27 Nov 2023, U.S. v. E-4, United States Marine Corps, Camp Foster, Okinawa. Corporal and two others are accused of committing harassment against two subordinates in violation of Marine Corps Order 5354.1F, which prohibits "[a]ny conduct, whereby a Service member knowingly, recklessly, or intentionally and with a nexus to military service engages in behavior that is unwelcome or offense to a reasonable person that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment." The Corporal and two others were accused of hosing down two subordinate Marines whose gear were dirty and covered in mud prior to a training event. The two Marines were supposedly forced into a plank position for an extended period of time and allegedly yelled at and treated disrespectfully. A Marine standing a "football field away" reported the behavior. Corporal retains Mr. Gapasin to represent him. Nonjudicial Punishment (NJP) is then initiated against the Corporal but Gapasin advises him to turn it down and instead request a Court-Martial. The Government proceeds to prefer charges for harassment in a Special Court-Martial. Gapasin immediately interviews both of the alleged victims and learns that neither of them are negatively affected by an incident which they considered corrective action. Mr. Gapasin proceeds to draft statements on their behalf which the witnesses review, agree with, and then signs off on. Gapasin intends to use both of these statements for impeachment purposes at trial. Mr. Gapasin knows the best strategy is to quietly proceed to trial, knowing that these two witnesses already provided detailed, written statements that can be used for Opening Statement as well as for potential impeachment purposes when cross-examining both victims. Should the Government learn about the statements too early, Gapasin is concerned that the Government would then correct deficiencies on the Charge Sheet. The week right before trial, the prosecutors interview both of the alleged victims of harassment where they finally learn about the written statements in Mr. Gapasin's possession. The prosecutor attempts to silence these alleged victims from testifying by reading them their Article 31 rights and claiming they were giving false official statements. Gapasin's opinion is this is an attempt by the prosecutors to scare the alleged victims from testifying at trial against the Government and for Gapasin's client. Mr. Gapasin notes this questionable prosecutorial behavior and before Gapasin could file a Motion to Dismiss for Malicious Prosecution, the Government proceeds to drop the charges. RESULT: ALL Charges against Gapasin's client are DISMISSED AND WITHDRAWN ONLY 3 DUTY DAYS BEFORE TRIAL. NO Federal Conviction, NO Confinement, and NO Discharge.