathering evidence, your case has started—even if no charge sheet exists.
The investigation stage is when statements are taken, witnesses are interviewed, phones and digital evidence may be searched, investigative records are created, and government decision-makers begin forming conclusions about what happened and what should happen next.
Waiting for charges can mean waiting until much of that work has already been done.
Early military defense cannot stop a lawful investigation or guarantee that charges will never be filed. What it can do is help you understand your rights, avoid unnecessary mistakes, preserve favorable evidence, investigate the allegations from the defense side, and prepare for the criminal, administrative, clearance, and record consequences that may follow.
If you have learned that you are under investigation—or investigators have asked you to give a statement—this is the time to understand your position.
★★★★★ 4.9 Stars From 300+ Google Reviews
Service members, veterans, federal employees, and clearance holders across the country have trusted National Security Law Firm when careers, reputations, clearances, and futures were at stake.
Read Our Verified Google Reviews
Former Military Judges • Former U.S. Attorney • Colonels & Lieutenant Colonels • Former Military Prosecutors & Defense Counsel • Commander Advisers • Federal Prosecutors • National Security & Intelligence Experience
Charges Are Not the Beginning of a Military Case
One of the most dangerous assumptions a service member can make is:
“I’ll get a lawyer if they charge me.”
By the time charges are preferred, investigators may already have:
- interviewed the complainant;
- interviewed coworkers, supervisors, friends, or family members;
- collected text messages, emails, photographs, social-media communications, or financial records;
- searched or seized electronic devices;
- obtained command records;
- compared witness accounts;
- documented inconsistencies;
- prepared investigative reports;
- referred information to command or prosecutors; and
- created law-enforcement records that may have consequences separate from whether charges are ultimately filed.
The current Manual for Courts-Martial expressly recognizes a preliminary investigative stage before charging. R.C.M. 303 addresses preliminary inquiry into reported offenses, while covered offenses may be forwarded to special trial counsel under the newer military-justice framework.
For Defense Criminal Investigative Organizations, federal policy goes further. Investigations initiated by those organizations have primacy over collateral investigations conducted by commanders and other organizational entities, meaning the criminal investigation is not simply an informal command process that a local leader can turn on and off.
That is why someone who is already dealing with CID, NCIS, OSI, CGIS, or another military investigative process should not think of the investigation as a waiting room before the “real case” begins.
The investigation is where the record is being built.
For a broader explanation of this stage, see our Military Investigation Lawyer resource.
The First Decision May Be Whether You Talk
If investigators ask you to “come in,” “clear something up,” “tell your side,” or provide a written statement, the instinct to explain yourself can be powerful.
That does not mean giving a statement is always wrong.
It means the decision should be strategic rather than reflexive.
Article 31 of the UCMJ provides important protections when a person subject to the UCMJ interrogates or requests a statement from an accused or person suspected of an offense. The Military Rules of Evidence also govern warnings, waivers, counsel, and the admissibility of statements. A statement obtained in violation of MRE 305 is treated as involuntary under MRE 304.
Even the Navy’s own Defense Service Office advises service members suspected of misconduct to seek legal advice before making official or unofficial statements and strongly encourages them to exercise their rights and speak with counsel before giving a statement when they have been identified as a suspect.
If you have been advised of your rights, asked to sign a rights-waiver form, or told investigators “just want your side,” read our guide to Article 31 Rights during military investigations before making that decision.
Why Giving a Statement Too Early Can Change the Case
Investigators are not necessarily interviewing witnesses in chronological order.
They may already possess information you have not seen.
They may know:
- what another witness said;
- what appears in text messages;
- what your location data shows;
- what a complainant alleges;
- what a supervisor reported;
- what documents exist; or
- where accounts appear inconsistent.
That means a service member trying to explain everything immediately may inadvertently create new issues even when the underlying allegation is defensible.
A person can:
- guess at a detail and later be accused of changing the story;
- deny something too broadly;
- volunteer facts that were never being investigated;
- misunderstand the allegation;
- agree with an investigator’s characterization of an event;
- make a statement before reviewing records that would refresh memory; or
- create an inconsistency that becomes more important than the original allegation.
The purpose of speaking with counsel first is not to manufacture an answer.
It is to understand what decision you are actually being asked to make before you make it.
Your Phone May Be Part of the Case
Modern military investigations frequently involve digital evidence.
A phone can contain far more than text messages.
Investigators may be interested in:
- texts and iMessages;
- Signal, WhatsApp, Snapchat, or other messaging applications;
- photographs and videos;
- deleted material;
- call histories;
- social-media communications;
- browser history;
- cloud-stored information;
- location data;
- financial applications;
- metadata; and
- communications with witnesses or complainants.
Military law does not reduce this issue to the simple civilian shorthand of “they need a warrant.”
The Military Rules of Evidence recognize military search authorizations, consensual searches, warrants, seizures, and certain exigent circumstances. MRE 315 requires probable cause for a search authorization and identifies who may authorize military searches.
If investigators want your phone, ask for your passcode, request consent to search, or have already seized a device, the legal and strategic questions can become complicated quickly.
The important point is simple:
Do not assume the investigation is only about what you say in an interview. The government may be building the case from multiple sources at once.
Early Defense Is Also About Building the Defense Record
A good pre-charge strategy is not merely:
“Say nothing and wait.”
Depending on the facts, early defense work may include:
- determining exactly which organization is investigating and why;
- identifying whether the client is a witness, subject, or suspect;
- advising on Article 31 rights and interview decisions;
- identifying favorable witnesses;
- preserving messages, photographs, records, and other evidence before they disappear;
- reviewing timelines and contemporaneous documents;
- identifying evidence that may contradict or contextualize an allegation;
- evaluating potential search-and-seizure issues;
- identifying credibility problems;
- preparing for foreseeable command action;
- evaluating whether the matter may move toward NJP, court-martial, separation, or another administrative process;
- identifying security-clearance exposure;
- anticipating titling and indexing consequences; and
- coordinating strategy where several of those systems are developing at once.
Sometimes early work confirms that the best strategy is restraint.
Sometimes additional defense investigation is appropriate.
Sometimes the immediate problem is not actually criminal prosecution at all—it is what the investigation may cause next.
That is why NSLF maintains a dedicated Pre-Charge Military Defense practice.
★★★★★“I Was Able to Save My Career”
“I was at risk of losing my career. Through the help of Carl and his team, I was able to save my career by not receiving a permanent GOMAR, no referred OER, or anything negatively reported on my promotion board.”
— V.M., Verified Google Review
Every matter depends on its own facts. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
An Investigation Can Become Several Different Cases
Military investigations rarely exist in neat legal boxes.
The same allegation may produce several tracks.
Criminal Investigation → Court-Martial
CID, NCIS, AFOSI/OSI, or CGIS may investigate an alleged UCMJ offense that ultimately leads to preferred charges and a court-martial.
If criminal prosecution appears likely, our Court-Martial defense team can prepare for that transition before trial litigation begins.
Investigation → Article 15, GOMOR, or Separation
A matter that does not result in a court-martial can still threaten a career.
Investigative findings can become part of decisions involving:
- Article 15 or other NJP;
- a GOMOR or other reprimand;
- adverse evaluations;
- promotion;
- retention;
- administrative separation;
- a Board of Inquiry; or
- other personnel action.
That is why our military-investigation lawyers work closely with NSLF’s Military Administrative Actions practice.
Investigation → Security Clearance Problem
Military criminal-investigation information can also move into a separate federal risk system.
Current federal investigative policy expressly permits law-enforcement information to be provided for security-clearance eligibility, special-access suitability, insider-threat, and other administrative determinations.
If your access to classified information or continued eligibility is at risk, NSLF also maintains a dedicated team of security clearance lawyers.
Investigation → Titling and Indexing
Even a case that never produces a conviction can create a separate records problem.
Under the current federal military law-enforcement titling and indexing instruction, a subject may be titled and indexed when there is credible information that the person committed a criminal offense. The instruction expressly states that titling and indexing are administrative procedures and do not themselves establish guilt.
But the record can remain significant.
The current instruction even provides that indexed subject information may remain despite a not-guilty result unless the appropriate official grants relief under the expungement process.
If the investigation is over but the record remains, see our guide to Military Titling Removal and Investigative Record Relief.
This is one of the central reasons early strategy matters:
the criminal allegation may be only the first problem.
What Early Military Defense Cannot Promise
A credible lawyer should also tell you what early representation cannot do.
Hiring civilian military counsel does not mean a lawyer can:
- order CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS to close a lawful investigation;
- prevent investigators from interviewing other witnesses;
- erase lawfully obtained evidence;
- guarantee that charges will not be filed;
- guarantee that command will take no administrative action; or
- control what a prosecutor, commander, special trial counsel, or other decision-maker ultimately decides.
If anyone promises you a specific result before reviewing the facts, evidence, governing authority, and procedural posture, that should concern you.
The purpose of early representation is different.
It is to make better decisions while meaningful decisions can still be made.
Why National Security Law Firm
We Have Sat in Nearly Every Seat That Matters
A military investigation can involve investigators, commanders, prosecutors, defense counsel, judges, senior military leaders, national-security officials, and eventually administrative or clearance decision-makers.
Most lawyers encounter that system from one professional perspective.
National Security Law Firm was built differently.
Our military and federal team includes attorneys who have evaluated serious government cases from nearly every side of the system.
That matters because when the government is already building a case, your lawyer should not have to guess how the people on the other side may evaluate it.
From the Bench
NSLF’s military team includes former military judges who have presided over courts-martial and evaluated evidence, credibility, litigation strategy, and UCMJ cases from the decision-maker’s seat. NSLF publicly identifies former military judges as part of its military-defense team.
A judge’s perspective is different from a prosecutor’s.
A prosecutor asks:
Can I prove this?
A defense lawyer asks:
How can I defeat or limit this case?
A judge asks:
What evidence is actually reliable? What matters? What is legally admissible? What is persuasive?
We want all of those perspectives available when the stakes justify them.
From the Prosecution Table—and the Defense Table
Carl Marrone has served as an Army Judge Advocate, military prosecutor, military defense counsel, Special Assistant United States Attorney, and Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney. He continues to serve as a Major in the Army Reserve JAG Corps. His career has involved evaluating how government investigations develop, how prosecutors assess evidence, and where cases may be vulnerable.
Duane “DAK” Kees served as the United States Attorney for the Western District of Arkansas—the chief federal prosecutor for the district—after presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. Before that, he spent more than eight years on active duty as an Army JAG, deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, investigated military offenses and war crimes, and served as both a military prosecutor and defense attorney.
That means the client is not getting a team that has only defended cases.
And it is not getting a team of former government lawyers who have only prosecuted them.
Our lawyers have built cases and attacked them.
From the Commander’s Office
A military investigation is not evaluated only by litigators.
Command decisions matter.
Alyssa Adams is a Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve who commands a Legal Operations Detachment of more than 45 legal professionals. For more than two decades, she has advised commanders, senior government officials, and DoD leaders on military justice, administrative investigations, personnel actions, operational matters, and national-security issues. She has served as the senior attorney to a Brigade Combat Team in Iraq and as Legal Advisor to the Office of Military Commissions.
Christopher Rittenhouse served as an Army Judge Advocate advising commanders and senior leaders on investigations, military justice, administrative actions, and personnel issues. He also served as a civilian prosecutor and as a Special Victims’ Counsel. That gives him experience with allegations not merely from one adversarial side, but through command decision-making, prosecution, individual representation, and the victim-support system.
Why does that matter?
Because after an investigation, someone may be deciding:
Is the allegation substantiated?
Is this service member credible?
Does this warrant discipline?
Can this person still serve?
Should this become a reprimand, evaluation, separation action, or something more serious?
Our team includes lawyers who have advised the people making those kinds of decisions.
From Senior Military Leadership
Military culture matters.
Rank matters.
Command structure matters.
So does understanding how decisions are made inside a military organization rather than merely reading the governing regulation after the fact.
NSLF’s broader team includes Colonels, Lieutenant Colonels, Majors, commanders, career military officers, and attorneys who have advised senior leaders at brigade, corps, Special Operations, DoD, and other high-level organizations.
That experience is not valuable because a particular rank guarantees an outcome.
It is valuable because these attorneys have spent careers inside the institutions making the decisions our clients are now facing.
From the National-Security and Intelligence Side
Some military investigations involve far more than ordinary misconduct.
They may involve:
- classified information;
- OPSEC;
- intelligence activities;
- cyber issues;
- sensitive access;
- national-security programs; or
- security-clearance consequences.
Matthew R. Kalayjian most recently served as an Attorney-Advisor in the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Security Division. His work included intelligence-surveillance oversight, FISA matters coordinated with the FBI and Intelligence Community, and representation of the United States before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Before that, he was a Navy JAG handling classified litigation, a military prosecutor, a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, and a Navy Surface Warfare Officer.
For cases involving military operations, procurement, classified programs, or Special Operations, the broader NSLF team also includes Sara M. Tracy, a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel and West Point graduate who served 21 years in the Army, including senior legal leadership supporting Army Special Operations and XVIII Airborne Corps.
This is why we do not describe NSLF simply as a group of “former JAGs.”
The experience is broader than that.
★★★★★ “Carl and Cara are the dream team!”
“Professional, kind and on top of it. They had my back and best interest at heart. I highly recommend this team for your legal needs.”
— A.S., Verified Google Review
Every matter depends on its own facts. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Read More Verified Google Reviews
One Client. More Than One Set of Eyes.
High-stakes government cases should not depend on one lawyer seeing every issue.
NSLF uses a collaborative team structure for significant matters because different professional backgrounds reveal different weaknesses, risks, and strategic options.
A former prosecutor may see one issue.
A former defense counsel may see another.
A former judge may identify a credibility or evidentiary problem.
A senior commander adviser may understand where the administrative risk is heading.
A security-clearance lawyer may identify a second problem developing outside the UCMJ process.
A records attorney may recognize that even a favorable criminal result could leave a titling issue behind.
The government does not approach serious cases through one person working alone. Neither should your defense.
★★★★★ “Carl Is the Person You Want to Consult Before Stepping Into an Arena”
“Whether it is an Article 15, GOMOR rebuttal, IG issues, or full on Court Martial. Carl is the person you want to consult before stepping into an arena.”
— A., Verified Google Review
We Defend the Case You Have—and Plan for the Problems That May Come Next
This may be the most important structural difference between NSLF and a traditional military-defense practice.
An investigation today can become:
a court-martial tomorrow;
an Article 15 next month;
a GOMOR in your permanent record;
an administrative separation case;
a security-clearance problem;
a promotion or retention problem;
or
a titling and indexing case that follows you after the criminal allegation is over.
NSLF maintains dedicated practices in those interconnected systems.
We do not assume that getting through today’s interview solves tomorrow’s problem.
We look at the entire risk picture.
What Should You Do If You Learn You Are Under Military Investigation?
If you learn that CID, NCIS, AFOSI/OSI, CGIS, command, or another organization is investigating you:
Do not panic.
Do not destroy, alter, delete, hide, or ask anyone else to change evidence.
Do not contact witnesses or a complainant in a way that could be viewed as intimidation, interference, or retaliation.
Do not assume you need to immediately “tell your side” before understanding your rights.
Preserve potentially relevant evidence.
Write down what happened while events are fresh—but keep privileged attorney communications and litigation strategy with counsel.
Identify exactly who contacted you and what organization they represent.
If you have been advised of Article 31 rights or asked to waive them, understand what you are signing before you do so.
And consider speaking with military defense counsel before the investigation reaches its next stage.
If CID is involved, read our CID Investigation Lawyer guide.
If NCIS is involved, see our NCIS Investigation Lawyer resource.
If OSI is involved, see our AFOSI / OSI Investigation Lawyer guide.
If CGIS is involved, see our Coast Guard CGIS Investigation Lawyer resource.
Speak With a Military Investigation Lawyer Before the Record Is Built Without You
The fact that you have not been charged does not mean nothing is happening.
It may mean investigators are still:
- gathering evidence;
- interviewing witnesses;
- reviewing your communications;
- assessing credibility;
- deciding how to characterize what occurred; and
- determining where the matter goes next.
That is precisely why the pre-charge stage can matter so much.
National Security Law Firm represents service members nationwide and overseas in military criminal investigations, command investigations, Article 31 matters, UCMJ defense, administrative career actions, security-clearance consequences, and military-record issues.
You do not have to wait for a charge sheet to understand your options.
Schedule a Free Consultation With Our Military Law Team
Frequently Asked Questions
Should I wait until UCMJ charges are filed before hiring a lawyer?
No. By the time charges are filed, investigators may already have collected statements, interviewed witnesses, reviewed records, and obtained digital evidence. Whether civilian counsel is warranted depends on the facts and seriousness of the matter, but the absence of formal charges does not mean the case has not begun.
Should I talk to CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS if I am innocent?
Innocence does not answer the procedural question of whether giving an immediate statement is strategically advisable. Article 31 and the Military Rules of Evidence provide protections for suspects. Official Navy defense guidance likewise strongly encourages suspected service members to seek legal advice before giving statements.
Does Article 31 apply before charges are filed?
Yes. Article 31 protections are tied to questioning of an accused or person suspected of an offense; formal court-martial charges are not a prerequisite to the statutory warning requirement.
Can my commander simply stop CID, NCIS, or another criminal investigation?
A commander may have important responsibilities and may communicate concerns through appropriate channels, but DoD policy gives DCIO investigations primacy over collateral command investigations and establishes elevated procedures for attempts to delay, suspend, terminate, or impede certain investigations.
Can military investigators search my phone?
Potentially, depending on the circumstances. Issues may involve consent, probable cause, a military search authorization, a warrant, seizure authority, or an exception such as exigent circumstances. MRE 315 governs search authorizations and requires probable cause for a search authorization.
Can an investigation affect my security clearance even if I have not been convicted?
Yes. DoD investigative policy expressly contemplates sharing certain law-enforcement information for security-clearance eligibility, special-access suitability, insider-threat, and other administrative determinations.
If investigators close the case without charges, does the record disappear?
Not necessarily. Military law-enforcement titling and indexing are administrative processes separate from a criminal conviction. Current policy expressly states that titling does not itself imply guilt, but subject information can remain in law-enforcement systems unless relief is granted under the applicable process.
What Does Military Investigation Representation Cost?
National Security Law Firm offers flat-fee representation for many military investigation matters. Fees generally range from approximately $1,000 to $3,500, depending on the nature of the investigation, complexity of the evidence, urgency, and scope of the representation.
The consultation is free and carries no obligation to hire the firm. An attorney can review what is happening, explain whether representation at the current stage may be useful, and identify the applicable fee before you decide how to proceed.
★★★★★ “Absolutely worth every penny.”
“Absolutely worth every penny. Carl and Cara were extremely responsive to calls and email day or night. I felt I was represented by the best, given excellent advice…”
— R.L., Verified Google Review
Every matter depends on its own facts. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Read More Verified Google Reviews
The Government May Already Be Building Its Case. Start Building Your Defense.
If you have been contacted by military investigators, advised of your rights, asked for your phone, told you are a subject or suspect, or learned that an allegation has been made against you, you do not need to wait for formal charges to understand what is at stake.
Speak with a team that has seen military cases from the bench, the prosecution table, the defense table, the commander’s office, senior military leadership, and the national-security side of government.
★★★★★ 4.9 Stars From 300+ Google Reviews
Read verified client reviews
Official Resources
Manual for Courts-Martial, United States — 2024 Edition
The official Manual contains the Rules for Courts-Martial and Military Rules of Evidence governing preliminary inquiries, rights warnings, statements, searches, seizures, and later court-martial proceedings.
Read the official 2024 Manual for Courts-Martial
Joint Service Committee on Military Justice — Current Publications and Updates
Because the MCM can be amended after a complete edition is published, the Joint Service Committee maintains the current edition and subsequent updates.
Review current MCM publications and amendments
Article 31, UCMJ — Compulsory Self-Incrimination Prohibited
Article 31 establishes military rights protections governing compelled self-incrimination and questioning of accused or suspected service members.
DoDI 5505.03 — Initiation of Investigations by Defense Criminal Investigative Organizations
This instruction addresses the initiation and independence of Defense criminal investigations, relationships with command investigations, investigative reports, and use of investigative information.
Read the official investigative instruction
Current Titling and Indexing Instruction — Change Effective July 9, 2026
This instruction governs titling and indexing by military law-enforcement activities, including the credible-information standard and procedures for seeking relief.
Read the current titling and indexing instruction
Navy Defense Service Office — Article 31 and Statement Guidance
The Navy’s official Defense Service Office provides practical guidance regarding Article 31 rights, speaking with investigators, consulting counsel, and waiving rights.
Read the Navy Defense Service Office guidance
Army Criminal Investigation Division
Army CID is the Army’s independent federal law-enforcement organization responsible for felony criminal investigations and related investigative missions.
Visit the official Army CID mission page
Attorney Reviewed By: Katherine O’Brien
Last Reviewed and Updated: September 1, 2026