S. HRG. 112–217 

PROVIDING LEGAL SERVICES BY MEMBERS OF 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERALS’ CORPS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PERSONNEL 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 20, 2011 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services 

( 

PROVIDING LEGAL SERVICES BY MEMBERS OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERALS’ 

CORPS 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

68–485 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–217 

PROVIDING LEGAL SERVICES BY MEMBERS OF 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERALS’ CORPS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PERSONNEL 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 20, 2011 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

RICHARD D. DEBOBES, Staff Director 

DAVID M. MORRISS, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PERSONNEL

JIM WEBB, Virginia, Chairman 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES 

PROVIDING LEGAL SERVICES BY MEMBERS OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERALS’ 

CORPS

JULY 20, 2011

Page 

Dell’Orto, COL Daniel J., JAGC, USA, Ret., Chairman, Independent Panel 

Review of Judge Advocate Requirements of the Department of the Navy ...... 478 

Osman, Lt. Gen. Pete, USMC, Ret., Panel Member, Independent Panel Review of Judge Advocate Requirements of the Department of the Navy .......... 480 

Chipman, LTG Dana K., JAGC, USA, Judge Advocate General of the U.S. 

Army ...................................................................................................................... 489 

Houck, VADM James W., JAGC, USN, Judge Advocate General of the U.S. 

Navy ...................................................................................................................... 493 

Harding, Lt. Gen. Richard C., JAGC, USAF, Judge Advocate General of 

the U.S. Air Force ................................................................................................ 497 

Ary, Maj. Gen. Vaughn A., USMC, Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant 

of the Marine Corps ............................................................................................. 500 

(III) 

(1) 

PROVIDING LEGAL SERVICES BY MEMBERS 

OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERALS’ CORPS 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PERSONNEL, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:27 p.m., in room 

SR–232A, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Jim Webb (chairman) presiding. 

Committee members present: Senators Webb, Hagan, 

Blumenthal, Brown, Ayotte, and Graham. 

Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff director; Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk; and Jennifer L. Stoker, security clerk. 

Majority staff members present: Jonathan D. Clark, counsel; 

Gabriella E. Fahrer, counsel; Gerald J. Leeling, counsel; Peter K. 

Levine, general counsel; and Jason W. Maroney, counsel. 

Minority staff members present: Diana G. Tabler, professional 

staff member; and Richard F. Walsh, minority counsel. 

Staff assistants present: Jennifer R. Knowles and Breon N. 

Wells. 

Committee members’ assistants present: Gordon Peterson, assistant to Senator Webb; Ethan Saxon, assistant to Senator 

Blumenthal; Charles Prosch, assistant to Senator Brown; Brad 

Bowman, assistant to Senator Ayotte; and Andrew King and Sergio 

Sarkany, assistants to Senator Graham. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JIM WEBB, CHAIRMAN 

Senator WEBB. The hearing will come to order. 

Let me begin by apologizing for the delay here. We normally 

would have started much earlier. But this is a hearing that was requested by Senator Graham, and he has apparently been held up 

for a while. I hope he will show up in all due time. 

I didn’t want to delay this hearing any longer by taking that 

risk. So we will go ahead and begin, and then hopefully, Senator 

Graham will be joining us soon. 

The subcommittee meets today to receive testimony on legal 

services provided by members of the Judge Advocate Generals’ 

(JAG) Corps. As I mentioned, we are holding this oversight hearing 

at the request of Senator Graham. He has been a champion of the 

military legal community for some time. 

As one who has a rich appreciation for the critical role that our 

uniformed members of the JAG community perform, I would like 

2 

to express my appreciation to him for all the work that he has done 

and also for his requesting this hearing. 

Many individuals outside the military associate JAGs solely with 

military justice. JAGs do play a significant role in administering 

and supervising the military justice system, which is inextricably 

linked to a commander’s responsibility for maintaining good order 

and discipline. However, this is not the only important function of 

JAGs. 

As the independent panel that reviewed the judge advocate requirements of the Navy and Marine Corps pointed out, ‘‘The demand for judge advocate support will continue unabated, driven by 

the increasing complexity and intensity of the legal and policy environment in which commanders are required to operate.’’ 

In addition to military justice requirements, the panel examined 

substantial and increasing operational law requirements of the 

Navy and Marine Corps, the requirements for judge advocates with 

litigation experience to support military commissions charged with 

trying detainees for violations of the law of war, and the new requirements for judge advocate support for the integrated disability 

evaluation system. 

JAG officers also are important players in addressing the legal 

complexities of defense contracting and acquisition programs that 

cost billions of dollars. 

One motivation for this hearing is the committee’s longstanding 

concern about a series of appellate court decisions critical of the 

post-trial processes of the Navy and Marine Corps, addressing the 

denial of due process for defendants in those cases. Despite assurances that these problems were being addressed, they persisted, 

culminating in the case of United States v. Foster. This case is perhaps the most egregious example of how bad a system can get 

without proper accountability. 

Sergeant Foster was convicted of domestic rape in December 

1999. His record of trial languished in the Navy and Marine Corps 

appellate process until February 2009, when the Navy-Marine 

Corps Court of Criminal Appeals overturned his conviction because 

the conviction ‘‘could not withstand the test for legal and factual 

sufficiency.’’ 

Sergeant Foster spent more than 9 years in confinement awaiting the automatic appellate review of his case, a review that ultimately concluded that the conviction was not supportable. The 

court described the evidence of rape as ‘‘anemic at best’’ and concluded, ‘‘We have determined that Sergeant Foster’s conviction for 

rape was improper, as the Government did not establish his guilt. 

Therefore, the appellant has served nearly 10 years of confinement 

in part for an offense of which he should not have been convicted.’’ 

The court also said, ‘‘We find the delay in this case so egregious 

that tolerating it would adversely affect the public’s perception of 

the fairness and integrity of the military justice system.’’ In short, 

Sergeant Foster experienced a travesty of justice. 

As a result, the committee concluded that it could no longer rely 

on promises from the Department of the Navy to improve its system and reacted by requiring the Department of Defense (DOD) Inspector General (IG) to review the systems, policies, and procedures 

3 

currently in use to ensure timely and legally sufficient post-trial reviews of courts-martial within the Department of the Navy. 

The DOD IG report will be included in the record of this hearing. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

4 


68485.001
5 


68485.002
6 


68485.003
7 


68485.004
8 


68485.005
9 


68485.006
10 


68485.007
11 


68485.008
12 


68485.009
13 


68485.010
14 


68485.011
15 


68485.012
16 


68485.013
17 


68485.014
18 


68485.015
19 


68485.016
20 


68485.017
21 


68485.018
22 


68485.019
23 


68485.020
24 


68485.021
25 


68485.022
26 


68485.023
27 


68485.024
28 


68485.025
29 


68485.026
30 


68485.027
31 


68485.028
32 


68485.029
33 


68485.030
34 


68485.031
35 


68485.032
36 


68485.033
37 


68485.034
38 


68485.035
39 


68485.036
40 


68485.037
41 


68485.038
42 


68485.039
43 


68485.040
44 


68485.041
45 


68485.042
46 


68485.043
47 


68485.044
48 


68485.045
49 


68485.046
50 


68485.047
51 


68485.048
52 


68485.049
53 


68485.050
54 


68485.051
55 


68485.052
56 


68485.053
57 


68485.054
58 


68485.055
59 


68485.056
60 


68485.057
61 


68485.058
62 


68485.059
63 


68485.060
64 


68485.061
65 


68485.062
66 


68485.063
67 


68485.064
68 


68485.065
69 


68485.066
70 


68485.067
71 


68485.068
72 


68485.069
73 


68485.070
74 


68485.071
75 


68485.072
76 


68485.073
77 


68485.074
78 


68485.075
79 


68485.076
80 


68485.077
81 


68485.078
82 


68485.079
83 


68485.080
84 


68485.081
85 


68485.082
86 


68485.083
87 


68485.084
88 


68485.085
89 


68485.086
90 


68485.087
91 


68485.088
92 


68485.089
93 


68485.090
94 


68485.091
95 


68485.092
96 


68485.093
97 


68485.094
98 


68485.095
99 


68485.096
100 


68485.097
101 


68485.098
102 


68485.099
103 


68485.100
104 


68485.101
105 


68485.102
106 


68485.103
107 


68485.104
108 


68485.105
109 


68485.106
110 


68485.107
111 


68485.108
112 


68485.109
113 


68485.110
114 


68485.111
115 


68485.112
116 


68485.113
117 


68485.114
118 


68485.115
119 


68485.116
120 


68485.117
121 


68485.118
122 


68485.119
123 


68485.120
124 


68485.121
125 


68485.122
126 


68485.123
127 


68485.124
128 


68485.125
129 


68485.126
130 


68485.127
131 


68485.128
132 


68485.129
133 


68485.130
134 


68485.131
135 


68485.132
136 


68485.133
137 


68485.134
138 


68485.135
139 


68485.136
140 


68485.137
141 


68485.138
142 


68485.139
143 


68485.140
144 


68485.141
145 


68485.142
146 


68485.143
147 


68485.144
148 


68485.145
149 


68485.146
150 


68485.147
151 


68485.148
152 


68485.149
153 


68485.150
154 


68485.151
155 


68485.152
156 


68485.153
157 


68485.154
158 


68485.155
159 


68485.156
160 


68485.157
161 


68485.158
162 


68485.159
163 


68485.160
164 


68485.161
165 


68485.162
166 


68485.163
167 


68485.164
168 


68485.165
169 


68485.166
170 


68485.167
171 


68485.168
172 


68485.169
173 


68485.170
174 


68485.171
175 


68485.172
176 


68485.173
177 


68485.174
178 


68485.175
179 


68485.176
180 


68485.177
181 


68485.178
182 


68485.179
183 


68485.180
184 


68485.181
185 


68485.182
186 


68485.183
187 


68485.184
188 


68485.185
189 


68485.186
190 


68485.187
191 


68485.188
192 


68485.189
193 


68485.190
194 


68485.191
195 


68485.192
196 


68485.193
197 


68485.194
198 


68485.195
199 


68485.196
200 


68485.197
201 


68485.198
202 


68485.199
203 


68485.200
204 


68485.201
205 


68485.202
206 


68485.203
207 


68485.204
208 


68485.205
209 

Senator WEBB. The DOD IG concluded that, ‘‘Serious post-trial 

processing problems persisted for at least the last two decades,’’ 

and found that, ‘‘Process failures occurred at almost every segment 

of the post-trial process as a result of inadequate leadership, supervision, and oversight.’’ 

In addition to requiring the DOD IG review, the committee included a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2010 establishing an independent panel to review the 

judge advocate requirements of the Department of the Navy. The 

panel examined the functions of judge advocates in the Navy and 

Marine Corps and found that both Services had failed to increase 

judge advocate requirements to keep pace with the increasing requirements for legal support to commanders operating in an increasingly complex and intense legal and policy environment. 

The final report of the independent panel to study the judge advocate requirements of the Department of the Navy, dated February 22, 2011, will be included in this record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

210 


68485.206
211 


68485.207
212 


68485.208
213 


68485.209
214 


68485.210
215 


68485.211
216 


68485.212
217 


68485.213
218 


68485.214
219 


68485.215
220 


68485.216
221 


68485.217
222 


68485.218
223 


68485.219
224 


68485.220
225 


68485.221
226 


68485.222
227 


68485.223
228 


68485.224
229 


68485.225
230 


68485.226
231 


68485.227
232 


68485.228
233 


68485.229
234 


68485.230
235 


68485.231
236 


68485.232
237 


68485.233
238 


68485.234
239 


68485.235
240 


68485.236
241 


68485.237
242 


68485.238
243 


68485.239
244 


68485.240
245 


68485.241
246 


68485.242
247 


68485.243
248 


68485.244
249 


68485.245
250 


68485.246
251 


68485.247
252 


68485.248
253 


68485.249
254 


68485.250
255 


68485.251
256 


68485.252
257 


68485.253
258 


68485.254
259 


68485.255
260 


68485.256
261 


68485.257
262 


68485.258
263 


68485.259
264 


68485.260
265 


68485.261
266 


68485.262
267 


68485.263
268 


68485.264
269 


68485.265
270 


68485.266
271 


68485.267
272 


68485.268
273 


68485.269
274 


68485.270
275 


68485.271
276 


68485.272
277 


68485.273
278 


68485.274
279 


68485.275
280 


68485.276
281 


68485.277
282 


68485.278
283 


68485.279
284 


68485.280
285 


68485.281
286 


68485.282
287 


68485.283
288 


68485.284
289 


68485.285
290 


68485.286
291 


68485.287
292 


68485.288
293 


68485.289
294 


68485.290
295 


68485.291
296 


68485.292
297 


68485.293
298 


68485.294
299 


68485.295
300 


68485.296
301 


68485.297
302 


68485.298
303 


68485.299
304 


68485.300
305 


68485.301
306 


68485.302
307 


68485.303
308 


68485.304
309 


68485.305
310 


68485.306
311 


68485.307
312 


68485.308
313 


68485.309
314 


68485.310
315 


68485.311
316 


68485.312
317 


68485.313
318 


68485.314
319 


68485.315
320 


68485.316
321 


68485.317
322 


68485.318
323 


68485.319
324 


68485.320
325 


68485.321
326 


68485.322
327 


68485.323
328 


68485.324
329 


68485.325
330 


68485.326
331 


68485.327
332 


68485.328
333 


68485.329
334 


68485.330
335 


68485.331
336 


68485.332
337 


68485.333
338 


68485.334
339 


68485.335
340 


68485.336
341 


68485.337
342 


68485.338
343 


68485.339
344 


68485.340
345 


68485.341
346 


68485.342
347 


68485.343
348 


68485.344
349 


68485.345
350 


68485.346
351 


68485.347
352 


68485.348
353 


68485.349
354 


68485.350
355 


68485.351
356 


68485.352
357 


68485.353
358 


68485.354
359 


68485.355
360 


68485.356
361 


68485.357
362 


68485.358
363 


68485.359
364 


68485.360
365 


68485.361
366 


68485.362
367 


68485.363
368 


68485.364
369 


68485.365
370 


68485.366
371 


68485.367
372 


68485.368
373 


68485.369
374 


68485.370
375 


68485.371
376 


68485.372
377 


68485.373
378 


68485.374
379 


68485.375
380 


68485.376
381 


68485.377
382 


68485.378
383 


68485.379
384 


68485.380
385 


68485.381
386 


68485.382
387 


68485.383
388 


68485.384
389 


68485.385
390 


68485.386
391 


68485.387
392 


68485.388
393 


68485.389
394 


68485.390
395 


68485.391
396 


68485.392
397 


68485.393
398 


68485.394
399 


68485.395
400 


68485.396
401 


68485.397
402 


68485.398
403 


68485.399
404 


68485.400
405 


68485.401
406 


68485.402
407 


68485.403
408 


68485.404
409 


68485.405
410 


68485.406
411 


68485.407
412 


68485.408
413 


68485.409
414 


68485.410
415 


68485.411
416 


68485.412
417 


68485.413
418 


68485.414
419 


68485.415
420 


68485.416
421 


68485.417
422 


68485.418
423 


68485.419
424 


68485.420
425 


68485.421
426 


68485.422
427 


68485.423
428 


68485.424
429 


68485.425
430 


68485.426
431 


68485.427
432 


68485.428
433 


68485.429
434 


68485.430
435 


68485.431
436 


68485.432
437 


68485.433
438 


68485.434
439 


68485.435
440 


68485.436
441 


68485.437
442 


68485.438
443 


68485.439
444 


68485.440
445 


68485.441
446 


68485.442
447 


68485.443
448 


68485.444
449 


68485.445
450 


68485.446
451 


68485.447
452 


68485.448
453 


68485.449
454 


68485.450
455 


68485.451
456 


68485.452
457 


68485.453
458 


68485.454
459 


68485.455
460 


68485.456
461 


68485.457
462 


68485.458
463 


68485.459
464 


68485.460
465 


68485.461
466 


68485.462
467 


68485.463
468 


68485.464
469 


68485.465
470 


68485.466
471 


68485.467
472 


68485.468
473 


68485.469
474 

Senator WEBB. Finally, today’s hearing will also consider efforts 

by the Secretary of Defense to reduce the numbers of flag and general officers. On March 14, 2011, Secretary Gates approved the 

elimination of 102 general and flag officer authorizations, 21 of 

which are Air Force authorizations. Three of these are Air Force 

judge advocate brigadier general positions that will be downgraded 

to colonel positions—the Staff Judge Advocates for Air Mobility 

Command, Air Combat Command, and Air Materiel Command. 

Senator Graham informed me that he has real concerns about 

this reduction, and right on cue, he enters the hearing. Welcome, 

Senator Graham. 

Senator GRAHAM. I apologize. 

Senator WEBB. As I mentioned earlier, we waited until quarter 

after and as a courtesy—— 

Senator GRAHAM. We got hung up with the Republicans, which 

is hard to believe. [Laughter.] 

Senator WEBB. These are trying times. But you walked in just 

at the right moment. I will continue and then hand it over to you. 

Senator Graham informed me he has real concerns about this reduction. We are discussing the reduction in general officer authorizations in the Air Force JAG. 

I have also collected data on the numbers of general and flag officers in each Service, the number of JAG and flag officers, and 

court-martial and discharge data. I would like, actually, to take a 

little bit of time on this data. 

Since it was passed out while people were waiting for us to begin 

the hearing, I am sure there has been a little bit of buzz about the 

information on it. But let me start with the first slide, and I would 

like to just talk my way through it. 

[The slide referred to follows:] 

Senator WEBB. This slide was put together at my request, which 

goes from left to right, with the end strengths of each of the military Services, then the number of general and flag officers in the 

Service, a ratio showing how many general or flag officers per 


720per11.eps
475 

servicemember, an outline of the JAG positions—general flag officer positions—and a ratio, and the number of Active Duty JAGs in 

each Service. It is a fairly interesting comparative chart. I believe 

strongly that the best way to have policy discussions is to start 

with facts. 

On this chart, you will see that the Army has 569,400 people, its 

authorized end strength. They have 315 flag officers, for a ratio of 

1 general officer to every 1,800 soldiers. 

The Navy has 328,700 people on Active Duty and a total of 257 

admirals, flag officers, a ratio of 1 to every 1,279. 

The Marine Corps has 202,100 people in Active Duty, 86 general 

officers, a ratio of 1 to every 2,350. 

The Air Force has 332,280 people on Active Duty, and 314 general officers, for a ratio of 1 for every 1,058. 

You will see in this chart that the Air Force has presently 13 

four-star generals, which is more than any of the other Services. 

It has 43 three-stars, which is the same as the Army and the Navy, 

the Navy being almost identical in size to the Air Force, by the 

way. 

The Air Force has 107 two-stars, compared to Navy’s 74. The 

Army has 117, and it has 151 general officer brigadier generals, 

which is actually more than any other Service. 

If you look at the JAG general flag officer positions, you will see 

that the Army has one 0–9, one 0–8, three 0–7s, and one 0–7 temporary position, for a total of six. 

The Navy has one 0–9, one 0–8, and then three 0–6s that are 

tombstar retirements to 0–7 upon retirement. So it has two flags. 

The Marine Corps has one 0–8, one two-star, and one colonel position that with a tombstone promotion to 0–7 upon retirement. 

The Air Force has six general officer flags as JAGs. 

If you could get the second chart, please? 

[The slide referred to follows:] 


720per12.eps
476 

Senator WEBB. I actually asked for this data out of curiosity. As 

many of you know, I spent 5 years in the Pentagon. I believe that 

if you can go from the facts, you can have a better discussion of 

what the policy discussions should be. 

Again, if we are looking at the number of JAGs in the military, 

it is a good starting point to look at the legal proceedings over the 

past couple of years, just to see what they look like Service by 

Service. I am not going to spend a lot of time going through each 

one of these numbers, but the most interesting point for me on this 

is that the numbers seem to be wildly disparate. 

The Army doesn’t have information available for the types of discharges that it ordered. If you read this chart, left to right, it is 

number of courts-martial, number of nonjudicial punishments 

(NJPs), the number punitive discharges as a result of courts-martial, the number of other than honorables (OTH) discharges due to 

administrative procedures, number of general discharges, and then 

the number of honorable discharges. 

Several things jump out, and I am saying this to make a point, 

as the chairman of this subcommittee, not simply for the hearing 

today, but as a continuation of the concern that I have with the 

data that we have been able to receive from DOD in a number of 

different cases. 

I asked, when the Assistant Secretaries for Manpower were testifying here, if they could give us some data on percentages of discharges—how many honorables, how many generals, how many 

OTHs, et cetera. There was a general response that they didn’t 

know, which really stunned me, to be quite frank. 

I have a chart here where the Army—with plenty of advance notice—doesn’t have the information. The Marine Corps, in terms of 

honorable discharges, we had a chart 2 days ago, where they said 

they had in fiscal year 2010 3,700 honorables, and then today we 

got a chart that said they got 39,862 honorables. 

This kind of fits into a pattern. When I first started working on 

data to try to support the GI bill, when I introduced it, one of my 

questions was since the GI bill is principally designed to help people in their readjustment to civilian life after the military, what 

percentage of people in the different Services leave with honorable 

discharges before the end of their first enlistment? It took me a 

year to get that data. 

We asked in one hearing how many contractors were in DOD? 

Nobody seemed to be able to give us an answer. I asked for historical data on the different commands and DOD headquarters units, 

and it took us over a month. I think it took us 3 months to get that 

data. 

Just as someone who has done this for a long time, I have to 

compare that kind of reaction to when I was committee counsel up 

here in 1977, when we had some very complex legislation on what 

was called the Carter Discharge Review Program, it dealt with the 

number of bad discharges that were given during the Vietnam era. 

At one point in those hearings, I asked DOD, can you give me 

the number of discharges by category, by year during the Vietnam 

era, by Service? I had it in 24 hours. I had from DOD a multiyear 

breakdown by Service, by discharge in 24 hours. 

477 

I asked them the next week, can you give me the casualties in 

Vietnam, year-by-year, by Service and by ethnic groups? I had that 

in 24 hours. 

I don’t think the computer systems back then were any better 

than they are now, and I don’t think people were particularly any 

less challenged than they are right now. So it just raises a huge 

question for me for how we are communicating between DOD and 

the U.S. Congress and whether DOD is tabulating this kind of 

data. 

It is vital data. If you can’t figure out where your discharges are, 

you really can’t speak broadly to the nature of discipline in your 

Services. 

So I am taking some time to lay that out because it affects a lot 

of other things we are going to be doing in this subcommittee. 

With that, Senator Graham, you asked for this hearing, and I am 

going to just turn it over to you. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate you bringing this to our attention. Obviously, we 

need another hearing on why you can’t provide information in a 

timely manner. 

Senator WEBB. We will just keep raising it until they start giving 

us answers. 

Senator GRAHAM. I join with you in that regard. 

But this hearing is about the role of the judge advocate in the 

21st century. Our military has been deployed since September 11, 

2001, almost continuously. I have had a chance to see in action on 

the ground judge advocates in Iraq and Afghanistan, doing things 

that didn’t even exist 5 years ago. 

I don’t know about the court-martial load here. I hope it is down. 

I think it probably is because you have the most motivated, welltrained, highly-educated force, so I would expect it to go down. 

But in terms of the workload of the judge advocate, it has just 

been amazing what the Navy and the Air Force have been doing 

to help our Army brethren over there with detainee review boards. 

The number of prisoners that have gone through American military 

custody in Iraq at one time was over 40,000, and all of them had 

to have some form of representation. They have been producing law 

of war detention boards literally under fire. 

So I am very proud of the JAG Corps officers who have provided 

great counsel and advice. Keeping these bad people off the battlefield is great for the warfighter because when the marines roll 

them up, if they are getting out in a week, that is bad for morale. 

Quite frankly, when the marines roll up people that shouldn’t have 

been caught, it is bad for our ability to win over the population. 

So we have had a pretty robust legal presence in the war on terror, unlike any time I have ever seen. 

Mr. Chairman, I really respect you. But I can tell you one thing 

that happened without any doubt, in my view, is that during the 

initial invasion of Iraq, people in the Pentagon were not listening 

as closely as they should about detainee operations and that the 

military legal community’s voice wasn’t as strong as it should have 

been. 

Rank matters, you know better than anyone. The reason that the 

JAGs today are three-stars is because now they are guaranteed a 

478 

seat at the table. When they were two-stars, their advice pretty 

well got canned. So it is pretty hard to ignore a lieutenant general. 

But the independent panel we asked to be impaneled was to look 

at a Navy-Marine Corps manning problem. So, if I could, Mr. 

Chairman, can I just open it up to our witnesses and have them 

tell us, if you don’t mind, their general findings? Maybe we can 

learn from their experience. Is that okay? 

Senator WEBB. We can do that. Welcome the witnesses in the 

first panel, and I appreciate your patience in having sat through 

a waiting period and my long intro. 

Senator GRAHAM. Yes, well, that is my fault. I apologize. 

Senator WEBB. First we have retired Colonel Daniel Dell’Orto, 

former Principal Deputy General Counsel for DOD, and retired 

Lieutenant General Pete Osman, who served as Deputy Commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs in the U.S. Marine 

Corps. 

Gentlemen, welcome. Your report is a very comprehensive review, and we look forward to hearing your observations. 

STATEMENT OF COL DANIEL J. DELL’ORTO, JAGC, USA, RET., 

CHAIRMAN, INDEPENDENT PANEL REVIEW OF JUDGE ADVOCATE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

Colonel DELL’ORTO. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of 

the committee. On behalf of Lieutenant General Osman, thank you 

for the opportunity to appear before the committee today. 

We are here to discuss the congressional mandate contained in 

section 506 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 to ‘‘carry out a study of the policies and management 

and organizational practices of the Navy and Marine Corps with 

respect to the responsibilities, assignment, and career development 

of judge advocates for the purposes of determining the number of 

judge advocates required to fulfill the legal mission of the Department of the Navy.’’ 

In full compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the 

panel conducted 5 public meetings and posted more than 200 documents on a Web site for review by interested persons. 

In addition to Lieutenant General Osman, the panel included a 

number of distinguished former public servants and former colleagues of mine who have served our Nation in the past and continue to serve in a variety of roles. They include the Honorable Judith A. Miller, former DOD General Counsel; Rear Admiral James 

E. McPherson, U.S. Navy, retired, former JAG of the Navy; and 

William R. Molzahn, former Deputy General Counsel for the Department of the Navy. 

Each of these persons volunteered for service on the panel and 

devoted considerable hours to the panel’s work. They should be 

commended for stepping forward yet again to provide selfless service to our DOD and to our Nation. 

The panel received outstanding support from the Department of 

the Navy, including extremely professional administrative support 

from the Office of the Secretary of the Navy and the Office of the 

General Counsel of the Navy. The Navy provided the panel with 

a first-rate staff of Marine and Navy judge advocates, civilian atVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:36 Jan 24, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00484 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68485.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
479 

torneys, and administrative staff, all of whom are acknowledged in 

our report. 

We received tremendous support and cooperation from numerous 

witnesses from both inside and outside the DOD legal community. 

General David Petraeus; Vice Admirals Harry Harris, John Bird, 

and Robert Harward; and Marine Lieutenant Generals John Kelly 

and Richard Natonski provided invaluable insight into the critical 

role that judge advocates play in today’s fluid operational environment in both regions of conflict and regions of apparent calm. 

Vice Admiral James Houck, the JAG of the Navy, and Major 

General Vaughn Ary, the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant 

of the U.S. Marine Corps, provided the panel with comprehensive 

testimony and other information regarding the organization, missions, and staffing of the uniformed legal community in their Services. 

The panel completed its 217-page report on February 22, 2011, 

and delivered it to Secretary Gates and to the chairmen of the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Armed Services 

Committee. 

The panel addressed each of the areas of review mandated by the 

statute. By way of summary, the panel believes that the demand 

for judge advocate support will continue unabated, as Chairman 

Webb has already indicated, driven by the increasing complexity 

and intensity of the legal and policy environment in which commanders are required to operate. 

In addition, their contribution to good order and discipline, by 

supporting a just and functional military justice system, is equally 

noteworthy and essential to the overall well-being of the Navy and 

Marine Corps. 

Military justice, from complex, high-profile general courts-martial 

to due process advice and representation during administrative 

proceedings, needs to remain an important and necessary core 

function for the Navy and Marine judge advocates. In the end, 

proper manning, resourcing, training, and retention of judge advocates in the Navy and the Marine Corps is both a necessity and 

a cost-effective force multiplier that contributes to the ultimate 

mission success of both Services. 

I would request, Mr. Chairman, that our report also be made a 

part of today’s record. 

Senator WEBB. Yes, it has been entered as a part of the record. 

Colonel DELL’ORTO. I would like to then offer General Osman the 

opportunity to add his comments. Upon completion of those comments, we are prepared to address your questions. 

Senator WEBB. Let me also say at this point that your full statement, if it is different than what you gave, also will be entered as 

part of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Colonel Dell’Orto follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY COL DANIEL J. DELL’ORTO, USA (RET.) 

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, and on behalf of 

Lieutenant General Osman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today. 

We are here today to discuss the congressional mandate contained in section 506 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 to ‘‘carry out a study 

of the policies and management and organizational practices of the Navy and MaVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:36 Jan 24, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00485 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68485.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
480 

rine Corps with respect to the responsibilities, assignment, and career development 

of judge advocates for purposes of determining the number of judge advocates for 

purposes of determining the number of judge advocates required to fulfill the legal 

mission of the Department of the Navy.’’ 

In full compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the panel conducted 

5 public meetings and posted more than 200 documents on a Web site for review 

by interested persons. In addition to Lieutenant General Osman, the panel included 

a number of distinguished former public servants and former colleagues of mine who 

have served our Nation in the past, and continue to serve in a variety of roles. They 

include the Honorable Judith A. Miller, former Department of Defense General 

Counsel; Rear Admiral James E. McPherson, U.S. Navy (retired), former Judge Advocate General of the Navy: and William R. Molzahn, former Deputy General Counsel for the Department of the Navy. Each of these persons volunteered for service 

on the Panel and devoted considerable hours to the Panel’s work. They should be 

commended for stepping forward yet again to provide selfless service to the Department of Defense and to our Nation. 

The Panel received outstanding support from the Department of the Navy, including extremely professional administrative support from the Office of the Secretary 

of the Navy and the Office of the General Counsel of the Navy. The Navy provided 

the Panel with a first-rate staff of Marine and Navy judge advocates, civilian attorneys and administrative staff, all of whom are acknowledged in our report. We received tremendous support and cooperation from numerous witnesses from both inside and outside the Department of Defense legal community. General David 

Petraeus, Vice Admirals Harry Harris, John Bird, and Robert Harward; and Marine 

Lieutenant Generals John Kelly and Richard Natonski provided invaluable insight 

into the critical role that judge advocates play in today’s fluid operational environment in both regions of conflict and regions of apparent calm. Vice Admiral James 

Houck, the Judge Advocate General of the Navy and Major General Vaughn Ary, 

the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the United States Marine Corps 

provided the Panel with comprehensive testimony and other information regarding 

the organization, missions and staffing of the uniformed legal community in their 

Services. 

The Panel completed its 217-page report on February 22, 2011 and delivered it 

to Secretary Gates and to the Chairmen of the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Armed Services Committee. The Panel addressed each of the 

areas of review mandated by the statute. By way of summary, the Panel believes 

that the demand for judge advocate support will continue unabated, driven by the 

increasing complexity and intensity of the legal and policy environment in which 

commanders are required to operate. In addition, their contribution to good order 

and discipline, by supporting a just and functional military justice system, is equally 

noteworthy and essential to the overall well being of the Navy and Marine Corps. 

Military Justice, from complex, high-profile general courts-martial to due process 

advice and representation during administrative proceedings, needs to remain an 

important and necessary core function for Navy and Marine judge advocates. In the 

end, proper manning, resourcing, training and retention of judge advocates in the 

Navy and Marine Corps is both a necessity and a cost-effective force multiplier that 

contributes to the ultimate mission success of both Services. 

Lieutenant General Osman and I are prepared to address your questions. Thank 

you. 

Senator WEBB. General Osman, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. PETE OSMAN, USMC, RET., PANEL 

MEMBER, INDEPENDENT PANEL REVIEW OF JUDGE ADVOCATE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

General OSMAN. Mr. Chairman, I can only echo what Colonel 

Dell’Orto has said with regards to the panel’s activities and the 

support that we received. I can tell you that as a marine infantryman and the only non-attorney on the panel, it was an honor and 

quite an education. 

Senator WEBB. Lending dignity to what otherwise would have 

been a vocal brawl, I am sure. 

General OSMAN. The Commandant had a reason for putting me 

there, I think, and I hope I fulfilled that for him. 

481 

Really, it was a pleasure and an honor to be able to serve on the 

panel, and I look forward to the questions that you may have for 

us, sir. 

Senator WEBB. Thank you very much. If you have a written 

statement, it will be entered in the record at this time. 

General OSMAN. Sir, I think that Dan would agree this is our 

written statement right here. 

Senator WEBB. Thank you, and it is a part of the record. 

Senator Graham, I am just going to let you go ahead and ask 

questions. 

Senator GRAHAM. In a couple minutes, tell us what you concluded. 

Colonel DELL’ORTO. I think if you look at the report—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Assume we are all infantrymen up here. 

Colonel DELL’ORTO. Except for myself, who was an artillery man 

in my earlier days, Senator Graham. 

I think we took a look at a wide array of issues, as the statute 

directed that we do. I think certainly, as has already been mentioned, judge advocates today perform a much broader array of 

duty, legal duties, than perhaps at any point in their history. 

I can certainly say from my personal experience as a judge advocate for 20 years that the judge advocates of today, in this environment—and certainly, I don’t limit that to the combat environment 

in which so many of them are serving—the nature of the issues, 

the variety of issues go well beyond the focus that I had as principally a military justice practitioner. 

The people who preceded me and many of my generation focused 

much of their career principally on military justice, administrative 

law in the traditional sense, things of that nature. Today, when 

you look at Navy JAGs and all that they have responsibility for, 

with respect to maintaining their operational exercise areas free 

from litigation in our civil courts to what is being done on battlefields in Iraq and certainly now in Afghanistan with respect to rule 

of law, that goes well beyond purely legal practice. 

Senator GRAHAM. Do you know how many Navy JAGs and Marine Corps JAGs have been deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan? 

Colonel DELL’ORTO. There have been significant numbers, Senator Graham. I don’t know the numbers. We certainly talk about 

the numbers who are performing and have been performing different types of duties with respect to, I think, rule of law functions, 

operational law functions, things like that. 

I know on my own trips to the theater, when I was still in the 

department, I ran across a number of Navy JAGs operating in support of either Marine units or serving in command elements as part 

of the legal staffs there. So, certainly, a number of them have been 

deployed. 

I would say that certainly—so the variety of duty that they perform is far broader than ever before. I would say that I think the 

expectations that they will be able to deliver their advice very 

quickly at a time when the information flow that commanders deal 

with, the information flow the senior leaders deal with is such a 

fast-paced environment that there is a premium on getting advice 

to commanders and senior civilian officials at an ever-increasing 

pace. 

482 

I think that that, in addition to the variety of work that they do, 

puts a premium on having great amount of expertise embedded in 

each and every JAG, when he or she is performing duties at any 

level of command, at any location. 

Senator GRAHAM. In terms of numbers, do we have enough? Do 

we need more? 

Colonel DELL’ORTO. Again, our mandate, Senator Graham, was 

to look at the Navy and the Marine Corps. We believe, at the moment and as we look into the near term, on the Marine Corps side, 

we believe that the Marine Corps has programmed billets for 

enough judge advocates to meet current and immediate future missions. 

We have concerns on the Navy JAG side. If you assume that we 

will continue at the current pace of operations, the current pace of 

deployments for the fleet, if you look at the decision that has been 

made since the panel wrote its findings with respect to military 

commissions, we believe that you put all that together and the 

Navy program for the immediate 3, 4 years down the road, I would 

say, is probably about 200 attorneys short. 

I think we forecast about 950 attorneys for the Navy, and I think 

they are at about 750 or plan to be at about 750. Whereas the Marines, I think, are looking at—we fixed the requirement at about 

550, and we believe the Marines have planned for that. 

Senator WEBB. Maybe you can clear up one thing for me, and 

then I am going to move to others who may want to ask a question. 

To what extent does the Foster case represent something that was 

endemic to the system, and to what extent was that an anomaly? 

Colonel DELL’ORTO. One of the problems with the Foster case, in 

and of itself, was that it followed on the heels of other episodes of 

similar delay in the process associated with review of a court-martial. 

I think my own experience as an appellate advocate in the Army 

would indicate that sometimes—I mean, things can happen, even 

in a system that is built to be as foolproof as we would like to think 

that these systems are. But I think the biggest problem for Foster 

is that we had a wakeup call in Moreno several years earlier, and 

one would have hoped that a case like Foster would not have suffered from the same fate. 

I didn’t look at the record of trial in Foster. My assumption is 

that it was principally a case in which there was testimony going 

back and forth between the defense and the prosecution. I doubt 

that there was much in the way of forensics. I am making an assumption. Perhaps I shouldn’t. 

But if you assume that—and I think the record of trial may have 

been 700, 800 pages or so. But again, in the absence of a highly 

complicated, science-based evidentiary issue—and it appears that 

there was not any—I would say, real esoteric law involved—it was 

a straight-up, factual—bust for factual insufficiency—it would seem 

to me that that is a case that should have been handled a little bit 

more cleanly. 

Senator WEBB. In the normal circumstance, how long would that 

have taken? 

Colonel DELL’ORTO. I don’t know what the normal circumstance 

would be for the Marines, Mr. Chairman, and for the Navy appelVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:36 Jan 24, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00488 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68485.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
483 

late review authority or for the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals. But we have multiple enlargements for the case once 

it gets to the appellate court. At some point, someone has to say 

hold it. We have gone too long. 

I would have hoped that someone would have seen fairly early 

on in the appellate process that this was going to be a factual sufficiency case and that there was some chance that it might get overturned on review. But again, I can’t talk to how systematic this 

problem is or was. 

But we do know that we had at least one previous incident that 

members of this committee, we believe, were concerned about with 

Moreno, and yet Foster followed at some point on the heels of it. 

Senator WEBB. Thank you. 

Senator Brown. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just for purposes of disclosure, I am a JAG and have been for 

a while. I have recognized the old caveat that you never want a 

JAG until you actually need one, when your you-know-whats are 

in the wringer and you need some guidance as to whether to go or 

not to go. 

Especially in this ever-changing world of war and conflict that 

we are in, the problem can potentially be that if you don’t get the 

proper guidance, you are on the front page of the newspaper or on 

CNN, and you have created an international incident. 

So that is really where my head is at as to: are we going to make 

some cuts to save some money, or are we going to make some cuts 

and potentially start another worldwide incident? That is how basic 

it is for me. 

In your report, you spoke about the legal risks of failing to provide the right numbers of judge advocates with the right training 

and experience, and I reference especially in this complex legal environment. I guess the question for today is what effect precisely 

would result from lowering the number of operational lawyers, particularly in the Navy and Marine Corps? 

I know personally the effect I think it would have on individual 

servicemen, but can you comment on how it would affect our operations around the world, particularly with your perspective as a 

former infantry officer and commander? 

That would probably be you, General, and then I will certainly 

refer back to the artillery man. 

General OSMAN. Certainly, Senator Brown. 

As Mr. Dell’Orto explained, once a lot of these things had come 

to light, I will coin a phrase that the Commandant used. He saw 

a ‘‘call to action’’ and began to take—through the Total Force Structure Division within the Marine Corps, take a look at the number 

of judge advocates that were needed. 

It was determined to be 550, and as Mr. Dell’Orto said, the committee agreed with that number. The Marine Corps has begun 

quite a ramp-up to get there. In fact, if you look, back in September, I believe they had 438 judge advocates. Today, they have 

510. So they are moving very quickly to get to that 550. So that 

is good. 

The Navy faces a challenge. Again, the panel had determined 

they needed about 950. I believe Vice Admiral Houck had figured 

484 

somewhere around 925, something like that. It looks like the Navy 

is on a glide slope to go down to as few as 750. That would be a 

concern for me. 

The Navy does have a lot of lawyers involved in operational law, 

probably—certainly more than the Marine Corps has involved in 

operational law. If you look at the military justice piece, interestingly, the Marine Corps probably has a higher demand in that area 

than the Navy does. In fact, that may be one of the challenges that 

the Navy is going to face is ensuring they have the experienced litigators they need to address the military justice issue. 

So there are challenges out there, Senator Brown. That is the 

bottom line. Watching these numbers closely and the concern that 

this committee has for that is probably well founded. 

Senator BROWN. So do you think it would affect our operations 

around the world, the lack of proper counsel? 

General OSMAN. Again, having listened to the testimony of Vice 

Admiral Houck, as well as a number of commanders in the field, 

the increasing requirement for lawyers in operational law is definitely there. 

In fact, when I did my interview with General Petraeus, asking 

how many judge advocates he had on his staff, he said, ‘‘Not 

enough.’’ He had way more than he rated at that time, but nonetheless, he said he used them in a lot of positions that were out 

of the judge advocate community because, as he said, they are very 

good critical thinkers. That is what he needed. 

So the requirement is out there from the operational commanders in the field. 

Senator BROWN. That is interesting because my next question 

was, could you comment on how the general feels or felt, actually, 

about his lawyers? But do you know how he would feel about terminating Active Duty military lawyers, as the Navy apparently is 

planning on doing? 

General OSMAN. Again, in the interview I had with him, he made 

it quite clear that he would take as many judge advocates as he 

could get to put on his staff. So, obviously, if there was a reduction 

in the numbers, he would not have liked that. 

Senator BROWN. So when you were doing your report, did you 

speak to the Navy and determine what the discrepancy was between your numbers and their numbers and what the reasoning 

was? I know I am obviously going to ask the same question. What 

was your opinion on why? I mean, why do they think—is it just 

numbers driven? Do they need to save money? 

General OSMAN. I think that Vice Admiral Houck can probably 

better address how the Navy goes about determining the numbers 

that it needs of judge advocates. 

Again, as I said, in the Marine Corps, they have a thing called 

a Total Force Structure Division that sits down as the honest 

broker and literally works the numbers and came out with the 550. 

Again, the panel, after reviewing it, said that made a lot of sense. 

Senator BROWN. I guess, Mr. Dell’Orto, just one final question. 

Can you comment on the relative strengths and weaknesses that 

struck you the most regarding how each Service provides judge advocate support? 

485 

Colonel DELL’ORTO. Again, Senator, when you talk about each 

Service, you are about the Marines versus the Navy? 

Senator BROWN. Yes, each Service. Those two Services. So, yes. 

Colonel DELL’ORTO. I think both are doing an awfully good job 

of providing support where their commanders believe they need 

support. I think when the Marines determined that they were 

going to put judge advocates at battalion and regimental level for 

their deployed forces, I thought that was a significant commitment 

on the part of the Marine leadership to ensure that commanders, 

I mean, at the lowest levels had access to legal advice. 

I think the Navy certainly has, in terms of supporting the Marine Corps in some of the prosecutions that have taken place where 

the Marine Corps needed additional counsel in support of its freedom of navigation efforts and, as I alluded to earlier, some of the 

environmental battles they are fighting to maintain their ranges or 

their exercise areas, I think the Navy JAG community and the 

leadership has been doing a very good job in deploying their JAGs 

where they think they have some significant needs. 

I think they have been utilizing their JAGs correctly. I think the 

question is, at least with respect to the Navy, whether they are 

going to have enough to do all that they are being asked to do. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Colonel DELL’ORTO. May I add one additional comment in response to Senator Brown and General Osman? 

We highlighted the number of general and flag officers who provided information to us and were interviewed by us. We didn’t have 

to go soliciting that. One of the things that I think we found remarkable, they came to us. They wanted to talk to us about the 

value that they find in the presence of their JAGs. 

So, believe me, I mean, as great as it was to have General 

Petraeus come in and do that for us or Admiral Harris, whom I 

know well from the multiple assignments he has had, we didn’t 

have to go beg them to do that. We didn’t have to ask them. They 

just came to us because they—it was a testament to the value they 

placed on the role—they place on the role of JAGs in their responsibilities. 

Senator WEBB. Thank you, Senator Brown. 

Just as an observation from General Osman’s comment about the 

different functions of the JAGs in different disciplinary environments in the Service, if you look at this data sheet that we have 

here, the Marine Corps had six times as many courts-martial as 

the Navy did last year. If you figure that the manpower is about 

two-thirds, that that force has about two-thirds, that means the 

Marine Corps had nine times the rate of court-martial as the Navy 

did last year. 

Senator Ayotte? 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank both of you for coming here today. This is a very 

important issue. It is so important that we respect the rule of law 

and that particularly those who serve are afforded the presumption 

of innocence. 

It is a fundamental of our constitutional rights. I think that the 

JAG Corps performs such an important function in our armed services. So I really appreciate the analysis that both of you have done. 

486 

Can you help me understand the Foster case, an understanding 

that that was just an egregious situation. Are there proper systems 

in place to avoid that happening again, in your opinions? 

Colonel DELL’ORTO. I think the Navy and Marine Corps have certainly taken steps to correct the failures in that. We outlined several things in the report that have already been done to take into 

account an administrative responsibility for watching these cases 

as they move through the system. 

I think more is being done. The Navy, I know, is having a study 

done that will take a look at what the Army and the Air Force 

have done over the years with respect to tracking cases from cradle 

to grave, if you will. 

I know my experience, when I was a trial counsel, I had a retired 

E–9 as my paralegal. When I was the chief of military justice, and 

if we didn’t move a case quickly, he was getting a call from Washington and the clerk’s office about where this case is, why isn’t it 

moving more quickly? 

This was prior to the computer age, with databases and systems 

that would automatically trigger a request for information. There 

were people literally looking at the reports and asking questions if 

a case didn’t appear to be moving quickly. 

As a military judge in Korea in the 1990s, I had to fill out a report at the conclusion of every case I tried that triggered the tracking of that case back in Washington. So, you had parallel paths for 

reporting of the cases taking place. Judiciary was tracking the 

case, and certainly, the command had responsibilities coming back 

into the Army Legal Services Agency for tracking a case. 

I always felt that system held up pretty well. I can’t say that the 

Army was immune from having a Foster-like case. 

But I have commended that to Vice Admiral Houck, and I 

know—and his response to me is that they are already looking at 

that and looking at the systems in place in the other Military Departments and Services to see whether they can learn from those 

and adapt some of those systems. Because there are systems that 

work, in my view. 

Senator AYOTTE. Particularly, as you point out, in the Army and 

the Air Force and then also, obviously, on the civilian side of how 

things are tracked. How far off are they from implementing an actual system that would be similar or have similarities to what the 

Army and the Air Force have in place? 

Colonel DELL’ORTO. Senator, as we point out in the report, certain things have already taken place. They are not necessarily tied 

to, I think, the assessment or review of what the other Services are 

doing. That piece is underway right now, and I don’t know how 

close they are to completing that assessment to determine whether 

those systems are transferable into the Navy-Marine Corps situation. 

Senator AYOTTE. Did you get a good sense of urgency? Because 

this seems like a very urgent situation, in my opinion. 

Colonel DELL’ORTO. I did. But I will let General Osman speak for 

himself on that. 

General OSMAN. As Colonel Dell’Orto said, both Services have 

taken some initiative with respect to tracking. The Navy has their 

court-martial tracking and information system that they are utiVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:36 Jan 24, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00492 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68485.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
487 

lizing now, and the Marine Corps has a case management system 

that they are using to help track cases. 

I think the panel would say that both of those still need some 

work. They would not stand alone as they are. But nonetheless, 

DOD is looking at what the Air Force and Army do; so they are 

pursuing alternative case tracking systems that will assist them in 

this. 

Senator AYOTTE. Can I ask you both about the military commission system? I am a strong supporter particularly of using the military commission system to try individuals at Guantanamo. I am 

very pleased that the administration, for example, has changed 

their position on individuals like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed because I think it is important for the security of the American people. 

What is your assessment of the litigation teams with respect to 

handling military commissions? Again, I want to also emphasize 

the importance of the military commissions points out the importance of having a robust and sufficient JAG Corps because it 

shouldn’t just be the military commissions. We don’t want our soldiers to be given short shrift because we have to focus all the resources there. Sufficient resources have to be there to cover all of 

this. 

Colonel DELL’ORTO. As one who was there at the inception of 

military commissions and has been part of the effort to help get the 

right staffing in place for military commissions, I strongly support 

the view that we need to put first-class talent in the roles of prosecutors, defense counsels and judges. I similarly believe that for 

our courts-martial, regardless of the number, we need to ensure 

that we have first-rate lawyers as prosecutors, as defense counsels, 

and as judges. 

We face an interesting dilemma at this point. As the numbers 

that the chairman has requested are examined, you see that the 

numbers of courts-martial that are being tried continues to decline. 

Certainly from my time as a prosecutor and defense counsel in the 

1970s and 1980s, in both the continental United States (CONUS) 

assignments and in European assignments, our numbers were significantly higher. 

All of us who were military justice practitioners then tried a lot 

of cases. Our predecessors who served in Vietnam, Germany, Europe, and overseas assignments during that era and immediately 

following tried far more cases than I did and my contemporaries. 

You get better as a military justice practitioner the more you 

practice that craft, whether you are a trial counsel, a defense counsel, or even a judge. That is not to say every case you try needs 

to be a general court-martial to get better. 

An Article 15 turndown where both sides are going at each other 

tooth and nail is a great opportunity to learn your craft as a trial 

counsel, whether you are trying or prosecuting or defending. You 

learn that in series of plateaus. 

You may try your first 20 cases, and the bulk of them as a trial 

counselor are guilty pleas. You go in there and you are sweating 

that that defendant is going to bust providency on that case, and 

you are scared to death you are going to have to try that case. 

488 

By the time you get to that 40th or 50th case—and I don’t want 

to be cynical about this—but you are almost hoping that he busts 

providency because you can’t wait to try that case. 

I will confess that I sort of went kicking and screaming to be a 

defense counsel. But once you get in the saddle and you get the 

hang of it, you appreciate, as you go through a series of plateaus 

in your development as a counsel and get significant numbers of 

cases under your belt, you gain a full appreciation for the importance of that role not only for the client, but also the importance 

of the role for that system of justice. 

So how do we handle this now? How do we handle the needs to 

have highly qualified, skilled counsel trying cases where there 

aren’t that many cases to be tried? 

How do we ensure that we have the right set of trial counsel, defense counsel, and judges to be thrown into military commission 

mix, when perhaps they are still not quite done developing that 

skill set in the court-martial realm? 

We have struggled with that. We struggled through it the whole 

time, as post-September 11, 2001, when the President’s order on 

military commissions came out. It was a constant battle, particularly with the lurching back and forth about whether we were 

going to try cases at military commissions. 

We took testimony from retired Vice Admiral MacDonald, who is 

now the convening authority for military commissions. He told the 

panel that he has been assured by each of the Judge Advocates 

General that he will get first-rate counsel to fill those billets as we 

go forward, if and when the decision was made to go forward with 

military commissions, as that decision has since been made. 

He is also counting on support from the Department of Justice, 

where, presumably, you have people who have spent a little bit 

more time in the courtroom, who will also fill in and be part of the 

mix of attorneys on the trial counsel side, on the prosecution side. 

Certainly, my experience, when I was there, the defendants were 

getting a lot of highly skilled lawyers from the defense bar stepping 

forward, as we expected and hoped they would, to step forward and 

defend people in the military commission. 

So I don’t know that we will ever be completely satisfied that we 

have all the right people, but I know a lot of commitments have 

been made to ensure that the right people are there. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. 

Senator WEBB. Thank you, Senator Ayotte. 

Gentlemen, thank you for appearing before us today. We appreciate your work in this vital area. Again, I apologize for having 

been late in opening this hearing. 

I will now welcome our second panel, consisting of Lieutenant 

General Dana Chipman, JAG of the Army; Vice Admiral James 

Houck, JAG of the Navy; Lieutenant General Richard Harding, 

JAG of the Air Force; and Major General Vaughn Ary, Staff Judge 

Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps. 

We look forward to your assessment of and response to the DOD 

IG’s report and the independent panel’s review of JAG issues and 

your assessment of the manning and structure of your respective 

JAG Corps. 

489 

Without objection, again, your full written statements will be included in the record of the hearing. We will ask each of you to 

make an oral statement of your choosing once you get seated. 

General Chipman, we will start with you and move across the 

table. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF LTG DANA K. CHIPMAN, JAGC, USA, JUDGE 

ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE U.S. ARMY 

General CHIPMAN. Thank you, Senator Webb. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 

opportunity to discuss the provision of legal services by the outstanding members of the Army JAG’s Corps—Active, Guard, Reserve, and civilian—both in deployed environments and at home 

station. 

Before I begin, I would like to thank you and the members of this 

body for your support of the men and women of our Armed Forces. 

I note that everyone in this room uniquely exemplifies our joint 

team commitment. 

Sir, you served on Active Duty. We have members of the Air Reserve, the Army Guard, the JAG Corps. We have the military 

spouses, because we recruit individuals and yet we retain families. 

I would like to thank all of you for your service to our joint team. 

The Army JAG Corps is comprised of about 1,900 judge advocates, 100 warrant officers, and 1,800 enlisted paralegals. Currently, we have in excess of 140 Army judge advocates deployed to 

Afghanistan, in excess of 100 in Iraq, and 300 more serving in 19 

other countries overseas. 

We have five Active component general officers providing strategic oversight of our corps, while ensuring that the Army’s most 

senior leadership receives the trusted and experienced counsel it 

demands. On a temporary basis, we have a sixth general officer. He 

serves in a joint billet in Afghanistan, providing support to rule of 

law operations. 

In addition, we have two brigadier generals in the Army Reserve 

and one in the Army Guard. They play an essential role in ensuring the effective integration of approximately 5,000 Reserve and 

Guard legal personnel into a unified team, without which we could 

not provide the support we give to our commanders, soldiers, and 

their families. 

Army commanders expect our judge advocates to be highly 

versatile and proficient in the core legal disciplines and, when deployed, to be fully competent in a variety of subjects ranging from 

detainee operations, foreign claims, to interagency collaboration in 

support of rule of law operations. 

When they return to home station, the focus shifts, and our judge 

advocates are called upon to advise on such diverse matters as disability evaluation system, Federal litigation, environmental law, 

and civilian personnel law. 

To improve the responsiveness of our legal support, judge advocates are now embedded at the brigade level and, in some cases, 

even at battalion level. Army judge advocates are committed members of the joint team. There is no doubt in my mind that serving 

alongside our colleagues from the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, 

and Coast Guard makes us more effective. 

490 

Military justice remains our core competency. Although our 

court-martial rates have remained relatively stable in recent years, 

with the exception of summary courts-martial, which have decreased substantially in the last year, the complexity of those cases 

we try is increasing. 

We have invested considerable resources in training our trial 

counsel and our prosecutors, to better prosecute cases involving 

crimes of sexual assault. This has included the appointment of 15 

special victim prosecutors (SVP), with another 8 on the way, and 

5 highly qualified experts training, coaching, and teaching those 

SVPs. While much work clearly remains to be done in this area, 

I firmly believe we are now on the right track. 

I am also committed to improving the training of our defense 

counsel to ensure that the soldiers they represent receive effective 

representation. 

Finally, our appellate docket is carefully managed to ensure that 

we timely dispose of those cases, those courts-martial on appeal. 

The success of our legal operations depends heavily on the support 

of our warrant officers and our enlisted paralegals. 

I would also like to highlight the phenomenal work being done 

by our civilian attorneys and paraprofessionals, who provide essential continuity and subject matter expertise to our home station 

legal offices. 

In conclusion, the state of the Army JAG Corps is strong. Recruiting and retention are at all-time highs. Morale remains high, 

in spite of the fact that the Army is well into its 10th year of sustained combat operations. 

Commanders have great confidence in their judge advocates and 

value the contributions they make to mission accomplishment. I am 

confident in our ability to meet the changing needs and requirements of our Army. 

I am pleased to submit a more detailed written statement for the 

record. Again, thank you, and I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you may have. 

Senator WEBB. Thank you, General. Your full written statement 

will be entered into the record at this point. 

[The prepared statement of General Chipman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY LTG DANA K. CHIPMAN, JACG, USA 

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity 

to discuss the provision of legal services by the outstanding members of the Army 

Judge Advocate General’s Corps—Active, Guard, Reserve, and civilian—in deployed 

locations and at home station. Before I begin, I want to thank you and members 

of this body for your support of the men and women of our Armed Forces. 

PERSONNEL OVERVIEW

The Active Army JAG Corps is comprised of 1,870 Judge Advocates, 99 warrant 

officers, and 1,831 enlisted paralegals. The number of Judge Advocate position allocations has increased by 329 since September 11. This is the result of an unrelenting demand for legal support from commanders who operate in an increasingly complex and legally intensive environment. Currently, there are 142 Army Judge Advocates deployed to Afghanistan and 113 Army Judge Advocates still serving in Iraq. 

In addition, there are 304 Judge Advocates serving in more than 19 other countries 

in support of our Army deployed overseas. 

The JAG Corps continues to attract talented lawyers through its aggressive oncampus recruiting program, and recruited at 199 of the American Bar Association 

491 

(ABA) accredited law schools during the fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 oncampus recruiting seasons. In fiscal year 2010, we welcomed 164 attorneys into the 

Regular Army, 94 attorneys into the Army Reserve, and 93 attorneys into the Army 

National Guard. As of July 15, 2011, we have accessed 151 attorneys into the Regular Army, 79 attorneys into the Army Reserve, and 74 attorneys into the Army National Guard. 

Diversity in the JAG Corps has continued to remain at high levels, with women 

now accounting for approximately 25 percent of all Active Duty Judge Advocates. 

Minority officers comprise about 15 percent of the JAG Corps’ active duty strength. 

We have five Active component general officers providing critical strategic oversight of our Corps while ensuring the Army’s senior leadership receives the trusted 

and experienced counsel it demands. On a temporary basis, we have a sixth general 

officer serving in a joint billet in Afghanistan as the Deputy Commander, Combined 

Joint Interagency Task Force 435 and Commander, Rule of Law Field Force, Afghanistan. He will soon assume new duties as the Chief Prosecutor, Office of Military Commissions. In addition, we have two Brigadier Generals in the Army Reserve and one in the Army National Guard. They play an essential role in ensuring 

the effective integration of approximately 5,000 Reserve and Guard legal personnel 

into a unified team without which we could not provide the support we give to our 

commanders, soldiers, and families. 

DELIVERY OF LEGAL SERVICES

Army commanders expect their Judge Advocates to be highly versatile and proficient. They must operate effectively within our six core legal disciplines: military 

justice; international and operational law; administrative and civil law; contract and 

fiscal law; claims; and legal assistance. In addition, Army legal personnel, when deployed, must be fully competent in a variety of subjects ranging from detainee operations and foreign claims to interagency collaboration in support of Rule of Law operations. When they return to home station, the focus shifts and Judge Advocates 

are called upon to advise on such diverse matters as our disability evaluation system, Federal litigation, environmental law, and civilian personnel law. 

To improve the responsiveness of our legal support, Judge Advocates are now embedded at the Brigade level and, in some instances, at the Battalion level. They are 

trusted advisors who proactively address issues before they become problems. Army 

Judge Advocates are also committed members of the Joint Team. There is no doubt 

in my mind that we are most effective when serving alongside our colleagues from 

the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, and with our dedicated civilian attorneys as well. 

The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School (TJAGLCS) plays a critical role in preparing Army legal personnel to deliver competent legal services 

across the spectrum of Army operations. TJAGLCS’ resident program continues to 

educate almost 5,000 students per year and, in combination with non-resident programs, including distributed learning, and onsite training for Army Reserve component attorneys, TJAGLCS educates an increasing number of lawyers and legal paraprofessionals annually, totaling over 18,000 students in fiscal year 2010. In addition 

to teaching three Judge Advocate Officer Basic Courses for new Judge Advocates 

each year, TJAGLCS conducts the ABA recognized Graduate Course that awards a 

Master of Laws degree in Military Law to career Judge Advocates, and provides continuing legal education in over 70 functional area courses. 

The U.S. Army Litigation Division provides representation to the Army and Army 

officials in four areas of civil litigation: Military Personnel Law, General Litigation, 

Civilian Personnel Law, and Tort Litigation. The Army has approximately 925 active civil cases. During the first 6 months of 2011, Litigation Division received 170 

new cases and successfully closed 162 cases. We continue to see a large number of 

cases challenging military personnel decisions, official decisions by government officials via Bivens suits, and government information practices. The nature of our 

practice continues to be highly complex as we face due process, First Amendment, 

and equal protection litigation, frequent filings for information under government 

information practices statutes, challenges to the Feres doctrine and the Department 

of Defense’s Homosexual Conduct Policy, and complicated jury trials in employment 

discrimination law. 

Army legal assistance services remain in high demand. During fiscal year 2010, 

we opened 187,239 cases. Our largest areas of service remain in the area of Estate 

Planning (54,078) and Divorce/Separations (33,671). In assisting our clients, Army 

legal offices prepared a significant number of legal documents. Powers of Attorney 

were the most frequently prepared document (324,272). In addition, our legal assistVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:36 Jan 24, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00497 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68485.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
492 

ance offices prepared 41,482 wills and 2,969 separation agreements. They also provided 328,939 notarizations and referred 2,044 clients to civilian attorneys. 

Army legal assistance personnel, together with unit tax advisors, temporary employees, and volunteers prepared and filed 121,834 Federal and 76,697 State income 

tax returns during the tax filing season. More than 90 percent of the Federal income 

tax returns were filed electronically. The soldiers, retirees, and family members who 

visited our Tax Assistance Centers saved over $32,750,000 in tax preparation and 

filing fees last year. Every year, legal assistance services collectively save our clients 

substantial fees they would otherwise incur if purchasing the advice and services. 

Using average national costs of selected services provided by the ABA Standing 

Committee of Legal Assistance for Military Personnel, legal assistance offices saved 

our clients over $86,250,000 in legal fees (including the above mentioned over 

$32,750,000 in tax return preparation fees) in fiscal year 2010. 

Enhancing legal support to soldiers processing through the Medical Disability 

Evaluation System (DES) remains an important focus area. In fiscal year 2010, we 

had 26 counsels serving as Soldier’s Physical Evaluation Board Counsel and 23 serving as Soldier’s Medical Evaluation Board Counsel (SMEBC). They were supported 

by 36 paralegals. Of these, 27 counsel and 16 paralegals are Reserve component soldiers mobilized to support this critical mission. The recent establishment of the 

SMEBC function has been extremely successful. By providing counsel earlier in the 

DES process, we more clearly identify the medical conditions to be addressed in the 

process, ensure appropriate documentation of the conditions, assist Soldiers in better understanding the system and help them have reasonable expectations of the 

likely results of their case. This has resulted in more complete case files moving forward for adjudication, better results for soldiers and a reduction in the number of 

formal Physical Evaluation Boards being requested by soldiers. 

The U.S. Army Claims Service (USARCS) and claims offices worldwide continue 

to vigorously examine and settle meritorious claims against the U.S. Army brought 

under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Personnel Claims Act, the Foreign Claims 

Act, and other statutory authority. In fiscal year 2010, USARCS oversaw payment 

of over $8.6 million in claims to Iraqi civilians under the Foreign Claims Act, a $31 

million decrease from the previous year. In fiscal year 2010, USARCS administered 

the payment of over $3.1 million in claims to civilians in Afghanistan under the Foreign Claims Act, a significant increase from the previous year when less than half 

this amount was paid. Also during fiscal year 2010, USARCS paid more than $5 

million in household goods claims and over $21 million in tort claims. Army claims 

offices also processed a total of $22.4 million in medical care recovery claims in fiscal year 2010. 

MILITARY JUSTICE

Military justice remains our core competency. During fiscal year 2010, there were 

620 trials by general court-martial and 454 trials by special court-martial. In addition, there were 667 trials by summary court-martial. The number of non-judicial 

punishments completed during fiscal year 2010 was 36,624. 

Fiscal Year 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

General Court-Martial (CM) ........................................... 750 811 674 631 620 

Special CM ..................................................................... 583 639 488 523 454 

Summary CM ................................................................. 1,160 1,223 1,279 1,040 667 

Total CM ........................................................................ 2,493 2,673 2,441 2,194 1,741 

CM Rate Per 1,000 Soldiers (Not incl SCM) ................. 2.64 2.78 2.16 2.11 1.90 

Nonjudicial Punishment (NJP) ....................................... 43,813 45,239 46,063 35,210 36,624 

NJP Rate Per 1,000 Soldiers ......................................... 86.69 86.66 85.60 64.37 64.70 

Army Active Duty Strength ............................................ 505,402 522,017 538,128 547,000 566,045 

Although court-martial rates have remained relatively stable in recent years, with 

the exception of Summary Courts-Martial, the complexity of cases is increasing. We 

have invested considerable resources in training our Trial Counsel to better prosecute cases involving crimes of sexual assault. This has included the appointment 

of 15 Special Victim Prosecutors (SVPs), with an additional 8 SVP positions recently 

approved, and 5 highly qualified experts. While much work clearly remains to be 

done in this area, I firmly believe we are now on the right track. 

I am also committed to improving the training of U.S. Army Trial Defense Service 

(TDS) counsel so that our soldiers receive the effective representation they deserve. 

Currently, more than 400 Active and Reserve component attorneys serve in TDS 

493 

worldwide, to include over 20 in U.S. Central Command deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait and over 30 mobilized in support of defense operations worldwide. 

The Defense Counsel Assistance Program plays a centralized role in ensuring that 

defense counsel and paralegals have the necessary skills and knowledge base to represent their clients in an effective manner. 

Finally, our appellate docket is carefully managed to ensure the timely disposition 

of courts-martial cases on appeal. The Army Court of Criminal Appeals post-trial 

processing systems and those of the Government and Defense Appellate Divisions 

are adequate to comply with the standards contained in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and applicable case law. 

CONTRIBUTIONS OF OTHER MEMBERS OF JAG CORPS TEAM

The success of our legal operations relies heavily on the outstanding support of 

our warrant officers and enlisted paralegals. Their selfless dedication and commitment are truly impressive. I would also like to highlight the phenomenal work of 

our civilian attorneys and legal paraprofessionals who provide essential continuity 

and subject matter expertise in our home station legal offices. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the state of the Army JAG Corps is strong. Recruiting and retention are at all-time highs. Diversity is expanding as more women and minorities 

serve as Judge Advocates. Morale remains high in spite of the fact that the Army 

is now entering its 10th year at war. Commanders have great confidence in their 

Judge Advocates and value the contributions they make to mission accomplishment. 

We are a flexible and adaptive Corps. I am confident in our ability to meet the 

changing needs and requirements of our Army. 

I would like to thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today 

and your continued support for the soldiers and families of America’s Army. 

Senator WEBB. Admiral Houck, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF VADM JAMES W. HOUCK, JAGC, USN, JUDGE 

ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE U.S. NAVY 

Admiral HOUCK. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Senator 

Graham, and thank you both for your interest in holding this hearing and your concern for our uniformed legal communities. 

Also thank the members of the 506 panel, Chairman Dell’Orto, 

General Osman, and the other members of the panel who dedicated 

pro bono hundreds of hours to the project, and we were very grateful for their support. 

I would like to make three points briefly this afternoon. The first 

one being, I think it is imperative that we get the right number 

of judge advocates in all the Services, but in my case, in the Navy 

JAG Corps. I think there are risks if we don’t. There is a risk if 

we have too many. In this climate today, I know that our Secretary 

and our Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) and many others are 

working very hard to reconcile a lot of competing demands. 

Having said that, I think there are also risks in having too few. 

I think the risks are relatively obvious, and I won’t belabor those. 

I see my job, as precisely and carefully as I can, to assess the requirement for judge advocates. Then as clearly and, when necessary, as forcefully as I can to articulate that requirement to decisionmakers to make sure that they are aware of that. 

The second area that I think really bears emphasis is not only 

the number of judge advocates we have, but the things that go into 

making up the health of our community—things like the recruiting 

and retention, things like the resources and time that we have to 

do education and training for our judge advocates, and as we in the 

Department of the Navy and as the committee may look at various 

structures for how we address the authorities and alignment for 

494 

the provision of our legal services, that whatever option we adjust, 

that we make sure that we maintain a leadership structure in 

place that is adequate for a law firm the size and scope of our Navy 

JAG Corps. 

I think the last thing I would like to touch on is to the imperative that we account for and adjudicate in a timely way all our 

courts-martial cases, from the moment charges are brought to the 

very last day of the last appeal. We are doing that in the Department of the Navy today. We are doing that through case tracking 

systems that—I would echo General Osman’s comments—they are 

working for us today. 

There are things we can improve in them, but the combination 

of these systems, as well as the focused, hands-on, eyes-on leadership at senior levels on these cases is—and to respond to your 

question, Senator, there is a sense of urgency to make sure that 

the debacle which was the Foster case never happens again. 

We have also made great progress in the time in which we adjudicate cases. There are different metrics to look at this, but I think 

one which is significant is that in 2004, which was right before the 

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces decided the Moreno case, it 

was taking the Department of the Navy over 800 days from the 

time somebody was convicted to the time their appeal was finished. 

Today, that number is just above 300 days, and that is against a 

standard that is close to 700 days—about 690 days as established 

by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. 

So, from a variety of different ways, we could talk about the 

measurements of it. But the point that I want to make is that we 

take in the Navy, and I take personally as the JAG of the Navy, 

our trusteeship of the military justice system seriously and personally, and we are very focused on it. 

I guess by way of final note and to just respond to a couple of 

the questions that you all put to the panel that was here, I would 

note that we are looking very carefully at case tracking systems 

and have learned a lot from a study that was done for us by the 

Center for Naval Analysis. We are in the process of looking at options right now, but it is very much a priority for us to get a common case tracking system in the Department of the Navy. I know 

the Secretary is committed to it, and we are looking at it hard and 

moving forward on that front. 

Our courts-martial rate is obviously the lowest of the Services. 

But I think the Foster case taught us, and I agree with Mr. 

Dell’Orto on this point, that it doesn’t matter what number of cases 

that you have, if you don’t handle one of them properly, and Foster 

is the best object lesson of that that we have seen, it casts a shadow over the entire military justice system. So, again, we have 

taken many steps, which I can respond to in the questions, to address this issue. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Houck follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY VADM JAMES W. HOUCK, JACG, USN 

Thank you for inviting me to testify before your committee on the requirements 

of the Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps, the status of implementation of the 

recommendations of the Independent Review Panel to Study Judge Advocate ReVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:36 Jan 24, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00500 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68485.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
495 

quirements of the Department of the Navy (‘‘the Panel’’), and post-trial review processes within the Department of the Navy. 

Over the past decade, the Navy JAG Corps has experienced an increased demand 

for our legal services. I believe this is consistent with the aggressive operational 

tempo of our force as well as an overall increased sensitivity to legal concerns. In 

the face of this increasing demand, the Navy must have enough judge advocates to 

meet the complete spectrum of legal missions it faces today. Without sufficient judge 

advocates, commanders run the risk of failing to have important legal issues recognized and addressed in a timely manner. There is also a risk that analysis will lack 

rigor and ingenuity because existing assets are spread too thin, and, that judge advocates will not have sufficient time to continue their education and training. 

Based on the Navy JAG Corps’ current missions, and, consistent with my testimony before the Panel last September, I believe the Navy requires a base force of 

821 judge advocates, plus, the judge advocates necessary to meet the demands posed 

by assignments to Individual Augmentee (IA) missions and the Office of Military 

Commissions (OMC). Currently, 73 Active component and 31 Reserve component 

judge advocates are assigned to IA and OMC missions. 

Today, there are 866 judge advocates on active duty. This consists of 835 Active 

component judge advocates, plus 31 Reserve component judge advocates serving 

under active duty orders in support of IA and OMC assignments. Under the current 

Navy program, the Navy budgeted for 801 Active component judge advocates on active duty by the end of the fiscal year. This is based upon community endstrength 

as determined by the Chief of Naval Personnel through the budget process. 

The Department of the Navy intends to increase the number of Active component 

JAG Corps billets to 821 across the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). This 

increase does not require statutory authority, only funding. In fiscal year 2011, the 

Navy’s program of record was to decrease our JAG Corps officers from 801 to 745 

by fiscal year 2016. Navy leadership has now indicated an intent to fund, within 

the Navy’s baseline budget, an additional 31 JAG Corps billets through fiscal year 

2015 which are currently detailed to the OMC at least through the end of fiscal year 

2012, and to provide the additional increases necessary to fund the 821 JAG Corps 

officers required to meet baseline requirements over the FYDP. 

I realize that essential JAG Corps growth must be weighed against other important requirements, especially in the current fiscal environment. I believe that 821 

is the minimum number of officers needed to meet emerging requirements and mitigate legal risk to the Navy. We continue to look for internal structure changes that 

will allow us to realign resources to meet demand. In addition, we have also begun 

to train enlisted members of the Legalman rating to obtain certification through the 

American Bar Association as paralegals, which will gradually ease the administrative burdens currently levied on JAG Corps officers. To address the expanded rights 

to legal assistance for wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers processed through 

the Disability Evaluation System, for fiscal year 2012, we are hiring permanent civilian attorneys to ensure sustained legal support and assistance to our wounded, 

ill, and injured sailors. These civilian attorneys will be augmented by Reserve judge 

advocates in fiscal year 2012, but we are working to fully civilianize the support 

over the next several fiscal years. We are focused on making a smooth transition 

and ensuring compliance with the law and Department of Defense direction. 

The Panel commented that maintaining a strong judge advocate community will 

require continued focus on recruiting; continued support for Navy Judge Advocate 

Continuation Pay (JACP); and continued support for post-graduate education. Even 

in a challenging budget environment, Navy leadership has strongly supported all of 

these important programs. 

The JAG Corps received $70,000 in support from Commander, Navy Recruiting 

Command in fiscal year 2011 and our applications for commissions have, since fiscal 

year 2009, remained at historically high levels (over 900 annually). I also note that 

we ask our judge advocates to devote a considerable amount of time to personally 

participate in recruiting activities. Law school administrators—and, more importantly—law students, tell me our judge advocates are the best representation of our 

Corps. 

The Chief of Naval Personnel approved funding for JACP at existing levels 

through fiscal year 2012. In addition, the Navy will fund postgraduate education for 

25 judge advocates in the 2011–2012 academic year at the very best law schools in 

the United States. I testified before the Panel that increases in JACP and providing 

postgraduate education opportunity for 30 judge advocates annually would be optimal. However, the amount of funding for these programs in fiscal year 2012 is sufficient to meet our immediate requirements. Especially when viewed in the context 

of potential future Navy budgets, I believe the amount that will be funded in fiscal 

496 

year 2012 represents a strong commitment from Navy leadership to maintain a 

first-rate, mission-ready JAG Corps. 

For years, we have stressed the value of obtaining Joint Professional Military 

Education (JPME). In the coming months, I intend to formalize JPME guidance 

through JAG Corps Instruction, placing emphasis on and strongly encouraging 

judge advocates to complete JPME Phase I as part of JAG Corps training requirements. Our approach will be geared toward meeting the Chairman’s learning objectives as well as assisting Navy leadership in assessing the desire to formalize judge 

advocate participation in the joint officer management program and joint qualification system. 

Our Navy JAG Corps has no more important mission than providing a fair, effective, and efficient military justice system for our commanders and personnel. Military justice is our statutory mission. We are intensely focused on upholding this special trust. 

Within the Department of the Navy, effective court-martial post-trial processing 

is being fully achieved at the local level in Navy and Marine Corps legal offices, and 

at the appellate level in the Navy and Marine Corps Appellate Review Activity, and 

the Navy Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals. 

Improvements over the course of the last several years in post-trial and appellate 

case processing have been institutionalized in standing. On 25 April 2011, the Secretary of the Navy approved Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5430.27D, ‘‘Responsibility of the Judge Advocate General of the Navy and the Staff Judge Advocate to 

the Commandant of the Marine Corps for Supervision and Provision of Certain 

Legal Services.’’ The instruction formalized the requirement for the Judge Advocate 

General to provide an annual report to the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval 

Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps on the state of military justice within the Department of the Navy. This directive also institutionalized the 

Military Justice Oversight Council, which we initiated in November 2009. The 

Council is chaired and convened by the Judge Advocate General and co-chaired by 

the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps. The Council 

meets monthly to evaluate the practice of military justice and the effectiveness of 

the military justice system. The Council monitors individual cases through reports 

about any case at risk to exceed processing guidelines promulgated by the Court of 

Appeals of the Armed Forces (CAAF). Likewise, we have reinforced this process with 

a series of uniform policies and standards to ensure consistency across the force. 

Given the improvements in structure, operating procedures, case tracking and 

oversight, I am confident we have a military justice process that works as intended. 

The Navy and Marine Corps now consistently process cases within the CAAF guideline of 150 days from sentencing to docketing at Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals. Those few cases that have not met that guideline are individually 

tracked and the reasons for delay are documented for consideration by the appellate 

courts. At the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, no case in fiscal year 

2010 exceeded the 18-month appellate processing timeline from docketing to decision by that court, and none of the cases decided or docketed and pending review 

in this fiscal year exceed that time. 

As a result of the actions we have taken over the past several years, I am confident we know the status of all Active Navy and Marine Corps court-martial cases 

in the trial and post-trial process. We are successfully tracking all our cases. 

The Navy monitors its post-trial process at the local level through the Case Management Tracking Information System (CMTIS). The Marine Corps tracks post-trial 

processing of courts-martial using the Case Management System (CMS). The processing of appeals is a departmental mission. Both Navy and Marine Corps cases 

pending appellate review are monitored with CMTIS, which tracks each case 

throughout the appellate process, from docketing to final disposition. The overlap of 

CMTIS and CMS provides the department with visibility over all courts-martial 

cases from sentencing to appellate decision, but it is not optimal in that these systems do not provide a consolidated view of the status of all cases pending within 

the department. 

The Secretary of the Navy has committed to development of a unified case-tracking system for the Navy and Marine Corps. A joint effort is currently underway to 

formally establish a new acquisition program in the departmental budget process for 

a common case-tracking system. On 4 November 2010, the Assistant Secretary of 

the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisitions) (ASN (RDA)) assigned the Program Executive Office for Enterprise Information Systems (PEO EIS) the program 

management and acquisition responsibility for development of a web-based information system that includes a single case tracking system. ASN (RDA) directed PEO 

EIS to work with stakeholders within the Department of the Navy to validate system requirements; establish roles and responsibilities; develop an acquisition 

497 

timeline and activities; conduct market research in support of Business Case Analysis approach; and prepare the required acquisition documentation in support of the 

POM 13 budget cycle. I look forward to working with the Marine Corps and other 

stakeholders to achieve the Secretary’s goal. 

In summary, we need to ensure sufficient numbers and quality of our judge advocates so that we are able to fulfill all our missions effectively and efficiently. In particular, we remain steadfastly committed to ensuring that our military justice system operates to the highest standards. I thank the committee for its continued interest in the legal practice within the Department of the Navy, your support of our 

men and women in uniform, and I look forward to taking your questions. 

Senator WEBB. Thank you, Admiral Houck, and your bold statement will be entered into the record at this point. 

General Harding, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. RICHARD C. HARDING, JAGC, USAF, 

JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE U.S. AIR FORCE 

General HARDING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 

opportunity of testifying this afternoon. 

I am very proud to lead the Air Force JAG’s Corps with over 

4,000 outstanding judge advocate, civilian attorney, enlisted and civilian paralegals, and civilian support staff. Our mission is to deliver professional, candid, and independent counsel and full-spectrum legal capabilities to the command and commanders and to the 

warfighter. 

The committee’s invitation to testify today asked that I offer my 

opinion on the effect of the recent organizational changes eliminating judge advocate brigadier general officer, or 0–7, billets in 

the Air Force. Therefore, I will offer my personal opinion regarding 

the 14 March 2011 the Office of the Secretary of Defense-directed 

elimination of three of our four Air Force JAG 0–7 positions. 

My opinion is identical to that of my Service’s chief of staff. We 

both believe that the three 0–7 positions in question should be held 

by officers at the grade of brigadier general. 

These three general officers support at a corporate leadership 

level three centers of gravity for our Air Force—first, the Air 

Force’s logistics and maintenance complex; second, its combat air 

forces; and third, its mobility air forces. The three general officer 

positions are staff judge advocates for Air Force Materiel Command, Air Combat Command, and Air Mobility Command. Their 

job descriptions are contained in my statement, which was previously submitted to the committee. 

These three 0–7s provide more than just routine administrative 

legal advice to their major command commanders. They provide 

corporate legal advice on weighty issues facing the Air Force in the 

three centers of gravity I mentioned earlier. 

Their advice shapes strategy and planning at very high levels in 

the Air Force. They sit on their commanders’ senior staffs, joining 

between 8 and 11 other general officers and civilian equivalents, 

depending on the major command, in corporate leadership settings. 

Their 0–7 rank assures they have a seat at the table during sensitive important deliberations of their commanders’ senior staff. 

Additionally, the three 0–7 positions provide professional supervision to over 1,500 JAG Corps personnel, delivering legal services 

to 300,000 total force personnel assigned to those three Air Force 

centers of gravity. 

498 

The effect of the general officer cuts on the Air Force is significant. Career progression opportunities in the Air Force JAG’s 

Corps has been significantly degraded by the elimination of these 

three 0–7 billets. As a direct consequence, the cuts will increase attrition among our best retirement-eligible colonels on whom we 

must rely to lead significant field legal operations. 

As a result of the elimination of these three 0–7 billets, Air Force 

JAG colonels have noted that their chances of making 0–7 have 

been reduced by 75 percent, leaving behind a single 0–7 position 

to be selected every 4 years as the JAG’s and the Deputy JAG’s 

statutory tours end. The incumbent brigadier general is likely selected for promotion, resulting in a single brigadier general vacancy. 

If not selected for the single 0–7 billet, rather than wait another 

4 years for another opportunity to compete for promotion, many of 

our best JAG colonels will elect to retire, leaving the Air Force 

without the legal leadership it needs and, frankly, deserves. 

By having only a single brigadier general position remaining in 

the Air Force JAG Corps, the incumbent in the remaining 0–7 billet essentially becomes the TJAG in waiting, the heir apparent. Optimal force models are structured like a pyramid. They provide 

competition—— 

Senator WEBB. General Harding? 

General HARDING. Yes, sir? 

Senator WEBB. No offense, but let the record show that you personally don’t like this new policy. Do you have any sort of official 

presentation to give us? 

General HARDING. The official presentation was offered in my 

statement earlier, sir. 

Senator WEBB. All right. Thank you very much. 

Your official statement will be entered into the record. 

[The prepared statement of General Harding follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY LT. GEN. RICHARD C. HARDING, JAGC, USAF 

I have served as the Air Force’s 16th Judge Advocate General since 23 February 

2010. I am pleased to report to you today that the state of the Air Force JAG Corps 

is strong. This past year has been one of the most rewarding of my career as I have 

watched our Corps flourish in the execution of our mission for the Air Force. 

The Air Force JAG Corps is currently comprised of 4,390 total force personnel. 

Of this total, 3,126 are either active duty personnel or full-time civilian personnel. 

The remaining 1,264 are judge advocate and paralegal members of the Air Force 

Reserve and Air National Guard. 

The Air Force JAG Corps’ mission is to deliver professional, candid, independent 

counsel and full spectrum legal capabilities to Air Force and joint commanders and 

their staffs. Members of the Air Force JAG Corps are involved in the full range of 

operations from peacetime, through war, to stabilization and reconstruction efforts. 

Our varied fields of practice demand that we apply the Air Force’s traditional ability 

to adapt quickly to changing requirements. Our fields of practice include military 

justice, contract law, environmental law, labor law, Federal administrative law, defense of tort and other civil suits against the Air Force, legal assistance for airmen 

and their families, international law, and operations law to include the law of air, 

space and cyberspace. 

Today’s uncertain international security and evolving legal environment requires 

the Air Force JAG Corps adopt a balance-driven approach. We must overcome today’s challenges while simultaneously preparing for tomorrow’s. At present, Air 

Force judge advocates and paralegals are deployed all over the world in support of 

combatant commanders’ requirements. We provide timely, responsive, and thorough 

legal advice to Air Force commanders and their airmen whether in austere conditions half a world away or at their home stations. 

499 

The Air Force is organized into functional major commands (MAJCOMs) led by 

0–10 commanders. MAJCOM Staff Judge Advocates (SJAs) serve as the most senior, 

ranking attorney on a MAJCOM Commander’s staff. They advise on a myriad of 

legal issues that face the MAJCOM Commander and his staff. MAJCOM SJAs are 

some of our most seasoned legal professionals, each possessing 20+ years of JAG experience. Three of our four Air Force JAG 0–7s (brigadier general) serve as SJAs 

in three of the Air Force’s most vital MAJCOMs: Air Combat Command (our functional lead command for combat air forces), Air Mobility Command (our functional 

lead command for mobility air forces) and Air Force Materiel Command (our functional lead command for procurement of major weapons systems, logistics, and 

sustainment). These SJAs provide valuable legal advice on the most complex legal 

issues facing the Air Force today: 

The ACC SJA advises the ACC Commander, who serves as the combat air forces 

lead agent for all combat forces across the Air Force. Those forces are engaged in 

on-going combat operations; The SJA provides counsel on such matters as the law 

of armed conflict, international agreements, disciplinary matters, contract law, environmental law, civilian personnel law, and any other legal issue confronting this 

vital command, all while providing professional supervision to over 600 JAG Corps 

personnel, who deliver legal services to over 133,000 personnel assigned to ACC. 

The AMC SJA advises the AMC Commander on joint operational and policy matters such as command responsibilities for developing and maintaining a national industrial mobilization base for airlift and aerial refueling. The AMC SJA also serves 

as legal advisor to the general officer level Commercial Airlift Review Board, which 

by statute is charged with safety oversight and DOD certification of over 150 U.S. 

and foreign carriers under contract with the Department of Defense. In addition, the 

AMC SJA provides professional supervision to over 465 JAG Corps personnel, who 

deliver legal services to over 135,000 personnel assigned to AMC. 

The AFMC SJA serves as legal advisor to the AFMC Commander and provides 

legal oversight in the Air Force acquisition process for major weapons system procurement, sustainment, and research. It is vitally important that the Air Force 

maintain the highest scrutiny over our acquisition processes and programs including 

international systems acquisitions. The AFMC SJA is responsible for providing legal 

advice on the expenditure of enormous financial resources and assists in the prevention of fraud, waste, and abuse of resources. In addition, the AFMC SJA provides 

professional supervision to over 448 JAG Corps personnel, who deliver legal services 

to over 75,000 personnel assigned to AFMC. 

The fourth Air Force JAG 0–7 is the Commander of the Air Force Legal Operations Agency (AFLOA), a worldwide field operating agency. AFLOA is comprised 

of over 800 total force JAG Corps personnel. Accordingly, AFLOA is the parent command for approximately 24 percent of our worldwide JAG Corps personnel and is 

responsible for supervising the administration of military justice senior trial counsel 

(prosecutors), defense counsel, and appellate counsel; 11 field support centers; civil 

litigation counsel; the Air Force JAG School; and the Air Force Legal Information 

Services Directorate. 

The other seven MAJCOM SJAs are senior JAG colonels. Those MAJCOMs are 

Air Education and Training Command; Air Force Global Strike Command, Air Force 

Reserve Command, Air Force Space Command, Air Force Special Operations Command, Pacific Air Forces, and U.S. Air Forces in Europe. 

In closing, I would like to emphasize that our Nation has achieved much success 

in international armed conflict because we bring four crucial elements to every conflict. First, we recruit some of our best citizens into our Armed Forces. Second, we 

give them the best military training available anywhere on the planet. Third, we 

provide them the best available equipment to win in war. But those are only three 

legs of a four-legged table. Without the fourth leg, the table wobbles and falls. The 

fourth leg is discipline. Without discipline, great people, great training, and great 

equipment are not enough to win in war. Military discipline is an indispensible element for any effective fighting force. As the stewards of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, whose purpose is to protect and enhance good order and discipline, 

judge advocates the servicemembers, their training and their equipment together 

with military discipline. The Air Force JAG Corps and the JAG Corps of our fellow 

Services safeguard good order and discipline in the U.S. Armed Forces, take care 

of the legal needs of airmen, soldiers, sailors, and marines, and ensure that our 

Services carry the rule of law with them wherever they deploy. In that very real 

sense, we are combat force multipliers, upon whom the Nation’s success in armed 

conflict relies. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

Senator WEBB. General Ary, welcome. 

500 

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. VAUGHN A. ARY, USMC, STAFF 

JUDGE ADVOCATE TO THE COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE 

CORPS 

General ARY. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Senator Graham, 

and distinguished members of the subcommittee. 

Thank you for the invitation to testify this afternoon. I am happy 

to be here representing our corps and the over 1,400 remarkable 

men and women who make up our Active, Reserve, and civilian 

Marine legal community. 

In the summer of 2009, Congress expressed serious concerns 

about the Navy-Marine Corps legal community, directed the DOD 

IG to evaluate our post-trial processes and procedures, and directed 

the convening of the independent panel, the 506 panel. 

The Marine Corps interpreted your concerns as a call to action. 

We immediately began a hard, honest assessment of our legal community, who we are, how we lead and are organized, and how we 

deliver legal services to commanders, marines, sailors, and families. 

Our assessment validated that the most effective legal model for 

our corps relies on marine judge advocates and legal service specialists who are marines first, fully integrated into the marine 

ethos and culture. Our basic model for the provision of legal support is strong, but we identified challenges that needed to be addressed. 

We continue to believe in a command-driven system, but recognized that complete decentralization poses unacceptable risk. To reduce that risk, we need unified direction for our practice, striking 

a balance between uniformity of policies and procedures and decentralized execution. We have chosen to emphasize efficiency, with a 

focus on institutional processes and supervision that will produce 

enduring results. 

To accomplish this, we also needed to adapt our organizational 

leadership model. We accepted responsibility for what the DOD IG 

found to be ‘‘failures in leadership, supervision, and oversight at all 

organizational levels.’’ 

For the Marine Corps, the Staff Judge Advocates (SJA) to Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps (CMC) could no longer act simply as 

a staff judge advocate to a Service Chief. The billet had to take on 

a greater role leading the Marine legal community. 

As part of assuming that role, my office published a strategic action plan in July 2010, setting a course to elevate the practice of 

law throughout the Marine Corps. We set five strategic goals: set 

standards, train to those standards, inspect to those standards, examine and adapt the force to achieve those standards, and memorialize what we have learned in doctrine. 

Our goals were designed to achieve our essential mandate—to 

provide quality legal services to every commander, marine, sailor, 

and family member and, in particular, to ensure that every marine 

who enters our military justice system receives the due process to 

which they are entitled. 

Over the past 18 months, the Marine Corps has implemented a 

number of initiatives that are designed to accomplish these five 

goals. There are four that best illustrate our direction: our case 

501 

management system, an enhanced inspection program, a military 

justice counsel assistance program, and doctrine development. 

We first set out to guarantee accountability for each military justice case. We developed a case management system over the course 

of 6 months, at a cost of roughly $60,000. We implemented it Marine Corps wide in February 2010. 

Our case management system provides a secure, Web-based, 

real-time case tracking database that has produced immediate results by providing a common operating picture, with complete visibility over every case at every stage of the service level process and 

by eliminating gaps previously caused by a variety of incompatible 

systems. 

To enhance transparency and accountability, we created a more 

robust inspections regime. We developed more exacting Article 6 inspection requirements, and for the first time, we instituted a legal 

office inspection program into the Commanding General’s Inspection Program (CGIP). 

The CGIP inspections, conducted by subject matter experts, provide commanders and their staff judge advocates metrics by which 

to gauge the performance of their legal organizations. By the end 

of this year, I will have personally inspected almost every Marine 

legal office worldwide. 

We focused another initiative on strengthening our courts-martial practice in our primary statutory mission. Declining numbers 

of special courts-martial and competing operational demands have 

degraded this core competency as the complexity of the cases we 

are trying continues to increase. 

Our chief defense counsel responded to this trend by leveraging 

technology to establish a worldwide virtual law firm and create a 

community of practice that has elevated the defense organization. 

On the prosecution side, we followed suit, and by using the 

Army’s TCAP as a guide, we stood up a Trial Counsel Assistance 

Program. Our TCAP provides training and resources to assist Marine prosecutors using a number of tools, including onsite training, 

video teleconferencing, and a SharePoint litigation support Web 

site. 

Lastly, to ensure that we institutionalize the lessons learned and 

best practices in all legal services areas, we began the process of 

updating our doctrine for the provision of legal services in the Marine Corps. Concurrent with our assessment of legal services, we 

continued to assess our manpower requirements, including realigning and increasing structure and shaping and increasing inventory. 

The independent panel recommended a target total Active component inventory of 550 judge advocates. That includes both certified judge advocates and our student judge advocates. 

Today, our total Active component inventory of certified and student judge advocates exceeds the panel’s recommended target and 

includes 508 certified judge advocates, the largest number we have 

ever had. 

We have taken the initiative within the Service to address deficiencies that required immediate attention. If these and other initiatives are to endure, I believe there must be institutional reform. 

In the future, it should be clear who is accountable for supervising the provision of legal support in the U.S. Marine Corps, and 

502 

the accountable officer should be the SJA to CMC. This billet must 

be clearly assigned responsibility and authority for supervising the 

service legal mission. 

In closing, I would say that the future of our Marine legal community is bright. The current generation of judge advocates and 

legal service specialists is uniformly better qualified than we were 

a generation ago. 

I believe we owe it to them to maintain a professional legal community dedicated to meeting the high standards of our corps with 

strong, enduring mechanisms for responsibility and accountability. 

Moreover, we owe our commanders and marines the best possible 

advice, representation, and legal services. 

Based on the direction we are taking, I am firmly convinced that 

we are positioning ourselves to best serve the Marine Corps, the 

Department of the Navy, and DOD. 

I have submitted a more detailed statement for the record, and 

I look forward to any questions that you might have. 

Senator WEBB. Thank you very much, General. Your full written 

statement will be entered into the record at this point. 

[The prepared statement of General Ary follows:] 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A Call to Action 

In August 2009, Congress’s direction to convene an Independent Panel to Review 

Judge Advocate Requirements in the Department of the Navy (‘‘506 Panel’’) and a 

contemporaneous Department of Defense (DOD) Inspector General’s (IG) inquiry 

served as a clear call to action for the Marine Corps. In response, we conducted a 

comprehensive study of the provision of legal support within the Service, leading to 

several overarching conclusions. 

First, the Marine Corps needs command-oriented, organic legal support, provided 

by Marine judge advocates, who are integrated, unrestricted Marine Air-Ground 

Task Force officers. As uniformed legal support requirements are command-driven, 

and execution is command-oriented, there is an inherent, intangible benefit to having a legal organization of Marines providing legal support that is responsive to the 

Service’s unique history, leadership philosophy, and operational characteristics. Second, over the past two decades our legal mission has evolved in scope, intensity, and 

complexity. Legacy structure and doctrine, a philosophy of maximum decentralization, and a limited role for the Staff Judge Advocates (SJA) to Commandant, U.S. 

Marine Corps (CMC) have limited our ability to adapt and respond to evolving requirements. Third, to meet the challenges of a more complex, future legal environment, we need to develop higher levels of individual proficiency and organizational 

efficiency, which in turn requires a greater degree of supervision, centralization and 

uniformity. 

The conclusions of our assessment are captured in our July 2010 Strategic Action 

Plan, which establishes a series of initiatives to accomplish five overarching goals: 

(1) set standards, (2) train to those standards, (3) inspect to those standards, (4) examine and adapt the force to achieve those standards, and (5) memorialize what we 

have learned in doctrine. 

THE 506 PANEL REPORT

The conclusions in the 506 Panel’s report of 22 February 2011 are largely consistent with our own determinations. To the extent the Panel recommended action 

at the Service level, the recommended reforms are underway in the Marine Corps. 

Implementation of the remaining recommendations require Departmental action. 

Manpower Requirements 

The 506 Panel concluded that ‘‘[t]he Marine Corps’ programmed target inventory 

of approximately 550 judge advocates over the next 5 years will be sufficient to fulfill the legal requirements of the Marine Corps, as well as to preserve the ability 

of Marine judge advocates to serve in non-legal billets, maintaining their role as 

well-rounded Marine Air-Ground Task Force officers and contributing to the broader 

Marine Corps mission.’’ 

503 

JAG Authority over USMC Manpower Policies and Assignments 

The Marine Corps concurs with the 506 Panel’s recommendation against providing additional authority for the JAG over manpower policies and assignments of 

judge advocates in the Marine Corps. 

Court-Martial Case Tracking System 

The DOD IG and the 506 Panel each concluded that the DoN should employ a 

single case tracking system that can track cases from the preferral of charges or 

imposition of pretrial restraint through appellate review. The Marine Corps currently has a single, Service-wide case tracking system that effectively accomplishes 

its singular goal—to protect the due process rights of every accused Marine through 

accurate and reliable case tracking. Although currently limited to Marine Corps 

cases (75 percent of DON total), the Marine Corps Case Management System (CMS) 

could be adapted to track all DON cases through completion of appellate review. 

CMS was developed in 6 months and implemented at a total cost of $60,000. Its 

use was mandated Service-wide on 1 February 2010 CMS effectively and efficiently 

accomplishes the purpose for which it was designed. Since implementation, the average processing time for Marine Corps cases from date of sentencing to receipt of the 

record of trial by the appellate court has gone from 119 days to 87 days, and the 

number of cases in the post-trial process that exceeded 120 days from the completion of trial to convening authority’s action has dropped from 41 cases in February 

2010 to less than a handful today. 

Military Justice Oversight 

The Secretary of the Navy signed SECNAVINST 5430.27D on 25 April 2011 institutionalizing the annual military justice report requirement and the Military Justice 

Oversight Council, consistent with the 506 Panel’s recommendation. 

Requirements for Complex Cases 

The Marine Corps stood up the Trial Counsel Assistance Program (TCAP) in May 

2010, and has since sponsored three regional TCAP Training Conferences. Since fiscal year 2010, the SJA to CMC has sponsored an annual Victim-Witness Assistance 

Program (VWAP) Training Conference, attended by VWAP representatives from 

every Marine Corps base. JAD is actively involved in developing policy and advising 

and training judge advocates with respect to the prevention of and response to allegations of sexual assault. 

Operational Law Requirements 

The 506 Panel concluded that operational law requirements can be expected to 

double over the next decade, and recommended that the Marine Corps consider 

measures to expand opportunities for senior Marine judge advocates to compete for 

senior legal positions within the joint community. The SJA to CMC is proposing 

measures within the Marine Corps to enhance the joint experience base and, thus, 

create greater opportunities for senior Marine judge advocates to compete for seniorlevel joint billets. 

Support to the Office of Military Commissions 

The Deputy Secretary of Defense directed the extension of Office of Military Commissions (OMC) manning requirements through the end of fiscal year 2015. By September 2011, there will be 13 Active and Reserve Marine Corps judge advocates at 

the OMC, including one of our most experienced colonels who is serving as the Chief 

Defense Counsel for OMC. 

Support to the Disability Evaluation System 

The Marine Corps has mobilized eight Reserve component Marine judge advocates 

to support Disability Evaluation System (DES). In conjunction with Navy JAG, we 

are currently examining a long-term plan for providing DES support. The Navy JAG 

anticipates hiring civilian Informal Physical Evaluation Board attorneys. Additionally, the SJA to CMC is proposing the addition of five permanent structured billets 

at wounded warrior regiments. 

Clarifying and Strengthening the Role of the SJA to CMC 

The 506 Panel recommended providing the SJA to CMC ‘‘authority to supervise 

the administration of military justice and the delivery of legal assistance services 

within the Marine Corps’’; providing the SJA to CMC ‘‘authority to exercise professional and technical supervision over all Marine judge advocates’’; and establishing 

a ‘‘direct relationship between the SJA to CMC and the SECNAV.’’ 

The 506 Panel concluded that these measures ‘‘will improve the delivery of legal 

services within the Marine Corps, and in particular post-trial processing at the 

504 

Service level, by institutionalizing clear lines of authority and accountability.’’ The 

506 Panel recommended a dual statutory and regulatory approach, noting that ‘‘legislation would provide the more enduring, institutional basis for clarifying and 

strengthening the role of the SJA to CMC.’’ 

The challenges in accomplishing the DON’s legal mission are about far more than 

the number of judge advocates. The greatest obstacles are decades-old systemic lack 

of Service-level leadership and supervision, as well as deficiencies in Departmental 

oversight, which stem from gaps inherent in the DON’s unique uniformed legal organization. 

By positioning the respective Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs) within the Service 

military staffs, Congress provided the Army and Air Force with Service-level legal 

leadership positions with commensurate supervision authority and accountability. 

Congress simultaneously provided for a direct relationship between the Service 

JAGs and the Department Secretaries. The dual-Service DON does not readily lend 

itself to the efficient construction of the Army and Air Force. A single JAG was 

placed at the Department level, presumably to provide for efficiency and integration. 

To this end, Congress legislated that the DON JAG and DJAG would be selected 

from officers of both the Navy and Marine Corps, and provided for two AJAGs— 

one Navy, one Marine Corps. While this statutory construct accounted for the requirement for Departmental oversight, it did not provide for the requisite Servicelevel leadership position and authorities. 

As recommended by the DOD IG and the 506 Panel, and as articulated by the 

Secretary of the Navy, strengthening and clarifying the role of the SJA to CMC will 

provide this requisite Service-level leadership. 

Assistant Judge Advocate Generals 

The 506 Panel recommended that two of the Department’s four Assistant Judge 

Advocate General (AJAG) positions be filled by marines and two be filled by the 

U.S. Navy. We have recommended that the AJAG billets be re-examined, and in the 

interim, the existing regulatory AJAG billets be filled in a manner that ensures departmental balance and integration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY MAJ. GEN. VAUGHN A. ARY, USMC 

INTRODUCTION

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the requirements 

for your Marine Corps’ uniformed legal mission. I would like to first take this opportunity to recognize the many men and women wearing the eagle, globe, and anchor 

today performing that mission. Currently we have 508 active duty Marine judge advocates serving around the globe; the largest number we have ever had. In addition, 

there are 19 legal administration officers and 542 enlisted legal services specialists 

in the Active component, and another 328 Marine judge advocates and 167 enlisted 

legal services specialists in the Reserve component. They have responded to the increased demand for legal services across the spectrum of traditional and nontraditional legal missions. We are extremely proud of the job they are doing for our Corps 

and our Nation. 

We believe in command-oriented, organic legal support, provided by Marine judge 

advocates, who are integrated, unrestricted Marine Air Ground Task Force 

(MAGTF) officers. There is an inherent, intangible benefit of providing legal support 

that is responsive to the Service’s unique history, leadership philosophy, and operational characteristics. These strengths are indispensible to our continued success. 

We recognize, however, that some characteristics of our model (e.g., legacy organizational structures and legal services doctrine, a philosophy of maximum decentralization, and a limited role for the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant) 

have limited our ability to respond to the evolving requirements of our legal mission. Over the past 20 years, and more acutely in this past decade of war, our legal 

mission has evolved in scope, intensity, and complexity. If we are to effectively address challenges associated with increased courts-martial complexity, post-trial processing of courts-martial, and sustained levels of deployments, we need higher levels 

of individual proficiency and organizational efficiency, which in turn require a greater degree of supervision, centralization and uniformity. 

A CALL TO ACTION

In August 2009, Congress directed the convening of the Independent Panel to Review Judge Advocate Requirements in the Department of the Navy (hereinafter ‘‘506 

Panel’’) and a contemporaneous Department of Defense (DOD) Inspector General’s 

505 

(IG) inquiry. These Congressional directives were the result of appellate court decisions addressing delays in post-trial processing. In directing these inquiries, Congress expressed a concern that: 

. . . cognizant legal authorities in the Department of the Navy have not 

taken necessary and appropriate steps to ensure that the resources, command attention, and necessary supervision have been devoted to the task 

of ensuring that the Navy and Marine Corps post-trial military justice system functions properly in all cases. 

These congressional directives served as a clear call to action for the senior leadership within Headquarters, Marine Corps. I want to assure this subcommittee that 

the Commandant and the rest of the senior leadership in our Corps have heard this 

call, and have moved forward with genuine resolve to address the challenges you 

have identified. 

In late 2009, the Marine Corps began addressing these challenges by conducting 

a comprehensive study of the provision of legal support within the Service (e.g., 

training, organization, leadership, authorities, et cetera). Our study led us to two 

overarching conclusions. 

First, we concluded that aspects of our historical approach to providing legal support, including a philosophy of maximum decentralization and a limited role for the 

Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) to the Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps (CMC), had created gaps in our practice and degraded unity of effort. Over time, outdated doctrine, 

a lack of policy and procedural guidance, and limited professional supervision had 

rendered performance standards unclear or unenforced. Simply stated, we did not 

have the accountability to ensure proficiency in our core legal competencies. 

Second, we concluded that to meet the ever-increasing scope, intensity, and complexity of the legal mission, the philosophy of maximum decentralization had to 

evolve, in a reasonable and balanced way, to greater supervision and uniformity in 

policies, practices, and processes. In a word, we needed to establish relevant common standards of practice, ensure all of our marines were trained and equipped to 

those standards, and then inspect and enforce those common standards. This would 

ensure: 

• effective professional supervision, 

• transparency and accountability, 

• unity of effort, 

• training efficiencies, and 

• proper apportionment of resources. 

We remained acutely aware that uniformed legal support requirements are largely command-driven, and execution is largely command-oriented. Therefore, centralized solutions must remain responsive and relevant to the particular needs of the 

individual commands, and should reflect the history, leadership philosophy, and 

operational characteristics of the Service. Accordingly, the Marine Corps determined 

that any such solutions require supervision by a Service-level senior officer who is 

best positioned to provide efficient and responsive leadership, has authority commensurate with his responsibility, and who can be held accountable for the performance of the legal mission. 

Thus, while proceeding to address the deficiencies in our approach to the supervision of the administration of military justice and the delivery of legal services, we 

decided to seek specific responsibility and authority for the SJA to CMC for those 

functions. We recognized that this would dictate changes in the Department of the 

Navy’s (DON) unique legal organization, which invests the specific responsibility 

and authorities for supervising the legal mission in a single Department-level Judge 

Advocate General (JAG), rather than in a Service-level officer as in the Army and 

the Air Force. While seeking this responsibility and authority, we stepped out, relying on de facto responsibility. 

The conclusions of our study, and our way ahead, are captured in our Strategic 

Action Plan (SAP) 2010–2015. Published in July 2010, the SAP establishes five overarching goals, and describes specific Service-wide initiatives intended to implement 

these goals. Although they are addressed more robustly in the SAP report itself, the 

goals can be distilled down to the following five principles: 

(1) set standards, 

(2) train to those standards, 

(3) inspect to those standards, 

(4) examine and adapt the force to achieve those standards, and 

(5) memorialize what we have learned in doctrine. 

506 

Over the past year, we have focused on addressing those goals and creating new 

initiatives. We continue to use these five principles to ensure that we are directing 

our resources and energy precisely to the requirements identified in the SAP. 

THE DOD IG AND 506 PANEL REPORTS

The findings, conclusions, and recommendations in the DOD IG Report of 10 December 2010 and the 506 Panel Report of 22 February 2011 were largely consistent 

with our own determinations. These reports tended to validate that the Marine 

Corps was moving in the right direction with appropriate alacrity. 

The DOD IG report, released in December 2010, found: 

There have been consistent failures in leadership, supervision and oversight at all organizational levels, impacting military justice in both the 

Navy and Marine Corps. The failures resulted in inadequate institutional 

vigilance to ensure process health and, in many instances, failures to exercise the diligence and competence required of legal professionals. Serious 

post-trial processing problems persisted for at least the last two decades. 

The 506 Panel’s final report included over forty separate conclusions and recommendations. Addressing its primary statutory mandate—manpower requirements—the Panel favorably noted the Marine Corps’ efforts to increase judge advocate structure and inventory. The Panel opined that the Marine Corps’ bottom-up, 

top-down, requirements-driven manpower determinations were realistic and useful, 

and agreed that a target inventory of 550 judge advocates over the next 5 years was 

sufficient. 

Moving beyond manpower requirements, the 506 Panel found it necessary to focus 

primarily on senior-level leadership, authority, and oversight within the DON‘s uniformed legal communities. Notably, the 506 Panel echoed findings contained in the 

DOD IG Report, opining that: 

. . . the challenge presented to the leaders of the Navy and Marine judge advocate communities, with respect to their core military justice function, has 

as much to do with ensuring engaged leadership and effective oversight as 

it does with numbers of judge advocates. 

The 506 Panel’s conclusions and recommendations also addressed operational law 

support, support to the Disability Evaluation System and the Office of Military 

Commissions, community health, and the assignment of Marine judge advocates to 

non-legal billets. 

To the extent the 506 Panel recommended action at the Service level, the recommended reforms are underway in the Marine Corps. These include a deliberate 

and responsible realignment and increase in judge advocate force structure and inventory, the institution of a cost-effective, rapidly-fielded, and proven case tracking 

system, and the establishment of a Corps-wide inspection standard for the delivery 

of legal services. These and other Service-level initiatives are discussed in greater 

detail below. Implementation of the remaining recommendations, the most important of which would address the lack of Service-level supervision and accountability, 

would require departmental action, including legislative proposals and implementing regulations. Increased personnel inventories and focused initiatives are 

partial, often temporary solutions. Enduring solutions require an institutional mechanism for holding leaders accountable for the mission. 

Below I will discuss the major areas of concern from both the DOD IG report and 

the 506 Panel’s report, and how the Marine Corps is seeking to address them. 

Military Justice Requirements 

Court-Martial Case Tracking System 

The DOD IG recommended that ‘‘the Department of the Navy develop and field 

a single Navy and Marine Corps military justice case processing and tracking system that satisfies user requirements and achieves system-wide visibility over the 

entire court-martial process, including capability for an accused to monitor his/her 

appellate case status directly through web access.’’ 

The 506 Panel noted recent significant improvements in post-trial processing of 

courts-martial within the DON, and concluded that for such improvements to continue ‘‘it is critical that the DON employ a single case tracking system.’’ The requirement for any system, as identified by the 506 Panel, is to ‘‘track cases from 

the preferral of charges or imposition of pretrial restraint at the Service level 

through the appellate review at the Department level.’’ 

The Marine Corps currently has a single, Service-wide case tracking system that 

effectively accomplishes its primary goal: to achieve complete and expeditious processing of every Marine Corps case from a command’s Request for Legal Services to 

507 

1To minimize the demands on the case management system, SJA to CMC chose to use 

SharePoint for the Marine legal community’s knowledge management platform, simplifying the 

evaluation criteria for potential case management systems. 2Lotus Notes is the same software application the Army uses to track its military justice and 

administrative law matters. 

arrival at the appellate courts in order to ensure the due process rights of each and 

every Marine. Although limited to those cases referred to courts-martial by Marine 

Corps commands, those cases represent 75 percent of all courts-martial processed 

by the Navy and Marine Corps Trial Judiciary in fiscal year 2010. The Marine 

Corps Case Management System (CMS) could be adapted to track the remaining 25 

percent of cases originating within the U.S. Navy, as well as tracking all cases 

through completion of appellate review at little cost and without significant delay. 

Development. Conceptually, a single DON-wide case tracking system is an attractive goal. As yet, a single system has not been fielded or developed. Recognizing the 

urgency identified by the appellate courts, and that the Marine Corps’ then existing 

methodology for courts-martial tracking was inadequate, the SJA to CMC began 

identifying the requirements for an effective case tracking and management system 

within the Marine Corps in the summer of 2009.1 With the singular goal of ensuring 

the due process rights of every accused Marine through accurate and reliable case 

tracking, SJA to CMC sought a case management system that would: 

• provide a cradle-to-grave common operating picture for military justice 

practitioners and supervisors to manage and oversee case processing at all 

levels of the Marine Corps; 

• provide easy, non-redundant data entry, retrieval, and report generation 

capability for military justice clerks; 

• generate multiple views and reports; • use affordable, off-the-shelf technology supportable by Marine Corps IT 

systems; 

• allow expeditious implementation throughout the Marine Corps; • provide total visibility of inbound cases from the Marine Corps to the 

Navy and Marine Corps Appellate Review Activity (NAMARA); 

• accommodate expanding requirements; and • provide up-to-date real-time data for commanders and legal leadership to 

identify trends. 

Several systems were evaluated, including the Federal Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system (CM/ECF) and the Navy JAG Corps’ Case Management, 

Tracking and Information System (CMTIS). CMS, a Lotus Notes-based, web-enabled 

software application, was ultimately selected.2

After successfully testing CMS at various Marine legal offices, the SJA to CMC 

mandated its use in MARADMIN 062/10 of 1 February 2010. The implementation 

of a common, integrated, real-time case tracking database produced immediate results by providing complete visibility over every case at every stage of the Servicelevel process and eliminating gaps caused by a variety of incompatible systems 

throughout the Marine Corps. CMS is currently being expanded to provide a separate module for administrative law (i.e. review of administrative separations and 

command investigations) and legal assistance (i.e. case management and client conflict checks). 

Notably, CMS went from development to Marine Corps-wide implementation in 

6 months (August 2009–February 2010) at a total cost of $48,480. (contracted database development and training). Since February 2010, the Marine Corps has spent 

approximately $10,250 on CMS training ($5,250 on technical support training for 

personnel of the Judge Advocate Division, Headquarters Marine Corps (JAD) and 

approximately $5,000 on fleet-wide user training conducted by JAD personnel). 

There are two full-time DOD civilian IT professionals and one Marine Staff Sergeant (MOS 4421) currently administering all legal IT requirements for the Marine 

Legal Community, including centralized administration of CMS. 

The DOD IG Report noted: 

The recently-fielded Marine Corps CMS appears to have substantially 

greater potential than the Navy CMTIS. Specifically, CMS appears to offer 

better and more complete capability for management to maintain visibility 

over individual case processing and status in the field, including post-trial 

processing in the field. However, CMS is still new, relatively untested and 

has yet to develop all the needed capabilities. 

Effective vs. Exquisite. It is worth noting the DOD IG Report was issued in December 2010 and based on evaluations of CMS the previous May. Since then, JAD 

has made significant upgrades and revisions to CMS, such as the addition of data 

508 

3 U.S. v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129, 142 (2006). 4 Receipt by NAMARA marks the conclusion of the service-level post-trial processing mission. 

On average, those cases that are ultimately docketed with NMCCA, are docketed 1–3 days from 

the date NAMARA receives the record. 

fields, validation of required fields, capturing VWAP information, and updating reports and views. The majority of these upgrades were based on user feedback. Admittedly, CMS reflects the austere and expeditionary character of the Marine Corps. 

It lacks the appearance and feel of a more expensive software solution that one 

might associate with, say, an ‘‘iPad.’’ CMS also does not track cases from the inception of a command or law enforcement investigation. However, such capabilities do 

little to ensure effective courts-martial processing, and ultimately only serve to add 

cost, complexity, and delay in delivery of any case tracking system. 

Initial Results. CMS effectively and efficiently accomplishes the purpose for which 

it was designed. United States v. Moreno 3 established a presumption of unreasonable delay where the convening authority’s action is not taken within 120 days of 

the completion of trial or when the record of trial is not docketed by the Service 

Court of Criminal Appeals within 30 days of convening authority’s action. This presumption may be rebutted by the government with evidence showing the delay was 

reasonable under the circumstances. As depicted in the graph below, since the implementation of CMS the average processing time for Marine Corps cases from date 

of sentencing to receipt of the record of trial by NAMARA has gone from 119 days 

in fiscal year 2009 to 83 days in fiscal year 2010 and is currently 78 days for fiscal 

year 2011.4

In addition, on 24 February 2010, 1 week after the effective date of implementation of CMS, 41 of the 121 total cases in the post-trial process exceeded 120 days 

from the date of trial (sentencing) to convening authority’s action. As depicted in 

the graph below, on 12 July 2011 none of the 175 total Marine Corps cases in the 

post-trial process violate the presumption of delay standards created in Moreno. 


720per1.eps
509 

The institutionalization of active monitoring at all supervisory levels, through a 

single database real-time tracking system ensures that every law center, LSSS, and 

SJA office consistently meets timely post-trial processing requirements. The decrease in post-trial cases over the Moreno time limit is largely the result of this increased oversight. Cases that are over 90 days are flagged on CMS via an automatic 

alert system and reported to the SJA to CMC. Because CMS is a real-time case 

tracker, JAD is able to identify issues as they occur and to offer assistance as the 

need arises. 

Military Justice Oversight Council and Annual Military Justice Report 

The 506 Panel recommended that the current annual military justice report requirement and the Military Justice Oversight Council (MJOC), created in 2010, be 

institutionalized in a Secretary of the Navy Instruction. This was accomplished in 

SECNAVINST 5430.27D, signed by Secretary of the Navy on 25 April 2011. 

In making this recommendation, the 506 Panel noted that the military justice 

mission remained the core statutory mission for the uniformed legal community, 

and that the requirement for this mission is not just about numbers of judge advocates. The 506 Panel stated ‘‘ . . . more accurately, engaged leadership and effective 

oversight are the keys . . . .’’ 

Case Load 

As depicted below, over the past decade there has been a significant decline in 

general and special courts-martials from 1,802 total cases tried in fiscal year 2000 

to 846 total cases tried in fiscal year 2010. The majority of the decline is attributable to a reduction in the number of special courts-martial, from 1,626 in fiscal 

year 2000 to 649 in fiscal year 2010. The general courts-martial caseload has remained more constant, from 176 cases tried in fiscal year 2000 to 197 in fiscal year 

2010. As of 12 July 2011, the Marine Corps has tried 129 general courts-martial 

and 355 special courts-martial this current fiscal year. At the current rate, the Marine Corps is on pace to try approximately 600 total cases in fiscal year 2011, with 

the general courts-martial numbers again remaining steady and another decrease 

in the total number of special courts-martial cases. 


720per2.eps
510 

Although the number of courts-martial has continued to decline, the demand for 

military justice support has not declined. Allegations of misconduct have remained 

steady, with an average of approximately 12,000 allegations reported annually from 

fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2008, reflecting a continued trend in the disposition philosophy of our commanders to dispose of less serious misconduct at alternative forums (e.g. summary courts-martial, nonjudicial punishment, et cetera). Historical data and local assessments indicate that the court-martial caseload is sufficient to provide Marine judge advocates and support personnel the opportunity to 

gain proficiency and build an experience base for the development of a professional 

military justice practice. 

Requirements for Complex Cases 

Trial Counsel Assistance Program. The increasing complexity of courts-martial requires today’s judge advocates to have a greater breadth and depth of knowledge 

while still remaining proficient in the basics. Based on the success of the Defense 

Counsel Organization supervised by the Chief Defense Counsel of the Marine Corps, 

the Marine Corps stood up the Trial Counsel Assistance Program (TCAP) in May 

2010 within Judge Advocate Division. The TCAP is comprised of one field grade officer and one company grade officer. The TCAP provides training and resources to 

assist Marine prosecutors using a number of tools, including onsite training, video 

teleconferencing, and the TCAP SharePoint litigation support Web site that contains 

practice advisories, a military justice blog, a motions bank, and other useful documents and links. In fiscal year 2011, the SJA to CMC sponsored three regional 

TCAP Training Conferences at Camp LeJeune, Camp Pendleton, and Kaneohe Bay. 

Victim Witness Assistance Program. The Military Justice Branch (JAM) within 

JAD oversees the Victim Witness Assistance Program (VWAP) for the SJA to CMC 

in his role as the Marine Corps’ responsible official for VWAP. Beginning in fiscal 

year 2010, the SJA to CMC sponsors an annual VWAP Training Conference, hosted 

by JAM and attended by VWAP representatives from every Marine Corps base. The 

training is tailored to provide the base program managers (Victim Witness Liaison 

Officers) with the tools to manage their respective programs and provide local training to their installation VWAP personnel. The conferences featured briefs from nationally recognized victim assistance and advocacy trainers, DON and Marine Corps 

agency heads, Naval Criminal Investigative Service agents, Family Advocacy Program victim advocates, and law enforcement and corrections personnel. 

Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program. JAM continues to be actively 

involved in assisting Headquarters Marine Corps in developing policy and advising 

and training judge advocates with respect to the prevention of and response to allegations of sexual assault. The policy focuses primarily on providing a robust support 

system for victims of sexual assault. JAM is responsible for ensuring that all judge 

advocates receive initial and periodic refresher training on sexual assault response 

policies, victim rights, victimology, sex offenders, current scientific standards for evidence, recantations and false information, and deployment issues, including remote 

location assistance. 

Overall Number Of Judge Advocates Required 

The 506 Panel concluded that ‘‘[t]he Marine Corps’ programmed target inventory 

of approximately 550 judge advocates over the next 5 years will be sufficient to fulVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:36 Jan 24, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00516 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68485.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB

720per3.eps
511 

fill the legal requirements of the Marine Corps, as well as to preserve the ability 

of Marine judge advocates to serve in non-legal billets, maintaining their role as 

well-rounded MAGTF officers and contributing to the broader Marine Corps mission.’’ 

The Marine Corps will continue to ensure that judge advocate structure, inventory 

and assignments are effectively managed to meet evolving mission requirements. As 

the 506 Panel noted: 

A review of internal Marine Corps studies, as well as a CNA study of Marine Corps manpower systems, reflects favorably on the Marine Corps’ efforts to actively manage legal requirements, including: its use of a ‘‘bottomup’’ structure review, careful assessment of increasing demands from operations and force growth, effective incorporation of the SJA to CMC as the 

Occupational Field Manager into the manpower process, and building active-duty judge advocate inventory in support of approved structure increases. 

. . . 

[The] Marine Corps has an effective manpower management system that 

deliberately and systematically identifies legal requirements within the organizational structure of the Marine Corps, then funds and builds an active 

duty inventory to support those requirements. 


720per4.eps
512 

5The MAGTF is the Marine Corps’ principle organization for all missions across the range 

of military operations. MAGTFs are general purpose combined arms units that can be tailored 

(task-organized) to the requirements of a specific situation. Regardless of size or mission, each 

MAGTF has four core elements: a command element (i.e., headquarters), ground combat element 

(e.g., units of infantry, artillery, or tanks), aviation combat element, and logistics support element. The command element provides the command and control for planning and executing all 

military operations, and as such serves as the headquarters. Id. There are both standing 

Operational Law Requirements 

The 506 Panel concluded that ‘‘permanent operational law billets can be expected 

to approximately double over the next decade for the Navy and Marine Corps, and 

there will likely be continued growth in the demand signal for judge advocates in 

contingency operations.’’ The 506 Panel recommended that the Marine Corps consider measures to expand opportunities for senior Marine judge advocates to compete for senior legal positions within the joint community. 

Permanent Operational Law Assignments. Within the Marine Corps, operational 

law advice and services have been, and continue to be, provided primarily by SJAs 

permanently assigned to the command elements of the MAGTFs and the headquarters of the Marine Forces component commands (e.g., Marine Forces Europe, 

South, Central, et cetera).5 Additionally, there are structured requirements for MaVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:36 Jan 24, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00518 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68485.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB

720per5.eps
513 

MAGTFs (e.g., Marine Expeditionary Units (MEU) and Marine Expeditionary Forces (MEFs)) 

and mission-specific, contingency MAGTFs (e.g., Marine Expeditionary Brigade-Afghanistan 

(MEB–A)). There are three standing MEFs (I, II, and III MEF), and seven standing MEUs (11, 

13, 15, 22, 24, 26, and 31st MEU). 6 E.g., Branch Head, Operational and International Law Branch (Code JAO), Judge Advocate 

Division (JAD), Headquarters, Marine Corps. 7 E.g., International Law Officer, Code 10, Office of the Judge Advocate General. 

8 E.g., Non-Proliferation Planner, Office of Legal Counsel, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff. 9 E.g., Instructor/Trainer/Advisor at Naval War College, Marine Corps University, The Army 

Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School (TJAGLCS), and Marine Air Ground Combat 

Center (MCAGCC), Twentynine Palms. 

rine judge advocates to be permanently assigned to operational law billets at service 

headquarters,6 Office of the Judge Advocate General (OJAG),7 Joint Staff,8 and 

training commands.9 Marine judge advocates also compete for permanent assignment to joint operational law billets on the staff of the combatant commands that 

are not structured and aligned to be filled by any particular Service. The requirements for permanently assigned judge advocates to provide operational law support 

has steadily increased over the years, rising 135 percent from 2000 through 2012, 

as portrayed below. 

These numbers include seven Marine judge advocates assigned to Marine Expeditionary Units. These rotational units have traditionally served as the ‘‘first responders’’ to regional crises, such as aviation support to combat operations in Libya and 

humanitarian assistance to Pakistan. Further, our judge advocates serving at Marine Forces component commands, which are assigned to the geographic and functional combatant commands, provide the most senior Marine operational commanders with legal advice concerning international agreements, security cooperation, and contingency operations. We are proposing measures within the Marine 

Corps to enhance the joint experience base and, thus, create greater opportunities 

for senior Marine judge advocates to compete for senior-level joint billets. 

Marine Judge Advocate Support to Deployed Marine Units. In addition to the 

judge advocates permanently assigned to deploying Marine Corps units, there is a 

significant requirement to temporarily augment these units with additional judge 

advocates for deployments. There are currently 39 Active and 8 Reserve Marine 

judge advocates forward deployed with Marine units in support of combat and other 

contingency operations around the world. These deployed judge advocates provide 

critical operational legal advice to commanders. While future manning requirements 

for judge advocates assigned to our traditional legal functions, such as military justice and legal assistance, are more easily projected, aligning our judge advocate 

manning requirements to support contingency operations is more complicated due 

to the unpredictable nature of global crises. 


720per6.eps
514 

Marine Judge Advocate Support to Joint Task Forces. There are requirements for 

individual augments (IA) to provide legal services to various Joint and Combined 

Task Forces, Joint forces and NATO commands. Marine Corps judge advocates currently serve as IAs with NATO’s International Security Assistance Command-Afghanistan, U.S. Forces-Afghanistan, Combined Joint Interagency Task Force – 435 

in Afghanistan, Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa in Djibouti, and Joint 

Task Force Guantanamo Bay. One high-profile example of the importance of IAs 

was the selection of a Marine colonel to serve as the senior legal advisor to General 

Petraeus in Afghanistan. While there has been no shortage of active duty volunteers, IA billets are also being filled with volunteers from the Marine Corps Reserve. 

Currently there are four Active component, and three Reserve component judge advocates serving in IA billets. 

Support to the Office of Military Commissions (OMC) 

The 506 Panel noted the requirement for support to the OMC. This requirement 

was formally revalidated by the Deputy Secretary of Defense in April 2011. Specifically, the Deputy Secretary of Defense directed the extension of OMC manning requirements through the end of fiscal year 2015. The 506 Panel also anticipated that 

if the majority of pending cases are referred to military commissions, the OMC 

would request more experienced and accomplished litigators. 

By September 2011, there will be 13 Active and Reserve Marine Corps judge advocates at the OMC, including one of our most experienced colonels who is serving 

as the Chief Defense Counsel for OMC. Each judge advocate at OMC is screened 

on the basis of their military justice skills and experience prior to being assigned 

to the OMC. 

Support to the Disability Evaluation System (DES) 

The Wounded Warrior Act of 2008 and the DOD implementing memorandum provide that government legal counsel shall be made available: 

• on a discretionary basis prior to the servicemember’s receipt of the decision of an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB), 

• on a mandatory basis, to consult about rights and elections, after receipt 

of the decision of the IPEB, and 

• on a mandatory basis, for full representation at the Formal Physical 

Evaluation Board (FPEB). 

The 506 Panel noted that the Services differ in exercising the discretion to provide 

legal counsel to wounded, ill, and injured (WII) servicemembers prior to the decision 

of the IPEB. The 506 Panel recommended that this difference in approach be examined by the DOD and DON. 

IPEB Representation. Currently, Reserve Navy JAG attorneys provide IPEB legal 

advice to WII sailors and marines at the following locations: Bethesda, Norfolk, 

Jacksonville, Pensacola, San Diego, Bremerton, and Great Lakes. The Marine Corps 

has mobilized five Reserve judge advocates to support both mandatory and discretionary IPEB counseling requirements. Three are located on the East coast (Camp 

Lejeune and Bethesda Naval Hospital/MCB Quantico) and two are on the west coast 

(Camp Pendleton and Naval Hospital San Diego), fully devoted to pre and postIPEB consultations. 


720per7.eps
515 

FPEB Representation. An additional two mobilized Marine judge advocates are 

representing both marines and sailors at the FPEBs alongside their Navy JAG 

counterparts. They are operationally assigned to the Navy Legal Services OfficeNorth Central (NLSO–NC). NLSO–NC is tasked with all Navy FPEB representation. The need for these additional judge advocates became apparent when in March 

2011 the Navy’s Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) increased the number of scheduled weekly formal PEB (FPEB) hearings from 16 to 24. Continued funding for all 

seven (IPEB and FPEB counsel) Marine Reserve mobilizations is expected through 

fiscal year 2012 and is likely to be continued through fiscal year 2013. 

Long-Term Solution. In conjunction with Navy JAG, we are currently examining 

the DES architecture, including civilian and military counsel, to develop a way 

ahead on providing legal counsel to our WII marines and sailors. An additional Marine Reserve judge advocate serves within the JAD’s Legal Assistance Branch to supervise Marine IPEB counsel and coordinate with OJAG (Code 16) in developing the 

Department’s DES program. The Navy JAG anticipates hiring civilian IPEB attorneys to provide a long-term solution for representation to the WII. Additional civilian IPEB counsel are contemplated to ultimately replace the mobilized Reserve 

judge advocates by fall of 2013. As part of the FSRG, the SJA to CMC is proposing 

the addition of five permanent structured billets at wounded warrior regiments. The 

requested structure includes one Major (O–4) and one Captain (O–3) on each coast, 

with another Captain in the National Capital Region. The proposal is based on 

IPEB counsel field experience, which continues to demonstrate that the provision 

of legal counsel earlier in the process than the release of a member’s IPEB results 

reduces processing time, produces more accurate IPEB results, and then reduces the 

number of formal hearings. 

JAG Authority over USMC Manpower Policies and Assignments. 

The Marine Corps concurs with the 506 Panel’s recommendation against providing additional authority for the JAG over manpower policies and assignments of 

judge advocates in the Marine Corps, and agrees with the 506 Panel that additional 

authority is neither ‘‘necessary nor warranted.’’ The 506 Panel provided several compelling bases for their recommendation, stating: 

[t]he Commandant, with the assistance of the SJA to CMC, is effectively 

managing judge advocate manpower (i.e., structure, inventory, and assignments) to meet Service, Departmental, and joint legal requirements; and to 

ensure community health (i.e., recruiting, retention, and education) and 

proper career progression (i.e., promotions) for Marine judge advocates. 

Moreover, the JAG is not in the best position to exercise additional authority in these areas within the Marine Corps, given the Marine Corps’ unique 

requirements for community health and career progression of Marine judge 

advocates. Lastly, transferring authority from the Commandant to the JAG 

could marginalize the SJA to CMC as a legal voice within his Service, contrary to the 506 Panel’s view that the role of the SJA to CMC needs to be 

clarified and strengthened. 

Enduring Institutional Accountability 

The DOD IG Report of 10 December 2010 concluded that: 

Longstanding process failures stemmed from inadequate leadership, supervision and oversight in organizations suffering from many policy and 

structural impediments . . . . Overall, the Navy JAG and senior leadership 

did not satisfactorily identify, address, or fix the severe post-trial processing 

problems that recurred over two decades despite many warnings and trouble signs. 

The DOD IG Report recommended the SJA to CMC be given greater authority to 

conduct Article 6, UCMJ, inspections and to exercise professional supervision over 

Marine judge advocates. The 506 Panel echoed findings contained in the DOD IG 

Report, opining that: 

the challenge presented to the leaders of the Navy and Marine judge advocate communities, with respect to their core military justice function, has 

as much to do with ensuring engaged leadership and effective oversight as 

it does with numbers of judge advocates. 

The 506 Panel recommended clarifying and strengthening the role of the SJA to 

CMC, by: 

• providing the SJA to CMC ‘‘authority to supervise the administration of 

military justice and the delivery of legal assistance services within the Marine Corps’’, 

516 

• providing the SJA to CMC ‘‘authority to exercise professional and technical supervision over all Marine judge advocates’’, and 

• establishing a ‘‘direct relationship between the SJA to CMC and the 

SECNAV.’’ 

The 506 Panel concluded that these measures ‘‘will improve the delivery of legal 

services within the Marine Corps, and in particular post-trial processing at the 

Service level, by institutionalizing clear lines of authority and accountability.’’ The 

506 Panel recommended a dual statutory and regulatory approach, noting that ‘‘legislation would provide the more enduring, institutional basis for clarifying and 

strengthening the role of the SJA to CMC.’’ 

Both the DOD IG and the 506 Panel reports, as well as our internal study, suggest that the challenges facing the DON in the delivery of uniformed legal support 

are about far more than the number of judge advocates in the Navy and Marine 

Corps. Their conclusions suggest that the greatest obstacles to accomplishing the 

DON’s legal mission are decades-old systemic lack of Service-level leadership and 

supervision, as well as deficiencies in Departmental oversight. 

Over the past few decades, several JAGs have implemented measures and dedicated precious time and resources to address these unique DON challenges. However, as the DOD IG noted, ‘‘[w]hen curative measures were taken, they were often 

short-lived or insufficiently institutionalized to endure past the incumbency of individuals who resolved problems at the time.’’ This suggests that systemic deficiencies 

stem not from personal leadership failures but rather from gaps inherent in the 

DON’s unique uniformed legal organization. 

By positioning the respective Judge Advocate Generals within the Service military 

staffs, Congress provided the Army and Air Force with Service-level legal leadership 

positions with commensurate supervision authority and accountability. Congress 

provided for a direct relationship between the Service JAGs and the Department 

Secretaries. In a single-Service Department, the JAGs can seamlessly provide Service-level leadership and supervision while remaining accountable to their Secretaries to facilitate Departmental oversight. 

The dual-Service Department of the Navy does not readily lend itself to the efficient construction of the Army and Air Force. A single JAG was placed at the Department level, presumably to provide for efficiency and integration. To this end, 

Congress legislated that the DON JAG and DJAG would be selected from officers 

of both the Navy and Marine Corps, and provided for two AJAGs—one Navy, one 

Marine Corps. While this statutory construct accounted for the requirement for Departmental oversight, it did not provide for a Service-level officer within each of the 

naval Services to exercise responsive Service-level leadership and supervision. 

As recommended by the DOD IG and the 506 Panel, and as articulated by the 

Secretary of the Navy, strengthening and clarifying the role of the SJA to CMC will 

provide this requisite Service-level leadership. 

In the meantime, we have begun providing Service-level leadership and supervision based on de facto responsibility. We have used the authority vested in the 

SJA to CMC through the Commandant of the Marine Corps to reorganize and reorient the Judge Advocate Division to effectively lead and supervise our legal community. That orientation is illustrated in the changes depicted below. 

517 

Assistant Judge Advocate Generals (AJAGs). The 506 Panel recognized that, 

while the statutory scheme provided for only two AJAG positions, to be balanced 

with one position filled by a U.S. Navy JAGC officer and the other a Marine judge 

advocate, the regulatory scheme provides for four AJAGs, with three positions filled 

by U.S. Navy JAGC officers and one filled by a Marine judge advocate. As a result, 

the current regulatory scheme only allows for one Marine to serve among the six 

Departmental JAG-related flag and general officer positions. The 506 Panel recommended that two of the Department’s four AJAG positions be filled by Marine 

judge advocates and two be filled by U.S. Navy judge advocates, using the rotational 


720per8.eps
518 

process now being used by the U.S. Navy so that the four regulatory AJAG positions 

rotate through the two statutory positions. 

We have recommended to the Secretary of the Navy that the AJAG billets and 

their responsibilities and authorities be re-examined. In the interim, I have recommended to the Secretary that the existing regulatory AJAG billets be filled in a 

manner that ensures departmental balance and integration as recommended by the 

506 Panel. 

CONCLUSION

Again, I would like to thank Congress for its interest in the health and well-being 

of our mission. Congress’s interest in our mission was received as a call to action 

by our community and the leadership within our Corps and I am proud of our response. More importantly, as I travel around to our bases and stations visiting and 

inspecting our legal services community, the officers and Marines, both senior and 

junior, are excited about the direction in which our legal community is headed. 

The future of our Marine judge advocate community is bright. Recruiting trends 

indicate that incoming judge advocates and legal service specialists are uniformly 

better qualified than we were a generation ago. I believe we owe it to them to maintain a professional legal community dedicated to meeting the high standards of our 

Corps, with strong, enduring mechanisms for responsibility and accountability. 

Moreover, we owe it to our commanders and individual marines to ensure they continue to receive the best possible advice, representation, and legal services. 

Based on the direction we are taking in our SAP and in response to the DOD IG 

Report and the 506 Panel, I am firmly convinced that we are positioning ourselves 

to best serve the Marine Corps, the Department of the Navy, and DOD. 

Senator WEBB. I appreciate all of your testimony. 

General Ary, let me just start by asking if you could give us a 

rundown on this Foster case, I mean, the chronology of it, how it 

got so out of synch. 

General ARY. I would say that it is hard to assess one single 

event. In most of these things, it is a cascade of events, and it usually starts with leadership and ends with leadership. 

I can tell you that the U.S. Marine Corps, the service-level mission, from date of trial and the post-trial processing until arrival 

at the court, took 739 days, a completely unacceptable length of 

time. 

Today, we are tracking 164 cases. We have total visibility of 

them in the post-trial process. There are 25 over 90 days, and none 

of those have exceeded 120-day timeline of the Moreno standard. 

We also provide the Navy and Marine Corps appellate review activity with an account receivable of cases that are inbound to that 

court. They have total visibility of cases from date of trial. So it is 

a push-pull system in the Department of the Navy, as far as the 

Marine Corps side in our case management system. 

This is not hard, but it requires an attention to detail that just 

did not exist at the time Foster occurred. 

Senator WEBB. I am going to just ask you as a former Marine. 

How did something like that get lost for 9 years? At least that is 

the word that we have here, that it languished for 9 years. 

Was this systemic? Was it somebody sticking it in a drawer? I 

just don’t understand it. 

General ARY. I would not say that it was unique, sir. I would say 

that there was an institutional—I think the DOD IG was right on 

when they talked about failure of oversight at all levels, about lack 

of proper visibility and case tracking systems. 

We just lost sight of the accountability that we needed, and it 

was inexcusable, sir. 

519 

Admiral HOUCK. Sir, if I may join General Ary, because this 

wasn’t an exclusively Marine Corps problem. This was a Navy and 

Marine Corps problem. 

The problem, as he alluded to, started at the Service level in the 

Marine Corps, but it continued when it reached the Navy-Marine 

Corps Court of Appeals. 

I agree with General Ary. First and foremost, I think it was a 

management-leadership issue. I also think it was a resourcing 

issue. I think that the court was not adequately resourced at the 

time, and I think the people that were on the court did a poor job 

of managing the resources that they had. 

We have today, as I mentioned earlier, by any measure, by several different measures, most of which are set by the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces, we are meeting their gates and then 

some. We have done that, I think, through three ways. 

We have, first of all, it starts with the two of us. We are personally focused on this problem. We meet in a military justice oversight council once a month. The two of us are always there and 

with several of our assistants to talk about case tracking in the department. 

We have also put good qualified, motivated military justice people on our courts and within the system, I mean, from the appellate court to the trial level. The judiciary is no longer a place, as 

it was sometimes in the past the Navy and the Marine Corps, 

where people go because there is no other good place for them to 

go. We have a judicial screening board, and we don’t pick everybody that applies to be a judge these days. 

We, because of our small number of cases in the Navy, have set 

up a military justice career track, which is designed to ensure that 

for the cases that we have, that we get our experienced prosecutors 

and defense counsel on those cases, and that they continue to work 

cases so they can build their experience within the caseload that 

we have. 

So there are a number of people in JAG Corps alumni that said 

we would never do that and never make that work, and it is working today. It is fully populated and operational. 

So I think the third thing that General Ary has alluded to are 

systems that we have in place that we did not have and weren’t 

overseeing adequately back in the day. So I just wanted to join in. 

Senator WEBB. I thank both of you. It is refreshing to see people 

just kind of step up and accept responsibility. I think the numbers 

that you both gave in terms of where you are now on timelines is 

really encouraging. So I thank you for that. 

Senator Graham. 

Senator GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for having 

the hearing because let it be said that Congress cares. We watch. 

We follow, and the Foster case was the reason for us to have the 

independent panel review. 

We now have a better understanding of what the many requirements are for the Navy and the Marine Corps, and I think we have 

two people in positions of leadership for the Navy and Marines that 

are not going to let this ever happen again. For that, I thank you. 

From the Army’s point of view, Lieutenant General Chipman, 

what happens? We are trying to figure out what force we need, 

520 

what we can afford, and how the Defense Department fits in the 

overall budget woes of the country. 

If we reduce the Army by 49,000 people, how does that affect the 

JAG Corps? Do you have any idea how this will affect your ability 

to perform? 

General CHIPMAN. Senator Graham, I think it would affect us in 

a couple of different ways that I can identify in particular. First, 

many of our judge advocates now are embedded in the units they 

advise. For example, to the extent that we take down 49,000 soldiers in force structure, we will lose the corresponding judge advocate billets that accompany those formations. 

We have two judge advocates assigned to every brigade in the 

Army. When they deploy, typically, there is a third judge advocate 

because of the need to conduct rule of law operations, as you saw 

in your own deployments at U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM). 

Second, if we take down 49,000 soldiers overall, I see more focus 

on the headquarters-level functions to deal with how do we respond 

to surge requirements that may accompany different and evolving 

missions. BRAC has increased our legal workload. That turbulence 

in taking 49,000 soldiers out of our inventory, I can imagine, will 

generate another set of legal issues, as we figure out the authorities and the personnel actions needed to effect that reduction. 

Senator GRAHAM. So we just need to know that as you draw 

down the Army, your workload probably goes up. 

General CHIPMAN. Senator, I think that is an accurate statement. 

Senator GRAHAM. Now, Admiral, I am very confident after this 

hearing, that you have a grip on what needs to happen in terms 

of monitoring military justice activity, particularly appellate review. The 950 number, is that the right number, and are you going 

to get the people? 

Admiral HOUCK. Sir, the way that I arrived at my estimate for— 

I think it is the right number. It is close to the right number. 

The way I arrived at my assessment last year before the 506 

panel met was very simply to look at what I believe to be the needs 

of our base force for judge advocates would be, and that would be 

the people to do the traditional things that judge advocates do. 

I also recognize that we have the missions right now of individual augmentees in the global war on terror that you spoke of 

earlier, as well as the Office of Military Commissions. 

Senator GRAHAM. Do you know how many Navy personnel have 

been assigned to Iraq or Afghanistan as individual augmentees 

(IA)? 

Admiral HOUCK. It is close to 500 judge advocates, Active and 

Reserve. Our Reserve component has been spectacular in helping 

us meet these demands. 

I looked at our base force, did a lot of shoe leather, a lot of phone 

calls, a lot of travel, a lot of discussions, and came to a number. 

Then adding on top of that base force number, which I judged to 

be and still judge to be about 820 judge advocates in the Active 

component, add to that number those necessary to fulfill the IA 

and Office of Military Commission numbers. 

Today, July 20, that number adds up to be 925 people, by coincidence, as it was about a year ago. The Navy program for this year 

521 

has us at 801. That delta between 925 and 801 is mitigated by a 

couple of things. 

The first one is we are being allowed to over execute, which is 

to say we probably will carry about 30 extra attorneys beyond that 

801 number by the end of the fiscal year. We have done that 13 

out of the past 20 years. 

The second thing is our Reserve component, reservists that are 

mobilized, where they have come on for Active Duty for special 

work. That is about another 60 attorneys. So that begins to close 

that gap. To be precise, it is 895 today versus what I believe is a 

requirement of 925. 

Is there some risk that is still in that delta? I think there is. But 

I think it is—— 

Senator GRAHAM. My question is, is it going to close? 

Admiral HOUCK. Judging by the Navy program, the Navy program is designed to get lower over the next couple of years and 

then to build back up toward that number across the Future Years 

Defense Program of 821. I think the delta is going to depend a lot 

on what we see real time in the demand for the IA mission and 

the Office of Military Commissions. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. 

Admiral HOUCK. It is difficult for me to predict what that is 

going to be going forward. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. Lieutenant General Harding, can you 

tell us what effect being a three-star has had in terms of your ability to do your job versus two stars? 

General HARDING. Yes, sir. It has had a huge effect. Again, it is 

all about a seat at the table, and it has produced a seat at the 

table. 

Now, I had not served earlier as a two-star, had served as a onestar and was promoted to three. I will tell you the difference between those two worlds is huge. It is galactic, and as is the difference between serving as a one-star and a colonel. 

Progressively, you are in a situation, certainly as a judge advocate, where you can hear planning and strategizing ongoing. If 

legal advice is required—and you may be the only one in the room 

that understands that there is a legal issue that has now been 

raised—you are present to do so. 

So it is awfully important to have a seat at those tables. 

Senator GRAHAM. If we have too many generals, I want to know 

about it. I want to make the Pentagon more efficient. 

Mr. Chairman, the reason I wanted to have this hearing not only 

because of the Navy-Marine Corps problem, it is because I have 

been in the Air Force, and consider my interest parochial, I can’t 

imagine combat commanders at the level we are talking about not 

having access to general officer legal advice. I mean, it is just not 

the Air Force that I know. 

I guess I maybe am biased here. I just know what rank means 

when it comes to having entre. I just wanted the committee to understand that this is a major change. I mean, this is a fundamental, seismic change in terms how the Air Force delivers legal 

advice. 

522 

I have a letter from the Air Force Chief of Staff who recommended not to go this way when it came to replacing these three 

stars. I would like to introduce that in the record. 

I just appreciate my colleagues listening. With that, I will turn 

it over to anyone else. 

Senator WEBB. Your letter will be put in the record at this point. 

[The information referred to follows:] 


720per9.eps
523 

Senator WEBB. I, also for purposes of objectivity here, would like 

to emphasize the chart that we showed at the beginning of this 

hearing. If you look at the Army with 569,000 Active Duty people, 

they have a total of 6 JAG general officers. 

The Navy has 328,700. They have a total of two. 

The Marine Corps has 202,000 people. They have one and he is 

sitting at our table. 

The Air Force has 332,000 people, and they have 6. 

So, General, I appreciate your adamant belief in this point. But 

at the same time, I think there is a decision that has been made 

over in DOD, and at least from my perspective, it will take a lot 

to turn it around. 

General HARDING. Yes, sir. May I comment about the chart, sir? 

Senator WEBB. Is this your personal opinion again? 

General HARDING. No, sir. This is, I think, documented in the 

506 panel as well. I know for a fact it is. 

Senator WEBB. All right. By all means. 

General HARDING. To a degree, to ensure that we are comparing 

apples to apples, I think it is important to take a look at the various mission sets of those three JAG Corps. They are not coterminous. They are not equal. 

For example, in the 506 panel, they depict the Senior Executive 

Services (SES) billets for the Army Materiel Command, which is 

separate and apart from the Army JAG Corps. In the Air Force, 

the Air Force Materiel Command is supported legally with one of 

those one-stars that we are talking about today. 

If you take a look at the Navy side, you will see that their model 

is very different, far afield from the Army’s and the Air Force’s 

model. Their Navy Legal Services largely is run by their Navy general counsel. In fact, there are 22 SES equivalent positions there. 

So I think it is important to look at mission as well as—— 

Senator WEBB. General, I take your point. I am sorry to interrupt, but you have taken a lot of time on this. 


720per10.eps
524 

For the record, let me just say I grew up in the Air Force. I know 

where you are coming from here. 

Senator Hagan. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think this is very interesting, and I appreciate you all having 

this hearing today. 

I just wanted to talk a little bit about the expansion of services. 

As many of our troops are returning home after deployment, after 

a year’s deployment, they are welcomed home to a life they didn’t 

leave, that is very different from the year prior before they left. 

Some of them are facing divorce. Some of them are facing custodial battles. Some are challenged by financial issues, such as bankruptcy. These legal issues can also be the cause of so much stress 

and financial complications, which ultimately will be distracting to 

their ability to perform their mission. 

Although military members can receive legal assistance on post, 

many military attorneys, from what I understand, are recent law 

school graduates who are licensed in States other than where they 

actually are assigned for duty. Understandably, the JAG Corps is 

not equipped to handle the scope and the breadth of attention for 

each of these personal matters. 

I am from North Carolina, and our State bar association has a 

standing committee on legal assistance for military personnel, 

whose Web site, it is actually North Carolina Legal Assistance for 

Military Personnel (NCLAMP). They have valuable legal information available for military servicemembers. 

This initiative provides a network of legal assistance attorneys to 

provide prompt and professional advice. Since 1983, they have also 

produced handouts to educate clients and military legal assistance 

teams on the relevant areas of law, of North Carolina law. The 

committee also keeps tracks of unique problems that are primarily 

military in nature to inform the North Carolina bar about these 

particular issues. 

I believe this initiative offers a template for a successful integration between local and State communities around military installations, and I understand that many States have similar programs 

like this NCLAMP for military personnel. 

Do you know if any evaluation has been done to look at formal 

partnerships at the local and State levels to complement gaps in 

legal care for our servicemembers? 

General CHIPMAN. Senator, I would like to start with that question. 

Senator HAGAN. Okay. 

General CHIPMAN. But first, I would like to say that Mark Sullivan is not just a North Carolina asset. He is a national asset, and 

he has greatly affected our legal practice nationwide with his devotion to legal assistance needs of our servicemembers. 

There are, in fact, partnerships. There are places where we have 

what is called an expanded legal assistance program. Georgia 

comes to mind. Texas, in particular, is very aggressive in supporting soldier and veterans’ needs for legal assistance services. 

I don’t know of any formal institutional framework by which 

those have been pursued. But I can say that I and my colleagues 

will be in Toronto in a couple of weeks for the American Bar AssoVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:36 Jan 24, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00530 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68485.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
525 

ciation (ABA) convention, and it is certainly a topic we could raise 

with the LAMP Committee, as well as the Standing Committee on 

Armed Forces Law. I think that would be a great topic to look at 

their expertise in. 

Senator HAGAN. Great. Anybody else? 

Admiral? 

Admiral HOUCK. No, ma’am. I was just going to make the ABA 

point before General Chipman did. They have taken a pretty active 

role in the pro bono business and in trying to get us linked up with 

local bar associations and pro bono efforts. 

General HARDING. I would throw my hat in the ring with the 

ABA. They have done superb work, and we have supported them 

wherever we can. They don’t supplement, they augment what we 

do in our legal assistance program. So it is important that that program remain. 

To the extent that we can expand legal assistance with our meager resources, we would. But, frankly, we are a little resource constrained on legal assistance. 

General ARY. I might add that legal assistance has always sort 

of been viewed as a luxury, that that is where you put your excess 

capacity. Our Commandant has a priority that we keep faith with 

all marines. He has made that a priority and that is the piece, the 

one piece, that we are concerned about. 

I know we have spent a lot of time talking about military justice, 

but we look at the legal community as an area in which we need 

balanced excellence across all of the areas. It is a bit of a challenge, 

especially when you have new missions, like the disability evaluation system. But it is something that we have to position the legal 

communities across the board to cover those and make sure that 

we execute in a proper manner. 

So, thank you. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you. 

Senator WEBB. Thank you, Senator Hagan. 

Senator Brown. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Chipman, as the Army actually draws down, I agree the 

workload will definitely increase. The Guard seems to be a unique 

investment in today’s force. Do you think the Guard will play an 

expanded role in helping reduce the actual workload? 

General CHIPMAN. Senator, I do. We have actually recently 

resourced a Guard trial defense service initiative. It is in its first 

year of operation. We have about 100—in excess of 100 National 

Guard judge advocates performing trial defense service in support 

of that new team. 

But we have more than 50 National Guard judge advocates mobilized right now in support of various requirements and have had 

that number over the last several years. In fact, we have nearly 

5,000 individual augmentee and unit mobilizations since September 11. So we have gotten great support from both the Army 

Reserve and National Guard. 

I certainly see the Guard assisting as we transition—whatever 

change we effect within the Army, I see the Guard playing an integral role there and not the least of which is their role in our civil 

support operations, which we have so many guardsmen mobilized 

526 

right now with the Southwest border mission and with natural disaster response. 

Senator BROWN. Do you think that we have enough commissioned officers in the Guard who are qualified in the legal profession? Do you think there is a breakdown there at all? 

General CHIPMAN. Senator, that is an interesting question, because I look at the relative size of our two components. For an 

Army Reserve of roughly 205,000, we have about 1,800 judge advocates. For a National Guard of about 360,000 or a little bit more 

than that, we have around 800 National Guard judge advocates. 

So I think there is perhaps some room to grow our Guard legal 

capacity more. 

Senator BROWN. General Harding, do you have any thoughts on 

that? 

General HARDING. We are 80 percent manned in our Reserve category B, those are our individual mobilization augmentees. We try 

mightily to get closer to 100 percent, but I think the economy has 

driven some of the folks to kind of stay at home. 

Having said that, the rest of our Air Reserve component is very 

strong. In fact, they are taking a substantial part of the burden of 

deployment for JAG billets in the CENTCOM area of responsibility 

off the shoulders of their Active Duty brethren. They are backfilling 

the home station and by way of home station support those that 

do deploy forward. 

As a matter of fact, one of our brigadier generals is deployed forward in Afghanistan right now, has been there for almost a year, 

and backfilled with an Air Force reservist. So we rely on them 

heavily. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you. 

Admiral, I am just trying to kind of wrestle a little bit with the 

report that was made about the number and then, the fact that you 

are not near that number. I understand you are talking about augmenting, and I am still not quite there, though, as to seeing if the 

Navy actually has enough folks to cover their needs. 

Can you just talk a little bit more about that? I am not quite 

clear on it. 

Admiral HOUCK. Yes, sir. I think two points to start with. My estimate, as I said earlier, is that we need about 925 judge advocates 

right now. I mean, I can’t sit here and tell you that I have a computer or a calculator that gives me that number. It is my best estimate. 

Senator BROWN. Right. But you only have 800 and something. 

Admiral HOUCK. Yes, sir, 895 today. 

Senator BROWN. So what is the plan, I guess, to get up to that 

number? 

By that I mean to say are you planning on getting up to that 

number? 

Admiral HOUCK. The Navy’s plan would be to—and going back 

to my description of our base force, about 820, which is what I need 

steady state right now, given our force. The Navy’s plan reaches 

that, but reaches it in—at the end of the 5-year defense plan. 

Senator BROWN. So, in the interim, you are going to be basically 

down a fair amount of JAGs? 

527 

Admiral HOUCK. Yes, sir. The question going forward, I think, 

real time will be how much of that difference I make up through 

over execution, being allowed to keep more people on Active Duty 

than the plan calls for, as well as to augment it with reservists, 

to your earlier point. 

If I was in an ideal world, I would have 925 full-time, steadystate, Active Duty judge advocates to meet that demand signal. I 

can’t say otherwise. 

Senator BROWN. I guess my next question would be then, that 

being said, I think the other question you need to ask yourself is, 

if you don’t have a JAG when you need one, are you prepared to 

take the consequences of a poor decision by one of the combat commanders? 

I guess that is the balancing act that you have to do, it is not 

dissimilar than our State district attorneys when they are understaffed or police forces back home who are being reduced and cut. 

At what point is it hurtful, potentially, to the mission and to the 

safety and security of our soldiers and also the political/legal ramifications of that? 

I know you are wrestling with that. Certainly, if there is something that we can do in this committee to—is it a resource issue? 

I mean, do you need additional billets? 

I mean, we are not just here to kind of throw bombs, I don’t 

think, or get answers. We are here to find out how we can help, 

too, I think. Especially, you have two JAGs right here who kind of 

get it. 

Admiral HOUCK. I think for our leadership, they are—to state 

the obvious, they are trying to reconcile many demands. The Secretary of the Navy is a lawyer. 

Senator BROWN. So that is the problem. [Laughter.] 

Admiral HOUCK. So he understands the value of legal services. 

The CNO has served with lawyers at all levels of command, and 

I have met with him many occasions. I have complete access to 

him, and he understands the value of legal services. 

I think all that I can say is that I see my job is to assess the 

requirement and then tell them what I think it is. Then they have 

to reconcile and make the decisions based on the larger picture 

that they have. 

I think that in 99 percent of cases, we will provide a legal answer. I don’t think having—I don’t think we will not provide a legal 

answer. 

I think the risks are a little more subtle. I think they go toward 

the amount of time we are able to devote toward maintaining and 

attending to some of the legal program administrative requirements that come up. I think it goes to the amount of time we have 

to devote to education and training. Those are more subtle, but I 

think those are some areas where risk comes into not having 

enough people. 

Senator BROWN. Just a final thought, do you anticipate in this 

shortfall you are going to have of making the requirements crossbranch requirements, so the Army or Air Force, and getting that 

type of assistance? Is that something that happens at all? 

Admiral HOUCK. We do some of that. My colleagues may want 

to comment on it—but we do it, particularly, obviously, with the 

528 

Marine Corps. Less so with the Army and the Air Force. We do it. 

We have some joint basing initiatives where we work together. 

Senator BROWN. I would think, especially on the Services in 

CONUS, obviously, when you are dealing with just legal assistance 

issues, I mean, those are pretty standard throughout. Take that 

pressure off. 

I agree with you. Some of the most important and helpful cases 

I have worked on have been in the legal assistance field because 

that is when things are most dire. 

A husband and wife getting divorced. There is so much pressure. 

That is the pressure point, and that is the morale issue, quite 

frankly. 

Take shift resources on those lower type of really not high-end 

appeal cases and technical cases. Just grind them out. Get them 

done. 

Admiral HOUCK. We routinely see servicemembers from the other 

Services, and I know they do for ours as well. So that is a big area 

of cooperation for us. 

Senator BROWN. Well, I can just make one final conclusion. One 

of the biggest challenges that many guardsmen have is the length 

of deployment, in that there are many soldiers in the Guard who 

would be happy to do backfill tours of 3 to 6 months voluntarily. 

Is there any effort in that, to reach out to do those types of tours 

and say, ‘‘Hey, listen, we have a guy who has been deployed. He 

needs a break, and he needs 3 months.’’ 

Do you send those feelers out—because we don’t get them too 

much, I know, in our unit. Anybody can comment on that. 

General HARDING. We have done that before, daisy-chaining a 

deployment link to send somebody over there for 90 days, in a succession of 90 days. 

Senator BROWN. Even in CONUS, just to backfill here. 

General HARDING. Certainly, yes, Senator, we do bring folks in, 

as I say, home station support to support legal offices that are a 

little shy because they have some folks down range. But certainly. 

Certainly. 

For adjustable periods of time so they can certainly find a spot 

that is right for their employer as well. So we have done that. 

Senator BROWN. Great. Thank you all. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WEBB. Thank you, Senator Brown. 

I would like to express my appreciation to Senator Brown and 

Senator Graham for their continued service in uniform, as well as 

here in the Senate, and Senator Graham for having recommended 

this hearing. 

He is one of the great lawyers up here in the Senate. There is 

nobody up here who is better on law of war and those sorts of 

issues. Tremendous admiration and respect for Senator Graham, 

and it is a great pleasure to work with him. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You have been terrific. It has been one of the few bipartisan 

areas left in the Senate, if I could put it that way. [Laughter.] 

Senator WEBB. I would like to again thank all of you for your testimony today and for your continued service to our country. Again, 

529 

I appreciate your having had the patience to wait for us, as we got 

a little bit of a late start. 

But thanks again. This is very valuable testimony not only for 

the Senators who were here, but a lot of staff work goes into this, 

a lot of thought goes in from digesting what came out of this testimony. So it has been very valuable to this committee, and I thank 

all of you. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:00 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.] 

Æ