Former Fort Hood Doctor Pleads Not Guilty to 272 Specifications
Major Blaine McGraw denied nine charges involving 93 alleged victims at an August 12 arraignment. Forum selection was deferred and no trial date has been set.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 17, 2026, 6:54 p.m. ET
This matter is open. Agencies announce the actions they bring far more reliably than the ones they lose, so an action reported here may since have been settled, dismissed or decided without a further announcement.
We last searched for new coverage of this at Aug 18, 2026, 8:38 a.m. ET — checked 34 min ago.
Earlier reports
Aug 17, 2026, 6:54 p.m. ETFirst report
Former Fort Hood Doctor Pleads Not Guilty to Military Charges
Former Fort Hood doctor Major Blaine McGraw pleaded not guilty at an August 12 arraignment to nine charges and 272 specifications alleged to have occurred between 2021 and 2026, involving 93 alleged victims, fox5atlanta.com reported. The case remains open and undecided at the charging stage. Forum selection was deferred and no trial date has been set, with developing proceedings anticipated at Fort Hood. FOX 5 Atlanta reported that McGraw is accused of recording and sexually assaulting patients. According to U.S. Army Fort Hood, as reported by fox5atlanta.com, McGraw is charged with 91 specifications of abusive sexual contact and sexual assault, 1 specification of attempted sexual assault, 1 specification of attempted subordination of perjury, 1 specification of solicitation to commit perjury, 66 specifications of indecent recording, 91 specifications of assault consummated by a battery, 18 specifications of conduct unbecoming an officer, 1 specification of extramarital sexual misconduct, 1 specification of willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer, and 1 specification of dereliction of duty. The alleged offenses represent violations of Articles 120, 120c, 128, 80, 133, 134, 90 and 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, fox5atlanta.com reported.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 117 Aug 2026, 23:21current
First published.
- Version 117 Aug 2026, 22:54current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.