April 1, 2026, U.S. v. CDT, United States Army, St. Louis, Missouri. Bright, aspiring Army ROTC cadet faces disenrollment based on serious sexual assault allegations made by two accusers. The alleged incident involves a group of cadets training in Germany in July 2022. Allegations against the cadet are reported the following month. As the investigation begins, the cadet's command commits multiple Title IX violations, creating serious concerns about fairness, due process, and whether the cadet is being treated as presumed guilty before the evidence is ever tested.

Upon receiving the notice of disenrollment in April 2023, the cadet retains Mr. Gapasin to represent him. The first disenrollment board does not take place until May 8, 2023, nearly ten months after the alleged incident. The hearing is held at the college ROTC classroom and lasts the entire day. Mr. Gapasin attends with his client, and the board considers investigative reports, live witness testimony, and the cadet's sworn testimony. On May 18, 2023, the hearing officer issues findings and recommendations concluding that the allegations are unsubstantiated and recommending that Gapasin's client should be retained in ROTC and should not be disenrolled.

Months later, despite that favorable result, the command initiates a second disenrollment board. The stated reason is that administrative errors allegedly occurred during the first board, including the failure to obtain all necessary evidence and the appointment of a board president from inside the battalion rather than outside the battalion. Mr. Gapasin is incredulous and files multiple objections to his client being forced through a second board after already receiving favorable findings. Despite vigorously arguing against a second board, his objections are denied. The second board proceeds on December 6, 2023 with Mr. Gapasin and his client in attendance. They argue their case and present multiple items of evidence before a three-member panel consisting of a Major and two Captains.

The second board again reviews the extensive evidence, including hundreds of pages of documents, prior investigative materials, CID video interviews, and a five-hour video interrogation of the client. After another full-day hearing, the second board reaches the same result as the first. In a unanimous 3-0 vote, the board finds all allegations of misconduct unsubstantiated and recommends that Gapasin's client not be disenrolled and instead be retained. Despite two separate boards reaching favorable conclusions, the PMS disagrees and continues to recommend disenrollment. Mr. Gapasin submits a rebuttal on January 31, 2024, and later pursues a final appeal to Cadet Command after disenrollment remains the command's final position despite two recommendations finding that the allegations were unsubstantiated and that Gapasin's client should be retained.

Now, Mr. Gapasin files an aggressive appeal to Cadet Command, focusing on the contradictions and inconsistencies in the accusers' statements, the weakness of the evidence, the repeated findings that the allegations are unsubstantiated, and the accusers' counterintuitive friendly conduct toward his client days after the alleged incident. Then, on April 1, 2026, nearly three years after the cadet first receives notice of disenrollment, Cadet Command sides with Mr. Gapasin and grants his appeal. The disenrollment is overturned, allowing Gapasin's client to re-enroll, continue toward commissioning as a United States Army officer, and receive repayment of thousands of dollars in tuition and scholarship money. RESULT: Disenrollment REVERSED. Mr. Gapasin's Client is allowed to continue with commissioning as an Officer in the United States Army. Client is also allowed to complete ROTC following the repayment of tuition and scholarship money back to him.