I find that there is sufficient evidence to SFC Vicente Pereira is guilty of Article 80 UCMJ, Attempts, pursuant to Articles 134 UCMJ, paragraph 97, element (3) Pandering by inducing, enticing, or procuring act of prostitution. Sufficient evidence was provided to support this charge. While I believe that SFC Pereira did in fact violate Article 134 UCMJ and commit acts of adultery, patronizing a prostitute and pandering, the evidence I was able to review did not confirm that money changed hands or that sexual intercourse definitively occurred. To corroborate such actions further information such as phone and bank records on the dates of the phone and e-mail message traffic occurred would be required. Additionally, SFC Pereira’s wife, Mrs. Sulma …show more content…
I was also tasked that if I discovered evidence suggesting a violation of other putative articles of the UCMJ to include such items. In this I find that SFC Pereira is may also be guilty of Article 92 violations on an occasion where the duties assigned to him, or regulations governing his behavior were not personally agreeable. Two separate instances were documented during my investigation. The first was that during the GRAY EAGLE test event setup, O/A 7-9 April 2015, SFC Pereira refused to take direction from the test leadership, as he was given a lawful order, and had a duty to obey said order but refused. He was removed from the test event due to his continued failure to follow directives given to him by senior members of the test team. This is documented by a counseling statement, DA 4856, and through interviews with multiple current and former AVTD