1 

ANNUAL REPORT 

SUBMITTED TO THE 

COMMITTEES ON ARMED SERVICES 

Of the 

United States Senate 

And the 

United States House of Representatives 

And to the 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, 

SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

And the 

SECRETARIES OF THE 

ARMY,NAVY AND AIR FORCE 

PURSUANT TO THE 

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 

For the Period 

October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2014 
2 

CONTENTS 

SECTION 1: JOINT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CODE COMMITTEE 

SECTION 2: REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE ARMED FORCES 

SECTION 3: REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

ARMY 

SECTION 4: REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

NAVY 

SECTION 5: REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

AIR FORCE 

SECTION 6: REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

COAST GUARD 
3 

SECTION 1 

JOINT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CODE COMMITTEE 
4 

JOINT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE 

CODE COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO THE 

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 

October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2014

 The Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Armed Forces, the Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, Air 

Force and Coast Guard, the Staff Judge Advocate to the 

Commandant of the Marine Corps, and Dean Lisa Schenck and Mr. 

James E. McPherson, Public Members appointed by the Secretary of 

Defense, submit their annual report on the operation of the 

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) pursuant to Article 146, 

UCMJ, Title 10, United States Code, § 946. 

 The Code Committee met on March 11, 2014, to consider 

matters pertaining to the administration of military justice. 

The meeting was open to the public and was previously announced 

by notices in the Federal Register and on the Court’s website. 

 After approving the minutes of the 2013 Code Committee 

meeting, Lieutenant Colonel (LtCol) Michael Lewis, U.S. Air 

Force, Chair of the Joint Service Committee, joined by Major 

Daniel Mamber, U.S. Air Force, provided a report on the work of 

the Committee. 

 LtCol Lewis began by informing the Code Committee of the 

formation of the Response Systems Panel (RSP), a nine-member 

panel established by section 576 of the 2013 National Defense 

Authorization Act. Under the panel are three subcommittees: the 

Role of the Commander Subcommittee, the Victim Services 

Subcommittee, and the Comparative Systems Subcommittee. The RSP 

was established to conduct an independent review of the 

investigation, prosecution, and adjudication of sexual assault 

crimes on adults. Five public hearings and several site visits 

have been conducted. The Role of the Commander Subcommittee has 

published an initial assessment, concluding that the commander 

should remain in the role of convening authority instead of 

giving this authority to others, as other proposals have set 

forth. A Judicial Proceedings Panel will follow to conduct an 

independent review and assessment of judicial proceedings 

involving sexual assault and related offenses. 

 LtCol Lewis then briefed the Code Committee on the Military 

Justice Review Group, established by the Secretary of Defense, 

and tasked with conducting a comprehensive review of the 

military justice system. It is composed of a Chair, two senior 
5 

advisors, a Department of Justice Advisor, a Victims’ Rights 

Advisor and a Staff Director. The Group oversees four teams: a 

Punitive Articles Team, a Structure Team, a Rules for CourtsMartial/Military Rules of Evidence Team, and a Sentencing and 

Special Projects Team. In addition to reviewing the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the group will conduct a coverto-cover review of the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM). 

Next, LtCol Lewis informed the Code Committee of the work 

of the Joint Service Committee on Military Justice. Since the 

last meeting, the President signed Executive Order 13643, 

containing a complete re-issuance of the Military Rules of 

Evidence and maximum punishments for new Articles 120, 120b, and 

120c of the UCMJ. The Army is leading an effort to publish an 

addendum to the MCM regarding the Military Rules of Evidence. 

 Major Mamber next described the forwarding of the August 

2012 proposed Executive Order (EO), which was broken out into 

two parts, a streamlined section covering sexual assault cases, 

and a residual part with other proposals. In the streamlined 

section are proposals to delete the character of the accused 

from the discussion factors considered by the convening 

authority in determining whether to grant clemency, to authorize 

the Article 32 officer and government counsel to issue a 

subpoena duces tecum, to allow the Article 32 officer to 

evaluate Military Rule of Evidence 412 evidence, to provide a 

copy of the record of trial to any sexual assault victim who 

testifies at trial, and to allow any crime victim to submit a 

written statement for consideration by the convening authority 

after trial. The August 2012 EO would also: 

 Provide that lack of consent is not an element in a sexual 

assault case, but that consent may be relevant for other 

purposes, such as an affirmative defense; 

 Include changes to cover the repeal of consensual sodomy; 

 Provide, as required by the 2014 National Defense 

Authorization Act, that a dishonorable discharge or 

dismissal would be mandated for a conviction of rape, 

sexual assault or forcible sodomy; 

 Include a provision for the offense of animal abuse under 

Article 134, UCMJ; 

 Resurrect the offense of public indecent acts instead of 

the former indecent conduct; 

 Change the definition of prostitution to cover “sexual act” 

instead of “sexual intercourse”; 

 Require Article 134 charges to expressly allege a terminal 

element; 
6 

 State that a charge is not a lesser-included offense of a 

charged offense unless the lesser offense is “necessarily 

included” in the greater offense; and 

 Update Rule for Courts-Martial 201 to comport with the 

expanded contempt power of a military judge. 

Major Mamber then stated that three recommendations of the 

Defense Legal Policy Board have been referred to the Joint 

Service Committee by the Department of Defense General Counsel: 

 To consider an increase in the maximum punishment for 

dereliction of duty; 

 To remove language in the discussion section of the MCM 

favoring motions to sever cases; and 

 To authorize the transfer of jurisdiction after a case has 

been referred to trial in a deployed area to facilitate the 

trial of the case in that area. 

Lt Col Lewis informed the Code Committee on what would be 

expected to be covered in the 2014 Executive Order: 

 An update to the MCM to catch up with a statutory change to 

Article 81 on the offense of conspiracy to violate the Law 

of War, making such an offense punishable by death; 

 A change to paragraph 106 of the MCM to add “buying” and 

“concealing” stolen property as wrongful if without 

justification or excuse; 

 A restriction on the convening authority’s power to affect 

findings and the sentence for qualifying offenses, as 

required by section 1702 of the 2014 NDAA; 

 Incorporation of the Crime Victims Rights Act into the UCMJ 

as Article 6b, as required by section 1701 of the NDAA, 

with an enforcement mechanism required by December of 2014, 

and the requirement that military judges appoint legal 

guardians for victims who are deceased, minors, or who are 

incapacitated; 

 Changes to the rules for conducting Article 32 hearings by 

making it a probable cause hearing, requiring the 

proceedings to be recorded and made available to the victim 

on request, not requiring the alleged victim to testify, 

and designating the presiding officer (who should be a 

judge advocate and senior to both counsel, if practicable) 

as a hearing officer instead of an investigating officer. 

Each of the services submitted a report to the Code Committee. 

For the Army, Major General Ayres first addressed the work the 

Army has done in its Special Victims Counsel Program. After 

establishing a course for special victims counsel at the Army 
7 

JAG School, 95 active duty judge advocates, 73 reserve judge 

advocates, and 81 National Guard judge advocates have attended 

and completed the course. These officers have assisted 536 

victims and appeared or presented matters in 50 courts-martial. 

Additionally, another 20 reservists have been mobilized to back 

fill in Legal Assistance Office slots previously held by the 

Special Victims Counsels. MG Ayres next stated that the number 

of persons in the Army continued to decrease, but about 200 

judge advocates and enlisted paralegals remain in Afghanistan. 

To supplement the judge advocates serving as Special Victims 

Prosecutors, 23 paralegals and 23 civilians have been added, and 

the Army will continue to follow the need in this area in the 

future. The number of overall courts-martial in the Army has 

been steady, with 725 general courts-martial in FY-12, and 714 

in FY-13. There are about 250 full-time defense counsel in the 

Army. MG Ayres stated there were no noteworthy trends in cases 

in the Army. 

 For the Navy, Rear Admiral Crawford noted a decrease in the 

number of general courts-martial in the Navy from 137 in FY-12 

to 121 in FY-13. There was an increase in the number of special 

courts-martial and a decrease in the number of non-judicial 

punishments. He attributed the decrease in general courtsmartial to increased education of convening authorities in 

discerning what types of cases should be tried at various 

levels. He then mentioned that the Navy and Marine Corps are 

working on the development of a consolidated case tracking 

system. This system would integrate the investigatory function 

as well. Rear Admiral Crawford expressed concern over the 

increase in cases involving the use of synthetic components. He 

also described the Navy’s capability in the area of Special 

Victims Counsel to ensure cooperative, timely, and responsive 

action for victims of sexual assault. Teams have been 

established with NCIS investigators in the fleet concentration 

centers for these offenses. Twenty-nine judge advocates and 10 

yeomen are now working in this area. As for any trends, he 

noted that the number of restricted and unrestricted reports of 

sexual assault increased 46 percent in FY-13. Rear Admiral 

Crawford noted an increase in the confidence of victims to come 

forward, and that such persons have talked to others to 

encourage more reporting. Lastly, training has been scheduled 

on both the east and west coasts in the area of child sexual 

assault cases. 

 The Air Force report was provided by Major General Kenny, 

who informed the Code Committee that he was appearing for the 

Air Force in the absence of the Judge Advocate General and 
8 

Deputy Judge Advocate General. He began by relating the 

following statistics for the Air Force’s special victims counsel 

program: 24 full-time special victims counsel; 20 part-time 

special victims counsel; and 10 full-time paralegals. They have 

served 737 victims, with 515 cases currently open, and 222 

terminated cases. Special victims counsel have attended 136 

Article 32 hearings and 112 courts-martial. This fiscal year, 

52 percent of persons represented by special victims counsel 

have converted from restricted to unrestricted reports. In FY12 and FY-11, only 15 and 13 percent, respectively, converted 

from restricted to unrestricted reports. As for workload 

statistics, special victims counsel asserted clients’ privacy 

rights 219 times, and assisted with expedited transfers 85 

times. A very important survey disclosed that 90 percent of 

victims were extremely satisfied with the special victims 

program; 98 percent would recommend to others to request special 

victims counsel; 91 percent believed their special victims 

counsel advocated effectively for them; and 94 percent said 

their special victims counsel helped them understand the legal 

process. Regarding judge advocate personnel numbers, there were 

1,285 judge advocates on active duty, with 49 percent in company 

grade ranks, 24 percent majors, 18 percent lieutenant colonels, 

and 10 percent colonels and brigadier generals. 

 In the Marine Corps, Major General Ary stated that over the 

past few years the challenges presented have changed, and an 

important challenge now is to position the service legal 

community effectively. One of the former issues involved the 

post-trial review process, and with the implementation of a case 

management system, that issue has been eliminated in the Marine 

Corps. Last year, the Marine Corps tried 135 general courtsmartial, and there was an overall decrease in numbers of cases, 

the service has experienced an increase in sexual assault cases. 

Specifically there has been an 86 percent increase in sexual 

assault reporting over the past year, a doubling in sexual 

assault prosecutions, and a 160 percent increase in contested 

trials of sexual assault offenses. The Marine Corps has 19 

full-time victims legal counsel who have handled 250 cases. 

Regional offices are staffed by experienced senior counsel. 

Additional civilian personnel and investigators have been hired. 

 For the Coast Guard, Rear Admiral Kenney informed the 

committee that contrary to overall trends in the other services, 

the Coast Guard is seeing a significant increase in military 

justice activity, which has strained the ability of the military 

judges to keep up with the caseload. He stated that his opinion 

on the reasons for the increase were increased scrutiny on the 
9 

military justice system and the appreciation of commanders to 

use the system more to ensure good order and discipline. The 

Coast Guard currently has 14 part-time special victims counsel, 

serving 155 clients. The service will transition to full-time 

counsel. One other development has been the establishment of a 

reserve judge advocate program in the Coast Guard. Its initial 

responsibility will be to work in the area of contingency and 

disaster response, but the expectation is that the reservists 

will eventually work in the military justice area as well. He 

concluded by stating that he would recommend to the Military 

Justice Review Group to take a close look at the functioning and 

composition of the Code Committee to make it more vital and 

useful, and to improve the interaction between the Code 

Committee and Congress. While he understood the possible 

conflicts for the members of the court, work should be done to 

eliminate those concerns so the committee would better serve its 

purposes. 

 The Code Committee also received a memorandum from former 

member Professor Charles J. Dunlap, Jr. It is summarized as 

follows. The memorandum suggested the following questions for 

discussion: 

 Are there ongoing command-sponsored efforts to enhance the 

credibility of accusers? 

 What is the role of the Judge Advocate General in removing 

a convening authority from a case because of an unpopular 

decision? 

 Should the Judge Advocate General take an adversarial 

position to the convening authority in a case? 

 Are commands showing sufficient concern when the sexual 

assault victims are males? 

 Should complainants be designated as “victims” before that 

is established by the facts? 

 What steps have been taken to ensure adequate defense 

representation to oppose sexual assault victim advocates? 

 Should Article 37, UCMJ, be amended to include the 

President? 

 Is unlawful command influence a particular problem in view 

of Secretary Hagel’s letter of August 6, 2013? 

Professor Dunlap believes the Code Committee should ensure the 

fairness of the military justice system in sexual assault cases 

and generally it should tackle current issues. On procedural 

matters, he objected to not being able to finish his comments at 

the 2013 Code Committee meeting; he believes the Committee 

should employ an independent court reporter to take the minutes; 

and he stated that the Joint Service Committee response to the 
10 

issues raised in 2013 was inadequate. He concluded by stating 

that the Code Committee is in need of reform with the judges of 

the Court actively participating in the discussions despite any 

possible conflict with their judicial duties. 

 Separate reports of the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Armed Forces and the individual Armed Forces address further 

items of special interest to the Committees on Armed Services of 

the United States Senate and the United States House of 

Representatives, as well as the Secretaries of Defense, Homeland 

Security, Army, Navy, and Air Force. 

James E. Baker 

Chief Judge 

Charles E. “Chip” Erdmann 

Judge 

Scott W. Stucky 

Judge 

Margaret A. Ryan 

Judge 

Kevin A. Ohlson 

Judge 

Lieutenant General Flora D. Darpino, USA 

Judge Advocate General of the Army 

Vice Admiral Nanette M. DeRenzi, JAGC, USN 

Judge Advocate General of the Navy 

Major General Robert G. Kenny, USAF Reserve 

Acting Judge Advocate General of the Air Force 

Rear Admiral Frederick J. Kenney, USCG 

Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard 

Major General Vaughn Ary, USMC 

Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps 

Dean Lisa Schenck 

Public Member 

Mr. James E. McPherson 

Public Member 
11 

SECTION 2 

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE ARMED FORCES 
12 

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES 

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES 

September 1, 2013 to August 31, 2014 

 The Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Armed Forces submit their annual report on the 

administration of the Court and military justice during the 

September 2013 Term of Court to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the United States Senate and the United States 

House of Representatives, and to the Secretaries of 

Defense, Homeland Security, Army, Navy, and Air Force in 

accordance with Article 146, Uniform Code of Military 

Justice, Title 10, United States Code, § 946. 

 On November 1, 2013, Judge Kevin A. Ohlson joined the 

Court. A special session was subsequently held for his 

investiture with guest speakers the Honorable Eric H. 

Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States and 

David Margolis, Esq., Associate Deputy Attorney General. 

THE BUSINESS OF THE COURT

 The filing and disposition of cases are set forth in 

the attached statistical report and graphs for the period 

from September 1, 2013 to August 31, 2014. Additional 

information pertaining to specific opinions is available 

from the Court’s published opinions and Daily Journal. 

Other dispositions may be found in the Court’s official 

reports, the Military Justice Reporter, and on the Court’s 

web site. The Court’s web site also contains a 

consolidated digest of past opinions of the Court, 

information on the Court’s history and jurisdiction, the 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, previous Annual Reports, a 

schedule of upcoming hearings, audio recordings of past 

hearings, and information on clerkship opportunities, bar 

admission, electronic filing, and the Court’s library. 

 During the September 2013 Term of Court, the Court met 

its goal of issuing opinions in all cases heard during the 

Term prior to the end of the Term. An informal summary of 
13 

selected decisions prepared by the Court’s staff is set 

forth in Appendix A. 

RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 

 No changes to the Court’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure were made during the September 2013 Term of 

Court. 

BAR OF THE COURT 

 During the September 2013 Term, 315 attorneys were 

admitted to practice before the Court, bringing the 

cumulative total of admissions to the Bar of the Court to 

36,331. 

JUDICIAL OUTREACH

 In furtherance of a practice established in 1987, the 

Court scheduled special sessions and heard oral arguments 

outside its permanent courthouse in Washington, D.C., 

during the September 2012 Term of Court. This practice, 

known as “Project Outreach,” was developed as part of a 

public awareness program to demonstrate the operation of a 

Federal Court of Appeals, and the military’s criminal 

justice system. The Court conducted hearings during this 

period, with the consent of the parties, at the University 

of Arkansas School of Law in Fayetteville, Arkansas, and at 

Florida International University School of Law in Miami, 

Florida, in conjunction with Southern Command’s Military 

Legal Committee of the Americas (COJUMA) Workshop. Thus, 

in addition to members of the law school community, this 

session of court was attended by senior commanders and 

judge advocates from throughout Latin America and the 

Caribbean. In addition, the Judges of the Court 

participated in a variety of professional training, 

speaking and educational endeavors on military 

installations, at law schools and before professional 

groups, including Fort Sill and Tinker Air Force Base in 

Oklahoma, Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri and Little 

Rock Air Force Base in Arkansas. 
14 

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAM

 On May 20 and 21, 2014, the Court held its Continuing 

Legal Education and Training Program at the Georgetown 

University Law Center, Washington, D.C. The program opened 

with welcoming remarks from the Honorable James E. Baker, 

Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed 

Forces. He was followed by the following speakers: 

Professor William M. Treanor, Executive Vice President and 

Dean, Georgetown University Law Center; Professor Jane H. 

Aiken, Associate Dean for Experiential Education, 

Georgetown University Law Center; the Honorable Elizabeth 

Holtzman, Herrick, Feinstein LLP, New York, New York; Vice 

Admiral James W. Houck, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, 

U.S. Navy (Retired) and Interim Dean and Distinguished 

Scholar in Residence, Pennsylvania State University 

Dickinson School of Law; Commander Jonathan Odom, Judge 

Advocate General’s Corps, U.S. Navy, Oceans Policy Advisor 

to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; Mr. Steven 

Chabinsky, Senior Vice President of Legal Affairs and Chief 

Risk Officer for CrowdStrike, Inc. and former Chief, 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Cyber Intelligence 

Section; Professor Stephanos Bibas, University of 

Pennsylvania School of Law; and Professor John F. Witt, 

Yale Law School. 

In addition, three panels participated in the program. 

The first was composed of Professor Robert E. Atkinson, 

Florida State University School of Law; Rear Admiral 

Margaret DeLuca Klein, U.S. Navy, Senior Advisor to the 

Secretary of Defense for Military Professionalism; Thomas 

Becker, Academic Director of the Air Force Judge Advocate 

General’s School; and Professor Laura Donohue, Georgetown 

University Law Center. The other two panels were composed 

of the Honorable Andrew S. Effron, Senior Judge, United 

States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and Director 

of the Military Justice Review Group; Colonel Michael A. 

Lewis, U.S. Air Force, Chairman of the Joint Services 

Committee on Military Justice; Professor Stephen Vladeck, 

American University Washington College of Law; and Dwight 

Sullivan, Esq., Associate Deputy General Counsel, 

Department of Defense. 
15 

MEMORIAL TRIBUTE FOR THE HONORABLE 

ROBERT M. DUNCAN 

 

In volume 72 of the Military Justice Reporter, the 

Court published a tribute to Chief Judge Robert M. Duncan, 

who passed away at the age of 85. Chief Judge Duncan 

joined the Court on November 29, 1971, until he resigned 

from the Court on July 11, 1974, to accept a position on 

the federal bench in Ohio. Chief Judge Duncan was the 

first African-American to serve on the Ohio Supreme Court, 

the first African-American to be appointed to the Court of 

Military Appeals, now the Court of Appeals for the Armed 

Forces, the first African-American appointed to the federal 

bench in Ohio and the first African-American to serve as a 

trustee on the Ohio State University Board of Trustees. He 

was known for his grace, humility, his intellect, and all 

things Ohio. To his friends and colleagues, he will be 

remembered as a judge of great dignity. In the military 

justice system, he is remembered and honored as the judge 

who first brought an essential element of diversity to the 

system’s highest court. 

James E. Baker 

Chief Judge 

Charles E. “Chip” Erdmann 

Judge 

Scott W. Stucky 

Judge 

Margaret A. Ryan 

Judge 

Kevin A. Ohlson 

Judge 
16 

APPENDIX A – SELECTED DECISIONS

 This appendix contains an informal staff summary of 

selected decisions of the September 2013 Term of Court. A 

full list and summary of the cases decided by the Court

during the Term, including any related concurrences and 

dissents, can be found on the Court’s website. 

United States v. Passut, 73 M.J. 27 (C.A.A.F. 2014), 

holding that false statements made by the accused regarding 

his Common Access Card to employees of the Army and Air 

Force Exchange Service were “official” statements as 

required to sustain a conviction under Article 107, UCMJ. 

United States v. Knapp, 73 M.J. 33 (C.A.A.F. 2014), 

holding it to be plain error for the military judge to have 

admitted the “human lie detector” testimony of an agent of 

the Air Force Office of Special Investigations where the 

agent, using his specialized training to detect nonverbal 

cues, determined that the accused was deceptive in 

providing an innocent account of the events in a 

prosecution for sexual assault. 

United States v. Moss, 73 M.J. 64 (C.A.A.F. 2014), 

holding that the petition for grant of review filed by 

appellate defense counsel would be dismissed when the 

accused did not authorize an appeal to the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Armed Forces, but only signed a pretrial 

rights advisement that advised her she could appeal. 

United States v. Wicks, 73 M.J. 93 (C.A.A.F. 2014), 

holding that evidence discovered in the Government’s 

multiple searches of the accused’s cell phone, in excess of 

another servicemember’s initial private search, was 

properly excluded where the Government’s searches were 

conducted without a search authorization. 

United States v. Kearns, 73 M.J. 177 (C.A.A.F. 2014), 

holding that the intent element of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) was 

met as long as illegal sexual activity is a purpose for 

transporting a minor across state lines, and not 

necessarily the dominant or significant purpose. 
17 

United States v. Talkington, 73 M.J. 212 (C.A.A.F. 

2014), holding that sex offender registration is a 

collateral consequence of a guilty plea outside the context 

of a guilty plea inquiry, that the accused was permitted to 

mention sex offender registration during his unsworn 

statement, and that the military judge had discretion to 

instruct the court members in placing sex offender 

registration in its proper context. 

United States v. Janssen, 73 M.J. 221 (C.A.A.F. 2014), 

holding that the Secretary of Defense, as head of a 

department, was not vested by law with authority to appoint 

a civilian as an appellate judge on the Air Force Court of 

Criminal Appeals, and the de facto officer doctrine to 

validate the action did not apply where the accused 

promptly challenged the composition of the panel on direct 

review. 

United States v. Frey, 73 M.J. 245 (C.A.A.F. 2014), 

holding that trial counsel’s sentencing argument was 

improper in prosecution for engaging in sexual contact with 

a child, where counsel appealed to the members to use their 

knowledge of the “ways of the world” to sentence the 

accused based on a risk of recidivism through serial 

molestation. 

United States v. Flesher, 73 M.J. 303 (C.A.A.F. 2014), 

holding that the military judge failed to place sufficient 

evidence on the record to demonstrate that he acted within 

the bounds of his discretion when he authorized a sexual 

assault response coordinator to testify as an expert 

witness in a sexual assault case. 

United States v. Elespuru, 73 M.J. 326 (C.A.A.F. 2014), 

holding that where the Government charged the accused with 

both abusive sexual contact and wrongful sexual contact in 

the alternative for contingencies of proof, both 

convictions may not stand. 

United States v. Jones, 73 M.J. 357 (C.A.A.F. 2014), 

holding that an infantryman who was also serving as a 

military police augmentee was not required to give the 

accused a rights warning where the person questioning was 

not acting in an official capacity. 
18 

United States v. McPherson, 73 M.J. 393 (C.A.A.F. 

2014), holding that Article 12, UCMJ, which prohibits the 

placement of any member of the armed forces in confinement 

in immediate association with enemy prisoners or other 

foreign nationals not members of the armed forces, applies 

to military members in state or federal confinement 

facilities without geographical limitation, however the 

accused must first exhaust any administrative remedies 

before challenging the conditions of his confinement under 

the UCMJ. 

United States v. MacDonald, 73 M.J. 426 (C.A.A.F. 

2014), holding that the military judge abused his 

discretion in refusing to issue an involuntary intoxication 

instruction to the members where the accused, who was 

charged with murder, had taken a prescription drug for 

smoking cessation which had been the subject of a “black 

box” warning from the Food and Drug Administration that the 

drug could cause hostility, homicidal ideation and suicide. 
19 

USCAAF STATISTICAL REPORT 

SEPTEMBER 2013 TERM OF COURT 

CUMULATIVE SUMMARY

CUMULATIVE PENDING SEPTEMBER 1, 2013 

 Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 

 Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 

 Miscellaneous Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . 1

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 

CUMULATIVE FILINGS 

 Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 

 Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853 

 Miscellaneous Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . 22

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 976 

CUMULATIVE DISPOSITIONS 

 Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 

 Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 816 

 Miscellaneous Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . 22

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939 

CUMULATIVE PENDING SEPTEMBER 1, 2014 

 Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 

 Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 

 Miscellaneous Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . 1

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 

OPINION SUMMARY

CATEGORY SIGNED PER CURIAM MEM/ORDER TOTAL

Master Docket . . . . 32 0 69 101 

Petition Docket . . . 0 0 816 816 

Miscellaneous Docket 0 0 22 22

TOTAL 32 0 907 939 
20 

MEMORANDUM/ORDER SUMMARY

Orders 

 Denying petitions for grant of review . . . . 678 

 Petitions dismissed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 

 Granting withdrawal of petition for grant of 

 Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

 Granting petitions for grant of review 

 with briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 

 without briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 

 Summary Dispositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 

 Deciding previously granted cases (trailer 

 cases) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 

 Denying petitions for extraordinary relief 

 and writ-appeal petitions . . . . . . . . . 20 

 Granting petitions for extraordinary relief 

 and writ-appeal petitions . . . . . . . . . 0 

 Dismissing petitions for extraordinary relief 

 and writ-appeal petitions . . . . . . . . . 2 

 Granting motions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513 

 Denying motions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 

 Deciding granted cases . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,481 

MASTER DOCKET SUMMARY

PENDING AT BEGINNING OF TERM . . . . . . . . . . . 28 

FILINGS 

 Petitions granted from the Petition Docket . . 89 

 Certificates filed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 

 Mandatory appeals filed. . . . . . . . . . . . 0 

 Remanded/Returned cases. . . . . . . . . . . . 0

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 

DISPOSITIONS 

 Decisions affirmed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 

 Reversed in whole or in part . . . . . . . . . 49 

 Granted petitions vacated . . . . . . . . . . 1

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 
21 

PENDING AT END OF TERM 

 Awaiting briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

 Awaiting oral argument . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

 Awaiting lead case decision (trailer cases). . 10 

 Awaiting final action . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 

PETITION DOCKET SUMMARY

PENDING AT BEGINNING OF TERM . . . . . . . . . . . 131 

FILINGS 

 Petitions for grant of review filed . . . . . 852 

 Petitions for new trial filed . . . . . . . . 1 

 Returned cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853 

DISPOSITIONS 

 Petitions for grant of review denied . . . . . 678 

 Petitions for grant of review granted . . . . 105 

 Petitions for grant of review withdrawn . . . 5 

 Petitions for grant of review dismissed . . . 28

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 816 

PENDING AT END OF TERM 

 Awaiting pleadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 

 Awaiting Central Legal Staff review . . . . . 126 

 Awaiting final action . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET SUMMARY

PENDING AT BEGINNING OF TERM . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

FILINGS 

 Writ appeals sought . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 

 Writs of habeas corpus sought . . . . . . . . 1 

 Writs of error coram nobis sought . . . . . . 0 

 Other extraordinary relief sought . . . . . . 1

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 
22 

DISPOSITIONS 

 Petitions or appeals denied . . . . . . . . . 20 

 Petitions or appeals granted . . . . . . . . . 0 

 Petitions or appeals dismissed . . . . . . . . 2 

 Petitions or appeals withdrawn . . . . . . . . 0

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 

PENDING AT END OF TERM 

 Awaiting briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 

 Awaiting staff review . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

 Awaiting final action . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

ALL CASES DISPOSITIONS

Begin Pending 1 Denied 15 

Filed 15 Granted 1 

TOTAL 16 Dismissed 1

 TOTAL 17 

End Pending 0 

MOTIONS

ALL MOTIONS DISPOSITIONS

Begin Pending 19 Granted 513 

Filed 584 Denied 80 

 Dismissed 0 

TOTAL 603 TOTAL 593 

End Pending 10 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 

SECTION 3 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE OF THE ARMY 
34 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE ARMY 

OCTOBER 1, 2013 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 

 In fiscal year 2014 (FY14), The Judge Advocate General 

(TJAG) advised Army leadership on significant issues pertaining 

to military justice, to include high visibility cases and 

investigations. The Office of The Judge Advocate General 

(OTJAG) continued to implement programs improving both the 

administration of military justice and advocacy skills of 

military justice practitioners. In furtherance of TJAG’s duties 

under Article 6(a), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 

TJAG and senior leaders in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps 

(JAGC) conducted twenty-two visits to installations and commands 

in the United States and overseas to discuss military justice 

issues with commanders and their respective Staff Judge 

Advocates (SJAs). The JAGC remains committed to sustaining 

excellence in the practice of military justice through a variety 

of initiatives and programs. 

OTJAG CRIMINAL LAW DIVISION 

 The OTJAG, Criminal Law Division (CLD) has two primary 

missions. First, the CLD advises TJAG on military justice 

policy, legislation, legal opinions, and related criminal law 

actions. Specific responsibilities include: promulgating 

military justice regulations; reviewing other Army Regulations 

for legal sufficiency; providing legal opinions to the Army 

Staff related to military justice matters; producing and 

updating military justice publications to include the Manual for 

Courts-Martial (MCM); conducting statistical analysis and 

evaluation of trends that affect military justice within the 

Army; providing legal advice on military corrections issues, the 

Army drug testing program, sexual assault and victim assistance 

policies, and federal prosecutions; representing the Army on the 

Joint Service Committee (JSC) on Military Justice; responding to 

congressional inquiries from the President, Congress, Department 

of Defense (DoD) and the Army Staff; responding to congressional 

inquiries under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); and 

conducting reviews of court-martial cases under Article 69 of 

the UCMJ to ascertain legal sufficiency and sentence 

Appropriateness and to identify issues that may require 

corrective action by TJAG. 
35 

 Second, the CLD provides comprehensive policy guidance and 

resources to military justice practitioners in the field, which 

includes a special emphasis on training (including training 

related to sexual assault litigation) and programs designed to 

guarantee long term military justice proficiency worldwide 

across all grades. The CLD employs a civilian GS-15 attorney 

who provides expert assistance and program direction for 

military justice advocacy training and programs throughout the 

Army. The CLD facilitates the active integration and 

synchronization of training by coordinating quarterly training 

and budget meetings with the Corps’ key training arms: Trial 

and Defense Counsel Assistance Programs (TCAP and DCAP) and The 

Judge Advocate General Legal Center and School (TJAGLCS). The 

CLD manages software initiatives for JAGC-wide application and 

facilitates active information flow to and from the field using 

web-based media. 

 Traditionally-reported CLD actions for the last three 

fiscal years are listed below. 

The CLD conducts a bi-annual Criminal Law Synchronization 

Meeting with key criminal law stakeholders such as TJAGLCS, 

TCAP, DCAP, Defense Appellate Division (DAD), Government 

Appellate Division (GAD), and the U.S. Army Trial Judiciary. 

These synchronization meetings were invaluable in bringing the 

JAGC criminal law leaders together, not only to coordinate 

criminal law training across the JAGC, but also to discuss new 

criminal law initiatives that could improve and sustain the 

practice of military justice in the Army. Synchronization 

provides unity of effort and situational awareness on all 

criminal law training across multiple venues, civilian and 

military, allowing trial advocates to more easily plan for their 

attendance at military justice training events. 

FY12 FY13 FY14

Congressional and other Inquiries 

 

150 195 155 

Officer Dismissals 

 

16 27 26 

Article 69 and other reviews 40 38 196 

Freedom of Information/Privacy Act 

Requests 11 14 

 

32 
36 

The Military Justice Additional Skill Identifier program 

continues to grow. The purpose of the program is to help 

identify and sustain expertise and to assist in the selection of 

personnel for key military justice positions. To date, 1,154 

judge advocates have been awarded skill identifiers: 618 basic, 

296 senior, 164 expert, and 76 master military justice 

practitioners. 

 The CLD participates in inspections three times per year of 

the Forensic Drug Testing Laboratories at Fort Meade, MD and 

Tripler Army Medical Center, HI. These inspections are intended 

to ensure that the laboratory results are forensically 

acceptable and that the laboratories are following Department of 

Defense and Army policy guidance. The CLD attorney 

participation is intended to assist in ensuring not only that 

the laboratory results are forensically acceptable (which 

protects both the government and the Soldier), but also to 

ensure that the results may be used in administrative and 

judicial proceedings if required. 

 The CLD continued to support the mission of the Joint 

Service Committee (JSC) in FY14; with personnel serving as both 

voting group and working group members. The CLD assisted in the 

drafting of three comprehensive Executive Orders (EO) that were 

submitted to the DoD for approval by the President. The draft 

EOs contained elements, explanations, lesser included offenses, 

and sample specifications for Articles 120, 120b and 120c; 

amendments to Articles 47, 48, 54, and 79; amendments to Rules 

for Court-Martial (RCM) 201, 305, 306, 307, 404, 404A, 405, 601, 

702, 703, 801, 806, 906, 907, 916, 920, 1001, 1003, 1005, 1104, 

1103, 1104, 1105, 1106, 1107, 1108, 1301, 1306, 1307 and 

proposed 1105A; amendments to Military Rules of Evidence (Mil. 

R. Evid.) 402, 412, 513, 514; and amendments to Appendices 12, 

31, 22, and 23, as well as the creation of Appendices 12A, and 

29. The EOs implement changes required by the National Defense 

Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY12, FY13, FY14, and portions of 

FY15. On June 13, 2014, the President signed EO 13669 

approving the first of the three EOs. 

 On June 16, 2014, the CLD published the Supplement to the 

Manual for Courts-Martial, Military Rules of Evidence which 

implements EO 13643. This supplement to the MCM provides the 

field with a stand-alone Mil. R. Evid. for use in conjunction 

with the current MCM until a new MCM can be published. The JSC 

is planning to reprint the MCM in early 2016 to capture: the 

revised Mil. R. Evid.; new Articles 120, 120b, and 120c; and all 
37 

related conforming changes as well as mandated changes in the 

FY14 and FY15 NDAA. 

 The Trial Advocates Tracking System (TATS), a web-based 

database that tracks the number of active trial and defense 

counsel, grew to 956 judge advocates. The TATS provides key 

data on the experience and training of trial advocates and helps 

in assessing military justice assignments, personnel management, 

and required training. Using TATS as a database, CLD continued 

to implement the Trial Advocate Resource Library (TARL), which 

includes basic criminal practice and military justice reference 

books that are key to the development and growth of young 

advocates. First-time trial counsel, defense counsel, and SVPs 

are eligible to receive the TARL. In FY14 149 hard copies and 

121 electronic books were distributed. 

 Judge advocates, civilian attorneys, paralegals, and legal 

administrators from around the world use the milBook Criminal 

Law group to ask questions about interpreting case law and 

strategy, and it allows them to post documents that they feel 

may be helpful to their fellow judge advocates. MilBook was 

also used to facilitate three Direct Connect Online (DCO) 

conversations between TJAG and SJAs across the Army. 

 On October 18, 2013, the Secretary of Defense directed the 

General Counsel of the DoD to conduct a comprehensive review of 

the military justice system. To carry out the review, the 

General Counsel established the Military Justice Review Group 

(MJRG). The MJRG's review has focused on the structure and 

operation of the UCMJ and the MCM. The MJRG will report its 

recommendations for changes to the UCMJ to the Secretary of 

Defense no later than March 25, 2015, and its recommendations 

for changes to the MCM no later than September 21, 2015. 

Numerous Army personnel have participated in the MJRG process, 

either providing input to the group based upon their unique 

experience and training, or serving as staff attorneys to the 

MJRG. The Judge Advocate General has reviewed the first two 

rounds of proposals from the MJRG and provided input to the 

Chair of the MJRG. 

 In 2014, the Secretary of Defense, as required by Section 

576(a)(1) of the FY13 NDAA established the Judicial Proceedings 

Panel (JPP). The JPP’s mandate is to conduct an independent 

review and assessment of judicial proceedings conducted under 

the UCMJ involving adult sexual assault and related offenses 

since the amendments made to the UCMJ Justice in 2012. The JPP 

began holding monthly public hearing in August 2014 and has sent 
38 

the Services and the DoD two sets of Requests for Information. 

Numerous Army judge advocates and an Army civilian attorney 

testified during public hearings of the JPP. The JPP’s first 

report is due in February. The Army JAGC provided two judge 

advocates to support the JPP process, served as the Army 

representative to the JPP, and was primarily responsible for 

gathering information and witnesses in response to the JPP’s 

requests. 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL’S LEGAL CENTER AND SCHOOL (TJAGLCS)

 

 The cornerstone mission of the Criminal Law Department of 

TJAGLCS in Charlottesville, Virginia is to develop, improve, and 

sustain excellence in the practice of military criminal law. 

The need to hone these skills in the context of a joint, 

expeditionary force at war is paramount and occupies center 

stage in all curriculum review. Instruction touches a wide 

range of subjects from substantive criminal law to technical 

litigation skills, and is fully integrated into the overall 

JAGC-wide developmental cycle for military justice practice. At 

the same time, our professors provide critical reach-back 

capability for military justice practitioners of all Services. 

 The Department teaches a variety of courses to multiple 

student cohorts that include all Services and international 

students as well. These courses include initial-entry judge 

advocates in the Basic Course; newly-assigned trial advocates in 

the Intermediate Trial Advocacy Course (ITAC); mid-level Judge 

Advocates in the Graduate Course, the Military Justice Managers 

Course (MJMC), the Judge Advocate Officer Advanced Course 

(JAOAC), and Advanced Trial Communication Course; senior Judge 

Advocates in the Military Judge Course (MJC); commanders and 

senior non-commissioned officers in the Command Sergeant Major 

Legal Orientation (CSMLO), the Senior Officer Legal Orientation 

Course (SOLO); and the General Officer Legal Orientation Course 

(GOLO). Except for the GOLO course, which is provided 

individually to General Officers, all courses are taught using a 

sexual assault fact pattern and are synchronized with other JAG 

Corps training agencies. 

 The Department was honored to receive the 2014 American Bar 

Association’s Judicial Education Award. The Department earned 

the award for the quality of the curriculum and instruction for 

the MJC. The MJC remains the certification course for all 

military judges in the DoD. As such it remains one of the most 
39 

important courses for the Department and one of the highlights 

of our academic year. 

 This past year, the Department continued to build upon its 

newest course, the Special Victims’ Counsel (SVC) Course. The 

Department offered three resident and one distance learning SVC 

Courses in one year. The course remains a one-week course 

designed to educate counsel in preparation to serve as certified 

SVC. The course provides focus and updates on the law and 

policies most relevant to SVC practice. Students learn best 

practices to utilize when working with crime victims 

(specifically, sexual assault victims), the impacts of crime on 

victims, relations with law enforcement and multi-disciplinary 

professionals, professional responsibility and scope of 

representation, and how to best interrelate with other actors in 

the military justice system. The capstone events for the course 

now include a client-victim roundtable, where sexual assault 

victims voluntarily discuss their experiences and the assistance 

they received from their SVC, and a practical exercise where 

students practice professional interactions with a professor 

acting as a client-victim. The Department also continues to 

provide recommendations to the evolving policy that is shaping 

SVC practice. 

 The Department presented the Forty-Second Kenneth J. Hodson 

Lecture in Criminal Law and hosted Dr. Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, 

retired Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, as the guest 

speaker. The Department also continued its robust digital 

outreach program by maintaining a sexual assault resource site 

for SJAs, creating and maintaining a learning website for 

deployed SVCs, providing live remote classes to the field via 

DCO, and moving forward with migration of the Department’s 

comprehensive deskbook to a more responsive and versatile, 

universally accessible, and user friendly digital deskbook. 

U.S. ARMY JUDICIARY 

U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals/Office of the Clerk of Court 

 

 The Office of the Clerk of Court receives records of trial 

for review by the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) 

under Article 66, UCMJ, appeals under Article 62, UCMJ, and 

Petitions for Extraordinary Relief. In FY 2014, 550 records of 

trial and nearly 2,000 motions and briefs were referred to one 

of the three judicial panels comprising the ACCA for judicial 

review. The average processing times for those courts-martial 
40 

from sentencing to convening authority action was 225 days. In 

101 of those cases, initial action was completed by the 

convening authority within the 120 days prescribed by United 

States v. Moreno. Four hundred thirty-one of the records were 

received by ACCA within 30 days of convening authority action. 

 The Army’s superior court rendered an initial decision in 

629 cases in FY14, with an average processing time of 339 days 

from receipt of the record of trial by the clerk of court to 

decision by ACCA. Of the 629 decisions, 537 were rendered 

within the 18-month period prescribed by United States v Moreno. 

There were no court-martial convictions reversed due to command 

influence, denial of the right to a speedy review, lost records, 

or other administrative deficiencies. No provision of the UCMJ 

or MCM was held unconstitutional by ACCA. 

 Working with the CLD, the Office of the Clerk of Court also 

processed nearly 300 additional cases for examination under 

Article 69, UCMJ. The Office of the Clerk of Court served the 

ACCA decisions upon all personnel not in confinement and 

coordinated with military confinement facilities for service of 

confined Soldiers. The office closed 1,026 courts-martial cases 

during the past year prior to their retirement to the archives. 

 The court maintains a website at 

https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/acca. The court’s published and 

unpublished memorandum opinions are publicly available on the 

website. In FY14, the office uploaded more than 227 opinions 

and decisions to the website. Additional publicly available 

information includes application materials for admission to the 

bar at ACCA; Rules of Court; oral argument schedules; and the 

procedures for making a FOIA or Privacy Act (PA) request from 

ACCA. The website also includes a “FOIA Reading Room” 

containing frequently requested documents from some of the 

Army’s higher-profile court-martial cases. 

 

 The Clerk of Court is the custodian of the Army’s 

permanent court-martial records (general courts-martial and 

those special courts-martial resulting in an approved punitive 

discharge) dating from 1977. Inquiries about current and 

previous courts-martial are received from federal and state 

investigative agencies; local law enforcement offices; sex 

offender registration databases; media and news organizations; 

military historians; veterans; and Soldiers previously convicted 

at court-martial. Additionally, because the Brady Bill requires 

the processing of handgun permit applications within three 

working days, many expedited requests arrive from the Federal 
41 

Bureau of Investigation’s National Instant Background Check 

System. 

 Summary of information requests to ACCA for the last three 

fiscal years: 

 FY12 FY13 FY14

Freedom of Information Act 297 430 536 

Privacy Act 113 99 217 

Certified Copies of Convictions 75 170 72 

Requests from Federal Agencies 245 105 ** 

Total Number of Requests: 730 804 825 

** Beginning in FY14, requests from Federal agencies are no 

longer a separate category and are included in the numbers 

reported above. 

 

 During this time, the office’s FOIA team provided 

extensive assistance to the Department of Justice in both civil 

and criminal litigation, including subject matter expertise in 

the proper redaction of court-martial records of trial. 

 The Office of the Clerk of Court also provides 

assistance to overseas court-martial jurisdictions in processing 

requests for non-DoD civilians to travel overseas to testify at 

trials. This includes making travel arrangements, assisting 

with requests for expedited passport processing, and issuing 

invitational travel orders. 

 The office’s Management and Program Analyst continued 

to provide vital support to the Office of the Clerk of Court, 

OTJAG, and other organizations and individuals. Using the Army 

Court-Martial Information System (ACMIS), the office designed, 

developed, and released nearly 400 timely and accurate reports 

in response to requestors both inside and outside the DoD. 

 The office’s two full-time civilian attorneys, in 

addition to supervising the office staff, provide daily guidance 

on post-trial processing matters to Army installations 

worldwide. This includes telephonic and email consultation on 

the contents of promulgating orders and convening authority 

actions following courts-martial. 
42 

 The Office of the Clerk of Court is also responsible 

for processing applications for admission to the ACCA bar both 

for military and civilian counsel. In FY14, the office admitted 

fifty new counsel. The office also maintains accurate records 

of attorney disciplinary actions. 

 Finally, the Office of the Clerk of Court provided 

instruction to legal NCOs, warrant officers, and those 

individuals attending military justice courses at TJAGLCS, as 

well as training for newly assigned SJAs. 

Trial Judiciary 

The 979 courts-martial tried in FY 14 reflect a decrease in 

total number of cases as compared to FY 13. However, as 

indicated in last year’s report, raw numbers tell only part of 

the story, as the percentage of contested cases, the percentage 

of panel cases, the length of time in trial and the length of 

time in motions all continue to increase. 

 Army trial judges from Germany continued to preside over 

cases in deployed environments, with 4 courts-martial tried in 

Kuwait and Afghanistan in this period, resulting in a grand total 

of over 973 cases tried in a combat theater of operations since 

May 2003. 

 The Trial Judiciary continued its ongoing effort to keep 

current Department of the Army Pamphlet (DA PAM) 27-9, Military 

Judges’ Benchbook (Benchbook), which is used by all Services, 

approving 13 changes to that publication addressing: 

(1) False official statement after U.S. v. Passut, 73 

M.J. 27 (C.A.A.F. 2014); 

(2) Consensual sodomy and bestiality; mandatory 

punitive discharge for certain offenses; and 

limitation on GCMCA’s RCM 1107 authority after 

passage of the FY14 NDAA; and 

(3) A complete cover-to-cover review and 

republication of DA PAM 27-9. 

 A constantly updated version of the Benchbook, along 

with links to the electronic version of that updated 

Benchbook, court dockets, other judiciary related documents 

and resource materials, can be found on the Trial Judiciary 

homepage at www.jagcnet.army.mil/USATJ#. 
43 

 Military judges continued playing an active role in their 

military and civilian communities, speaking to grade and high 

school audiences, local bar associations and civic 

organizations, law school classes and state bar continuing 

legal education courses. The 57th MJC graduated 50 Army, Navy, 

Marine Corps, Air Force and Coast Guard students in May and 

invested them as new military judges. The course also included 

a judge from Israel. 

U.S. ARMY TRIAL DEFENSE SERVICE 

 In FY 14, approximately 475 Active and Reserve Component 

(RC) judge advocates were serving in the U.S. Army Trial 

Defense Service (TDS) worldwide, including 147 on active duty; 

195 assigned to one of three Trial Defense Legal Operations 

Detachments (LOD) and 133 in the Army National Guard. The TDS 

provides high quality, professional defense services to 

Soldiers across the Army. Counsel assigned to the TDS are 

stationed at 44 active duty installations worldwide and 

approximately 100 reserve locations. 

 

 The TDS detailed one or more counsel to every Army 

special and general courts-martial referred in FY14, defending 

Soldiers facing the entire range of allegations under the 

UCMJ. In addition, TDS counsel assisted Soldiers facing other 

military justice related adverse administrative actions. The 

active duty caseloads were as follows this year: 

General and Special Courts-Martial: 920 

Administrative Boards: 1,487 

Nonjudicial Punishment: 32,897 

Military Justice Consultations: 25,285 

 The TDS provided defense services to Army personnel 

deployed to the United States Central Command (CENTCOM) area of 

responsibility. The TDS CENTCOM Region has two field offices: 

one at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait and one in Afghanistan at Bagram 

Airfield. In addition, a Branch Office at Kandahar Airfield, 

Afghanistan was consolidated with the Bagram Field Office during 

FY14 and a Branch Office at Camp Phoenix (Kabul) was closed. 

The Regional Defense Counsel is an active-duty Lieutenant 

Colonel who serves as the senior supervisory TDS attorney with 

responsibility for both Europe and CENTCOM. He is located in 

Kaiserslautern, Germany. 
44 

 The TDS personnel in the Army Reserve are assigned to three 

separate units. The 22d Legal Operations Detachment (LOD) (TDS), 

headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, consists of 66 judge 

advocates, one warrant officer, and 19 enlisted paralegals. The 

22d LOD (TDS) area of responsibility includes the majority of 

states west of the Mississippi River along with Guam, Hawaii and 

Alaska. In FY14, the 22d LOD (TDS) mobilized 10 judge advocates 

and two paralegals for service in the Continental United States 

(CONUS), Europe, and CENTCOM. In addition, it represented over 

1,500 Reserve Component Soldiers facing military justice and 

adverse administrative actions. This included 441 board 

advisements and 313 Article 15, UCMJ advisements. 

 The 154th LOD (TDS) covers the Southeast, Lower Mississippi 

River Valley, and Puerto Rico. The 154th LOD (TDS), 

headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia, is currently comprised of 

67 judge advocates, 23 enlisted paralegals and two warrant 

officers. In FY14, the 154th LOD (TDS) mobilized seven judge 

advocates and two paralegals for service in CONUS, Europe, and 

CENTCOM. Additionally, the 154th LOD (TDS) represented over 

1,100 Reserve Component Soldiers facing military justice and 

adverse administrative actions, handled approximately 180 

administrative board actions, supported five Defense Institute 

of International Legal Studies (DIILS) missions to various 

foreign countries, 11 Overseas Training Missions to Germany and 

Korea, and represented three active component Soldiers facing 

courts-martial. 

 The 16th LOD (TDS) covers the Northeast and Midwest. 

Headquartered at Fort Hamilton, New York, it is comprised of 62 

judge advocates, 15 enlisted paralegals, and one warrant 

officer. In 2014, the 16th LOD (TDS) mobilized nine Soldiers for 

service in CONUS and CENTCOM. In addition, the 16th LOD (TDS) 

assisted over 700 Reserve Component Soldiers facing military 

justice and administrative actions, represented one active 

component Soldier facing courts-martial, administered 41 Article 

15, UCMJ advisements, appeared in 60 administrative separation 

board hearings, and closed, resolved or had dismissed 318 cases. 

 The Army National Guard (ARNG) TDS consists of 133 

judge advocates, one civilian legal administrator, and 43 

enlisted paralegals stationed in 50 states and territories. The 

ARNG TDS supports all 50 states, three U.S. territories, and the 

District of Columbia. In FY14 there were eight general courtsmartial and five special courts-martial in California, 

Louisiana, South Carolina, and Arizona supported by ARNG TDS. 

Additionally, ARNG TDS counsel advised 65 Soldiers facing 
45 

summary courts-martial and 1,093 Soldiers facing non-judicial 

punishment hearings. Trial Defense Service counsel conducted 

4,453 consultations for administrative actions to include 

separations, reductions, withdrawal of federal recognition 

boards, line of duty investigations, Army Guard Reserve 

separations and letters of reprimand. Army National Guard TDS 

attorneys also assisted with 1,205 adverse legal assistance 

actions. 

 The ARNG TDS hosted three major training events, 

including one consolidated regional training event, one Defense 

Counsel/Paralegal (DCP) 101 course, and the first DCP 201 

course, training a total of 154 attendees. The active component 

DCAP provided outstanding instruction at the DCP 101 event. The 

ARNG TDS redeployed two TDS paralegal non-commissioned officers 

from the CENTCOM area of responsibility. Additionally, one ARNG 

TDS defense counsel was activated to support Fort Leonard Wood 

for one year and one ARNG TDS paralegal non-commissioned officer 

was activated to support Fort Stewart for nine months. 

 In FY14, DCAP was staffed by three judge advocates and two 

civilian Senior Counsel/Trainers, who continued to provide 

timely and exceptional training and advice to TDS counsel 

worldwide. This fiscal year’s training events consisted of six 

iterations of Defense Counsel (DC) 101, a three-day course that 

provides critical instruction to newly-assigned defense counsel 

on all aspects of client representation with an emphasis on 

professional responsibility and complex issues arising in 

sexual assault cases. Furthermore, DCAP replaced the annual TDS 

conferences with additional iterations of DC 201. All defense 

counsel attend one of five DC 201s to receive training on 

current trends in military justice, with a focus on sexual 

assault litigation. Beginning in FY15, defense paralegals will 

receive training alongside defense counsel in all iterations of 

DC 201. Regional defense counsel and senior defense counsel 

from the Active, Reserve, and Guard also gather together 

annually to receive instruction on their duties as leaders in 

TDS. In addition, through the use of joint training with TCAP, 

DCAP organized and taught four Advanced Trial Communications 

Courses, the Sexual Assault Trial Advocacy Course, and the 

Expert Symposium. 

 In FY14, the DCAP received over a thousand inquiries from 

defense counsel in the form of emails, phone calls, and inperson inquiries during training events. The DCAP provided 

assistance to defense counsel in the field that included 

researching case law, answering specific questions, and 
46 

providing sample motions, expert requests, and other trial 

documents that might be helpful in the defense of the case. 

Moreover, DCAP’s website and the Knowledge Management milBook 

website allowed free flowing discussions and collaboration among 

counsel on critical issues. Finally, the DCAP also worked with 

the DAD to assist TDS counsel in the preparation and filing of 

extraordinary writs before the ACCA and CAAF. 

 In addition to providing training and advice, the 

DCAP published the 4th Edition of DC 101 Deskbook and 

distributed it to all newly-assigned TDS counsel. The DCAP also 

published the 1st Edition of a Sexual Assault Deskbook. Counsel 

were further kept abreast of all major developments through 

weekly electronic mail updates and a series of updates called 

“DCAP Sends.” 

GOVERNMENT APPELLATE DIVISION 

The GAD, with 24 active duty and three Individual 

Mobilization Augmented military attorneys, represents the 

United States before ACCA, CAAF, and the U.S. Supreme Court in 

appeals by Soldiers convicted at courts-martial with an 

adjudged sentence of either a punitive discharge or confinement 

for one year or more. The GAD also represents the United 

States before ACCA, CAAF, and the U.S. Supreme Court in 

government appeals from courts-martial and petitions for 

extraordinary relief. Additionally, GAD oversees the 

operations of the TCAP. 

In FY14, GAD filed 648 briefs at ACCA and 508 responses to 

petitions for grant of review and 18 briefs at CAAF. The GAD 

appellate attorneys argued 21 cases before ACCA and 11 cases 

before CAAF. 

 As part of CAAF’s Project Outreach, GAD argued one case at 

the Florida International University College of Law, one case 

at George Washington University Law School, and one case at 

North Carolina Central University School of Law. Outreach 

arguments are important in displaying our military justice 

system to largely civilian audiences. Each oral argument was 

well received and attended by a large audience. 

The TCAP delivered continuing legal education and specialized 

training to Army trial counsel worldwide, as well as provided 

direct assistance to Offices of the Staff Judge Advocate (OSJA) 

prosecuting the Army’s most complex cases. The TCAP also 
47 

manages the operations of the SVP and Special Victim 

Noncommissioned Officer (SVN) programs. 

Now in its fifth full year, the Special Victim Prosecutor 

(SVP) program has 23 attorney positions. Special Victim 

Prosecutors continue to assist in the enhancement of the level 

of trial advocacy in special victim cases throughout the Army. 

The Army continues efforts to formalize a Special Victim 

Capability to further enhance our ability to prosecute sexual 

assault cases. In 2014, the Army added dedicated paralegal 

support to each SVP. These uniformed paralegals are handselected at the Department of the Army level and are provided 

with extensive additional training on the unique nature of 

special victim offenses. In 2014, the Army authorized 23 

Special Victim Witness Liaison positions to complete the SVP 

teams. These 23 civilian GS-11 positions have been advertised 

and they will be filled with the most qualified individuals in 

FY15. 

The cadre of TCAP trainers, including seven military and three 

civilian attorneys, as well as a senior paralegal 

noncommissioned officer, developed and delivered 29 training 

events to OSJAs worldwide. This year’s training events consisted 

of 12 outreach programs at Army installations, two week-long 

regional conferences overseas, and 17 specialty courses (e.g. 

advanced advocacy, child forensic interviewing, and complex 

litigation). Training was focused on trial advocacy skills and 

prosecuting sexual assault and domestic violence. 

The TCAP presented five iterations of the New Prosecutor 

Course/Effective Strategies for Sexual Assault Prosecution 

(NPC/ESSAP), a five-day course focused equally on the 

fundamentals of military justice and prosecution of sexual 

assaults. The course is held at least quarterly to ensure that 

all new trial counsel attend within their first six months of 

becoming a trial counsel. Additionally, NPC/ESSAP prepares new 

counsel for the Intermediate Trial Advocacy Course taught at the 

Legal Center and School. Following attendance at ITAC, counsel 

with 18 months or more of court-martial practice are qualified 

to attend TCAP’s capstone training event, the Sexual Assault 

Trial Advocacy Course (SATAC). The SATAC is a two-week trial 

advocacy course focusing on the fundamentals of trial advocacy 

in the context of litigating special victim cases. This year’s 

course included lectures, break-out sessions, and numerous 

advocacy exercises, culminating in a full-day trial for each 

participant at the National Advocacy Center. 
48 

In support of its mission to assist prosecutors in the field, 

TCAP also provided expert military counsel to prosecute several 

high-profile cases, and provided direct expert assistance and 

consultation through its civilian Special Victim Litigation 

Experts (SVLEs). Just as importantly in today’s age of rapidly 

evolving military justice procedure and substantive criminal law 

amendments, TCAP continued its traditional information-sharing 

and collaboration activities such as publishing several issues 

of a “TCAP Express” memorandum to inform and advise the field on 

breaking law and issues, compiling and distributing a resource 

disc of useful templates, resources and tools, as well as 

responding to hundreds of legal questions from the field. 

DEFENSE APPELLATE DIVISION 

 The DAD provides appellate representation to eligible 

Soldiers and other individuals before the ACCA, the CAAF, and 

the U.S. Supreme Court. Eligible Soldiers include those 

convicted at courts-martial where the approved sentence consists 

of a punitive discharge or confinement for one year or more. 

Defense Appellate Division attorneys also assist military and 

civilian Defense Counsel in the preparation and filing of 

extraordinary writs before the aforementioned courts. 

 The DAD currently represents Soldiers in approximately 900 

cases in various stages of appellate process. Categories 

include cases recently received at DAD, cases pending action by 

the ACCA or the CAAF, and cases awaiting final action and 

discharge from the Army. Approximately 260 cases are pending 

filing with the ACCA. 

 Last year, DAD filed 576 briefs with the ACCA. The 

DAD also filed 501 briefs with the CAAF. Multiple assignments 

of error were raised in approximately 45% of these cases. 

Counsel also argued 21 cases the ACCA and 11 at the CAAF. Some 

of the significant cases from this last year include: 

United States v. Hennis, ARMY 20100304. Master 

Sergeant (MSG) Hennis was tried at a general courtmartial and sentenced to death after being tried twice 

and acquitted once in the State of North Carolina. 

Appellate defense counsel filed a writ of habeas 

corpus arguing the Army did not have jurisdiction to 

try MSG Hennis. In addition, DAD filed a petition for 

new trial based on substantial exculpatory evidence 

found after trial. The brief in his case is due to 
49 

the ACCA on January 9, 2015. There will likely be 

fifty assignments of error raised on appeal. 

United States v. Akbar, USCA Dkt. No. 13-7001/AR, ARMY 

20050514. In one of two Army capital cases currently 

on direct appeal, the CAAF is currently considering 

fifty-nine assignments of error raised by Sergeant 

(SGT) Akbar. On November 18, 2014, the CAAF heard 

oral argument on five assignments of error, centering 

primarily on ineffective assistance of counsel claims. 

An opinion is expected after June 2015. 

United States v. Manning, ARMY 20130739. Private 

First Class (PFC) Manning was charged with twenty-two 

offenses related to the wrongful release of classified 

documents. A military judge sitting as a general 

court-martial found PFC Manning guilty of theft of 

government property, conduct prejudicial to good order 

and discipline and of a nature to bring discredit upon 

the armed forces, violations of the Espionage Act, the 

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and other Army 

regulations. Private First Class Manning’s case is 

currently under review at DAD, and a brief to the ACCA 

is expected this summer. 

LITIGATION DIVISION

Civil lawsuits involving military justice matters are 

relatively few but remain an important part of the Litigation 

Division’s practice. Most suits are brought by former Soldiers 

seeking collateral review of military court-martial proceedings 

pursuant to a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal 

district court. The following cases highlight the types of 

issues handled by the Army’s Litigation Division. 

Williams v. United States Disciplinary Barracks (D. Kan.) 

On September 5, 2014, Private (E-1) Larry Williams filed 

his petition for writ of habeas corpus with the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Kansas. In April 2012, 

a general court-martial convicted then-Specialist Williams, 

pursuant to his guilty pleas, of one specification of rape 

of a child, one specification of indecent liberties with a 

child, two specifications of aggravated sexual contact with 

a child, and one specification of forcible sodomy, in 

violation of Articles 120 and 125, UCMJ. The general courtmartial sentenced him to punishment that included 20 years 
50 

confinement, but a pre-trial agreement limited his 

confinement term to 8 years. In January 2014, the ACCA 

affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence. Private 

Williams’ petition for review to CAAF was denied. Private 

Williams now seeks a writ of habeas corpus and argues that 

he is entitled to a new court-martial because insufficient 

evidence supports his convictions; criminal investigators 

engaged in misconduct; newly discovered evidence exonerates 

him; and his defense counsel provided ineffective 

assistance at trial. On October 31, 2014, the court 

ordered the United States to respond to Private Williams’ 

petition. The United States’ response is due January 19, 

2015. 

Gray v. James W. Gray, Commandant, USDB (D. Kan.). In 

November 2008, Ronald Gray filed a motion in the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Kansas requesting an 

order staying his execution, originally scheduled for 

December 10, 2008, pending final resolution of federal 

habeas corpus proceedings. In 1988, Gray was convicted at 

a general court-martial of the premeditated murder of two 

women, the attempted premeditated murder of a third woman, 

the rape and sodomy of the women, and burglary and larceny 

of property of another person. Two of the three women were 

Soldiers. He was sentenced to death. The military 

appellate courts affirmed the court-martial conviction. In 

2001, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Gray’s petition for 

writ of certiorari, and his request for rehearing. In July 

2008, the President approved the death sentence. 

 In August 2008, the Secretary of the Army signed the 

EO directing that Gray be executed. In November 2008, the 

U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas ordered a 

stay of execution. In April 2009, Gray filed a petition 

for writ of habeas corpus. The government filed its answer. 

The court subsequently granted petitioner’s request for 

appointment of additional counsel and additional time to 

respond to the government’s answer. In December 2009, Gray 

filed a response which raised three additional claims 

concerning denial of access to materials the Army provided 

to the President, mental competence at trial and on appeal, 

and lack of military jurisdiction over a peacetime murder 

in the United States. In September 2010, the court ruled 

that Gray may present the additional claims. In February 

2011, Gray filed a Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the 

Nature of a Writ of Coram Nobis with ACCA. The ACCA denied 

relief noting that it lacked jurisdiction. The CAAF denied 
51 

Gray’s writ appeal, without prejudice, leaving the door 

open for Gray to again raise the issue after his habeas 

proceedings. After filing three consecutive requests for 

an extension to file his traverse, Gray filed his reply on 

November 1, 2012, which completed the briefings in the 

case. The court’s decision is pending. In November 2014, a 

new district court judge was assigned to the case.

OTJAG INTERNATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL LAW DIVISION 

In FY14, the mission and programs of the OTJAG International 

and Operational Law Division (IOLD) continued to support the 

military justice system across three lines of effort: 

preventing law of war violations, preparing judge advocates and 

paralegals to administer military justice in deployed 

environments, and strengthening partner nation military justice 

systems to produce highly disciplined, effective coalitions for 

future military operations. 

 As part of the Army’s implementation of the DoD Law of War 

Program, IOLD aimed to prevent violations of the law of war by 

Army personnel by evaluating all new weapons for compliance with 

international law; reviewing all operation and concept plans and 

rules of engagement for compliance with domestic and 

international law; and preparing directives, policies, 

instructions, and training materials to ensure that Army 

personnel understand the principles and rules of the law of war. 

When Army personnel were alleged to have violated the law of 

war, the IOLD supported the reporting, investigation, and 

prosecution of the allegations. 

 To prepare judge advocates and paralegals of all military 

Services for upcoming operational deployments to Afghanistan 

and other overseas locations, IOLD conducted one Judge Advocate 

General’s Pre-Deployment Training session (JPT). The curriculum 

for the week-long JPT included several military justice 

classes, which provided an overview of general military justice 

topics, as well as detailed instruction on the unique aspects 

and logistical challenges of administering military justice in 

a deployed environment. The JPT instructors included judge 

advocates and paralegals with recent deployment experience. 

 In order to build strong, disciplined coalitions for future 

military operations, TJAG and other JAGC senior leaders 

participated in numerous legal engagements with their 

counterparts from partner nations, including Afghanistan, 

Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Israel, Great Britain, Japan, 
52 

South Korea, and Peru. Engagement discussions centered on 

organization for conducting legal support to military 

operations, along with lessons learned on the most effective 

practices for the administration of military justice and the 

manner in which military justice contributes to strengthening 

the rule of law in society. Senior leaders made several trips 

abroad in support of Army Service Component Command theater 

security cooperation programs. Senior JAGC leaders made 

several trips to participate in discussions related to the 

application of the Law of Armed Conflict to current and future 

operations. Among these were engagements at the InterAmerican Forum on Military Justice and International 

Humanitarian Law in Lima, Peru, which brought together senior 

legal leaders from more than ten nations from Central and 

South America, and the annual International Symposium on 

Security and Military Law in Seoul, South Korea, which was 

attended by senior legal advisors from more than thirty 

countries. 

 Partner nation visitors to OTJAG participated in 

substantive discussions and conducted additional site visits 

to TJAGLCS, the United States Army Legal Services Agency, the 

Fort Belvoir OSJA, and ACCA at Fort Belvoir. These programs 

demonstrated the importance of organizational structure and 

resourcing to provide commanders with the highest quality legal 

support. The programs also provided a comprehensive overview 

of the military justice system throughout all pre-trial, trial, 

and appellate stages. In a separate program, IOLD judge 

advocates provided human rights and military justice training 

for foreign legal officers, sponsored by the Defense Institute 

of International Legal Studies, in various countries including 

Botswana, Burma, Colombia, Guatemala, Jordan, Mali, Nigeria, and 

Poland. 

PERSONNEL, PLANS, AND TRAINING 

 On September 30, 2014, the Army's end-strength was 508,210 

Army Soldiers on Active Duty, including AGR and mobilized 

Soldiers, compared to 532,413 at the end of FY13. The attorney 

strength of the Active Army (AA) JAGC at the end of 2014 was 

1,930 (including general officers). This total does not include 

63 officers attending law school while participating in the 

Funded Legal Education Program (FLEP). The FY14 end-strength of 

1,930 compares with an end-strength of 1,970 in FY13. The 

diverse composition of our FY14 AA attorney population included 
53 

131 African-Americans, 52 Hispanics, 101 Asians and Native 

Americans, and 521 female Soldiers. 

The grade distribution of the Corps' AA attorneys for FY14 

was 8 general officers authorized (five filling JAGC 

authorizations, two serving in Military Occupational Specialties 

(MOS) coded positions (the Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Chief Prosecutor for the 

Commissions), and an eighth general officer (mobilized 

reservist) serving in a branch immaterial billet - Commander, 

Rule of Law Field Force - Afghanistan), 148 colonels, 239 

lieutenant colonels, 522 majors, and 1,021 captains. An 

additional 103 warrant officers, 539 civilian attorneys, and 

1,697 enlisted paralegals supported legal operations worldwide. 

 The attorney strength of the United States Army Reserve 

(USAR) JAGC at the end of FY14 was 1,803 (which includes 

officers serving in Troop Program Units, the DIMA Program, the 

Individual Ready Reserve, and the Active Guard & Reserves) and 

the attorney strength of the Army National Guard at the end of 

FY14 was 882. At the end of FY14, over 187 Army JAGC personnel 

(officer and enlisted, AA and RC) were deployed in operations in 

Afghanistan, Bosnia, Cuba, Kosovo, Egypt, Honduras, Israel, 

Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Djibouti and elsewhere across Africa. 

In FY13, the JAGC continued its efforts to improve the 

quality of practice in complex cases, to include capital cases, 

national security cases, sexual assault cases, and military 

commissions proceedings. As discussed above, many of these 

efforts involved TCAP and DCAP, which provided personnel and 

expert advice to assist with numerous high profile trials. 

Along with the Legal Center and School, TCAP and DCAP were 

instrumental in capturing and disseminating lessons learned 

from these cases throughout the Corps. In addition, the SVP 

program continued to build the Army’s capability to prosecute 

sexual assault offenses and provide support to victims. 

 Although my first complete fiscal year as TJAG has been 

laden with significant changes as we implemented numerous 

requirements and initiatives, my interactions with senior 

commanders and JAGC leaders have led me to conclude that the 

JAGC remains sufficiently resourced to perform its military 

justice functions in a fair and effective manner. Nonetheless, 

we will continue to closely monitor both DoD directed manpower 

reduction initiatives and new emerging requirements, including 

those imposed by recent amendments to the UCMJ, to ensure that 

the JAGC retains the resources it needs to provide the gold-
54 

standard military justice system the Army demands and its 

Soldiers deserve. 

 FLORA D. DARPINO 

 Lieutenant General, US Army 

 The Judge Advocate General 

 
55 

APPENDIX - U.S. ARMY MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Report Period: FISCAL YEAR 2014 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED [B]

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES (+ dismissals) 121 (+23) 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 261 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 138 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 412 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 138 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 291 

PART 4 – WORKLOAD OF THE U.S. ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

 U.S. ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (CCA) 

NUMBER 600 

PERCENTAGE 94.34% 

PART 6 - ACTIONS OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES 

 (CAAF) 

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 505 of 686 73.62% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +14.197% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 34 of 472 7.20% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -7.57% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY USACCA 4.96% 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER THE NUMBER OF CASES REVIEWED DURING 

LAST REPORTING PERIOD -5.70% 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/ 

DECREASE (-) OVER 

LAST REPORT 

GENERAL 665 592 73 -6.9% 

BCD SPECIAL [A] 314 287 27 -15.8% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 0 0 0 -100.0% 

SUMMARY 456 [G] [G] +20.0% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT -2.4% 

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 135 [C] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D] 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D] 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 636 [C] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 686 [E] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 85 [C] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER NUMBER OF CASES 

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD +0.3% 
56 

APPENDIX - U.S. ARMY MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS - CONT’D 

EXPLANATORY NOTES 

[A] Cases convened by GCM convening authority. 

[B] Based on records of trial received in FY for appellate review. 

[C] Includes only cases briefed and at issue. 

[D] No reason for distinguishing; GCM and BCD SPCM are not tracked separately. 

[E] Includes Article 62 appeals, All Writs Act cases, and appeals withdrawn. 

[F] This number includes only Active Component Soldiers and does not include USAR, National Guard or AGR 

personnel. 

[G] SCM convictions and acquittals are not tracked. 

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ 

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 135 

RECEIVED 74 

DISPOSED OF 196 

 GRANTED 0 

 DENIED 196 

 NO JURISDICTION 0 

 WITHDRAWN 0 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 61 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 521 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 282 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 144 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 32 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 510002 [F] 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 31689 

RATE PER 1,000 62.14 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD -22.27% 
57 

SECTION 4 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY 
58 

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY 

OCTOBER 1, 2013 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 

SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF 

MILITARY JUSTICE 

JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 

The Judge Advocate General (JAG) co-chairs the Military 

Justice Oversight Council (MJOC) with the Staff Judge Advocate 

to the Commandant of the Marine Corps. MJOC meets quarterly and 

includes the following additional members: Commander, Naval 

Legal Service Command (CNLSC); Deputy Judge Advocate General for 

Reserve Affairs and Operations; Deputy Staff Judge Advocate to 

the Commandant of the Marine Corps; Chief Judge of the 

Department of the Navy; Assistant Judge Advocate General for 

Military Justice (AJAG-MJ); Assistant Judge Advocate General for 

Operations and Management; and, Deputy Director, Judge Advocate 

Division, Military Justice and Community Development. 

During the reporting period and in accordance with their 

duties to supervise the administration of military justice under 

Article 6(a), Uniform Code of Military Justice, JAG and CNLSC 

regularly inspected U.S. Navy legal offices in the United 

States, Europe, and the Pacific. These inspections, conducted 

by subject matter experts, examined the full range of military 

justice processes. 

ASSISTANT JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, MILITARY JUSTICE 

AJAG-MJ advises JAG in the performance of statutory military 

justice duties; serves as a member of the Office of the Judge 

Advocate General (OJAG) Ethics Committee, the Judicial Screening 

Board, and MJOC; and oversees OJAG’s Military Justice Division 

(Code 20) and National Security Litigation Division (Code 30). 

AJAG-MJ is dual-hatted as the Officer in Charge of the NavyMarine Corps Appellate Review Activity (OIC, NAMARA - Code 04) 

overseeing the Administrative Support Division (Code 40), 

Appellate Defense Division (Code 45), and Appellate Government 

Division (Code 46). AJAG-MJ/OIC, NAMARA is responsible for 

disposition of all records of trial in accordance with statutory 

and regulatory requirements, as well as applicable appellate 

court rules of practice and procedure. 
59 

CRIMINAL LAW DIVISION (CODE 20)

Organization. During the reporting period, Code 20 was 

staffed by eight active duty judge advocates, one Reservist on 

one-year orders, one Reservist for three months, one Highly 

Qualified Expert (HQE), three civilian staff members, and an 

eight-member reserve unit. Additionally, Code 20 was 

temporarily assisted by two additional active duty judge 

advocates working exclusively in the preparation of the Sexual 

Assault Prevention and Response Report to the President of the 

United States (POTUS Report), and assigned three judge advocates 

full-time to the joint Military Justice Review Group. 

 

Mission. Code 20 coordinates, reviews, and drafts military 

justice and sexual assault policy, including all legislative and 

regulatory proposals affecting military justice and sexual 

assault prevention and response (SAPR), within the Department of 

the Navy (DON). Code 20 directly engages with members of 

Congress and their staffs on proposed amendments to the UCMJ, 

Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), Manual of the Judge Advocate 

General (JAG Manual), and other statutory and regulatory 

proposals affecting the UCMJ. Code 20 monitors all decisions of 

military appellate courts; tracks the status of military justice 

cases; provides legal and policy opinions; staffs requests for 

JAG certification of cases for review by the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF); and facilitates Department 

of Justice (DoJ) processing of executive pardon requests 

involving military convictions. Code 20 staffs requests for 

Secretarial designation of general, special, and summary courtmartial convening authorities, coordinates court orders and 

warrants of attachment, and coordinates with DoJ to approve 

grants of immunity and orders for civilian witnesses to testify 

at trial by court-martial. Finally, Code 20 provides a 

representative to the Naval Clemency and Parole Board; provides 

legal opinions to the Board for Correction of Naval Records upon 

request; provides informal advice for Navy and Marine Corps 

judge advocates practicing military justice; processes all 

Article 69, 73, and 74(b) UCMJ reviews and requests; and acts as 

the release and initial denial authority on all Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA)/Privacy Act (PA) requests for information 

pertaining to courts-martial. 

The Code 20 Division Director sits as a member of the 

Judicial Screen Board and serves as CNLSC‘s Special Assistant 

for Military Justice, advising CNLSC on policies, plans, 

resources, and procedures affecting NLSC’s military justice 

mission. 
60 

 

The Code 20 Division Director serves as Navy’s Representative 

to the Joint Service Committee (JSC) for Military Justice and 

functions as Navy’s voting group member at regular meetings of 

the JSC. The JSC is the principal vehicle for staffing 

amendments to the UCMJ and MCM. The JSC’s 2014 Annual Review of 

the MCM was completed in accordance with the President’s 

requirement, and two Executive Orders were drafted and submitted 

for the President’s approval and signature. Significant 

staffing of a third Executive Order was also completed. The JSC 

was tasked by the General Counsel of the Department of Defense 

with responding to various legislative proposals, committee 

initiatives, and other reviews, including review of several 

recommendations from the Defense Legal Policy Board (DLPB) and 

the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel (RSP). 

Code 20 responded to numerous Congressional requests for 

information, provided technical assistance in drafting 

legislation, and drafted and reviewed senior leadership 

testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee and 

Personnel Subcommittee. The Director of Code 20 also testified 

before Congress and participated in over 80 engagements and 

briefings with Members of Congress or their staffs. 

The Director of Code 20 served as the Navy’s point of 

contact for all Navy requests for information and testimony 

before the RSP. The RSP was created by section 576 of the 

Fiscal Year 2013 (FY13) National Defense Authorization Act 

(NDAA) to conduct an independent review and assessment of the 

systems used to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate crimes 

involving adult sexual assault and related offenses under 

Article 120 of the UCMJ. During this period, the Director of 

Code 20 testified before the RSP several times on a variety of 

different subjects. The RSP issued its report and 132 

recommendations on June 27, 2014 to improve the effectiveness of 

such systems. Code 20 continues to play a key role in the 

evaluation and implementation of those recommendations for 

military justice provisions, and Departmental and Service 

recommendations on SAPR. 

The Director of Code 20 also serves as the Navy’s point of 

contact for all Navy and Departmental requests for information 

and testimony before the Judicial Proceedings Panel (JPP), the 

successor panel to the RSP. Like the RSP, the JPP was created 

by section 576 of the FY13 NDAA. The JPP’s mandate is to 

conduct an independent review and assessment of judicial 

proceedings conducted under the UCMJ involving adult sexual 
61 

assault and related offenses, since the amendments made to the 

UCMJ by section 541 of the FY12 NDAA, for the purpose of 

developing recommendations for improvements to such proceedings. 

The Director of Code 20 testified before the JPP and Code 20 

personnel remain engaged with JPP staff members, providing 

substantive guidance to support their mandate. 

Code 20 was responsible for the Navy’s implementation of 

multiple policy changes to military justice and SAPR dictated by 

the FY14 NDAA. The NDAA mandated more than 30 changes to 

military justice and SAPR policy implemented through 

Presidential Executive Orders, DoD, Secretarial, or Service 

policy, instruction, or practice. 

Code 20 continued to identify and centralize training 

requirements for military justice litigation and trial advocacy. 

In coordination with Naval Justice School (NJS), Code 20 led the 

Litigation Training Coordination Council (LTCC) to develop new 

curricula. Code 20’s attorneys also provided trial advocacy, 

military justice, sexual assault, and child sexual abuse 

litigation training to various audiences throughout the year. 

In FY14, Code 20 was instrumental in the development of DoD 

and Navy Special Victims Capability (SVC), now referred to as 

Special Victims Investigation and Prosecution (SVIP) Capability, 

as required by section 573 of the FY13 NDAA. To ensure 

continued and updated training of key SVIP stakeholders, Code 20 

worked with OJAG’s Technology, Operations and Plans Division 

(Code 67) to hold the second annual SVIP course with over 260 

participants, including First Tour Judge Advocates (FTJAs), 

Legalmen (LN), paralegals, Sexual Assault and Response 

Coordinators (SARCs), SAPR Victim Advocates (VAs), and Domestic 

Violence VAs. 

In addition to the SVIP course, Code 20 hosted the 

inaugural Sexual Assault Policy for the Staff Judge Advocate, a 

two-day course for staff judge advocates (SJAs) currently 

providing advice to General Court-Martial Convening Authorities 

(GCMCAs), Sexual Assault-Initial Disposition Authorities (SAIDAs), those serving as Region Legal Service Office (RLSO) 

Command Services Department Heads, and SJAs for Type Commanders 

(TYCOMs) or other commands that frequently convene courtsmartial. The course provided instruction on and encouraged 

discussion of current legal issues involving sexual assault 

policy and dispositions that SJAs encounter while advising 

GCMCAs and SA-IDAs. Among the key topics reviewed were the FY14 

NDAA, the status of its implementation, and the resulting SJA 
62 

and commander requirements. The course included instruction and 

discussion of the impact of the legislation on SA-IDAs, UCMJ 

Article 18 (GCM jurisdiction), Article 32 preliminary hearings, 

Article 34 advice, Article 56 (maximum punishments), Article 60 

(post-trial action), Rules for Court-Martial (R.C.M.) 306 

(character of accused during initial disposition of an offense), 

and the Victim and Witness Assistance Program (VWAP). 

Code 20 personnel assisted in the development of Fleet-wide 

training initiatives on SAPR, to include DON Sexual Assault 

Prevention and Response Office’s (SAPRO) Pre-commissioning, Precommand, and InterACT SAPR training, and the Bystander 

Intervention to the Fleet (BI2F) training. The Precommissioning and Pre-command SAPR training provides new 

officers and those assuming command leadership roles necessary 

training to help prevent and respond to incidents of sexual 

assault and sexual harassment. The BI2F training focuses on 

concepts first taught in enlisted advanced skill training (“A” 

School). BI3F instills the need for intervention and prevention 

of destructive behavior by utilizing video vignettes and 

facilitated discussions to engage all service members in 

educational, face-to-face conversations about many topics, such 

as alcohol, drugs, fraternization, hazing, sexual harassment, 

and sexual assault. Code 20 was also involved in the creation 

of the new DON SAPRO Commander’s Guide, providing guidance and 

support to the Navy’s leadership on the topic of responding to 

sexual assault. 

Further, as part of the SAPR Cross Functional Team (CFT), 

Code 20 met monthly with Navy’s major stakeholders to discuss 

SAPR-related policy, training, military justice, and victim 

services developments across the Fleet. 

Code 20 assisted in preparation of the POTUS Report, a 

comprehensive report directed by the President detailing major 

improvements in the prevention of sexual assault through 

initiatives and military justice reforms. In preparation for 

this report and subsequent Annual Reports to Congress on Sexual 

Assault, Code 20 collaborated with the Twenty-First Century 

Sailor Office (N17) to develop the Sexual Assault Disposition 

Report (SADR), which streamlined the process of obtaining 

accurate disposition data on Unrestricted Reports of sexual 

assault in the Navy. Code 20’s role in data entry and Navy’s 

program initiatives overview ensured Navy met the deadline for 

submission of the POTUS Report. 
63 

The data input for the POTUS Report was derived from the 

new Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database (DSAID), a 

comprehensive database launched in 2013 that tracks and reports 

sexual assault incidents. In 2014, Code 20 provided five fullyqualified DSAID Legal Officers (LOs), who personally reviewed 

and entered over 1,000 SADRs and dispositions of sexual assault 

cases for FY14. In FY14, DSAID was the sole source for 

disposition data on incidents of adult sexual assault for 

purposes of the POTUS Report as well as the forthcoming Annual 

Report to Congress on Sexual Assault. Code 20 continues to 

participate in the ongoing DSAID Change Control Board whose 

purpose is to improve and enhance DSAID capabilities. 

Code 20, along with Code 67, participated in the ongoing 

development of the Naval Justice Information System (NJIS). 

This involved regular participation in the NJIS Board of 

Governance and various technical working groups. When 

implemented, this comprehensive system will manage cases at all 

phases and will be used to integrate law enforcement, 

investigations, and corrections, as well as command and judicial 

actions. During the reporting period, a contractor was selected 

to build NJIS, and configuration is currently underway. 

 

Finally, during the reporting period, Code 20 reviewed 24 

records of trial under Article 69(a), UCMJ; 5 records under 

Article 69(b), UCMJ; and 3 petitions under Article 73, UCMJ. 

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT DIVISION (CODE 40)

 Organization. During the reporting period, Code 40 was 

staffed with one officer, two civilians and six enlisted Marine 

Corps staff members. 

 

 Mission. Code 40 provides administrative and logistical 

support services to NAMARA and the Navy-Marine Corps Court of 

Criminal Appeals (NMCCA). Code 40 personnel review for 

completeness all records of trial forwarded to NAMARA for 

appellate review pursuant to Articles 66 and 69, UCMJ; 

promulgate decisions of the NMCCA in accordance with the JAG 

Manual and the MCM; manage the OJAG court-martial central filing 

system, including original records of trial maintained at 

NAMARA; manage and retrieve archived records of trial stored at 

the Washington National Records Center in Suitland, Maryland; 

and administer all NMCCA and CAAF mandates and judgments on 

remand back to commands worldwide for corrective action. During 

FY14, Code 40 reviewed and examined 365 records of trial for 
64 

completeness prior to forwarding the records for appellate 

review pursuant to Articles 66 and 69, UCMJ. 

APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISION (CODE 45)

Organization. Code 45 was staffed with 11 active-duty Navy 

and Marine Corps judge advocates, 1 civilian attorney, and 4 

civilian support personnel. 20 Navy and Marine Corps Reserve 

judge advocates supported Code 45. 

Mission. Code 45 represents Navy and Marine Corps appellants 

before the NMCCA, CAAF, and the U.S. Supreme Court. Code 45 

provides assistance to trial defense counsel in the field by 

helping to file extraordinary writs before the NMCCA and CAAF, 

providing general training, and providing advice on specific 

cases in litigation. Code 45 also works closely with the 

Defense Counsel Assistance Program (DCAP) by coordinating 

training and advice provided to counsel in the field. 

 

NMCCA FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 

Briefs Filed 159 161 191 143 161 

Other 

Substantive 

Pleadings 

847 693 632 522 587 

Total Cases 

Filed 744 531 488 374 387 

Oral Arguments 15 20 19 15 15 

CAAF 

Petitions with 

Supplemental 

Briefs Filed 

69 81 117 90 79 

Briefs Filed 21 20 19 13 7 

Oral Arguments 11 7 12 9 2 

U.S. Supreme 

Court Petitions 6 2 3 2 4 

In FY14, a total of 373 new cases were docketed at the NMCCA 

and received in Code 45. Code 45 filed 387 initial pleadings 

with 15 oral arguments at the NMCCA. The initial pleadings 

include 161 briefs, 224 merit submissions, and 2 summary 
65 

assignments. In addition to this, Code 45 filed 69 reply 

briefs, 17 responses to government motions, 4 supplemental 

briefs, 3 responses to court orders, 255 motions (other than 

motions for enlargement) and 13 petitions for extraordinary 

relief at the NMCCA. 

Code 45 filed 79 supplemental briefs to petitions at the 

CAAF, resulting in 7 full briefs and 2 oral arguments. Code 45 

also filed 2 petitions for extraordinary relief at the CAAF. 

 Assistance to Trial Defense Counsel. Code 45 provides 

advice and support to Navy and Marine Corps trial defense 

counsel around the world. Code 45’s experienced appellate 

attorneys respond to short-fused questions from trial defense 

counsel and assist in preparing and filing extraordinary writs. 

Code 45 also provides training on recent appellate developments 

and important trial issues. 

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT DIVISION (CODE 46) 

 a. Organization. The Division was staffed with 10 active 

duty judge advocates, 1 civilian attorney, and 2 civilian 

administrative employees. 

 b. Reserve Support. Reserve support continues to be 

critical to mission accomplishment. Code 46 is supported by 

Navy Reserve NAMARA Government (Minneapolis, Minnesota). 

Reserve judge advocates contributed an average of two briefs per 

month. 

 c. Mission. Under Article 70, UCMJ, the primary mission of 

Appellate Government Division is to represent the United States 

before the NMCCA and CAAF. The Division also provides 

interlocutory appeal and prophylactic appellate support and 

advice to trial counsel, staff judge advocates, and review 

officers throughout the Navy and Marine Corps for all types of 

pretrial, court-martial, and post-trial matters. 

 i. Appellate Throughput. A summary of FY14 appellate 

activity is provided in the following chart. These calculations 

are based on input from the Court-Martial Tracking and 

Information System (CMTIS) database. The calculations in CMTIS 

for “Briefs Filed” include Government briefs, answers to 

supplements, and supplemental briefs. “Other Pleadings” include 

responses to extraordinary writs, motion responses, responses to 

Court Orders, and Petitions for Reconsideration. The number of 

NMCCA briefs filed by the Government increased to 159. Issues 
66 

and briefing continued to be highly complex, including multiple 

cases involving various iterations of recurring issues: whether 

Article 31(b) warnings must be given to off-duty reservists; 

whether and who re-initiates communications after a request for 

counsel in light of United States v. Hutchins; re-referral after 

withdrawal, and what constitutes proper and improper withdrawal; 

what constitutes testimonial evidence in light of Crawford v. 

Washington with regard to chain of custody evidence; 

interlocutory appeals when the judge both forcibly rests the 

Government’s case and denies a continuance; lesser-included 

offenses under Article 120; and, when the basis for a search 

authorization can support a search for other crimes. CAAF 

briefing was lower this fiscal year; absent certification, 

Government CAAF litigation depends on granted defense petitions—

and a low of 79 defense petitions were filed this year, compared 

to 90 in FY13, and 117 in FY12. Three Article 62 appeals taken 

from trial court decisions were filed. 

 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14

NMCCA 

Briefs Filed 154 163 188 198 152 159

Other 

Pleadings 

313 373 144 439 439 479

 Oral Arguments 14 15 20 19 15 16 

CAAF 

Briefs Filed 28 24 22 24 9 12

Other 

Pleadings 

60 102 70 111 98 72

Oral Arguments 23 11 7 12 11 3 

 ii. Appellate Outreach and Shaping. Code 46 provides 

direct legal services to Marine Corps and Navy judge advocates 

around the world, responding to hundreds of questions from the 

field on trial and appeal matters. To better protect 

convictions on appeal, Code 46 advocates the need for unity of 

legal positions taken by the United States before trial and 

appellate courts. Code 46 augments delivery of legal advice on 

appellate issues affecting ongoing trials through routine 

postings on the Code 46 blog site. Appellate and trial 

prosecution working together helps ensure that legal precedent 

favorable to the United States is developed, positions are not 

waived prior to appellate litigation, and inconsistent 

positions are not taken by trial or appellate counsel. Robust 

and continuous coordination between the Trial Counsel Assistance 

Program (TCAP), trial counsel, and Code 46 positions the United 

States to achieve better appellate success. 
67 

 iii. External Training. Code 46 continues to train 

trial counsel in the field. In coordination with NJS, Code 46 

attorneys trained trial counsel during NJS’s semiannual Trial 

Counsel Orientation Course. Training included: handling 

interlocutory appeals, ex writs, DuBay hearings and remands; 

protecting the record to withstand appellate scrutiny; and 

explaining the fundamental areas of intersection between trial 

and post-trial processing, and appellate review. These trial 

counsel training sessions are indispensable in building solid 

working relationships between trial and appellate litigators. 

Additionally, the sessions provide opportunities for appellate 

counsel to share previous lessons learned with trial counsel in 

an effort to prevent identical or analogous mistakes that 

adversely affect the United States. 

 d. Continuing Legal Education. This year, Code 46 counsel 

attended appellate advocacy training at the D.C. Bar 

Association’s Appellate Advocacy Seminar, advanced appellate 

training at the annual American Bar Association’s (ABA) 

Appellate Judges’ Education Institute, and CAAF’s annual 

conference. 

 e. Training Initiatives. Expanding last year’s “Joint 

Government Appellate Training,” Code 46 included appellate 

defense counsel and included more experienced and distinguished 

appellate practitioners. In September 2014, at Joint Base 

Myers-Henderson Hall, Code 46 arranged two days of training for 

every military appellate litigator and interested trial and 

defense counsel, featuring a variety of speakers that included 

some of the nation’s top appellate jurists, litigators, and 

teachers. Speakers included: Chief Judge James Baker; Judge 

Patricia Millett, United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit (“Appellate Brief Writing”); 

Professor Orin Kerr of George Washington Law School (“Fourth 

Amendment in the Digital Age”); former CAAF Judge Andrew Effron 

(“Military Appellate Practice”); an appellate Federal Public 

Defender; and, an attorney from the U.S. Solicitor General’s 

office. In coordination with NJS, Code 46 facilitated the 

approval of up to 11.2 hours of CLE credit, subject to the 

approval of each attendee’s state bar requirements. 

 f. Community Outreach. Appellate Government Counsel 

continue to conduct robust outreach to the community. As in 

previous years, Code 46 appellate counsel, the Director, and 

Deputy served as appellate moot court judges at the ABA’s 

National Appellate Advocacy Competition. This year, the 

Director and Code 46 counsel served as moot court judges for 
68 

student competitors at the George Mason Law School Upper Class 

Appellate Competition, as well as at the National Asian-Pacific, 

American Bar Association, American University’s Washington 

College of Law, Thomas Tang International Appellate Moot Court 

Competition. Several Code 46 attorneys also volunteered their 

time to teach local students about law, democracy, and human 

rights. 

 g. Electronic Records of Trial. During FY14, Code 46 

continued the expansion of the Department of the Navy’s 

electronic record of trial program, which at year’s end included 

approximately 95% of the trial records docketed at NAMARA. 

 h. Leveraging SharePoint. Finally, Code 46 continues to 

operate on a fully paperless and “virtual” office utilizing a 

discussion board, a Military Justice Wikipedia, and a routinely 

updated Military Justice Blog. Trial counsel and appellate 

government counsel from other Services are also able to 

participate and contribute to the blog, the discussion board, 

and the Military Justice Wikipedia. 

 

ASSISTANT JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, 

CHIEF JUDGE, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

 The Assistant Judge Advocate General, Chief Judge, 

Department of the Navy (CJDON) (AJAG 05) is the senior 

supervisory jurist in the DON, overseeing the trial and 

appellate judiciaries. The CJDON serves as the Rules Counsel 

for the judiciaries and the community sponsor for the Navy JAG 

Corps’ Military Justice Litigation Career Track (MJLCT). The 

CJDON is selected by a competitive flag selection board and 

serves for three years, with appointment as the Assistant Judge 

Advocate General of the Navy in the third year of service. The 

CJDON is eligible to retire in the grade of rear admiral (lower 

half). 

THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (CODE 51) 

The United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal 

Appeals (NMCCA) is responsible for all cases referred under 

Articles 62(b), 66(b), 69(d), and 73, UCMJ. The Court may also 

entertain petitions for extraordinary relief. During FY14, the 

Court was comprised of eight Navy and Marine Corps appellate 

judges during the majority of the year. NMCCA was also 

supported by seven Navy Reserve and three Marine Corps Reserve 

appellate judges, three Navy and Marine Corps junior officer law 

clerks, four student summer law clerks, three Fall Semester 
69 

part-time student law clerks, and a mid-grade officer senior law 

clerk. 

Legal issues addressed included: the quantum of independent 

evidence needed to corroborate the essential facts in an 

admission by an accused so as to raise the required inference of 

truth in order for the admission to be admissible; whether 

members of the Individual Ready Reserve are entitled to the 

protections of Article 31(b), UCMJ; whether a certificate of 

correction prepared by trial counsel was in substantial 

compliance with R.C.M. 1103(i)(1)(B); whether a military judge 

erred in post-trial ordering a new trial based upon a finding 

that evidence previously known to the accused was newly 

discovered and unavailable despite due diligence, where she 

failed to consider the accused’s awareness of this evidence and 

failed to evaluate due diligence with respect to other potential 

sources of impeachment evidence; whether a military judge abused 

his discretion by excluding the testimony of a forensic 

psychologist that the accused has a suggestible personality that 

made it more likely for him to falsely confess in response to 

coercive interrogation tactics and thereby denied the appellant 

his constitutional right to present a defense; whether a 

military judge’s legal conclusion that the CAAF’s decision in 

United States v. Hutchins created an expansion of the Edwards

per se rule and required suppression of the accused’s oral and 

written statements; whether an accused was entitled to day-forday pretrial confinement credit and additional administrative 

credit for the period during which he was confined to a military 

hospital for psychiatric evaluation and treatment; whether 

remedial action taken by military judges in cases in which there 

was apparent unlawful command influence was adequate; whether a 

military judge erred when he used a state statute to determine 

the maximum punishment for a violation of Clause 2 of Article 

134; whether a military judge abused her discretion by denying 

the Government an overnight recess and resting the Government’s 

case; whether a requirement in Chief of Naval Operations 

Instruction (OPNAVINST) 3120.32C, that Sailors must self-report 

to their commanding officer any civilian arrest or criminal 

charge, is superseded by superior regulatory authority and 

violates the individual’s right against self-incrimination; 

whether a superior commander may adopt a panel convened by a 

subordinate commander even though the latter may possess the 

same authority to convene a court-martial; whether comments made 

by a military judge during an out-of-court training session 

reflected actual or implied bias on his part in cases he 

presided over both before and after he made the comments; and 

whether an accused’s rights under the Fourth Amendment were 
70 

violated when federal agents participated in the execution of a 

search warrant issued by a county judge to local law 

enforcement. 

The Court hosted its fourth annual NMCCA Judicial Training 

course in FY14. Like the first two years of this top-rated 

training session, the Court brought two distinguished legal 

practitioners to the Court for three days to train active-duty, 

Reserve, and civilian Court personnel. Topics included recent 

developments in search and seizure case law, the role of 

victim’s legal counsel at trial and during the appellate 

process, statutory construction, collegiality, judicial ethics, 

the exclusionary rule, and Article 120, UCMJ. 

NMCCA continues to maintain a website at 

http://www.jag.navy.mil/nmcca.htm. All of NMCCA’s opinions are 

available for download at the website. In addition, the Court 

maintains audio files from oral arguments heard before it as 

well as a docket for upcoming oral arguments. Finally, 

application for admission to the NMCCA bar and rules of the 

court are maintained on the site. 

NAVY-MARINE CORPS TRIAL JUDICIARY (CODE 52) 

The Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary (NMCTJ) has the core 

mission of detailing certified and trained military judges to 

all Navy and Marine Corps general and special courts-martial. 

The trial judiciary is organized into eight geographic judicial 

circuits, with thirteen active duty Marine Corps judges and ten 

active duty Navy judges. Trial judges are stationed throughout 

the world, typically in Fleet and Marine force concentration 

areas, and travel to other OCONUS and CONUS locations as 

required to conduct trials. The active duty judiciary is 

supported by Reserve units from both Services, with a total of 

eighteen Reserve trial judges. 

In 2014, the trial judiciary confronted novel issues 

arising from the creation of the Victims’ Legal Counsel (VLC) 

program and from other provisions of the FY14 NDAA. In 

courtrooms across our enterprise, trial judges are helping 

define the evolving role of the VLC and the parameters of their 

representation. Additionally, trial judges are at the forefront 

of implementing many of the changes mandated by the NDAA and 

addressing their impact on courts-martial (e.g., guardianship of 

victims, changes in Article 32 hearing procedures). 
71 

The caseload at the trial level continues to decline, but 

the percentage of contested cases continues to rise, as 

highlighted by a comparison of the past two years. FY13 closed 

with the NMCTJ presiding over 1170 arraignments (291 GCMs and 

879 SPCMs), of which 450 (38%) fell out prior to trial as 

alternative dispositions, withdrawals, or dismissals. Of the 

720 cases that went to trial in FY13, approximately 37% (266) of 

the 720 cases were contested trials, and 91 cases resulted in 

acquittals (34%). By comparison, FY14 closed with the NMCTJ 

presiding over 993 initial arraignments (301 GCMs and 692 

SPCMs). Approximately 300 (30%) cases did not go to trial as a 

result of alternative dispositions, withdrawals, or dismissals. 

Of the 692 cases that went to trial, approximately 41% (286) 

were contested cases. Those contested cases resulted in 128 

acquittals (44%). 

In addition to the primary mission, our trial judges 

continued to take on several collateral assignments. Due to 

turnover in the USCG trial judiciary, the NMCTJ provided judges 

for four U.S. Coast Guard courts-martial in FY14. Additionally, 

trial judges occasionally presided as Investigating Officers at 

Article 32 hearings, typically in cases where the charges were 

either unusually grave or complex. Finally, the trial judiciary 

continues to support the mission of the Office of Military 

Commissions Trial Judiciary (OMC-TJ). In April, CAPT Kirk Waits 

(Circuit Judge for Europe, Africa and Southwest Asia (EURAFSWA)) 

was detailed to the OMC case of United States v. al Iraqi and 

shortly thereafter began a series of trips to Guantanamo Bay to 

conduct the arraignment and initial pretrial sessions. 

Our trial judges attended the 2014 Joint Military Judges 

Annual Training (JMJAT) held at the Air Force JAG School in 

February, where they received timely training on the new Article 

120 statute, forensic psychiatric issues in child sexual assault 

cases, and judicial ethics. In February 2015, the NMCTJ will 

host JMJAT in San Diego. 

NAVAL LEGAL SERVICE COMMAND (NLSC) 

CNLSC also serves as the Deputy Judge Advocate General of 

the Navy. 

At the conclusion of FY14, NLSC was comprised of 426 judge 

advocates, 1 Civil Engineer Corps officer, 1 Limited Duty (Law) 

officer, 176 LNs, and 223 civilians. NLSC provided a wide range 

of legal services to afloat and ashore commands, active-duty 
72 

naval personnel, family members, retirees, and eligible 

beneficiaries from the other Services at 99 offices worldwide. 

 

In FY14, NLSC completed the second year of its major 

realignment. In 2012, NLSC disestablished all eight Naval Legal 

Service Offices and the legal assistance function was realigned 

to the nine Region Legal Service Offices (RLSOs). At the same 

time, four new Defense Service Offices (DSOs) were established 

to provide defense and personal representation services to 

service members, including representation at courts-martial and 

administrative boards. Defense counsel also provide other 

representational services, including advice on non-judicial 

punishment and adverse administrative personnel actions. In 

FY14, Navy Victims’ Legal Counsel Program (VLCP) became fully 

operational; additional details are provided below. 

 

In FY14, NLSC provided legal advice, services, and training 

to the Fleet through 13 commands, and their associated branch 

offices and detachments: four DSOs provided defense and personal 

representation; and nine RLSOs provided prosecution, command 

services, and legal assistance. Through these 13 commands, NLSC 

provided counsel for court-martial prosecution and defense, 

administrative boards, physical evaluation boards, legal advice 

to local commanders and their staffs, and legal assistance to 

active duty members, retirees and their family members. 

In October 2013, NLSC transitioned to the new military 

justice Case Management System (CMS) to comply with a 

Congressional mandate that DON implement a single court-martial 

tracking system by July 1, 2013. All RLSOs received training 

prior to the October 1st transition and over the past year were 

provided additional refresher training. CMS is used to track 

all special victims’ cases, as required by DOD Directive Type 

Memorandum (DTM) 14-003; all cases where an accused is placed in 

pretrial restraint, restriction, or confinement; and when the 

RLSO has substantial involvement in a case in anticipation of a 

possible court-martial. CMS also is used to track each officer 

Board of Inquiry. RLSO commands have found CMS to be highly 

effective in tracking all cases and providing accurate 

information to local convening authorities and NLSC 

headquarters. 

 

NLSC held 137 general courts-martial, 175 special courtsmartial, 602 administrative boards and 194 Boards of Inquiry 

that were completed in FY14. NLSC personnel also provided 

17,312 command services, 11,533 personal representation 

services, and saw 37,458 legal assistance clients. NLSC 
73 

continued to be the primary source for personnel to meet the JAG 

Corps’ Individual Augmentation (IA) requirements and provided 

two-thirds of its personnel requirements in support of Overseas 

Contingency Operations. During FY14, nine judge advocates from 

NLSC deployed to Afghanistan, Bahrain, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 

in direct support of operations. 

DEFENSE COUNSEL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (DCAP) 

DCAP is aligned under NLSC and reports to the Chief of 

Staff, Defense Service Offices (COS-DSO). DCAP consists of a 

Director, who is qualified as a “Specialist II” in the Military 

Justice Litigation Career Track (MJLCT), a Deputy Director who 

is qualified as a “Specialist I”, and a civilian Highly 

Qualified Expert (HQE) who assists in training curriculum 

development and advises defense counsel on complex litigation 

and sexual assault cases. The HQE is a retired Marine Corps 

lieutenant colonel with more than 30 years of experience as a 

prosecutor, military judge, assistant federal public defender 

and civilian military criminal defense attorney. In order to 

ensure maximum availability for counsel situated throughout the 

world, DCAP personnel are stationed in three offices: San Diego, 

Norfolk and the District of Columbia. DCAP primarily supports 

the Navy trial defense bar. Although normally utilized as a 

reach-back resource for defense counsel, DCAP personnel may be 

assigned cases. For instance, DCAP’s HQE was assigned to assist 

a trial team in a case involving allegations of pre-meditated 

murder that was ultimately referred as a non-capital case. 

During this reporting period, DCAP personnel assisted 

detailed defense counsel across the spectrum of trial practice 

including trial strategy, motions practice, argument 

development, investigations, discovery, requests for witnesses 

and expert assistants, voir dire strategies and questions, 

complex legal research, preparing clients and witnesses for 

testimony, and trial preparation. DCAP personnel were available 

for on-site visits during trial preparation and were often in 

courtrooms to assist “behind the bar” during trial. DCAP also 

provided advice on post-trial matters and frequently consulted 

with defense counsel concerning professional responsibility and 

ethics issues. 

DCAP planned, organized and executed a wide array of 

training for defense counsel. DCAP planned and spearheaded the 

Defending Sexual Assault Cases course sponsored by the Center 

for American and International Law in Plano, Texas. This course 

brought together military and civilian experts to provide 
74 

comprehensive training on defending service members accused of 

sexual assault. Additionally, in conjunction with NJS and the 

Marine Corps defense bar, DCAP organized the Defense Counsel 

Orientation course which was offered twice over the past year. 

This course brought together military and civilian defense 

counsel from all experience levels and was designed to prepare 

new defense counsel to represent court-martial clients. DCAP 

personnel served as instructors at both courses. 

Further, DCAP conducted thirteen field assist visits around 

the world, providing training to DSOs and their detachment 

offices, developed video-based training on trial advocacy and 

defense specific areas, developed topical resources and provided 

written advisories and, maintained an online site for the 

dissemination and exchange of information between members of the 

Navy defense bar. Finally, DCAP continued to collect and 

consolidate helpful resources, ensuring materials developed by 

counterpart offices in our fellow Services, Code 20, and the NJS 

were available to the Navy defense bar. 

TRIAL COUNSEL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (TCAP)

 TCAP is aligned under NLSC and reports to the Chief of 

Staff, Region Legal Service Offices (COS-RLSO). TCAP is 

directed by a Navy O-5, an MJLCT-designated “Expert” who 

previously served as a military judge, Naval Legal Service 

Office (NLSO) Commanding Officer, an Executive Officer and 

Senior Defense Counsel during the Trial Defense Command pilot 

program, a Senior Trial Counsel and an Assistant Senior Defense 

Counsel. The Deputy Director is a GS-15 civilian who 

specializes in sexual assault prosecution and victims’ rights. 

A former state prosecutor with extensive experience, she served 

as the Director of the National Center for the Prosecution of 

Violence Against Women and is a noted author in the field. She 

led efforts to enhance SAPR policies and training, improve VWAP, 

and was engaged in numerous initiatives involving sexual assault 

litigation training and evaluation. The Assistant Director is a 

senior O-4 MJLCT-designated “Specialist II” who has completed 

tours as a defense counsel, prosecutor, carrier SJA, and NJS 

instructor, and received an LL.M. in Litigation from the George 

Washington University Law School. TCAP’s Highly Qualified 

Expert (HQE) is a former civilian prosecutor who has 17 years of 

experience, most notably as a prosecutor specializing in crimes 

against children and as an instructor and course coordinator for 

the National District Attorneys Association. 
75 

TCAP’s mission is to provide advice, assistance, support, 

resources and training for Navy trial counsel worldwide. The 

program supports and enhances the proficiency of the Navy 

prosecution bar, providing experienced reach-back and technical 

expertise. TCAP provides a full spectrum of advice and serves 

as a resource for trial counsel in the field through every phase 

of trial, including pretrial investigation, court-martial 

litigation and post-trial processing. TCAP counsel regularly 

assist and advise trial counsel on all aspects of prosecution, 

including drafting charges, trial preparation and motions 

practice, discovery issues, securing and preparing expert 

witnesses, devising trial strategy, and professional 

responsibility issues. TCAP collaboratively engages trial 

counsel in the field with regular case review conferences. 

Likewise, TCAP coordinates with Code 46 to ensure court-martial 

prosecutions are effectively postured to withstand appellate 

review. 

When requested, TCAP provides more in-depth case 

assistance. For example, TCAP counsel have been detailed as 

trial counsel and assistant trial counsel when an advanced level 

of proficiency is demanded. In the past year, the TCAP Director 

served as trial counsel on a high-profile homicide case; the 

Assistant Director served as trial counsel in a high-profile 

sexual assault case and as a trial counsel in a premeditated 

murder case; and the civilian Deputy Director and the HQE have 

provided on-scene expert assistance in several complex sexual 

assault and child exploitation cases. 

TCAP is also responsible for monitoring all high-visibility 

cases. The Director TCAP monitors the relative experience 

levels of trial counsel through on-site, periodic observations 

of Navy judge advocates in the performance of their prosecution 

functions and provides recommendations for improvement as well 

as resource recommendations to COS-RLSO as necessary. 

In addition to case assistance and advice, TCAP provides 

resources to assist trial counsel. TCAP maintains an online 

repository of useful resources such as sample motions and 

responses, foundation questions, articles and manuals on 

prosecution, case disposition tracking, and an expert witness 

database. TCAP has expanded its expert witness database to 

ensure the ability of trial counsel to secure experts in all 

disciplines for the government and defense. The TCAP website 

also has a trial counsel discussion board that enables real-time 

response to demands from the field and leverages enterprise 

knowledge for remote offices. TCAP monitors questions and 
76 

responds to postings on the site and ensures that trial counsel 

are aware of all available resources. The discussion board also 

facilitates a closer prosecution bar by enabling discussions 

between trial counsel worldwide. 

Finally, TCAP plays a significant role in trial counsel 

training. TCAP partners with NJS and Code 20 in the development 

of litigation training for trial counsel. TCAP personnel 

routinely serve as instructors on a variety of courses at the 

NJS schoolhouse, online, and in-person at offices worldwide. 

TCAP coordinated the planning and execution of Prosecuting 

Alcohol Facilitated Sexual Assault (PAFSA) course, an advanced 

trial advocacy course. TCAP provided targeted on-site mobile 

training teams to all nine RLSOs which focused on trial advocacy 

and prosecution of special victims offenses, as well as on-site 

case consultation and assistance. TCAP also provided a series 

of online training sessions that focused on the prosecution of 

special victims offenses and other evidentiary topics. 

VICTIMS’ LEGAL COUNSEL (VLC) PROGRAM

In August 2013, the Navy established the Navy VLC Program, 

designed to provide independent legal counsel to eligible sexual 

assault victims. The VLC Program is aligned under NLSC. VLC 

assist victims in understanding and exercising their reporting 

options. VLC work with victims through the investigation and 

military justice processes, advocate for the victim’s rights and 

interests, and help victims obtain access to other support 

resources. VLC complement the care and support victims receive 

through other resources, such as the SAPR, the Family Advocacy 

Program (FAP), VWAP, and services offered by Victim Advocates, 

Chaplains, and healthcare providers. 

Victims’ Legal Counsel operate outside the chain of command 

of the victim and the accused and independent of both trial and 

defense counsel. The program consists of 29 specially trained 

and certified Navy judge advocates, 11 of which are reservists, 

10 administrative personnel, and is led by a senior O-6 Chief of 

Staff and an O-5 Deputy Chief of Staff. VLC are assigned at 23 

naval installations around the world, including Annapolis, MD; 

Washington, D.C.; Oceana, VA; Norfolk, VA; Groton, CT; Mayport, 

FL; Jacksonville, FL; Pensacola, FL; San Antonio, TX; Great 

Lakes, IL; Coronado, CA; San Diego, CA; Lemoore, CA; Ventura, 

CA; Bremerton, WA; Everett, WA; Pearl Harbor, HI; Guam; Bahrain; 

Naples, Italy; Rota, Spain; Gulfport, MS; and Yokosuka, Japan. 
77 

In accordance with federal law, to be eligible for VLC 

services, one must be a victim of sexual assault and otherwise 

eligible for legal assistance services from a military attorney. 

Generally this includes Navy active-duty and Reserve personnel, 

other service personnel and retirees when assaulted by an 

active-duty Navy member, adult and minor dependents of activeduty Navy members when assaulted by an active-duty member, and 

some overseas DON civilians. VLC services are available to 

victims filing Restricted Reports, Unrestricted Reports, or 

declining to file an official report of sexual assault. 

Offenses covered within the VLC Program include Rape, 

Sodomy, Sexual Assault, Wrongful Sexual Contact, Stalking 

(120a), Rape and Sexual Assault of a Child (120b), Other Sexual 

Misconduct (120c) and attempts of any of the above. All 

communications between VLC and their clients are confidential 

and privileged. Victims are not required to contact or consult 

with a VLC – the choice remains with the victim. Declining VLC 

services at the outset does not preclude a victim from 

requesting VLC services at a later time. VLC support is 

available in-person and via remote means if necessary, including 

by telephone, email, and video-teleconferencing. 

VLC began providing services to minor dependents assaulted 

by active duty perpetrators on June 24, 2014 as directed by the 

FY14 NDAA. VLC, as far as reasonably possible, maintain a 

normal attorney-client relationship with a minor client. This 

means that VLC assess each client’s capacity separately and 

continually to determine if a particular client has the 

considered judgment and capacity to direct VLC services. In 

order to educate VLC on the nuances involved in representing 

minors and clients with diminished capacity, VLC leadership 

worked with the ABA’s Center on Children and the Law, developing 

specialized web based training on child representation. Areas 

of instruction included determining whether a minor or 

diminished capacity victim has considered judgment and the 

capacity to direct their representation, developmentally 

appropriate communication methods, child development stages and 

general child capacity/communication skills at different stages. 

VLC provide personal representation advice to victims 

involved in collateral misconduct connected with a report of 

sexual assault. Collateral misconduct resulting in 

administrative processing or court martial necessitates 

assignment of a separate military defense counsel. VLC also 

provide basic legal assistance services directly connected to a 

report of sexual assault, including notarizations and powers of 
78 

attorney. Assistance with more substantive matters are referred 

to the nearest military legal assistance office. 

As of 30 September 2014, Navy VLC have aided 731 sexual 

assault victims, participated on the victim’s behalf at 351 

military justice proceedings, and conducted 830 outreach briefs 

on VLC services to 24,581 personnel. 

NAVAL JUSTICE SCHOOL (NJS) 

Organization. Naval Justice School (NJS) reports to CNLSC 

for administrative and operational control. The main NJS 

facility is located in Newport, Rhode Island. Teaching 

detachments are based in San Diego, California, and Norfolk, 

Virginia. A two-person branch office is located at the U.S. 

Army’s Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School 

(TJAGLCS) in Charlottesville, Virginia. 

Mission. To oversee formal training of Sea Service judge 

advocates and paralegals to ensure their career-long 

professional development and readiness, to provide comprehensive 

formal training to all Sea Service judge advocates and other 

legal personnel in order to promote justice and ensure the 

delivery of quality legal advice and other services to the 

commander, to train commanders and senior officers in the 

practical aspects of military law to enable them to perform 

their command and staff duties, and to train other personnel to 

assist in the sound administration of military justice. 

In FY14, NJS provided instruction to more than 14,500 

students worldwide, including more than 3,551 in in-resident 

courses ranging in length from 1 day to 13 weeks. 

In addition to teaching NJS courses, NJS instructors 

provided out-of-house teaching in military justice, 

administrative law, and operational law to other commands on 

board Naval Station Newport including the Naval War College, 

Naval Leadership and Ethics Center, Officer Development School, 

Senior Enlisted Academy, Surface Warfare Officers School, 

Officer Candidate School, and Limited Duty/Chief Warrant Officer 

Indoctrination School. 

Academic Programs. NJS has eight “core” courses that 

include training in military justice. These courses are: 

1. Basic Lawyer Course (BLC). This ten-week course, 

offered three times annually, provides accession training for 
79 

all judge advocates in the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. 

The course includes extensive training in military justice and 

court-martial advocacy, as well as training in legal assistance, 

administrative law, standards of conduct, and operational law. 

Teaching methods include lecture, seminar, and practical 

exercises. Upon graduation, judge advocates are certified per 

Article 27(b), UCMJ. FY14 graduates: 136. 

 

2. Legalman Accession Course. This 11-week course, 

offered twice in FY14, trains Navy enlisted personnel selected 

for conversion to the Legalman rating. The course provides ten 

ABA-approved credits towards a paralegal degree or certificate 

in partnership with Roger Williams University (RWU). In 

addition to military-specific training in military justice, 

court reporting, administrative investigations, and 

administrative separations, the course includes four RWU courses 

taught by NJS officer instructors: Ethics, Legal Research and 

Writing I, Introduction to Law, and Emerging Legal Technologies. 

Five weeks of military-specific training within the course also 

constitutes the Reserve Legalman Accession Course. FY14 

graduates: 58 active duty and 9 Reservists. 

3. Basic Legal Services Specialist Course. This 11-week 

course, offered three times annually, provides accession-level 

training to junior enlisted Marines seeking the Military 

Occupational Specialty of Marine Corps Legal Services 

Specialist. Curriculum consists of training in military 

justice, post-trial review, and legal administration. FY14 

graduates: 96. 

4. Legal Services Court Reporter Course. This 13-week 

course, offered twice annually, provides court reporter training 

to Legal Services Specialists, grades E-3 to E-7, seeking the 

Military Occupational Specialty of Marine Corps Legal Services 

Court Reporter. The curriculum consists of court reporter 

training in closed-mask capture of legal proceedings at 225 

words per minute, court-reporting grammar and punctuation, 

speech–recognition technology, digital recording software, and 

the production of verbatim and summarized courts-martial records 

of proceedings. FY14 graduates: 21. 

5. Senior Officer Course in Military Justice and

Civil Law (SOC). This three-day course is designed for 

commanding officers, executive officers, and officers in charge 

and is open to other officers in grades O-4 and above with NJS 

approval. The SOC trains officers in the execution of the legal 

responsibilities of command with instruction in military justice 
80 

(including sexual assault case disposition), administrative law, 

and civil law. In FY14, NJS provided 39 offerings of the SOC in 

Newport, San Diego, Norfolk, Camp Pendleton, Camp Lejeune, 

Parris Island, Quantico, Pensacola, and Hawaii. Per NAVADMIN 

302/12, this course is mandatory for O-6s en route to command. 

FY14 graduates: 1165. 

6. Legal Officer Course (LOC). This three-week course 

prepares non-lawyer Legal Officers to perform a host of military 

law functions in commands not large enough to warrant assignment 

of a judge advocate. In FY14, NJS provided 16 offerings of the 

LOC in San Diego and Norfolk. FY14 graduates: 506. 

7. Legal Clerk Course (LCC). Legal Clerks are typically 

assigned to assist non-lawyer Legal Officers within a command as 

a collateral duty. This two-week course provides training in 

the preparation of legal forms and reports, service record 

entries, nonjudicial punishment, and court-martial procedures. 

In FY14, NJS provided 17 offerings of the LCC in San Diego and 

Norfolk. FY14 graduates: 387. 

8. Senior Enlisted Leadership Course in Military Justice 

and Civil Law (SELC). This three-day course provides senior 

enlisted leaders of all services training in a wide range of 

military law with primary focus on military justice matters. In 

FY14, NJS provided 12 offerings of the SELC in San Diego and 

Norfolk. FY14 graduates: 334. 

Continuing Legal Education. In addition to the “core” 

courses, NJS provided 16 in-resident specialty courses, many of 

which are pre-approved for continuing legal education (CLE) 

credit from state bar associations. Many of these courses focus 

on military justice. In FY14, these resident courses reached 

more than 424 legal professionals. 

The semi-annual Trial Counsel and Defense Counsel 

Orientation courses teach Navy and Marine Corps counsel how to 

effectively prepare, manage, and try cases from the 

investigation stage through sentencing, with a particular focus 

on the practical aspects of defense and prosecution. The Basic 

Trial Advocacy Course is designed to develop important trial 

advocacy skills in judge advocates in their first trial billets 

and in judge advocates transitioning to trial billets from nontrial billets. 

NJS also offers specialized instruction focused on sexual 

assault litigation. Prosecuting Alcohol-Facilitated Sexual 
81 

Assaults (PAFSA) is a week-long course that has been taught in 

conjunction with AEquitas, the Prosecutor’s Resource on Violence 

Against Women. It focuses on substantive aspects of prosecuting 

alcohol-facilitated sexual assaults and includes small-group 

practical exercises to hone skills such as conducting direct and 

cross examinations of sexual assault nurse examiners, 

toxicologists, victims, and the accused. Defending Sexual 

Assault Cases (DSAC) is a week-long course that provides 

training on sexual assault litigation for defense counsel. DSAC 

is taught in conjunction with the Center for American and 

International Law in Plano, Texas. 

NJS also continues to provide Basic and Advanced Staff 

Judge Advocate (SJA) Courses. The SJA courses incorporate 

military justice training relevant to SJAs including search and 

seizure, investigations, charging, preferral, convening courts, 

referral, VWAP, SA-IDA, and post-trial processing. 

Legalman Paralegal Education Program (LPEP). Begun in 

2010, LPEP is a government-funded education program leading to 

an Associates of Science degree in Paralegal Studies. The 

program is mandatory for all LNsin order to meet minimum 

occupational standards for the LN rating. Following completion 

of the LN Accession course, students normally complete a 

semester of in-resident courses with RWU before checking into 

their first permanent duty station as an LN. Upon checking in, 

they normally participate in distance learning with RWU until 

completing the degree requirements. In FY14, 79 students 

attended LPEP as in-resident students, and an additional 298 

students were enrolled in the distance learning option. 

Online Legal Education. In FY13, NJS entered into a 

partnership with TJAGLCS to expand the scope and reach of legal 

education for the Sea Services. Since that time the Online 

Legal Education department at NJS has been offering a variety of 

training and education courses utilizing the Blackboard learning 

management system. These systems are accessible 24/7 and offer 

on-demand training and education coupled with points of contact 

for feedback and instructor interaction. 

In addition, NJS partnered with TJAGLCS to start offering 

full courses online via Blackboard. "NJS Online" gives military 

practitioners worldwide access to specialty courses. These 

courses range from on-demand short courses covering specific 

topics to multi-week courses on large practice areas such as 

post-trial processing, ethics, and law of the sea. Instructors 

deliver training using a variety of online teaching tools, 
82 

including assigned readings, recorded videos, live interactive 

sessions using DCO, discussion boards, practical assignments, 

and knowledge checks. Each fiscal year, NJS Online provides 

more than 10,000 hours of instruction to more than 2,000 

students worldwide. 

NJS Online now offers a first-of-its-kind foundation-level 

course. The Trial Counsel Online course provides entry-level 

training for practitioners assuming a trial counsel billet for 

the first time. This course is now a prerequisite for all USMC 

trial counsel. 

Publications. NJS publishes an annual Naval Law Review. 

NJS also publishes a course catalog, the USN/USMC Commander’s 

Quick Reference Handbook for Legal Issues (Quickman), as well as 

various study guides in support of its academic programs. 

Coordination. Through the Interservice Legal Education 

Review Committee (ISLERC), Commanding Officer, NJS, the Dean of 

Students for TJAGLCS, and the Commandant, Air Force Judge 

Advocate General’s School normally meet semi-annually to discuss 

new initiatives and opportunities for cross-training and to 

increase cooperation and efficiency in the training of legal 

personnel within the Department of Defense. Due to fiscal 

constraints, two meetings were held via video tele-conference 

(VTC) in FY14. 

NAVY ACTIVITIES 

1. Military Justice Litigation Career Track (MJLCT) 

In 2007, to improve the overall quality of Navy courtmartial litigation, the JAG Corps established the MJLCT. The 

MJLCT is a career track for judge advocates with demonstrated 

military justice knowledge and advocacy skills. The track 

combines continued courtroom experience, training and education, 

with oversight by and access to senior, seasoned litigation 

mentors to help judge advocates develop the skills needed to 

become preeminent trial lawyers. Military Justice Litigation 

Qualified (MJLQ) officers are detailed to lead trial and defense 

departments at each of our nine RLSOs and four DSOs, which 

provide Navy prosecutors and defense counsel, respectively. 

These officers provide proven experience in the courtroom, 

personally conducting, adjudicating, or overseeing litigation in 

sexual assault and other complex cases. 

 
83 

At the close of FY14, there were 69 Navy MJLCT officers, of 

which 41 were filling the 53 MJLCT-designated billets. 

Additional officers are serving in billets at the Office of 

Military Commissions, on board aircraft carriers, at NJS, in VLC 

positions, and attending post-graduate school to obtain LL.M. 

degrees in Trial Advocacy. The “billet-fill rate” has held 

relatively stable for the last two years. 

 

The promotion rate for MJLCT officers continues to be 

monitored, and the in-zone MJLCT officers were selected for 

promotion by the FY15 promotion selection boards at a rate 

better than the overall in-zone selection rate. The FY15 O-6, 

O-5 and O-4 promotion selection boards selected six of the six 

MJLCT officers in-zone for promotion, a 100% selection rate. 

MJLQ recognizes judge advocates with demonstrated abilities 

in the areas of military justice knowledge and advocacy skills. 

SPECIALIST I MJLQ is the entry point for the MJLCT. A 

judge advocate may be qualified as SPECIALIST I after 

demonstrating military justice litigation proficiency and MJLCT 

potential. Candidates will normally be eligible for SPECIALIST 

I after their fourth year of active duty. 

Following SPECIALIST I qualification, a judge advocate may 

qualify as SPECIALIST II after obtaining sufficient additional 

qualitative and quantitative military justice litigation 

experience as well as professional development as a naval 

officer. Candidates will normally be eligible for SPECIALIST II 

after their tenth year of active duty. 

Following SPECIALIST II qualification, a judge advocate may 

qualify as EXPERT after obtaining significant additional 

quantitative and qualitative military justice litigation 

experience as well as demonstrated leadership of junior judge 

advocates. For this reason, EXPERT is ordinarily reserved for 

those judge advocates who have reached the senior-most MJLCT 

positions. Candidates will normally be eligible for EXPERT 

after their sixteenth year of active duty. 

SPECIALIST II and EXPERT MJLQ are community management 

tools to guide the detailing, training, and professional 

development needs of MJLQ judge advocates and ensure the 

community maintains its ability to execute this core function 

across the community billet structure. Senior MJLQ judge 

advocates, in coordination with the AJAG 05, who serves as the 

MJLCT community sponsor, seek to provide all MJLQ judge 
84 

advocates with training and duty assignment opportunities that 

facilitate their professional development within the MJLCT, the 

JAG Corps, and the Navy. 

Military justice litigation proficiency warranting 

qualification includes significant quantitative and qualitative 

criminal courtroom litigation experience and demonstrated 

proficiency in military justice procedure. As judge advocates 

seek MJLCT advancement, they will be required to demonstrate 

increased courtroom experience, continued growth in litigation 

leadership, and familiarity with the broader mission of the 

Navy. MJLQ judge advocates are encouraged to explore the wide 

variety of naval experiences that contribute to the development 

of a broad understanding of the duties of judge advocates, and 

to seek out detailing to non-litigation billets even after MJLQ. 

Accordingly, applicants for EXPERT MJLQ should generally have 

served at least two years in a non-litigation billet prior to 

their application for qualification. 

2. Sexual Assault Initiatives 

In FY14, the Navy continued to execute a multifaceted 

approach to address sexual assault awareness and training, 

prevention, victim response, and investigation and 

accountability. Navy judge advocates were integral in all 

levels of ongoing sexual assault prevention and response 

initiatives, including reviewing numerous SAPR training 

products. 

On August 14, 2013, the Secretary of Defense implemented 

seven initiatives to strengthen the Department of Defense’s 

overall sexual assault prevention and response programs, and he 

directed implementation of several measures designed to gain 

greater consistency of effort and enhance oversight, 

investigative quality, pretrial investigations, and victim 

support. One such measure required that judge advocates serve 

as Investigating Officers for all Article 32 hearings on sexual 

assault offense charges. Although it had been the practice in 

the Navy for over 20 years, the Navy formally adopted this 

requirement on December 4, 2013, and expanded it to all UCMJ 

offenses except in exceptional circumstances when in the 

interests of justice a line officer may be appointed. 

Navy was integral in working with other Services on the 

implementation of several other new statutes, rules, 

regulations, instructions and policies with respect to sexual 
85 

assault, many of which significantly improved victim rights and 

military justice practice. 

Navy prosecutors continue to attend and TCAP personnel 

provide training at a more robust NCIS Advanced Adult Sexual 

Assault Investigations Training Program (AASAITP), a course 

focused on improving multi-disciplinary coordination of sexual 

assault investigations. Regional Senior Trial Counsel meet with 

NCIS regularly (at least monthly) to coordinate case 

investigation and prosecution and foster early engagement by the 

response team. 

3. Synthetic Drugs

To help detect and prevent the alarming trend of synthetic 

compound abuse by service members, testing for synthetic 

cannabinoids continued through FY14 at the Navy Drug Screening 

Laboratories (NDSL). This testing at NDSLs only tests those 

compounds designated as controlled substances under the 

Controlled Substances Act. Because usage is not limited to 

these compounds, prevalence testing, command directed and 

probable cause testing, and investigative testing requested by 

Military Criminal Investigative Organizations continued to be 

conducted at the Armed Forces Medical Examiners System (AFMES). 

4. Additional Information

a. Compliance With Processing Time Goals

In FY14, no Navy case was dismissed on speedy trial 

grounds. 7 Navy cases exceeded 120 days from sentencing to 

convening authority’s (CA) action (Moreno 1 guideline). Delay 

in these cases was primarily due to voluminous records of trial 

as well as defense requests for extensions in submitting matters 

in clemency. No Navy cases exceeded 30 days from date of CA’s 

action to docketing at NMCCA (Moreno 2 guideline). Neither 

NMCCA nor CAAF granted relief in any Navy or Marine Corps case 

for unreasonable post-trial delay. Furthermore, no NMCCA cases 

exceeded the Moreno 3 guideline of 18 months from docketing to 

decision. 

b. Circumstances Surrounding Cases In Which CourtMartial Convictions Were Reversed As A Result Of Unlawful 

Command Influence (UCI), Or Denial Of The Right To A Speedy 

Review, Or Otherwise Due To Loss Of Records Of Trial Or Other 

Administrative Deficiencies 
86 

There was one DON appellate case in which a conviction was 

reversed based on UCI, United States v. Howell, No. 201200264, 

2014 CCA LEXIS 321 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. May 22, 2014)). No 

other cases were reversed due to UCI, denial of the right to a 

speedy review, or loss of records of trial or other 

administrative deficiencies. 

 

In United States v. Howell, NMCCA reversed the conviction 

of SSgt Howell, USMC, who was convicted of rape and associated 

forcible sex offenses. SSgt Howell moved for dismissal, 

alleging UCI based on the Commandant of the Marine Corps’ 

Heritage Brief. The second of three military judges on the case 

concluded that there was an appearance of UCI. He concluded 

that the voir dire process, the passage of time, and the 

availability of defense witnesses removed any taint, but 

suggested that the judge who ultimately presided over the case 

should publish the Commandant’s White Letter 3-12 (which 

disclaimed any intent to influence courts-martial and encouraged 

Members to act independently) and ask additional voir dire 

questions to cleanse any residual appearance of UCI. However, 

the final military judge did not utilize any of the recommended 

remedial measures. The NMCCA decided that without those 

remedial measures, the taint of apparent UCI had not been cured. 

c. Cases In Which A Provision Of The UCMJ Was Held 

Unconstitutional 

 There were no DON appellate cases in which a provision of 

the UCMJ was held to be unconstitutional. 

 

d. Measures Implemented By Each Armed Force To Ensure The 

Ability Of Judge Advocates To Competently Participate As Trial 

And Defense Counsel In, And Preside As Military Judges Over, 

Capital Cases, National Security Cases, Sexual Assault Cases, 

And Proceedings Of Military Commissions

Diversity of Skills

Our MJLCT career litigation attorneys rotate between 

prosecution, defense, and judicial assignments. Many MJLQ 

officers also serve as military and appellate judges, giving 

them a unique perspective on how to formulate and articulate 

well-reasoned arguments when advising junior litigators. 

Likewise, having served as both trial and defense attorneys, our 

career litigators have a better understanding of the strengths 

and weaknesses of their cases. They are also detailed to other 

assignments, such as operational and staff judge advocate 
87 

billets, to round out their experience in the fleet. As a 

result, our litigators understand the importance of each role in 

our military justice system - insight which serves our community 

well as these attorneys move into senior litigation positions 

and provide training and mentorship to junior officers. 

MJLCT officers have reached the highest levels of 

leadership within the JAG Corps, to include positions as 

commanding officers, division directors, and one of our 

Assistant Judge Advocates General. MJLCT officers are heavily 

involved in the daily prosecution, defense, and judgment of 

cases throughout the Service, and are serving at the Office of 

Military Commissions and VLC as well. These officers continue 

to be detailed into repeated tours of litigation-intensive 

billets that will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of 

the court-martial process. Several of our MJLCT officers have 

tried more than 100 contested members cases, several more have 

tried more than 50 contested trials, and half of the community 

has tried at least 20 contested cases. The experience is drawn 

from work as prosecutors, defense counsel, and trial judges, and 

some MJLCT officers have extensive contested case experience in 

all three areas of practice - prosecution, defense, and the 

judiciary. Some also have extensive appellate experience. 

Almost a quarter of the MJLCT community has experience in 

areas of capital litigation, national security/classified 

information cases, and military commissions, and nearly every 

MJLCT officer has experience in litigating sexual assault cases. 

Each area of practice - prosecution, defense, and bench - 

currently has MJLCT members who have extensive experience in 

sexual assault, capital, classified, and commissions cases, and 

every practice area has ready access to these experts for 

support if the need arises. 

Training and Education

Additionally, NJS provides judge advocates with tiered 

military justice training taught by active component judge 

advocates and supplemented by reserve judge advocates employed 

as local, state, and federal prosecutors. Training is 

centrally-managed under the oversight of a Litigation Training 

Coordination Council comprised of two Assistant Judge Advocates 

General, military justice experts from the prosecution and 

defense, policy advisors, instructors, and senior judges. 

Course requirements are established by a board of advisors from 

the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard who have extensive 

experience in litigation and training. 
88 

 

In addition to basic and intermediate level trial advocacy 

courses, NJS, Code 20, TCAP, and DCAP coordinate specialized 

training for Navy trial and defense counsel on litigating 

complex sexual assault crimes, using resources such as the 

National District Attorneys Association (NDAA); the National 

Institute of Justice (NIJ), a Department of Justice (DOJ) agency 

established to help foster science-based criminal justice 

practice; AEquitas, the Prosecutor's Resource on Violence 

Against Women, a Department of Justice (DoJ)-funded resource 

created to provide prosecutors with support, training, 

mentorship, and resources to improve the quality of justice in 

sexual violence cases; the Center for American and International 

Law; and the National Criminal Defense College. 

Every year the JAG Corps sends mid-level career litigators 

to civilian post-graduate schools to earn a Master of Laws 

(LL.M.) in litigation or trial advocacy. Of the 69 career 

litigators in the MJLCT at the end of FY14, over half have 

earned an LL.M. in trial advocacy. 

OJAG’s National Security Litigation Division (Code 30) 

provides blocks of instruction on National Security cases in 

periodic NJS courses as needed, and has received approval to 

hold a National Security Litigation Course in 2015, the only 

course in DoD focused entirely on investigating and litigating 

cases involving classified information. Code 30 is working 

closely with Naval Special Warfare Command (NSW) to minimize 

leaks of classified information in the NSW community and hold 

appropriately accountable those who improperly publish 

information. Code 30 personnel also served as panelists for the 

National Security Case panel at Navy Office of General Counsel 

(OGC) Conference. Code 30 advised on over 30 individual cases 

involving national security information, provided advice and 

assistance to the DoJ Counter Espionage Section on two ongoing 

potential espionage cases, and supported NCIS in moving forward 

on a cold espionage case. Code 30 personnel also continued to 

provide ad hoc training, advice, and assistance to staff judge 

advocates, trial counsel, and defense counsel working through 

cases that involve classified information. Code 30 continues to 

publish and update the only National Security Case primer in 

DoD, and maintains close contacts with the intelligence 

community, DoJ National Security Division, and the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation’s National Security Law Branch to 

facilitate cooperation between the Departments in all cases. 
89 

Trial Counsel

Senior Trial Counsel (typically O-4 or above) are the 

nucleus of the Navy’s SVIP capability and are prepared to 

prosecute other complex cases including capital and national 

security cases. They are hand-selected by the JAG to fill one 

of nine Senior Trial Counsel billets. All Senior Trial Counsel 

are MJLQ officers. Upon reporting, all Senior Trial Counsel 

complete a two week special victims investigation course and 

participate in additional specialized training including: 

litigating complex cases, prosecuting alcohol-facilitated sexual 

assaults, TCAP targeted mobile training, and monthly online 

special victims offense or litigation training. All Senior 

Trial Counsel regularly provide information to TCAP on all 

pending felony-level investigations and prosecutions. 

Additionally, uniformed members of TCAP may also be detailed to 

cases as necessary and were so detailed to high-profile or 

complex cases in FY14. 

 

Sexual assault cases are typically detailed to “core 

attorneys” assigned to each RLSO. A RLSO core attorney is a 

judge advocate (O-3 or above) who has completed at least one 

full two-year tour as a First Tour Judge Advocate (FTJA) prior 

to assuming the duties of a prosecutor. All trial counsel are 

supervised by a Senior Trial Counsel, an Executive Officer (O-5 

judge advocate), and a Commanding Officer (O-6 judge advocate) 

and have access to 24/7 support from TCAP. 

Trial counsel receive military commission training from the 

Office of the Military Commissions once assigned to that office. 

Defense Counsel

 In addition to basic judge advocate training received by 

trial counsel as well, Navy defense counsel receive Basic Trial 

Advocacy training and attend Defense Counsel Orientation prior 

to or shortly after arriving at a DSO to serve as a core defense 

counsel. The JAG Corps also funds several defense counsel to 

attend Defending Sexual Assault Cases, a weeklong course held 

once a year, with the intent for all defense counsel to attend 

early in their tour. Defending Sexual Assault Cases is a course 

designed to deal with the legal issues and complexities involved 

in a sexual assault case and includes practical exercises along 

with lectures. Among the faculty are renowned evidence 

professors, experienced civilian defense attorneys, and expert 

witnesses. The course allows for fulsome discussion of issues 

that pervade the average sexual assault case and includes 
90 

practical exercises focusing on the facts of an actual trial. 

Students are given extensive access to experienced practitioners 

and expert witnesses and frequently use this time to consult 

with other attorneys on themes and issues with their current 

cases. Defense counsel will attend this course within their 

first year of reporting. Defense counsel also may attend 

training in intermediate trial advocacy and litigating complex 

cases. 

Additionally, DCAP sends Defense Mobile Training Teams 

(DMTTs) to each DSO at least twice yearly to work closely with 

the command and individual counsel, with a focus on practical 

issues in defense work and trial advocacy based on current or 

recent case scenarios. 

Finally, resources permitting, Navy defense counsel have 

access to relevant legal seminars aimed at the criminal defense 

attorney. Capital Litigation training is provided by the 

National Legal Aid and Defender Association, which provides week 

long seminars on litigation and mitigation. The Navy 

periodically sends defense counsel to this course to maintain 

capital litigation capability in case it is needed. 

Sexual assault cases are typically detailed to "core 

attorneys" assigned to a DSO. A DSO core attorney is a judge 

advocate (O-3 or above), certified to practice by the JAG in 

accordance with Article 27b, UCMJ, and a member in good standing 

with a state bar, that have completed at least one full tour 

prior to assuming the duties of a defense counsel. Detailing of 

counsel is within the discretion of the DSO Commanding Officer 

(O-6 judge advocate), who takes into consideration such matters 

as competence, experience, and training, existing caseload, and 

availability of counsel, as well as case specifics and 

opportunities for training of counsel. A Commanding Officer may 

detail a second, more experienced counsel to a particular case 

in part to provide the opportunity for practical mentoring. 

Additionally, uniformed members of DCAP may also be detailed to 

cases. 

Defense counsel receive military commission training from 

the Office of the Military Commissions once assigned to that 

office. 

 
91 

Military Judges

The required courses for a trial judge’s judicial education 

begin with the three-week Military Judge Course, provided by the 

TJAGLCS. This course provides the foundation and requirements 

for being certified as a military trial judge by JAG and also 

the foundation that will enable a judge to begin duty on the 

bench. The course covers court-martial process, evidence, 

procedure, constitutional rights, judicial problem solving, and 

judicial methodology. It includes demonstrations and practical 

exercises. Appellate judges attend the same school for 

certification as a trial military judge. 

In prior years, all trial judges attended the Joint 

Military Judges’ Annual Training (JMJAT). The 2013 course was 

postponed indefinitely due to the impact of sequestration and 

the continuing resolution. The 2014 course will be hosted by 

the Navy; on odd years the training is held at the Air Force JAG 

School, on even years it is hosted by the NMCTJ in conjunction 

with the National Judicial College at Reno, Nevada. JMJAT is 

the venue for continuing baseline education and training for all 

trial judges, and it is vehicle for discussing current topics of 

judicial training interest, such as the new Article 120, 

presiding over cases involving third party representatives such 

as VLC, advanced evidence, sentencing methodology, and judicial 

ethics. 

The NMCCA instituted a two-day, in-house annual training 

course four years ago to provide a venue for continuing 

education for active and Reserve appellate judges. The course 

serves as training for newly assigned judges and a refresher for 

experienced judges. The course focuses on court processes, 

opinion writing, ethics, appellate burdens of proof and 

persuasion, and advanced evidence. The FY14 course included 

search and seizure law, statutory construction, the exclusionary 

rule, digital evidence, and again, specific instruction on the 

development of Article 120. Appellate judges also attend the 

annual Fulton Appellate Judges conference, which is an interservice, one-day event (the host rotates from service to 

service). The content focuses on both appellate judicial 

topics, and more broad issues of current interest in law and 

policy." Additional training through the New Appellate Judges 

Seminar hosted by New York University School of Law, and the 

Appellate Judges Education Institute hosted by Southern 

Methodist University School of Law, are also available for NMCCA 

judges when funding permits, but it is not required for 

appellate judges. 
92 

The required continuing legal education (CLE) for trial 

judges progresses each year with two courses per year, for the 

next three years. The NMCTJ judges use and attend the National 

Judicial College (NJC) because the NJC is the only fullyaccredited University that presents an average of 30 to 40 

judicially-oriented courses annually. These courses serve to 

broaden judicial experiences by exposing judges to judicial 

perspective from around the country which permit trial judges to 

explore the varying and complex dynamics of our justice system. 

This education is designed to enable judges to practice at a 

higher level than that provided by the basic judge education 

provided by the U.S. Army. This training has and will continue 

to decrease the judge-induced error rate across the NMCTJ. The 

NJC’s courses cover a multitude of current judicial topics, 

ranging from judicial writing and advanced evidence, to handling 

capital cases and general jurisdiction. This CLE requirement is 

not imposed on the appellate judiciary, because members of the 

appellate court include judges who previously served as trial 

judges subject to this requirement, and because appellate review 

generally is bound by what has been presented in a record of 

trial rather than based in the independent training that is 

intended to assist trial judges in creating the records of trial 

that will later be reviewed on appeal. Additionally, the inhouse training conducted by NMCCA, in partnership with judicial 

educators from around the country, serves as an effective 

substitute for outside CLE. 

Military judges receive specialized training in capital 

litigation, national security cases, sexual assault cases, and 

military commissions, some "just in time," and others as part of 

a CLE program. Legal education in areas encountered while 

litigating sexual assault cases is part of the initial pipeline 

training for every judge, and is picked up in various CLE 

programs after the initial training, both at the trial and the 

appellate level. Capital litigation courses for judges are 

available via the National Judicial College, and specialized 

training in classified information cases is available to judges 

just as it is for litigants. The judiciary currently holds a 

handful of practitioners who have tried classified information 

and national security cases, as well as officers with extensive 

experience in military commissions. 

e. The Independent Views Of The Judge Advocates General And 

The Staff Judge Advocate To The Commandant Of The Marine Corps 

On The Sufficiency Of Resources Available Within Their 

Respective Armed Forces, Including Total Workforce, Funding, 
93 

Training, And Officer And Enlisted Grade Structure, To Capably 

Perform Military Justice Functions

As of the date this report was submitted, the Navy judge 

advocate, enlisted, and civilian communities were adequately 

resourced. However, budget reductions continue to cause 

challenges in funding training, and sequestration could further 

impact operational readiness. In particular, a 30% reduction in 

the Navy’s Centrally Managed Training Funding budget over the 

last few years has diminished training opportunities. 

Additionally, emerging requirements may affect this assessment. 

The Navy provided additional billets to meet VLC requirements, 

and while Reserve support was critical to initial program 

implementation, the need for experienced counsel to fill VLC 

program and supervisory trial and defense litigation billets 

nevertheless taxed the JAG Corps manpower. The adequacy of 

resources over the mid and long-term is largely dependent on new 

legislation and directive policies, most of which continues to 

place significant demands on judge advocate resources. As an 

example, collection and verification of data and preparation of 

the POTUS Report required 2,549 man-hours of OJAG personnel, 

mostly judge advocates. JAG will continue to work with Navy to 

ensure that the JAG Corps is adequately resourced to meet these 

challenges as they emerge. 

CONCLUSION 

Military justice remained a principal focus of effort for 

the Navy in FY14. The aforementioned initiatives, particularly 

the establishment of the VLC program and continued enhancement 

of SVIP capability, the emphasis on training, the implementation 

of several new military justice provisions, and the development 

of common case-tracking systems, will optimize the Navy’s 

military justice capabilities. We are committed to ensuring 

that our military justice system remains fair, effective, and 

efficient. With significant developments on the horizon — 

including reducing sexual assault in our ranks, focusing more 

specifically on destructive behaviors, to include sexual 

harassment and gender discrimination, implementation of over 100 

recommendations of the RSP, and developing case management and 

tracking systems — continued careful self-reflection and close 

monitoring of the military justice system will remain priorities 

in FY15. 
94 

MARINE CORPS ACTIVITIES 

U.S. MARINE CORPS ANNUAL MILITARY JUSTICE REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 I. INTRODUCTION.......................................... 1 

II. MILITARY JUSTICE BY THE NUMBERS........................ 2 

III. POST-TRIAL REVIEW AND APPELLATE DECISIONS.............. 3 

A. Processing Time Goals 3

 B. Reversal of Convictions for Denial of Speedy Post-Trial

 Review, UCI, or other Administrative Deficiencies 4

IV. MEASURES IMPLEMENTED TO IMPROVE PRACTICE OF MILITARY LAW......... 5 

A. Standing Up the VLCO 5 

B. Detailing Counsel 5

C. Training and Advice 6 

 1. Trial Counsel Assistance Program 7 

 2. Defense Services Organization 

 3. VLCO 8 

 4. Training Standards and Resources 8 

V. VIEWS ON THE SUFFICIENCY OF RESOURCES....................... 9 

VI. CONCLUSION.............................................. 10 
95 

I. INTRODUCTION

 The Marine Corps legal community’s leadership transitioned in 

Fiscal Year 2014 (FY14). On 30 June 2014, Major General Vaughn Ary 

retired from the Marine Corps after a career culminating with five 

years as the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine 

Corps (SJA to CMC). Major General Ary led the Marine Corps legal 

community during a period marked by significant changes to the 

military justice system and challenges magnified by unprecedented 

Congressional and public scrutiny. Among his many noteworthy 

achievements were the enhancement of the statutory and regulatory 

authority of the SJA to CMC and the reorganization of the Marine 

Corps legal community to successfully meet the military justice 

challenges confronting all the Services. On 2 July 2014, Major 

General John Ewers was appointed as the SJA to CMC in the midst of 

continued external scrutiny and as the pace of systemic changes 

increased. 

 A significant challenge for the Marine Corps legal community in 

FY14 resulted from the twenty-one changes impacting the military 

justice system within the FY14 National Defense Authorization Act, 

which coincided with the continued upward trend in complex 

litigation. In FY14, the Marine Corps continued to leverage the 

success of the 2012 reorganization of the legal community to meet 

these challenges. As a result, senior judge advocates were 

positioned to implement legislative changes in an informed manner, 

while also actively supervising military justice practice to ensure 

high quality litigation. 

 The establishment of the Victims’ Legal Counsel Organization 

(VLCO) was a key development during the fiscal year. Created as an 

expansion of the Secretary of Defense’s Special Victims Counsel 

initiative, later codified in the FY14 NDAA, the Marine Corps VLCO 

offers advice and representation to victims of crime and has proved 
96 

instrumental in the Marine Corps response to sexual assault and other 

crimes. The accomplishments of the Marine Corps VLCO have been 

widely recognized and the VLCO continues to lead the way in providing 

services to victims of crime. 

 Our successes during the fiscal year validated the proposition 

that the post-2012 Marine Corps legal community is better positioned 

to ensure that the right counsel is detailed to the right case, and 

that the right advice is being provided to commanders. In turn, the 

Marine Corps is better situated to establish the “gold standard” for 

legal support in the Department of Defense. Moving into 2015, the 

Marine Corps legal community is poised and committed to continue 

improving upon our recent gains in the level of practice and ensure a 

fair and efficient system of justice. 

II. MILITARY JUSTICE BY THE NUMBERS – TRENDS & ANALYSIS

 Although the total number of Marine Corps courts-martial 

decreased in FY14, the number of complex and contested cases rose 

again during this fiscal year.1 In FY14, the Marine Corps litigated 

to completion 132 general courts-martial and 248 special courtsmartial. While the total number of general courts-martial has 

remained stable from FY11 to FY14, the 

annual percentage of contested general 

courts-martial has increased from 25 

percent to over 56 percent (see Figure 

A). This consistent growth in the 

complex, contested nature of our courtsmartial practice has resulted in a 

significant increase in the workload 

associated with each case and has 

 

1

 For the purposes of this report, a FY14 “case” is an adjudicated general or special court-martial where the findings, in cases

with an acquittal, or the original sentencing date, in cases with a conviction, occurred within FY14. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14

Figure A. Percentage GCMs Contested 

FY11 - FY14
97 

magnified the need for experienced litigators. 

The growth in sexual assault prosecutions, often among the most 

complex cases we try, provides a clear illustration of the trend 

toward more complex cases. Between FY12 and FY14, the number of 

contested sexual assault prosecutions increased by over 200 percent 

(see Figure B). 

The overall reduction in 

courts-martial generally is, of 

course, tied to the continuing 

decline in special courts-martial. 

Despite the decrease in number, 

over 40 percent of special courtsmartial were contested in FY14. 

Given that even special courtsmartial can have strategic implications, our contested special 

courts-martial practice further increases the need for experienced 

military justice supervisors. Additionally, the number of 

administrative discharge boards, which are essentially courts of 

equity and contested to some degree, remained at relatively high 

levels. Our administrative practice reveals that disposition of 

offenses through means other than special or general courts-martial 

requires casework by military justice personnel, client 

representation by defense personnel, and military justice expertise 

and advice by staff judge advocates. 

III. POST-TRIAL REVIEW AND APPELLATE DECISIONS

During FY14, the mandatory Corps-wide use of the Case Management 

System (CMS) and the diligence of our judge advocates and legal 

services specialists ensured that the Marine Corps complied with 

post-trial processing goals. The Marine Corps maintained its 

exceptional processing record, having no convictions reversed as a 

result of a denial of the right to speedy post-trial review or 

0 50 100

FY14

FY13

FY12

Contested Guilty Plea

Figure B. Contested Sexual Assault 

Prosecutions FY12 - FY14
98 

otherwise remitted due to loss of records of trial or other 

administrative deficiencies. However, as discussed below, one 

conviction was reversed as a result of apparent unlawful command 

influence (UCI). 

A. Processing Time Goals

 In FY14, the Marine Corps had over 800 general, special, and 

summary courts-martial that warranted some form of post-trial review. 

For those cases warranting appellate review, the Marine Corps 

averaged 97 days from the date of trial to convening authority’s 

action (CAA) and 18 days from CAA to docketing of the case with the 

Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (see Figure C). It is 

apparent from a review of our last five years that the increased 

complexity of courts-martial has resulted in a lengthier post-trial 

review process by staff judge advocates (SJAs) under Article 60(d) of 

the UCMJ. 

One area of significant improvement in post-trial processing 

times during FY14 occurred in court-reporter transcription. In May 

2014, the Marine Corps updated all of its equipment, hardware, and 

software to more effectively produce accurate verbatim or summarized 

transcripts, and set forth minimum equipment requirements for each 

court report section. Additionally, the Marine Corps improved 

training to focus on initial, real-time captured, record of trial 

accuracy in order to reduce the transcription time required to 

produce a verbatim record. As our court 
99 

reporters continue to train to the new standards with the new 

equipment, Marine Corps court reporter processing times should 

continue to improve. 

 B. Reversal of Convictions for Denial of Speedy Post-Trial 

Review, UCI, or other Administrative Deficiencies

 In FY14, the Marine Corps had no cases in which a provision of 

the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was held 

unconstitutional, and no convictions were reversed for violation of 

the right to speedy post-trial review or for administrative 

deficiencies. The Marine Corps had one conviction reversed as a 

result of apparent UCI. The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal 

Appeals (NMCCA) set aside the findings and sentence without prejudice 

in United States v. Howell, NMCCA 201200264 (N.M.C.C.A., May 22, 

2014), a general court-martial, due to apparent UCI based on the 

“Heritage Brief” delivered by then-Commandant of the Marine Corps 

General James Amos. The NMCCA found that the military judge, who 

presided over the actual trial, failed to give corrective 

119

83 87 92 87 97

13

10 10

15 12

18

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14

Average Days to CAA   

Average Days from CAA to Docketing   

Figure C. Post-Trial Processing Times FY09 - FY14
100 

instructions or otherwise take affirmative steps to remove the taint 

of UCI. The NMCCA set aside the findings and sentence without 

prejudice. As of the time of this report, the accused was awaiting 

re-trial. 

 

IV. MEASURES IMPLEMENTED TO IMPROVE PRACTICE OF MILITARY LAW

 A. Standing Up the VLCO

 The Marine Corps VLCO was established on 1 November 2013 and 

became fully operational on 1 January 2014. The VLCO consists of 

fifteen active duty judge advocates, one senior paralegal, eight 

enlisted legal services specialists, and two auxiliary victims’ legal 

counsel (VLC) available to assist when needed. The VLCO provides 

legal advice and counseling to eligible victims of all crimes under 

the UCMJ throughout the length of the investigation and court-martial 

process. The Marine Corps is unique among the Services in extending 

eligibility for VLC assistance beyond victims of sexual assault to 

include victims of all crimes under the UCMJ, including both adult 

and minor dependents. 

 The Marine Corps VLCO exceeded expectations in its first year in 

operation. In FY14, the VLCO assisted almost 700 crime victims, 

receiving overwhelmingly positive feedback from the fleet. The VLCO 

also helped commanders across the Marine Corps to understand victims’ 

views with regard to disposition decisions, expedited transfers, and 

collateral misconduct. 

 B. Detailing Counsel

In FY14, the Marine Corps continued to strengthen the 

qualification standards for all judge advocates, including Article 32 

investigating officers (now called “preliminary hearing officers”), 
101 

handling special victim cases.2 The regional trial counsel (RTC) 

personally detail trial counsel and other trial support assets to all 

special victim cases. Before being detailed by the RTC to a special 

victim case, the trial counsel must be “special victim qualified.” 

This qualification requires the trial counsel to have experience, 

training, prior qualification as a general court-martial trial 

counsel, and previous experience as an assistant trial counsel on a 

contested special victim case. 

Similarly, defense counsel and victims’ legal counsel are 

detailed after consideration of the counsel's caseload and 

experience, any applicable conflict-of-interest analysis, case 

complexity, collateral duties, and the defense counsel's training and 

education requirements, amongst other things. Additionally, as of 10 

February 2014, all Article 32 preliminary hearing officers must be 

field grade judge advocates or have previously served as a trial or 

defense counsel. For special victim cases, the Article 32 

preliminary hearing officer must be a field grade judge advocate or 

have previously served as a trial or defense counsel in a contested 

special victim case. 

 C. Training and Advice

 The Marine Corps continues to provide counsel with formal 

training and trial preparation advice, in addition to the mentorship 

and on-the-job training offered by the RTC and other experienced 

judge advocates within the LSSS. Leading this training and advice 

effort are our Highly Qualified Experts (HQEs). During FY14, the 

Marine Corps employed four HQEs, regionally located, to assist in 

both prosecution and defense of all complex cases, including sexual 

assaults. The Marine Corps HQEs are seasoned civilian prosecutors 

 

2

 A special victim case is any case in which a violation of Article 118, 119, 119a, 120, 120b, 125 (with child or forcible) 128 

(domestic violence involving aggravated assault or child abuse), 134 (child pornography or assault with intent to commit a 

previously listed offense), or 80 (attempt to commit a previously listed offense) of the UCMJ is alleged. 
102 

with significant experience in complex criminal litigation, to 

include successful trial-level work in sexual assault cases. Their 

primary job is to train counsel to prosecute and defend sexual 

assault cases by providing perspective, sharing best practices, and 

assisting with case preparation and strategy. The HQEs are proactive 

in developing relationships with trial and defense counsel and work 

closely with each counsel on a variety of issues. Additionally, 

trial counsel are required to consult with their regional HQE within 

ten days of being detailed to any sexual assault case. 

 Due to the success of the program in FY14, and burgeoning 

military justice requirements, the Marine Corps plans to hire 

additional HQEs in FY15. The Marine Corps will also institute a 

requirement for SJAs to receive a Prosecutorial Merit Memo (PMM) 

before advising a Sexual Assault Initial Disposition Authority (SAIDA) on alleged violations of Articles 120, 120b, 125 and attempts to 

commit those offenses under Article 80 of the UCMJ. The PMM must be 

written by special victim qualified trial counsel, it must discuss 

the relative strengths and weaknesses of the case, and it must 

provide a recommended disposition of the case. The use of PMMs is 

intended to ensure that the skills and knowledge of the RTC and HQE 

are early and fully employed in every qualifying case. 

 1. Trial Counsel Assistance Program

In FY14, the Trial Counsel Assistance Program (TCAP) remained 

the cornerstone of our prosecution capability. TCAP courses included 

two, week-long courses focused on the prosecution of sexual assault 

cases, which included training in building case theory, charging 

under Article 120, UCMJ, general trial advocacy skills, use of expert 

witnesses, victim support, and prosecutorial ethics. A mix of 

experienced experts, including senior judge advocates, district 
103 

attorneys, and expert witnesses who frequently testify in sexual 

assault cases provided the instruction. The Marine Corps also 

continued its partnership with the United States Department of 

Justice’s Office for Victims of Crime (OVC). The OVC provided 

valuable financial support and information on current victims’ rights 

laws and trends. 

In addition to the TCAP courses, in FY14 trial counsel had over 

twenty courses available through NJS, the National District 

Attorney’s Association, the Department of Justice, National Advocacy 

Center, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and the Army and 

Air Force JAG schools. In these courses, the focus of training 

included: working with victims, trial advocacy, digital exploitation 

of children, child abuse, gathering and analyzing evidence, and 

partnering with victim advocates and agents from NCIS in 

investigating and prosecuting special victim cases. 

 2. Defense Services Organization

The Marine Corps Defense Services Organization (DSO) oversees 

the Defense Counsel Assistance Program (DCAP) and has for years set 

the Marine Corps standard for improving litigation capabilities 

through collaboration and teamwork. Since 2011, DCAP has 

aggressively sought out and sent defense counsel to training courses 

designed to ensure DSO attorneys maintain the knowledge and 

experience necessary to provide high quality representation in the 

most complex cases, including sexual assault cases. The DSO utilizes 

training at NJS and the Army and Air Force JAG schools as well as 

civilian training events sponsored by organizations such as the 

National Association for Criminal Defense Lawyers, Federal Public 

Defenders Association, Bronx Defenders Academy, and the National 

Criminal Defense College. More specific training is provided 

internally through consultation with the Marine Corps criminal 

defense HQEs. 
104 

 3. VLCO

All counsel and legal services specialists assigned to the VLCO 

attend specialized initial training at the Air Force and Army Judge 

Advocate General’s Schools or the Naval Justice School (NJS). These 

courses include instruction in substantive military law, victim 

behavior, victim services, counseling techniques, and participation 

in practical scenario-driven exercises. The first annual Marine 

Corps-wide VLCO training event took place in August 2014. This event 

featured several periods of instruction by prominent victims’ legal 

rights experts and provided an opportunity to share lessons learned 

and develop best practices. VLC also attend additional specialized 

training offered by organizations outside the military. Some of the 

courses attended by VLC in FY14 include Preventing, Assessing, and 

Treating Child, Adolescent, and Adult Trauma offered by the Institute 

on Violence, Abuse and Trauma; Equal Justice for Children sponsored 

by the National District Attorneys Association; and the 2014 Crime 

Victim Law Conference sponsored by the National Crime Victim Law 

Institute. 

 4. Training Standards and Resources

Separate from the nationally recognized training provided to 

Marine Corps trial, defense, and victims’ legal counsel detailed 

above, the Marine Corps implemented more demanding training standards 

for the training provided by regional and senior trial and defense 

counsel. Under the new standards, each regional supervisory counsel 

is required to provide two days of training for all counsel within 

the region every quarter, and each senior supervisory trial or 

defense counsel must provide two one-day training sessions each 

quarter. These sessions focus on how to leverage the non-legal 

special victim capabilities at each region and installation such as 

family advocacy specialists, health care providers, child protective 
105 

services, law enforcement officers, sexual assault response 

coordinators, victim advocates, and local forensic testing 

facilities. As shown in Figure D below, 492 trial counsel, defense 

counsel, and VLC were trained for special victim capabilities, and 

$698,153.17 in Marine Corps funding was committed to train those 

counsel in FY14. 

In addition to the above training and mentorship available to 

all counsel, trial or defense counsel assigned to complex cases can 

receive other training. For example, the Department of the Navy has 

a National Security Litigation Division (OJAG Code 30), which 

provides individualized training and advice to all trial counsel 

prosecuting national security cases. 
106 

Figure D. Sexual Assault Training Expenditures and Attendance for 

Legal Personnel 

V. VIEWS ON THE SUFFICIENCY OF RESOURCES

The growth in the complexity and contested nature of Marine 

Corps courts-martial, largely as a result of new legislative and 

regulatory changes, has led to a demand for more support from the 

Marine legal community. At the same time, operational requirements 
107 

have continued to grow, resulting in an increased demand for judge 

advocates. Since the last Military Justice Report, the Marine Corps 

has taken some measures to alleviate shortages in judge advocate 

majors and has addressed some items of concern. Judge advocate 

eligibility for the voluntary separation pay program (VSP) has been 

removed. Additionally, the Marine Corps, recognizing the need to 

retain our best judge advocates, continued to fund the Law School 

Education Debt Subsidy (LSEDS) program, but for the first time 

utilized a competitive board process to award this special pay. The 

Marine Corps has also provided funding and support to establish the 

VLCO, to improve legal community training and to hire a highly 

qualified expert for TCAP. 

The systemic changes to military justice, the increased 

operational demands to support Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task 

Forces, and other statutory or policy priorities will continue to 

demand an increased level of support from the Marine legal community, 

particularly from the rank of major. These field grade judge 

advocates, with the experience necessary to ensure the best legal 

services and advice are provided to commanders, Marines, and Sailors, 

are at a premium. Continuing to fund LSEDS is critical to meeting 

the growing demands for field grade judge advocates. Moreover, in 

order to address the long-term need for experienced military justice 

practitioners, judge advocate structure should match the judge 

advocate community’s primary statutory and historically critical 

practice areas, as well as practice areas mandated by recent 

legislation. 

VI. CONCLUSION

 In FY14, the Marine Corps legal community continued to improve 

upon its already substantial gains in the quality of our military 

justice practice in the face of tremendous changes to the military 

justice system. Moving forward we will continue to train to and meet 
108 

the high standards we have set to ensure accountability and the 

continued outstanding legal support provided to commanders, Marines, 

Sailors, and their families. 
109 
110 
111 

SECTION 5 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE AIR FORCE 
112 

REPORT OF 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 

OF THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 

OCTOBER 1, 2013 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 

THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed and issued 

opinions in 296 cases in fiscal year 2014. At the end of Fiscal Year 

2013, nine active duty judges were assigned to the court. At the end 

of Fiscal Year 2014, the court had just five active duty judges 

assigned to it, plus one Reservist on extended active duty orders, 

following the retirement of four active duty judges. The court also 

saw a change in leadership with the investiture of a new Chief Judge. 

Despite the decrease in manning, the court was able to issue 

decisions in a timely fashion. At the end of Fiscal Year 2013, the 

court’s docket had 92 cases ready for the court’s review. Twentythree of these cases had been awaiting a decision by the court for 

more than 180 days, 8 of which had violated the 18-month standard for 

docketing to opinion set forth in United States v. Moreno. By the 

end of Fiscal Year 2014, the court’s ready-docket had been reduced to 

just 70 cases, at which time only 3 cases were pending the court’s 

decision for more than 180 days, with 0 cases violating the Moreno

standard. 

The court issued a large number of significant decisions during 

this fiscal year, including an en banc opinion upon reconsideration 

in the case of United States v. Witt, the first death penalty case in 

over 15 years. The significance of the Air Force Court’s decisions 

is reflected in the fact that of the 32 decisions issued by CAAF in 

the 2013-2014 term, 15 of these were Air Force cases. The court 

issued 19 published opinions during this fiscal year and issued 

decisions in six government interlocutory appeals. The court held 

oral argument for 18 cases, to include hearing oral argument at 

Georgetown University Law Center and The Air Force Judge Advocate 

General’s School pursuant to its “Project Outreach” program. 

The court also conducted a top-to-bottom review of its rules of 

practice and procedure. A team of court personnel and counsel from 

both appellate divisions re-wrote the court’s rules with an 

eye toward reducing unnecessary guidance while addressing several 

areas that had not been thoroughly answered in previous editions. 
113 

The revised rules, published in August, are 20 percent shorter while 

addressing more than 10 areas that required new or additional 

guidance. 

In addition to reviewing Air Force courts-martial, three of the 

court’s appellate judges served on the United States Court of 

Military Commission Review (USCMCR). The USCMCR hears appeals of 

cases convened under the Military Commissions Act of 2009. The 

USCMCR not only hears cases with a finding of guilty from military 

tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, but also hears appeals on issues taken 

prior to and during trial. 

TRIAL JUDICIARY 

The Air Force Trial Judiciary Directorate (JAT) is responsible 

for trying and docketing all Air Force general and special courtsmartial and presiding over an array of federal hearings. The 

Directorate is staffed by 21 active-duty trial judges, four reserve 

trial judges, one noncommissioned officer, and one civilian employee. 

The office of the Chief Trial Judge is co-located with the Central 

Docketing Office at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. Air Force trial 

judges serve within five regions and are dispersed at twelve 

geographically advantageous locations around the globe. 

In Fiscal Year 2014, Air Force judges presided over more than 

500 general and special courts-martial. Judges also served as 

investigating officers in over 100 Article 32 investigations 

involving sexual assault allegations. Additionally, judges served as 

legal advisors for officer discharge boards, and in post-trial DuBay 

hearings, contingency confinement hearings, and competency hearings. 

The Chief Regional Military Judge in Europe continued to cover 

courts-martial at deployed locations within the United States Central 

Command area of responsibility. This year five cases were tried at 

Bagram Air Base. Currently, three Air Force trial judges are 

appointed for the military commissions in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba . The 

Chief Trial Judge is currently presiding over the USS Cole bombing 

case. In Fiscal Year 2014, Air Force trial judges heard two 

commissions cases. 

Air Force trial judges taught military justice in classrooms and 

courtrooms around the world. The Deputy Chief Trial Judge spent a 

week in Palestine training Palestinian Security Forces and their 

judiciary on U.S. military courts-martial procedures. This training 

included a full mock trial that highlighted procedural and 

evidentiary issues later used by Department of Justice and U.S. 
114 

terrorism experts to instruct the class on the fundamentals of 

criminal procedure. 

The Chief Trial Judge and Deputy Chief Trial Judge also 

instructed new military judges at The Army Judge Advocate General’s 

Legal Center and School in Charlottesville, Virginia. Air Force 

trial judges trained new judge advocates, trial and defense counsel, 

special victims’ counsel, and staff judge advocates at the Air Force 

Judge Advocate General’s School, on Maxwell AFB, Alabama. Air Force 

trial judges also provided practical instruction at more than a dozen 

trial advocacy courses held throughout the world to enhance current 

and future practitioners’ litigation skills. Judges also partnered 

with the Air Force JAG School to create video-clip training on 

several areas of trial practice, to include sentencing, closing, and 

discovery. 

Members of the Trial Judiciary continued to share their 

specialized knowledge and expertise in a wide variety of legal 

environments. Judges assigned to the Trial Judiciary conducted 

Environmental Impact Statement hearings involved in the stationing of 

aircraft in Florida. The Trial Judiciary also worked closely with 

the Special Victims Counsel community and trial participants to adapt 

courtroom procedures to accommodate the new program. 

AIR FORCE JUDICIARY 

 The Air Force Judiciary Directorate (JAJ) is responsible for the 

administration of military justice across the Air Force. JAJ advises 

The Judge Advocate General, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and 

the Secretary of the Air Force on military justice matters, works 

with the other uniformed services to propose legislation and 

modifications to executive orders pertaining to military justice, 

assists convening authorities and staff judge advocates in the field, 

and provides the highest quality defense services to Airmen 

worldwide. The Directorate also supervises the delivery of court 

reporter services worldwide for all in-garrison events and, through 

its file sharing program, optimizes the use of available civilian 

court reporter assets to transcribe past events. 

Through its enlisted court reporter program, the Directorate 

provides expeditionary court reporter support for all deployed 

courts, mishaps, and other investigations. 

The Directorate performs its mission through five divisions: 

the Government Trial and Appellate Counsel Division; the Appellate 

Defense Division; the Trial Defense Division; the Military Justice 

Division; and the Clemency, Corrections and Officer Review Division. 
115 

GOVERNMENT TRIAL & APPELLATE COUNSEL DIVISION 

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT COUNSEL 

 During this past year, eight active duty judge advocates, eight 

reserve judge advocates, and one civilian attorney vigorously 

represented the government in Article 66 and Article 67 appeals of 

215 Air Force courts-martial convictions. The Division also sought 

and obtained certification from TJAG in nine cases for United States 

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (USCAAF) review, and filed 

government appeals in eight cases under Article 62, UCMJ, at the Air 

Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA). When appropriate, the 

Division also responded to petitions for extraordinary relief under 

the All Writs Act. The Division continued to vigorously defend the 

death sentence adjudged and approved in United States v. Witt, 

mentioned above. 

 Appellate government counsel zealously represented the 

government in 215 written briefs and 32 oral arguments before USCAAF 

and AFCCA. Appellate government counsel contributed to Project 

Outreach, sponsored by USCAAF and AFCCA, by conducting oral arguments 

in cases before audiences at various law schools and military 

installations across the United States. These arguments helped 

educate attendees on the fairness and professionalism of the military 

justice system and provided excellent recruiting opportunities. 

While always committed to protecting government interests and 

preserving command prerogatives, appellate government counsel 

advocacy resulted in notable appellate rulings during the year. 

After AFCCA set aside the service's first death penalty sentence in 

over 20 years in 2013, appellate government counsel filed a 

persuasive motion for reconsideration, presented a second oral 

argument, and convinced AFCCA to reconsider and reverse the original 

decision setting aside the death penalty in United States v. Witt, _ 

M.J. __ (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 30 June 2014). Amn Witt is now the only 

Airman with an approved death sentence from an appellate court in 

decades, and his case will now receive mandatory review at CAAF. 

Another notable appellate decision for the government is the murder 

case of United States v. 

Cron, __ M.J. ___ (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 27 June 2014), which 

represents the first case in service history where an accused 

received confinement for life without parole that was adjudged at 

trial and approved by the appellate courts. CAAF recently denied 

discretionary review of the case, so that appeal and sentence is 

final. 
116 

Counsel provided intense advocacy training and field support. 

Division counsel educated judge advocates and paralegals at Air Force 

training events such as Trial Advocacy Courses, the Military Justice 

Administration Course, The Judge Advocate General’s Continuing Legal 

Education Course, and the Trial and Defense Advocacy Course, as well 

as other litigation and criminal investigation courses. The Division 

created and posted comprehensive trial and appellate materials on the 

JAJG Sharepoint online resource. Appellate counsel also published an 

electronic newsletter containing appellate updates along with timely 

and relevant articles for military justice practitioners at all 

levels. 

 Throughout the year, Division personnel continued to engage in a 

variety of activities designed to further the professionalism of 

military justice practice, particularly at the appellate level. The 

Division’s counsel participated in events hosted by USCAAF. 

Appellate government counsel have actively built relationships with 

sister service counterparts through participation in quarterly 

meetings and regular consultation on matters of common interest to 

all the services. The Division also hosted one summer intern, a law 

student who had completed the second year of law school and expressed 

an interest in service as a judge advocate. 

 

 The Division receives crucial appellate counsel support from 

eight assigned reserve judge advocates, especially during manning 

shortages and caseload surges. They continue to provide superb 

support, greatly assisting the Division in carrying out its mission. 

In addition to preparing written briefs, one reserve counsel 

presented oral arguments during the fiscal year. 

A summary of Air Force Appellate Government practice follows: 

AFCCA FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14

 Briefs Filed 123 144 233 188 175 

 Cases Argued 9 14 14 14 18 

 

USCAAF FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14

 Briefs Filed 28 29 36 30 40 

 Cases Argued 12 15 9 9 14 
117 

 

SUPREME 

COURT 

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14

 Petition/Waiver 

Filed 

 3 1 1 1 0 

 Briefs Filed 0 0 0 0 0 

SENIOR TRIAL COUNSEL 

STCs are detailed to prosecute cases by the Division 

headquarters at Joint Base Andrews, MD and their primary 

responsibility is to represent the government in the most complex 

general courts-martial. STCs prosecute approximately 80 percent of 

all Air Force general courts-martial and a higher percentage of the 

Air Force sexual-assault cases. They are also available for special 

courts-martial, discharge boards and other proceedings, as resources 

allow. 

 Personnel authorizations for the fiscal year included 19 Senior 

Trial Counsel (STC) at eight locations worldwide: six counsel at 

Joint Base Andrews, MD; two counsel each at Ramstein AB, GE; Joint 

Base Lewis-McChord, WA; Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph, TX; Nellis 

AFB, NV; Peterson AFB, CO; and Maxwell AFB, AL; and a single counsel 

at Kadena AB, Japan. 

In 2014, the STC program continued to leverage the experience 

and skill of its seven Special Victims Unit (SVU) prosecutors. The 

SVU prosecutors handle the most serious, most complicated, and 

highest-visibility sexual-assault cases in the Air Force. The SVU 

prosecutors, along with the rest of the STCs, are supported by the 

SVU’s Chief of Policy & Coordination, who is the Division’s focal 

point for issues related to sexual assault; an STC liaison with the 

Defense Computer Forensics Laboratory, who is the Air Force’s legal 

expert on issues related to digital evidence; and a deep bench of 

experienced and motivated appellate attorneys who provide tremendous 

24/7 reach-back capability for litigation issues that arise in the 

field. 

In 2014, STCs spent in excess of 3,000 days, approximately 180 

days per counsel, on temporary duty away from their home stations, 

and represented the government in more than 400 courts-martial and 

related proceedings. Again this year, the STCs took part in the 

Advanced Sexual Assault Litigation Course (ASALC) along with members 

of the Division’s leadership who attended as faculty. The STCs also 

once again attended the STC-SVU Training Course, which replaces the 
118 

annual STC Conference typically held at Joint Base Andrews, MD. At 

this revamped Training Course, the STCs received training specially 

tailored for the high-profile cases they prosecute and enhanced peerto-peer education in a variety of subject areas. STCs also attended 

various training courses across the country, both military and 

civilian, and continued the valuable tradition of spending a week 

performing appellate work in our appellate office, which broadened 

their trial and appellate perspective and enhanced their litigation 

skills. 

APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISION 

 The Appellate Defense Division (JAJA) ended Fiscal Year 2014 

with 11 active duty judge advocates, nine reserve judge advocates, 

one civilian attorney and three paralegals. The Division moved its 

docket despite rotating its three most senior military attorneys 

during the summer PCS cycle and deploying one attorney for six 

months. As in past years, reserve component Judge Advocates 

continued to provide significant support. 

Promoting timely appellate review remained a priority in CY 2014 

for JAJA. The Division considerably reduced the number of cases 

pending initial briefing to the AFCCA. On 1 June 2014, appellate 

counsel had 170 cases pending initial briefing to AFCCA—the highest 

total since 1 Dec 2011. By the end of the fiscal year, that number 

had been reduced to 143—the lowest number since 1 Oct 2013. 

JAJA advocacy contributed to several notable rulings from the 

appellate courts which helped clarify the rights of accused and 

impacted the practice of military justice at the trial level. In 

United States v. Knapp, 73 M.J. 470 (C.A.A.F. 2014), CAAF held that 

“human lie detector” testimony was inadmissible and prejudicial, 

setting aside the findings and sentence. In United States v. Wicks, 

73 M.J. 93 (C.A.A.F. 2014), CAAF overruled AFCCA and reinstated a 

trial judge’s exclusion of evidence illegally seized from the 

appellant’s smart phone, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of the 

case. In United States v. McPherson, 73 M.J. 393 (C.A.A.F. 2014), 

CAAF affirmed AFCCA’s holding that “there is no geographic 

limitation” to Article 12 UCMJ’s prohibition against the co-mingling 

of US servicemembers and foreign nationals in confinement. In United 

States v. Janssen, 73 M.J. 221 (C.A.A.F. 2014), CAAF held that 

SECDEF’s appointment of a civilian judge to AFCCA violated the 

Appointments Clause of the US Constitution, resulting in the remand 

of over 30 cases back to AFCCA for review by a properly constituted 

panel. In United States v. Seton, (unpublished opinion), AFCCA 

upheld a trial judge’s decision to dismiss a sexual assault case with 

prejudice due to the Air Force Office of Investigation’s failure to 
119 

preserve potentially exculpatory video evidence. In United States v. 

Soto, (unpublished en banc opinion), AFCCA overturned the rape 

conviction of a military training instructor, finding it to be 

factually insufficient. As a result, his sentence was set aside and 

he was released from confinement. 

The Appellate Defense Division continued to support trial 

defense counsel in the field through consultation, including during 

time-critical situations. In addition, Appellate defense counsel 

kept counsel in the field updated on new developments in military 

criminal law via a quarterly newsletter and appellate updates 

throughout the year. These appellate updates included briefing the 

Defense Orientation Courses held at TJAGS at Maxwell AFB. 

The following figures reflect the Division’s workload over the past 

six fiscal years: 

AFCCA 

FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY 13 FY 14

Briefs Filed 285 290 299 295 221 205 

Cases Argued 16 4 9 12 10 19 

USCAAF 

FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY 13 FY 14

Supplements to 

Petitions 

 

 336 204 160 220 257 222 

Grant Briefs 12 18 11 12 5 17 

Cases Argued 13 17 17 9 10 15 

SUPREME COURT 

FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY 14

Petitions 3 2 1 1 1 1 

Briefs in 

Opposition 

 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Briefs on the 

Merits 

 0 0 0 0 0 0 
120 

Appellate defense counsel participated in AFCCA-sponsored 

Project Outreach oral arguments by conducting oral arguments before 

external audiences with ties to the military and legal professions. 

The Project serves a dual-purpose as a recruiting tool while 

highlighting the fairness and professionalism of the military justice 

system. During the year, Outreach arguments were presented at the 

Air Force Judge Advocate Generals’ School and the Georgetown 

University Law Center by conducting oral arguments before brand new 

JAGs and law students respectively. 

TRIAL DEFENSE DIVISION 

 

The Trial Defense Division (JAJD) is responsible for providing 

all defense services within the Air Force through its worldwide team 

of Area Defense Counsel (ADCs), Defense Paralegals (DPs), Senior 

Defense Counsel (SDCs), Chief Senior Defense Counsel (CSDCs), and 

Defense Paralegal Managers (DPMs). The Chief, JAJD, is assisted by a 

Deputy Chief, Policy and Training, and an Office Superintendent at 

Joint Base Andrews, MD. 

 During Fiscal Year 2014, the Division was staffed with 85 ADCs. 

The ADCs teamed with 74 base-level DPs stationed at 69 bases 

worldwide. The Division also had 19 SDCs and 3 CSDCs. Each CSDC 

supervised 6-7 SDCs, and a DPM was assigned to each of the 3 CSDCs. 

The SDCs were stationed at Joint Base Andrews, MD; Joint Base 

Langley-Eustis, VA; Joint Base Charleston, SC; Hurlburt Field, FL; 

Maxwell AFB, AL; Barksdale AFB, LA; Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph, 

TX; Sheppard AFB, TX; Tinker AFB, OK; Peterson AFB, CO; Offutt AFB, 

NE; Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA; Travis AFB, CA; Nellis AFB, NV; 

Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ; Yokota AB, JP; Kadena AB, JP; RAF Lakenheath, 

UK; and Ramstein AB, GE. Each SDC was co-located with the ADC office 

at their respective locations. Together, these 187 professionals 

provided defense services to more than 300,000 Airmen around the 

world. 

The continuing success of the Air Force’s ADC Program is largely 

attributable to its independence and the effective and zealous 

advocacy of its personnel. To ensure the best representation for Air 

Force clients, training remains JAJD’s top priority. Each SDC 

provided on-the-job training and mentoring to the ADCs in their 

charge on a continuing basis. Each CSDC, in turn, mentored the SDCs 

in their charge. Newly appointed ADCs and DPs received formal 

training at the combined Defense Orientation Course held at AFJAGS. 

SDCs attended a Division-run Leadership Course at Joint Base Andrews, 

MD. Defense personnel also attended Trial Advocacy Courses conducted 

at The Air Force Judge Advocate General’s School (AFJAGS). 

Furthermore, the Division continues to send ADCs and SDCs to the 
121 

Trial and Defense Advocacy Course and the Advanced Trial Advocacy 

Course at AFJAGS as appropriate, as well as various civilian 

sponsored training courses. 

Fiscal year 2014 saw JAJD’s continued engagement with the 

various congressionally mandated panels charged with revisions to the 

UCMJ. No fewer than 5 JAJD attorneys met to educate these panels on 

the role of Air Force Defense Counsel and explain, from a defense 

perspective, the impact of various proposed changes on the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice. 

MILITARY JUSTICE DIVISION 

The Military Justice Division (JAJM) prepares opinions and 

policy positions for the Secretary of the Air Force, The Chief of 

Staff, and The Judge Advocate General. The Division also assembles 

reports on military justice issues requested by the White House, 

Congress, Department of Defense and the Air Staff. JAJM represents 

the Air Force on the DoD Joint Services Committee on Military Justice 

(JSC). The Division provides representatives to all inter-service 

activities involving military justice and support for the Article 

146, UCMJ, Code Committee. JAJM serves as the action agency for the 

preparation of advisory opinions on military justice issues raised in 

applications submitted to the Air Force Board for Correction of 

Military Records (AFBCMR). 

During the past fiscal year, JAJM provided 138 formal opinions 

concerning AFBCMR applications; received 57 inquires in specific 

cases requiring formal written replies to senior officials, including 

the President and Members of Congress; and reviewed 34 records of 

trial for review under Article 69a, UCMJ, and three records under 

Article 69b, UCMJ. 

The Division twice presented the annual Military Justice 

Administration Workshop at The Air Force Judge Advocate General’s 

School (AFJAGS), a “back to basics” two-week workshop attended by 

both judge advocates and paralegals. Division personnel taught at an 

additional number of military justice related courses, to include 

Gateway—an intermediate judge advocate course for majors at Maxwell 

AFB, Alabama, Group Commanders’ Course, the Sexual Assault Response 

Coordinator Course, and Special Victims’ Counsel Course. Members of 

the Special Victims’ Counsel Program and JAJM provided presentations 

at the American Bar Association Mid-Year and Annual Conferences and 

the National Sexual Assault Conference, and provided the opening 

address at the 2014 National Crime Victims’ Law Conference. 
122 

Division personnel also taught the JAG Corps, through numerous 

webcasts, on new law and policy regarding the prosecution of military 

justice cases, particularly sexual assault cases. Highlights 

included instruction on the overhaul of the Article 32 process—now a 

Preliminary Hearing vice Investigation—the rights of victims during 

the court-martial process, sexual assault reporting requirements, 

interaction and requests for information with and for Special 

Victims’ Counsel, etc. 

In Sep 14, the Air Force implemented a Victim Witness Assistance 

Program (VWAP) Distance Education Course. It is an-depth online 

course, presented over 5 weeks focusing on teaching VWAP coordinators 

and victim liaisons how to discuss the military justice process with 

victims, enhance their understanding of the neurobiology of trauma 

and counterintuitive behavior, understand their role in Special 

Victim Capability, and help ensure every VWAP coordinator and victim 

liaison is familiar with Air Force and civilian resources available 

to victims of crime. The course is run by AFJAGS and the student 

population consists of civilian and military paralegals and 

attorneys. The course is recommended for VWAP coordinators, victim 

liaisons, or those who will be performing supervisory duties over 

VWAP coordinators and victim liaisons. 

JAJM supported the war effort in Fiscal Year 2014 by deploying 

our Law Office Superintendent to Afghanistan. Additionally, the 

Division hosted two summer interns, law students who had completed a 

year of law school and expressed an interest in service as judge 

advocates. 

JAJM continued to coordinate military justice actions with highlevel agencies, such as working closely with the Department of 

Justice on testimonial immunity requests for non-military witnesses 

and with the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force on officer 

requests to resign rather than face trial by court-martial. Division 

personnel were once again instrumental in drafting proposed changes 

to the Military Rules of Evidence and Rules for Courts-Martial for 

pending executive orders. 

Division personnel served as the Air Force’s action officers for 

all requests for information, documents, witnesses, and support to 

the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel (RSP), the 

Judicial Proceedings Panel (JPP), and the Military Justice Review 

Group (MJRG). The RSP was established by the Secretary of Defense, 

as required by Section 576(a)(1) of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, and conducted an independent 

review and assessment of the systems used to investigate, prosecute, 

and adjudicate crimes involving adult sexual assault and related 
123 

offenses. The RSP completed its report in June 2014 which contained 

132 recommendations in the area of victim services, victim rights, 

the role of the commander in the military justice process; and the 

investigation, prosecution, and adjudication of sexual assault. The 

JPP, established by the Secretary of Defense as required by Section 

576(a) of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013, continues to conduct an 

independent review and assessment of judicial proceedings conducted 

under the UCMJ involving adult sexual assault and related offenses 

since the amendments made to the UCMJ section 541 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012; and the MJRG was 

established when the Secretary of Defense directed the General 

Counsel of the Department of Defense to conduct a comprehensive 

review of the military justice system. To carry out the review, the 

General Counsel established the MJRG. The MJRG’s review is focused 

on the structure and operation of the UCMJ and the MCM. 

CLEMENCY, CORRECTIONS AND OFFICER REVIEW DIVISION 

At the end of fiscal year 2014, 344 Air Force personnel were in 

confinement. Of those, 87 inmates were in long-term confinement at 

the United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 

and 51 were serving their sentence in the Federal Bureau of Prisons 

system. The number of Air Force members and former members on parole 

or Mandatory Supervised Release at the end of fiscal year 2014 was 

58. 

During the reporting period, the division reviewed nine Article 

71, UCMJ, officer dismissal cases. As was recommended, the Secretary 

approved the dismissals in all cases. The division also reviewed 

eight enlisted cases for Secretarial clemency under Article 74, UCMJ. 

None of them contained circumstances so compelling that warranted 

forwarding to the Secretary with a recommendation of clemency. 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL’S SCHOOL 

The Air Force Judge Advocate General’s School is the educational 

arm of the JAG Corps. Located at Maxwell AFB, Alabama, the JAG 

School provided education and training in all aspects of military 

legal practice to attorneys and paralegals from all military 

services, other federal agencies, and several foreign countries. 

Military justice instruction topics included advocacy, 

administration, the rules of evidence, the rules of procedure, and 

sexual assault policy and response. JAG School faculty members also 

provided instruction on military justice for several schools and 

colleges throughout Air University, the Air Force’s center for 

professional military education. During Fiscal Year 2014, JAG School 
124 

faculty members instructed more than 16,000 students at these 

military institutions. 

 Additionally, the JAG School published articles concerning 

military justice and other criminal justice issues in The Reporter, 

The Air Force Law Review, and The Military Commander and the Law. 

JAG School webcasts allow subject-matter experts to teach current 

military justice topics to personnel who work in all base legal 

offices, area defense counsel offices, and special victims’ counsel 

offices. In FY14, there were several live webcasts on military 

justice topics including significant changes following the passage of 

the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act. These webcasts were 

seen live by over 900 JAGs and are available “on demand” on CAPSIL. 

CAPSIL is a web-based collaborative learning and management system 

administered by the JAG School and accessible to all members of the 

JAG Corps. 

 Over 2,600 students attended in-residence and distance education 

courses in Fiscal Year 2014. With nearly 60 AFJAGS course offerings, 

the following devoted substantial resources to military justicerelated topics: 

 Advanced Sexual Assault Litigation Course 

Advanced Trial Advocacy Course 

Annual Survey of the Law 

 Article 32 Pretrial Hearing Officer Course (Distance Education) 

Defense Orientation Course (for new Area Defense Counsel and 

Defense Paralegals) 

 GATEWAY (the JAG Corps’ advanced leadership course for field 

grade officers) 

Intermediate Sexual Assault Litigation Course (held regionally 

in the United States and overseas) 

Joint Military Judges’ Annual Training 

 Judge Advocate Staff Officer’s Course 

 Law Office Manager Course 

 Military Justice Administration Course 

 Paralegal Apprentice Course 

 Paralegal Craftsman Course 

 Special Victims’ Counsel Course 

 Staff Judge Advocate Course 

 Trial and Defense Advocacy Course 

 Victim/Witness Assistance Program Course (Distance Education) 

 In addition to the above courses, the JAG School continued its 

administration of the TRIALS program – “Training by Reservists in 

Advocacy and Litigation Skills” – where teams of JAG School faculty, 

augmented by Reserve judge advocates, conduct regional courses in 
125 

foundational advocacy skills. In FY2014, TRIALS programs were 

conducted at Las Angeles AFB, CA; Maxwell AFB, AL; Keesler AFB, MS, 

Patrick AFB, FL; Ramstein AB, Germany; Schriever AFB, CO; Lackland 

AFB, TX; Nellis AFB, NV; McChord AFB, WA; Andrews AFB, MD; Wright 

Patterson AFB, OH; and Osan AB, South Korea. 

 Finally, the JAG School will host the inaugural Senior Officer 

Legal Orientation Course held in conjunction with the Air Force 

Commander’s Course. This new course, as approved by the Chief of 

Staff, will provide dedicated legal training, which will prepare 

Group and Wing Commanders to exercise their authorities assigned 

under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This two-day course will 

be offered five times a year and focus on military justice, civil and 

international law topics. 

LEGAL INFORMATION SERVICES 

 The Legal Information Services Directorate (AFLOA/JAS) acquires 

and develops new legal information technology (IT) tools and improves 

existing ones to better support military justice business processes 

throughout the Air Force. 

 As noted in last year’s review, AFJAGC has identified 

requirements to fix deficiencies with the Automated Military Justice 

Analysis and Management System (AMJAMS) and to enhance commanders’ 

abilities to maintain good order and discipline. In the review 

process of Program Objective Memorandum documentation prepared by 

AFLOA/JAS in collaboration with AFLOA/JAJM and AF/JAZ, the SAF/US(M) 

office identified a similar case management system need of the Air 

Force Review Board Agency (AFRBA). Comparing functional requirements 

for a case management system, AFJAGC and AFRBA found significant 

overlap in requirements and SAF/US(M) concurred that it made sense 

for the two organizations to partner in the acquisition efforts of a 

common case management system platform configurable to each 

organization’s specific case management processes. Leveraging 

consulting contractors utilized by AFRBA, AFLOA/JAS and AFJAGC, 

military justice subject matter experts worked with SAF/US(M) to map 

disciplinary case processes and workflows and validate requirements 

as part of the Air Force’s Service Development and Delivery Process 

(SDDP), a required step for funding certification and acquisition of 

significant IT projects. 

 On a related note, AFLOA/JAS is also pursuing the development of 

a Special Victims Counsel case management solution. As discussed in 

last year’s review, with the stand-up of the Air Force’s SVC program 

in January 2013 there was an immediate need to track SVC cases. 

Because there was insufficient time to develop a stand-alone program 
126 

or incorporate a new requirement within AMJAMS, AFLOA/JAS established 

a SharePoint site for the SVC office to track representation and 

assistance provided. The site serves the SVC program’s basic needs 

but a more robust IT solution is necessary as the SVC program 

continues to expand in scope. With development funding received in 

April 2014, AFLOA/JAS will utilize the SVC case management 

requirement in the SDDP’s course of action analysis step to evaluate 

an IT solution for the SVC case management need as well as the 

broader disciplinary case management requirements associated with 

fixing the deficiencies in AMJAMS. 

SPECIAL VICTIMS’ COUNSEL DIVISION 

The Special Victims’ Counsel (SVC) Division advances the Air 

Force mission by promoting justice, strengthening confidence in the 

military justice system, and offering legal assistance services 

through independent legal counsel to victims of sex related offenses 

during the investigation and prosecution process. What began as a 

pilot program in January 2013, the Special Victims’ Counsel (SVC) 

Program was codified as an enduring form of legal assistance to 

eligible sexual assault victims by 10 U.S.C. §1044(e). The 

statutorily authorized program expanded in eligibility (to child 

victims of sexual assault defined under Article 120b and Reservists 

in any status) and in types of offenses for which victims could 

receive representation (Article 120c offenses). 

As noted above, on 24 June 2014, the AF SVC Program began 

representing child victims of sexual assault. The SVC Program drafted 

updated Rules of Practice and Procedure to incorporate this expanded 

client eligibility. Additionally, in partnership with the Judge 

Advocate General’s School, the SVC Program developed and then 

provided specialized training to 117 judge advocates, paralegals and 

civilians from the Air Force, Army, Navy, Marines and Coast Guard, to 

assist SVCs in representing children. In the first six months of this 

expanded program, Air Force SVCs have represented 25 minor children 

clients. SVCs have represented child clients in law enforcement and 

government and defense attorney interviews, assisted in a 

humanitarian move request, and protected privacy interests and 

military crime victim rights in pretrial, trial and post-trial 

proceedings. 

In July 2014, the Division included a headquarters staff with a 

Colonel (O-6) division chief, a General Schedule-14 associate chief, 

and 24 Special Victims’ Counsel and 10 Special Victims’ Paralegals 

who served in regional and satellite offices at 22 locations 

worldwide. As of September 2014, the Division grew to included 28 

Special Victims’ Counsel and 10 Special Victims’ Paralegals at 19 
127 

locations worldwide. The number of SVCs will continue to expand 

throughout FY15. In January 2015, the total number of SVCs will 

reach 33, and by the summer of 2015 will expand to 40. As the number 

of SVCs grew, the need for mid-level Senior Special Victim Counsel 

(SSVC) to handle complex cases, assist in Program administration and 

provide mid-level supervision became clear. Consequently, in January 

2015, three Major (O-4) SSVCs will join the Program (to be included 

in the 33 total), located at Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph, TX; 

Joint Base Andrews, MD; and Nellis AFB, NV. 

As of August 2014, the JAG Corps more formalized its screening 

process for nominating the “best qualified” judge advocates for 

SVCs/SSVCs. This screening process was employed in the Fall of 2014 

to nominate the SVCs/SSVCs projected for January 2015 and July 2015 

assignments. The process began with a call from the Director of 

Professional Development (AF/JAX) for nominations to every MAJCOM 

Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) and Director to solicit input for “best 

qualified” personnel. Criteria included not only trial experience 

and work ethic but a maturity demonstrated by successful, positive 

interaction with victims. Nominations were then vetted through the 

Chief, SVC Division who made recommendations to assist The Judge 

Advocate General in his selections. 

 The SVC Program received recognition from both the civilian and 

military legal communities in 2014. The Department of Justice 

awarded the Air Force Special Victims’ Counsel Program the Federal 

Service Award for providing victims with free legal representation 

and guiding them through the military justice process. In a press 

release announcing the award, Attorney General Eric Holder stated, 

“[t]hrough their courage and critical contributions to assist and 

empower victims, these individuals and organizations have given hope 

to countless Americans victimized by crime—even under the most 

difficult circumstances.” Additionally, the Special Victims’ Counsel 

Program received the only “Superior Team” award during the Air Force 

Legal Operations Agency Unit Effectiveness Inspection (UEI). The 

former Special Victims’ Counsel Division Chief was also the first Air 

Force recipient in the 15-year history of the national Burton Award 

for Public Service, which is presented to individuals in the legal 

profession demonstrating the highest degree of professionalism and 

integrity employed in the executive branch of government. 

AF SVC Program leaders, possessing some of the most current, 

broadest and successful experience in representing sexual assault 

victims, have informed military policy at the highest levels and 

paved the way for the development of similar Federal and state crime 

victims’ policy. SVC Program Chiefs have testified at the 

Congressionally-mandated Response Systems Panel, the Military Justice 
128 

Review Group, and the Judicial Proceedings Panel. They have shared 

their expertise through presentations in professional organization 

forums. Members of the Special Victims’ Counsel Program and Military 

Justice Division (AFLOA/JAJM) provided presentations at the American 

Bar Association Mid-Year and Annual Conferences and the National 

Sexual Assault Conference. Additionally, they provided the opening 

address at the 2014 National Crime Victims’ Law Conference. 

At the end of FY14, 1123 victims of sexual assault received SVC 

representation. SVCs have attended 171 courts-martial, 208 Article 

32 hearings, and 1660 interviews. SVCs have asserted victims’ 

privacy rights, increased their voice in the military justice process 

by informing convening authorities of their preferences for 

prosecution or non-prosecution and submitting post-trial victim 

impact statements, addressed safety concerns, advocated for expedited 

transfers or alternate duty locations/working hours, assisted with 

collateral misconduct, addressed workplace/unit concerns and 

facilitated recovery of critically needed financial support during 

times of crisis. 

The feedback from victims represented by an SVC has been 

overwhelmingly positive. An impressive 91% of victims surveyed 

indicated they were "extremely satisfied" with their SVC's 

representation and 8% were “satisfied,” resulting in an overall 99% 

satisfaction rate. Additionally, 99% of those surveyed would 

recommend other victims request an SVC. Finally, 39% of restricted 

report victims represented by an SVC have converted their restricted 

report to an unrestricted report. 

PERSONNEL 

 As of 30 September 2014, the Air Force Judge Advocate General's 

Corps had 1,246 judge advocates on active duty. Company grade 

officers (lieutenants and captains) made up approximately 50% of that 

number (627). Approximately 23% were majors (288) and approximately 

18% were lieutenant colonels (222). Colonels (106) and above, 

including one lieutenant general, one major general, and one 

brigadier general, comprised approximately 9% of the Corps. As of 30 

September 2014, there were 842 paralegals on active duty. Senior 

airmen and below made up approximately 23% of that number (192). 

Staff sergeants made up approximately 30% (249), while 26% were 

technical sergeants (216) and master sergeants made up approximately 

16% (134). Senior master and chief master sergeants made up 4% (35) 

and 2% (16) respectively. In addition, there were 848 civilians, of 

which 451 were attorneys (53%), 245 were paralegals/legal assistants 

(28%) and 152 were non-legal personnel (19%). Grade breakdowns 

includes 332 GS-11s and below, 76 GS-12s, 134 GS-13s, 193 GS-14s and 
129 

113 GS-15s. The Air Reserve Component (ARC) of The Judge Advocate 

General's Corps included 906 Air Force Reserve Individual 

Mobilization Augmentees (IMA), Air Force Traditional Reserve unitassigned, and Air National Guard judge advocates, of which 22% (203) 

were company grade officers and 66% (596) were field grade officers 

(majors and lieutenant colonels). The remaining 12% consisted of 102 

colonels, four brigadier generals, and one major general. The ARC 

also includes 398 paralegals, of which 1% (3) were Airmen or Airmen 

First Class, 11%(43) were Senior Airmen, 22% (86) were Staff 

Sergeants, 33% (131) were Technical Sergeants, 25% (98) were Master 

Sergeants, 5% (18) were Senior Master Sergeants, and 3% (12) were 

Chief Master Sergeants. 

CHRISTOPHER F. BURNE 

Lieutenant General, USAF 

The Judge Advocate General 
130 
131 
132 
133 

SECTION 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE COAST GUARD 
134 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE U. S. COAST GUARD 

October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2014 

PERSONNEL AND TRAINING 

 The Coast Guard has 194 officers designated as judge advocates 

serving on active duty. Coast Guard lawyers currently serving in 

legal billets outside the Coast Guard include the Staff Judge 

Advocate to NORTHCOM, the Staff Judge Advocate to Joint Interagency 

Task Force South, as well as senior staff attorneys (O-4 and O-5) 

assigned to NORTHCOM, AFRICOM, SOUTHCOM, PACOM, Naval War College, 

the Defense Institute of International Legal Studies, and the Naval 

Justice School. The Coast Guard also has a judge advocate detailed to 

a one year fellowship in the Office of Legal Counsel to the Chairman 

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in assignment year 2014. In addition, 

the Coast Guard has several active duty judge advocates detailed to 

the Department of Justice, Department of State, and Department of 

Homeland Security. The Coast Guard also has a senior judge advocate 

assigned to the Department of Defense Military Justice Review Group. 

 Coast Guard judge advocates are line officers. The Coast Guard 

does not have a judge advocate general corps. Over fifty judge 

advocates are currently assigned in non-legal “out-of-specialty” 

billets. They include the Coast Guard Deputy Commandant for 

Operations (O-9), and the Director, Exercises and Training, U.S. 

Cyber Command (O-7). Other judge advocates in out-of-specialty 

assignments include command cadre of Coast Guard cutters, sectors, 

training centers, and support commands. 

 The Coast Guard employs ninety-two civilian attorneys ranging 

from GS-13 to SES. 

 The Coast Guard sent attorneys to forty different courses of 

instruction during fiscal year 2014, primarily at the various service 

JAG schools. Twenty-three Coast Guard officers are currently 

undergoing postgraduate studies to complete a JD degree and will be 

certified as judge advocates at the successful completion of their 

studies. One judge advocate is attending the Graduate Course at the 

United States Army Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School 

and another is a fellow in the Center for Law and Military Operations 

at TJAGLCS. 

Fifteen Coast Guard officers completed the Navy Basic Lawyer 

Course in Newport, Rhode Island. All have been or are in the process 

of being certified under Article 27(b), UCMJ. 
135 

U. S. COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

The judges on the U.S. Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals at 

the end of fiscal year 2014 were: 

Chief Judge Lane I. McClelland 

Judge Patrick J. McGuire 

Judge John F. Havranek 

Judge Kathleen A. Duignan 

Judge Andrew Norris 

Judge Sean P. Gill 

Judge John S. Luce 

Judge Peter J. Clemens 

Judge Amy E. Kovac 

MILITARY JUSTICE ORGANIZATION 

Fourteen Staff Judge Advocates advise eighteen officers 

exercising general court-martial jurisdiction. Those fourteen SJAs, 

as well as three additional independent duty SJAs at training 

centers, advise approximately 350 officers exercising special courtmartial jurisdiction. Responsibility for detailing trial and defense 

counsel to general and special courts-martial rests with the Chief, 

Office of Legal and Defense Services, a staff office reporting to the 

Deputy Judge Advocate General charged with providing defense and 

personal legal services to Coast Guard members. Pursuant to an interservice memorandum of understanding, the U.S. Navy provides trial 

defense counsel for all Coast Guard courts-martial. In return, four 

Coast Guard attorneys are assigned to full time duty, typically for 

one-year or two-year assignments, at one or more Navy Defense Service 

Offices or Regional Legal Service Offices. 

 The Coast Guard had one general court-martial judge and ten 

collateral-duty special court-martial judges at the end of fiscal 

year 2014. The Chief Trial Judge details all military judges to Coast 

Guard courts-martial. The service received approval to recall an 

additional general court-martial judge from retirement for up to two 

years to handle the increased case load, beginning in fiscal year 

2015. 

 The Office of Military Justice at Coast Guard Headquarters 

is responsible for representing the United States in all courtmartial appeals and providing support to staff judge advocates and 

trial counsel throughout the Coast Guard. The office is also 

responsible for developing military justice policy for the Coast 
136 

Guard, including participation on the Joint Service Committee on 

Military Justice. A CAPT (O-6) serves as the Chief of Military 

Justice. In fiscal year 2014, the Coast Guard hired a GS-15 attorney 

to serve as that officer’s deputy and provide subject matter expertise 

and assistance for the prosecution of alleged sexual assault offenses, 

training for trial counsel, and continuity for complex and lengthy sexual 

assault prosecutions and appeals. Three judge advocates are assigned 

primary duty as appellate government counsel. 

 Additionally, the Office of Special Victims’ Counsel (SVC) 

provides legal counsel to victims of sexual-related offenses. The SVC 

program also provides additional resources to ensure victims of 

sexual assault understand their rights in the legal process and that 

those rights are observed. The Coast Guard received funding to hire a 

GS-15 to lead the SVC program, beginning in fiscal year 2015, which 

will further enhance its capabilities and continuity. The GS-15 will 

report directly to the Chief, Officer of Member Advocacy and Legal 

Assistance. Twenty judge advocates were assigned to serve as SVC in 

fiscal year 2014; one CDR (O-5), eight LCDRs (O-4), and 11 LTs (O-3). 

Three judge advocates were assigned full-time duties as SVC; the 

remaining attorneys served as SVC on a collateral basis. Additional 

full-time attorneys will be added in fiscal year 2015. 

 

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Fiscal Year 14 13 12 11 10 

General Courts-Martial 23 09 14 06 12 

Special Courts-Martial 22 14 14 32 20 

Summary Courts-Martial 30 20 17 19 09 

Total 75 43 45 57 41 

ADDITIONAL MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

 Appendix A contains the Coast Guard, fiscal year 2014 military 

justice statistics. 

APPELLATE REVIEW PROCESS 

 The service’s goal is to ensure 100% compliance with post-trial 

processing timelines, as established in United States v. Moreno, 63 

M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F. 2006). In fiscal year 2014, nineteen of twenty-two 

cases complied with the Moreno post-trial processing timelines. In 

United States v. Molina, the convening authority took action 124 days 
137 

after sentence. In United States v. Ortega, the convening authority 

took action 144 days after sentence. Lastly, in United States v. 

Butler, the case was docketed with the Coast Guard Court of Criminal 

Appeals forty two days after the convening authority took action in 

the case. All three cases are still pending review by the service 

appellate court. 

 The Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals met its goal of 

eighteen months or less between the time a case is docketed to the 

issuance of an opinion in twelve of fourteen cases decided in fiscal 

year 2014. In United States v. Thoms, the court issued its decision 

twenty months after the case was referred to it. In United States v. 

Sullivan, the court issued its decision twenty four months after 

referral. 

 The court did not grant relief for post-trial delay in any case 

decided this fiscal year. 

 

 In fiscal year 2014, there were no court-martial convictions that 

were reversed as a result of command influence or denial of the right 

to a speedy review. 

 

 There were no cases this fiscal year in which the Coast Guard 

Court of Criminal Appeals found a provision of the UCMJ 

unconstitutional. 

MEASURES TO ENSURE COMPETENCE IN MILITARY JUSTICE PRACTICE 

 The greatest challenge faced by the Coast Guard in ensuring 

competence in the military justice practice is the small number of 

trials conducted service-wide in a given year. The Coast Guard has 

taken several actions to provide additional exposure to trial work 

for our judge advocates. 

The Coast Guard has a longstanding Memorandum of Understanding with 

the Navy whereby the Navy provides defense counsel for Coast Guard 

courts-martial and in return the Coast Guard provides four judge 

advocates at locations around the country to work for the Navy 

handling courts-martial of Coast Guard members, as well as members of 

the Navy and Marine Corps. These officers typically serve two year 

tours as defense counsel and leave those assignments with significant 

trial experience. Other Coast Guard judge advocates are offered 

military justice advocacy opportunities in conjunction with a Judge 

Advocate General policy requiring judge advocates to be detailed to 

represent a service member in a formal or informal proceeding. 
138 

The Coast Guard Legal Service Command (LSC), the only command in 

the service dedicated to the delivery of legal services, was created 

in 2009. The LSC is the only command that has judge advocates serving 

full time as trial counsel (a total of five). In addition to their 

principal support to the mission support commands served by LSC, they 

also support other staff judge advocates. Accordingly, those trial 

counsel are currently involved, in one capacity or another, in 

approximately eighty percent of the Coast Guard's courts-martial. 

The Office of Military Justice provides technical support to 

staff judge advocates and trial counsel and has periodically 

participated in cases at the trial level. The addition of the GS-15 

billet, which was filled by an experienced retired judge advocate 

with extensive court-martial experience, will allow the office to 

expand its support to field units and provide greater continuity to 

the office. 

In fiscal year 2014, the Judge Advocate General chartered a 

working group to study the Coast Guard’s military justice system and 

to propose ways to increase the proficiency of its practice. The 

working group, led by two senior O-6 judge advocates and comprised of 

judge advocates serving in a variety of roles, has submitted its 

recommendations for program-level analysis. 

In addition to military justice experience, many field legal 

offices maintain active Special Assistant U.S. Attorney (SAUSA) 

relationships with one or more U.S. Attorney offices that develop 

judge advocate trial and advocacy skills. Coast Guard SAUSAs 

generally prosecute felony cases arising out of Coast Guard 

operations. Four full-time SAUSAs in the Southern and Middle 

Districts of Florida, and the Central and Southern Districts of 

California focus on prosecution of drug smuggling cases, where the 

amounts seized in the drug cases are frequently measured in tons, and 

migrant smuggling cases. There are also many collateral duty SAUSA 

relationships around the country with Coast Guard judge advocates 

assisting in prosecution of not only drug and migrant smuggling 

cases, but other issues ranging from environmental crimes to seaman's 

manslaughter. 

Training also forms an important part of the development and 

maintenance of trial expertise. Coast Guard judge advocates are 

trained initially with the Navy and Marine Corps at the Naval Justice 

School, and regularly participate in trial advocacy courses offered 

by the Army, Navy, and Air Force, to include specialized courses, 

most particularly those dealing with sexual assault. For example, in 

fiscal year 2014, eighteen judge advocates attended the U.S. Army’s 

Special Victim Unit Investigator Course. The Coast Guard has also 
139 

sent judge advocates to courses sponsored by the Department of 

Justice National Advocacy Center and those offered by the National 

District Attorneys Association. The other armed forces permit the 

Coast Guard to make use of their Trial Counsel Assistance Program and 

Highly Qualified Experts that significantly add to the depth of 

knowledge and expertise available to Coast Guard trial counsel. 

As noted above, except for the four judge advocates assigned to 

the Navy at any given time pursuant to our MOU, the Navy provides 

defense counsel for Coast Guard members being tried by court-martial. 

The Coast Guard had one full time general court-martial judge, 

along with six collateral duty judges who hear only special courtsmartial, this fiscal year. The service will add an additional general 

court-martial judge in fiscal year 2015. Coast Guard judges are 

selected based on trial and staff judge advocate experience and 

attend initial training with all of the other services at the 

Military Judge Course at the Army's Judge Advocate General's Legal 

Center and School in Charlottesville, Virginia. Coast Guard judges 

also attend the annual Joint Military Judges training session. 

Several Coast Guard judges have also pursued individual courses as 

well as successful completion of certificates from the National 

Judicial College in Reno, Nevada. 

To date the Coast Guard has not tried a national security case 

or case referred as capital. Were such a case to arise, the Coast 

Guard would request assistance from the other armed forces to do so. 

Sexual Assault cases occur in the Coast Guard and are a focus of 

training and experience efforts; most of the training and experience 

efforts outlined above are specifically designed to improve trial 

counsel knowledge and experience in sexual assault cases. With some 

exceptions, sexual assaults are the most significant crimes handled 

in the Coast Guard military justice system and the Coast Guard is 

dedicated to handling these cases well. Also, recent Sexual Assault 

Prevention and Response efforts have made more training funds 

available, not only to train judge advocates, but to allow them to 

work with other professionals to train all members of the Coast Guard 

in sexual assault prevention and appropriate response when it does 

happen. 

The Coast Guard also provides training for civilian and enlisted 

legal support personnel to assist them in meeting legal technician 

and paralegal performance qualification standards prescribed by the 

Judge Advocate General. 

 
140 

VIEWS OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL ON RESOURCES 

The Coast Guard has sufficient judge advocates with sufficient 

experience to competently perform its military justice 

responsibilities. The increased number and complexity of courtsmartial is placing some strain on the existing Coast Guard military 

justice structure. The Judge Advocate General therefore chartered a 

working group to study the Coast Guard’s military justice system and 

to propose ways to increase the proficiency of its practice. The 

service consistently provides adequate resources to perform military 

justice functions. Attorneys are supported by civilians and enlisted 

personnel in the yeoman rating sufficient in number to support the 

mission. The service is currently studying whether there are a 

sufficient number of enlisted billets to support a separate legalman 

rate, as well as other ways to improve administrative legal support 

throughout the Coast Guard. 

S. D. POULIN 

Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard 

Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard 
141 

Appendix A: U. S. Coast Guard Courts-Martial/NJP Statistics for 

 October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2014 (FY 2014) 

APPENDIX A: U.S. COAST GUARD MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

Report Period: 1 OCTOBER 2013- 30 SEPTEMBER 2014 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/ 

DECREASE (-) OVER 

LAST REPORT 

GENERAL 23 22 01 +155.6% 

BCD SPECIAL 22 18 04 +57.1% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL* 00 00 00 0% 

SUMMARY 30 30 00 +50% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT +74.4% 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 

06 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 08 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 

09 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 12 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 09 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 02 

PART 4 – WORKLOAD OF THE COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 8 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 05 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 03 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 23 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 12 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 11 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 09 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 06 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 03 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 22 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 11 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 11 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER NUMBER OF CASES 

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

0% 

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

 U.S. COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (CCA) 

NUMBER 23 

PERCENTAGE 100% 

PART 6 – ACTIONS OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

 (CAAF) 

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 3/9 33.3% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +85% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 1/3 33.3% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD - 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CGCCA 1/9 11.1% 

 



 As a matter of practice, the Coast Guard does not try non-BCD special courts-martial. 
142 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER THE NUMBER OF CASES REVIEWED DURING 

LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

+76.1% 

U.S. COAST GUARD MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS - CONT’D

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 12 

RECEIVED 32 

DISPOSED OF 11 

 GRANTED 1 

 DENIED 10 

 NO JURISDICTION 00 

 WITHDRAWN 00 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 33 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 28 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 12 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 16 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 17 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 11 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 06 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 02 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 40179 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 699 

RATE PER 1,000 17.4% 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD -26.7% 
143