The Case Now Has Formal Criminal Charges
On Dec. 9, 2025, the U.S. Army Office of Special Trial Counsel formally preferred criminal charges against Maj. Blaine McGraw, a 47-year-old Army obstetrician-gynecologist assigned to Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center at Fort Hood, Texas. The Army has publicly confirmed that four charges and 61 specifications have now been filed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. At this stage, the Army has not yet released a standalone public charging document on its official court-martial docket system, and no trial date has been announced. The formal prosecuting authority in the case is the Army’s Office of Special Trial Counsel, which handles serious violent and sexual offenses across the service.
What McGraw Is Officially Accused Of
According to the Army’s charging announcement, McGraw faces 54 specifications of indecent visual recording under Article 120c, five specifications of conduct unbecoming an officer under Article 133, one specification of willful disobedience of a superior officer under Article 90, and one specification of making a false official statement under Article 107 of the UCMJ. The Army alleges the charged conduct occurred on multiple occasions between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 1, 2025. Most of the alleged offenses are said to have taken place during medical examinations involving female patients at the Fort Hood medical center. One additional alleged victim, who was not a patient, was purportedly recorded in a private off-post residence near Fort Hood. The Army states that 44 victims have been identified so far. Because the Army has not published these specifications in a publicly accessible court filing yet, these details currently rely solely on the Army’s own prosecutorial announcement.
Current Custody Status and Presumption of Innocence
McGraw is presently being held in pretrial confinement at the Bell County Jail in Belton, Texas. Pretrial confinement in military cases requires commanders and judicial authorities to determine that lesser forms of restraint are inadequate, but it does not imply guilt. The Army explicitly states the charges remain allegations only, and McGraw is legally presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty at a general court-martial.
What Procedurally Happens Next
Now that charges have been preferred, the next mandatory legal step is an Article 32 preliminary hearing. A neutral hearing officer will be appointed to review the government’s evidence, assess witness credibility, and determine whether probable cause exists for each specification. That officer will produce a written report. After reviewing that report, OSTC will decide whether to refer the case for trial by general court-martial. If a referral occurs, a military judge will be assigned and will schedule arraignment, motion hearings, and trial. This multi-stage process is administered and overseen by OSTC in coordination with the Army Criminal Investigation Division.
Relationship to the Earlier Civil Allegations
Before these charges were preferred, the public first learned of the allegations through civil litigation and investigative reporting, which focused on claims that McGraw had secretly recorded patients during intimate medical exams while on duty. Those early reports also raised concerns that complaints may have followed him between duty stations. At present, the Army has not publicly confirmed whether those prior allegations form part of the current charge sheet, nor has it released findings related to any prior administrative investigations. Without a publicly available Article 32 record yet, it remains impossible to determine how much of the earlier civil narrative will become part of the criminal case.
What the Specific UCMJ Charges Signify
Indecent visual recording under Article 120c criminalizes knowingly recording another person’s private areas or private acts, without consent, when that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The unusually high number of specifications indicates prosecutors believe the conduct was repetitive rather than isolated. Conduct unbecoming of an officer under Article 133 is one of the military’s broadest character-based criminal offenses and is used when conduct fundamentally undermines the moral authority or professional standing required of an officer. The willful disobedience and false statement charges suggest the government may also be alleging misconduct during internal command or investigative proceedings, not solely in clinical settings.
Victim Support and Ongoing Investigation
Because the investigation remains open, Army prosecutors state they are continuing to coordinate with Army CID to determine whether additional charges are warranted. The Army has designated a single point of coordination for victim support through the Fort Hood Lead Sexual Assault Response Coordinator, acknowledging the scale of the alleged victim pool. CID has also openly invited additional witnesses or victims to come forward using its public tip portal at https://www.cid.army.mil/Submit-a-Tip/. The Army has established a single point of coordination for victim support and services related to this case, which is the Lead Sexual Assault Response Coordinator (SARC) at Fort Hood. They may be contacted at 254-449-6097. The continued investigative posture means the charge sheet could still expand before trial.
What This Case Now Represents
With charges formally preferred, the McGraw case has crossed the decisive legal threshold from allegation to criminal prosecution. That shift brings constitutional protections for the accused, compulsory process for witnesses, and the full evidentiary testing of the government’s case inside a military courtroom. It also places the Army’s medical oversight, reporting mechanisms, and internal accountability structures under unavoidable scrutiny.
