September 25, 2026, U.S. v. E-4, United States Army, Camp Humphrey, Pyeongtaek, South Korea. Specialist is stationed in South Korea and was previously ordered into Pre-Trial Confinement for misconduct. He is charged with 3 specifications of sexual assault without the consent of the accuser, and with 1 specification of allegedly obstructing justice by trying to pay the accuser money not to report. The accuser was a female Soldier who met the Specialist at the Ville and claims she was assaulted in his barracks room. Specialist retains Mr. Gapasin who immediately requests the appointment of a DNA forensics expert due to the lack of DNA evidence that any alleged sexual intimacy occurred between his client and the accuser. This is despite the accuser's allegation of digital penetration against her consent, as well as seminal fluid that supposedly got on her leg which was wiped on a blanket in the room. The clothes and blanket were all seized later in the week. In preparation for trial, Mr. Gapasin files several motions, managing to exclude MRE 413 evidence of prior, different sexual assault allegations. Gapasin also files an MRE 412 evidence to elicit evidence of prior sexual behavior relevant to the charged offenses. As trial began, Mr. Gapasin aggressively cross-examines the accuser regarding her improper conduct by attempting to speak with other witnesses about her case during a recess while she was still on the stand. Gapasin also manages to elicit testimony that she falsely accused another witness of infidelity and was telling the witness's wife a fake story. Throughout her cross-examination, Gapasin performs a very surgical cross-examination highlighting much of her counterintuitive behavior before, during and after the alleged assault which she claims took place in his client's barracks room. He also points out how much the accuser would minimize or downplay her own behavior which appeared consensual. Gapasin then focuses on how the counterintuitive behavior simply does not pass the common sense test. Gapasin further argues how the accuser's testimony reflected the client's reasonable mistake of fact as to consent. The Officer and Enlisted Panel apparently agree. RESULT: FULL ACQUITTAL. NO Federal Conviction, NO Confinement with IMMEDIATE RELEASE from Pre-Trial Confinement, NO Discharge, and NO Sex Offender Registration.