Marine Corps Chief Warrant Officer 5 Stephen LaRose Faces Court-Martial

Chief Warrant Officer 5 (CWO5) Stephen LaRose, a highly decorated Marine gunner known for his transformative contributions to military doctrine and lethality, is currently facing a court-martial at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia. The trial, which began on December 17, 2024, involves serious charges, including unauthorized absence (UA), dereliction of duty, false official statements, and conduct unbecoming an officer.

A Storied Career

According to Military Times, Chief Warrant Officer 5 (CWO5) Stephen LaRose has had an illustrious career in the United States Marine Corps, serving in several high-profile roles that highlight his expertise and dedication. As a Marine gunner (officially known as infantry weapons officers), he was recognized as one of the Corps’ leading weapons specialists. From 2020 to 2022, he served as an advisor on the Defense Department’s Close Combat Lethality Task Force (CCLTF), where he worked to enhance the effectiveness of close-combat units. LaRose also provided unofficial guidance to the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab, further cementing his reputation as a key figure in military modernization.

LaRose’s contributions have earned him numerous accolades, including two Bronze Stars, the Defense Superior Service Medal, and the National Infantry Association’s St. Maurice award. He is well-known for his published insights on military doctrine and lethality, particularly his vocal support for the Marine Corps’ Force Design 2030 strategy, which he has discussed in various publications. Over his career, LaRose worked closely with high-ranking officials, including former Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger, and his unique role as a Marine gunner allowed him to operate with greater autonomy, often bridging different levels of command.

As a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, LaRose sustained injuries during his deployments, which influenced his later assignments. His career transitioned toward civilian life in 2022-2023, during which he accepted a position with the defense contractor ManTech.

However, this transition period has led to the current court-martial proceedings, with charges of unauthorized absence, dereliction of duty, and conduct unbecoming a Marine officer, casting uncertainty over the legacy of an otherwise distinguished career.

The Charges: Context and Controversy

The allegations against LaRose center on his service from 2022 to 2023, a transitional period during which he moved from active duty to civilian life. During this time, LaRose served as an advisor to the Defense Department’s Close Combat Lethality Task Force (CCLTF), established in 2018 by then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. The task force, aimed at enhancing close-combat unit effectiveness, underwent a leadership transition in 2021, with the Army taking charge and relocating its headquarters to Fort Moore, Georgia.

This restructuring led to significant administrative changes for Marine Corps personnel like LaRose, who shifted to a “matrix support” model, providing remote assistance from the Washington, D.C., area. The resulting ambiguities in his chain of command and duties have become central to his defense.

Ambiguities in Oversight

The argument for ambiguities in the oversight of Stephen LaRose’s duties arises from several key factors that complicated his responsibilities and chain of command. First, LaRose was “shared” among multiple units, including the Close Combat Lethality Task Force (CCLTF) and the Marine Corps Training and Education Command, without a clearly defined chain of command to oversee his work. Adding to this confusion, he had not received a fitness report (FitRep) since 2019, even though these evaluations are required annually for Marine officers.

As a Marine gunner, LaRose’s unique position granted him more autonomy than most officers, allowing him to transcend traditional command structures and set his own tasking, which further muddied oversight.
During the period in question, from 2022 to 2023, LaRose was transitioning from military service to civilian life.

This coincided with changes to the CCLTF that left it without dedicated Marine staff, creating additional uncertainty about his role. Furthermore, he took on an unofficial advisory role with the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab, which blurred the lines between his official and unofficial duties. Together, these factors paint a picture of significant oversight ambiguities, making it challenging to clearly define LaRose’s responsibilities during this transitional period.

Unauthorized Absence Allegations

The unauthorized absence allegations against LaRose claim that he was absent without permission from the Close Combat Lethality Task Force (CCLTF) for the entire month of September 2022 and from the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab from late May to late July 2023. However, LaRose and his legal team argue that he was actively working during these times. They contend that confusion about his chain of command and reporting structure contributed to the perception of his absences.

The defense highlights that ambiguities in LaRose’s assignments and a lack of clear oversight during his transition from military service to civilian life played a significant role in the situation.

Accusations of False Statements and Ethical Concerns

Chief LaRose faces accusations of making false official statements and engaging in ethically questionable behavior. The allegations of false statements include claims that he planned to join the Wounded Warrior Regiment, had received a terminal leave and separation date in October 2022, worked remotely for defense contractor ManTech and that his work with the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab posed no conflict of interest. Additionally, he is accused of engaging in outside employment that conflicted with his official duties, accepting compensation from ManTech for representing the Marine Corps, and appearing on base in a contractor role for ManTech in November 2022 while still in uniform.

The prosecution argues that these statements were false and that LaRose’s actions violated ethical standards. However, LaRose maintains he was on terminal leave when he accepted the ManTech position and had received guidance from the Marine Corps ethics office, which allowed him to work for the contractor with certain restrictions. His defense contends that the evidence against him is insufficient for conviction, pointing to his multiple traumatic brain injuries and a 100% VA rating for PTSD as factors that may have impacted his understanding of the situation.

A High-Profile Case

The court-martial of Chief Warrant Officer 5 (CWO5) Stephen LaRose is considered high profile for several reasons. LaRose is a highly respected Marine gunner with a distinguished career, known for his published insights on military doctrine and lethality. His case has drawn the involvement of top military leaders, including former Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger, who have been called to provide statements or testify. As one of the Marine Corps’ leading weapons specialists, LaRose’s role as a Marine gunner is unique, operating with more autonomy than most officers.

Adding to the attention, LaRose was a key advisor for the Defense Department’s Close Combat Lethality Task Force, an initiative established by former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. The complexity of the charges, which include ambiguities in his command structure and challenges during his transition from military service to civilian life, further elevates the case. LaRose’s decorated veteran status, with multiple awards and combat-related injuries, also contributes to his prominence.

His attorney describes him as “essentially a war hero,” emphasizing his service and sacrifices. Together, LaRose’s status, the involvement of high-ranking officials, and the complex nature of the charges make this court-martial highly significant.

A Defense of Service and Integrity

LaRose’s civilian attorney, Nathan Freeburg, has questioned the decision to pursue a court-martial for the allegations against Chief Warrant Officer 5 Stephen LaRose, calling it perplexing. Freeburg stated,

“It’s difficult to comprehend why a Chief Warrant Officer 5, who is essentially a war hero, is facing court-martial for being absent without leave and other minor charges based on very flimsy evidence.”

He argued that the issues could have been addressed through less severe measures, such as counseling or non-judicial punishment, rather than a formal court-martial. Freeburg believes that the evidence against LaRose is weak and does not warrant such extreme action, especially given LaRose’s distinguished service record and the relatively minor nature of the charges.

Implications for the Marine Corps

This high-profile court-martial carries significant implications for the Marine Corps. It highlights issues with unclear command structures and oversight, especially for specialized roles like Marine gunners. The case also exposes the challenges of managing the transition of high-ranking officers from military to civilian life, particularly those with unique expertise. Additionally, it raises concerns about administrative processes, such as LaRose’s lack of fitness reports since 2019, and ethical gray areas when officers transition to contractor roles while still in uniform.

The involvement of high-ranking officials, including former Commandant Gen. David Berger, underscores the case’s impact on senior leadership. It also draws attention to how such cases may affect public perception of the Marine Corps, particularly in its treatment of decorated officers. Lastly, the case could lead to a review of policies regarding officer assignments, transitions, and ethical guidelines for post-service employment. These implications suggest that the Marine Corps may need to reassess its administrative and transitional procedures to prevent similar situations in the future.

Summing Up

CWO5 Stephen LaRose’s trial reminds us all about the importance of personal accountability, systemic shortcomings, and the evolving expectations of military service.