ANNUAL REPORT 

SUBMITTED TO THE 

COMMITTEES ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

AND THE 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AND TO THE 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, 

SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

AND 

SECRETARIES OF THE 

ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORCE 

PURSUANT TO THE 

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 

For the period 

October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010 
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 
SECTION 1 

JOINT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CODE COMMITTEE 
JOINT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE 

CODE COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO THE 

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 

October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010 

 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 Professor David 

A. Schlueter and Mr. Michael D. Wims, 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 9, 2010, 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 2009 Code Committee 

meeting, Chief Judge Effron called upon Commander David M. 

Harrison, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Executive Secretary of the Joint 

Service Committee on Military Justice, to provide a report 

on the work of the Committee. Commander Harrison informed 

the Code Committee of the following matters that had been 

addressed by the Joint Service Committee: (1) preparation 

of a legislative proposal to amend Article 47, UCMJ, to 

authorize trial counsel and Article 32 investigating 

officers to issue subpoenas duces tecum to allow review of 

documentary evidence prior to trial; (2) preparation of a 

legislative proposal to amend Article 48, UCMJ, to give 

military judges contempt power to punish “indirect” or 

“constructive” contempt such as non-compliance with court 

orders, and to increase the authorized fine to $1,000; (3) 

continued drafting and review of an enumerated Article 134, 

UCMJ, offense for child pornography; (4) preparation of a 

revision to Military Rule of Evidence 504 (spousal 

privilege) to cover situations where both spouses are 

jointly involved in illegal activity; (5) preparation of a 

change to Military Rule of Evidence 609 to bring it into 

conformance with Federal Rule of Evidence 609 regarding the 

admission of evidence of a previous conviction to impeach a 
witness’s character for truthfulness; and (6) added 

clarifying language in the explanation section of Article 

89, UCMJ (disrespect) that the article applies to uniformed 

officers of the Public Health Service and National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration when they are assigned to or 

serving with the armed forces. 

 Commander Harrison concluded by informing the Code 

Committee that the 2008 Annual Review had not been signed 

and was pending in the Office of Management and Budget. 

The 2009 Annual Review was published in the Federal 

Register for comment. He added that ongoing projects 

included efforts to amend Article 120, to repeal Article 

125 and create an enumerated offense under Article 134 for 

wrongful sexual activity, and to create an offense for 

animal abuse, abandonment and neglect. 

 Professor Schlueter raised two issues. The first was 

the issue of amending or deleting Military Rule of Evidence 

1102 concerning the conformance of the Military Rules of 

Evidence with the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Code 

Committee referred the issue to the Joint Service Committee 

for consideration. The second was the issue of amending 

Military Rule of Evidence 509 regarding the admissibility 

of a military judge’s deliberative process in view of 

United States v. Matthews, 68 M.J. 29 (C.A.A.F. 2009). 

This issue was also referred to the Joint Service Committee 

for consideration. 

 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. 

Andrew S. Effron 

Chief Judge 

James E. Baker 

Associate Judge 

Charles E. “Chip” Erdmann 

Associate Judge 
Scott W. Stucky 

Associate Judge 

Margaret A. Ryan 

Associate Judge 

Lieutenant General Dana K. Chipman, USA 

Judge Advocate General of the Army 

Vice Admiral James W. Houck, JAGC, USN 

The Judge Advocate General of the Navy 

Lieutenant General Richard C. Harding, USAF 

The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force 

Rear Admiral William D. Baumgartner, USCG 

The Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard 

Major General Vaughn Ary, USMC 

Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps 

Professor David A. Schlueter 

Public Member 

Mr. Michael D. Wims 

Public Member 
SECTION 2 

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE ARMED FORCES 
REPORT OF THE 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE ARMED FORCES 

September 1, 2009 to August 31, 2010 

 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 2009 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. 

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, 2009 to August 31, 2010. 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 2009 Term of Court, the Court 

again met its goal of issuing opinions in all cases heard 

during the Term prior to the end of the Term. 

 Following the recommendations of the Rules Advisory 

Committee, the Court adopted new rules for the electronic 

filing of pleadings and new Rule 21A, and amended Rules 

21(b), 21(b)(5)(G), and 30A(a) of the Rules of Practice and 

Procedure. Prior to adoption and amendment, the proposed 

changes were published for public comment in the Federal 

Register in Volume 75, No. 37 at pages 8682-83, No. 90 at 

page 26202, and No. 105 at pages 30793-94. 

1 
These new rules and amendments were also published 

following adoption in Volumes 68 and 69 of the Military 

Justice Reporter. They allow the electronic filing of 

nearly all pleadings filed with the Court, establish new 

procedures for filing matters raised pursuant to United 

States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), reduce the 

maximum size of supplements to petitions for grant of 

review, and provide guidance on submitting requests for the 

Court to consider factual material not contained in the 

record. 

 During the September 2009 Term, the Court admitted 353 

attorneys to practice before its Bar, bringing the 

cumulative total of admissions before the Bar of the Court 

to 35,096. 

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 2009 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 Vanderbilt 

University School of Law, Nashville, Tennessee, and Fort 

Campbell, Kentucky. 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. 

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CONFERENCE

 On March 10 and 11, 2010, the Court held its annual 

Continuing Legal Education Conference at the Columbus 

School of Law, Catholic University of America, Washington, 

D.C. The program for this Continuing Legal Education 

Conference was certified for credit to meet the continuing 

legal education requirements of State Bars throughout the 

United States. 

2 
The conference opened with welcoming remarks from the 

Honorable Andrew S. Effron, Chief Judge, United States 

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. 

He was followed by speakers for this year’s conference, 

including the Honorable Jeh Charles Johnson, General 

Counsel, Department of Defense; the Honorable Togo D. West, 

Jr. of the TLI Leadership Group and former Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs and former Secretary of the Army; Captain 

James W. Crawford, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, U.S. 

Navy, Legal Counsel to the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; 

the Honorable Steven J. McAuliffe, Chief Judge, U.S. 

District Court, District of New Hampshire; Mr. John Abele, 

Founding Chairman of Boston Scientific Corporation; Mr. 

Robert Poole, Author and Historian; Professor Laura Donohue 

of the Georgetown University Law Center; Mr. James 

McPherson, Executive Director of the National Association 

of Attorneys General; Mr. James Tierney, Director of the 

National State Attorneys General Program, Columbia 

University School of Law; Mr. Kim Taipale, Founder and 

Executive Director, Stilwell Center for Advanced Studies, 

Senior Fellow, World Policy Institute, and Adjunct 

Professor of Law, New York Law School; Mr. David F. Brash, 

Litigation Attorney, Air Force Legal Operations Agency; and 

Mr. Kenneth Feinberg, Feinberg Rozen, LLP. 

CEREMONY IN MEMORY OF ROBINSON O. EVERETT

 The passing of former Chief Judge Robinson O. Everett 

was noted in last year’s Annual Report. A Memorial Session 

of the Court in his honor was held on December 7, 2009. 

The proceedings are published in 69 M.J. LIX-XCIX. 

Andrew S. Effron 

Chief Judge 

James E. Baker 

Associate Judge 

Charles E. “Chip” Erdmann 

Associate Judge 

Scott W. Stucky 

Associate Judge 

3 
Margaret A. Ryan 

Associate Judge 

4 
USCAAF STATISTICAL REPORT 

SEPTEMBER 2009 TERM OF COURT 

CUMULATIVE SUMMARY

CUMULATIVE PENDING SEPTEMBER 1, 2009 

 Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 

 Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 

 Miscellaneous Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . 5

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 

CUMULATIVE FILINGS 

 Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 

 Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721 

 Miscellaneous Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . 29

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844 

CUMULATIVE DISPOSITIONS 

 Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 

 Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843 

 Miscellaneous Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . 30

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 967 

CUMULATIVE PENDING SEPTEMBER 1, 2010 

 Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 

 Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 

 Miscellaneous Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . 4

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 

OPINION SUMMARY

CATEGORY SIGNED PER CURIAM MEM/ORDER TOTAL

Master Docket . . . . 41 2 51 94 

Petition Docket . . . 0 0 843 843 

Miscellaneous Docket 0 0 30 30

TOTAL 41 2 924 967 

5 
MASTER DOCKET SUMMARY

FILINGS 

 Petitions granted from the Petition Docket . . 88 

 Certificates filed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

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

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

 Reconsideration granted. . . . . . . . . . . . 0

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 

DISPOSITIONS 

 Decisions affirmed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 

 Reversed in whole or in part . . . . . . . . . 33 

 Granted petitions vacated . . . . . . . . . . 0 

 Certificate Withdrawn . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 

PENDING 

 Awaiting briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 

 Awaiting oral argument . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 

 Awaiting lead case decision (trailer cases) . 3 

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 

PETITION DOCKET SUMMARY

FILINGS 

 Petitions for grant of review filed . . . . . 720 

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

 Petitions for reconsideration granted . . . . 0 

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721 

DISPOSITIONS 

 Petitions for grant of review denied . . . . . 753 

 Petitions for grant of review granted . . . . 88 

 Petitions for grant of review withdrawn . . . 0 

 Petitions for grant of review dismissed . . . 2

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843 

6 
PENDING 

 Awaiting pleadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 

 Awaiting Central Legal Staff review . . . . . 37 

 Awaiting final action . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET SUMMARY

FILINGS 

 Writ appeals sought . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 

 Writs of habeas corpus sought . . . . . . . . 2 

 Writs of error coram nobis sought . . . . . . 2 

 Other extraordinary relief sought . . . . . . 14

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 

DISPOSITIONS 

 Petitions or appeals denied . . . . . . . . . 25 

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

 Petitions or appeals dismissed . . . . . . . . 5 

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

 Petitions or appeals remanded . . . . . . . . 0

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 

PENDING 

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

 Awaiting staff review . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 

 Awaiting final action . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 

PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

ALL CASES DISPOSITIONS

Begin Pending 1 Denied 14 

Filed 13 Granted 0 

TOTAL 14 Withdrawn 0

 TOTAL 14 

End Pending 0 

7 
MOTIONS

ALL MOTIONS DISPOSITIONS

Begin Pending 23 Granted 314 

Filed 372 Denied 71

TOTAL 395 TOTAL 385 

End Pending 10 

8 
152

190

301

171

215

252 240

266 254

213

91

0

100

200

300

400

500

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Petition Docket Term End 
Master Docket Term End Pending

70

60

50 49 51

87

38

53

20

30 30

0

50

100

150

200

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Oral Arguments Per Year

113

81

68

56 58

74 74

56

65

47 43

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Total Opinions Per Year

124

110

7573

93

75

32

57

35

57 53

64

51

76

25

55

41

65

37

46

27

43

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

TOTAL SEPARATE OPINIONS (CONCUR, CONCUR IN THE RESULT, AND DISSENT)

TOTAL COURT OPINIONS
Days from Petition Filing to Grant

129 133 131

164

227 195

171

152

160 162

108

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Days from Petition Grant 

 to Oral Argument

148

125 127 122 130

146 150

126 132

114

136

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Days from Oral Argument 

 to Final Decision

169 176 176

117

144

164

148

85 86 83

99

0

50

100

150

200

250

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Days from Petition Filing 

to Final Decision

70

380

70

330

65

353

82

279

76

361

89

358

93

391

94

237

102

261

107

241

65

238

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

PETITION DOCKET (DENIAL/DISMISSAL/WITHDRAWAL)

MASTER DOCKET (GRANTED/CERTIFIED/DEATH CASES)
Days from Filing to 

Final Decision in All Cases

129

110 105

119

126 132

155

118

130

124

84

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Total Petitions Filed Per Year

753

926 974

694

802 779

1006 937

836 856

721

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

2250

2500

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
SECTION 3 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

ARMY 
REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE ARMY 

OCTOBER 1, 2009 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 

 During fiscal year 2010 (FY 10), The Judge Advocate 

General (TJAG) and senior members of his staff 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 Corps visited more 

than 30 installations and commands in the United States and 

overseas, to include forward areas, discussing military 

justice issues with commanders and their respective Staff 

Judge Advocates. The JAG Corps remains committed to 

sustaining excellence in the practice of military justice 

through a variety of initiatives and programs. 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL’S LEGAL CENTER AND SCHOOL 

(TJAGLCS) 

The cornerstone mission of the Criminal Law Department 

of The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School 

(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, 

while at the same time providing critical reach-back 

capability for military justice practitioners of all 

services. 

Advocacy training continues to be one of the Criminal 

Law Department’s top priorities. The Department devotes 

significant effort to training each Basic Course student on 

trial advocacy skills. 

1 
In addition to plenary instruction sessions and 

seminar classes, Basic Course students continue to complete

a series of twelve clinical events tied to a notional 

criminal case over the course of approximately two and onehalf weeks. Using this notional case, the faculty walks the 

students through the substance and process of a criminal 

case in the military justice system from the initial report 

of the offense, to trial and conviction, or acquittal of 

the alleged offender. For the first time this year the 

course of instruction included a number of self-paced 

exercises e-mailed to the students at various junctures 

during the Criminal Law course of instruction. The 

exercises are designed to replicate e-mails trial or 

defense counsel receive in the field from commanders and 

supervisors, requiring the students to identify and quickly 

solve a legal problem. 

The Criminal Law Department also continued instruction 

to military justice managers and senior paralegals with a 

heavy emphasis on pre- and post-trial processing. The 

fifty-five students of the 16th Military Justice Managers 

Course received significant instruction on the practical 

“how to” of court-martial pre- and post-trial processing, 

as well as substantive law instruction. As in past 

courses, justice managers received a number of useful 

resources on CD-Rom, including examples of case tracking 

systems, to assist them in their mission and to help them 

effectively continue teaching advocacy to their subordinate 

counsel. Guest speakers at the course included: a senior 

trial judge; the Chief, Army Trial Defense Service; the 

Deputy Clerk of the Army Court of Criminal Appeals; a 

representative from the Criminal Law Division of OTJAG; the 

Chief of Forensic Toxicology at the Office of the Armed 

Forces Medical Examiner; and the Senior Legal Advisor to 

the Army Review Boards Agency. 

The Department expanded the availability of advocacy 

training by creating a more intensive one-week long 

Criminal Law Advocacy Course (CLAC) and offering the course 

four times per year. The four CLACs provided intense, 

highly focused advocacy training targeted at novice 

counsel. The CLAC refreshes and builds on the advocacy 

skills developed during the Basic Course. 

2 
The vast majority of the course time is spent 

conducting practical oral advocacy exercises in groups of 

eight students, with a two-person instructor team leading 

the instruction for each group. 

In addition to the Military Justice Managers Course and the 

Criminal Law Advocacy Courses, the Criminal Law Department 

hosted the 53rd Military Judge Course, which continues to 

serve as the certification course for all judges in the 

DoD. The Course is a joint effort by all the services, 

including the Coast Guard, to provide preparatory and 

refresher trainer for the newest members of the trial 

judiciary. The Department also presented the 33rd Criminal 

Law New Developments Course, attended by nearly 300 judge 

advocates from all services, including substantial 

representation from the trial and appellate bench. In 

addition to hosting courses, Department professors provided 

instruction to the Graduate Course, the World Wide 

Continuing Legal Education (CLE) course, the Staff Judge 

Advocate’s Course, and the Judge Advocate Officer Advanced 

Course. The faculty also provided instruction to hundreds 

of Judge Advocates of all services at a variety of remote 

venues. 

The Criminal Law Department welcomed the first 

civilian to serve as a member of the Department faculty. 

Mr. James Clark, an attorney with almost three decades of 

experience as a criminal litigator, joined the faculty in 

the summer of 2010 as an expert in the field of sexual 

assault litigation. Mr. Clark’s teaching focus areas are 

sexual crimes and trial advocacy. His tremendous 

expertise, vast experience, and top-notch teaching ability 

make him an invaluable member of the Department. 

The Department integrated the latest developments in 

criminal law in all of its instruction, and continues to 

improve on its effort to provide resources for 

practitioners. The Department’s new web site is part of 

this effort. The content on the web site includes 

Department publications, military justice resources 

(including trial checklists), and a Department blog where 

instructors post their thoughts on recent legal 

developments. 

3 
OTJAG CRIMINAL LAW DIVISION 

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

missions. First, CLD advises The Judge Advocate General on 

military justice policy, legislation, 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, conducting statistical analysis and 

evaluation of trends that affect military justice within 

the Army, providing advice on military corrections issues, 

the Army drug testing program, sexual assault and victim 

assistance policies and federal prosecutions, Army 

representation on the Joint Service Committee (JSC) on 

Military Justice, responding to congressional inquiries and 

requests under the Freedom of Information Act, and 

conducting reviews of court-martial cases under Article 69 

of the UCMJ for legal sufficiency and sentence 

appropriateness and to identify issues that may require 

corrective action by The Judge Advocate General. Second, 

CLD provides comprehensive policy guidance and resources to 

military justice practitioners in the field, which includes 

a special emphasis on training (including sexual assault) 

and programs designed to guarantee long term military 

justice proficiency across all grades. 

Traditionally-reported Criminal Law Division actions for 

the last three fiscal years are: 

 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10

White House inquiries 13 7 5 

Congressional and other 

inquiries 132 152 127 

Officer Dismissals 31 28 24 

Article 69 and other 

reviews 73 99 136 

Freedom of Information 

Act/Privacy Act 18 18 31 

During FY 10, OTJAG successfully filled all of the 22 

additional attorney positions approved at the end of FY 

2008 as part of the Army’s ongoing effort to better address 

sexual assault. 

4 
This involved filling the remaining seven of the 

fifteen new Special Victim Prosecutor (SVP) positions and 

the final two of the seven positions for experts in the 

field of sexual assault litigation. There are now three 

experts with the Trial Counsel Assistance Program (TCAP), 

two with the Defense Counsel Assistance Program (DCAP), one 

at The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, 

and one who serves as Army Chief of Trial Advocacy at OTJAG 

Criminal Law Division. The 15 SVPs each work very closely 

with the sexual assault litigation experts from TCAP, and 

have developed habitual geographical relationships to 

enhance their effectiveness. The DCAP and TCAP sexual 

assault litigation experts produce publications and 

guidance for counsel in the field, and travel regularly to 

conduct training and to provide case-specific advice. In 

response to the continued concern regarding sexual assault 

in the military, the Criminal Law Division coordinated for 

the creation and execution of four new sexual assault 

litigation courses conducted jointly by the Trial Counsel 

Assistance Program, the Defense Counsel Assistance Program, 

and civilian experts. These courses will become part of 

the advocacy training structure for the foreseeable future. 

In another effort to improve the level of advocacy in 

military justice, three judge advocates continue their 

part-time studies in a pilot program for an LL.M in 

prosecutorial science. 

In FY 2010, the Criminal Law Division began an 

initiative to better synchronize and integrate military 

justice training across our Corps. This began with a 

Training Synchronization Meeting in July 2010 and resulted 

in the creation of the Consolidated Criminal Law Calendar. 

Maintained by CLD with input from other JAGC criminal law 

stakeholders such as The Judge Advocate General’s School’s 

Criminal Law Department, the Trial Counsel Assistance 

Program, and the Defense Counsel Assistance Program, this 

calendar provides situational awareness on criminal law 

training in multiple venues - civilian and military - 

across the Corps. CLD also provided practitioners in the 

field additional advocacy opportunities from organizations 

such as the National District Attorney’s Association 

(NDAA), the National Advocacy Center (NAC), the American 

Prosecutor’s Research Institute (APRI), and the National 

Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). 

5 
CLD assisted 24 judge advocates in receiving training 

from these organizations. In many instances CLD was able 

to assist practitioners in obtaining alternative civilian 

training when key military justice courses, such as the 

TJAGSA’s Criminal Law Advocacy Course (CLAC), were not 

available. 

During 2010, there was great interest in the Military 

Justice Skill Identifier program as applications increased. 

By the end of FY 10, 495 Judge Advocates had received 

Military Justice Skill Identifiers, a 123% increase from FY 

09. TJAG initiated the Military Justice Skill Identifier 

(SI) program to encourage the practice of military justice, 

sustain expertise, and assist in the selection of personnel 

for military justice-related positions. The SI 

certification provides Judge Advocates the opportunity to 

achieve four graduated levels of professional recognition 

(Basic, Advanced, Expert, and Master Military Justice 

Practitioner) based on the judge advocate’s level of skill 

and experience. Of those presently designated, 265 are SI 

1 (Basic), 69 are SI 2 (Advanced), 94 are SI 3 (Expert), 

and 67 are SI 4 (Master). 

Through its membership on the Joint Services Committee 

(JSC), the Army contributed to a DOD-sponsored amendment to 

Article 48, UCMJ, enacted on 22 December 2010, expanding 

the contempt authority of military trial and appellate 

judges. Prior to the amendment, military courts could only 

punish "direct" contempt, meaning disruptive or threatening 

conduct in the court's presence. Under the modified 

Article 48, military judges have authority to impose 

punishment of up to 60 days confinement and/or $1000 fine 

for violation of the court's orders. The JSC prepared, but 

Congress did not enact, a proposed amendment to Article 

120, which would revise and restructure sex offenses under 

the UCMJ as well as subpoena duces tecum authority prior to 

referral. 

On 31 August 2010, the President signed Executive 

Order 13552, enacting a JSC proposal clarifying the 

definition of military property and amending the Rule for 

Courts-Martial related to staff judge advocates' post-trial 

recommendations. 

6 
The JSC continued coordination of a proposed Executive 

Order to create a victim-advocate privilege and to 

enumerate child pornography offenses under Article 134, 

clarifying the availability of a clause 1 or clause 2 

offense for prosecution in addition to or in lieu of 

prosecution of an assimilated Title 18 child pornography 

offense, and including acts not punishable in the civilian 

community that might nevertheless constitute violations of 

Article 134. 

During FY 10, the Criminal Law Division, in cooperation 

with OTJAG’s Information Technology Division (ITD), 

continued to advance the JAGC’s Military Justice web-based 

programs. The Military Justice Online (MJO) program is a 

web-based application that allows end-users down to the 

Special Court-Martial Convening Authority level to generate 

military justice actions for non-judicial punishments, 

administrative separations, administrative reprimands, and 

investigations. During FY 10, end users continued to 

generate thousands of actions using MJO, and CLD began to 

collect and refine over 150 document templates needed for 

the Court-Martial Module of MJO. This module is currently 

in development and expected to be implemented in early FY 

12. 

Additionally, the Criminal Law Division, in concert 

with the Information Technology Division, developed and 

deployed the Trial Advocates Tracking System (TATS). TATS 

is a web-based database that tracks the number of active 

trial advocates at an installation, government and defense, 

and provides key data on the experience and levels of 

military justice training of trial advocates. TATS is a key 

tool in determining military justice assignments, personnel 

management, and levels of training by military justice 

practitioners. Currently, 561 Judge Advocates in 82 

organizations are assigned to military justice billets and 

registered in TATS. 

To assist new trial and defense counsel in becoming 

proficient as trial advocates, the Criminal Law Division 

provided 132 incoming trial and defense counsel with the 

Trial Advocate Resource Library (TARL). 

7 
The TARL is a four-publication set of military justice 

reference books that are fundamental to the practice of 

military justice. Judge advocates in their first trial 

advocacy billet are eligible to receive the TARL. The TARL 

represents the JAG Corps’ commitment to providing new trial 

advocates with the necessary resources to best represent 

their clients. 

The Criminal Law Division continued to coordinate with 

field offices on high profile cases, including cases 

involving allegations of wrongful death or injuries to 

detainees, or other cases of potential interest. 

Maintaining information on these cases facilitated the 

CLD’s role in supporting The Judge Advocate General’s 

responses to Congressional and public inquiries with the 

most current information. 

The Criminal Law Division also worked with the Army 

Corps of Engineers and several installations to accomplish 

courtroom renovations that meet the new Army Standard 

Design. Currently, Fort Carson, Fort Benning and Fort 

Bliss have started the process of courtroom renovation, 

using the Army’s Standard Design. Fort Belvoir, Fort Lee 

and Fort Leavenworth have also started the process for 

renovations, using other models. Additionally, Fort 

Wainwright has completed its renovation under the new Army 

Standardization Design. Fort Detrick is currently funded 

as a new construction project for FY 13. OTJAG Criminal 

Law Division will continue to assist installations that 

request or require help in meeting the Army Standard Design 

for Judicial Centers. 

U.S. ARMY JUDICIARY

The U.S. Army Judiciary consists of the U.S. Army Court of 

Criminal Appeals, Office of the Clerk of Court and the 

Trial Judiciary. 

8 
U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals/Office of the Clerk of 

Court

The Clerk of Court receives records of trial for 

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

under Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 

appeals under Article 62, UCMJ, and Petitions for 

Extraordinary Relief. More than 850 records of trial and 

over 1400 motions and briefs were referred to one of the 

three judicial panels of ACCA for appellate review. The 

Office of the Clerk of Court served ACCA decisions upon all 

personnel not in confinement and closed over 900 CourtsMartial cases during the past year. 

ACCA maintains a website at 

https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/acca. ACCA’s published 

opinions and unpublished memorandum opinions can be 

downloaded at the website. Applications for admission to 

the bar for ACCA, rules of the court, notices, and forms 

are also on the website. 

The Office of the Clerk of Court provided instruction 

to legal NCOs, court reporters and those individuals 

attending the JAGs Corps’ Graduate Course and military 

justice courses at TJAGLCS. 

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

permanent court-martial records dating from 1939. 

Inquiries about courts-martial are received from federal 

and state investigative agencies, law enforcement offices, 

military historians, media, veterans, and convicted 

soldiers. Because the Brady Bill requires the processing 

of handgun applications within three workdays, many 

expedited requests are received from the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation’s National Instant Background Check System. 

Also, state sexual offender registries submit many 

requests. 

9 
Traditionally reported U.S. Army Judiciary actions for 

the last three fiscal years: 

FY08 FY09 FY10

 

Freedom of Information Act 212 83 559 

Privacy Act 88 121 100 

Certified Copies of 

Convictions 

272 570 185

Total Number of Requests 572 774 884 

The increase in Freedom of Information Act requests 

from FY 09 to FY 10 is due to internal accounting 

procedures only. 

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. 

Trial Judiciary

The approximately 1070 courts-martial tried during 

this fiscal year reflect a nearly 10 percent decline from 

FY 09. However, Army trial judges continue to preside over 

cases in deployed environments, with 58 general and special 

courts-martial tried in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan during 

this period, now constituting a total of over 850 since May 

2003. COL Patrick J. Parrish presided over the Military 

Commission case of United States v. Omar Khadr, convened in 

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 

After a nearly 8-year effort, the Trial Judiciary 

republished DA Pam 27-9, Military Judges’ Benchbook, which 

includes the new sexual assault offenses set forth in 

Article 120, UCMJ. The Benchbook, along with links to the 

electronic version of the Judges’ Benchbook, court dockets 

and other judiciary related documents and resource 

materials, can be found on the Trial Judiciary homepage at 

www.jagcnet.army.mil/usatj. 

10 
Other notable achievements by individual members of the 

Trial Judiciary include: 

*The 150th Legal Services Organization (Trial 

Judiciary) welcomed COL Robert R. Rigsby as its new 

Commander and Chief Reserve Trial Judge. 

*The 53rd Military Judge Course graduated 43 Army, 

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

May and invested them as new military judges. Also 

attending the course was MAJ Menachem Lieberman of the 

Israeli Defense Forces. 

*COL Michael J. Hargis deployed to Kuwait for a 

twelve-month tour of duty presiding as a military judge 

over courts-martial convened throughout Iraq and 

Afghanistan. 

*COL James L. Pohl was selected to serve as the Chief 

Trial Judge, Office of Military Commission’s Trial 

Judiciary. 

*Colonel Patrick J. Reinert, a former commander of the 

150th LSO and Chief Reserve Trial Judge, was selected for 

promotion to General Officer and assignment as the Chief 

Judge (IMA), Army Court of Criminal Appeals. 

*For superb performance in the area of immigration 

surety bonds, Colonel John J. Siemietkowski received the 

U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Interagency Award. 

*COL Gregg A. Marchessault was selected to serve as a 

DOJ Resident Legal Advisor and assignment to the U.S. 

Embassy in Sarajevo focusing on assisting the Bosnians and 

Herzegovinians on terrorism prosecutions in their local 

courts. 

*In recognition of her outstanding judicial 

qualifications, Colonel Tara A. Osborn received a 

Certificate in General Jurisdiction Trial Court Skills from 

the National Judicial College. 

Military Judges continued playing an active role in 

their military and civilian communities, speaking to grade 

school and high school audiences, local bar associations 

and civic organizations, law school classes and state bar 

continuing legal education courses. 

11 
U.S. ARMY TRIAL DEFENSE SERVICE 

The U.S. Army Trial Defense Service (USATDS) has 

approximately 140 active duty, 228 Army Reserve and 90 Army 

National Guard attorneys. USATDS provides high quality, 

professional defense services to Soldiers throughout the 

Army. USATDS counsel are stationed at 57 active duty 

installations worldwide and 51 reserve locations. 

USATDS detailed one or more counsel to every Army 

special and general court-martial referred in FY 10, 

defending Soldiers facing the entire range of allegations 

under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In addition, 

USATDS counsel assisted Soldiers facing other military 

justice-related adverse administrative actions. In FY10, 

TDS caseloads were as follows: 

General and Special Courts-Martial – 788 

Administrative Boards – 949 

Nonjudicial Punishment – 31,789 

Military Justice Consultations – 19,389 

The USATDS provided defense services to Soldiers 

deployed to Kosovo and the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) 

Area of Responsibility (AOR). The USATDS CENTCOM Region 

has eight field offices throughout Iraq, Kuwait and 

Afghanistan. There are four field offices in Iraq: Camp 

Victory (Baghdad); Camp Liberty (Baghdad); Camp Speicher 

(Tikrit); and Joint Base Balad. There is also one branch 

office located in Basra, Iraq. Kuwait has one field office 

at Camp Arifjan. TDS support in Afghanistan has expanded 

to accommodate the shift in numbers of Soldiers from Iraq 

to Afghanistan. Currently there are two field offices, 

which is one more than last year. The two offices are 

located at Bagram Air Base and at Kandahar. The Regional 

Defense Counsel is an active duty lieutenant colonel who 

serves as the senior supervisory TDS attorney in CENTCOM. 

He has eighteen trial defense attorneys and nine paralegals 

working under him in support of the TDS mission in CENTCOM. 

Collectively this team of attorneys and paralegals provides 

the full range of TDS representation to approximately 

150,000 Soldiers deployed throughout CENTCOM’s expansive 

AOR. 

12 
The Defense Counsel Assistance Program (DCAP) 

continued to grow and expand its ability to support TDS 

worldwide. DCAP added an expert in the field of sexual 

assault litigation to its staff, raising its total of 

experts to two. The two sexual assault litigation experts 

assist DCAP’s Chief, Deputy Chief, and four Training 

Officers to support the field and manage DCAP’s internal 

endeavors. In a new era of declining resources, DCAP 

provided training through creativity and flexibility, 

seeking opportunities for joint training with government 

counsel. There were two new critical joint training 

opportunities designed to enhance trial advocacy skills, 

both of which focused on sexual assault cases as the 

mechanism to improve abilities. The Sexual Assault Trial 

Advocacy Course (SATAC), a two-week advanced advocacy 

training course, was hailed as a huge success by attendees 

of the course. The Expert Witness Symposium provided a 

group of trial and defense counsel exposure to ten expert 

witnesses who regularly testify in courts-martial. 

DCAP continued to support the field in traditional 

matters by timely and effectively answering questions 

submitted from counsel. DCAP proactively ensured that 

practitioners in the field kept abreast of all major 

developments by publishing a series of updates called “DCAP 

Alerts” and “DCAP Sends.” Towards the end of FY 10, DCAP 

launched a new SharePoint website designed to provide 

instant and comprehensive, around the clock support to 

counsel in the field. DCAP’s other ongoing initiatives 

include uploading training materials, including a motions 

bank and an expert witness database, and beginning several 

ongoing chat rooms to maintain discussion among counsel on 

such critical issues as post-trial processing and new 

developments. 

The 22nd TDS Legal Support Organization (LSO) consists 

of 86 commissioned officers, one warrant officer, and 26 

enlisted paralegals. The AOR for the 22nd LSO encompasses 

East Asia and the United States west of the Mississippi 

River. In FY 10, the 22nd LSO mobilized eight attorneys and 

five paralegals for service in CONUS, Europe, and CENTCOM. 

In addition, the 22nd TDS LSO represented over 2,000 reserve 

component Soldiers facing military justice and adverse 

administrative actions. 

13 
The 154th TDS LSO consists of 143 commissioned 

officers, one warrant officer, and 19 enlisted paralegals. 

The AOR for the 154th LSO encompasses Europe and the United 

States east of the Mississippi River. In FY 10, the 154th

TDS LSO mobilized 18 attorneys and two paralegals for 

service in CONUS, Europe and CENTCOM. Additionally, the 

154th LSO also represented over 2,000 reserve component 

Soldiers facing military justice and adverse administrative 

actions. 

The Army National Guard (ARNG) component of TDS 

continued its development on pace to meets its effective 

date of 1 September 2011. ARNG TDS now has 90 counsel in 

40 states and territories. All seven regions have assigned 

RDCs. With the addition of one more sustainment brigade in 

the ARNG, authorized end strength grew slightly to 130 

Judge Advocates, one warrant officer, and 49 paralegals. 

ARNG TDS also received full funding for FY 11 that 

accommodates the travel of regional leaders, the training 

of all counsel, and the equipping of every office. The 

focus of effort for FY 11 is the delivery of services, the 

development of a full-time headquarters, and the approval 

of a non-programmed budget for FY 12. In FY 10 the ARNG 

mobilized one defense attorney and one warrant officer, 

both of whom supported the TDS mission in Europe. 

GOVERNMENT APPELLATE DIVISION 

The U.S. Army Government Appellate Division (GAD), with 

twenty-three active duty and four Individual Mobilization 

Augmentee military attorneys, represents the United States 

before the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA), the Court 

of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), and the U.S. 

Supreme Court in appeals by Soldiers convicted at courtsmartial with an adjudged sentence of either a punitive 

discharge or confinement for one year or more. GAD also 

represents the United States before ACCA, CAAF, and the 

Supreme Court in government appeals from courts-martial and 

petitions for extraordinary relief. Additionally, GAD 

oversees the operations of the Trial Counsel Assistance 

Program (TCAP).

14 
During FY 10, GAD filed 636 briefs at ACCA and 361 

responses to petitions for grant of review and 8 briefs at 

CAAF. GAD appellate attorneys argued 28 cases before ACCA 

and 10 cases before CAAF. 

As part of ACCA’s Project Outreach, GAD argued two cases in 

the civilian community-one at George Washington University 

Law School in Washington, D.C., and the other at South 

Texas College of Law in Houston, Texas. These outreach 

arguments are important in displaying military justice to 

largely civilian audiences. Both arguments were 

tremendously successful. 

TCAP continued its efforts to train and equip Army 

prosecutors on the investigation and successful disposition 

and prosecution of criminal cases, with a continued focus 

and emphasis on the handling and disposition of sexual 

assault, domestic violence, and special victim cases. In 

FY 10, TCAP conducted 38 highly successful and focused 

training events: 22 Outreaches on 22 installations in both 

the continental United States and outside the continental 

United States; five Regional Conferences (Europe, Korea, 

CENTCOM, East Coast, West Coast); five advocacy training 

courses; two National Center for Missing and Exploited 

Children military courses; two Military Institutes for the 

Prosecution of Sexual Violence; one United States Army 

Criminal Investigations Laboratory (USACIL) course; and one 

sexual assault experts symposium. 

TCAP continued to publish its highly informative Quarterly 

Newsletter and provide timely telephonic, e-mail, and onsite assistance to prosecutors throughout the world. 

In addition, TCAP maintains technical supervision over the 

JAGC’s Special Victim Prosecutors (SVPs). In FY 10, seven 

of the eight remaining SVP positions were filled at the 

Fort Bliss, Fort Drum, Fort Leavenworth, Fort Hood, 

Military District of Washington, Fort Stewart, and 7th 

Joint Multinational Training Command (Grafenwoehr, 

Germany). The 15th SVP position will be filled in January 

2011. More importantly, in January 2011, all prosecutors 

throughout the Army will have a designated and assigned SVP 

and an expert in the field of sexual assault litigation to 

assist them. 

15 
These litigation experts are civilian prosecutors hired by 

the Army to help train and support trial counsel in the 

investigation and prosecution of sexual assault, domestic 

violence, and special victim cases. 

DEFENSE APPELLATE DIVISION 

The Defense Appellate Division (DAD) provides appellate 

representation to eligible Soldiers before the Army Court 

of Criminal Appeals (ACCA), the Court of Appeals for the 

Armed Forces (CAAF), and the Supreme Court of the United 

States. Eligible Soldiers include those convicted at 

courts-martial where the approved sentence consists of a 

punitive discharge or confinement for one year or more. 

DAD attorneys also assist military and civilian Trial 

Defense Counsel in the preparation and filing of 

extraordinary writs before the aforementioned courts. 

In FY 10, the DAD staff consisted of seventeen active 

component Judge Advocates, four civilian paralegals, and 

one Noncommissioned officer. The Division was led by the 

Branch Chief, a Colonel, and a Deputy Branch Chief, a 

Lieutenant Colonel. The Division was divided into two 

Branches, each led by a Major. As in past years, reserve 

component Judge Advocates continued to provide critical 

support. One mobilized reservist and nine Drilling 

Individual Mobilization Augmentee (DIMA) Judge Advocates 

also supported DAD. The mobilized reservist, a Lieutenant 

Colonel, is an experienced appellate advocate and filled 

the role of Senior Appellate Attorney. 

In FY 10, DAD received 703 new cases and filed 706 cases 

with ACCA. Of those 706 ACCA filings, 237 raised 

substantive assignments of error. DAD attorneys also filed 

482 cases with CAAF, more than sixty of which raised 

substantive assignments of error. Appellate Defense 

Counsel presented oral arguments in more than thirty cases. 

The Division filed four Petitions for Certiorari and an 

amicus pleading before the Supreme Court. The Division 

also filed an extensive brief raising fifty-seven 

assignments of error in United States v. Akbar, a capital 

case. 

16 
The Defense Appellate Division made significant 

contributions on numerous substantive appellate issues. 

The most significant development of the year was the 

continuing shift in the law away from the “closely related 

offense doctrine” and toward the strict elements test for 

lesser included offenses. Significant cases from fiscal 

year 2010 include United States v. Morton, 69 M.J. 12 

(C.A.A.F. 2010) (holding that the “closely related offense 

doctrine” is no longer viable in the context of a guilty 

plea); United States v. Lubasky, 68 M.J. 260 (C.A.A.F. 

2010)(“[T]here is no authority for the proposition that 

larceny from one entity is an LIO of larceny from another 

entity.”); United States v. Honeycutt, Army 20080589 (Army 

Ct. Crim. App. 1 Sep. 2010) (“Appellant was not properly 

on notice that he needed to defend against the offense 

of wrongful sexual contact and its elements that are 

distinct from rape by force.”) 

DAD counsel represented clients at several outreach 

arguments hosted by ACCA and CAAF and thereby contributed 

to the public understanding of and support for the Military 

Justice System. In one notable case argued at George 

Washington University Law School, Defense Appellate Counsel 

successfully employed technology in the courtroom to 

demonstrate the suggestive nature of a photo array lineup. 

FOREIGN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION 

As the Department of Defense Executive Agent for the 

exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction, the Army, 

through the International Law and Operations Division, 

OTJAG, compiles information concerning the exercise of 

foreign criminal jurisdiction over U.S. personnel. 

17 
The data below, while not drawn from precisely the same 

reporting period used in other parts of this Report, 

provides an accurate picture of the exercise of foreign 

criminal jurisdiction during this reporting period: 

 1 Dec 2007 1 Dec 2008 

 to to 

 30 Nov 2008 30 Nov 2009

Foreign Offense Citations 2,982 3,361 

Total Civilian 864 858 

Total Military 2,118 2,249 

Exclusive Foreign Jurisdiction 74 100 

Concurrent Jurisdiction 1,906 2,403 

Traffic Offenses 75 73 

Foreign Jurisdiction Recalls 208 254 

During this reporting period, foreign authorities did not 

release to the U.S. any of the 94 exclusive foreign 

jurisdiction cases involving military personnel. In 

concurrent jurisdiction cases in which the foreign 

countries had the authority to assert primary jurisdiction, 

U.S. military authorities were able to obtain waivers of 

the exercise of this jurisdiction in 2,249 of the 2,403 

cases. Overall, the U.S. obtained waivers in 93.6% of all 

exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction cases. This figure 

reflects an increase of 5.9% in obtaining waivers compared 

to the previous reporting period. 

During the last reporting period, civilian employees and 

dependents were involved in 864 offenses. Foreign 

authorities released 26 of these cases (3.0% of the total 

of that reporting period) to U.S. military authorities for 

administrative actions or some other form of disposition. 

In this reporting period, civilian employees and dependents 

were involved in 858 offenses. The foreign authorities 

released 45 of these cases (5.2% of the current total of 

this reporting period). This figure represents a decrease 

of 2.2% in obtaining releases of foreign criminal 

jurisdiction over civilian employees and dependents. 

During this reporting period, foreign authorities 

prosecuted a total of 441 cases involving U.S. personnel. 

Four trials, 0.9% of cases prosecuted, resulted in 

acquittals. 

18 
Those convicted were sentenced as follows: 6 cases 

resulted in executed confinement; 22 cases resulted in 

suspended confinement; and 409 cases (92.7% of the total 

prosecutions) resulted in fines or reprimands. 

LITIGATION DIVISION

Civil lawsuits involving military justice matters are 

relatively few in number 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. 

In Gray v. Gray, the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Kansas granted Private Ronald Gray’s motion to 

stay his execution and appointed counsel to assist him in 

pursuing habeas relief. This litigation arose out of 

Gray’s 1988 conviction of, among other charges, three 

specifications of premeditated murder, one specification of 

attempted murder, three specifications of rape and two 

specifications of forcible sodomy, resulting in a sentence 

of death, a dishonorable discharge, total forfeiture of all 

pay and allowances, and reduction to Private E-1. On 

30 September 2010, the court ruled that Gray could amend 

his petition to present additional claims. 

In Thomas v. USDB, the government successfully 

defended against a challenge to a court-martial conviction 

which was considered in an extraordinary writ before the 

military courts while pending federal habeas review. This 

litigation arose out of Rochester Thomas’ conviction in 

absentia of attempted rapes of a minor, rape, two 

specifications of forcible sodomy with a minor, two 

specifications of assault consummated by a battery upon a 

child under sixteen years, adultery, and indecent acts upon 

a minor. Thomas was later arrested in Germany in April 

1997 following an incident in which he assaulted his 

girlfriend and stabbed her roommate. 

19 
He was returned to military custody and convicted of 

attempted voluntary manslaughter, wrongful appropriation, 

two specifications of assault consummated by a battery, and 

desertion. On 29 September 2009, the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Kansas denied Thomas’ petition claiming 

ineffective assistance of counsel. On 16 November 2010, 

the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district 

court. 

In Hennis v. Helmick, et al., the government continues to 

defend a challenge by a retiree recalled to active duty to 

face capital murder charges. On 28 December 2009, after 

ACCA and CAAF denied his extraordinary writs challenging 

the military’s jurisdiction to prosecute him, MSG (Ret.) 

Timothy Hennis filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

in the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina seeking an emergency stay of his 

pending court-martial. After the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Fourth Circuit denied MSG (Ret.) Hennis’ request for a 

preliminary injunction to stop the court-martial 

proceedings, a court-martial convicted MSG (Ret.) Hennis of 

three murder specifications and sentenced him to death. 

MSG Hennis’ appeal at the Fourth Circuit challenging the 

military’s jurisdiction remains pending. 

In U.S. v. Joshua, a military prisoner successfully 

challenged his impending civil commitment as a “sexually 

dangerous person” pursuant to the Adam Walsh Child 

Protection and Safety Act of 2006, 18 U.S.C. § 4248. This 

litigation arises out of the 13 December 1994 court-martial 

conviction of First Lieutenant Andrew G. Aull, now known as 

Benjamin Bernard Joshua, for numerous sexual offenses 

against multiple child victims. Joshua was sentenced to 40 

years confinement, which was reduced to 25 years pursuant 

to a pretrial agreement. Prior to Joshua’s release from 

prison in March 2009, the Department of Justice filed a 

petition in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina to civilly commit Joshua 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4248. On 1 July 2009, Joshua filed 

a motion to dismiss, arguing that his status as a military 

prisoner made the Act’s civil commitment provisions 

inapplicable. 

20 
On 13 January 2010, the district court dismissed the 

petition, finding that Joshua was not “in the custody of 

the Bureau of Prisons” within the meaning of the Adam Walsh 

Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, so as to subject 

him to that Act’s civil commitment procedures. On 14 June 

2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth 

Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. 

PERSONNEL, PLANS, AND POLICIES 

On 30 September 2010, the Army’s end-strength was 661,360 

Army Soldiers on active duty, including Active Guard and 

Reserve (AGR) and mobilized Soldiers, compared to 584,685 

at the end of fiscal year 2009. The attorney strength of 

the Active Army (AA) Judge Advocate General’s Corps at the 

end of FY10 was 1,858 (including general officers). This 

total does not include 71 officers attending law school 

while participating in the Funded Legal Education Program. 

The FY10 end-strength of 1,858 compares with an endstrength of 1,730 in FY09, 1,647 in FY08, 1,643 in FY07, 

1,638 in FY06, 1,603 in FY05, 1,547 in FY04, 1,506 in FY03, 

1,474 in FY02, 1,462 in FY01, 1,427 in FY00, 1,426 in FY99, 

1,499 in FY98, and 1,523 in FY97. The diverse composition 

of our FY10 AA attorney population included 123 AfricanAmericans, 57 Hispanics, 85 Asians and Native Americans, 

and 445 women. The grade distribution of the Corps’ AA 

attorneys for FY10 was 5 general officers, 135 colonels, 

246 lieutenant colonels, 401 majors, and 1071 captains. An 

additional 96 warrant officers, 570 civilian attorneys, and 

1,801 enlisted paralegals supported legal operations 

worldwide. The attorney strength of the RC Judge Advocate 

General’s Corps at the end of FY10 was 1,522 and the 

attorney strength of the Army National Guard at the end of 

FY10 was 750. At the end of FY10, over 591 Army JAGC 

personnel (officer and enlisted, AA and RC) were deployed 

in operations in Iraq, Egypt, Kuwait, Afghanistan, 

Djibouti, Qatar, Bosnia, Kosovo, Cuba, the Horn of Africa, 

and Honduras. 

 DANA K. CHIPMAN 

 Lieutenant General, USA 

 The Judge Advocate General 

21 
APPENDIX - U.S. ARMY MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Report Period: FISCAL YEAR 2010 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF 

INCREASE (+)/ 

DECREASE (-) 

OVER LAST 

REPORT 

GENERAL 610 572 38 -4.4% 

BCD SPECIAL [A] 446 425 21 -13.9% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 8 8 0 -20.0% 

SUMMARY 819 [F] [F] -13.4% 

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

REPORT 

-8.4% 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED [B]

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL) 

NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES (+ 

dismissals) 

65 (+17) 

NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 256 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 235 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL 

COURTS-MARTIAL 

346 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

234 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTSMARTIAL 246 

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

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 60 [C] 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D] 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D] 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 681 [C] 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 627 [E] 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 114 [C] 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD +1.5% 

22 
PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

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

NUMBER 647 

PERCENTAGE 95.01% 

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

FORCES 

(CAAF) 

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 447 of 627 71.29% 

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

PERIOD 

22.72% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 29 of 483 6.00% 

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

PERIOD -41.52% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY USACCA 4.63% 

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD -30.17% 

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

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ 

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 0 

RECEIVED 16 

DISPOSED OF 14 

GRANTED 1 

DENIED 13 

NO JURISDICTION 0 

WITHDRAWN 0 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 2 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 452 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 390 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 158 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 64 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 23 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 566045[G] 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 36624 

RATE PER 1,000 64.70 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS 

PERIOD +7.44% 

23 
EXPLANATORY NOTES 

[A] Cases convened by GCM convening authority. 

[B] Based on records of trial received during 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] Data is not available 

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

AGR personnel. 

24 
SECTION 4 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

NAVY 
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY 

OCTOBER 1, 2009 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 

SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF

MILITARY JUSTICE

JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 

The Judge Advocate General (JAG) chairs the Military 

Justice Oversight Council (MJOC). This council also 

consists of the Commander, Naval Legal Service Command 

(COMNAVLEGSVCCOM), the Staff Judge Advocate to the 

Commandant of the Marine Corps (SJA to CMC), and three 

Assistant Judge Advocates General (02, 05, 06). The MJOC 

was established by the JAG in November 2009 to become a 

regularized flag and general officer forum for the review 

of military justice in the Navy and Marine Corps. The MJOC 

meets monthly to review structural, resource, and other 

matters that affect the timely and effective delivery of 

military justice services. 

The JAG and the COMNAVLEGSVCCOM made frequent inspections 

of U.S. Navy legal offices in the United States, Europe, 

and the Far East in order to supervise the administration 

of military justice in accordance with the requirement of 

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

These inspections, conducted by subject matter experts, 

examined the full range of military justice processes. In 

fiscal year 2010 (FY 10), the Navy’s Article 6(a), UCMJ, 

inspections were enhanced to include a more critical, indepth study of military justice litigation processes and 

procedures, resulting in a more substantive and useful 

analysis of the quality of military justice litigation in 

the Navy. 

1 
On July 1, 2010, the JAG established the Defense Counsel 

Assistance Program (DCAP), whose mission is to support and 

enhance the proficiency of the Navy defense bar and provide 

experienced reach-back and technical expertise. DCAP 

provides a full spectrum of privileged and confidential 

advice and is a resource for defense counsel in the field 

through every phase of court-martial litigation. DCAP is 

directed by a Navy O-6 Military Justice Litigation Career 

Track (MJLCT) Expert who is assisted by an O-4 with 

substantial military justice defense experience. 

The JAG also discontinued the Trial Counsel Assistance 

Program (TCAP) previously operated from the Appellate 

Government Division which was considered redundant given 

the creation of TCAP programs within Naval Legal Service 

Command and the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate to the 

Commandant of the Marine Corps. 

The JAG and CNLSC devoted significant focus in FY 10 to 

revitalizing and enhancing the implementation of the Navy’s 

Victim Witness Assistance Program (VWAP) within the JAG 

Corps. Initiatives included a curriculum review of all 

Naval Justice School courses and publications to ensure 

that VWAP training is thoroughly covered in training at all 

levels, the revision of the JAG portal on Navy Knowledge 

Online (NKO), to include dedicated links and resources that 

provide VWAP training and practice advisories, and the 

promulgation of a revised JAG/COMNAVLEGSVCCOMINST 5800.4. 

Also in FY 10, as directed by Senate Report 111-35, 

accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2010, the Department of Defense Assistant 

Inspector General (Investigative Policy and Oversight) (DoD 

IG) initiated an evaluation of the systems, policies and 

procedures used for the post-trial review of courts-martial 

in the Department of the Navy. The evaluation began in 

November of 2009. The DoD IG provided a draft report to 

the Secretary of the Navy in October of 2010. The 

Secretary provided extensive comments on the draft on 

November 5, 2010, including those of the JAG and the SJA to 

CMC. 

2 
The final DoD IG report was issued on December 10, 2010. 

The report notes instances of failure and the significant 

improvements in post-trial processing of courts-martial 

within the Department of the Navy. As part of the process 

improvements in FY 10, the JAG directed a revision of the 

Navy’s military justice post-trial processes, to include a 

complete revision of the JAG/COMNAVLEGSVCCOMINST 5814.1, 

the Navy JAG Corps primary post-trial processing 

instruction, which is currently underway. 

ASSISTANT JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, MILITARY JUSTICE 

AJAG-MJ advises the JAG in the performance of his statutory 

duties relating to military justice matters. Additionally, 

he serves as a member of the Office of the Judge Advocate 

General’s (OJAG) Ethics Committee, the Judicial Screening 

Board, and the Military Justice Oversight Council, and 

oversees OJAG’s Military Justice Division (Code 20). The 

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

In this capacity, he oversees the National Security 

Litigation Division (Code 17); Administrative Support 

Division (Code 40), Appellate Defense Division (Code 45), 

and Appellate Government Division (Code 46). AJAG-MJ has 

ultimate responsibility for disposition of all records of 

trial received for review or other dispositions pursuant to 

statute, regulation, or appropriate appellate court rules 

of practice and procedure. 

CRIMINAL LAW DIVISION (CODE 20) 

Organization. The Criminal Law Division was staffed with 

five active duty judge advocates, two civilian attorneys, 

two to three civilian support personnel, and two reserve 

units. Reserve unit NAVJAG 113 conducted Article 69(a) and 

69(b), UCMJ, reviews and unit NAVJAG 108 provided research 

and Action Officer support. 

Mission. Coordinates military justice policy within the 

Department of the Navy. 

3 
The Code 20 Division Director continued to serve as 

Chairman of the JSC. The 2010 Annual Review was completed 

in accordance with the President’s requirement that the MCM 

be reviewed annually. Submission of recommended revisions 

remains on hold pending the resolution of previously 

proposed legislative changes to the UCMJ. 

 During the past year, the Military Justice Division 

reviewed 22 records of trial under Article 69a, UCMJ, and 

14 records under Article 69b, UCMJ. One petition was 

reviewed under Article 73, UCMJ. 

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT DIVISION (CODE 40) 

Organization. The Administrative Support Division was 

staffed with one officer, one civilian and ten enlisted 

Marine Corps staff members. 

Mission. Provides administrative and logistical support 

services to personnel assigned to NAMARA and NMCCA; 

reviews for completeness all records of trial forwarded to 

NMCCA for appellate review pursuant to Article 66, UCMJ; 

promulgates decisions of NMCCA in accordance with the JAG 

Manual and Manual for Courts-Martial; manages the OJAG 

court-martial central filing system, including original 

records of trial maintained at NAMARA; manages and 

retrieves archived records of trial stored at the 

Washington National Records Center; and administers all 

NMCCA and CAAF mandates/judgments on remand back to field 

commands for corrective action. During FY 10, NAMARA Code 

40 reviewed and examined over 754 records of trial for 

completeness prior to forwarding those records to the 

appropriate level for appellate review pursuant to Articles 

66 and 69(a), UCMJ. 

4 
APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISION (Code 45) 

Organization. The Appellate Defense Division was staffed 

with ten active duty Navy and Marine Corps judge advocates 

and four civilian support personnel. Twenty-six Navy and 

Marine Corps Reserve judge advocates supported the 

Appellate Defense Division. 

Mission. The Appellate Defense Division represents Navy 

and Marine Corps appellants before NMCCA, CAAF, and the 

U.S. Supreme Court. It also represents some appellants 

before the Navy Clemency and Parole Board. The Division 

provides assistance to trial defense counsel in the field 

by helping to file extraordinary writs before NMCCA and 

CAAF, providing a death penalty assistance team to advise 

field defense counsel facing potential capital cases, 

providing general training, and providing advice on 

specific cases in litigation at the trial level. 

In FY 10, a total of 678 new cases were docketed at NMCCA 

and received in the Appellate Defense Division. The 

Appellate Defense Division filed 682 initial pleadings with 

15 oral arguments at NMCCA. The initial pleadings include 

159 briefs, 510 merit submissions, and 13 summary 

assignments. A total of 69 supplemental briefs to 

petitions were filed at CAAF, resulting in 21 full briefs 

and 8 oral arguments. 

 

NMCCA FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 

Briefs Filed 471 415 230 173 159 

Total Cases 

Filed 1610 1165 1008 1004 903 

USCAAF 

Petitions 

with 

Supplemental 

Briefs Filed 

173 206 151 96 69 

Briefs Filed 76 29 27 31 21 

U.S. Supreme 

Court 

Petitions 

9 6 6 5 6 

5 
Capital Litigation. The sole remaining death penalty case 

has been remanded. 

 

Assistance to Trial Defense Counsel. The Appellate 

Defense Division provides advice and support to Navy and 

Marine Corps trial defense counsel around the world. The 

Division’s experienced appellate attorneys reply to shortfused questions from trial defense counsel and assist in 

preparing and filing extraordinary writs. The Division 

also conducts a Trial Defense Counsel Outreach Training 

Program in order to provide training on recent appellate 

developments and important trial issues. 

During FY 10, the Division’s judge advocates participated 

in one oral argument as part of United States Court of 

Appeals for the Armed Forces’ legal outreach program at 

Brooklyn Law School, Brooklyn, New York. 

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT DIVISION (CODE 46) 

Organization. The Division was staffed with nine active 

duty judge advocates, one civilian attorney, and two 

civilian administrative employees. Code 46 is currently 

supported by NAVJAG 116 (Minneapolis, Minnesota). Reserve 

judge advocates contributed an average of four briefs per 

month. 

Mission. In accordance with Article 70, UCMJ, the primary 

mission of the Appellate Government Division is to 

represent the United States before the NMCCA and CAAF. In 

addition, the Division provides support to staff judge 

advocates and trial counsel throughout the Navy and Marine 

Corps on issues related to pretrial, court-martial, and 

post-trial proceedings. 

6 
This year’s appellate activity is set forth in the 

following chart. Calculations 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. Case briefing 

has remained highly complex, dominated by issues such as 

military courts’ statutory duties, the limits of the 

Uniform Code’s grant of a right to military counsel, 

Congress’ revisions to Article 120, and the President’s 

ability to inform substantive military law regarding 

lesser-included offenses. Article 62 appeals taken from 

trial court decisions have again fallen from nine in FY 09 

to three in FY 10. 

 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 

NMCCA 

Briefs Filed 621 486 232 154 163 

Other Pleadings 333 528 340 313 373 

 Oral Arguments 10 8 6 14 15 

CAAF 

Briefs Filed 86 45 37 28 24 

Other Pleadings 115 158 146 60 102 

Oral Arguments 31 21 32 23 8 

 The Division augmented its delivery of legal advice to 

trial counsel through its Trial Counsel Assistance Program 

(TCAP). The Division provided legal services to Marine and 

Navy judge advocates across the globe, responding to 

hundreds of questions from the field relating to trial 

issues and appeals, and helped ensure the uniformity and 

consonance of legal positions taken by the United States 

both before trial and appellate courts. As noted on page 

2, this program has been replaced by TCAP programs within 

COMNAVLEGSVCCOM and the Office of the SJA to CMC. 

 Three Article 62, UCMJ, appeals were filed at NMCCA, 

one stemming from the recent Hamdaniya Hutchins decision 

regarding the Uniform Code’s statutory right to counsel. 

 

7 
The Division’s practice at CAAF included certification 

of significant matters of military justice in United States 

v. Hutchins, 68 M.J. 623 (N.M.Ct.Crim.App. 2010) and United 

States v. Serianne, 68 M.J. 580 (N.M.Ct.Crim.App. 2009). 

Additionally the Division filed an “amicus” brief in the 

Air Force Melendez-Diaz/Crawford case, United States v. 

Blazier, No. 09-041, 2010 CAAF LEXIS 1053 (C.A.A.F. Dec. 1, 

2010). 

The Division continued its representation of the United 

States in one capital case: United States v. Parker, 65 

M.J. 264 (C.A.A.F 2007). 

During FY 10, the Division’s judge advocates participated 

in one oral argument as part of United States Court of 

Appeals for the Armed Forces’ legal outreach program at 

Brooklyn Law School, Brooklyn, New York. 

Appellate Government Counsel have benefitted from an 

intensive and leveled appellate advocacy training program 

that includes attendance at the American Bar Association’s 

(ABA) Appellate Judges’ Education Institute and Appellate 

Lawyers Annual Practice Institute, the Association of 

Government Attorneys in Capital Litigation Conference, 

Bryan Garner’s Legal Research and Writing Seminar, the 

District of Columbia Bar Association’s Appellate Advocacy 

Seminar, the CAAF Annual Conference, and the Judge Advocate 

Association’s Appellate Advocacy Symposium. 

The Division implemented the U.S. military’s first 

"electronic records of trial" program, designating Camp 

Pendleton, California, to test the electronic processing of 

trial records that culminates in the docketing of a PDF 

record of trial at the Court of Criminal Appeals. As the 

field activities and the Division, in coordination with the 

NMCCA, expand their technological capabilities, the intent 

is to covert larger installations to processing a majority 

of their courts-martial electronically. 

8 
Finally, the Division has transitioned internally to a 

fully paperless and “virtual” office, including taskings 

and work product, the TCAP discussion board, a new Military 

Justice Wikipedia, and a routinely updated Military Justice 

Blog. All of this is made instantly available to all trial 

counsel and appellate government from the sister services 

who are then able to participate and contribute to the 

blog, TCAP board, and Military Justice Wikipedia. Since 

the start of this project in 2009, the Reserve unit 

supporting the Division has been able to participate in 

taskings and produce work product through this virtual 

office. Likewise, the new Joint Government website has 

vastly increased collaboration and uniformity by attorneys 

who represent the United States in front of military 

courts, and has made the United States' position, 

pleadings, and resources broadly available to counsel in 

the field. 

ASSISTANT JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, CHIEF JUDGE, DEPARTMENT 

OF THE NAVY 

 The Chief Judge of the Department of the Navy (CJDON) 

is the senior supervisory jurist in the Department of the 

Navy and as such serves as the reporting senior for all 

judges of the NMCCA, active and reserve components, as well 

as the Chief Judge of the Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary 

(NMCTJ). The CJDON supervises the deployment of active and 

Reserve judicial resources to best serve the interests of 

justice within the Department of the Navy. The CJDON also 

reports to the Judge Advocate General regarding any 

impediment to the judiciary, such as a lack of resources, 

which might cause a case to fail to be processed in a 

timely manner, consistent with due process. The CJDON 

serves as Chair of the Judicial Screening Board, presiding 

over periodic boards to select the best qualified judicial 

candidates for appointment to the trial and appellate 

benches. Additionally, the CJDON has been designated Rules 

Counsel for all inquiries into judicial misconduct or 

unfitness. Finally, the CJDON is the capstone billet for 

the Navy’s Military Justice Litigation Career Track, for 

which the CJDON serves as community sponsor and strategic 

planner. Upon successful completion of three years of 

service in this billet, including 12 months as AJAG, the 

incumbent qualifies to retire in the grade of Rear Admiral 

(lower half), at the discretion of the Secretary of the 

Navy. 

9 
U.S. NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

(CODE 51) 

The United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal 

Appeals is responsible for all cases referred under Article 

66, UCMJ. The Court is comprised of six Navy and three 

Marine Corps appellate judges. NMCCA is also supported by 

seven Navy reserve and two Marine Corps reserve appellate 

judges. FY 10 legal holdings included: that possession of 

child pornography absent legal justification is per se 

service discrediting conduct; applying United States v. 

Miller, 67 M.J. 385 (C.A.A.F. 2009) and United States v. 

Jones, 68 M.J. 465 (C.A.A.F. 2010), that negligent homicide 

does not satisfy the statutory elements test as a lesserincluded-offense (LIO) of the charged offense of 

involuntary manslaughter; that life without the possibility 

of parole is not an authorized punishment for an offense 

committed in 1996. 

NAVY-MARINE CORPS TRIAL JUDICIARY (CODE 52) 

The Navy and Marine Corps have a unified trial 

judiciary entitled the Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary. 

Its core mission is to provide certified military judges 

for Navy and Marine Corps general and special courtsmartial. The NMCTJ is organized into six judicial circuits 

world-wide and is supported by Naval Reserve and Marine 

Corps Reserve Individual Mobilization Augmentees. During 

FY 10, the NMCTJ consisted of 24 active duty and 18 reserve 

judges. 

 The NMCTJ provided comprehensive and timely judicial 

services to Fleet and Shore activities, and to Marine 

Forces in the United States and around the world, including 

forward-deployed combat zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan. 

In addition to presiding over regularly referred courtsmartial, naval service military judges presided over 

numerous high-profile cases, including a capital retrial 

case, and were appointed as Article 32 investigating 

officers in high visibility cases. Captain Bruce W. 

MacKenzie, JAGC, USN, and Captain Moira Modzelewski, JAGC, 

USN, continued to serve as military judges of the Military 

Commissions. 

10 
Judges also performed duties as Environmental Impact 

Statement Hearing officers for several proceedings 

throughout the United States conducted pursuant to the 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

 In August 2010, a military judge was reassigned to 

Naples, Italy to preside over and administer judicial 

services required within the geographical area of Europe, 

Africa and Southwest Asia. In conjunction with this 

personnel assignment, the geographical boundaries of the 

Northern Circuit and Central Circuit were re-aligned. 

 

Most members of the trial judiciary participated in 

the annual Interservice Military Judges Seminar (IMJS). 

Hosted this year by Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary, IMJS 

was held at the National Judicial College (NJC) in Reno, 

Nevada, and included courses on Advanced Evidence and 

Judicial Philosophy. NMCTJ judges also attended various 

other courses throughout the year at the NJC and the Judge 

Advocate General of the Army School in Charlottesville, 

Virginia. Successful completion of NJC courses may lead to 

receipt of a professional certificate, or potentially, a 

master’s or doctorate degree. Many NMCTJ judges have 

received the professional Certificate in Judicial 

Development, General Jurisdiction Trial Skills from the 

NJC. Several NMCTJ judges serve as adjunct faculty members 

at NJC, most notably the Chief Judge. 

 The NMCTJ also provided training at various levels, 

including the Defense Institute of International Legal 

Studies, Navy-Marine Corps Senior Officers Courses, Legal 

Officer Courses, Naval Justice School Basic Lawyer Courses, 

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

Military Judges Course, and other in-service courses. 

Throughout all judicial circuits, the NMCTJ performed an 

active role in routinely mentoring judge advocates by means 

of both formal and informal training sessions. 

11 
NAVAL LEGAL SERVICE COMMAND 

Naval Legal Service Command (NAVLEGSVCCOM) is 

commanded by the Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Navy. 

NAVLEGSVCCOM includes 371 judge advocates, one Civil 

Engineer Corps Officer, ten Limited Duty (Legal) Officers, 

227 Legalmen, and 251 civilians. NAVLEGSVCCOM provides a 

wide range of legal services to afloat and ashore commands, 

active duty naval personnel, family members, retirees, and 

eligible beneficiaries from the other services at 99 

offices world-wide and is the primary source of personnel 

to meet the Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps annual 

Individual Augmentation (IA) requirement in support of the 

Overseas Contingency Operations (OCOs). NAVLEGSVCCOM 

consists of eight Naval Legal Service Offices (NLSOs), nine 

Region Legal Service Offices (RLSOs), and the Naval Justice 

School. NAVLEGSVCCOM provides counsel for courts-martial, 

administrative boards, physical evaluation boards, legal 

assistance, and local commanders. NAVLEGSVCCOM also provides 

training for Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard judge 

advocates, legalmen, and other DoD personnel. 

NAVAL JUSTICE SCHOOL 

 Organization. Naval Justice School (NJS) reports to 

Commander, Naval Legal Service Command (COMNAVLEGSVCCOM) 

for administrative and operational control. Additionally, 

Commanding Officer, NJS consults with Commanding Officer, 

Center for Service Support on matters relating to the 

effectiveness of instruction and administration of training 

at NJS. The main NJS facility is located in Newport, Rhode 

Island. Teaching detachments are based in San Diego, 

California, and Norfolk, Virginia (areas of Fleet 

concentration). A two-person Branch Office is co-located 

with the U.S. Army’s The Judge Advocate General's Legal 

Center and School in Charlottesville, Virginia. 

 

12 
Mission. To oversee formal training of naval judge 

advocates and legalmen 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; and to train commanders 

and senior officers in the practical aspects of military 

law to enable them to perform their command and staff 

duties, and train other personnel to assist in the sound 

administration of military justice. 

In FY 10, NJS provided instruction to more than 25,756 

students worldwide (including 2,981 in resident courses 

ranging in length from three days to eleven weeks). In 

addition to teaching at NJS courses, NJS instructors 

provide out-of-house teaching in military justice, 

administrative law, and operational law to other commands, 

including the Naval War College, Command Leadership School, 

Officer Training Command, Senior Enlisted Academy, Surface 

Warfare Officers School Command, and to submariner officers 

at the Submariners Officer Advanced Course. 

 Academic Programs. NJS has eight "core" courses that 

include training in military justice. These courses are: 

1. Basic Lawyer Course (BLC). This 10-week course, 

offered three times in FY 10, provides accession training 

for 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 in both legal 

assistance skills and trial advocacy skills. Upon 

graduation, judge advocates are certified per Article 

27(b), UCMJ. FY 10 graduates: 136. 

 

13 
2. Accession Legalman Course. This 11-week course, 

offered three times annually, trains Navy enlisted 

personnel selected for conversion to the Legalman rating. 

The course provides 10 ABA-certified credits towards a 

paralegal degree or certificate in partnership with Roger 

Williams University. In addition to military-specific 

training in military justice, court reporting, 

administrative investigations, and administrative 

separations, the program includes four college-level 

courses taught by NJS officer instructors: Ethics, Legal 

Research and Writing I, Introduction to Law, and Emerging 

Legal Technologies. FY 10 graduates: 73. 

3. Basic Legal Services Specialist Course. This 9 1/2-

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. FY 10 graduates: 87. 

4. Legal Services Court Reporter Course. This 11- week 

course, offered twice annually, provides court reporter 

training to Legal Services Specialists, grades E-3 to E-7, 

seeking the necessary 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 wpm, court reporting grammar 

and punctuation, speech recognition technology, digital 

recording software, and the production of verbatim and 

summarized courts-martial proceedings. FY 10 graduates: 

36. 

5. Senior Officer Course in Military Justice and Civil 

Law. This 1-week course trains senior officers in the 

execution of the legal responsibilities of command with 

instruction in nonjudicial punishment, court-martial 

procedures, and administrative law. FY 10 graduates: 694. 

6. Legal Officer Course. This 3-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. FY 10 graduates: 478. 

14 
 

7. Legal Clerk Course. Legal Clerks are typically 

assigned to assist non-lawyer Legal Officers within a 

command as a collateral duty. This 2-week course provides 

training in the preparation of legal forms and reports, 

service record entries, nonjudicial punishment, and 

court-martial procedures. FY 10 graduates: 316. 

8. Senior Enlisted Leadership Course (SELC) in Military 

Justice and Civil Law. This 3-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 Newport, portions of the SELC are incorporated 

into the core curriculum at the Navy's Senior Enlisted 

Academy. FY 10 graduates: 332. 

Continuing Legal Education. In addition to the "core" 

courses, NJS provided 25 continuing legal education (CLE) 

courses, many of which are pre-approved for CLE credit from 

state bar associations. Most of these courses focus upon 

military justice (e.g., intermediate and advanced trial 

advocacy skills; computer crimes; national security cases; 

prosecuting and defending complex cases; reserve updates; 

and a number of paralegal courses). Training was provided 

to active duty and reserve judge advocates and enlisted 

legal professionals from the Sea Services, Army, Air Force, 

and foreign countries in military justice, operational law, 

administrative law, legal assistance, and estate planning. 

In FY 10, these resident courses reached 678 active duty 

and 80 reserve legal professionals. 

 Legalman Paralegal Education Program (LPEP). In FY 

10, NJS launched LPEP, a government-funded full-time 

education program leading to an Associate’s Degree in 

Paralegal Studies. The program is mandatory for all 

Legalmen in order to meet minimum occupational standards 

for the LN-paralegal rating. Following LN Accession, 

students participate in either the resident option, during 

which they study in-residence with Roger Williams 

University (RWU) for one semester, or the distance learning 

option, during which they study either online or with ABAaccredited schools local to their permanent duty stations. 

Fleet Legalmen are eligible to return to Newport for the 

in-resident semester with RWU, and also to participate in 

the distance learning option. 

15 
In FY 10, 20 students were registered in the resident 

option, and an additional 86 students were registered in 

the distance learning option. 

 Coordination. Through the Interservice Legal 

Education Review Committee, Commanding Officer, NJS; the 

Dean of Students, The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center 

and School; and the Commandant, Air Force Judge Advocate 

General’s School, meet bi-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. 

 Publications. NJS publishes the Naval Law Review, 

study guides, materials in support of academic programs, 

reference manuals designed to assist Sea Service commanders 

with implementation of the UCMJ, and any additional 

materials directed by higher authority. 

MARINE CORPS ACTIVITIES 

 An analysis of the Departmental trends over the last 

several years reveals a declining number of courts-martial 

and indicates that the Marine Corps continues to try an 

increasing percentage of the courts-martial within the 

Department of the Navy. In FY 10, the Marine Corps 

litigated three-quarters of the courts-martial in the 

Department of the Navy. Although overall court-martial 

numbers and particularly special court-martial numbers had 

declined, there appeared to be no corresponding reduction 

in the demand for military justice resources and expertise. 

The Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine 

Corps (SJA to CMC) conducted the first comprehensive 

internal review of the delivery of legal services in the 

Marine Corps since 1990. 

16 
Having determined that the Marine Corps’ legal 

organization was structurally sound and that the Marine 

Corps was acting to address manpower deficiencies, the 

Marine legal community implemented new initiatives designed 

to elevate the practice of law. Initial indications from 

FY 10 suggest that these initiatives will ensure lasting, 

consistent success in accomplishing the military justice 

mission, notwithstanding variations in the court-martial 

caseload or available resources. 

I. Initiatives. The Marine Corps Legal Services Strategic 

Action Plan 2010-2015 set forth five strategic goals which 

established the blueprint for improving the delivery of 

legal services in the Marine Corps: 

1) Standardize functional areas, procedures, and technology 

to foster a common operating scheme throughout the 

community of practice; 

2) Develop and maintain critical capabilities necessary to 

execute core competencies and improve the professional 

training, education, and performance of the legal services 

community; 

3) Create and implement a formalized and Commander-based 

inspection program to facilitate transparent oversight of 

the readiness of all Marine legal offices; 

4) Evaluate and, as appropriate, adapt organizational 

structure to right-size the legal community and achieve 

maximum efficiency with limited resources; and 

5) Capture, memorialize, and promulgate legal services 

doctrine to exploit lessons learned and improve the 

delivery of legal services. 

To achieve these strategic goals, the Marine Corps legal 

community focused its efforts on certain key initiatives, 

many of which targeted military justice practice. 

A. Goal: Standardize Functional Areas, Procedures, and 

Technology. 

17 
 1. Case Management System (CMS). Of the many 

initiatives implemented in FY 10, CMS has had the most 

important and immediate impact. In the summer of 2009, 

recognizing the need for a comprehensive, integrated 

courts-martial tracking system, the SJA to CMC began 

identifying the requirements for an effective case tracking 

and management system. 

CMS, a Lotus Notes based, web-enabled software application, 

was selected. CMS tracks court-martial cases from a 

command’s request for legal services through trial and 

until the case is received at NAMARA (i.e. throughout the 

service-level lifespan of a court-martial). After 

successfully testing CMS at various Marine legal offices, 

the SJA to CMC mandated its use in MARADMIN 062/10 of 1 

February 2010. The implementation of a common, integrated, 

real-time case tracking database produced immediate results 

by providing complete visibility over every case at every 

stage of the service-level process and eliminating gaps 

caused by a variety of incompatible systems throughout the 

Marine Corps. CMS is currently being expanded to provide a 

standardized database for administrative separations and 

investigations. 

 2. Standardized Forms. In FY 10, the Judge Advocate 

Division, Headquarters Marine Corps (JAD) began the process 

of capturing and consolidating forms, document templates, 

checklists, and standard operating procedures (SOP) with a 

view toward standardization where appropriate. This 

initiative included a pilot program on two important 

military justice post-trial documents: the Staff Judge 

Advocate’s Recommendation (SJAR) and the Convening 

Authority’s Action (CAA). These documents have been tested 

and, pending comments from the field, are scheduled to be 

implemented throughout the Marine Corps as a step toward 

promoting uniformity where it will expedite post-trial 

processing. JAD’s adoption of SharePoint as our primary 

knowledge management portal facilitates our efforts to 

capture best-practices by providing a “Community of 

Practice” forum accessible by judge advocates across the 

enterprise as a means of generating ideas and collaborating 

on their evaluation and development. 

 

18 
3. Digital Records of Trial. In FY 10, in an effort 

to modernize our practice, the Marine Corps began to use 

digital records of trial with certain cases subject to 

appellate review. Instead of shipping the original record 

and two paper copies that are required for cases pending 

mandatory review before the Navy-Marine Corps Court of 

Criminal Appeals (NMCCA), the original record is scanned 

onto compact disks (CD) in a PDF format and the appropriate 

number of CDs is sent with the original paper record. 

Because the record is now a PDF file, it is formatted and 

bookmarked to a uniform standard and has all the 

corresponding benefits of an electronic record, including a 

search capability. Based on early success, the LSSS at 

Camp Pendleton now forwards all guilty plea cases subject 

to mandatory review in this manner. Promising savings in 

time and resources, the program has expanded to Marine 

Corps Base, Hawaii and Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat 

Center, 29 Palms, California, as the Marine Corps seeks to 

convert all major installations to digital records. 

 4. Victim Witness Assistance Program (VWAP). From 

late 2009 through early 2010, the Military Justice Branch 

of the Judge Advocate Division (JAM) undertook a review of 

the VWAPs at Marine Corps installations and identified 

weaknesses in the support system for victims and witnesses. 

Based on this review, JAM took a series of actions to 

revitalize the VWAP throughout the Marine Corps, including 

capturing VWAP data requirements in CMS and sponsoring the 

first Marine Corps-wide VWAP Training Conference. The 

conference provided baseline training to VWAP personnel 

from nationally recognized civilian experts, conducted 

specialized training on handling victims of sexual assault, 

and developed a series of objectives for each VWAP office 

to meet within certain set timelines. 

 5. Marine Corps Manual for Legal Administration. JAD 

is currently revising the primary service-level regulation 

for legal administration1

 to account for changes in law and 

regulation and to assist in implementing standardized 

procedures. Draft revisions include chapters covering 

military justice generally, defense counsel services, and 

the VWAP. 

19 

 

1

 U.S. MARINE CORPS, ORDER P5800.16A, MARINE CORPS MANUAL FOR LEGAL ADMINISTRATION (31 Aug 

99) [hereinafter LEGADMINMAN]. 
B. Goal: Develop and Maintain Critical Capabilities. 

 1. Building Communities of Practice. Since 1985, the 

Marine Corps has maintained an independent defense 

organization headed by the Chief Defense Counsel of the 

Marine Corps (CDC). This model has proven effective at 

providing defense counsel with mentorship, supervision and 

resources to professionally represent an accused service 

member. To provide trial counsel with a similar resource, 

the Marine Corps implemented a Trial Counsel Assistance 

Program (TCAP). Both the Director of TCAP and the CDC have 

leveraged technology to better support counsel through the 

use of SharePoint websites. These initiatives have already 

improved our capability for real-time collaboration and 

information sharing. 

 a. Trial Counsel Assistance Program. The increasing 

complexity of courts-martial requires today’s judge 

advocates to have a greater breadth and depth of knowledge 

while still being proficient in the basics. In response to 

this need, the Marine Corps stood up the TCAP in May 2010 

within JAM. The TCAP consists of one field grade and one 

company grade officer. The TCAP provides training and 

resources to assist Marine prosecutors using a number of 

tools, including on-site training, video teleconferencing, 

and the TCAP SharePoint litigation support website that 

contains practice advisories, a military justice blog, a 

motions bank, and other useful documents and links. 

 b. The Marine Defense Counsel Community. Leveraging 

advances in knowledge management programs, the CDC in close 

coordination with the Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps’ 

Administrative, Resources, and Information Branch (ARI), 

developed a global online SharePoint site for collaboration 

and sharing information, creating a worldwide “virtual law 

firm” comprised of all defense counsel and enlisted support 

personnel around the globe to include deployed Marines. 

The CDC introduced this SharePoint site at the first ever 

Marine Corps-wide Defense Training Conference. This 

conference, centrally funded by Headquarters Marine Corps, 

brought all defense counsel and their legal support 

specialists together for a week for an introduction to 

SharePoint, to receive litigation training, and to share 

best-practices within the various defense offices. 

20 
 2. Training and Readiness (T/R) Manual. On 13 May 

2010, the Marine Corps published a revised Legal Services 

T/R Manual, NAVMC 3500.82, with significant changes to the 

training of Marine legal personnel. The T/R Manual 

establishes Core Capability Mission Essential Tasks for 

readiness reporting and required events for standardized 

training of Marines assigned to Marine Corps legal services 

units. It provides tasking for formal schools and 

establishes standards to evaluate the proficiency of legal 

Marines in accomplishing required tasks. 

In August 2010, Naval Justice School personnel and subject 

matter experts from the Marine legal community conducted a 

Course Content Review Board (CCRB) to recommend 

improvements to the introductory legal services specialist 

course based on the revised T/R Manual. In addition, the 

Marine legal community began development of proposed 

educational courses in the areas of military justice and 

post-trial processing for Marine legal service specialist 

noncommissioned and staff noncommissioned officers. The 

proposals were forwarded to the Ground Training Branch on 8 

September 2010 for review and approval. Each program of 

instruction will build upon core legal competencies in 

military justice and improve the professional development 

of all Marine legal services specialists. 

 3. Military Justice Manager Billet Re-coding. In 

June 2010, JAD requested and Marine Corps Manpower approved 

the re-coding of an additional 22 structured 4402 billets 

to the Military Justice Manager MOS (4409).2 This MOS 

requires an advanced law degree (LL.M) or proven experience 

in the practice of military justice. This initiative 

should assist in responding to the need for more 

experienced judge advocates in supervisory military justice 

billets. 

21 

 

2 The Marine Corps MOS Manual refers to MOSs that require education, 

training or experience in addition to that required of the basic MOS as 

“necessary” MOSs. U.S. MARINE CORPS, ORDER 1200.17, MILITARY OCCUPATIONAL 

SPECIALTIES (MOS) MARINE CORPS MANUAL (23 May 2008).
 C. Goal: Oversight Inspections. 

 

 1. Commanding General’s Inspection Program and 

Automated Inspection Reporting System (AIRS) Checklist. 

JAD developed and the Inspector General of the Marine Corps 

implemented AIRS Checklist 091 - SJA Office, Law Center, 

Legal Service Support Section - in May 2010. This 

initiative established for the first time, a checklist that 

includes standards for all SJA-level legal services 

functional areas, including military justice, and is 

institutionalized as a formal part of the Commanding 

General’s Inspection Program (CGIP). The checklist 

provides Marine Commanders and their SJAs a gauge by which 

to measure the performance of their legal organizations. 

Since implementation, the Marine Corps has conducted 091 

inspections at Marine Corps Base Quantico Law Center and at 

the SJA offices at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune and II 

Marine Expeditionary Force. 

 2. SJA to CMC Inspections. The SJA to CMC has 

historically visited Marine Corps installations to assess 

the provision of legal services. While these annual visits 

have typically included an assessment of the health of the 

provision of legal services at each office, there has not 

been a standardized inspection process within the Marine 

Corps consistent with the requirement under Article 6, 

UCMJ, “to make frequent inspection in the field in 

supervision of the administration of military justice.” To 

strengthen these inspections, JAD developed uniform 

information requirements, which, in conjunction with CGIP 

inspections, provide Commanders and their SJAs an 

additional opportunity to thoroughly assess legal readiness 

and provide a more effective tool for the supervision of 

the administration of military justice. 

 D. Goal: Evaluating and Adapting Structure to Right-Size 

the Legal Community. 

22 
 1. Manpower Initiatives Affecting Military Justice. 

By the beginning of FY 10, the Marine Corps manpower 

process had already validated the requirement for an 

increased number of judge advocates and had begun taking 

steps to right-size the legal community (i.e., to build 

inventory to produce a sufficient number of judge advocates 

in appropriate grades to fill both operational and military 

justice requirements). 

For company grade judge advocates, the Marine Corps 

increased accessions by 71% from FY 08 to FY 10. In FY 10, 

the judge advocate recruiting mission stood at 60, up 15 

from the previous year alone. In addition, to build 

experience in the company grade ranks, the Marine Corps 

instituted a precept for the career designation board and 

offered all judge advocates an opportunity to remain on 

active duty. Finally, in September 2010, MARADMIN 515/10 

announced an increase in the Law School Education Debt 

Subsidy (LSEDS) from $30,000 to $45,000. By increasing 

accessions and reducing the cost for company grade judge 

advocates to stay on active duty, these initiatives 

expanded the number and experience of our active duty 

litigators. 

Two manpower initiatives specifically addressed identified 

shortfalls in the grades of major and colonel. First, the 

Marine Corps conducted two Return-to-Active-Duty (RAD) 

boards and selected a total of twelve majors, many of whom 

will be assigned immediately as mid-level military justice 

managers. Second, a promotion precept was added to the 

FY12 colonel’s selection board (convened in September 2010) 

and eleven judge advocates were selected to colonel.3

 

Increasing the number of experienced military justice 

supervisors will inevitably raise the quality of our 

military justice practice. 

23 

 

3

 The percentage of eligible judge advocates promoted to colonel 

exceeded that of the previous years. Sixty-four percent (9 of 14) of 

eligible in-zone judge advocates were selected and 13% (2 of 15) of 

eligible above-zone officers were selected. The average selection 

rates for all other MOSs were 52% in-zone, 1.9% above-zone. 
At the beginning of FY 10, there were 411 judge advocates 

across the Marine Corps. By the beginning of FY 11, there 

were 473.4 Additionally, due to the billet re-coding 

initiative, there are now 22 coded military justice 

supervisor billets. Currently, 46 judge advocates are 

serving in trial counsel billets; 48 judge advocates are 

serving in defense counsel billets; eleven judge advocates 

are serving in appellate counsel billets; seven judge 

advocates are serving as military judges; and eleven judge 

advocates are serving as review officers. Although not an 

exact science, finding the right caseload per counsel 

requires a balance. Counsel must carry enough cases to 

gain a level of proficiency and establish an experience 

base, but not so many as to deteriorate their ability to 

provide competent representation in each individual case. 

 2. Creating New Court Reporters: Voice Recognition 

Training. Over the past three years, the Marine Corps has 

transitioned from court stenographers to voice recognition 

court reporters. This change was accomplished by training 

legal service specialists to do voice recognition reporting 

as a secondary MOS. It also reduced the training pipeline 

for court reporters from two years for new stenographers to 

11 weeks for voice recognition training and certification. 

In coordination with the Naval Justice School and Marine 

Corps Training and Education Command, JAD increased the 

total number of funded training seats from 20 in FY 09 to 

30 in FY 10. These additional court reporters will ensure 

that the Marine Corps can respond to changing needs in the 

military justice mission as they occur. 

 3. Transfer of Reserve LSSS. In August 2010, the 

Marine Corps transferred the Marine Forces Reserve LSSS (RLSSS), formerly part of Mobilization Command, to JAD. This 

move enhanced the ability of the SJA to CMC to effectively 

coordinate the employment of over 340 Marine reserve judge 

advocates, including those whose focus is military justice. 

24 

 

4

 The number at the beginning of FY 10 includes 16 judge advocates who 

graduated from NJS on 9 October 2009. The number at the beginning of 

FY 10 includes 38 Marine judge advocates that graduated from NJS on 8 

October 2010. 
Three of the six R-LSSS branches - the Regional Defense 

Activity Support Branch, the Regional Government Activity 

Support Branch, and the Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary 

Branch - perform functions specifically related to military 

justice. They are staffed by seasoned attorneys capable of 

responding to the requirements of the trial and defense 

communities to serve as detailed counsel and to assist with 

case preparation and training, as well as to serve as 

judges to support the judiciary. 

 4. Court Reporter and Post-trial Review Office 

Regionalization Study. A proposal to consolidate offices 

responsible for post-trial processing to gain economies of 

scale and concentrate expertise is currently being 

evaluated. This proposal would require an effective system 

of electronic records before implementation. 

 

II. Military Justice Mission Accomplishment 

 A. General and Special Courts-Martial Litigated. In FY 

10, the Marine Corps litigated to completion 197 general 

courts-martial and 649 special courts-martial, representing 

three-quarters of all courts-martial in the Department of 

the Navy in FY 10.5

 With 46 trial counsel and 48 defense 

counsel, the Marine Corps caseload for FY 10 amounts to an 

average of approximately 17 cases (4 general and 13 special 

courts-martial) per counsel. Although the evaluative 

usefulness of this average caseload is limited due to 

variations in individual counsel caseload, there are no 

indications from military justice supervisors or military 

judge assessments that the caseload is so high as to 

jeopardize competent representation on either side of the 

aisle. Historical data and local assessments indicate that 

the court-martial caseload is sufficient to provide Marine 

judge advocates and support personnel the opportunity to 

gain proficiency and build an experience base for the 

development of a professional military justice practice. 

25 

 

5

 Because the Marine Corps-wide CMS was not mandated until February 2010, USMC 

court-martial data was derived from the Criminal Activity, Disciplinary 

Infractions and Courts-Martial Report. JAGINST 5800.9. 
 B. Other Military Justice Tasks: Trial and Defense 

Counsel and Military Justice Support Personnel. In 

addition to tasks associated with litigation, including 

post-trial tasks, military justice personnel perform a 

variety of other functions including administrative board 

hearings and Boards of Inquiry;6 command advice to convening 

authorities (trial counsel), and non-court-martial advice 

to individual Marines and Sailors (defense counsel), such 

as nonjudicial punishment counseling and Article 138 

complaints. 

 C. Post-Trial Case Processing. In FY 10, 2,481 

general, special, and summary courts-martial entered the 

post-trial process. For those special and general courtsmartial required to be forwarded to NAMARA, Marine legal 

offices improved processing times by an average of 36 days 

since the implementation of CMS in February 2010. The 

average processing time for Marine Corps cases since the 

implementation of CMS is 86 days from date of trial to 

receipt of the record of trial by NAMARA. 

In addition, on 24 February 2010, one week after the 

effective date of implementation of CMS, 41 of the 121 

total cases in the post-trial process exceeded 120 days 

from the date of trial (sentencing) to convening 

authority’s action or receipt at NAMARA. As of 28 

September 2010, after seven months of mandatory CMS use, 

three of 138 total cases fell in this category. 

 D. Caseload. The Marine Corps currently maintains a 

special and general courts-martial docket of approximately 

500 cases. Although many of these cases will be 

adjudicated at special and general courts-martial, a large 

percentage will be disposed of at alternative forums such 

as administrative discharge boards or summary courtsmartial, or by nonjudicial punishment (NJP). 

26 

 

6

 In FY 10, there were 540 enlisted administrative separation boards and 42 

Boards of Inquiry held in the Marine Corps. 
These alternative dispositions still require judge advocate 

support as suggested by the 540 administrative separation 

boards conducted by the Marine Corps in FY 10, each board 

requiring a defense counsel to represent the respondent. 

Boards of inquiry (officer administrative separations) also 

contribute to the workload of trial and defense counsel, as 

does NJP counseling, Article 138, UCMJ, complaints, and 

Request Mast petitions by Marines and Sailors. 

Fiscal 

Year

End 

Strength 

GCM SPCM SCM Total 

Courts 

NJP 

FY 107 202,729 197 649 1,695 2,541 11,774 

FY 09 202,000 140 675 1,670 2,485 11,772 

FY 08 198,505 163 692 1,373 2,228 10,425 

FY 07 180,169 149 800 1,262 2,211 15,012 

FY 06 180,416 120 964 1,262 2,346 13,217 

As illustrated in the table above, the number of general 

courts-martial litigated has remained relatively steady 

over the past eight years, with an increase from 140 in 

2009 to 197 in 2010. Over the same period, the number of 

special courts-martial litigated has decreased while 

summary courts-martial have slightly increased. 

Additionally, administrative separation boards increased 

from 307 in 2006 to 338 in 2008 to 540 in 2010. 

 JAMES W. HOUCK 

 Vice Admiral, JAGC, U.S. Navy 

 Judge Advocate General of the Navy 

27 

 

7

 USMC court-martial data derived from the Criminal Activity, Disciplinary 

Infractions and Courts-Martial Report. JAGINST 5800.9.
APPENDIX - U.S. NAVY/MARINE CORPS MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Report Period: FY 2010 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/ 

DECREASE (-) OVER 

LAST REPORT 

USN1 USMC 2 

USN1 USMC 2 USN1 USMC2 

GENERAL 124 197 108 178 13 19 +37% 

BCD SPECIAL 155 649 133 623 14 26 -8% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 

SUMMARY3 155 1695 152 1680 3 15 -1% 

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

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL ) 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 94 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 111 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL ) 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 402 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 206 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 385 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTSMARTIAL 47 

PART 4 – WORKLOAD OF THE U.S. NAVY-MARINE CORPS CRT OF 

CRIMINAL 

 APPEALS 

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 206 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 84 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 122 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 

678 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 242 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 436 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 688 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 229 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 459 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 196 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 99 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 97 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD -13% 

28 
PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

 U.S. NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

(CCA) 

NUMBER 688 

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 (64) 9% 

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

PERIOD 

-4% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED (22) 34% 

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

PERIOD 

13% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CCA 3% 

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

DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

-3% 

 

29 
APPENDIX - U.S. NAVY/MARINE CORPS MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS - 

CONT’D 

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ 

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 14 

RECEIVED 47 

DISPOSED OF 36 

 GRANTED 2 

 DENIED 33 

 NO JURISDICTION 1 

 WITHDRAWN 0 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 25 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS4 

 USN USMC 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 196 Note 4 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 78 Note 4 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 118 Note 4 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 77 Note 4 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 44 Note 4 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 33 Note 4 

TRIALS – COURT COMPOSITION DATA NOT AVAILABLE 6 Note 4 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 2 Note 4 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 4 Note 4 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 47 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 532,135 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 21,840 

RATE PER 1,000 41 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS 

PERIOD -5% 

30 
Explanatory Notes

1 – USN court-martial data is derived from the Navy’s Case Management Tracking Information System 

(CMTIS). 

2 – USMC court-martial data is derived from the Criminal Activity, Disciplinary Infractions and CourtsMartial 

 Report. JAGINST 5800.9. 

3 – DON Summary court-martial data is derived from the Criminal Activity, Disciplinary Infractions and 

Courts-Martial 

 Report. JAGINST 5800.9. 

4 – USMC court-martial composition data is not reported under the Criminal Activity, Disciplinary 

Infractions and Courts- 

 Martial Report. JAGINST 5800.9. 

 

**The courts-martial data contained in the Report on the State of Military Justice in the Department of the 

Navy for Fiscal Year 2010 and the Marine Corps Legal Services Military Justice Report 2010 is inaccurate 

due to administrative error. This report contains the corrected data. 

31 
SECTION 5 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

AIR FORCE 
REPORT OF

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL

OF THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

OCTOBER 1, 2009 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 

THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (AFCCA) 

The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals continued to 

reduce the number of cases pending before it by reviewing 

265 cases in fiscal year 2010. The Court saw a significant 

increase in appeals under Article 62, UCMJ, reviewing 13 

such appeals in fiscal year 2010 which was more than triple 

the number reviewed in the previous fiscal year. In 

addition, the Court again heard several oral arguments 

through “Project Outreach” at civilian law schools and Air 

Force bases. The Court heard five oral arguments at 

University of Mississippi School of Law, Suffolk University 

Law School, Hamline University School of Law, University of 

Colorado Law School, and Charleston Air Force Base. 

The size of the Court remained at five active-duty 

judges, but again experienced changes in its personnel in 

2010. The Court welcomed a new Senior Judge, two new 

Associate Judges, and a new Chief Commissioner after the 

departure of previous personnel in those positions due to 

permanent changes of station. 

In addition to performing their statutory 

responsibilities, members of the Court used their judicial 

experience to assist the Air Force and Department of 

Defense in areas beyond the Court itself. Two of the 

appellate military judges served on the United States Court 

of Military Commission Review (USCMCR). In accordance with 

the Military Commissions Act of 2009, the USCMCR has 

automatic appellate jurisdiction over any convictions under 

the Act and also hears appeals of issues taken prior to and 

during trial. Additionally, members of the Court continued 

to conduct Environmental Impact Hearings in accordance with 

the National Environmental Policy Act. 

1 
The appellate military judges presided over hearings 

in Arizona, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and 

Wyoming, allowing for federal receipt of public comment on 

any potential change in base mission which could impact the 

environment. Additionally, the judges and Court staff 

participated in a number of educational programs for judge 

advocates in all branches of the armed forces. Finally, 

the Court continued to develop and implement the use of 

technology to make its operations more accessible to the 

public. This year, the Court began posting its orders as 

well as the audio files from oral arguments heard before 

the Court on the Court’s website and also established an 

electronic docket which reflects cases currently docketed. 

TRIAL JUDICIARY 

The Air Force Trial Judiciary Directorate (JAT) is 

responsible for trying and docketing all Air Force general 

and special courts-martial and presiding over an array of 

Federal hearings. The Directorate is staffed by 18 activeduty trial judges, 5 reserve trial judges, 1 

noncommissioned officer, and 1 civilian employee. The 

office of the Chief Trial Judge is co-located with the 

Central Docketing Office at Bolling AFB, District of 

Columbia, and includes the Deputy Chief Trial Judge, a 

noncommissioned officer, and a civilian Clerk of Courts. 

The remaining JAT personnel—all trial judges—are postured 

in a variety of geographically advantageous locations 

around the globe, including Kadena AB, Japan; Travis AFB, 

California; McChord AFB, Washington; Nellis AFB, Nevada; 

the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, 

Colorado; Offutt AFB, Nebraska; Randolph AFB, Texas; 

Sheppard AFB, Texas; Eglin AFB, Florida; Charleston AFB, 

South Carolina; Ramstein AB, Germany; and RAF Lakenheath, 

United Kingdom. 

2 
In fiscal year 2010, Air Force judges presided over 

593 general and special courts-martial. Judges have also 

served as investigating officers in numerous complex and 

high-profile Article 32 investigations, as legal advisors 

for officer discharge and other administrative boards, as 

hearing officers in parole violation hearings, and have 

presided at public hearings held to consider draft 

environmental impact statements. 

One Air Force military judge deployed to Iraq where he 

served a six-month tour. Another military judge presided 

over three courts-martial at Balad AB, Iraq; one case at 

Bagram AB, Afghanistan; and one case at Ali Al Salem AB, 

Kuwait. A military judge presided over five courts-martial 

at Al Udeid AB, Qatar and two courts-martial at Balad AB, 

Iraq. Currently, four trial judges have been detailed to 

the military commissions in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 

Air Force judges served as ambassadors for military 

justice in classrooms and through publication. Division 

personnel instructed new military judges at The Army Judge 

Advocate General’s Legal Center and School in 

Charlottesville, Virginia. Division personnel also 

lectured at a number of Judge Advocate Staff Officer 

Courses at the Air Force Judge Advocate General’s School 

(AFJAGS), Maxwell AFB, Alabama. Air Force judges also 

instructed at various trial advocacy courses and programs 

throughout the country and overseas to enhance 

practitioners’ litigation skills. A division judge 

published an article entitled, “Criminal Law and Litigation 

in the JAG Corps” in the American Bar Association’s book, 

Careers in Criminal Law. 

Members of the Trial Judiciary have continued to 

receive recognition from a variety of professional 

organizations. One of our judges was awarded the Judge 

Advocates Association William K. Suter Distinguished 

Judicial Service Award for her dedicated and exceptional 

service as a military judge. Another military judge was 

recognized as the distinguished graduate of the 53rd

Military Judge Course at the Army Judge Advocate General 

Legal Center and School in Charlottesville, Virginia. 

3 
The Air Force, along with a total of over 120 judges 

from all the services, attended the Annual Interservice 

Military Judges Seminar. The Seminar was held at the 

National Judicial College in Reno, Nevada. The weeklong 

Seminar consisted of continuing legal education lectures, 

seminars on emerging issues, and a variety of collegium 

opportunities. 

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 (TJAG), 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. In addition, the directorate provides court 

reporter support for courts-martial, discharge boards, 

Accident Investigation Boards and other hearings through 

its Enlisted Court Reporter program. 

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. 

GOVERNMENT TRIAL & APPELLATE COUNSEL DIVISION 

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT COUNSEL 

 During this past year, appellate counsel vigorously 

represented the government in Article 66 and Article 67 

appeals of Air Force courts-martial convictions. The 

division also sought and obtained certification from The 

Judge Advocate General in two cases for USCAAF review, and 

filed government appeals in six cases under Article 62, 

UCMJ. 

4 
 Appellate government counsel zealously represented the 

government in oral arguments before USCAAF and AFCCA. 

Appellate government counsel contributed to Project 

Outreach, sponsored by USCAAF and AFCCA, by conducting oral 

arguments in six 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. 

 Counsel provided intense advocacy training and field 

support. Division counsel educated judge advocates and 

paralegals at Air Force training events such Trial Advocacy 

Conferences, the Military Justice Administration Course, 

the Trial and Defense Advocacy Course, Numbered Air Force 

conferences, and the KEYSTONE Leadership Summit. The 

division also created and posted comprehensive trial and 

appellate materials on the JAJG Learning Center hosted on 

AFJAGS CAPSIL online resource. Appellate counsel also 

published the Trial Counsel Deskbook and an electronic 

newsletter containing appellate updates along with timely 

and relevant articles for military justice practitioners at 

all levels. 

The division continued to fulfill its obligation to 

support war-fighting commanders through the deployment of 

personnel. One of our experienced appellate government 

counsel completed a six-month deployment to the Law and 

Order Task Force bringing legal stability and progress to 

Iraq. 

 Along the way, 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, including the 

Court’s annual Appellate Advocacy Symposium, hosted in 

conjunction with the Judge Advocates Association. 

5 
Appellate government counsel have actively built 

relationships with sister service counterparts through 

participation in quarterly meetings and regular 

consultation on matters of common interest, and filed an 

amicus brief in a Navy-Marine Corps USCAAF case involving 

the release of trial defense counsel upon their separation 

from active-duty service. The division also hosted one 

summer intern, a law student who had completed her second 

year of law school and expressed an interest in service as 

a judge advocate. This bright young professional 

significantly supported the division mission by conducting 

legal research and writing appellate briefs and motions, 

and was positively influenced by her experience in the 

internship program. JAJG’s intern was recently accepted for 

accession as a new Air Force judge advocate upon completion 

of law school and her bar examination, continuing a longstanding tradition of JAJG interns advancing to service as 

Air Force judge advocates. 

 The division obtains crucial appellate counsel support 

from eleven assigned reserve judge advocates. They 

continue to provide superb support, greatly assisting the 

division in carrying out its mission. In addition to 

preparing written briefs, two reserve counsel presented 

oral arguments before USCAAF during the fiscal year. 

6 
 A summary of Air Force Appellate Government practice 

follows: 

SENIOR TRIAL COUNSEL 

 Personnel authorizations for the fiscal year included 

19 Senior Trial Counsel (STC) at 13 locations worldwide: 

three counsel at Bolling AFB, District of Columbia, three 

Instructor-Litigators at AFJAGS at Maxwell AFB, Alabama, 

two counsel each at Ramstein AB, Germany, and Randolph AFB, 

Texas, and one counsel each at Travis AFB, California; 

Nellis AFB, Nevada; Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona; 

Peterson AFB, Colorado; Offutt AFB, Nebraska; 

Barksdale AFB, Louisiana; Langley AFB, Virginia; Osan AB, 

Korea, and Kadena AB, Japan. STC are detailed to prosecute 

cases by the division headquarters at Bolling AFB, and 

their primary responsibility is to represent the government 

in the most complex, litigated general courts-martial. 

They are also available for special courts-martial, 

discharge boards and other proceedings, as resources allow. 

 

7 

AFCCA FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10

 Briefs Filed 207 267 188 156 123

 Cases Argued 16 20 19 16 9

 

USCAAF FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10

 Briefs Filed 47 41 41 23 28

 Cases Argued 25 24 15 13 12

 

SUPREME 

COURT 

 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10

 Petition/Waivers 

Filed 

0 10 4 3 2

 Briefs Filed 0 0 0 0 0

 
In the past year, STC spent more than 2,000 days on 

temporary duty away from their home station, and 

represented the government in over 250 courts-martial and 

over 150 other proceedings. STCs embody the notion of “one 

world, one circuit.” STCs crossed all geographical 

boundaries to try cases, including one STC traveling to the 

AOR to prosecute three courts-martial in six days. 

 The past year saw a continued emphasis on providing 

our STCs with the training and tools required for them to 

thrive. STCs attended many hours of training designed to 

improve their advocacy skills. In May the fourth annual 

Senior Trial Counsel Conference was held at Bolling AFB, 

bringing together the assigned STCs as well as those 

projected to join the program during the summer assignment 

season. The attorneys met for a week of training and 

networking with trial and appellate counsel. STCs also 

attended training courses across the country including the 

Advanced Trial Advocacy Course at AFJAGS, Prosecuting 

Complex Cases Course at the Naval Justice School, the 

Computer Crimes Course at the Naval Justice School, and the 

Protecting Children Online for Prosecutors in Arlington, 

Virginia, which was produced by the National Center for 

Missing and Exploited Children. 

APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISION 

 Training for our appellate defense counsel remains one 

of the division’s highest priorities. Frequent turnover in 

counsel make this an especially critical area of focus. 

Training in 2010 included the Criminal Law New Developments 

Course, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records 

(AFBCMR) training, Clemency and Parole Board training and a 

Military Appellate Advocacy Symposium sponsored by the 

Judge Advocates Association. 

Appellate defense counsel continued to support trial 

defense counsel in the field by always being available for 

telephone consults in time-critical situations. Appellate 

defense counsel also kept counsel in the field updated on 

new developments in military criminal law via appellate 

updates throughout the year. 

8 
Appellate defense counsel have contributed to Project 

Outreach, sponsored by USCAAF and AFCCA, by conducting oral 

arguments before audiences at Suffolk University Law 

School, Boston, Massachusetts; University of Colorado, 

Boulder, Colorado; Loyola University, New Orleans, 

Louisiana; and Hofstra University School of Law, Long 

Island, New York. These arguments helped educate attendees 

on the fairness and professionalism of the military justice 

system. 

The Appellate Defense division began FY10 with 

approximately 199 cases pending initial briefing to the 

AFCCA. The number of cases pending initial briefing to the 

AFCCA decreased by one to 198 cases by the end of the 

fiscal year. 

 

The following figures reflect the division’s workload 

over the past five fiscal years: 

AFCCA FY 06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10

 Briefs Filed 638 541 352 285 290

 Cases Argued 16 20 14 16 4

 

USCAAF 

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10

 Supplements to 

Petitions 

371 261 293 336 204

 Grant Briefs 18 24 15 12 18

 Cases Argued 25 24 15 13 17

 

SUPREME 

COURT 

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10

 Petitions 0 9 4 3 2

 Briefs in 

Opposition 

0 0 0 0 0

 Briefs on the 

Merits 

0 0 0 0 0

9 
TRIAL DEFENSE DIVISION 

The Trial Defense Division (JAJD) was responsible for 

providing all trial defense services within the Air Force 

through Area Defense Counsel (ADC), Defense Paralegals 

(DP), Senior Defense Counsel (SDC), Chief Senior Defense 

Counsel (CSDC), Defense Paralegal Managers (DPM), and 

Instructor Litigators (I/Ls). These personnel reported to 

the Chief, JAJD, who reported to the Director, United 

States Air Force Judiciary (JAJ). The Chief, JAJD, was 

assisted by the Deputy Chief, Policy and Training, and an 

Office Superintendant. 

 The Division was staffed with 82 ADCs stationed at 69 

bases worldwide; they were assisted by 72 DPs. The 

Division had 18 SDCs and 3 CSDCs. Each CSDC supervised 6 

SDCs. A DPM was assigned to each of the 3 CSDCs. The SDCs 

were stationed at Andrews AFB, Maryland; Langley AFB, 

Virginia; Charleston AFB, South Carolina; Hurlburt Field, 

Florida; Barksdale AFB, Louisiana; Randolph AFB, Texas; 

Sheppard AFB, Texas; Tinker AFB, Oklahoma; Peterson AFB, 

Colorado; Offutt AFB, Nebraska; McChord AFB, Washington; 

Travis AFB, California; Nellis AFB, Nevada; DavisMonthan AFB, Arizona; Yokota AB, Japan; Kadena AB, Japan; 

RAF Lakenheath, United Kingdom; and Ramstein AB, Germany. 

Each SDC was co-located with the ADC office at their 

respective location. The division also had three I/Ls 

assigned to AFJAGS. The I/Ls split their time between 

duties as instructors at AFJAGS and serving as defense 

counsel in top-priority cases, as directed by the Chief, 

JAJD. 

 The continuing success of the Air Force’s ADC Program 

is largely attributable to its independence and its 

energized personnel. To ensure the best representation for 

Air Force clients, training remains the division’s top 

priority. On a continuing basis, each SDC provided on-thejob training and mentoring to the ADCs in their charge. 

Each CSDC, in turn, mentored the SDCs in their charge. 

Newly appointed ADCs and DPs received formal training at 

the combined ADC/DP Orientation course held at AFJAGS. 

SDCs attended a JAJD-run Leadership Conference at Bolling 

AFB. Defense personnel also attended an annual Trial 

Advocacy Course (TAC) conducted by AFJAGS. 

10 
In addition, the division ensured each ADC attended 

the Trial and Defense Advocacy Course and that all SDCs 

attended the Advanced Trial Advocacy Course. 

 Upgrading of ADC facilities is an important JAJD 

priority. The Dover, Minot, and Edwards offices moved into 

new facilities. 

 This year JAJD conducted a Division-wide suicide 

prevention training event led by the Air Force Chief of 

Suicide prevention to educate attorneys and paralegals on 

guidance and intervention strategies for dealing with high 

risk clients. JAJD also developed a standardized policy 

memorandum to inform all clients on local support services 

available during times of crisis. 

MILITARY JUSTICE DIVISION 

 The Military Justice Division (JAJM) prepares opinions 

and policy positions for The Judge Advocate General. The 

division also assembles reports on military justice issues 

requested by the White House, Congress, Department of 

Defense (DoD) and the Air Staff. JAJM represents the Air 

Force on the DoD Joint Services Committee on Military 

Justice (JSC). The division also provides representatives 

to all interservice activities involving military justice 

and support for the Article 146, UCMJ, Code Committee. 

Lastly, JAJM serves as the action agency for the review of 

military justice issues on applications submitted to the 

Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records 

(AFBCMR). 

During the past fiscal year, JAJM provided 113 formal 

opinions concerning AFBCMR applications; received 76 

inquires in specific cases requiring formal written replies 

to senior officials, including the President and Members of 

Congress; and reviewed 30 records of trial for review under 

Article 69a, UCMJ, and 2 records under Article 69b, UCMJ. 

The division presented the 13th annual Military Justice 

Administration Workshop at AFJAGS, a “back to basics” oneweek workshop attended by both judge advocates and 

paralegals. 

11 
Division personnel also taught at the Staff Judge 

Advocates Course and the newly created Gateway Course, an 

intermediate judge advocate course for majors, at Maxwell 

AFB, Alabama. Division personnel briefed Air Force JAG 

Corps leaders on the status of their military justice 

programs and new initiatives in the military justice arena 

during the annual KEYSTONE Leadership Summit. 

In FY10, our JAG Corps implemented an important change 

to the way we track the processing of military justice 

actions. The new standards put even greater emphasis on 

command’s sight picture—from discovery to disposition of 

the offense. The new standards will give us enhanced 

visibility into the entire process and should lead to 

increased accountability and shorter total timelines. 

These new standards will depend upon an integrated teaming 

approach among commanders, investigators and JAGs to 

rapidly investigate and act upon incidents of misconduct, 

ensuring swift and fair justice. 

JAJM continued its direct involvement in the 

development and implementation of DoD and Air Force sexual 

assault prevention and response policies and procedures. 

The division secured funding from DoD and the Department of 

Justice (DoJ) to train 32 Air Force personnel in the Victim 

and Witness Assistance Program at the National Center for 

the Victims of Crimes (NCVC) 2010 National Conference. 

JAJM co-sponsored, with the U.S. Army, the Military 

Institute on the Prosecution of Sexual Violence. This is 

an interactive course with both civilian and military 

facilitators designed to shape how military prosecutors 

view and analyze crimes of sexual violence, providing all 

with useful tools and varied approaches to the prosecution 

of these oftentimes difficult cases. In addition, a 

division representative served as a principal trainer for 

judge advocates, sexual assault response coordinators, and 

victim advocates for both DoD and the Air Force. 

 JAJM supported the war effort during FY10 by deploying 

a judge advocate and a paralegal to Iraq and a judge 

advocate to Afghanistan. 

12 
 JAJM continued to coordinate military justice actions 

with high-level agencies, such as working closely with the 

DoJ 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. Finally, division representatives played 

a role in drafting the legislation provision in the FY 2011 

National Defense Authorization Act granting military and 

appellate judges increased contempt powers under Article 

48, UCMJ. 

CLEMENCY, CORRECTIONS AND OFFICER REVIEW DIVISION 

At the end of fiscal year 2010, 358 Air Force 

personnel were in confinement. Of those, 81 inmates were 

in long-term confinement at the United States Disciplinary 

Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and 50 were serving 

their sentences in the Federal Bureau of Prisons system. 

Eleven inmates were enrolled in the Air Force Return-toDuty Rehabilitation Program during fiscal year 2010; four 

successfully completed the program and were returned to 

duty. The number of Air Force members and former members 

on parole or Mandatory Supervised Release at the end of 

fiscal year 2010 was 69. 

During the reporting period, the division completed 20 

Article 71, UCMJ, reviews of officer dismissal cases. As 

was recommended, the Secretary approved the dismissals in 

all cases. The division also prepared four cases for 

Secretarial clemency under Article 74, UCMJ. 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL’S SCHOOL (AFJAGS) 

AFJAGS is the educational arm of the JAG Corps. 

Located at Maxwell AFB, Alabama, AFJAGS provides education 

and training in all aspects of the military legal practice 

to attorneys and paralegals from all military services, 

other federal agencies, and many foreign countries. 

Military justice instruction is provided in advocacy, 

administration, the rules of evidence, and the rules of 

procedure. 

13 
AFJAGS faculty members also provide instruction on 

military justice for several schools and colleges 

throughout Air University, the Air Force’s center for 

education. During fiscal year 2010, AFJAGS instructed 

approximately 19,000 students at these military 

institutions. 

 Additionally, AFJAGS routinely publishes articles 

concerning military justice and other criminal justice 

issues in The Reporter, The Air Force Law Review, and The 

Military Commander and the Law. AFJAGS webcasts allow 

subject-matter experts to brief timely military justice 

topics to all base legal offices. Recorded webcasts are 

available on CAPSIL, a web-based collaborative learning and 

management system administered by AFJAGS and accessible to 

all members of the JAG Corps. AFJAGS has 31 web-based 

training modules on military justice topics. 

 Nearly 2,200 students attended 41 courses held at 

AFJAGS in fiscal year 2010. Of those 41 courses, the 

following devoted substantial resources to military 

justice-related topics: 

 Advanced Trial Advocacy Course 

 Annual Survey of the Law (Reserve and Air National 

Guard) 

 Defense Orientation Course (for new ADCs and DPs) 

 Judge Advocate Staff Officer’s Course 

 Law Office Manager Course 

 Military Justice Administration Course 

 Paralegal Apprentice Course 

 Paralegal Craftsman Course 

 Staff Judge Advocate Course 

 Trial and Defense Advocacy Course 

 In addition to the above courses, AFJAGS hosted trial 

advocacy conferences in Charleston, South Carolina; 

Yokota AB, Japan; and Kapaun AS, Germany. The conferences 

for fiscal year 2010 focused on proper use of experts in 

courts-martial. 

14 
LEGAL INFORMATION SERVICES 

 During fiscal year 2010, the Legal Information 

Services Directorate (JAS) continued to develop new 

information technology (IT) tools and improve existing ones 

to better support military justice practices throughout the 

Air Force. 

 JAS continued work on the web version of the Automated 

Military Justice Analysis and Management System (AMJAMS), 

designing enhancements in-house and with contractor 

support. Significant performance issues were addressed 

through speed testing and coordination with 42 CS (Maxwell 

AFB) and I-NOSC East/West. Resulting improvements in how 

the system transfers data reduced user wait time by nearly 

75%. In addition to design enhancements, the All Courts 

Processing Times and Article 15 Processing Times reports 

were modified to accurately reflect the new focus of 

military justice metrics. The reports now give a more 

accurate picture of the entire lifecycle of military 

justice cases. Finally, it should be noted that the client 

version will be retired for all TJAGC users at the end 

March 2011, at which time all users will be exclusively on 

the web version. 

 The Directorate also continues to develop the 

Automated Defense Electronic Reporting (ADER) application, 

the primary IT tool used by TJAGC’s defense community to 

store and track case information. This latest version of 

ADER includes new reports, an administrator’s interface, 

and allows individual defense counsel and paralegals to 

track cases. These changes improve the application as a 

caseload management system. Planning and programming for 

additional fields and reporting features are well under way 

for FY 2011. 

The court reporters are transitioning to a new system 

hosted on SharePoint which allows bases to input requests 

for assistance, the assignment of a court reporter to a 

case, and permits collaborative work on and storage of 

transcripts. 

15 
Based on the benefits seen in the court reporters’ 

SharePoint site, JAS is developing a similar site for TJAGC 

judges. This site will provide a user-friendly interface 

for requesting and assigning judges to cases. This site is 

intended to replace the Judicial Docket System as the 

primary means for tracking judge assignments and sharing 

information. 

PERSONNEL 

 As of 30 September 2010, the Air Force Judge Advocate 

General's Corps had 1,237 judge advocates on active duty. 

Company grade officers (lieutenants and captains) made up 

just over 50% of that number (626). Just over 24% were 

majors (302) and 15% were lieutenant colonels (191). 

Colonels (112) and above, including one lieutenant general, 

one major general, and four brigadier generals, comprised 

10% of the Corps. The Air Force Judge Advocate General’s 

Corps Reserve included 843 Air Force Reserve IMA, Air Force 

Reserve unit-assigned, and Air National Guard judge 

advocates, of which 13% (109) were company grade officers 

and 75% (629) were field grade officers (majors and 

lieutenant colonels). The remaining 12% consisted of 99 

colonels, four brigadier generals, and two major generals. 

RICHARD C. HARDING 

Lieutenant General, USAF 

The Judge Advocate General 

16 
Period: Fiscal Year 2010 APPENDIX -- U.S. AIR FORCE MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATUS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF 

INCREASE(+)/

DECREASE (-

) OVER 

LAST 

REPORT 

GENERAL 215 180 35 -3.15% 

BCD SPECIAL 380 139 32 -9.31% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL [A] 209 

SUMMARY 164 162 2 +43.86% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE ( + ) / 

DECREASE ( - ) OVER LAST REPORT 

PART 2 - DISCHARGE APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL (CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES [B] 31 

 NUMBER OF BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGES 103 

SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL (CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGES 152 

PART 3 - RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 - GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 136 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 - BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 141 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 - GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 33 

PART 4 - WORK LOAD OF THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 246 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 129 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 117 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 277 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 136 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 141 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 265 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 96 
 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 169 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 258 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 169 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 89 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD (265/345) -23.19% 

PART 5 - APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL 

APPEALS 

NUMBER 231/265 

PERCENTAGE 87.17% 

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

PERCENTAGE OF AFCCA REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCAAF (223/265) [C] 84.15% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -2.80% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED (26/223) 8.58% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +2.25% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY AFCCA 

(26/265) 9.81% 

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

DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD +5.00% 

PART 7 - APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF, ARTICLE 69 

PENDING AT BEGINNING OF PERIOD 0 

RECEIVED 2 

DISPOSED OF 2 

 GRANTED 0 

 DENIED 2 

 NO JURISDICTION 0 

 WITHDRAWN 0 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 0 

PART 8 - ORGANIZATION OF COURT 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 313 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 105 

 SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 208 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 282 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 110 
 SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 172 

PART 9 - COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 28 

PART 10 - STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 333,494 

PART 11 - NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL 

PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 6,756 

RATE PER 1,000 20.26% 

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

PREVIOUS PERIOD -2.20% 

              

EXPLANATORY NOTES 

           

[A] The Air Force does not convene non-BCD SPCMs. Of the 380 SPCMs tried, there were 

139 convictions with a BCD adjudged, 209 convictions without a BCD adjudged, and 32 

acquittals. 

           

[B] Includes 8 officer dismissals. 

              
SECTION 6 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

COAST GUARD 
REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

U. S. COAST GUARD 

October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010 

PERSONNEL AND TRAINING 

 The Coast Guard has 182 officers designated as judge 

advocates serving on active duty, of which 148 are serving 

in legal billets and 34 are serving in general duty 

billets. Those Coast Guard lawyers currently practicing 

law include officers assigned to NORTHCOM, AFRICOM, JIATF 

South, part of Multi-National Forces, Iraq and ISAF. Among 

the 36 military attorneys serving in “out-of-specialty” 

billets are the Seventh District Commander, the Military 

Aide to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other 

commanding and executive officers of Coast Guard cutters, 

sectors, training centers, and support commands. The Coast 

Guard also employs 92 civilian attorneys ranging from GS-13 

to SES. 

 The Coast Guard sent attorneys to 35 different 

courses of instruction during this fiscal year, primarily 

at the various service JAG schools. Twenty-three Coast 

Guard officers are currently undergoing postgraduate 

studies in law and will be certified as judge advocates at 

the successful completion of their studies. Additionally, 

one judge advocate, LT Ben Gullo, is attending the graduate 

course at the United States Army Judge Advocate General’s 

Legal Center and School and will graduate in 2011 with a 

Masters of Law (LLM) degree in military law. LCDR Brian 

Robinson is a Fellow in the Center for Law and Military 

Operations. Nineteen Coast Guard officers (including seven 

funded postgraduate program studies and twelve directcommissioned lawyers) 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. 

1 
U. S. COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

The judges on the U.S. Coast Guard Court of Criminal 

Appeals during fiscal year 2010 were: 

Chief Judge Lane I. McClelland 

Judge Michael J. Lodge 

Judge Frederick J. Kenney 

Judge Michael E. Tousley 

Judge Patrick J. McGuire 

Judge Brian T. McTague 

Judge William L. Chaney (terminated on 21 June 2010) 

 In addition to the decisional work of the Court, as 

reflected in the Appendix, the judges of the Court have 

been involved in various professional conferences, 

committees and seminars during the past fiscal year. 

MILITARY JUSTICE ORGANIZATION 

Thirteen staff judge advocates advise 15 officers 

exercising general court-martial jurisdiction and 

approximately 350 officers exercising special court-martial 

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 Judge Advocate General 

charged with providing defense and personal legal services 

to Coast Guard members. Pursuant to an inter-service 

memorandum of understanding, the U.S. Navy provides trial 

defense counsel for all Coast Guard courts-martial. In 

return, at least four Coast Guard attorneys are assigned to 

full time duty at one or more Navy Legal Service Offices or 

Regional Legal Service Offices. 

 The Coast Guard has one general courts-martial judge 

and six collateral-duty special courts-martial judges. The 

Chief Trial Judge details all military judges to Coast 

Guard courts-martial. When the Chief Trial Judge was 

unavailable, courts-martial judges from other military 

services were detailed to general courts-martial. 

 

2 
 The Office of Military Justice at Coast Guard 

Headquarters is responsible for representing the United 

States in all courts-martial 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 Guard, including 

participation on the Joint Service Committee (JSC) on 

Military Justice. Within the office, three officers are 

assigned primary duty as appellate government counsel. 

TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES WITH OTHER SERVICES 

To improve the trial advocacy skills and experience 

levels of Coast Guard Judge Advocates, the Judge Advocate 

General has arranged for Coast Guard Trial Counsel to be 

assigned for limited periods of time (usually three 

months), to certain installations which have a robust 

military justice practice. Coast Guard Judge Advocates 

have thus far been assigned to Marine Corps Base Quantico, 

Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, Marine Corps Base Camp 

Pendleton, Navy Region Legal Service Office Mid-Atlantic in 

Norfolk, Virginia, the Army's Trial Counsel Assistance 

Program in Arlington, Virginia, and the Staff Judge 

Advocate for the Military District of Washington. This is 

in addition to the existing Memorandum of Understanding 

with the Navy that provides for four Coast Guard Judge 

Advocates to be assigned full-time as trial counsel or 

defense counsel at Navy installations.

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

NOTE: All statistics are based on the number of courtsmartial records received and filed at Coast Guard 

Headquarters during fiscal year 2009 and, where indicated, 

records received during each of the four preceding fiscal 

years. The number of courts-martial varies widely from 

year to year; consequently, this is not a reliable 

indicator of the administration of military justice given 

the relatively small number of courts-martial overall. 

3 
Fiscal Year 10 09 08 07 06 

General Courts-Martial 12 12 13 16 16 

Special Courts-Martial 20 19 19 24 32 

Summary Courts-Martial 09 14 28 31 31 

Total 41 45 60 71 79 

ADDITIONAL MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

 Appendix A contains the Coast Guard, Fiscal Year 2009 

military justice statistics. 

 FREDERICK J. KENNEY 

 Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard 

 Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard 

4 
Appendix A: U. S. Coast Guard Courts-Martial/NJP 

Statistics for 

 October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010 (FY 2010) 

APPENDIX: U.S. COAST GUARD MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

Report Period: 1 OCTOBER 2009 - 30 SEPTEMBER 2010

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTE

D 

ACQUITTAL

S 

RATE OF INCREASE 

(+)/ DECREASE (-) 

OVER LAST 

REPORT 

GENERAL 12 10 2 UNCHANGED 

BCD SPECIAL 20 20 00 5% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 00 00 00 UNCHANGED 

SUMMARY 09 09 00 -64% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT -7% 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 3 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 5 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 

8 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 9 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 8 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTSMARTIAL  3* 

PART 4 – WORKLOAD OF THE COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL 

APPEALS 

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 19 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 7 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 12 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 18 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 9^ 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 9^^ 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 15 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 6^ 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 9^^^ 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 11 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 5

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 6^^ 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

-58% 

5 
PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

 U.S. COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (CCA) 

NUMBER 15 

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 

6/15 

40% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS 

REPORTING PERIOD 

-17% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 

0/6 

0% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS 

REPORTING PERIOD 

-16% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CGCCA 0/15 0% 

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

DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

-4% 

* Includes one Dismissal (Taylor) 

^ Includes one Reconsideration (Bond) 

^^ Includes one Reconsideration (Sanchez) 

^^^ Includes one Reconsideration (Hester) 

6 
U.S. COAST GUARD MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS - CONT’D

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 00 

RECEIVED 00 

DISPOSED OF 00 

 GRANTED 00 

 DENIED 00 

 NO JURISDICTION 00 

 WITHDRAWN 00 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF 

PERIOD 00 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 24 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 8* 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 16** 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 7 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 3 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 4@ 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 1 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 43, 288 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 1200 

RATE PER 1,000 27.72 

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

PREVIOUS PERIOD -6.24% 

* Includes one Dismissal (Taylor) 

** Includes one adjudged (Mack) 

@ Includes 2 Dismissal (Kinser- Findings and sentence disapproved by Convening Authority. Daly- Charges dismissed 

by ruling of Military Judge)

7