From Accusation to Vindication: Navigating an Article 15 & Protecting a Soldier’s Career – The SSG Sánchez Case

Undue Influence or Innocent Remarks? The Battle Over Fairness in the Article 15 Proceeding

The Article 15 Hearing itself was marked by worrying comments that raised significant questions about the impartiality of the proceedings and the Battalion Commander’s (LTC Green) perception of our role as defense counsel. Throughout the hearing, LTC Green made a series of comments that we believe were inappropriate and potentially prejudicial to SSG Sánchez’s case.

These comments centered primarily on our professional relationship with SSG Sánchez and our entirely proper requests for additional time to adequately prepare his defense. Specifically, in our absence, LTC Green suggested to SSG Sánchez that the Defense team was engaged in “playing” both him and the command. This accusation implied that our request for a delay to review the video statements and the DFE report was somehow disingenuous or manipulative. Even more concerning, LTC Green insinuated that our actions were motivated by financial considerations, suggesting that our request for more time stemmed from a lack of dedication to SSG Sánchez’s case due to the Defense’s busy schedule and that our goal was to earn attorney fees on a case we did not have time to work on.

Despite these apparent reservations, LTC Green ultimately agreed to reschedule the Article 15 Hearing for February 27, 2025, at 1700, a mere five hours after my scheduled return from San Francisco. However, this delay did little to alleviate our concerns about fairness and impartiality.

In the brief 58-hour window between rescheduling the Article 15 Hearing and the revised hearing time, we worked tirelessly to prepare SSG Sánchez’s defense. The command finally provided copies of the video statements and a partial DFE extraction of the cell phone, which we diligently reviewed. We had the video statements transcribed and scrutinized the transcripts to provide SSG Sánchez with the most informed and effective advice possible.

However, during these preparatory conversations with SSG Sánchez, a particularly troubling detail emerged: He reported that LTC Green also asked him during the previous hearing, “How much time does your lawyer need? Six months? If that is the case, you should take the case to court-martial.” This statement furthered our belief that the battalion commander was not only interfering with our attorney-client relationship but was also potentially engaging in unlawful command influence.

We were, and continue to be, deeply troubled by this exchange. The comments, both in substance and tone, suggest a bias in the case and a dismissive attitude toward the SSG Sánchez’s right to counsel. A fundamental principle of military justice is that all soldiers are entitled to a fair and impartial hearing and that their attorneys must be free from interference or intimidation. As such, we took these matters very seriously, viewing it as not only a matter concerning this one specific case but a potentially more significant issue of a violation of rights and the potential subversion of a fair Article 15 Hearing process. With SSG Sánchez’s hearing just hours away, our focus shifted to navigating this difficult and delicate situation while safeguarding his right to a fair and impartial Article 15 Hearing.

Prejudged and Condemned: The Concerning Revelation That Threatened SSG Sánchez’s Military Career

After these logistical and evidentiary hurdles, an even more troubling issue came to light, one that struck at the heart of the fairness and impartiality of the impending Article 15 Hearing. We engaged in a frank and crucial conversation with SSG Sánchez to gauge his perception of the “fairness” of the process, and his response sent a chill down our collective spines. He confided that his Battalion Commander, LTC Green, had spoken directly with his wife, Ms. Pomeroy, regarding the terms of the Military Protective Order (MPO). During this conversation, LTC Green allegedly made a statement that cannot be ignored: he reportedly told Ms. Pomeroy that SSG Sánchez “did not have a future in the Army because of his misconduct.”

If accurate, this revelation presented a serious ethical and legal problem. It suggested that LTC Green, the imposing commander, had prejudged the case and determined SSG Sánchez’s guilt before the Article 15 Hearing began. As dedicated military defense lawyers, we could not stand idly by in the face of such an allegation, as the scales of military justice were already being tilted.

Driven by our due diligence and a desire to ascertain the truth, we took a significant step: we personally contacted Ms. Pomeroy herself. She disclosed that her appointed SVC no longer represented her. Her confirmation of SSG Sánchez’s allegation provided clear evidence that LTC Green had already formed a definitive opinion regarding SSG Sánchez’s guilt and the appropriate disposition of his case, including separation from the Army.

This corroboration was not merely a detail; it was the key to understanding that the legal scales were tilted to one side. As a legal team, we needed to do everything we could to re-establish a balance in the legal standing and protect SSG Sánchez. If the imposing commander had already decided about his service in the Army, how could we trust the Article 15 proceedings in the days to come?

The implications of this conversation were weighty. They raised serious questions about LTC Green’s ability to conduct a fair and impartial hearing, as his words suggested a bias that could significantly influence the outcome. With this new information, we knew that it was our duty to confront the issue and do everything possible to ensure that all necessary legal resources would be utilized to achieve a just result. The conversation with Ms. Pomeroy was a starting gun for the next level of aggressive legal actions that my legal team and I prepared to commence.

We knew we had to act fast. Clearly, this was now more than just another Article 15 Hearing. It was now about the power of justice to be equally implemented and enforced in the military.

The Silent Treatment: Fighting for Justice in a System That Won’t Listen

Faced with the alarming indications of bias, our immediate priority became ensuring that SSG Sánchez received a fundamentally fair hearing. We devoted considerable time to researching and drafting a formal request to the brigade judge advocate (BJA) and trial counsel to have the Article 15 proceedings withheld from the Battalion Commander (LTC Green) and elevated to the Brigade Commander. This request was grounded in LTC Green’s comments suggesting prejudgment and interference with the attorney-client relationship, all of which appeared to compromise the integrity of the proceedings.

However, our initial email met with silence. Undeterred, we escalated the matter by sending a second email that included the Chief of Justice and Senior Trial Counsel, underscoring the urgency and gravity of the situation. The BJA’s response was dismissive, stating that he was on TDY and preoccupied during the day and that if we had concerns about the fairness of the proceedings, we could appeal directly to the Brigade Commander after the Article 15 Hearing if there was a finding of guilt. When we clarified with the BJA that he would not take our request to withhold jurisdiction from the Battalion Commander to the Brigade Commander for consideration, he flatly responded with “no.”

This refusal to act ignited a core sense of professional responsibility. The ethical obligations of government lawyers, as outlined in AR 27-26 and AR 27-10, are clear: to ensure justice is served and to uphold the rights of the accused. We believed their refusal to bring our request to the Brigade Commander constituted a dereliction of these duties and a potential violation of SSG Sánchez’s right to a fair hearing.

Before formally lodging these concerns, I sought the counsel of a senior officer in TDS, a respected colleague, and a trusted mentor. After a candid discussion, I carefully “softened” the language of my email to ensure it conveyed my concerns with clarity and respect while also putting the entire OSJA on notice of their failure to adequately address my request for withholding jurisdiction. This revised email was sent to all relevant parties, including the SJA, DSJA, COJ, Senior Trial Counsel, BJA, and the Trial Counsel.

Yet, despite our best efforts, we received no response from any of the OSJA members regarding our misgivings about the process, including the refusal to present the request to withhold jurisdiction to the Brigade Commander. We felt it necessary to follow up and ensure the protection of SSG Sánchez’s rights again.

After landing in Germany from my trip to San Francisco, I called the Senior Trial Counsel to follow up on my emails. I emphasized our steps to get a favorable legal outcome for SSG Sánchez. I explained that we were continuing to act and prepare for the Article 15 Hearing, unsure whether it would be fair. I explained we were laying the groundwork for future actions if SSG Sánchez is not given a fair hearing, including potential complaints with the Inspector General and Professional Responsibility Branch of the JAG Corps, as well as an appeal of the Article 15 and possible requests from the DASEB and ABCMR to remove the Article 15 based our concerns. We wanted to be as transparent as possible. The Senior Trial Counsel understood our concerns and said he would ensure our concerns were relayed to the SJA and BJA.

With the Article 15 Hearing looming just hours away, we redirected our focus to preparing SSG Sánchez to give the best and most accurate testimony possible. In addition to having multiple character witnesses who were ready to provide heartfelt and factual testimony on behalf of SSG Sánchez, we prepared an eight-page legal memorandum requesting that the Battalion Commander, LTC Green, recuse himself from the proceeding based on our well-founded concerns about its apparent lack of fundamental fairness. Understanding that LTC Green could proceed with the Article 15 Hearing, with or without our approval, with or without the advice of his counsel, we also prepared carefully measured arguments regarding the underlying facts of Article 15 and presented a compelling mitigation case.

Owning the Mistake: SSG Sánchez’s Unflinching Acceptance of Responsibility

We started by acknowledging that SSG Sánchez was deeply remorseful that he committed a serious error in judgment by engaging in a sexual act with someone other than his wife. SSG Sánchez fully recognized the seriousness of this lapse and the far-reaching consequences of his actions, not only on the unit and the Army but also on his family, including his wife and three children. SSG Sánchez noted that his conduct was wholly incompatible with his responsibilities as a noncommissioned officer in the U.S. Army and accepted that there must be appropriate consequences for his actions.

SSG Sánchez did not approach this situation with indifference or denial. With strength and determination, SSG Sánchez and his wife have taken proactive steps to confront the underlying issues and renew their commitment to each other. As a testament to his earnest desire for reconciliation, both have dedicated themselves to actively rebuilding their relationship, including seeking professional counseling and recommitting to their marriage. This ongoing effort is more than a superficial act of contrition; it stood as a testament to SSG Sánchez’s sincere resolve to learn from this mistake and emerge as a better soldier, a more devoted husband, and a more responsible father. It underscored his dedication to personal growth and his commitment to right his wrongs.

When Words Aren’t Enough: The Critical Lack of Evidence in SSG Sánchez’s Drug Charge

We then argued that the allegation of Valium use against SSG Sánchez rested on extremely tenuous grounds and lacked required corroboration. The sole piece of “evidence” was a text message SSG Sánchez sent to SGT Muñoz. We argued that it was crucial to understand the context of this statement: SGT Muñoz had admitted that this was a fabrication, an ill-conceived excuse to explain his inability to perform sexually during their encounter. In a moment of embarrassment and poor judgment, he invented the Valium story to justify his performance issues.

We argued that this situation underscored a fundamental principle in our justice system: a confession or statement alone cannot sustain a conviction without corroborating evidence. The principle exists to prevent miscarriages of justice based on false confessions or statements made under duress or, as in this case, for reasons unrelated to actual drug use. To illustrate, I pointed out that if someone were to claim responsibility for a high-profile crime like the assassination of John F. Kennedy, prosecutors would rightly demand substantial corroborating evidence before considering such a claim credible.

In the SSG Sánchez case, there was a complete absence of corroborating evidence to support the allegation of Valium use, including the following:

1. There was no history or evidence of SSG Sánchez ever using Valium.
2. No other individuals had reported hearing SSG Sánchez mention Valium use.
3. No drug tests or screenings have returned positive results for Valium.
4. Searches of SSG Sánchez residence and vehicle yielded no Valium or related paraphernalia.
5. No pharmacy records or prescriptions indicate legal access to Valium.

I argued that beyond this single text message—a statement SSG Sánchez admits was false—there is no evidence to substantiate the charge of Valium use. We believed this this lack of corroboration was fatal to the charge, and the Battalion Commander should find SSG Sánchez not guilty of the wrongful use of Valium.

We argued that an offhand remark, an obviously and inherently unreliable statement regarding drug use, made in a bid to avoid rejection, and nothing further, was not enough to rise to the level of guilt required for an Article 15 and a punishment to be carried out. That single text message—a statement SSG Sánchez admitted to being a fabrication—was not strong enough to be used against our client to find him guilty, and nothing more needed to be said.

Balancing Justice and Family Welfare: SSG Sánchez’s Plea for Financial Mercy

Regarding punishment, we argued that SSG Sánchez’s current financial situation was precarious and demanded careful consideration when determining an appropriate punishment. He resided in the barracks while his wife, Ms. Pomeroy, and their children lived in Texas. Their initial relocation plan to Mexico was altered due to Ms. Pomeroy’s immigration status, which requires her to remain in the United States. We argued this unexpected change has created significant financial strain on the family.

We pointed out that SSG Sánchez’s take-home pay was currently approximately $3,133.41 per pay period. This amount was barely sufficient to cover his wife’s expenses in Texas and his own living costs in Germany. The family’s financial stability was further compromised by SSG Sánchez not receiving any Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH). Moreover, his family’s recent relocation has incurred substantial unexpected expenses, exacerbating their already strained financial situation.

We urged the Battalion Commander to consider the severe financial consequences that an unsuspended reduction in rank would impose on SSG Sánchez and his family. A reduction to E5 would decrease his monthly base pay by $548.70. Additionally, based on his family’s residence in Austin, Texas, such a reduction would lower his BAH from $2,343 to $2,061 per month, a further decrease of $282. An unsuspended reduction would result in a loss of approximately $830.70 per month, or nearly $10,000 annually. We pointed out this financial impact does not account for the long-term consequences of lost promotion opportunities and career advancement within the Army.

Additionally, we articulated that an unsuspended forfeiture of $1,500 would be devastating at a time when SSG Sánchez is already struggling to meet his family’s basic needs. The combined effect of a full forfeiture and reduction would amount to a staggering $1,580.70 monthly for two months. This level of financial penalty would be overly burdensome and could potentially jeopardize the welfare of SSG Sánchez’s family, including his children.

Considering these circumstances, we requested that the Battalion Commander consider suspending any forfeitures or reduction in rank. Such a decision would allow SSG Sánchez to continue supporting his family while still facing consequences for his actions. We argued that the Defense was prepared to accept alternative forms of punishment, such as restriction or extra duty, without hesitation. This approach would serve the dual purpose of holding SSG Sánchez accountable for his error in judgment while preserving his ability to provide for his family and maintain a path toward rehabilitation and continued service.

The Sword of Damocles: How Suspended Sentences Can Reshape a Soldier’s Future

We concluded by demonstrating that despite a suspended reduction and forfeiture, SSG Sánchez faced significant consequences that will serve as powerful motivators for future exemplary conduct. The imposition of restriction and extra duty alone are substantial punishments that will impact his daily life and serve as a constant reminder of his lapse in judgment. Moreover, we reasoned that a suspended reduction and forfeiture would act as a “sword of Damocles” hanging over SSG Sánchez, compelling him to maintain impeccable behavior moving forward.

We reminded the Battalion Commander that It was crucial to recognize that the repercussions of this incident extend far beyond the immediate Article 15 proceedings. SSG Sánchez may still face the daunting prospect of defending himself at an Administrative Separation Board. Even if he successfully navigated that challenge, the specter of a Qualitative Management Program (QMP) Board loomed large, triggered either by the Article 15 or a potentially poor NCOER. Arguing that these were not hypothetical scenarios, we noted the real and serious hurdles SSG Sánchez must overcome to continue his military career.

In closing, we urged the Battalion Commander to consider that the Article 15 is not the end of SSG Sánchez’s journey but rather the beginning of a grueling path to redemption. He must consistently perform “above and beyond” expectations to retain his position and advance in the Army. Every action, every decision he makes from this point forward, will be scrutinized through the lens of this incident. This ongoing pressure to excel is a form of lasting punishment and a powerful catalyst for positive change.

Given the circumstances, we encouraged the Battalion Commander to balance justice with mercy. We argued that by suspending the reduction and forfeitures, the Battalion Commander would provide SSG Sánchez with a critical opportunity to prove his mettle and demonstrate that this incident was an uncharacteristic, isolated mistake. This approach would allow him to channel his energies into rebuilding trust, improving his performance, and reaffirming his commitment to the Army’s values.

Preserving the Record: Building a Foundation for SSG Sánchez’s Future Appeals

We were legitimately concerned that the Battalion Commander would not recuse himself from the proceeding. Now angry over the defense questioning his ability to be a “fair” arbitrator, we feared he would hold it against SSG Sánchez and max him out at Article 15. This fear was balanced against the notion that the Battalion Commander would be reasonable, understand the defense concerns, and to demonstrate that he was “fair,” by being very conscientious in the hearing. Hoping for the latter, we recognized that SSG Sánchez’s long-term interests were better protected by fully articulating our concerns and preserving these concerns for potential future appeals and applications to the DASEB and ABCMR.

We were, and frankly, remain concerned that the BJA and other members of the OSJA refused to bring the issue of withholding jurisdiction to the Brigade Commander for consideration. We believe this to be like a request for an alternative disposition of an action (such as a request for Chapter 10) and that the military lawyers had a professional responsibility to bring this request to the Brigade Commander. While it is possible that such action was taken, the utter silence from the BJA and OSJA appeared to reflect a lack of concern and a “laissez-faire” attitude towards the fairness of the proceedings. We remain concerned that certain professional responsibilities were neglected in this matter.

Vindication and Accountability: The Balanced Outcome of SSG Sánchez’s Article 15 Hearing

The Battalion Commander delivered his judgment after a grueling two-hour Article 15 hearing. He found SSG Sánchez NOT GUILTY of the wrongful use of the Valium charge, which vindicated our insistence that the allegation lacked sufficient evidentiary support. However, he found SSG Sánchez guilty of the charge of extramarital sexual conduct. The Battalion Commander sentenced SSG Sánchez to 30 days of extra duty and a suspended reduction to E5 and forfeitures for six months.

Based on the findings and punishment handed down, we agreed with the outcome and believed this to be a fair and just outcome, as it accounted for both justice and mercy and are the precise actions for which we fought in our memorandums and arguments. It was obvious to us that the commander thoughtfully considered the facts and circumstances presented by the Defense, including the compelling testimony of the three character witnesses who spoke to SSG Sánchez’s integrity and potential.

We take comfort in the fact that the Battalion Commander chose a path that allowed for a balance of justice and opportunity for forgiveness. The commander showed that while there would be consequences, he was still willing to leave open the door, even if only slightly, for future service. The results acknowledged the gravity of SSG Sánchez’s misconduct while also recognizing his potential for rehabilitation and continued contribution to the Army. The opportunity to learn from the past and seek future opportunities and growth as a soldier will not be missed. We would be remiss if we did not acknowledge that from all appearances, in the end, the Battalion Commander was fair and open-minded – either because of or despite of our justified concerns.

Our commitment to SSG Sánchez remains firm. While this chapter of his legal journey has ended, we recognize that further challenges may lie ahead. Whether it be an Administrative Separation Board (ASB) or a Qualitative Management Program (QMP) proceeding, we stand ready to provide SSG Sánchez with the same vigorous and ethical representation that has defined our work from the beginning. We are here to stand by his side throughout the legal issues and ensure he receives every defense and support in future legal proceedings. The journey may be difficult, but our resolve is unchanged: to advocate for SSG Sánchez’s rights and interests at every turn, guaranteeing that he receives a fair opportunity to continue serving his country with honor and distinction.

The client has reviewed and approved this blog post for publication. All identifying details, including names, geographic locations, dates, and unit affiliations—have been deliberately altered to safeguard the privacy of all individuals involved. While the core narrative reflects the legal principles and procedural challenges, non-essential facts, timelines, and contextual elements have been modified to prevent identification.