If you are on active duty and married to an undocumented “alien,” you have two concerns (1) how to get your spouse “legal,” and (2) avoiding disciplinary action.

Your Legal Jeopardy

Service members often ask whether marrying or living with an undocumented spouse exposes them to court-martial. The short answer is yes, in limited and fact-specific circumstances—but the risk most often arises from paperwork and benefits errors, not from marriage itself.

1. Charges and Sentence

Charges/Specifications:

The appellant, Chief Hospital Corpsman (E-7) Marvin B. Guzman, U.S. Navy, was tried by general court-martial at Naval Base San Diego, California, and convicted by members with enlisted representation of:

United States v. Marschalek, No. ACM S32776 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 16, 2026).

1. Charges and Sentence

Special Court-Martial, RAF Lakenheath, United Kingdom.

Why Judicial Recusal Protects You in a court-martial

A Cave & Freeburg, Military Lawyers, Client Explainer

When you face investigation, adverse administrative action, or court-martial, one principle stands above all others: your case must be heard by a fair and impartial judge. The military justice system—like every American court—recognizes that justice collapses when a judge appears biased or influenced. Recusal, the process by which a judge steps aside, protects your right to a neutral decision-maker.

Cave & Freeburg, Military Defense Counsel

It is Holiday-Season

At Cave & Freeburg, we represent service members worldwide. One of the most common questions we receive each beginning after Thanksgiving is  how will the holidays affect my case.

Military commanders rely on obedience to accomplish missions, protect forces, and enforce discipline. Servicemembers understand that duty demands compliance with lawful orders. But the law does not allow blind obedience. When an order crosses the boundary into criminality, a servicemember must refuse it—even in combat. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces sharpened this principle in United States v. Smith, 68 M.J. 316 (C.A.A.F. 2010), which now stands as the most rigorous and up-to-date analysis of the superior-orders doctrine under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Smith does more than restate old rules. It clarifies how the UCMJ defines illegal orders, explains when obedience becomes criminal, and integrates the lessons of Calley, Rockwood, and New into one modern framework. The case now guides trial litigation, appellate review, and operational training across the force.

The Legal Foundation: Articles 90–92 and R.C.M. 916(d)

When a service member faces investigation, court-martial, or conviction—every phase demands strategic legal representation rooted in military-justice experience. The recent case of United States v. Greene-Watson (No. 24-0096) illustrates how nuanced evidentiary rules, intense procedural scrutiny, and appellate risk converge in military justice. Here’s why the team at Cave & Freeburg LLP should be your first call.

1. Case Overview

In Greene-Watson, Senior Airman Jaquan Q. Greene-Watson (USAF) was tried by general court-martial for communicating a threat in violation of Article 115, UCMJ, and for assault by suffocation of a child under Article 128, UCMJ. armfor.uscourts.gov+1 The case rested heavily on a recorded threat to his wife and child, and on the prosecution’s motion to admit subsequent uncharged misconduct as evidence of a “common plan or scheme” under Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 404(b). armfor.uscourts.gov The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the admission was within the trial judge’s discretion and—if error—did not materially prejudice the appellant’s rights. armfor.uscourts.gov