The U.S. Army Office of Special Trial Counsel has referred nine charges and 272 specifications against an obstetrician-gynecologist assigned to Fort Hood, advancing a case involving 93 alleged victims toward general court-martial.
The referral was made on August 3 against Maj. Blaine D. McGraw, 48, who was assigned to Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center in Texas. The alleged conduct spans 2021 through 2026, according to the Army's announcement of the referral.
These are allegations. No findings of guilt have been made, and the Army states that McGraw is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. He remains in pretrial confinement at the Bell County Justice Center, and his medical license is no longer active.
Scope of the Referred Charges
A charge referral is a procedural step, not a verdict. It follows an Article 32 preliminary hearing, at which a hearing officer reviews evidence and determines whether probable cause exists for each charged offense. Lt. Col. Dixon Merkt, an Army Reserve lawyer, presided over the May hearing, found probable cause for the majority of the charges and specifications, and recommended a general court-martial. The Office of Special Trial Counsel concurred.
The specification breakdown across offense categories includes 91 specifications of abusive sexual contact and sexual assault, 66 specifications of indecent recording, 91 specifications of assault consummated by a battery, and 18 specifications of conduct unbecoming of an officer. Single specifications cover attempted sexual assault, attempted subordination of perjury, solicitation to commit perjury, extramarital sexual misconduct, willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer, and dereliction of duty.
The case now goes to a military judge, who will set the arraignment and trial schedule. No dates have been announced.
Earlier stages of the case involved different counts and a different time window. In December 2025, the office announced four charges and 61 specifications. By May 2026, that had grown to eight charges and 273 specifications involving 96 alleged victims across a 2019 to 2026 window. The August referral figures are the operative ones, and the narrower date range reflects the charges that survived the preliminary hearing.
Case That Began with a Patient's Family
The reporting on how the case surfaced is central to the patient-safety question it raises.
In October 2025, a patient's husband caught him recording during an ultrasound without consent. McGraw then agreed to have his phone searched, and that search produced the evidence that led to the case. He was suspended from providing care at that point and placed in pretrial confinement in December.
That sequence means the alleged conduct was interrupted by a family member present in the room rather than by a clinical monitoring system. Whether institutional safeguards should have detected concerns earlier is not something any published record currently answers, and the Army has not addressed it publicly.
The earlier charges spanned two military treatment facilities, with conduct alleged at Tripler Army Medical Center in Honolulu between June 2019 and July 2023 before the physician's assignment to Fort Hood. Not all alleged victims were patients. At least one was allegedly recorded at a private residence off post.
Oversight Questions Raised by Civil Filings
A separate civil track is proceeding alongside the military case, and it is where the oversight allegations are being made explicitly.
As of mid-2026, 82 Jane Doe plaintiffs have filed civil claims in Bell County District Court, and at least eight individuals had filed administrative complaints against the Army under the Federal Tort Claims Act alleging the military failed to properly screen, supervise or retain the physician. The law firm Sanford Heisler filed the first of those tort complaints in December 2025.
Those are claims, not findings. The Federal Tort Claims Act process requires an agency to review an administrative claim before any lawsuit can proceed, and no determination has been reported.
The military justice system handles the criminal side differently from civilian courts. Charges are preferred by a prosecutor or commander, tested at an Article 32 hearing, then referred toward trial. Special Trial Counsel, an office created to take certain serious offenses out of the traditional chain of command, handled this case.
Steps Patients Can Take During Intimate Exams
Nothing here should discourage anyone from seeking gynecologic, obstetric, or any other care. Skipped exams carry real health consequences, and cases like this one are rare relative to the volume of care delivered.
Patients are entitled to request a chaperone for any intimate examination, and most health systems have a written chaperone policy. Asking for one is a routine request, not an accusation, and a patient can ask that the chaperone be a specific staff member or that a family member remain present.
Patients may also ask what is being recorded during an ultrasound or procedure, where images are stored and who can access them. Clinical imaging is normally captured on equipment tied to the medical record, not on a personal device.
Anyone who feels something inappropriate occurred during care can report it to the facility's patient advocate, to the state medical board or, at a military treatment facility, to the patient advocate and the Office of Special Trial Counsel. Concerns can be raised after the fact and do not require certainty at the time.
Support is available for anyone affected by this case or by similar experiences. The RAINN National Sexual Assault Hotline can be reached at 1-800-656-4673, and the DoD Safe Helpline, which serves the military community, is available at 877-995-5247.
The next step is assignment of a military judge and a trial schedule. MedicalDaily will report confirmed developments in both the court-martial and the civil proceedings.
The bottom line: the newest confirmed development is a referral of nine charges and 272 specifications involving 93 alleged victims; the allegations remain unproven; the civil filings raise unresolved questions about military supervision of clinicians; and patients retain the right to request a chaperone for any intimate exam.
Key Questions Answered
What happened? The U.S. Army Office of Special Trial Counsel referred nine charges and 272 specifications against Maj. Blaine D. McGraw on August 3, 2026, involving 93 alleged victims and conduct alleged between 2021 and 2026.
Has he been convicted? No. These are allegations. The Army states he is presumed innocent unless proven guilty, and no trial has occurred.
What does a charge referral mean? It is a procedural step in the military justice system allowing a case to proceed toward court-martial after a preliminary hearing officer finds probable cause.
How did the case begin? A patient's husband reported catching the physician recording during an examination in October 2025. A subsequent search of his phone produced the evidence underlying the case.
Are there civil cases as well? Yes. Eighty-two plaintiffs identified as Jane Doe have filed claims in Bell County District Court, and administrative complaints have been filed against the Army under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Those claims are unresolved.
Can patients request a chaperone during exams? Yes. Requesting a chaperone for any intimate examination is a routine right, and most health systems have a written policy covering it.
Where can affected people get support? The RAINN National Sexual Assault Hotline is 1-800-656-4673. The DoD Safe Helpline for the military community is 877-995-5247.
