ANNUAL REPORT 

Submitted to the 

Committees on Armed Services 

of the 

United States Senate 

and the 

United States House of Representatives 

and to the 

Secretary of Defense 

Secretary of Homeland Security 

and the 

Secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force 

Pursuant to the 

Uniform Code of Military Justice 

for the period 

October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015 
3 

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 

 and the Annual Military Justice Report of the Marine 

Corps 

Section 5: Report of the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force 

Section 6: Report of the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard 
4 

Section 1 

Joint Annual Report of the Code Committee 
5 

Section 1 

Joint Annual Report of the Code Committee 

Pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice 

October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015 

The Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the 

Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard, the Staff 

Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and Dean Lisa Schenck 

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

Defense, submit their annual report on the operation of the Uniform Code of 

Military Justice (UCMJ) pursuant to Article 146, UCMJ, Title 10, United States 

Code, § 946. 

 The Code Committee met on March 3, 2015, 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 2014 Code Committee meeting, Colonel 

(Col) John G. Baker, U.S. Marine Corps, Chair of the Joint Service Committee 

(JSC), briefed the Code Committee on the work of the JSC. 

 Col Baker noted that the JSC has implemented changes required by the 

National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Executive Order 13669, and the 

recommendations from the Response Systems Panel (RSP), the Judicial 

Proceedings Panel (JPP) and the Defense Legal Policy Board (DLPB). The JSC 

also published a Military Rules of War supplement and a supplement to the 

Military Rules of Evidence (MRE). He stated there were 456 changes to the 

Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) since 2012. The JSC also sent a proposed 

Executive Order to the Department of Defense General Counsel containing 121 

additional changes to the MCM. These proposals: 

 Implement changes to Part IV of Article 120, UCMJ 

 Repeal consensual sodomy as an offense 

 Establish steps required of defense counsel prior to interviewing 

alleged victims 

 Change the requirements of proof for the offense of indecent acts with 

another, and 
6 

 Implement changes required by United States v. Fosler. 

Following review and public comment, the MCM was changed to establish a 

victim’s right to be heard during the sentencing hearing. This right need not be 

exercised in the form of sworn testimony. Other implemented changes were: 

 Article 6(b), UCMJ, rights 

 New Article 32, UCMJ, procedures 

 New deposition procedures 

 Changes to the rights of crime victims 

 Changes to MRE 513 and MRE 514 which require a hearing prior to 

the ordering of in camera review of matters. 

Chief Judge Baker next asked each of the service representatives to provide 

the Code Committee with comments regarding the functioning of the military 

justice system in their respective services. 

For the Army, Major General Ayres stated that the Army has staffed 

responses to the various working groups and is focused on the training of all judge 

advocates. The Army has 1,910 active duty judge advocates, 574 civilian 

attorneys, 1,800 reserve judge advocates, and 882 judge advocates in the National 

Guard. The Army’s special victims counsel program consists of 84 full-time 

special victims counsel on active duty, 4 reservists, and 47 National Guardsmen. 

They have assisted 1,761 clients in over 8,000 client consultations and 360 courtsmartial. The number of general courts-martial in the Army has declined from 714 

in FY-13 to 665 in FY-14. With the inclusion of special and summary courtsmartial, the total also declined from 1,470 in FY-13 to 1,435 in FY-14. 

Nonjudicial punishments also declined from 42,707 in FY-13 to 31,698 in FY-14. 

Finally, he noted that a trend that the Army is focusing on is the issue of retaliation 

toward crime victims. 

 For the Air Force, Major General Kenny first addressed the work the Air 

Force has done in the area of assisting special victims. The Air Force has three 

senior majors and 30 full-time special victims counsel in 25 locations to assist 

alleged crime victims. This will soon be expanded to 37 locations by the summer. 

These counsel have represented 1,450 clients, including 31 children. There have 

been 200 courts-martial in such cases. Client satisfaction has been reported at 90 

percent extremely satisfied and 9 percent satisfied. He stated that retaliations 

against victims is not tolerated. Reductions in staffing resulted in the loss of 80 
7 

captains in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps, with a current total of 1,154 

active duty judge advocates and 896 air reserve component judge advocates. 

 In the Navy, Rear Admiral Donovan stated that there are currently 843 

active duty judge advocates, 415 reserve judge advocates, 455 active duty 

legalmen and 140 reserve legalmen. In FY-14, the Navy saw a return to its FY-12 

numbers with 137 general courts-martial and a slight increase in special courtsmartial to 175. Nonjudicial punishments rose from 13 per 1,000 in FY-13 to 15 

per 1,000 in FY-14. The Navy is working on a transition to a new case 

management system. The Navy has trained 29 judge advocates as special victims 

counsel who have assisted 731 clients and taken part in 351 military justice 

proceedings. The special victims counsel have actively worked to conduct 

outreach briefings to the fleet, reaching 24,000 personnel. Lastly, the Navy has 

instituted a requirement that reports of unrestricted sexual assault be reported to the 

first flag officer in command, with such reports reviewed at the 3-star and 4-star 

levels. 

 For the Coast Guard, Rear Admiral Poulin informed the Code Committee 

the Coast Guard has 194 active duty judge advocates and 90 civilian attorneys. 

The challenges facing the Coast Guard include keeping pace with the changes in 

the military justice system and requests for information and documents, growth in 

case load, with general courts-martial increasing from 15 in FY-13 to 32 in FY-14 

and special courts-martial from 18 in FY-13 to 55 in FY-14, and the growth of 

Article 120 cases. Key areas of focus are the creation of a full-time trial judiciary 

and consolidation of trial counsel functions. The Coast Guard currently has 5 fulltime special victims counsel. 

 Colonel Baker stated the Marine Corps has seen a steady number of general 

courts-martial and fewer special courts-martial with an increase in administrative 

separation boards. He stated that the complexity of cases has increased, with 56 

percent of general courts-martial being contested and 40 percent of special courtsmartial being contested. The special victims counsel program has been very 

successful, having represented about 700 clients. Funding for training special 

victims counsel has quadrupled. 

 Separate reports of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 

and the individual services 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. 
8 

Charles E. “Chip” Erdmann 

Chief Judge 

Scott W. Stucky 

Judge 

Margaret A. Ryan 

Judge 

Kevin A. Ohlson 

Judge 

Lieutenant General Flora D. Darpino, USA 

Judge Advocate General of the Army 

Vice Admiral James W. Crawford, III, JAGC, USN 

Judge Advocate General of the Navy 

Lieutenant General Christopher F. Burne, USAF 

Judge Advocate General of the Air Force 

Rear Admiral Steven D. Poulin, USCG 

Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard 

Major General John R. Ewers, Jr., USMC 

Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps 

Dean Lisa M. Schenck 

Public Member 

Mr. James E. McPherson 

Public Member 
9 

SECTION 2 

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE ARMED FORCES 
10 

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES 

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES 

September 1, 2014 to August 31, 2015 

 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 2014 Term of Court to the Committees on Armed Services 

of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives, and to 

the Secretaries of Defense, Homeland Security, Army, Navy, and Air Force in 

accordance with Article 146, Uniform Code of Military Justice, Title 10, United 

States Code, § 946. 

 On July 31, 2015, Chief Judge James E. Baker completed his 15-year term 

as a judge of the Court. On August 1, 2015, Charles E. “Chip” Erdmann became 

Chief Judge by operation of Article 143(a), UCMJ, Title 10, United States Code § 

943(a). 

 

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, 2014 to August 31, 2015. 

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 2014 Term of Court, the Court met its goal of issuing 

opinions in all cases heard during the Term prior to the end of the Term. An 

informal summary of selected decisions prepared by the Court’s staff is set forth in 

Appendix A. 
11 

RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 

 No changes to the Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure were made 

during the September 2014 Term of Court. 

BAR OF THE COURT 

 During the September 2013 Term, 305 attorneys were admitted to practice 

before the Court, bringing the cumulative total of admissions to the Bar of the 

Court to 36,636. 

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 2014 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 Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, 

North Carolina; Marquette University Law School, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and the 

University of Wisconsin Law School, Madison, Wisconsin. 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 AND TRAINING PROGRAM

 On May 19 and 20, 2015, the Court held its Continuing Legal Education and 

Training Program at the Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C. 

The program opened with welcoming remarks from the Honorable James E. Baker, 

Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. He was 

followed by the following speakers: Colonel Robin F. Holman, Deputy Judge 

Advocate General of the Canadian Armed Forces,; Professor Geoffrey S. Corn, 

South Texas College of Law, Houston Texas; Colonel Susan K. Arnold, U.S. 

Army, Staff Judge Advocate, 101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, Kentucky; 

General John F. Kelly, U.S. Marine Corps, Commander, U.S. Southern Command; 

Brigadier General Richard Gross, U.S. Army, Legal Counsel to the Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Colonel Gregory Maggs, U.S. Army Reserve/ Professor 
12 

of Law, George Washington University School of Law; Major David Moses, U.S. 

Army, Professor Rosa Brooks, Georgetown University Law Center; Professor John 

Q. Barrett, St. John’s University School of Law; Professor David J. Luban, 

Georgetown University; and Beth A. Wilkinson, Esq., Partner, Paul, Weiss, 

Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Washington, D.C. 

Charles E. “Chip” Erdmann 

Chief Judge 

Scott W. Stucky 

Judge 

Margaret A. Ryan 

Judge 

Kevin A. Ohlson 

Judge 
13 

APPENDIX A – SELECTED DECISIONS

 This appendix contains an informal staff summary of selected decisions of 

the September 2014 Term of Court. A full list and summary of the cases decided 

by the Court during the Term, including any related concurrences and dissents, can 

be found on the Court’s website. 

United States v. Vargas, 74 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2014), holding that the military 

judge’s denial of the Government’s continuance request to accommodate the 

availability of witnesses and the military judge’s subsequent resting of the 

Government’s case when it was unable to proceed were not rulings excluding 

evidence as required by Article 62, UCMJ, and were therefore not appealable by 

the Government. 

United States v. Gilbreath, 74 M.J. 11 (C.A.A.F. 2014), holding that the 

requirement of Article 31(b), UCMJ, to inform a person suspected of an offense of 

the right not to make a statement and that any statement made can be used against 

him at trial applies to the questioning of members of the Individual Ready Reserve. 

United States v. Piren, 74 M.J. 24 (C.A.A.F. 2015), holding 1) that the 

accused placed his credibility at issue in a prosecution for abusive sexual contact 

by testifying about events prior to his sexual assault examination, permitting the 

Government to test his credibility on cross examination by asking him about his 

later statements to the sexual assault nurse examiner, and 2) the accused’s consent 

to a sexual assault examination at a health clinic was voluntary where he was told 

several times that his decision to consent to the examination was voluntary and that 

he could refuse, and the consent form that he reviewed and signed clearly 

reiterated those rights. 

United States v. Gutierrez, 74 M.J. 61 (C.A.A.F. 2015), holding that the 

evidence against the accused who was infected with human immunodeficiency 

virus (HIV) had unprotected oral sex with several partners without disclosing his 

HIV-positive status was insufficient to establish that his conduct was “likely” to 

cause death or grievous bodily harm within the meaning of the aggravated assault 

article, in view of the expert testimony that the risk of HIV transmission was 

“almost zero.” 

United States v. Newton, 74 M.J. 69 (C.A.A.F. 2015), holding 1) the 

retroactive application provision of the 2008 Sentencing, Monitoring, 

Apprehending, Registering and Tracking Guidelines was a substantive rule with 
14 

legislative force, and 2) that the Guidelines were enacted in accordance with the 

procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act, thereby requiring 

the accused to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and 

Notification Act. 

United States v. McFadden, 74 M.J. 87 (C.A.A.F. 2015), holding that the 

military judge did not have a duty to declare a mistrial or excuse a court member 

who asked the accused whether she had heard of the concept of lying by omission 

after the accused testified that she had exercised her right to remain silent. 

United States v. Jones, 74 M.J. 95 (C.A.A.F. 2015), holding that the de facto

officer doctrine did not apply to confer validity upon a retired judge advocate’s 

participation in the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA), although 

the accused was aware of the officer’s participation but failed to challenge it before 

the CCA, and where the officer’s appointment as a CCA judge was invalid under 

the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 

United States v. Buford, 74 M.J. 98 (C.A.A.F. 2015), holding that a member 

of the Security Forces was not acting as a government agent when he viewed the 

accused’s e-mails and social network account on the laptop computer belonging to 

the accused’s wife, and there was no Fourth Amendment violation where the 

member was off duty, was not a criminal investigator, served only as a gate guard, 

and the Government had no prior knowledge of his actions. 

United States v. Piolunek, 74 M.J. 107 (C.A.A.F. 2015), holding that 1) the 

finding by the Court of Criminal Appeals that three of the 22 images possessed by 

the accused did not constitute visual depictions of a minor engaging in sexually 

explicit conduct was a factual determination that the Court of Appeals for the 

Armed Forces could not review, and 2) the finding of the Court of Criminal 

Appeals that the evidence on the other 19 images was sufficient to convict would 

be upheld, abrogating United States v. Barberi, 71 M.J. 127 (C.A.A.F. 2012). 

United States v. Adams, 74 M.J. 137 (C.A.A.F. 2015), holding that the 

military judge abused his discretion in admitting uncorroborated essential facts 

from the accused’s confession regarding opportunity or motive, access or intent, 

accomplices, the subject of the larceny, the time of the crime, or the act of waving 

a handgun while an accomplice grabbed the cocaine, resulting in the setting aside 

of the findings and the sentence. 
15 

United States v. Norman, 74 M.J. 144 (C.A.A.F. 2015), holding that 1) a 

military police officer’s lay opinion testimony that the accused’s conduct in 

exposing his infant son to scalding water during a bath was of a nature to bring 

discredit upon the armed forces was not admissible to establish the terminal 

element of the offense, 2) the erroneous admission of the testimony was harmless, 

and 3) the evidence was sufficient to establish the accused’s conduct was service 

discrediting. 

United States v. Torres, 74 M.J. 154 (C.A.A.F. 2015), holding that the 

military judge erred in instructing the court members on the affirmative defense of 

lack of mental responsibility based on the accused’s alleged epileptic seizures, that 

the error was harmless, and in cases where the issue of automatism has been 

reasonably raised, the military judge should instruct the members that automatism 

may serve to negate the actus reus. 

United States v. Castillo, 74 M.J. 160 (C.A.A.F. 2015), holding that a 

military regulation requiring service members to self-report civilian arrests did not 

facially violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination where the 

reporting requirement prohibited commanders from imposing disciplinary action 

on the basis of the underlying offense arrest unless such disciplinary action was 

based solely on evidence derived independently of the self-report, and where the 

regulation limited the use of the self-report for a regulatory or administrative 

purpose. 

United States v. Muwwakkil, 74 M.J. 187 (C.A.A.F. 2015), holding that 

recorded preliminary hearing testimony constitutes a “statement” under both the 

Jencks Act and Rule for Courts-Martial 914, and that the Government was required 

to disclose the recording of the alleged victim’s testimony although it no longer 

was in possession of the recording because it had failed to preserve the recording 

due to its own negligence; that the good faith loss doctrine did not excuse the 

failure to disclose the recording; and that the military judge was not required to 

engage in a prejudice analysis in determining whether to exclude the alleged 

victim’s testimony as a sanction. 

United States v. Simmermacher, 74 M.J. 196 (C.A.A.F. 2015), holding 1) 

that military judges do not have discretion to fashion a remedy for a violation of 

the Rules for Court-Martial for lost or destroyed evidence, 2) that in a prosecution 

for use of cocaine, the destroyed urine sample was of such central importance to 

the defense that it was essential to a fair trial, 3) that there was no adequate 
16 

substitute, and 4) that where the destruction was not the fault of the accused, the 

charge of use of cocaine would be dismissed. 

United States v. Carter, 74 M.J. 204 (C.A.A.F. 2015), holding that evidence 

of unlawful pretrial punishment was admissible in seeking credit against the 

sentence and as evidence in mitigation, but that the military judge did not abuse her 

discretion in preventing the accused from presenting such evidence for mitigation 

purposes. 

United States v. Keefauver, 74 M.J. 230 (C.A.A.F. 2015), holding that while 

law enforcement agents entering a home lawfully in non-arrest situations may be 

entitled to make a protective sweep to ensure their safety, such a protective sweep 

requires specific, articulated facts and rational inferences that the area harbors one 

or more individuals and that the individual or individuals pose a danger to the 

agents; however a protective sweep for drugs would not be objectively reasonable 

where the searching officer knew the accused’s son was the only one at home, that 

the home had been under surveillance, and that the son was handcuffed and 

removed from the home. 

United States v. Woods, 74 M.J. 238 (C.A.A.F. 2015), holding that a courtmartial member who stated on voir dire that a “guilty until proven innocent” 

standard is essential to the military’s mission demonstrated implied bias requiring a 

challenge for cause to be granted. 

United States v. Katso, 74 M.J. 273 (C.A.A.F. 2015), holding that a 

reviewing lab technician’s testimony regarding DNA evidence did not violate the 

accused’s Sixth Amendment rights under the Confrontation Clause, 

notwithstanding that the reviewing technician relied in part on the final report of 

another technician who conducted the original analysis, where the reviewing 

technician generated an independent opinion subject to cross-examination and 

described the testing procedures and the means for detecting protocol lapses. 

United States v. Plant, 74 M.J. 297 (C.A.A.F. 2015), holding that a criminal 

conviction for child endangerment requires more than a showing of irresponsible 

behavior coupled with speculation by the prosecution about what possibly could 

have happened to a child as a result of the accused’s conduct; rather, it requires 

proof that the accused’s conduct resulted in a reasonable probability that the child 

would be harmed. 
17 

United States v. Murphy, 74 M.J. 302 (C.A.A.F. 2015), holding that 

ammunition falls within the definition of “explosive” and the military judge’s 

failure to inform the accused of the definition of “explosive” in the statutes 

governing penalties for possessing explosives was not reversible error. 

United States v. Schloff, 74 M.J. 312 (C.A.A.F. 2015), holding that term 

“sexual contact” as used in the UCMJ provision prohibiting touching with intent to 

abuse, humiliate, or degrade any person included object-to-body contact as well as 

body-to-body contact. 

United States v. Quick, 74 M.J. 332 (C.A.A.F. 2015), holding that under the 

doctrine of stare decisis, the Court of Criminal Appeals had the authority to order a 

sentence-only rehearing of the accused after setting aside the guilty finding to one 

of the offenses for which he had been convicted. 

United States v. Akbar, 74 M.J. 364 (C.A.A.F. 2015), holding that the 

sentence of death would be affirmed where the record did not establish that the 

Appellant had been deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. 

United States v. Arness, 74 M.J. 441 (C.A.A.F. 2015), holding that the Court 

of Criminal Appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider a petition for a writ of error 

coram nobis where the general court-martial sentence did not meet the threshold 

requirements for review under Article 66, UCMJ, the Judge Advocate General had 

not referred the case to the Court of Criminal Appeals under Article 69, UCMJ, 

and the conviction and sentence were final under Article 76, UCMJ. 

United States v. Sullivan, 74 M.J. 448 (C.A.A.F. 2015), holding that the 

exclusion of flag officers from the member pool was harmless and that the decision 

of the military judge not to disqualify himself was not an abuse of discretion in 

spite of his personal relationships with the trial participants, the accused, several 

witnesses and the staff judge advocate. 

United States v. Stellato, 74 M.J. 473 (C.A.A.F. 2015), holding that the rulingof 

the military judge to dismiss the charges with prejudice for trial counsel’s 

significantdiscovery violations was not an abuse of discretion.
18 

USCAAF STATISTICAL REPORT 

SEPTEMBER 2014 TERM OF COURT 

CUMULATIVE SUMMARY

CUMULATIVE PENDING SEPTEMBER 1, 2014 

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

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

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

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

CUMULATIVE FILINGS 

 Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 

 Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 789 

 Miscellaneous Docket. . . . . . . . . 19

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 880 

CUMULATIVE DISPOSITIONS 

 Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 

 Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 877 

 Miscellaneous Docket. . . . . . . . . 20

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 980 

CUMULATIVE PENDING SEPTEMBER 1, 2015 

 Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 

 Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 

 Miscellaneous Docket. . . . . . . . 0

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 
19 

OPINION SUMMARY

CATEGORY SIGNED PER CURIAM MEM/ORDER TOTAL

Master Docket . . . . 36 0 47 83 

Petition Docket . . . 0 0 877 877 

Miscellaneous Docket 1 0 19 20

TOTAL 37 0 943 980 

MASTER DOCKET SUMMARY

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

FILINGS 

 Petitions granted from the Petition Docket . . 63 

 Certificates filed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 

 Mandatory appeals filed. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 

DISPOSITIONS 

 Decisions affirmed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 

 Reversed in whole or in part . . . . . . . . . 37 

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 

PENDING AT END OF TERM 

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

 Awaiting oral argument . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 

 Awaiting lead case decision (trailer cases). . 2 

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 
20 

PETITION DOCKET SUMMARY

PENDING AT BEGINNING OF TERM . . . . . . . . . . . 168 

FILINGS 

 Petitions for grant of review filed . . . . . 788 

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

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 789 

DISPOSITIONS 

 Petitions for grant of review denied . . . . . 802 

 Petitions for grant of review granted . . . . 66 

 Petitions for grant of review withdrawn . . 3 

 Petitions for grant of review dismissed . . . 6

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 877 

PENDING AT END OF TERM 

 Awaiting pleadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

 Awaiting Central Legal Staff review . . . . . 51 

 Awaiting final action . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET SUMMARY

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

FILINGS 

 Writ appeals sought . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

 Writs of habeas corpus sought . . . . . . . . 4 

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

 Other extraordinary relief sought . . . . . . 2

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 
21 

DISPOSITIONS 

 Petitions or appeals denied . . . . . . . . . 17 

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

 Petitions or appeals dismissed . . . . . . . . 3 

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 

PENDING AT END OF TERM 

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

 Awaiting staff review . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 

PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

ALL CASES DISPOSITIONS

Begin Pending 0 Denied 16 

Filed 17 Granted 0 

TOTAL 17 Dismissed 1

 TOTAL 17 

End Pending 0 

MOTIONS

ALL MOTIONS DISPOSITIONS

Begin Pending 10 Granted 289 

Filed 338 Denied 53 

 Dismissed 0 

TOTAL 348 TOTAL 342 

End Pending 6 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 

SECTION 3 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE ARMY 
33 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE ARMY 

OCTOBER 1, 2014 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 

 In fiscal year 2015 (FY15), The Judge Advocate General (TJAG) advised Army leadership on 

significant issues pertaining to military justice, to include high visibility cases and investigations. 

The Office of The Judge Advocate General (OTJAG) continued to implement programs 

improving both the administration of military justice and advocacy skills of military justice 

practitioners. In furtherance of TJAG’s duties under Article 6(a), Uniform Code of Military 

Justice (UCMJ), TJAG and senior leaders in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps (JAGC) 

conducted twenty-six visits to installations and commands in the United States and overseas to 

discuss military justice issues with commanders and their respective Staff Judge Advocates 

(SJAs). The JAGC remains committed to sustaining excellence in the practice of military justice 

through a variety of initiatives and programs. 

OTJAG CRIMINAL LAW DIVISION 

 The OTJAG, Criminal Law Division (CLD) has two primary missions. First, the CLD 

advises TJAG on military justice policy, legislation, legal opinions, and related criminal law 

actions. Specific responsibilities include: promulgating military justice regulations; reviewing 

other Army Regulations for legal sufficiency; providing legal opinions to the Army Staff related 

to military justice matters; producing and updating military justice publications to include the 

Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM); conducting statistical analysis and evaluation of trends that 

affect military justice within the Army; providing legal advice on military corrections issues, the 

Army drug testing program, sexual assault and victim assistance policies, and federal 

prosecutions; representing the Army on the Joint Service Committee (JSC) on Military Justice; 

responding to congressional inquiries from the President, Congress, Department of Defense 

(DoD) and the Army Staff; responding to congressional inquiries under the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA); and conducting reviews of court-martial cases under Article 69 of the 

UCMJ to ascertain legal sufficiency and sentence appropriateness and to identify issues that may 

require corrective action by TJAG. 

 Second, the CLD provides comprehensive policy guidance and resources to military justice 

practitioners in the field, which includes a special emphasis on training (including training 

related to sexual assault litigation) and programs designed to guarantee long term military justice 

proficiency worldwide across all grades. The CLD facilitates the active integration and 

synchronization of training by coordinating quarterly training and budget meetings with the 

Corps’ key training arms: Trial and Defense Counsel Assistance Programs (TCAP and DCAP) 

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

software initiatives for JAGC-wide application and facilitates active information flow to and 

from the field using web-based media. 

 
34 

 Traditionally-reported CLD actions for the last three fiscal years are listed below. 

 

 The CLD conducts a bi-annual Criminal Law Synchronization Meeting with key criminal law 

stakeholders such as TJAGLCS, TCAP, DCAP, Defense Appellate Division (DAD), 

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

synchronization meetings were invaluable in bringing the JAGC criminal law leaders together, 

not only to coordinate criminal law training across the JAGC, but also to discuss new criminal 

law initiatives that could improve and sustain the practice of military justice in the Army. 

Synchronization provides unity of effort and situational awareness on all criminal law training 

across multiple venues, civilian and military, allowing trial advocates to more easily plan for 

their attendance at military justice training events. 

 The Military Justice Additional Skill Identifier program continues to grow. The purpose of 

the program is to help identify and sustain expertise and to assist in the selection of personnel for 

key military justice positions. To date, 1,286 judge advocates have been awarded skill 

identifiers: 668 basic, 353 senior, 182 expert, and 83 master military justice practitioners. 

 The CLD participates in inspections three times per year of the Forensic Drug Testing 

Laboratories at Fort Meade, MD and Tripler Army Medical Center, HI. These inspections are 

intended to ensure that the laboratory results are forensically acceptable and that the laboratories 

are following Department of Defense and Army policy guidance. The CLD attorney 

participation is intended to assist in ensuring not only that the laboratory results are forensically 

acceptable (which protects both the government and the Soldier), but also to ensure that the 

results may be used in administrative and judicial proceedings if required. 

 The CLD continued to support the mission of the JSC in FY15; with personnel serving as 

both voting group and working group members. The CLD assisted in the drafting of two 

comprehensive Executive Orders (EOs) that were submitted to the Department of Defense for 

approval by the President. The draft EOs contained elements, explanations, lesser included 

offenses, and sample specifications for Articles 120, 120b and 120c; amendments to Articles 125 

and 134; amendments to Rules for Court-Martial (RCM) 103, 104, 201, 305, 306, 307, 401, 405, 

604, 701, 703, 705, 806, 906, 907, 910, 916, 1002, 1004, 110, 1104, 1105, 1107, 1108, and 1109; 

amendments to Military Rules of Evidence (Mil. R. Evid.) 304, 311, 414, 504, 801, and 803; and 

amendments to Appendices 12, 22, and 23, as well as the creation of Appendix 12A. The EOs 

implement changes required by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY12, 

FY13, FY14, FY15 and FY16. On June 13, 2015, the President signed EO 13696. Copies of 

pending EOs and approved EOs are located on the JSC webpage at https://jsc.defense.gov. 

FY13 FY14 FY15

Congressional and other inquiries 195 155 120 

Officer Dismissals 27 26 18 

Article 69 and other reviews 38 196 68 

Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Requests 14 32 16 
35 

 The JSC is planning to reprint the MCM in early 2016 to capture: the revised Mil. R. Evid.; 

new Articles 120, 120b, and 120c; and all related conforming changes as well as mandated 

changes in the FY12, FY13, FY14, FY15, and FY16 NDAAs. 

 The Trial Advocates Tracking System (TATS), a web-based database that tracks the number 

of active trial and defense counsel, grew to 1453 judge advocates. The TATS provides key data 

on the experience and training of trial advocates and helps in assessing military justice 

assignments, personnel management, and required training. Using TATS as a database, CLD 

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

criminal practice and military justice reference books that are key to the development and growth 

of young advocates. First-time trial counsel, defense counsel, and Special Victim Prosecutors 

(SVPs) are eligible to receive the TARL. In FY15, 84 hard copies and 90 electronic books were 

distributed. 

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

Department of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review of the military justice system. To 

carry out the review, the General Counsel established the Military Justice Review Group 

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

MCM. The MJRG reported its recommendations for changes to the UCMJ to the Secretary of 

Defense on March 25, 2015, and its recommendations for changes to the MCM on October 5, 

2015. Numerous Army personnel have participated in the MJRG process, either providing input 

to the group based upon their unique experience and training, or serving as staff attorneys to the 

MJRG. The Judge Advocate General has reviewed the proposals from the MJRG and continues 

to provide input to the Chair of the MJRG. 

 In 2014, the Secretary of Defense, as required by Section 576(a)(1) of the FY13 NDAA 

established the Judicial Proceedings Panel (JPP). The JPP’s mandate is to conduct an 

independent review and assessment of judicial proceedings conducted under the UCMJ 

involving adult sexual assault and related offenses since the amendments made to the UCMJ in 

2012. The JPP began holding monthly public hearings in August 2014 and has sent the Services 

and the Department of Defense five sets of Requests for Information. Numerous Army judge 

advocates and an Army civilian attorney testified during public hearings of the JPP. The JPP 

released its initial report on February 4, 2015 and a subcommittee report on Article 120 of the 

UCMJ on December 11, 2015. The Army JAGC provided two judge advocates and a civilian 

attorney to support the JPP process, served as the Army representative to the JPP, and was 

primarily responsible for gathering information and witnesses in response to the JPP’s requests. 

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

 

 The cornerstone mission of the Criminal Law Department of TJAGLCS in Charlottesville, 

Virginia, is to develop, improve and sustain excellence in the practice of military criminal law. 

The need to hone these skills in the context of a joint, expeditionary force at war is paramount 

and occupies center stage in all curriculum review. Instruction touches a wide range of subjects 

from substantive criminal law to technical litigation skills and is fully integrated into the overall 

JAGC-wide developmental cycle for military justice practice. At the same time, our professors 

provide critical reach-back capability for military justice practitioners of all Services. 
36 

 The Department facilitates and/or teaches a variety of courses to multiple student cohorts that 

include all Sister Services as well as international students. Courses include initial-entry judge 

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

Advocacy Course (ITAC); mid-level Judge Advocates in the Graduate Course, the Military 

Justice Managers Course (MJMC), the Judge Advocate Officer Advanced Course (JAOAC), and 

Advanced Trial Communication Course; senior Judge Advocates in the Military Judge Course 

(MJC) and the Staff Judge Advocate Course; and of course commanders and senior noncommissioned officers in the Command Sergeant Major Legal Orientation (CSMLO), the Senior 

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

(GOLO). Except for the GOLO course, which is provided individually to General Officers, all 

courses are taught using a sexual assault fact pattern and are synchronized with other JAG Corps 

training agencies. 

 In FY15, the Department continued to build upon its newest course, the Special Victim 

Counsel (SVC) Course. The Department offered four resident SVC Courses in the last year, two 

of which were a new, specialized Child SVC Course. The adult SVC Course remains a oneweek course designed to educate counsel in preparation to serve as certified SVC. The course 

provides focus and updates on the law and policies most relevant to SVC practice. Students 

learn best practices for working with crime victims (specifically, sexual assault victims); the 

impacts of crime on victims; how to work with law enforcement and multi-disciplinary 

professional; how to manage professional responsibility and scope of representation issues; and 

how to most effectively advocate for victims’ rights while working with other actors in the 

military justice system as well as commanders. The two capstone events include: a client-victim 

roundtable, where sexual assault victims voluntarily discuss their experiences and the assistance 

they received from their SVC; and a practical exercise where students interact with a clientvictim role-player. The adult course is a prerequisite for the Child SVC Course, and the child 

instruction centers on how to communicate with children; how children process and discuss 

traumatic events; which experts are best suited to assist child victims; and services available for 

child victims. As victim rights and policy continue to develop, the Department also continues to 

assist in the implementation and education of those policies in the Corps. The Department also 

provides recommendations to the SVC Program Manager in OTJAG. 

 The Department presented the Forty-Third Kenneth J. Hodson Lecture in Criminal Law and 

hosted Honorable Bernice B. Donald, United Sates Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, as the 

guest speaker. The Department also continued its digital outreach by maintaining a sexual 

assault resource site for all Judge Advocates, maintaining a learning website for deployed SVCs, 

providing live remote classes to the field via JAG University, and online education for Reserve 

Component officers, video standard training packages for Judge Advocates who are about to 

deploy, and videos for practitioners to use to develop customized training throughout the world. 

U.S. ARMY JUDICIARY 

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

 

 The Office of the Clerk of Court receives records of trial for review by the U.S. Army Court 

of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) under Article 66, UCMJ, appeals under Article 62, UCMJ, and 
37 

Petitions for Extraordinary Relief. In FY15, 629 records of trial and nearly 1,600 motions and 

briefs were referred to one of the three judicial panels comprising the ACCA for judicial review. 

The average processing times for those courts-martial from sentencing to convening authority 

action was 203 days. In 176 of those cases, initial action was completed by the convening 

authority within the 120 days prescribed by United States v. Moreno. Five hundred fifty-nine of 

the records were received by ACCA within 30 days of convening authority action. 

 The Army’s superior court rendered an initial decision in 537 cases in FY15, with an average 

processing time of 298 days from receipt of the record of trial by the clerk of court to decision by 

ACCA. Of the 537 decisions, 474 were rendered within the 18-month period prescribed by 

United States v Moreno. There were no court-martial convictions reversed due to command 

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

deficiencies. No provision of the UCMJ or MCM was held unconstitutional by ACCA. 

 Working with the CLD, the Office of the Clerk of Court also processed 280 additional cases 

for examination under Article 69, UCMJ. The Office of the Clerk of Court served the ACCA 

decisions upon all personnel not in confinement and coordinated with military confinement 

facilities for service of confined Soldiers. The office closed 984 courts-martial cases during the 

past year and the cases were subsequently transferred to the National Archives in St. Louis, 

Missouri. 

 The court maintains a website at https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/acca. The court’s published 

and unpublished memorandum opinions are publicly available on the website. In FY15, the 

office uploaded more than 177 opinions and decisions to the website. Additional publicly 

available information includes application materials for admission to the bar at ACCA; Rules of 

Court; oral argument schedules; and the procedures for making a FOIA or Privacy Act (PA) 

request from ACCA. The website also includes a “FOIA Reading Room” containing frequently 

requested documents from some of the Army’s higher-profile court-martial cases. 

 

 The Clerk of Court is the custodian of the Army’s permanent court-martial records (general 

courts-martial and those special courts-martial resulting in an approved punitive discharge) 

dating from 1977. Inquiries about current and previous courts-martial are received from federal 

and state investigative agencies; local law enforcement offices; sex offender registration 

databases; media and news organizations; military historians; veterans; and Soldiers previously 

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

handgun permit applications within three working days, many expedited requests arrive from the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Instant Background Check System. 

 Summary of information requests to ACCA for the last three fiscal years: 

 FY13 FY14 FY15

Freedom of Information Act 430 536 661 

Privacy Act 99 217 210 

Certified Copies of Convictions 170 72 75 

Requests from Federal Agencies 105 ** ** 

Total Number of Requests: 804 825 946 
38 

**Beginning in FY14, requests from Federal agencies are no longer a separate category and are 

included in the numbers reported above. 

 

 During this time, the office’s FOIA team provided assistance to the Department of Justice, 

through the Army Litigation Division, in both civil and criminal litigation. 

 The Office of the Clerk of Court also provides assistance to overseas court-martial 

jurisdictions in processing requests for non-DoD civilians to travel overseas to testify at trials. 

This includes making travel arrangements, assisting with requests for expedited passport 

processing, and issuing invitational travel orders. 

 The office’s Management and Program Analyst continued to provide vital support to the 

Office of the Clerk of Court, OTJAG, and other organizations and individuals. Using the Army 

Court-Martial Information System (ACMIS), the office designed, developed, and released nearly 

400 timely and accurate reports in response to requestors both inside and outside the DoD. 

 The office’s two full-time civilian attorneys, in addition to supervising the office staff, 

provide daily guidance on post-trial processing matters to Army installations worldwide. This 

includes telephonic and email consultation on the contents of promulgating orders and convening 

authority actions following courts-martial. 

 The Office of the Clerk of Court is also responsible for processing applications for admission 

to the ACCA bar both for military and civilian counsel. In FY15, the office admitted eighty-six 

new counsel. The office also maintains accurate records of attorney disciplinary actions. 

 Finally, the Office of the Clerk of Court provided instruction to legal NCOs, warrant officers, 

and those individuals attending military justice courses at TJAGLCS, as well as training for 

newly assigned SJAs. 

Trial Judiciary 

The 862 courts-martial tried in FY15 reflect a slight decrease in total number of cases as 

compared to FY14. However, as indicated in last year’s report, raw numbers tell only part of the 

story, as the percentage of contested cases, the percentage of panel cases, the length of time in 

trial and the length of time in motions all continue to increase. 

 Army trial judges from Germany continue to provide judicial support in deployed 

environments. A grand total of over 973 cases have been tried in combat theaters of operations 

(Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan) since May 2003. 

 The Trial Judiciary continued its ongoing effort to keep current Department of the Army 

Pamphlet 27-9, Military Judges’ Benchbook (Benchbook), which is used by all Services, 

approving five changes to that publication addressing: (1) aggravated assault and reckless 

endangerment in light of U.S. v. Gutierrez, 74 M.J. 61 (C.A.A.F. 2015); (2) abusive sexual 

contact; (3) advice to accused on consequences of voluntary absence after arraignment; and (4) 

expert and lay witness opinion testimony regarding credibility or guilt. 

 
39 

 A constantly updated version of the Benchbook, along with links to the electronic version of 

that updated 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#. 

 Military judges continued playing an active role in their military and civilian communities, 

speaking to grade and high school audiences, local bar associations and civic organizations, law 

school classes and state bar continuing legal education courses. Members of the Trial Judiciary 

also served as guest lecturers at The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School and 

the Defense Institute of International Legal Studies. Other notable achievements by the Trial 

Judiciary included: 

*Publication of the “Annual Review of Developments in Instructions” article in The Army 

Lawyer. 

*The 58th Military Judge Course graduated 48 Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and 

Coast Guard students on May 1, 2015, and invested them as new military judges. The 58th 

Military Judge Course also included a judge from Israel. 

U.S. ARMY TRIAL DEFENSE SERVICE 

 

 In FY15, approximately 459 Active and Reserve Component (RC) judge advocates were 

serving in the U.S. Army Trial Defense Service (TDS) worldwide, including 138 on active 

duty; 172 assigned to one of three Trial Defense Legal Operations Detachments (LOD) and 

149 in the Army National Guard. The TDS provides high quality, professional defense 

services to Soldiers across the Army. Counsel assigned to the TDS are stationed at 40 active 

duty installations worldwide and approximately 100 reserve locations. 

 

 The TDS detailed one or more counsel to every Army special and general courts-martial 

referred in FY15, defending Soldiers facing the entire range of allegations under the UCMJ. 

In addition, TDS counsel assisted Soldiers facing other military justice related adverse 

administrative actions. The active duty caseloads were as follows this year: 

General and Special Courts-Martial: 862

Administrative Boards: 1542

Nonjudicial Punishment: 26,699

Military Justice Consultations: 29,077

 The TDS provided defense services to Army personnel deployed to the United States Central 

Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility. The TDS CENTCOM Region has a field office 

at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait and tried two courts-martial there in 2015. In November 2015 TDS 

closed its field office at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan due to the loss of a manning billet for a 

TDS counsel in country, so will instead provide defense services to Afghanistan remotely or 

through short visits into country. 
40 

 The TDS personnel in the Army Reserve are divided into three separate units. The 22d Legal 

Operations Detachment (LOD) (TDS), headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, with an area of 

responsibility that includes the majority of states west of the Mississippi River along with Guam, 

Hawaii and Alaska. The 154th LOD (TDS), headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia, covers the 

U.S. Southeast, Lower Mississippi River Valley, and Puerto Rico. The 16th LOD (TDS), 

headquartered in Fort Hamilton, New York, covers the U.S. Northeast and Midwest. 

 The Army National Guard (ARNG) TDS, headquartered in Arlington, Virginia, consists of 

149 judge advocates, one civilian legal administrator, and 47 enlisted paralegals stationed in 50 

states, the District of Columbia, and three territories. 

 In FY15, the DCAP was staffed by four judge advocates and one civilian Senior 

Counsel/Trainer, who continued to provide training and advice to TDS counsel worldwide. 

This fiscal year’s training events consisted of five iterations of Defense Counsel (DC) 101, a 

three-day course that provides critical instruction to newly-assigned defense counsel on all 

aspects of client representation with an emphasis on professional responsibility and complex 

issues arising in sexual assault cases. Furthermore, all defense counsel attended one of five DC 

201 courses to receive training on current trends in military justice, with a focus on sexual 

assault litigation. In FY15, defense paralegals began to receive training alongside defense 

counsel in all iterations of DC 101 and DC 201. Regional defense counsel and senior defense 

counsel from the Active, Reserve, and Guard also gather together annually to receive 

instruction on their duties as leaders in TDS. In addition, through the use of joint training with 

TCAP, DCAP organized and taught four Advanced Trial Communications Courses, the Sexual 

Assault Trial Advocacy Course, and the Expert Symposium. 

 In FY15, the DCAP received over a thousand inquiries from defense counsel in the form of 

emails, phone calls, and in-person inquiries during training events. The DCAP provided 

assistance to defense counsel in the field that included researching case law, answering specific 

questions, and providing sample motions, expert requests, and other trial documents that might 

be helpful in the defense of the case. Moreover, the DCAP’s website and the Knowledge 

Management milBook website allowed free flowing discussions and collaboration among 

counsel on critical issues. Finally, the DCAP also worked with the DAD to assist TDS counsel 

in the preparation and filing of extraordinary writs before the ACCA and CAAF. 

 In addition to providing training and advice, the DCAP published the 5th Edition of DC 101 

Deskbook and distributed it to all newly-assigned TDS counsel. The DCAP also published the 

2nd Edition of DC 201 Deskbook. Counsel were further kept abreast of all major developments 

through electronic mail updates and a series of updates called “DCAP Sends.” 

GOVERNMENT APPELLATE DIVISION (GAD) 

The GAD, with 16 active duty and ten reserve component military appellate attorneys, 

represents the United States before the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA), the Court 

of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), and the United States Supreme Court in appeals by 

Soldiers convicted at courts-martial with an adjudged sentence of either a punitive discharge 

or confinement for one year or more. The GAD also represents the United States before those 
41 

fora in government appeals from courts-martial and petitions for extraordinary relief. 

Additionally, GAD oversees the operations of the Trial Counsel Assistance Program (TCAP). 

In FY15, GAD filed 579 briefs at ACCA, including 269 assignment of error responses, five 

specified issue briefs, three government appeals, four extraordinary writ petitions, and one 

amicus curiae brief. It filed 475 responses to petitions for grant of review and 17 briefs at 

CAAF, including four government appeals, five extraordinary writs, and five petitions for 

reconsideration. The GAD appellate attorneys argued 21 cases before ACCA and 15 cases 

before CAAF. 

Through ACCA’s outreach program, GAD argued cases at three locations: Baylor Law 

School; Fort Hood, Texas; and Fordham University School of Law. As part of CAAF’s Project 

Outreach, GAD argued one case at the University of Wisconsin Law School. Outreach 

arguments are important in displaying our military justice system to largely civilian audiences. 

Each oral argument was well received and attended by a large audience. 

In FY15, the TCAP continued to perform its three primary missions. First, TCAP delivered 

continuing legal education and specialized training to Army trial counsel and government 

paralegals worldwide. Second, TCAP provided direct prosecutorial assistance to Offices of the 

Staff Judge Advocate on many of the Army’s most complex and/or high-profile cases. Finally, 

TCAP also managed the operations of the Special Victim Prosecution (SVP), Special Victim 

Noncommissioned Officer (SVN), and Special Victim Witness Liaison (SVWL) programs. 

The cadre of TCAP trainers, including seven military attorneys, three civilian attorneys, and 

a senior paralegal noncommissioned officer, developed and delivered 40 training events for trial 

counsel and government paralegals worldwide. This year’s training events consisted of 24 

specialty courses, including: the New Prosecutors Course; Effective Strategies for Sexual Assault 

Prosecution; Effective Strategies for Members Cases; Crime Lab Forensic Training; Child 

Forensic Interviewing; Prosecuting the Online Exploitation of Children; Expert Symposium; 

Sexual Assault Trial Advocacy Course; Special Victim Prosecutor Course; and, Advanced 

Paralegal Course. The TCAP also travelled to 14 Army installations to conduct two to three day 

outreach training events, as well as two, week-long, regional training events overseas. 

Many of this year’s training events focused on trial advocacy skills and prosecuting sexual 

assault and domestic violence cases. Specifically, TCAP presented five iterations of the New 

Prosecutor Course/Effective Strategies for Sexual Assault Prosecution (NPC/ESSAP), a five-day 

course focused equally on the fundamentals of military justice and prosecution of sexual assaults. 

Additionally, NPC/ESSAP prepares new counsel for the ITAC taught at The Judge Advocate 

General’s Legal Center and School. Following attendance at ITAC, counsel with 18 months or 

more of court-martial practice are qualified to attend TCAP’s capstone training event - the 

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

course focusing on the fundamentals of trial advocacy in the context of litigating special victim 

cases. This year’s SATAC included lectures, break-out sessions, and numerous advocacy 

exercises. 

In support of its mission to assist prosecutors in the field, TCAP also provided expert military 

counsel to prosecute many of the Army’s most complex and/or high-profile cases, and provided 
42 

direct expert assistance and consultation through its three civilian Special Victim Litigation 

Experts (SVLEs). The TCAP also continued its traditional information-sharing and collaboration 

activities such as publishing regular issues of its “TCAP Express” newsletter to inform and 

advise the field on new legal developments and issues, compiling and distributing a resource 

disk of useful templates, resources and tools, as well as responding to hundreds of emailed and 

telephonic legal questions from prosecutors and paralegals worldwide. 

Finally, TCAP continued to manage the Army’s 24 SVPs, 23 SVNs, and 23 SVWLs located 

at the Army’s 21 largest installations. Their primary mission is to ensure that every instance of 

sexual assault, child abuse, and intimate-partner violence within their geographic area of 

responsibility is properly investigated, charged, and prosecuted. The SVPs, SVNs, and SVWLs 

also work with CID’s Sexual Assault Investigators and with the local Special Victim Counsel to 

ensure that survivors are treated respectfully, notified of all available support services, and kept 

abreast on the status of the investigation and prosecution. All SVPs are also charged with 

creating local training programs for trial counsel and government paralegals in order to ensure 

that our personnel received relevant military justice and advocacy training on regular basis. 

DEFENSE APPELLATE DIVISION (DAD) 

 The DAD provides appellate representation to eligible Soldiers and other individuals before 

the ACCA, the CAAF, and the U.S. Supreme Court. Eligible Soldiers include those convicted at 

courts-martial where the approved sentence consists of a punitive discharge or confinement for 

one year or more. DAD attorneys also assist military and civilian defense counsel in preparing 

and filing extraordinary writs before the aforementioned courts. 

 The DAD appellate counsel currently represent Soldiers in approximately 800 cases in 

various stages of the appellate process. Categories include cases recently received at DAD, cases 

pending action by ACCA or CAAF, and cases awaiting final action and discharge from the 

Army. Approximately 220 cases are pending filing with ACCA. 

 Last year, DAD filed 618 briefs with ACCA. The DAD also filed 478 briefs with CAAF. 

Assignments of error were raised in approximately 50% of these cases. Counsel also argued 21 

cases at ACCA and 15 at CAAF. 

LITIGATION DIVISION

 Civil lawsuits involving military justice matters are relatively few but remain an important 

part of the Litigation Division’s practice. Most suits are brought by former Soldiers seeking 

collateral review of military court-martial proceedings pursuant to a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus in federal district court, as opposed to habeas actions challenging Army decisions, such as 

a denial of conscience objector status. Currently, the Military Personnel Litigation Branch has 

eleven habeas corpus petitions in active litigation mounting collateral attacks on their courtmartial convictions or seeking federal court intervention related to other confinement issues such 

as confinement conditions, illegal detention, and transfer out of military confinement facilities. 

Additionally, the General Litigation Branch periodically handles civil lawsuits involving 

Constitutional challenges to the military justice system, such as allegations involving alleged 
43 

violations of equal protection, due process, and the First Amendment. The following cases 

highlight the types of issues handled by the Army’s Litigation Division. 

White v. Michael Sepanek, Warden (E.D. Ky.). On November 19, 2014, Petitioner, 

Jeffery J. White filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus with the U.S. District Court 

for the Western District of Kentucky. On December 14, 2006, a general court-martial 

composed of enlisted and officer members convicted then-Specialist White, of one charge 

and one specification of premeditated murder, in violation of Article 118, UCMJ for the 

murder of Specialist (SPC) Felicia LaDuke, petitioner’s ex-girlfriend. The general courtmartial sentenced petitioner to life without the possibility of parole, total forfeiture of all 

pay and allowances, to be reprimanded, to be reduced to the grade of E-1, and a 

dishonorable discharge. On August 11, 2010, the ACCA affirmed the findings of guilty 

and the sentence of the court-martial. On March 2, 2011, the CAAF denied White’s 

petition for grant of review and on September 8, 2011, Petitioner’s Dishonorable 

Discharge was executed. Petitioner White now seeks a writ of habeas corpus and argues 

that he is entitled to a new court-martial because the court-martial lacked personal, 

territorial, and subject matter jurisdiction to try him because he was initially arraigned in 

local Hawaii courts for these crimes. As such, Petitioner asserts that he should have been 

tried by Hawaiian civilian courts and that it was improper for the military to try him for 

his offenses. Of note, at trial and in his numerous appeals Petitioner failed to raise any 

prior jurisdictional issues. On July 27, 2015 the Government filed a Motion to Dismiss 

Petitioner’s case. On October 9, 2015, Petitioner filed a response to the Motion to 

Dismiss. The Court’s ruling is pending. [Military Personnel Litigation Branch] 

Gray v. James W. Gray, Commandant, USDB (D. Kan.). In 1988, a general court-martial 

convicted Petitioner Ronald Gray of the premeditated murder of two women, the 

attempted premeditated murder of a third woman, the rape and sodomy of the women, 

burglary, and larceny. Two of the three women were Soldiers. The court-martial 

sentenced Gray to death. The military appellate courts affirmed the court-martial 

conviction. In 2001, the United States Supreme Court denied Gray’s petition for writ of 

certiorari, and his request for rehearing. In July 2008, the President approved the death 

sentence. In August 2008, the Secretary of the Army signed the execution order directing 

Gray’s execution. In November 2008, Ronald Gray filed a motion in the United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas requesting an order staying his execution, 

originally scheduled for December 10, 2008, pending final resolution of federal habeas 

corpus proceedings. In November 2008, the District Court granted the stay of execution. 

In April 2009, Gray filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The government filed its 

answer. In December 2009, Gray filed a response which raised three additional claims 

concerning denial of access to materials the Army provided to the President, mental 

competence at trial and on appeal, and lack of military jurisdiction over a peacetime 

murder in the United States. In September 2010, the court ruled that Gray may present 

the additional claims. In February 2011, Gray filed a Petition for Extraordinary Relief in 

the Nature of a Writ of Coram Nobis with the ACCA. The ACCA denied relief noting 

that it lacked jurisdiction. The CAAF denied Gray’s writ appeal, without prejudice, 

leaving the door open for Gray to again raise his issues after his habeas proceedings. 

Gray filed his reply on November 1, 2012, which completed the briefings in the case. 
44 

In November 2014, a new district court judge was assigned to the case. On April 2, 

2015, the Chief Judge for the District of Kansas heard oral argument regarding Gray’s 21 

asserted assignments of error raised in his habeas petition. On September 29, 2015, the 

District Court issued its memorandum and opinion addressing all counts of Gray’s 

habeas petition. The Court denied 14 counts, finding that the military courts had 

provided Gray full and fair consideration on those issues. Additionally, the Court denied 

Gray’s Eighth Amendment challenge to the method of his execution and Gray’s 

jurisdictional challenge. Lastly, the Court dismissed Petitioner’s five remaining 

arguments without prejudice. On September 27, 2015, Petitioner filed a Motion to Alter 

or Amend Judgement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. The Government 

filed its response on November 6, 2015. Assuming denial of Petitioner’s motion, 

Plaintiff can now either appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, or seek relief for 

the five issues dismissed without prejudice in the military appellate system. [Military 

Personnel Litigation Branch] 

CMB, et al. v. Department of Defense (E.D. Va.) On 31 March 2015, Plaintiffs 

1LT CB (USA), JS, AR, and CS filed a complaint alleging that their "substantive and 

procedural due process, equal protection and First Amendment rights have been violated 

by the Department's practice of permitting persons known to be involved in creating 

sexually hostile environments to be appointed as 'convening authorities' in rape and 

sexual assault cases." Plaintiffs seek an injunction sufficient to halt the Department's 

ongoing wrongdoing. Further, in their second count, "plaintiffs seek to exercise their 

rights under all federal statutes and regulations, including but not limited to the 

Administrative Procedure Act, Title VII, Title X and implementing regulations, that 

penalize the creation of a sexually hostile environment, require a full and impartial 

investigation of such environments, and prevent vesting adjudicatory 'convening 

authority' power in the hands of participating." Plaintiff CMB graduated from West Point 

and is currently deployed to Kuwait. Plaintiff CMB alleges that during her tenure at 

West Point, she was raped, sexually assaulted and subjected to a sexist and hostile 

environment. Plaintiff CS served in the Air Force for 18 years and reached the level of 

TSgt. During her 18 year tenure with the Air Force, she alleges that she was sexually 

assaulted and subjected to a sexually hostile environment and that she suffers from PTSD 

resulting from combat, the sexual assaults, and the sexually hostile environment. 

Plaintiff AR was in the Air Force and alleges that she was raped and that General 

Franklin refused to prosecute her rapist. She further alleges that as a result of the 

ongoing and lengthy military justice process, she became disabled from PTSD. Finally, 

Plaintiff CS alleges that while she was deployed as an Army Sergeant in Afghanistan, 

an NCO raped her in her barracks. She further alleges that her rapist was set free with no 

consequences to his military career and that she became disabled from PTSD and was 

separated after 15 years of service. A summons was issued as to the Department of 

Defense on 30 October 2015, but service has not yet been completed. [General Litigation 

Branch] 
45 

OTJAG INTERNATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL LAW DIVISION (IOLD) 

 In FY15, the mission and programs of the OTJAG International and Operational Law 

Division (IOLD) continued to support the military justice system across three lines of effort: 

prevention of law of war violations, support to judge advocates and paralegals administering 

military justice in deployed environments and overseeing the application of foreign criminal 

jurisdiction, and strengthening partner nation military justice systems to produce highly 

disciplined, effective coalitions for on-going and future military operations. 

 Led by the Special Assistant to TJAG on Law of War Matters, IOLD continued its evaluation 

of all new weapons, and new applications for existing weapons, for compliance with domestic 

and international law. The Operational Law Division similarly reviewed all operations and 

concept plans, training materials, directives, policies, and instructions, and the rules of 

engagement for compliance with the law of armed conflict. The IOLD further supported the 

reporting, investigation, and prosecution whenever Army personnel were alleged to have 

violated the law of war. Most notably, IOLD provided review and input for the long-awaited 

Department of Defense Law of War Manual, and subsequently revised in preparation for 

publication the Army's Field Manual 6-27 to complement and expand upon the Department of 

Defense guidance with practical applications for judge advocates in the field. 

 The IOLD provided reach-back support for operational law issues and for guidance on the 

exercise of either US military jurisdiction or foreign criminal jurisdiction, depending on relevant 

SOFA provisions. The IOLD shared Operational Law updates and other key items with legal 

advisors in the field. As part of this effort, IOLD developed plans for the JAG Corps to support 

the Army’s successful implementation of the Regionally Aligned Force (RAF) initiative, to 

include helping to launch the JAG Corps’ RAF Repository. The Repository will serve as a vital 

legal research tool for individuals assigned to a RAF Mission. The IOLD provided instruction 

and preliminary legal briefings to personnel deploying in support of United Nations Military 

Observers missions, including personnel from each of the Service branches. 

 In order to build strong, disciplined coalitions for future military operations, TJAG and other 

JAGC senior leaders participated in numerous legal engagements with their counterparts from 

partner nations, including Australia, China, Democratic Republic of Congo, France, Israel, 

Japan, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom. Through a focus on stability 

operations and strategic engagements, individual IOLD officers also provided instruction on 

military justice issues with their counterparts from Burundi, Bulgaria, Mongolia, and Niger. The 

topics of discussion focused on the most effective practices for the administration of military 

justice and the manner in which military justice contributes to the overall strength of the rule of 

law within a given society. Partner nation visitors to OTJAG participated in substantive talks 

and conducted additional site visits to TJAGLCS and USALSA. These programs demonstrated 

the importance of organizational structure and resourcing to provide commanders with the 

highest quality legal support. The programs also provided comprehensive overview of the 

military justice system throughout all pre-trial, trial, and appellate stages. 

 Senior Judge Advocates advised and assisted the Palestinian Authority leaders in the 

development of their security justice system and supported Army Service Component Command 
46 

theater security cooperation programs by visiting partners around the world. Senior JAGC 

leaders participated in dialogues on the application of the Law of Armed Conflict in current and 

future operations, and IOLD personnel attended multinational events including the Five Eyes 

Conference in the United Kingdom, the Sanremo LOAC Basic Course, and the AFRICOM 

Accountability Colloquium. 

PERSONNEL, PLANS, AND TRAINING 

 On September 30, 2015, the Army's end-strength was 491,365 Army Soldiers on Active Duty, 

including AGR and mobilized Soldiers, compared to 508,210 at the end of FY14. The attorney 

strength of the Active Component (AC) Judge Advocate General's Corps (JAGC) at the end of 

fiscal year 2015 was 1,819 (including general officers). This total does not include 69 officers 

attending law school while participating in the Army's Funded Legal Education Program (FLEP). 

The FY15 end-strength of 1,819 compares with an end-strength of 1,930 in FY14. The diverse 

composition of the FY15 AA attorney population included 114 African-Americans, 57 

Hispanics, 109 Asians and Native Americans, and 492 female Soldiers.

 The grade distribution of the JAGC AC attorneys for FY15 was seven general officers 

authorized (five filling JAGC authorizations, one serving in a Military Occupational Specialty 

(MOS) coded position (Chief Prosecutor for the Commissions), and a seventh general officer 

(mobilized reservist) serving in a branch immaterial billet - Commander, Rule of Law Field 

Force - Afghanistan); 113 colonels; 245 lieutenant colonels; 535 majors; and 919 captains. An 

additional 92 warrant officers, 638 Civilian attorneys, 758 Civilian paraprofessionals and 1,623 

enlisted paralegals supported legal operations worldwide. 

 The attorney strength of the United States Army Reserve Component of the JAGC at the end 

of FY15 was 1,782 (which includes officers serving in Troop Program Units, the Drilling 

Individual Mobilization Augmentee (DIMA) Program, the Individual Ready Reserve, and the 

Active Guard & Reserves), and the attorney strength of the Army National Guard at the end of 

FY15 was 906. At the end of FY15, over 219 Army JAGC personnel (officer and enlisted, AC 

and Reserve Component) were deployed in operations in Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, 

Kosovo, Egypt, Jordan, Honduras, Israel, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Djibouti and other locations 

around the world. 

In FY15, the JAGC continued its efforts to improve the quality of practice in complex cases, 

to include capital cases, national security cases, sexual assault cases, and military commissions 

proceedings. As discussed above, many of these efforts involved TCAP and DCAP, which 

provided personnel and expert advice to assist with numerous high profile trials. Along with 

TJAGLCS, TCAP and DCAP were instrumental in capturing and disseminating lessons learned 

from these cases throughout the Corps. In addition, the SVP program continued to build the 

Army’s capability to prosecute sexual assault offenses our SVC program continues to grow and 

provides a holistic approach to victim care. 

 In a year filled with significant change, the JAGC continued to provide superior legal advice 

to senior commanders and leaders. The JAGC continued to perform its military justice functions 

in a just and effective manner. The JAGC also continues to monitor newly emerging military 
47 

justice requirements, including all proposed legislation which affects both the UCMJ and the 

MCM, to help to ensure a gold-standard military justice system that the Army demands and that 

its Soldiers deserve. 

 FLORA D. DARPINO 

 Lieutenant General, US Army 

 The Judge Advocate General 

 
48 

APPENDIX - U.S. ARMY MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Report Period: FISCAL YEAR 2015 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED [B]

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES (+ dismissals) 141 (+32) 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 318 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 135 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 496 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 134 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 279 

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

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

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

NUMBER 555 

PERCENTAGE 92.65% 

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

 (CAAF) 

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 438 of 587 74.62% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +1.36% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 27 of 545 4.95% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -31.25% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY USACCA 4.60% 

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

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/ 

DECREASE (-) OVER 

LAST REPORT 

GENERAL 636 566 70 -4.4% 

BCD SPECIAL [A] 225 202 23 -39.6% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 1 1 0 N/A 

SUMMARY 148 [G] [G] -67.5% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT -29.6% 

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 85 [C] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D] 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D] 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 599 [C] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 587 [E] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 97 [C] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD -14.4% 
49 

LAST REPORTING PERIOD -7.26% 

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

EXPLANATORY NOTES 

[A] Cases convened by GCM convening authority. 

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

[C] Includes only cases briefed and at issue. 

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

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

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

personnel. 

[G] SCM convictions and acquittals are not tracked. 

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ 

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 6 

RECEIVED 6 

DISPOSED OF 

 GRANTED 1 

 DENIED 10 

 NO JURISDICTION 1 

 WITHDRAWN 0 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 0 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 500 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 200 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 136 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 26 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 491365 [F] 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 33708 

RATE PER 1,000 68.60 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD +10.40% 
50 

SECTION 4 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY 
51 

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY 

OCTOBER 1, 2014 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 

SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF 

MILITARY JUSTICE 

JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 

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

Justice Oversight Council (MJOC) with the Staff Judge Advocate 

to the Commandant of the Marine Corps pursuant to SECNAVINST 

5430.27D. MJOC meets quarterly and includes the following 

additional members: Commander, Naval Legal Service Command 

(CNLSC); Deputy Judge Advocate General for Reserve Affairs and 

Operations; Deputy Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the 

Marine Corps; Chief Judge of the Department of the Navy; 

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

Assistant Judge Advocate General for Operations and Management; 

and, Deputy Director, Judge Advocate Division, Military Justice 

and Community Development. 

During the reporting period, and in accordance with their 

duties to supervise the administration of military justice under 

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

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

States, Europe, and the Pacific. These inspections were 

conducted under the supervision of the Office of Judge Advocate 

General (OJAG) Inspector General by subject matter experts and 

examined the full range of military justice processes. 

ASSISTANT JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, MILITARY JUSTICE 

AJAG-MJ advises JAG in the performance of statutory military 

justice duties; serves as a member of the OJAG Professional 

Ethics Committee, the Judicial Screening Board, and MJOC; and 

oversees OJAG’s Military Justice Division (Code 20) and National 

Security Litigation Division (Code 30). AJAG-MJ is dual-hatted 

as the Officer-in-Charge of the Navy-Marine Corps Appellate 

Review Activity (OIC, NAMARA - Code 04) overseeing the 

Administrative Support Division (Code 40), Appellate Defense 

Division (Code 45), and Appellate Government Division (Code 46). 

OIC, NAMARA is responsible for disposition of all records of 

trial in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements, 

as well as applicable appellate court rules of practice and 

procedure. 
52 

CRIMINAL LAW DIVISION (CODE 20)

Organization. During the reporting period, Code 20 was 

staffed by eight active duty judge advocates, one civilian staff 

member, and an eight-member reserve unit. Additionally, Code 20 

assigned one judge advocate full-time to the joint Military 

Justice Review Group (MJRG). 

Mission. Code 20 coordinates, reviews, and drafts military 

justice and sexual assault policy, including all legislative and 

regulatory proposals affecting military justice and sexual 

assault prevention and response (SAPR) within the Department of 

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

Congress and their staffs on proposed amendments to the UCMJ, 

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

General (JAG Manual), and other statutory and regulatory 

proposals affecting the UCMJ. Code 20 monitors all decisions of 

military appellate courts; tracks the status of military justice 

cases; provides legal and policy opinions; staffs requests for 

JAG certification of cases for U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Armed Forces (CAAF) review; and facilitates Department of 

Justice (DoJ) processing of executive pardon requests involving 

military convictions. Code 20 staffs requests for Secretarial 

designation of general, special, and summary court-martial 

convening authorities; coordinates court orders and warrants of 

attachment; and coordinates with the DoJ regarding approval for 

grants of immunity and orders for civilian witnesses to testify 

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

representative to the Naval Clemency and Parole Board; provides 

legal opinions to the Board for Correction of Naval Records; 

provides informal advice for Navy and Marine Corps judge 

advocates regarding military justice; processes all Article 69, 

73, and 74(b) UCMJ reviews and requests; and acts as the release 

and initial denial authority on all Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA)/Privacy Act (PA) requests for information pertaining to 

courts-martial. 

The Code 20 Division Director sits as a member of the 

Judicial Screening Board and serves as CNLSC‘s Special Assistant 

for Military Justice, advising CNLSC on policies, plans, 

resources, and procedures affecting NLSC’s military justice 

mission. 

The Code 20 Division Director also serves as Navy’s 

representative to the Joint Service Committee (JSC) for Military 

Justice and functions as Navy’s voting group member at regular 

meetings of the JSC. The JSC is the principal vehicle for 
53 

staffing amendments to the UCMJ and MCM. The JSC’s 2015 Annual 

Review of the MCM was completed in accordance with the 

President’s requirement. The JSC drafted an Executive Order 

containing significant changes to the MCM, most notably 

concerning the new Article 32 preliminary hearing, Victim’s 

right to be heard, and Victim’s right to make an unsworn 

statement at sentencing. This Executive Order was signed by the 

President in June 2015. An additional Executive Order 

containing over twenty changes to the MCM implementing Response 

Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel (RSP) 

recommendations and FY16 NDAA provisions, as well as other 

changes, was drafted and sent for public comment. The JSC was 

tasked by the General Counsel of the Department of Defense with 

responding to various legislative proposals, committee 

initiatives, and other reviews, including review of several 

recommendations from the RSP. 

Code 20 responded to numerous Congressional requests for 

information, provided technical assistance in drafting 

legislation, and drafted and reviewed senior leadership 

testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee and 

Personnel Subcommittee.

In FY15, the MJRG submitted its proposed changes to the 

UCMJ to the General Counsel of the Department of Defense. Code 

20 supported the MJRG review process with staffing assistance. 

The MJRG report analyzed all 146 UCMJ articles and proposed 

substantive additions to the UCMJ including 13 new articles, 

statutory amendments to 53 articles, and proposed legislation 

incorporating those changes. The MJRG, in its holistic review 

of the UCMJ, took into account the report and recommendations of 

the RSP. Code 20 was instrumental in reviewing the MJRG 

proposal, coordinating a DON response in conjunction with the 

Marine Corps. In FY16, the Military Justice Act of 2016 

consisting of the MJRG’s recommended changes to the UCMJ was 

forwarded to Congress for consideration. Code 20 continues to 

support the entirety of the MJRG process ensuring proper 

preparations are made for the possible changes to the UCMJ 

implemented by Congress. 

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

contact for all Navy and Departmental requests for information 

and testimony before the congressionally-mandated Judicial 

Proceedings Panel (JPP), the successor panel to the RSP. Like 

the RSP, the JPP was created by section 576 of the FY13 National 

Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The JPP’s mandate is to 

conduct an independent review and assessment of judicial 
54 

proceedings conducted under the UCMJ involving adult sexual 

assault and related offenses since the amendments made to the 

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

developing recommendations for improvements to such proceedings. 

Code 20 personnel testified before a JPP subcommittee and 

engaged with JPP staff members providing substantive guidance to 

support their mandate. 

In FY15, Code 20 continued to be instrumental in the 

implementation of Navy’s Special Victims Investigation and 

Prosecution (SVIP) Capability, as required by section 573 of the 

FY13 NDAA. To ensure continued and updated training of key SVIP 

stakeholders, Code 20 worked with the Naval Justice School (NJS) 

and OJAG’s Technology, Operations and Plans Division (Code 67) 

to hold the third annual SVIP course. In 2013, 161 personnel 

attended the course, while 239 attended in 2014 and 75 attended 

in 2015. Attendees included Navy judge advocates, Legalmen, 

civilian paralegals, Sexual Assault Response Coordinators 

(SARCs), SAPR Victim Advocates (VAs), Domestic Abuse Victim 

Advocates, and several Marine Corps participants serving in 

similar capacities. 

In addition to the SVIP course, in coordination with NJS, 

Code 20 hosted the second annual Sexual Assault Policy for the 

Staff Judge Advocate course, a two-day course for staff judge 

advocates (SJAs) currently providing advice to General CourtMartial Convening Authorities (GCMCAs), Sexual Assault-Initial 

Disposition Authorities (SA-IDAs), those serving as Region Legal 

Service Office (RLSO) Command Services Department Heads, and 

SJAs for other commands that frequently convene courts-martial. 

The course provided instruction on and encouraged discussion of 

current legal issues involving sexual assault policy and 

dispositions that SJAs encounter while advising GCMCAs and SAIDAs. Among the key topics covered were the FY15 NDAA, the 

status of its implementation, newly released Department of 

Defense (DoD) and Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV) 

instructions, and recent policy and legislative requirements 

placed on SJAs and commanders. The course also included 

instruction and discussion of UCMJ Article 18 (General CourtMartial jurisdiction), Article 32 preliminary hearings, Article 

34 advice, Article 56 (maximum punishments), Article 60 (posttrial action), Rules for Court-Martial (R.C.M.) 306 (character 

of accused during initial disposition of an offense), the Victim 

and Witness Assistance Program (VWAP), and the Family Advocacy 

Program (FAP). 
55 

Code 20 continues to maintain a strong relationship with 

DON SAPRO, N17, and the Naval Education and Training Command 

(NETC) to provide legal review on all SAPR training products 

before they are released to the fleet. This review process 

ensures that these training products are accurate and balanced. 

Code 20 personnel assisted in the development of fleet-wide 

training initiatives on SAPR, to include DON SAPRO’s creation of 

a SAPR video library, Pure Praxis Bystander Intervention 

training (training through the use of actors), Senior Enlisted 

Academy and Recruit Training Command SAPRO training videos, and 

its forthcoming graphic novel. Code 20 also assisted NETC with 

their creation of “Chart the Course” training which will replace 

Bystander Intervention to the Fleet training in FY16. Chart the 

Course is a two-hour training course that blends scenario-based 

videos with facilitator-led discussions. This format allows for 

a consistent message and encourages direct personal involvement 

by all Sailors. Chart the Course emphasizes the need for 

intervention in, and prevention of, destructive behavior by 

utilizing video vignettes and facilitated discussions to engage 

all service members in educational, face-to-face conversations 

about many topics, such as alcohol, drugs, fraternization, 

hazing, sexual harassment, and sexual assault. Code 20 was also 

involved in the creation of the SJA Sexual Assault Reporting 

Toolkit, which provides guidance and support to the Navy’s 

leadership regarding the requirements for reporting all sexual 

assault cases. 

Further, as part of the SAPR Cross Functional Team, Code 20 

met monthly with Navy’s major stakeholders to discuss SAPRrelated policy, training, military justice, and victim services 

developments across the Fleet. 

In order to compile the data for the Annual Report to 

Congress on Sexual Assault in the Military, Code 20 Legal 

Officers once again utilized the Defense Sexual Assault Incident 

Database (DSAID), a comprehensive database launched in 2013 that 

tracks and reports sexual assault incidents. In 2015, Code 20 

provided three fully-qualified DSAID Legal Officers (LOs) who 

personally reviewed and entered over 1,000 Sexual Assault 

Disposition Reports and dispositions of Unrestricted Reports of 

sexual assaults for FY15. In FY15, DSAID was the sole source 

for disposition data on incidents of adult sexual assault for 

purposes of the forthcoming Annual Report to Congress on Sexual 

Assault. Code 20 continues to participate in monthly DSAID 

Change Control Board meetings whose purpose is to improve and 

enhance DSAID capabilities. 
56 

Finally, during the reporting period, Code 20 reviewed four 

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

Article 69(b), UCMJ; and no petitions under Article 73, UCMJ. 

NATIONAL SECURITY LITIGATION DIVISION (CODE 30) 

Organization. During most of the reporting period, Code 30 

was staffed with two officers. At various points in the 

reporting period there was only one officer assigned in Code 30, 

including at a time when a potentially high-visibility national 

security case was developing. 

Mission. Code 30 serves as the JAG’s central point of 

contact for matters involving classified information and 

national security cases. The Division works closely with other 

agencies in the intelligence community, other Services, and the 

DOJ to refine the Navy’s classified litigation practice, 

facilitate the use of Navy classified information, and 

coordinate the litigation of high-visibility cases while 

protecting Navy information. The Division also reviews proposed 

legislation and regulations pertaining to national security 

matters and interacts with other agencies in the intelligence 

community. 

The Division provided extensive investigation and 

litigation support to commanders, SJAs, trial counsel, and 

defense counsel. Attorneys from all Services sought guidance 

from Code 30 on classified litigation and national security 

matters. Litigation support included processing security 

clearance requests for courts-martial personnel, coordinating 

requests for classification reviews of evidence, and 

coordinating the assertion of the classified information 

privilege under Military Rule of Evidence 505, Classified 

Information Procedures Act (CIPA), and State Secrets Protection 

Act (SSPA). Additionally, Code 30 assisted the DoJ National 

Security Division on numerous cases involving Navy classified 

information, often facilitating the use of materials vital to 

trial and coordinating contact between the intelligence 

community, the federal law enforcement community, and DON. 

During the reporting period, Code 30 worked on twenty 

complex espionage and mishandling cases, including the longterm, high-profile investigation of a Naval Officer for 

espionage, as well as the investigation, trial and conviction of 

a defense contractor for attempted espionage. The Division 

supported methodical work to identify Original Classification 

Authorities and review an expansive trove of evidence in support 
57 

of espionage charges for the officer case. Code 30 continued to 

be involved in national-level cases such as the charges being 

referred against Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, the ongoing support to 

DoD, DoJ and Naval Special Warfare equities in the inquiry 

against a former SEAL for leaking classified information about 

the Bin Laden operation in his book “No Easy Day,” and the 

parole appeal of Jonathan Pollard. 

Code 30 refined its specialized training on classified 

information litigation and national security crimes, presenting 

the latest iteration of its Classified Information Litigation 

Course in July 2015. Code 30 continued to expand its reach, 

strengthening ties with Federal Bureau of Investigation, DoJ 

National Security Division and Naval Criminal Investigative 

Service (NCIS), as well as teaching numerous blocks of 

instruction to counter intelligence officers at the Joint 

Counter Intelligence Training Academy. Code 30 continues to 

foster relationships within the intelligence community, the 

other Services, NCIS, and the DOJ. This outreach paid 

significant dividends during the reporting period, bringing 

awareness of Code 30’s mission and capabilities to potential 

clients who have in turn sought Code 30’s advice and assistance. 

This continues to improve the Navy’s overall handling of matters 

involving classified information. 

The Division maintains an extensive library of resources 

and templates. The library includes a hard-copy library of 

significant Navy classified information cases as well as a 

greatly-enhanced electronic database that significantly enhances 

research capabilities. 

Finally, Code 30 continues to publish and update the only 

National Security Litigation primer in the DoD. Significant 

revisions to the primer are currently under review by 

stakeholders and the updated version is expected to be released 

early in 2016. The primer serves as a starting point for 

attorneys across all services litigating cases involving 

classified information.

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT DIVISION (CODE 40)

Organization. During the reporting period, Code 40 was 

staffed with one officer, two civilians, and nine enlisted 

Marine Corps staff members.

Mission. Code 40 provides administrative and logistical 

support services to NAMARA and the Navy-Marine Corps Court of 
58 

Criminal Appeals (NMCCA). Code 40 personnel review for 

completeness all records of trial forwarded to NAMARA for 

appellate review pursuant to Articles 66 and 69, UCMJ; 

promulgate decisions of the NMCCA in accordance with the JAG 

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

system, including original records of trial maintained at 

NAMARA; manage and retrieve archived records of trial stored at 

the Washington National Records Center in Suitland, Maryland; 

and administer all NMCCA and CAAF mandates and judgments on 

remand back to commands worldwide for corrective action. During 

FY15, Code 40 examined 390 records of trial for completeness 

prior to forwarding the records for appellate review pursuant to 

Articles 66 and 69, UCMJ. Also during FY15, Code 40 coordinated 

the delivery of over 80,000 Records of Trial dated 1976 and 

earlier to the custody of the National Archives and Records 

Administration for future storage.

APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISION (CODE 45)

Organization. Code 45 was staffed with twelve active-duty 

Navy and Marine Corps judge advocates, one civilian attorney, 

and three civilian support personnel. Twenty-two Navy and 

Marine Corps Reserve judge advocates supported Code 45. 

Mission. Code 45 represents Navy and Marine Corps 

appellants before the NMCCA, CAAF, and the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Code 45 provides assistance to trial defense counsel in the 

field by helping to file extraordinary writs before the NMCCA 

and the CAAF, providing advice on specific cases in litigation, 

and providing instructors at formal training sessions on topics 

such as recent appellate developments and how to preserve issues 

for appeal. Code 45 also works closely with the Defense Counsel 

Assistance Programs (DCAP) for both services through ongoing 

collaboration. 

As reflected in the chart below, a total of 348 new cases 

were docketed at the NMCCA in FY15. Code 45 filed 354 initial 

pleadings at the NMCCA, consisting of 118 briefs, 192 merit 

submissions, and 1 summary assignment of error pleading. 

Reservists filed sixty percent of the initial pleadings. In 

addition to this, Code 45 filed 326 substantive pleadings, 

including 32 reply briefs, 28 responses to government motions, 4 

supplemental briefs, 15 responses to court orders, 244 motions 

(other than motions for enlargement) and 3 petitions for 

extraordinary relief at the NMCCA. Counsel presented oral 

argument in 14 cases before the NMCCA. 
59 

Code 45 filed 96 supplemental briefs to petitions at the 

CAAF and the Navy’s Judge Advocate General certified 2 cases to 

the CAAF (United States v. Quick, 74 M.J. 332 (C.A.A.F. 2015)

and United States v. Arnold, No. 15-0462/MC, 2015 CAAF LEXIS 826 

(C.A.A.F. Sept. 25, 2015) (summary disposition)), resulting in 

12 full briefs and 7 oral arguments. Code 45 also filed 1 

extraordinary writ appeal petition at the CAAF. 

NMCCA FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 

Cases Docketed 678 598 514 437 373 348 

Briefs Filed 159 161 191 143 161 118 

Other 

Substantive 

Pleadings 

847 693 632 522 587 326 

Total Cases 

Filed 744 531 488 374 387 354 

Oral Arguments 15 20 19 15 15 14 

CAAF 

Petitions with 

Supplemental 

Briefs Filed 

69 81 117 90 79 96 

Briefs Filed 21 20 19 13 7 12 

Oral Arguments 11 7 12 9 2 7 

U.S. Supreme 

Court Petitions 6 2 3 2 4 0 

While there has been a steady decline in the number of 

cases docketed at the NMCCA in recent years, the average case 

size has increased significantly. Since 2008, the average case 

size has increased from a low of 340 pages in 2009 to a high of 

574 pages in 2014, a 41% increase; the average case size in 2015 

dipped to 482 pages, which is a 29% increase from 2009. Since 

FY08, the percentage of cases in which appellate issues were 

raised as an overall percentage of appellate caseload was at a 

low of 22% in FY09 to a high of 42% in FY14. These changes 

correlate with an overall increase in appellate complexity. 
60 

Significant cases this term include: 

 United States v. Woods, 74 M.J. 238 (C.A.A.F. 2015) 

(finding implied bias where the senior member 

initially believed the “guilty until proven 

innocent” standard is “essential” to military 

justice);

 United States v. Simmermacher, 74 M.J. 196 (C.A.A.F. 

2015) (applying R.C.M. 703(f)(2) in holding 

appellant’s urine sample in this urinalysis case was 

of such central importance that it was essential to 

a fair trial and there was no adequate substitute 

after the Government destroyed it);

 United States v. Castillo, 74 M.J. 160 (C.A.A.F. 

2015) (upholding Navy’s self-reporting requirement 

for arrests and initiation of criminal charges that 

was re-written in response to United States v. 

Serianne, 69 M.J. 8 (C.A.A.F. 2010));

 United States v. Bass, 74 M.J. 806 (N-M. Ct. Crim. 

App. 2015) (finding non-forcible sodomy was not a 

lesser included offense of forcible sodomy as 

charged because the charged offense did not allege a 

Marcum factor); 

 United States v. Pease, 74 M.J. 763 (N-M. Ct. Crim. 

App. 2015) (interpreting the meaning of “incapable 

of consenting” in Art. 120(b)(3)(A), UCMJ, in 

finding the convictions factually insufficient); 

 United States v. Quick, 74 M.J. 517 (N-M. Ct. Crim. 

App. 2015) aff’d by 74 M.J. 332 (finding Art. 120c, 

UCMJ, prohibited indecent viewing of the alleged 

victim’s actual private area rather than a visual 

recording of the alleged victim’s private area as 

charged); 

 United States v. Spurling, No. 201400124, 2015 CCA 

LEXIS 311 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. July 31, 2015) 

(finding ineffective assistance of counsel where 

counsel failed to file a motion to suppress 

appellant’s statement based on a potential Art. 

31(b), UCMJ, violation); 
61 

 United States v. Montalvo, No. 201400241, 2015 CCA 

LEXIS 218 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. May 27, 2015) 

(setting aside convictions where military judge 

failed to grant continuance for defense to 

investigate records that the government 

inadvertently failed to disclose until shortly 

before trial that indicated the complainant may have 

destroyed evidence in a sexual assault case); 

 United States v. Edmond, No. 201200168, 2015 CCA 

LEXIS 162 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Apr. 30, 2015) 

(finding ineffective assistance of counsel where the 

defense team failed to effectively cross-examine the 

alleged victim, introduced a theory but forgot to 

follow-up on it through questioning a witness, 

failed an attempt to bolster appellant’s 

credibility, and failed to fully consider or advise 

appellant on the ramifications of testifying); 

 United States v. Hinojos, No. 201300305, 2015 CCA 

LEXIS 20 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Jan 27, 2015) (setting 

aside convictions where, over defense objection, the 

government failed to establish the source and 

authenticity of the buccal swab before testifying 

that it contained DNA matching appellant’s DNA); and

 United States v. Arnold, No. 201200382, 2014 CCA 

LEXIS 902 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Dec. 23, 2014) 

(setting aside convictions where military judge’s 

post-trial actions established apparent bias toward 

accused).

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT DIVISION (CODE 46) 

Organization. The Division was staffed with eleven active 

duty judge advocates (including two activated reservists), one 

civilian attorney, and two civilian administrative employees. 

Reserve support continues to be critical to mission 

accomplishment. In FY15, Code 46 was supported by ten reserve 

judge advocates in addition to the two activated reservists 

mentioned above. 

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

Appellate Government Division is to represent the United States 

before the NMCCA and the CAAF. The Division also provides 

interlocutory appeal and prophylactic appellate support and 

advice to trial counsel, SJAs, and post-trial review officers 
62 

throughout the Navy and Marine Corps for all types of pretrial, 

court-martial, and post-trial matters. 

A summary of FY15 appellate activity is provided in the 

following chart. These calculations are based on input from the 

Court-Martial Tracking and Information System (CMTIS) database. 

The calculations in CMTIS for “Briefs Filed” include Government 

briefs, answers to supplements, and supplemental briefs. “Other 

Pleadings” include responses to extraordinary writs, motion 

responses, responses to Court Orders, and Petitions for 

Reconsideration. The number of CAAF briefs submitted by the 

Government nearly doubled as compared to FY14, and oral 

arguments by the Government more than doubled. NMCCA briefing 

was slightly lower this fiscal year. Three Article 62 appeals 

from trial court decisions were filed in the cases of United 

States v. Rios, United States v. Smith, and United States v. 

Burris. 

 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15

NMCCA 

Briefs 

Filed 

163 188 198 152 159 140

Other 

Pleadings 

373 144 439 439 479 435

 Oral 

Arguments 

15 20 19 15 16 11 

CAAF 

Briefs 

Filed 

24 22 24 9 12 23

Other 

Pleadings 

102 70 111 98 72 97

Oral 

Arguments 

11 7 12 11 3 7 

Issues and briefing continued to be highly complex, 

including the following (case name in parenthesis): 

 Whether probable cause to search for child pornography is 

provided by evidence of child enticement (Hoffman); 

 Whether Individual Ready Reservists are entitled to Article 

31(b) warnings (Gilbreath); 

 Whether a duty to self-report violated the Fifth Amendment 

(Castillo); 

 
63 

 Whether and how Religious Freedom Restoration Act defenses 

should be raised in courts-martial (Sterling); 

 What remedies are available to accused when the government 

inadvertently destroys evidence (Simmermacher); 

 Whether sentence-only rehearings are authorized under 

Article 66(d), UCMJ (Quick); and 

 Whether a convening authority’s member selection process 

under Article 25 resulted in systematic exclusion of panel 

members (Ward). 

Code 46 provides direct legal services to Marine Corps and 

Navy judge advocates around the world, responding to hundreds of 

questions from the field on trial and appeal matters. To better 

protect convictions on appeal, Code 46 advocates the need for 

unity of legal positions taken by the United States before trial 

and appellate courts. Code 46 augments delivery of legal advice 

on appellate issues affecting ongoing trials through postings on 

the Code 46 blog site and sending e-mails to the field. 

Appellate and trial prosecution working together helps ensure 

that legal precedent favorable to the United States is 

developed, positions are not waived prior to appellate 

litigation, and inconsistent positions are not taken by trial or 

appellate counsel. More formalized coordination between the 

Trial Counsel Assistance Program (TCAP), trial counsel, and Code 

46 will position the United States to better achieve appellate 

success. Additionally, closer coordination with policymakers to 

address issues as they arise in appellate litigation will 

prevent recurrence and assist in solving systemic issues. 

Code 46 continues to train trial counsel in the field. In 

coordination with the Marine Corps TCAP, Code 46 attorneys 

conducted several courses of trial counsel training. Code 46 

attorneys also instructed at the “Sexual Assault Policy for the 

Staff Judge Advocate” course in coordination with Code 20. Code 

46 training routinely covers: handling interlocutory appeals, 

extraordinary writs, DuBay hearings and remands; protecting the 

record to withstand appellate scrutiny; and explaining the 

fundamental areas of intersection between trial and post-trial 

processing and appellate review. These training sessions are 

indispensable in building solid working relationships between 

trial and appellate litigators and SJAs. Additionally, the 

sessions provide opportunities for appellate counsel to share 

previous lessons learned in an effort to prevent identical or 

analogous mistakes that adversely affect the United States. 
64 

Code 46 organized the highly successful Third Annual Joint 

Government Appellate Training, held at Joint Base Myer-Henderson 

Hall from September 22-24, 2015. It was attended by nearly a 

hundred judge advocates from across the globe and from every 

military branch. Speakers included: Chief Judge “Chip” Erdmann 

of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces; Judge Patricia 

Millett, United States Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit; Michael Doyle, Legal Affairs Correspondent for 

McClatchy Newspapers; Elisabeth Trosman, Chief of the Appellate 

Division for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of 

Columbia; former CAAF Chief Judge Andrew Effron, Chair, Military 

Justice Review Group; A.J. Kramer, Federal Public Defender for 

the District of Columbia; a panel of notable Supreme Court 

litigators who taught appellate writing skills; a panel of 

military and state victims counsel to discuss the Victims’ Legal 

Counsel (VLC) program; a panel of CCA judges from all the 

services; and a panel of notable amicus organizations including 

the Cato Institute, the Liberty Institute, the Solicitor General 

of Virginia, the National Association of Criminal Defense 

Lawyers, and the Center for Constitutional Rights. Code 46 

counsel also attended appellate advocacy training at the D.C. 

Bar Association’s Appellate Advocacy Seminar, advanced appellate 

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

Appellate Judges’ Education Institute, and CAAF’s Continuing 

Legal Education and Training Program.

Appellate Government Counsel continue to conduct robust 

outreach to the community. As in previous years, Code 46 

appellate counsel served as appellate moot court judges at the 

ABA’s National Appellate Advocacy Competition. This year, the 

Director and Code 46 counsel served as moot court judges for 

student competitors at the George Mason Law School Upper Class 

Appellate Competition as well as at the American Bar Association 

Appellate Moot Court Competition. 

During FY15, Code 46 continued the DON’s electronic record 

of trial program, which at year’s end included approximately 95% 

of the trial records docketed at NAMARA. Code 46 continues to 

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

discussion board, a Military Justice Wiki, and a routinely 

updated Military Justice Blog. Trial counsel and appellate 

government counsel from other Services are also able to 

participate and contribute to the blog, the discussion board, 

and the Military Justice Wiki. 
65 

ASSISTANT JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, 

CHIEF JUDGE, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

The Assistant Judge Advocate General, Chief Judge, 

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

supervisory jurist in the DON, overseeing the trial and 

appellate judiciaries. The CJDON serves as the Rules Counsel 

for the judiciaries and the community sponsor for the Navy JAG 

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

CJDON is selected by a competitive flag selection board and 

serves for three years, with appointment as the Assistant Judge 

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

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

Organization. During FY15, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of 

Criminal Appeals (NMCCA) included both active duty Navy and 

Marine Corps appellate judges. The number of judges varied 

between a high of nine and a low of six over the course of the 

year. NMCCA was also supported by seven Navy Reserve and three 

Marine Corps Reserve appellate judges, four Navy and Marine 

Corps junior officer law clerks, three part-time spring semester 

student law clerks, two part-time fall semester part-time 

student law clerks, and a mid-grade officer senior law clerk. 

Mission. The NMCCA is responsible for all cases referred 

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

also entertain petitions for extraordinary relief. 

Legal issues addressed in FY15 included (case names in 

parenthesis): 

 Whether trial defense counsel were ineffective for 

failing to object to admission of the accused’s 

statements and whether the military judge committed 

plain error by failing to suppress that accused’s 

statements obtained in violation of Article 31(b), 

UCMJ, and the Fifth Amendment (Spurling); 

 Whether the Government’s failure to provide evidence 

of the victim’s learning disability and requested 

medical records denied him his right to discovery and 

his 5th Amendment right to due process (Owens); 

 Whether the element under Article 120(b) of “incapable 

of consenting to the sexual act due to impairment by 

alcohol” is unconstitutionally vague (Corcoran); 
66 

 Whether an accused was entitled to credit for pretrial 

confinement served in a civilian facility (Atkinson); 

 The admissibility of a witness’s testimony regarding 

memories recovered through a psychotherapeutic 

approach known as Eye Movement Desensitization and 

Reprocessing (D.W.B.); 

 Whether a military judge erred in instructing members 

that consensual sodomy is a lesser included offense of 

forcible sodomy (Bass); 

 Whether the Government may argue that an accused has a 

general propensity to commit sexual crimes based only 

on the charges before the court-martial (Bass); 

 Whether a service member is entitled to be released 

from confinement or to the equivalent of an R.C.M. 305 

hearing prior to the JAG having had the opportunity to 

send the case to the CAAF (Clark); 

 Whether the numerous errors committed by defense 

counsel during trial deprived the accused of the 

effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the 

Sixth Amendment (Edmond); 

 Whether a military judge erred by denying an accused’s 

request to continue his trial for four days based upon 

newly discovered evidence (Montalvo); 

 Whether the findings from the accused’s original trial 

were ambiguous and unreviewable and thus subjected the 

accused to double jeopardy at his rehearing (Oakley); 

 Whether an accused’s co-conspirator wife could be 

compelled to testify under the exception found in MIL. 

R. EVID. 504(c)(2)(D) (Rios); and 

 Whether an order to remove religious quotes from the 

accused’s workspace violated the accused’s right to 

freely exercise her religion (Sterling). 

The Court hosted its fifth annual NMCCA Judicial Training 

course in FY15. As in other years of this top-rated training 

session, the Court brought in an author and lecturer on judicial 
67 

appellate writing. The lecturer had previously provided 

training to state and federal appellate judges. The Court also 

sponsored the 2015 William S. Fulton, Jr. Military Appellate 

Judges’ Training Conference. The Conference was highlighted by 

two panel discussions: the first was on the future of the UCMJ; 

and second was on the intersection of the Fourth Amendment, the 

Internet, and electronic devices. The attendees also received 

insightful comments from the two keynote speakers: former 

Solicitor General of the United States Paul Clement and a 

sitting federal appellate court judge. 

NMCCA continues to maintain a website at 

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

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

audio files from oral arguments heard before it as well as a 

docket for upcoming oral arguments. Application for admission 

to the NMCCA bar and rules of the court are also maintained on 

the website. 

NAVY-MARINE CORPS TRIAL JUDICIARY (CODE 52) 

Organization. The Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary 

(NMCTJ) is organized into eight geographic judicial circuits, 

with thirteen active duty Marine Corps judges and ten active 

duty Navy judges. Trial judges are stationed throughout the 

world (typically in Fleet and Marine force concentration areas) 

and travel to other locations as required to conduct trials. 

The active duty judiciary is supported by Reserve units from 

both Services, with a total of eighteen Reserve trial judges. 

Mission. The core mission of the NMCTJ is to preside over 

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

In 2015, the trial judiciary continued to confront novel issues 

arising from the creation of the VLC program and from other 

provisions of the FY12-FY15 NDAAs. In courtrooms across our 

enterprise, trial judges are helping define the evolving role of 

the VLC and the parameters of their representation, particularly 

in the area of production and discovery of victims’ mental 

health records under M.R.E. 513. Additionally, trial judges are 

at the forefront of implementing many of the changes mandated by 

the NDAA and addressing their impact on courts-martial (e.g., 

guardianship of victims, victim participation in sentencing 

hearings, and changes in Article 32 hearing procedures). 

The caseload at the trial level continues to decline, but 

the percentage of contested cases remains constant at around 40% 

of the total number of cases that proceed to trial. 
68 

FY13 closed with the NMCTJ presiding over 1170 

arraignments. Of the 720 cases that went to trial in FY13, 266 

(37%) were contested trials with 91 of those cases ending in 

acquittals (34%). 

FY14 closed with the NMCTJ presiding over 993 arraignments 

(301 GCMs and 692 SPCMs), of which 300 (30%) fell out prior to 

trial as alternative dispositions, withdrawals or dismissals. 

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

were contested cases, and 128 cases resulted in acquittals 

(45%). 

By comparison, FY15 closed with the NMCTJ presiding over 

852 initial arraignments (284 GCMs and 568 SPCMs). 

Approximately 180 (21%) cases did not go to trial as a result of 

alternative dispositions, withdrawals, or dismissals. Of the 

672 cases that went to trial, 265 (39%) were contested. Those 

contested cases resulted in 90 acquittals (34%). 

In addition to the primary mission, our trial judges 

continue to take on significant collateral assignments. The 

trial judiciary has three military judges assigned for 

additional duty to support the mission of the Office of Military 

Commissions Trial Judiciary (OMC-TJ). Of those judges, the 

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

remains detailed as military judge to the OMC case of United 

States v. al Iraqi and travels to Guantanamo Bay to conduct 

hearings. Additionally, NMCTJ continues to support the training 

of new judge advocates by providing evaluators for the mock 

trial program at the Naval Justice School. Our Reserve trial 

judges are a vital part of that program as well. 

In 2015, the NMCTJ hosted the Joint Military Judges Annual 

Training (JMJAT) in San Diego, attended by trial judges from all 

Services. This training included instruction from the National 

Judicial College (NJC) as well as presentations focused on 

issues emerging from the 2012-2015 NDAA legislation. 

In September of 2015, the NMCTJ held a Special Victims’ 

Training symposium for all Navy and Marine Corps trial judges at 

Bolling Air Force Base. Funded by DoD SAPRO, the symposium 

focused on complex issues that frequently arise in contested 

sexual assault cases. Training topics included MIL. R. EVID. 

513 (the threshold for ordering production of victims’ 

psychotherapy records and the process for reviewing and 

protecting those records); the use of experts in sexual assault 
69 

cases; the role of VLC in the court-martial process; and 

compliance with the NDAA provisions, including recent changes to 

Article 32 and Article 60, extension of the Crime Victim’s 

Rights Act, and regulations implementing guardianship 

requirements. 

In March 2015, the NMCTJ published a significant revision 

to its Uniform Rules. Among notable changes was the addition of 

rules establishing the parameters of courtroom practice for VLC. 

In September 2015, the NMCTJ transitioned from its historic and 

traditional court-martial script, adopting a modern version 

compatible with the Army Benchbook and conducive to rapid and 

timely updates as case law and Congressional action mandate. 

NAVAL LEGAL SERVICE COMMAND (NLSC) 

Organization. The Deputy Judge Advocate General of the 

Navy also serves as Commander, Naval Legal Service Command 

(CNLSC). At the conclusion of FY15, NLSC was comprised of 432 

judge advocates, one Civil Engineer Corps officer, one Limited 

Duty (Law) officer, 204 Legalmen, one Yeoman, 205 civilians, and 

34 foreign nationals. 

Mission. Naval Legal Service Command 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 worldwide. 

In FY15, NLSC provided legal advice, services, and training to 

the Fleet through 13 commands and their associated branch 

offices and detachments: four Defense Service Offices (DSOs) 

provided defense and personal representation and nine RLSOs 

provided prosecution, command services, and legal assistance. 

Through these 13 commands, NLSC provided counsel for courtmartial prosecution and defense, administrative boards, physical 

evaluation boards, legal advice to local commanders and their 

staffs, and legal assistance to active duty members, retirees, 

and their family members. 

NLSC continues to track all military justice cases using 

the Case Management System (CMS) to comply with a Congressional 

mandate that DON implement a single court-martial tracking 

system by July 1, 2013. Tracked cases include all special 

victims’ cases, as required by DOD Directive-Type Memorandum 14-

003; all cases where an accused is placed in pretrial restraint, 

restriction, or confinement; and when the RLSO has substantial 

involvement in a case in anticipation of a possible courtmartial. CMS is also used to track each officer Board of 
70 

Inquiry. RLSO commands have found CMS to be highly effective in 

tracking all cases and providing accurate information to local 

convening authorities and NLSC headquarters. 

Over the past year, NLSC has been heavily involved in the 

development of the DON Naval Justice Information System (NJIS). 

NJIS will be a DON cradle-to-grave law enforcement and 

investigations web-based case management information system 

using workflow processes to provide visibility throughout the 

lifecycle of Navy and Marine Corps unclassified 

criminal/military justice incidents. It merges business 

processes across communities and DON as opposed to simply 

automating what already existed. Our vision for NJIS is an 

information system in which users work rather than simply 

populating a database. This is DON’s attempt to achieve end-toend Defense Incident-Based Reporting System (DIBRS) compliance. 

NJIS, when deployed, will replace CMS as the NLSC case tracking 

system. 

In FY15, NLSC completed 118 general courts-martial, 157 

special courts-martial, 144 Article 32 investigations, and 305 

administrative boards. While the number of courts-martial has 

declined in recent years, the proportion of contested trials, 

the complexity of litigation, and the scope of out-of-court 

responsibilities shouldered by trial and defense counsel have 

all increased substantially. Further, the addition of VLC into 

the trial process and the expansion of the rights they are 

charged with protecting add a new layer of complexity and volume 

to trial and appellate practice. Therefore, notwithstanding the 

reduction in number of trials, demand on judge advocates 

involved in the administration of military justice is 

increasing. 

NLSC personnel also provided services to 35,687 legal 

assistance clients. 

NLSC continued to be the primary source for personnel to 

meet the JAG Corps’ Individual Augmentation (IA) requirements in 

support of Overseas Contingency Operations. During FY15, 10 

judge advocates from NLSC deployed to Afghanistan, Bahrain, 

Djibouti, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in direct support of 

military operations outside of the continental United States. 

DEFENSE COUNSEL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (DCAP) 

Organization. DCAP is aligned under NLSC and reports to 

the Chief of Staff, Defense Service Offices (COS-DSO). DCAP’s 
71 

current Director is qualified as a “Specialist II” in the 

Military Justice Litigation Career Track (MJLCT) and received 

his LL.M. from Harvard University. The current Deputy Director 

is also qualified as a “Specialist II” and received his LL.M. in 

Litigation from the George Washington University School of Law. 

DCAP is currently interviewing candidates to fill a vacant 

Highly Qualified Expert (HQE) position and expects to have this 

position filled by Spring 2016. In order to ensure maximum 

availability for counsel throughout the world, DCAP personnel 

are currently stationed in the two fleet concentrations areas of 

San Diego and Norfolk. Although normally utilized as a reachback resource for defense counsel, DCAP personnel may be 

assigned cases. For instance, DCAP’s Deputy Director served as 

assistant defense counsel to guide a junior defense counsel 

through a large conspiracy case. 

Mission. DCAP’s primary mission is to support the Navy 

trial defense bar. During FY15, DCAP assisted detailed defense 

counsel across the spectrum of trial practice including trial 

strategy, motions practice, argument development, 

investigations, discovery, requests for witnesses and expert 

assistants, voir dire strategies and questions, complex legal 

research, preparing clients and witnesses for testimony, and 

trial preparation. DCAP was available for on-site visits during 

trial preparation and were often in courtrooms to assist “behind 

the bar” during trial. DCAP also provided advice on post-trial 

matters and frequently consulted with defense counsel concerning 

professional responsibility and ethics issues. 

DCAP planned, organized, and executed a wide array of 

training for defense counsel. DCAP spearheaded the Defending 

Sexual Assault Cases (DSAC) course sponsored by the Center for 

American and International Law in Plano, Texas. This course 

brought together military and civilian experts to provide 

comprehensive training on defending service members accused of 

sexual assault. Additionally, in conjunction with NJS and the 

Marine Corps defense bar, DCAP organized the Defense Counsel 

Orientation course which was offered twice over the past year. 

This course brought together military and civilian defense 

counsel from all experience levels and was designed to prepare 

new defense counsel to represent court-martial clients. DCAP 

personnel served as instructors at both courses. Also, the 

Director served as an instructor at the Basic Trial Advocacy 

Course and the Deputy Director served as a guest instructor at 

the Naval Justice School’s Litigating Complex Cases Course. 
72 

DCAP conducted ten individual week-long mobile training 

visits around the world, providing training to DSOs and their 

detachment offices. DCAP also developed salient resources and 

provided written advisories on recent case law and changes to 

the UCMJ. In addition, DCAP provided standardized training and 

assisted in establishing uniform policy and protocols for the 

newly created Defense Litigation Support Specialist positions. 

DCAP continues to promote and maximize the use of a 

centralized defense database on its Microsoft SharePoint site 

which allows for the real-time exchange and dissemination of 

information and for a central repository of documents and 

resources. Lastly, DCAP continued to collect and consolidate 

helpful resources, ensuring materials developed by counterpart 

offices in our fellow Services, Code 20, and NJS were available 

to the Navy defense bar. 

TRIAL COUNSEL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (TCAP)

Organization. TCAP is aligned under NLSC and reports to 

the Chief of Staff, Region Legal Service Offices (COS-RLSO). 

TCAP is led by a Navy O-5, an MJLCT-designated “Expert.” The 

current Director received his LL.M. in Litigation from George 

Washington University School of Law. He previously served as 

Military Judge, RLSO Executive Officer, Senior Defense Counsel, 

and Senior Trial Counsel. The Deputy Director is a GS-15 

civilian who specializes in sexual assault prosecution and 

victims’ rights. A former state prosecutor with extensive 

experience, she served as the Director of the National Center 

for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women and is a noted 

author in the field. She led efforts to enhance SAPR policies 

and training and to improve the VWAP. She was also engaged in 

numerous initiatives involving sexual assault litigation 

training and evaluation. The Assistant Director is a senior O-4 

MJLCT-designated “Specialist II” who has previously served as a 

Senior Defense Counsel, prosecutor, aircraft carrier SJA, and 

NJS instructor. He received his LL.M. in Litigation from the 

George Washington University School of Law. TCAP’s Highly 

Qualified Expert (HQE) is a former civilian prosecutor with 17 

years of experience, most notably as a prosecutor specializing 

in crimes against children and as a senior attorney, instructor, 

and course coordinator for the National District Attorneys 

Association. 

Mission. TCAP’s mission is to provide advice, assistance, 

support, resources, and training for Navy trial counsel 

worldwide. The program supports and enhances the proficiency of 
73 

the Navy prosecution bar through experienced reach-back and 

technical expertise. TCAP serves as a resource for trial 

counsel in the field through every phase of trial, including 

pretrial investigation, charging decisions, court-martial 

litigation, and post-trial processing. TCAP regularly assists 

and advises trial counsel on all aspects of prosecution, 

including drafting charges, trial preparation and motions 

practice, discovery, securing and preparing expert witnesses, 

devising trial strategy, and professional responsibility issues. 

TCAP collaboratively engages trial counsel in the field via 

regular case review conferences. TCAP also coordinates with 

Code 46 to ensure court-martial prosecutions are postured to 

withstand appellate review. 

When requested, TCAP provides more in-depth case 

assistance. For example, a TCAP counsel is detailed as trial 

counsel or assistant trial counsel when an advanced level of 

proficiency is demanded. The preceding TCAP Director served as 

trial counsel on a high-profile homicide case; the current 

Director is detailed as the trial counsel on a sexual assault 

case and a national security case; the Assistant Director served 

as trial counsel in a premeditated murder case; and the civilian 

Deputy Director and the HQE have provided on-scene expert 

assistance in several complex sexual assault and child 

exploitation cases. 

TCAP is also responsible for monitoring all high-visibility 

cases. The Director monitors the relative experience levels of 

trial counsel through on-site, periodic observations of Navy 

judge advocates in the performance of their prosecution 

functions and provides recommendations for improvement, as well 

as resource recommendations to COS-RLSO as necessary. 

In addition to case assistance and advice, TCAP provides 

subject matter expertise to assist trial counsel. TCAP 

maintains an online repository of useful resources such as 

sample motions and responses, foundation questions, articles and 

manuals on prosecution, case disposition tracking, and an expert 

witness database. The TCAP site also has a trial counsel 

discussion board that enables real-time responses to inquiries 

from the field and leverages enterprise knowledge for the 

benefit of the more remote offices. The discussion board also 

facilitates a closer prosecution bar by enabling discussions 

between trial counsel worldwide. 

Finally, TCAP plays a significant role in trial counsel 

training. TCAP partners with NJS and Code 20 in the development 
74 

of litigation training for trial counsel. TCAP personnel 

routinely serve as instructors at a variety of courses at the 

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

TCAP coordinated the planning and execution of Prosecuting 

Special Victims’ Crimes (PSVC) course, an advanced domestic 

violence/child abuse prosecution course. TCAP also conducted 

targeted on-site mobile training to all nine RLSOs which focused 

on trial advocacy and prosecution of special victim offenses. 

This training also afforded counsel the opportunity to receive 

on-site case consultation and assistance. TCAP also provided 

online training sessions that further focused on prosecuting 

special victim offenses and other evidentiary topics. 

VICTIMS’ LEGAL COUNSEL (VLC) PROGRAM

Organization. Victims’ Legal Counsel operate outside the 

chain of command of the victim and the accused. They are 

independent of both trial and defense counsel. The program 

consists of 29 (increasing to 31 during FY16) specially trained 

and certified Navy judge advocates, eight of whom are 

reservists, and 10 administrative personnel. The VLC program is 

led by a senior O-6 Chief of Staff and a civilian (GS-14) Deputy 

Chief of Staff. VLC are assigned to 24 naval installations 

around the world, including Annapolis, MD; Washington, D.C.; 

Oceana, VA; Little Creek, VA; Norfolk, VA; Groton, CT; Mayport, 

FL; Jacksonville, FL; Pensacola, FL; Gulfport, MS; Great Lakes, 

IL; San Antonio, TX; Coronado, CA; San Diego, CA; Lemoore, CA; 

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

Bahrain; Naples, Italy; Rota, Spain; and Yokosuka, Japan. 

Mission. In August 2013, the Navy established the Navy VLC 

Program to provide independent legal counsel to eligible sexual 

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

assist victims in understanding and exercising their reporting 

options. VLC work with victims through the investigation and 

military justice process, advocate for victims’ rights and 

interests, and help victims obtain access to other support 

resources. VLC complement the care and support victims receive 

through other resources such as SAPR, FAP, VWAP, and services 

offered by VAs, Chaplains, and healthcare providers. 

In accordance with federal law, to be eligible for VLC 

services one must be a victim of a sexual offense and otherwise 

eligible for legal assistance services from a military attorney. 

Generally this includes Navy active-duty and Reserve personnel, 

other service personnel and retirees when assaulted by an 

active-duty Navy member, adult and minor dependents of active-
75 

duty Navy members when assaulted by an active-duty member, and 

some overseas DON civilians. Pursuant to the FY16 NDAA, a 

waiver of the eligibility requirements can be made on a case-bycase basis for victims who are DOD civilian employees and not 

otherwise eligible for legal assistance services from a military 

attorney. VLC services are available to victims filing 

Restricted Reports, Unrestricted Reports, or declining to file 

an official report of sexual assault. 

Offenses covered within the VLC Program include Rape, 

Sodomy, Sexual Assault, Wrongful Sexual Contact, Stalking, Rape 

and Sexual Assault of a Child, Other Sexual Misconduct, and 

attempts of any of the above. All communications between VLC 

and their clients are confidential and privileged. Victims are 

not required to contact or consult with a VLC – the choice 

remains with the victim. Declining VLC services at the outset 

of a case does not preclude a victim from obtaining VLC services 

at a later time. VLC support is available in-person and via 

remote means if necessary, including by telephone, email, text, 

and video-teleconferencing. 

VLC began providing services to minor dependents assaulted 

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

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

normal attorney-client relationship with a minor client. This 

means that VLC assess each client’s capacity separately and 

continuously to determine if a particular client has the 

considered judgment and capacity to direct VLC services. In 

order to educate VLC on the nuances involved in representing 

minors and clients with diminished capacity, VLC leadership 

worked with the ABA’s Center on Children and the Law to develop 

specialized web-based training on child representation. Areas 

of instruction included determining whether a minor or 

diminished capacity victim has considered judgment and the 

capacity to direct their representation; developmentally 

appropriate communication methods; child development stages; and 

general child capacity/communication skills at different stages. 

All VLC are required to attend the Special Victims' Counsel 

(SVC) Course offered by either the Army or the Air Force in 

order to be certified by the Judge Advocate General to practice 

as VLC. VLC also attend specialized courses including 

Prosecuting Special Victims Cases (NJS), Representing Child 

Victims (Army), and the National Crime Victims Law Institute. 

In addition to outside training, VLC participate in internal 

monthly VLC trainings conducted via DCO which include topics 

such as Vicarious Trauma, Motions Practice, and Child Clients. 
76 

In FY15, VLC provided training at SVC/VLC certification 

courses, served on panels at the Fulton Conference SARC 

training, and provided regular training to VAs. VLC also 

provided training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 

and at Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examiner trainings 

conducted around the country and worldwide. Several VLC 

appeared before the Judicial Proceedings Panel Federal Advisory 

Committee to offer their insight on victim-specific issues 

related to the VLC Program. 

VLC provide personal representation advice to victims 

involved in collateral misconduct connected with a report of 

sexual assault. Collateral misconduct resulting in 

administrative processing or court-martial necessitates 

assignment of a separate military defense counsel. VLC also 

provide basic legal assistance services directly connected to a 

report of sexual assault, including notarizations and powers of 

attorney. Assistance with more substantive matters are referred 

to the nearest military legal assistance office. 

During FY15, Navy VLC aided a total of 1,377 sexual offense 

victims (851 of whom were new clients for VLC during FY15), 

participated on behalf of victims at 441 military justice 

proceedings, and conducted 760 outreach briefs on VLC services 

to 32,065 personnel.

NAVAL JUSTICE SCHOOL 

Organization. Naval Justice School (NJS) reports to CNLSC 

for administrative and operational control. The main NJS 

facility is located in Newport, Rhode Island. Teaching 

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

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

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

(TJAGLCS) in Charlottesville, Virginia. In FY15, the Naval 

Justice School and its detachments were staffed by 29 activeduty officers, 14 enlisted personnel, and 13 civilians. 15 

reserve personnel supported NJS. 

Mission. The mission of NJS is to oversee formal training 

of Sea Service judge advocates and paralegals to ensure their 

career-long professional development and readiness, to provide 

comprehensive formal training to all Sea Service judge advocates 

and other legal personnel in order to promote justice and ensure 

the delivery of quality legal advice and other services to the 

commander, to train commanders and senior officers in the 
77 

practical aspects of military law to enable them to perform 

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

assist in the sound administration of military justice. 

In FY15, NJS provided instruction to more than 15,450 

students worldwide, including more than 3,450 in in-resident 

courses ranging in length from one day to 13 weeks. 

In addition to teaching NJS courses, NJS instructors 

provided off-site teaching in military justice, administrative 

law, and operational law to other commands on board Naval 

Station Newport, including the Naval War College, Naval 

Leadership and Ethics Center, Officer Development School, Senior 

Enlisted Academy, Surface Warfare Officers School, Officer 

Candidate School, and Limited Duty/Chief Warrant Officer 

Indoctrination School. 

Additionally, in FY15, Naval Justice School advertised a 

GS-15 Educational Program Specialist to serve as the program 

advisor to NJS leadership and a mentor to the instructors and 

other staff members, providing expert advice on the science of 

education and assisting in the formulation of the school’s broad 

educational and training. This position will establish 

guidelines for curriculum planning, reviewing plans and 

instructional programs to assure fulfillment of the school's 

mission and goals and to assess and ensure NJS is meeting the 

fleet's training requirements. This Specialist was hired in the 

first quarter of FY16. 

NJS has eight “core” courses that include training in 

military justice: 

1. Basic Lawyer Course. This ten-week course, offered 

three times annually, 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. Upon graduation, judge advocates are certified per 

Article 27(b), UCMJ. FY15 graduates: 126. 

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

offered twice in FY15, trains Navy enlisted personnel selected 

for conversion to the Legalman rating. The course provides ten 

ABA-approved credits towards a paralegal degree or certificate 

in partnership with Roger Williams University (RWU). In 

addition to military-specific training in military justice, 
78 

court reporting, administrative investigations, and 

administrative separations, the course includes four RWU courses 

taught by NJS officer instructors: Ethics, Legal Research and 

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

Five weeks of military-specific training within the course also 

constitutes the Reserve Legalman Accession Course. FY15 

graduates: 64 active duty and 21 Reservists. 

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

course, offered three times annually, provides accession-level 

training to junior enlisted Marines seeking the Military 

Occupational Specialty of Marine Corps Legal Services 

Specialist. Curriculum consists of training in military 

justice, post-trial review, and legal administration. FY15 

graduates: 130. 

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

course, offered twice annually, provides court reporter training 

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

Military Occupational Specialty of Marine Corps Legal Services 

Court Reporter. The curriculum consists of court reporter 

training in closed-mask capture of legal proceedings at 225 

words per minute, court-reporting grammar and punctuation, 

speech–recognition technology, digital recording software, and 

the production of verbatim and summarized courts-martial records 

of proceedings. FY15 graduates: 40. 

5. Senior Officer Course in Military Justice and

Civil Law (SOC). This scenario-based three-day course is 

designed for commanding officers, executive officers, and 

officers-in-charge and is open to other officers in grades O-4 

and above with NJS approval. The SOC trains officers in the 

execution of the legal responsibilities of command with 

instruction in military justice (including sexual assault case 

disposition), administrative law, and civil law. In FY15, NJS 

provided 37 offerings of the SOC in Newport, San Diego, Norfolk, 

Camp Pendleton, Camp Lejeune, Parris Island, Quantico, 

Pensacola, and Hawaii. Per NAVADMIN 302/12, this course is 

mandatory for O-6s en route to command. FY15 graduates: 1024 

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

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

law functions in commands not large enough to warrant assignment 

of a dedicated judge advocate. In FY15, NJS provided 16 

offerings of the LOC in San Diego and Norfolk. FY15 graduates: 

521. 
79 

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

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

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

the preparation of legal forms and reports, service record 

entries, nonjudicial punishment, and court-martial procedures. 

In FY15, NJS provided 17 offerings of the LCC in San Diego and 

Norfolk. FY15 graduates: 392. 

8. Senior Enlisted Leadership Course in Military Justice 

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

enlisted leaders of all services training in a wide range of 

military law with primary focus on military justice matters. In 

In FY15, NJS provided 14 offerings of the SELC in San Diego and 

Norfolk. FY15 graduates: 514. 

In addition to the “core” courses, NJS provided 16 resident 

specialty courses, many of which are pre-approved for continuing 

legal education (CLE) credit from state bar associations. Many 

of these courses focus on military justice. In FY15, these 

resident courses reached more than 560 legal professionals. 

The semi-annual Defense Counsel Orientation course teaches 

Navy and Marine Corps defense counsel how to effectively 

prepare, manage, and try cases from the investigation stage 

through sentencing with a particular focus on the practical 

aspects of defense. The Basic Trial Advocacy Course is designed 

to develop important trial advocacy skills in judge advocates in 

their first trial billets and in judge advocates transitioning 

to trial billets from non-trial billets. 

In coordination with TCAP and DCAP, NJS also offers 

specialized instruction focused on special victim litigation. 

Prosecuting Special Victim’s Cases (PSVC) is a week-long course 

that is taught in conjunction Navy and Marine Corps TCAP. It 

focuses on substantive aspects of prosecuting special victim’s 

cases and includes small-group practical exercises to hone 

skills such as conducting direct and cross examinations of child 

abuse and domestic violence experts, as well as the accused. 

DSAC is a week-long course that provides training on sexual 

assault litigation for defense counsel. DSAC is taught in 

conjunction with the Center for American and International Law 

in Plano, Texas. 

NJS also continues to provide Basic and Advanced SJA 

Courses. The SJA courses incorporate military justice training 

relevant to SJAs including search and seizure, investigations, 
80 

charging, preferral, convening courts, referral, VWAP, SA-IDA, 

and post-trial processing. 

The Legalman Paralegal Education Program (LPEP) is a 

government-funded education program leading to an Associates of 

Science degree in Paralegal Studies. This program, which was 

established in 2010, is mandatory for all Legalmen to meet 

minimum occupational standards for the Legalman rating. 

Following completion of the Legalman Accession course, students 

normally complete a semester of in-resident courses with Roger 

Williams University (RWU) before checking into their first 

permanent duty station as a Legalman. Upon checking in, they 

normally participate in distance learning with RWU until 

completing the degree requirements. In FY15, 29 students 

attended LPEP as in-resident students, and an additional 364 

students were enrolled in the distance learning option. 

The Online Legal Education department at NJS offers a wide 

variety of training and education courses utilizing the 

Blackboard learning management system and the Naval Justice 

School SharePoint portal. These systems are accessible 24/7 and 

offer on-demand training and education coupled with points of 

contact for feedback and instructor interaction. The Online 

courses cover specific topics on large practice areas such as 

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

deliver training using a variety of online teaching tools, 

including assigned readings, recorded videos, discussion boards, 

practical assignments, and knowledge checks. Each fiscal year, 

NJS Online provides more than 10,000 hours of instruction to 

more than 2,000 students worldwide. 

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

course. The Trial Counsel Online course provides entry-level 

training for practitioners assuming a trial counsel billet for 

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

and USN trial counsel. 

In addition to publishing the annual Naval Law Review, NJS 

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

Reference Handbook for Legal Issues, and various study guides in 

support of its academic programs. 

Through the Interservice Legal Education Review Committee, 

Commanding Officer, NJS, the Dean of Students for TJAGLCS, and 

the Commandant, Air Force Judge Advocate General’s School 

normally meet semi-annually to discuss new initiatives and 
81 

opportunities for cross-training and to increase cooperation and 

efficiency in the training of legal personnel within the DoD. 

NAVY ACTIVITIES 

1. Military Justice Litigation Career Track (MJLCT)

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

MJLCT is a career track for judge advocates with demonstrated 

military justice knowledge and advocacy skills. The track 

combines continued courtroom experience, training and education, 

with oversight by and access to senior, seasoned litigation 

mentors to help judge advocates develop the skills needed to 

become preeminent trial lawyers. Military Justice Litigation 

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

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

provide Navy prosecutors and defense counsel, respectively. 

These officers provide proven experience in the courtroom, 

personally conducting, adjudicating, or overseeing litigation in 

sexual assault and other complex cases. 

At the close of FY15, there were 77 Navy MJLCT officers, of 

whom 66 were filling MJLCT-track designated billets. Additional 

officers are serving in billets at the Office of Military 

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

positions. A handful of MJLCT officers are currently attending 

post-graduate school to obtain LL.M. degrees in Trial Advocacy. 

The “billet-fill rate” has held relatively stable for the last 

two years. 

The promotion rate for MJLCT officers continues to be 

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

promotion by the FY15 promotion selection boards at a similar 

rate to the overall in-zone selection rate. The FY16 O-6 

promotion selection board selected the one MJLCT officer inzone, the O-5 selection board selected six out of ten MJLCT 

officers in zone, and the O-4 selection board selected three out 

of six MJLCT officers in-zone for promotion, as well as one 

officer above zone. 

Entry into the MJLCT is through a competitive board, which 

selects judge advocates with demonstrated abilities in the areas 

of military justice knowledge and advocacy skills. 

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

judge advocate may be qualified as SPECIALIST I after 
82 

demonstrating military justice litigation proficiency and MJLCT 

potential. Candidates will normally be eligible for SPECIALIST 

I after their fourth year of active duty. 

Following SPECIALIST I qualification, a judge advocate may 

qualify as SPECIALIST II after obtaining sufficient additional 

qualitative and quantitative military justice litigation 

experience as well as professional development as a naval 

officer. Candidates will normally be eligible for SPECIALIST II 

after their tenth year of active duty. 

Following SPECIALIST II qualification, a judge advocate may 

qualify as EXPERT after obtaining significant additional 

military justice litigation experience as well as demonstrated 

leadership of junior judge advocates. For this reason, EXPERT 

is ordinarily reserved for those judge advocates who have 

reached the senior-most MJLCT positions. Candidates will 

normally be eligible for EXPERT after their sixteenth year of 

active duty. 

SPECIALIST II and EXPERT MJLQ are community management 

tools to guide the detailing, training, and professional 

development needs of MJLQ judge advocates and to ensure the 

community maintains its ability to execute this core function 

across the community billet structure. Senior MJLQ judge 

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

MJLCT community sponsor, seek to provide all MJLQ judge 

advocates with training and duty assignment opportunities that 

facilitate their professional development within the MJLCT, the 

JAG Corps, and the Navy. 

As judge advocates seek MJLCT advancement, they will be 

required to demonstrate increased courtroom experience, 

continued growth in litigation leadership, and familiarity with 

the broader mission of the Navy. MJLQ judge advocates are 

encouraged to explore the wide variety of naval experiences that 

contribute to the development of a broad understanding of the 

duties of judge advocates and to seek out non-litigation billets 

even after MJLQ designation. Accordingly, applicants for EXPERT 

MJLQ should generally have served at least two years in a nonlitigation billet prior to their application for qualification. 

2. Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Initiatives

In FY15, the Navy continued to execute a multifaceted 

approach to address sexual assault awareness and training, 

prevention, victim response, and investigation and 
83 

accountability. Navy judge advocates were integral in all 

levels of ongoing SAPR initiatives, including reviewing numerous 

SAPR training products. Code 20 personnel worked hand-in-hand 

with the 21st Century Sailor Office (OPNAV N17) to draft Chief of 

Naval Operations Instruction (OPNAVINST) 1752.1C, “Sexual 

Assault Prevention and Response Program” (13AUG15), issuing Navy 

policies and standards regarding sexual assault case management 

and its prevention and response programs. 

NJS provides SAPR education in each of its JAG officer 

accessions courses. This training consists of in-depth 

instruction on Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military 

Justice, as well as detailed exploration of the roles and 

responsibilities of SAPR stakeholders, the meaning of current 

statistics, the mechanics of sexual assault reporting systems, 

and the role and responsibilities of the SA-IDA. In addition, 

NJS instructs Sea Service legal professionals (e.g., judge 

advocates, USN Legalman, USMC Legal Specialists, and US Coast 

Guard Legal Technicians) on all aspects of sexual assault 

disciplinary proceedings, including the role of VLC and the 

Navy’s commitment to facilitating victim participation in the 

criminal justice system. 

Navy VLC regularly support command training events and base 

programs focusing on sexual assault issues to ensure Sailors are 

aware of legal resources available to explain and defend the 

rights and interests of Navy sexual assault victims. In 

addition, VLC routinely provide information regarding victims’ 

rights and program services through base and Armed Forces 

newspaper articles and radio programs, as well as through 

briefings to first responders such as healthcare personnel, SAPR 

VAs, SARCs, and law enforcement personnel. 

DON releases courts-martial results monthly to increase 

transparency of legal proceedings and punishments, as well as to 

serve as a deterrent to other potential offenders. In August 

2015, reporting expanded to include adjudged sentences and the 

effects, if any, of pretrial agreements on the adjudged 

sentences. 

TCAP personnel continue to provide robust training as part 

of the NCIS Advanced Adult Sexual Assault Investigations 

Training Program, a course for investigators and prosecutors 

that is focused on improving multi-disciplinary coordination of 

sexual assault investigations. In pursuit of the same goal, 

Regional Senior Trial Counsel meet with NCIS regularly to 

coordinate case investigation and prosecution and foster early 

engagement by the response team. 
84 

In December 2014, the Navy updated its Military 

Whistleblower Protection instruction to ensure that all forms of 

retaliation and reprisal are prohibited, including peer-to-peer 

ostracism and maltreatment. The Navy continues to provide 

training to the fleet regarding the prevention and reporting of 

retaliation against victims and witnesses participating in the 

military justice process. 

3. Additional Information

a. Compliance With Processing Time Goals

In FY15, no Navy case was dismissed on speedy trial 

grounds. Ten Navy cases exceeded 120 days from sentencing to 

convening authority’s (CA) action (Moreno 1 guideline). Delay 

in these cases was primarily due to voluminous records of trial 

as well as defense requests for extensions in submitting matters 

in clemency. Three Navy cases exceeded 30 days from date of 

CA’s action to docketing at NMCCA (Moreno 2 guideline). A oneday delay in one case was due to operational constraints. A 

thirteen-day delay in two companion cases was due to the 

discovery of missing signatures from defense counsel who were 

out of country on leave or TAD at the time. Such delay was 

further exacerbated by overseas-holiday-mailing delay. Remedial 

efforts were taken to improve the efficiency of post-trial 

processing in future cases. Two NMCCA cases exceeded the Moreno 

3 guideline of 18 months from docketing to decision; however, 

both cases involved complex procedural histories and assignments 

of error and one required an extensive DuBay hearing. Neither 

NMCCA nor CAAF granted relief in any Navy case for unreasonable 

post-trial delay in FY15. 

b. Measures Implemented by Each Armed Force to Ensure the 

Ability of Judge Advocates to Competently Participate as Trial 

and Defense Counsel in, and Preside as Military Judges Over, 

Capital Cases, National Security Cases, Sexual Assault Cases, 

and Proceedings of Military Commissions

Litigation Expertise

Our MJLCT attorneys rotate among prosecution, defense, and 

judicial assignments. Many MJLQ officers serve as military and 

appellate judges, giving them a unique perspective on how to 

formulate and articulate well-reasoned arguments when advising 

junior litigators. Likewise, having served as both trial and 

defense attorneys, our career litigators have a better 
85 

understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of their cases. 

They are also detailed to other assignments, such as operational 

and SJA billets, to round out their experience in the fleet. As 

a result, our litigators understand the importance of each role 

in our military justice system - insight which serves our 

community well as these attorneys move into senior litigation 

positions and provide training and mentorship to junior 

officers. 

MJLCT officers have reached the highest levels of 

leadership within the JAG Corps, to include positions as 

commanding officers, division directors, and Assistant Judge 

Advocate General. MJLCT officers are heavily involved in the 

daily prosecution, defense, and judgment of cases throughout the 

Service, and are serving at the Office of Military Commissions 

and as VLC as well. These officers continue to be detailed into 

repeated tours of litigation-intensive billets that will improve 

the effectiveness and efficiency of the court-martial process. 

Several of our MJLCT officers have tried more than 100 contested 

members cases. Several more have tried more than 50 contested 

trials, and half of the community has tried at least 20 

contested cases. The experience is drawn from work as 

prosecutors, defense counsel, and trial judges. Some MJLCT 

officers have extensive contested case experience in all three 

areas of practice - prosecution, defense, and the judiciary. 

Some also have extensive appellate experience. 

Almost a quarter of the MJLCT community has experience in 

areas of capital litigation, national security/classified 

information cases, and military commissions, and nearly every 

MJLCT officer has experience in litigating sexual assault cases. 

Each area of practice (prosecution, defense, and judiciary) 

currently includes MJLCT members who have extensive experience 

in sexual assault, capital, classified, and commissions cases, 

and every practice area has ready access to these experts for 

support if the need arises. 

Training and Education

NJS provides judge advocates with tiered military justice 

training taught by active component judge advocates and 

supplemented by reserve judge advocates employed as local, 

state, and federal prosecutors. Training is centrally-managed 

under the oversight of a Litigation Training Coordination 

Council comprised of two Assistant Judge Advocates General, 

military justice experts from the prosecution and defense, 

policy advisors, instructors, and senior judges. Course 
86 

requirements are established by a board of advisors from the 

Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard who have extensive 

experience in litigation and training. 

In addition to basic and intermediate level trial advocacy 

courses, NJS, Code 20, TCAP, and DCAP coordinate specialized 

training for Navy trial and defense counsel on litigating 

complex sexual assault crimes using resources such as the 

National District Attorneys Association (NDAA); the National 

Institute of Justice (a DoJ agency established to help foster 

science-based criminal justice practice); Aequitas: The 

Prosecutor's Resource on Violence Against Women (a DoJ funded 

resource created to provide prosecutors with support, training, 

mentorship, and resources to improve the quality of justice in 

sexual violence cases); the Center for American and 

International Law; and the National Criminal Defense College. 

Every year the JAG Corps sends mid-level career litigators 

to civilian post-graduate schools to earn a Master of Laws 

(LL.M.) in litigation. Of the 77 career litigators in the MJLCT 

at the end of FY15, approximately one-third have earned an LL.M. 

in litigation. 

Trial Counsel

Senior Trial Counsel (O-4 or above) are the nucleus of the 

Navy’s SVIP capability and are prepared to prosecute other 

complex cases including capital and national security cases. 

Each is hand-selected by the JAG to fill one of nine Senior 

Trial Counsel billets. All Senior Trial Counsel are MJLQ 

officers. Upon reporting, all Senior Trial Counsel complete a 

two-week special victims investigation course and participate in 

additional specialized training such as litigating complex 

cases, TCAP targeted mobile training, and monthly online special 

victims offenses or litigation training. All Senior Trial 

Counsel regularly provide information to TCAP on all pending 

felony-level investigations and prosecutions. Additionally, 

uniformed members of TCAP may also be detailed to high-profile 

and complex cases as necessary. 

Sexual assault cases are typically detailed to “core 

attorneys” assigned to each RLSO. A RLSO core attorney is a 

judge advocate (O-3 or above), certified to practice by the JAG 

in accordance with Article 27b, UCMJ, and a member in good 

standing with a State bar, who has completed a two-year tour as 

a First Tour Judge Advocate (FTJA) prior to assuming the duties 

of a prosecutor. All trial counsel are supervised by a Senior 
87 

Trial Counsel, an Executive Officer (O-5 judge advocate), and a 

Commanding Officer (O-6 judge advocate). Detailing of counsel 

is within the discretion of the RLSO Commanding Officer (O-6 

judge advocate), who takes into consideration such matters as 

competence, experience, and training, existing caseload and 

availability of counsel, as well as case specifics and 

opportunities for training of counsel. A Commanding Officer may 

detail a second, more experienced counsel to a particular case 

to provide the opportunity for practical mentoring. 

Additionally, uniformed members of TCAP may also be detailed to 

cases. All trial counsel have access to 24/7 support from TCAP. 

Trial counsel receive military commission training from the 

Office of the Military Commissions when assigned to that office. 

Defense Counsel

In addition to the basic judge advocate training received 

by trial counsel, Navy defense counsel receive basic trial 

advocacy training and attend Defense Counsel Orientation prior 

to or shortly after arriving at a DSO to serve as a core defense 

counsel. Early in their tour, defense counsel also attend DSAC, 

a week-long course designed to provide judge advocates specific 

training on how to handle the legal issues and complexities 

involved in a sexual assault case. The course includes both 

practical exercises and lectures. Among the faculty are 

renowned evidence professors, experienced civilian defense 

attorneys, and expert witnesses. The course allows for 

extensive discussion of issues that commonly emerge in sexual 

assault cases and includes practical exercises based on the 

facts of an actual trial. Students are given full access to 

experienced practitioners and expert witnesses and frequently 

use this time to consult with other attorneys on themes and 

issues in their current cases. Defense counsel attend this 

course within their first year of reporting. Defense counsel 

also may attend training in intermediate trial advocacy and 

litigating complex cases. 

DCAP sends Defense Mobile Training Teams to each DSO at 

least twice each year. During these visits, DCAP works closely 

with the command and individual counsel with a focus on 

practical issues in defense work, including trial advocacy 

training based on current or recent case scenarios. 

Resources permitting, Navy defense counsel have access to 

relevant legal seminars aimed at the criminal defense attorney. 

The Navy sends defense counsel to the National Child Abuse 
88 

Defense and Resource Center’s International Conference to ensure 

that trained counsel are available for child abuse cases. Navy 

Defense counsel also attend the National Association of Criminal 

Defense Lawyers’ Zealous Advocacy in Sexual Assault and Child 

Victim Cases Course. 

Sexual assault cases are typically detailed to "core 

attorneys" assigned to a DSO. A DSO core attorney is a judge 

advocate (O-3 or above), certified to practice by the JAG in 

accordance with Article 27b, UCMJ, and a member in good standing 

with a state bar, who has completed at least one full tour prior 

to assuming the duties of a defense counsel. Detailing of 

counsel is within the discretion of the DSO Commanding Officer 

(O-6 judge advocate), who takes into consideration such matters 

as competence, experience, and training, existing caseload and 

availability of counsel, as well as case specifics and 

opportunities for training of counsel. A Commanding Officer may 

detail a second, more experienced counsel to a particular case 

to provide the opportunity for practical mentoring. 

Additionally, uniformed members of DCAP may also be detailed to 

cases. 

Defense counsel receive military commission training from 

the Office of the Military Commissions when assigned to that 

office. 

Military Judges

The required courses for a trial judge’s judicial education 

begin with the three-week Military Judge Course, provided by 

TJAGLCS. This course provides the foundation and requirements 

for being certified as a military trial judge by JAG and also 

the foundation that will enable a judge to begin duty on the 

bench. The course covers court-martial process, evidence, 

procedure, constitutional rights, judicial problem solving, and 

judicial methodology. It includes demonstrations and practical 

exercises. Appellate judges attend the same school for 

certification as a trial military judge. 

All trial-level military judges, active and reserve, attend 

the JMJAT. JMJAT is the venue for continuing baseline education 

and training for all trial judges, and is a vehicle for 

discussing current topics of judicial training interest, such as 

the new Article 120, presiding over cases involving third party 

representatives such as VLC, advanced evidence, sentencing 

methodology, and judicial ethics. 
89 

Responsibility for hosting JMJAT alternates between the 

NMCTJ and the Air Force Trial Judiciary. In February 2015, 

NMCTJ hosted JMJAT onboard Naval Station San Diego. Instructors 

from the NJC provided two days of training on evidentiary 

topics, and the remainder of the agenda was devoted to topics 

specific to military justice as presented by DoD speakers. 

The required CLE for trial judges progresses each year with 

two courses per year, for the next three years. The NMCTJ 

judges use and attend the NJC because the NJC is the only fullyaccredited University that presents an average of 30 to 40 

judicially-oriented courses annually. These courses serve to 

broaden judicial experiences by exposing judges to judicial 

perspectives from around the country, which enables trial judges 

to explore the varying and complex dynamics of our justice 

system. This education is designed to enable judges to practice 

at a higher level than that provided by the basic judge 

education provided by the U.S. Army and JMJAT. The NJC’s 

courses cover a multitude of current judicial topics, ranging 

from judicial writing and advanced evidence, to handling capital 

cases and general jurisdiction. 

Capital litigation courses for judges are available via the 

NJC, and specialized training in classified information cases is 

available to judges just as it is for litigants. The judiciary 

currently holds a handful of practitioners who have tried 

classified information and national security cases, as well as 

officers with extensive experience in military commissions. 

Lastly, as discussed previously under the Trial Judiciary 

section, a recent training opportunity for trial judges arose 

from DoD SAPRO funding. In FY15, all Navy and Marine Corps 

trial judges gathered for three days of training related to 

special victims. Training topics included Military Rules of 

Evidence (MIL. R. EVID.) 412, 413, 414 (policy, cases, methods, 

and foundational requirements); MIL. R. EVID. 513 (the threshold 

for ordering production of victims’ psychotherapy records and 

the process for reviewing and protecting those records); the use 

of experts in sexual assault cases; the role of VLC in the 

court-martial process; and compliance with the NDAA provisions, 

including recent changes to Article 32 and Article 60, extension 

of the Crime Victim’s Rights Act, and regulations implementing 

the new guardianship requirements. 

Appellate judges also receive extensive and ongoing 

training. Five years ago, the NMCCA instituted a two-day, inhouse annual training course to provide a venue for continuing 
90 

education for active and reserve appellate judges. The course 

serves as training for newly assigned judges and a refresher for 

experienced judges. The course focuses on court processes, 

opinion writing, ethics, appellate burdens of proof and 

persuasion, and advanced evidence. The FY15 course focused on 

appellate writing and advanced research training in Lexis. 

Appellate judges also attend the annual Fulton Appellate Judges 

conference, which is an inter-service, one-day event with the 

host rotating among the services. In 2015, NMCCA hosted the 

conference. The content focused on both appellate judicial 

topics and broader issues of current interest in law and policy. 

Additional training through the New Appellate Judges Seminar 

hosted by New York University School of Law and the Appellate 

Judges Education Institute are also available for NMCCA judges 

when funding permits, but neither training is required for 

appellate judges. 

c. The Independent Views of The Judge Advocates General on 

the Sufficiency of Resources Available, Including Total 

Workforce, Funding, Training, and Officer and Enlisted Grade 

Structure, to Capably Perform Military Justice Functions

As of the date this report was submitted, the Navy Judge 

Advocate, enlisted, and civilian communities were not adequately 

resourced to meet the increasing demands of complex litigation. 

The Navy has provided additional billets to meet current 

obligations, but it will take time for the number of personnel 

to grow to fill the expanded billets. Moreover, new training 

requirements, changes to the UCMJ, and the addition of VLC have 

combined to require greater supervision and expertise at the 

trial level. Budget reductions and constraints continue to 

cause challenges in funding training and could further impact 

operational readiness. The Navy provided additional billets to 

meet VLC requirements and, while Reserve support was critical to 

initial program implementation, the need for experienced counsel 

to fill VLC program billets and supervisory trial and defense 

litigation billets nevertheless taxed the JAG Corps manpower. 

The adequacy of resources over the mid and long-term is largely 

dependent on new legislation and directive policies, most of 

which continue to place significant demands on judge advocate 

resources. JAG will continue to work with the Navy to ensure 

that the JAG Corps is adequately resourced to meet these 

challenges as they emerge, including maintaining a sufficient 

manning inventory to fill the force structure needed to satisfy 

mission objectives. 
91 

CONCLUSION 

Military justice remained a principal focus of effort for 

the Navy in FY15. While the number of courts-martial have 

declined over the past decade, the complexity and seriousness of 

the cases have increased dramatically. The aforementioned 

initiatives, particularly the establishment of the VLC program 

and continued enhancement of SVIP capability, the emphasis on 

training, the implementation of several new military justice 

provisions, and the development of common case-tracking systems, 

will optimize the Navy’s military justice capabilities. 

Over one hundred changes and improvements to military 

justice provisions have been conceived and implemented since 

FY12, with many more on the horizon. The Navy has been focused 

on implementing these changes and closely monitoring their 

impact on military justice to ensure the system remains fair, 

effective, and efficient. With significant service-wide 

developments underway—including reducing sexual assault in our 

ranks, focusing more specifically on all forms of retaliation, 

and developing more extensive case management and tracking 

systems—close examination and monitoring of the military justice 

system as it evolves to continuing change will remain a priority 

for the Navy JAG Corps. 
92 

MARINE CORPS ACTIVITIES U.S. MARINE CORPS ANNUAL MILITARY JUSTICE REPORT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 I. INTRODUCTION....................................................................... 1 

 II. MILITARY JUSTICE BY THE NUMBERS................................... 3 

 III. POST-TRIAL REVIEW AND APPELLATE DECISIONS.............. 4 

A. Processing Time Goals 4

 B. Reversal of Convictions for Denial of Speedy Post-Trial 

 Review, UCI, or other Administrative Deficiencies 5 

 IV. MILITARY JUSTICE PRACTITIONERS, TRAINING AND 

RESOURCES............................................................................. 5 

A. Trial Counsel 5 

 B. Defense Services Organization 6

C. Victim’s Legal Counsel Organization 7 

 D. Training Standards and Resources 8

 E. Naval Justice Information System 9

 V. VIEWS ON THE SUFFICIENCY OF RESOURCES....................... 10 

 VI. CONCLUSION.......................................................................... 10 
93 

I. INTRODUCTION

 In fiscal year 2015 (FY15) the Marine Corps military justice community—trial counsel, 

defense counsel, Victims’ Legal Counsel (VLC), and command advice judge advocates—

continued to leverage the experience of its senior leaders and highly qualified experts combined 

with the strength of its organization and training programs to accomplish the military justice 

mission. With a focus on special victim and other complex military justice cases, we placed a 

premium on ensuring that in each military justice case, we detailed the right judge advocates 

with the right supervision and training to litigate each case on every side of the aisle and to 

provide advice to commanders. Our Legal Service Support Sections (LSSS) in the East, 

National Capital, West and Pacific regions continued to represent the main effort, becoming 

Regional Centers of Excellence where senior uniform counsel, highly qualified civilian experts, 

and support staff combined with junior counsel to create effective litigation and advocacy teams. 

 

As has become a trend in recent years, this year brought numerous statutory changes 

requiring implementation. The FY15 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) significantly 

amended the authority of commanders when acting as convening authorities, expanded VLC 

access to reserve Marines, and modified court-martial procedures concerning the admissibility of 

certain evidence. In addition, Executive Order 13696, signed by the President on 17 June 2015, 

and the Supplementary Materials announced on 8 July 2015, promulgated approximately 147 

changes to the Manual for Courts-Martial. Practice Advisories issued by the Military Justice 

Branch, posts from the Trial Counsel Assistance Program (TCAP), community-wide notices 

from the Marine Corps Judge Advocate Division, and training by each LSSS informed military 

justice practitioners of these and other changes to practice. 

Continued study and efforts to reform the military justice system also marked FY15. The 

Marine Corps implemented reforms recommended by the Response Systems to Adult Sexual 

Assault Crimes Panel (RSP); worked closely with the Judicial Proceedings Panel (JPP) to 

respond to their requests for information concerning reforms to Article 120, victim privacy, 

restitution, and retaliation; and provided and prepared numerous judge advocates to testify at JPP 

hearings. Throughout FY15, judge advocates at Headquarters Marine Corps reviewed, analyzed, 
94 

and commented on the Military Justice Review Group’s (MJRG) comprehensive proposals to 

amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that has become a Department of Defense 

legislative proposal. In FY16, we look forward to working with Congress and other military 

justice-focused groups as these historic amendments are debated and implemented. 

As in recent FYs, the continued role expansion and definition of the VLC both in and out 

of the courtroom has been a significant development in our practice. The FY15 NDAA provided 

victims the greater right to be heard on pretrial motions through their VLC. The legislation also 

empowered victims to appeal rulings deemed adverse to certain privacy rights and interests and 

mandated that VLCs receive notice of court-martial proceedings. To that end, the Navy and 

Marine Corps Trial Judiciary modified the Uniform Rules of Practice to include VLC in 

docketing decisions, appearances on the record, motions practice, and objecting on the record. 

The SJA to CMC’s Legal Support Inspection program operated to ensure the timely 

implementation of these new initiatives and requirements. Consistent with Article 6, UCMJ, 

senior members of the SJA to CMC’s staff inspected each of the four LSSSs and thirty-five staff 

judge advocate offices. In conjunction with these inspections, the SJA to CMC visited each 

LSSS and most operational and supporting establishment commands in FY15. At these 

meetings, the SJA to CMC conducted town hall meetings with the Marines while also taking the 

opportunity to meet with commanders and staff judge advocates and other senior leaders as part 

of his Article 6-mandated “frequent inspection in the field in supervision of the administration of 

military justice” within the Marine Corps. The SJA to CMC has refined the annual inspection 

process in order to assess and improve the practices within those legal offices and to ensure the 

operational and material readiness, effectiveness, and efficiency of the Marine Corps legal 

community. The inspection process principally serves to identify “best practices” and 

emphasizes continuous improvement as a philosophy and standard of practice within the legal 

community. 

Through a continuous feedback loop—a process of inspection, evaluation, adaptation and 

standardization—the Marine Corps legal community met its mission of successfully providing 
95 

competent and capable military justice services to address the most complex and demanding 

court-martial cases and elevating the practice of military justice within the Marine Corps. 

II. MILITARY JUSTICE BY THE NUMBERS – TRENDS & ANALYSIS

In FY15, the Marine Corps litigated 131 general courts-martial and 211 special courtsmartial to findings. At any given time during the year, the Marine Corps had approximately 130 

courts-martial and 20 Article 32 preliminary hearings pending; of the 130 pending courts-martial 

about 90 are special courts-martial and 40 are general courts-martial. 

The total number of general courts-martial as an annual percentage of contested general 

courts-martial has remained relatively stable from FY13 (see Figure A). Along with the 

relatively higher number of general courts-martial and greater complexity, the amount of time 

spent on the record in each case continues to increase (see Figure B). This consistent growth in 

the complex, contested nature of our courts-martial practice has resulted in a significant increase 

in the workload associated with each case and has magnified the need for experienced litigators 

and qualified support staff. 

The growth in sexual assault prosecutions, often among the most difficult cases we try, 

illustrates a trend toward cases that are more complex, or at least more intensely litigated. 

Between FY12 and FY14, the number of contested sexual assault prosecutions more than tripled 

10.54

12.53 11.83

14.15 14.71

0

5

10

15

20

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15

Figure B. GCM Average Hours 

on the Record FY11 - FY15

25%

40%

53% 57% 56%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15

Figure A. Percentage GCMs 

Contested FY11 - FY15
96 

(see Figure C). Although below FY13 and FY14 

levels, the number of contested sexual assault cases 

in FY15 remains more than twice that of FY12. 

The continued decline of special courtsmartial litigation is largely responsible for the 

decline in total of courts-martial. In FY15, 

contested special courts-martial accounted for 35 

percent of all special courts-martial litigated to 

completion. 

III. POST-TRIAL REVIEW AND APPELLATE DECISIONS

As a result of the mandatory Marine Corps-wide use of the Case Management System 

(CMS) and other case tracking mechanisms used by judge advocates and legal services 

specialists, including the JAG-SJA to CMC chaired Military Justice Oversight Committee, the 

Marine Corps complied with post-trial processing goals. The Marine Corps maintained an 

unblemished processing record, with no convictions reversed because of a denial of the right to 

speedy post-trial review or otherwise remitted due to loss of records of trial. 

A. Processing Time Goals

 In FY15 the Marine Corps had 627 general, special, and summary courts-martial that 

warranted post-trial review. For cases warranting appellate review, the Marine Corps averaged 

ninety-five days from the date of trial to convening authority’s action (CAA), which represents a 

two-day improvement on FY14’s average. The Marine Corps averaged fifteen days from CAA 

to docketing of the case with the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (see Figure D), 

which represents a three-day improvement from FY14’s average. 

0 50 100

FY15

FY14

FY13

FY12

Contested Guilty Plea

Figure C. Contested Sexual Assault 

Prosecutions FY12 - FY15
97 

B. Reversal of Convictions for Denial of Speedy Post-Trial Review, UCI, or Other 

Administrative Deficiencies and Cases in Which Provisions Were Held Unconstitutional 

In FY15, the Marine Corps had no cases in which a provision of the UCMJ was held 

unconstitutional, and no convictions were reversed for violation of the right to speedy trial, 

speedy post-trial review, unlawful command influence or other administrative deficiencies. 

IV. MILITARY JUSTICE PRACTITIONERS

A. Trial Counsel 

 The Marine Corps has implemented career progression, training, experience 

requirements, and detailing criteria to ensure well-qualified judge advocates prosecute sexual 

assault cases. Our detailing criteria ensures that only those attorneys who have experience trying 

contested cases, who have demonstrated an aptitude for the courtroom, and who have received 

recommendations from supervisors may try Special Victim Investigation Prosecution (SVIP) 

cases. SVIP cases include those cases involving sexual assault or domestic violence. SVIP 

prosecutors also require additional sexual assault training that they normally receive by attending 

a Trial Counsel Assistance Program (TCAP) one-week annual training seminar. The Marine 

Corps maintains approximately 80 prosecutors throughout our LSSSs. Of these, approximately 

53 are SVIP prosecutors. 

119

83 87 92 87 97 95

13

10 10 15 12

18 15

0

50

100

150

FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15

Average Days to CAA   

Average Days from CAA to Docketing   

Figure D. Post-Trial Processing Times FY09 - FY15
98 

The Marine Corps continues to provide its trial counsel with formal training and trial 

preparation advice in addition to the mentorship and on-the-job training offered by the Regional 

Trial Counsel and other experienced judge advocates within the LSSS. Each regional LSSS has 

a civilian Highly Qualified Expert (HQE) hired based on their experience and expertise with 

complex special victim cases. These HQEs consult with counsel on every SVIP case. Our 

HQEs collectively possess more than 80 years of litigation experience. HQEs participate in all 

areas of trial preparation, including collaboration on prosecutorial merits memos, preparing 

charging documents, interviewing witnesses, preparing affirmative and responsive government 

motions, identifying expert witnesses, and organizing evidence to improve case presentation to 

the members. HQEs provide consistent guidance to trial counsel and assure continuity 

throughout the Marine Corps in the disposition of sexual assault cases. 

In FY15, TCAP continued to support trial counsel throughout the Marine Corps through 

training, sharing of resources, and creation of offense-specific “playbooks.” TCAP organized a 

SVIP course for trial counsel and support Marines from across the Marine Corps. The weeklong course focused on the prosecution of sexual assault cases and included training in building 

case theory, charging under Article 120, UCMJ, general trial advocacy skills, use of expert 

witnesses, victim support, and prosecutorial ethics. A mix of experienced practitioners, 

including senior judge advocates, district attorneys, and expert witnesses who testify in sexual 

assault cases provided the instruction. To enhance community development, TCAP publishes a 

blog that provides a forum to discuss recent case law and legislative developments, results of and 

lessons-learned from recent courts-martial, and suggested forms and sample motions. In FY15 

TCAP began drafting “playbooks” for commonly charged offenses. The playbooks dissect a 

UCMJ offense from investigation to findings to combine resources a trial counsel will need to 

prosecute successfully a case from charging, discovery issues, defenses, and draft motions. 

B. Defense Services Organization 

The Marine Corps Defense Services Organization (DSO) is dedicated to providing 

criminal defense services to Marines worldwide. The DSO is a global organization of more than 

70 attorneys geographically assigned within the four Regional Legal Services Support Sections. 
99 

A Colonel (O-6) heads the organization as Chief Defense Counsel of the Marine Corps and 

Officer in Charge of the DSO. That officer reports directly to the Staff Judge Advocate to the 

Commandant of the Marine Corps (SJA to CMC), and exercises functional supervision over all 

DSO personnel on the SJA to CMC’s behalf. The DSO also includes a Defense Counsel 

Assistance Program (DCAP). This year DCAP witnessed an expansion in size from one to two 

active duty officers. In 2014, DCAP expanded from one to two civilian HQEs (one located in 

the eastern region and one located in the western region), who together represent more than 60 

years of combined litigation experience. Not only does DCAP respond to queries from counsel 

in the field, but since 2011, DCAP has aggressively sought out and sent defense counsel to 

training courses designed to ensure DSO attorneys maintain the knowledge and experience 

necessary to provide high quality representation in the most complex cases, including sexual 

assault cases. 

The DSO utilizes training at the Naval Justice School as well as civilian training events 

sponsored by organizations such as the National Association for Criminal Defense Lawyers, 

Federal Public Defenders Association, Bronx Defenders Academy, and the National Criminal 

Defense College. Training that is more specific is provided internally through consultation with 

the Marine Corps criminal defense HQEs. In FY15, the DSO provided zealous detailed 

representation to 1,600 Marines and Sailors. 

C. Victims’ Legal Counsel Organization 

During FY15, the Marine Corps continued to build upon the VLCO while further 

integrating the role of the VLC into the military justice system. Marine Corps VLCO, recently 

established during the previous FY, grew from 15 to 17 counsel in response to the perceived 

value gained by having additional VLC serving victims. The Marine Corps also continued to 

integrate VLCs into the military justice system. First, the FY15 NDAA expressly authorized 

VLC to represent victims during courtroom proceedings. Second, the Navy-Marine Corps Trial 

Judiciary promulgated revisions to the Uniform Rules of Practice, which required military judges 

to include VLC in R.C.M. 802 conferences in which the victim has an identifiable interest, and in 

the Trial Guide, which gave VLC their first formal speaking part in the script of a court-martial. 
100 

Judicial circuits followed by reviewing and updating their circuit rules to reflect the evolving role 

of VLC in advocating for the protection of victims’ rights. 

All counsel, legal service specialists, and civilian paralegals assigned to VLCO attend 

specialized certification training at either the Air Force or Army Judge Advocate General’s 

Schools. These courses include instruction in substantive military law, victim behavior, victim 

services, counseling techniques, and participation in practical scenario-driven exercises. VLC 

also attended additional specialized training offered by organizations outside the military such as 

the “2015 Crime Victim Law Conference” hosted by the National Crime Victim Law Institute 

(NCVLI) at the Lewis and Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon and the “Legal Assistance for 

Victims of Sexual Offenses and Other Crimes Training Symposium” hosted by the legal 

assistance branches of the Navy’s Office of the Judge Advocate General and the SJA to CMC. 

In FY15, the VLCO assisted approximately 650 crime victims—approximately 60% were sexual 

assault victims, 27% were victims of domestic violence, and 13% were victims of other crimes. 

D. Training Standards and Resources 

In addition to the training offered by Regional Trial/Defense/Victims’ Legal Counsel and 

Senior Trial/Defense Counsel at the local level, Marine Corps trial, defense, and victims’ legal 

counsel all had nationally recognized training available to them in FY15. Specifically, in FY15, 

633 Marines were able to attend the following courses: Intermediate Trial Advocacy, Post-Trial 

Processing, Court Reporter Course; Trial/Defense Counsel Ethics, Basic Trial Advocacy, 

Intermediate Trial Advocacy; Military Judges Course, Litigating Complex Cases, Advanced 

Trial Advocacy Course; Special Victims’ Counsel Course, Legal Service Specialists - Military 

Justice Course, Intermediate Sexual Assault Litigation Course; Prosecuting 112a, Defense 

Counsel Orientation, Intermediate Sexual Assault Litigation Course; Cross Examination, Law 

Office Manager Course; Opens, Closes and Directs; Trial and Defense Counsel Ethics, Classified 

Info Litigation, Defending Sexual Assault Cases; Paralegal Litigation Support, Prosecuting 

Special Victims Cases, Defense Counsel Orientation; Evidence, and a Child Advocacy Course. 

In addition to the FY15 TCAP courses, trial counsel attended 20 courses available through the 

Naval Justice School, the National District Attorney’s Association, the Department of Justice, 
101 

National Advocacy Center, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and the Army and Air 

Force JAG schools. In these courses, the focus of training included working with victims, trial 

advocacy, digital exploitation of children, child abuse, gathering and analyzing evidence, and 

partnering with victim advocates and NCIS agents in investigating and prosecuting special 

victim cases. The Marine Corps also continued its partnership with the United States 

Department of Justice’s Office for Victims of Crime (OVC). The OVC provided valuable 

financial support and information on current victims’ rights laws and trends. 

 

Resources for counsel engaged in other complex litigation were also available both inside 

and outside the classroom. For example, the Navy National Security Litigation Division (OJAG 

Code 30) provides individualized training and advice to all trial counsel prosecuting national 

security cases. 

E. Naval Justice Information System 

 In an effort to streamline the administrative burden of administering military justice, 

the Marine Corps, along with the Navy, continued their longstanding efforts to develop the Naval 

Justice Information System (NJIS). Expected to launch in FY16, NJIS will provide a common 

reference system for the data required for enterprise case management that will integrate 

information from law enforcement, criminal investigations, command actions, judicial actions, 

and corrections. NJIS is a web-based system that will provide access to 50,000 Navy and Marine 

Corps users worldwide and can support 5,000 concurrent users. The system will also provide 

data management from an enterprise perspective. Departmental policy will address governance 

issues and appropriate data/information will be visible to authorized users (i.e. Role Based 

Access Controls). NJIS will establish data standards to ensure interoperability with all of the 

required agencies for both information intake and reporting output. Once NJIS is launched, the 

system will provide the Department of the Navy (DON) a capability that improves incident 

reporting, modernizes the DON’s criminal justice processes, increases information sharing across 

the NJIS communities, and provides leadership access to data for trend analysis to better inform 

decision-making. 
102 

V. VIEWS ON THE SUFFICIENCY OF RESOURCES

In addition to the exponential growth of the significance of legal issues across the 

operational landscape, the potential for any tactical military justice issue to quickly become a 

strategic issue has been the norm for the Marine Corps, indeed for every service, for nearly a 

decade, and arguably longer. Within the Marine Corps legal community this reality results in 

two imperatives: (1) retaining our most qualified judge advocates and legal service specialists; 

and (2) ensuring the right Marine 4400 is in the right billet. 

In an effort to retain our best judge advocates, Judge Advocate Division is working with 

Marine Corps Manpower and Reserve Affairs to resume the Law School Education Debt 

Subsidy (LSEDS) program. LSEDS operates to offset significant law school debt that officers in 

other Military Occupational Specialties do not share. More than providing a financial incentive, 

it helps first tour judge advocates afford to remain on active duty. The LSEDS program was last 

implemented in FY14. The program utilized a board selection process to limit payment to the 

ten best and most fully qualified judge advocates on active duty. Continued funding of LSEDS 

should be considered not only in the context of the overall goal of good talent management, 

recruiting and retaining our best and brightest, but against the backdrop of the ever-increasing 

challenges of military law. 

Systemic changes to military justice, increased operational demands, and other statutory 

or policy priorities will continue to create a demand for increased levels of support from the 

Marine legal community. We will continue to provide this legal support, consistent with the 

Marine Corps ethos, using Marine judge advocates, who are both MAGTF officers and lawyers. 

In order to ensure the best advice and legal services are provided to commanders, Marines, and 

Sailors measures intended to retain our best are essential. 
103 

VI. CONCLUSION

 In FY15, the Marine Corps legal community accomplished its military justice mission in 

the face of tremendous challenges posed by scrutiny of and changes to our military justice 

practice. We will we maintain our systematic efforts to improve the practice of law within the 

Marine Corps: continuous evaluation, adaptation, capture of best practices and standardization. 

As FY 2016 dawns, our efforts will include the establishment of the Marine Corps Judge 

Advocate Board, essentially creating a counsel of colonels to serve as a bridge to the fleet—

connecting each LSSS and staff judge advocate office with HQMC, the Judge Advocate 

Division. By a continuous process of proposal, debate, and decision, we will advance more 

aggressively, responsively and responsibly the collective quality of the Marine Corps’ legal 

practice, including its military justice practice. 
104 

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

Report Period: FY 2015[A] 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/ DECREASE (-) 

OVER LAST REPORT 

 USN USMC USN USMC USN USMC 

GENERAL 118 131 93 115 25 16 -7% 

BCD SPECIAL 157 211 140 178 17 33 -13% 

NON-BCD 

SPECIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 

SUMMARY 32 334 29 334 3 0 -33% 

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

REPORT 

-21% 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL (CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 81 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 64 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL (CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 150 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 195 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 160 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 36 [B] 

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

 APPEALS 

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 158 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 99 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 59 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 355 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 195 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 160 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 359 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 198 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 161 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 154 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 104 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 50 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

-10.7% 

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE U.S. NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

NUMBER 355 

PERCENTAGE 100% 
105 

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

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF (96) 27% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +14% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED (17) 18% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +148% [C] 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CCA 5% 

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

REPORTING PERIOD 

 +217% 

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ 

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 6 [D] 

RECEIVED 0 

DISPOSED OF 1 

 GRANTED 0 

 DENIED 1 

 NO JURISDICTION 0 

 WITHDRAWN 0 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 5 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 437 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 149 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 288 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 180 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 100 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 80 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 42 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 511,664 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 13,042 [E] 

RATE PER 1,000 25 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD -2% 

Explanatory Notes 

[A] Report Period. Case statistics were derived from the Navy and Marine Corps Case 

Management System. 

[B] Part 3, Article 69. This figure represents only cases reviewed under Article 69(a) 

[C] Part 6. The Fiscal Year 2014 report erroneously reported that 57 Navy/Marine Corps 

petitions for review were granted. The correct number of petitions granted was 6. 

[D] Part 7. This figure represents only cases reviewed under Article 69(b). 
106 

[E] Part 11. This figure was derived from Navy’s Quarterly Criminal Activity Report whereby 

Navy commanders report all known instances of criminal activity pursuant to JAGINST 

5800.9C. 

 
107 

SECTION 5 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE AIR FORCE 
108 

REPORT OF 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 

OF THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 

OCTOBER 1, 2014 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 

INTRODUCTION 

The United States Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps (JAG Corps) 

executed significant initiatives in Fiscal Year 2015 to enhance the effectiveness of the 

military justice system. The JAG Corps successfully advocated for an increase in 

manpower authorizations to establish the right level of resources to prosecute criminal 

actions, vigorously defend Airmen, and provide legal representation to victims of sexual 

assault. Additionally, The Judge Advocate General (TJAG) reorganized and centralized 

key trial participants in the court-martial process--military judges, senior prosecutors, 

senior defense counsel, and senior victims’ counsel--into geographic judicial circuits in 

five locations. 

 In March 2015, the Secretary of the Air Force approved 73 new manpower 

authorizations to be added to the Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps to address 

the increased workload in the prosecution and defense of sexual assault crimes, the 

rising caseload in the provision of legal counsel to victims of sexual assault, and the 

expansion of the Special Victims’ Counsel (SVC) program to include more classes of 

victims. This action expanded the capability and capacity of the SVC program by 

providing funded manpower authorizations for six Senior Special Victims’ Counsel 

(SSVC) positions, one officer deputy division chief position, five additional SVCs, and 

fifteen enlisted Special Victims’ Paralegals (SVPs). This action also reallocated thirtyseven captain officer positions back to wing legal offices in an effort to return manpower 

authorizations that were initially taken from wing legal offices at the inception of the SVC 

program standup. This increase in manpower served as a permanent investment by the 

Air Force in the SVC program to promote long-term sustainment and enhance 

effectiveness. Finally, this action expanded the Air Force’s prosecutorial capacity by 

providing six additional senior trial counsel positions, expanded its criminal defense 

capacity by providing two additional senior defense counsel positions, and expanded its 

judicial capacity by providing one additional military judge. 

 In an effort to ensure the Air Force Judiciary continues to be agile, innovative, 

effective, and efficient, a major organizational change was implemented in Fiscal Year 

2015 within the Air Force Judiciary, impacting the delivery of trial services across the 

United States Air Force. In Fiscal Year 2015, TJAG directed an organizational 

realignment and geographic consolidation of key trial participants, including military 

judges, senior trial counsel, senior defense counsel, and senior special victims’ counsel, 

into judicial circuits, so our key trial practitioners are in the best position to vigorously 

represent the legal needs of the Air Force and Airmen, enhance collaboration within the 
109 

trial system network, and advance the professional and leadership development of 

military justice personnel. The JAG Corps maintained its Central Docketing Office and 

the oversight and management it brings to the trial judiciary, and preserved the thriving 

defense community structure that evolved over the past eight years, but reestablished 

the circuit structure to provide a better opportunity for our most senior and seasoned 

military justice practitioners to mentor and improve through constant interaction and 

collaboration outside the courtroom setting. This realignment consolidated military 

judges from ten geographic locations, senior trial counsel from ten geographic locations, 

and senior defense counsel from nineteen geographic locations into five centralized 

circuit offices, while also maintaining headquarters offices for these organizations at 

Joint Base Andrews, MD. Additionally, five senior special victims’ counsel were also 

added to the five circuit locations. The five circuit offices are dispersed at five 

geographically advantageous locations worldwide at Ramstein Air Base, Germany; Joint 

Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia; Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph, Texas; Travis Air 

Force Base, California; and Kadena Air Base, Japan. 

THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals issued opinions in 211 cases in fiscal 

year 2015. At the end of Fiscal Year 2014, the court had five active duty judges 

assigned, plus one reservist judge on extended active duty orders, following the 

retirement of four active duty judges. In addition, there were four law clerks, and one 

chief commissioner assigned to the court. During Fiscal Year 2015, the court has seven 

active duty judges, two law clerks, and one chief commissioner. At the end of Fiscal 

Year 2014, the court’s docket had 70 cases ready for review and 246 cases docketed. 

Only three cases were pending the court’s decision for more than 180 days, with zero 

cases violating the Moreno standard. At the end of Fiscal Year 2015, the court had 76 

cases ready for review and 224 cases docketed. There were nine cases pending the 

court’s decision for more than 180 days, with one case violating the Moreno standard. 

The court issued eight published opinions during this fiscal year and held oral 

argument in nine cases, to include hearing oral argument at George Washington 

University Law School pursuant to its “Project Outreach” program. 

Three of the court’s appellate judges served on the United States Court of 

Military Commission Review (USCMCR). The USCMCR hears appeals of cases 

convened under the Military Commissions Act of 2009. The USCMCR not only hears 

cases with a finding of guilty from military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, but also hears 

appeals on issues taken prior to and during trial. 

Two of the court’s appellate judges served as hearing officer for eight Air Force 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) hearings. An EIS hearing is conducted for 

actions that have the potential for significant environmental impact with a goal of 

providing the public and the decision makers with adequate information about the 

potential impact of military actions on the environment. 
110 

TRIAL JUDICIARY 

The Air Force Trial Judiciary Directorate (JAT) is responsible for docketing and 

presiding over all Air Force general and special courts-martial, as well as an array of 

federal hearings. The Directorate is staffed by 21 active-duty trial judges, five reserve 

trial judges, two noncommissioned officers, and one civilian employee. The office of the 

Chief Trial Judge is co-located with the Central Docketing Office at Joint Base Andrews, 

Maryland. 

In September, the Directorate moved to five geographical judicial circuits, each 

led by a Chief Circuit Military Judge. The judges are headquartered at Ramstein Air 

Base, Germany, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas, 

Travis Air Force Base, California, and Kadena Air Base, Japan and serve the European, 

Eastern, Central, Western, and Pacific Circuits, respectively. 

Also in September, the Directorate published new Uniform Rules of Practice 

before Air Force Courts-Martial. This marked the first update to the Rules in five years. 

The revised Rules incorporated over 300 comments from Air Force practitioners, 

restructured docketing procedures to maintain Circuit integrity, and integrated special 

victims’ counsel where appropriate. 

In Fiscal Year 2015, Air Force judges presided over more than 380 general and 

special courts-martial. Judges also served as preliminary hearing officers in over 170 

Article 32 hearings involving sexual offenses or complex allegations. Additionally, 

judges served as legal advisors for officer discharge boards and in post-trial DuBay 

hearings, contingency confinement hearings, competency hearings, and Environmental 

Impact Statement public hearings. 

 The Directorate hosted its first-ever, service-specific training at Joint Base 

Andrews. All Air Force trial judges attended the 3-day event, which included instruction 

on new statutes and rules related to sexual offenses, sentencing considerations, digital 

evidence, and victim’s rights. 

Air Force trial judges taught military justice in classrooms and courtrooms 

worldwide. The Chief Trial Judge and Deputy Chief Trial Judge instructed new military 

judges at The Army Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School in 

Charlottesville, Virginia. Air Force trial judges trained new judge advocates, trial and 

defense counsel, special victims’ counsel, and staff judge advocates at the Air Force 

Judge Advocate General’s School, on Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. Air Force trial 

judges also provided practical instruction at more than a dozen trial advocacy courses 

held throughout the world to enhance current and future practitioners’ litigation skills. 

Judges continued their partnership with the Air Force JAG School to create several 

web-based training series on impeachment and evidentiary foundations. 
111 

Currently there are three active duty judges detailed to support the military 

commissions. The Chief Judge continues to preside over the commission proceeding 

for the alleged USS Cole bombing, as well as a capital trial at Robins AFB, Georgia. 

AIR FORCE JUDICIARY 

 The Air Force Judiciary Directorate (JAJ) is responsible for the administration of 

military justice across the Air Force. JAJ advises The Judge Advocate General, the 

Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and the Secretary of the Air Force on military justice 

matters, works with the other uniformed services to propose legislation and 

modifications to executive orders pertaining to military justice, assists convening 

authorities and staff judge advocates in the field, and provides the highest quality 

defense services to Airmen worldwide. The Directorate also supervises the delivery of 

court reporter services worldwide for all in-garrison events and, through its file sharing 

program, optimizes the use of available civilian court reporter assets to transcribe past 

events. 

Through its enlisted court reporter program, the Directorate provides 

expeditionary court reporter support for all deployed courts, mishaps, and other 

investigations. 

The Directorate performs its mission through five divisions: the Government Trial 

and Appellate Counsel Division; the Appellate Defense Division; the Trial Defense 

Division; the Military Justice Division; and the Clemency, Corrections and Officer 

Review Division. 

GOVERNMENT TRIAL & APPELLATE COUNSEL DIVISION 

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT COUNSEL 

 During this past year, seven active duty judge advocates, nine reserve judge 

advocates, and one civilian attorney 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 TJAG in four cases for review by the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), and filed government appeals in 

three cases under Article 62, UCMJ, at the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals 

(AFCCA). When appropriate, the Division also responded to petitions for extraordinary 

relief under the All Writs Act. The Division continued to vigorously defend the death 

sentence adjudged and approved in United States v. Witt, the Air Force’s first death 

penalty case in nearly two decades. 

 Appellate government counsel zealously represented the government in 211 

written briefs and 23 oral arguments before CAAF and AFCCA. Appellate government 

counsel advocacy resulted in notable appellate rulings during the year. In United States 

v. Buford, 74 M.J. 98 (C.A.A.F. 2015), JAJG filed a government appeal under Article 62, 

UCMJ, challenging a military judge’s trial ruling suppressing evidence of child 
112 

pornography based upon a broad interpretation of the government agent doctrine. 

CAAF agreed with the United States’ position on suppression of the evidence because 

the witness, an off-duty security forces gate sentry, was not acting as a government 

agent. The Court ruled the evidence was admissible and permitted the case to be 

returned to trial. The United States Supreme Court denied Buford’s petition for 

certiorari. In United States v. Piolunek, 74 M.J. 107 (C.A.A.F. 2015), CAAF overruled 

United States v. Barberi, 71 M.J. 127 (C.A.A.F. 2012), reaffirming the long-standing and 

important general verdict rule in child pornography cases. In so doing, the Court 

strengthened the government’s ability to effectively prosecute child pornographers. In 

United States v. Katso, 74 M.J. 273 (C.A.A.F. 2015), CAAF found no Confrontation 

Clause violation in the admission of expert testimony by a DNA expert who, although he 

did not personally conduct initial scientific testing in the case, did independently review 

the evidence to arrive at his own, independent expert opinion. Buford, Piolunek, and 

Katso were all certified for review at CAAF by The Judge Advocate General of the Air 

Force as provided in Article 67(a)(2), UCMJ. 

 Appellate Government Counsel provided trial litigation support and training to the 

field throughout the year. Division counsel educated judge advocates and paralegals at 

Air Force training events such as the Military Justice Administration Course, The Judge 

Advocate General’s Continuing Legal Education Course, the Trial and Defense 

Advocacy Course and the Annual Survey of the Law course. In addition, counsel 

participated in training special agents of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations at 

the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center at Glynco, Georgia, and provided 

instruction to Drug Enforcement Agency analysts on providing effective courtroom 

testimony. The Division overhauled and updated the Air Force Trial Counsel 

Deskbook, a comprehensive compendium of current military case law and a key 

litigation tool for Air Force prosecutors, worldwide. Appellate counsel were also 

assigned to serve as lead trial counsel in several complex cases sent back by appellate 

courts for rehearing. 

 The Division receives crucial appellate counsel support from nine assigned 

reserve judge advocates, especially during manning shortages and caseload surges. 

They continue to provide superb support, greatly assisting the Division in carrying out its 

mission. 

A summary of Air Force Appellate Government practice follows: 

AFCCA FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15

 Briefs Filed 144 233 188 175 193 

 Cases Argued 14 14 14 18 10 

 
113 

CAAF FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15

 Briefs Filed 29 36 30 40 18 

 Cases Argued 15 9 9 14 13 

 

SUPREME 

COURT 

 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15

 Petition/Waivers 

Filed 

1 1 1 0 0 

 Briefs Filed 0 0 0 0 0 

SENIOR TRIAL COUNSEL 

Senior Trial Counsel (STCs) are detailed to prosecute cases by the Division 

headquarters at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. Their primary responsibility is to 

represent the government in the most complex general courts-martial. STCs prosecute 

approximately 80 percent of all Air Force general courts-martial and were detailed to 

approximately 90 percent of the Air Force’s sexual-assault cases. Additionally, in FY15, 

STCs prosecuted over 65 special courts-martial. During the fiscal year, STCs also 

worked on discharge boards and other proceedings, as resources allowed. 

 Personnel authorizations for Fiscal Year 2015 grew from 18 STC positions to 24 

positions. This expansion resulted from the addition manpower authorizations directed 

by the Secretary of the Air Force to address the increased workload in the prosecution 

and defense of sexual assault crimes, the rising caseload in the provision of legal 

counsel to victims of sexual assault, and the expansion of the Special Victims’ Counsel 

Program to include more classes of victims. This increase in manpower provided for 

the creation of 5 new Chief Senior Trial Counsel (CSTC) positions to serve as field 

grade leadership over the circuit counsel. As part of the Air Force Judiciary 

realignment, eighteen existing STC positions in ten geographic locations were 

consolidated into the five judicial circuits discussed above. 

 In FY15, the STC program continued to leverage the experience and skill of its 

nine Special Victims Unit (SVU) prosecutors. The SVU prosecutors handle the most 

serious, most complicated, and highest-visibility sexual-assault cases in the Air Force. 

The SVU prosecutors, along with the rest of the STCs, are supported by the SVU’s 

Chief of Policy & Coordination, who is the Division’s focal point for issues related to 

sexual assault. One STC also acts as liaison to the Defense Computer Forensics 

Laboratory and is the Air Force’s legal expert on issues related to digital evidence. 

In FY15, STCs spent in excess of 3,000 days on temporary duty away from their 

home stations, and represented the government in more than 400 courts-martial and 

related proceedings. Again this year, the STCs took part in both the Intermediate and 
114 

Advanced Sexual Assault Litigation Courses along with members of the Division’s 

leadership who attended as faculty. The STCs also attended an intensive week-long 

course at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, where they received training specially tailored 

to the high-profile cases they prosecute and enhanced peer-to-peer education in a 

variety of subject areas. STCs also attended various training courses across the 

country, both military and civilian, and continued the valuable tradition of spending a 

week performing appellate work with our appellate counsel, broadening their trial and 

appellate perspective and enhancing their litigation skills. 

APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISION 

The Appellate Defense Division (JAJA) ended Fiscal Year 2015 with 9 active 

duty judge advocates, 11 reserve judge advocates, one civilian attorney and two 

paralegals. The Division moved its docket, despite vacancies in two active duty 

attorney and its lone SNCO paralegal billets. Operations were also impacted by the 

yearlong deployment of its GS-15 civilian attorney, who is a Navy reservist assigned to 

the Military Commissions. As in past years, reserve component judge advocates 

continued to provide significant support. 

Despite the aforementioned manning challenges, promoting timely appellate 

review remained a priority in FY 2015 for JAJA. The Division considerably reduced the 

number of enlarged cases pending initial briefing to the AFCCA. On 1 Oct 14, appellate 

counsel had 60 enlarged cases pending initial briefing to AFCCA...the highest total 

since 1 Dec 2011. By 1 Oct 15, that number had been reduced to 41. 

JAJA advocacy contributed to several notable rulings from the appellate courts, 

clarifying the rights of accused and impacting the practice of military justice at the trial 

level. In United States v. Bowser, 73 M.J. 889 (A.F.C.C.A. 2014); 74 M.J. 326 (C.A.A.F. 

2014), division counsel successfully defended the trial judge’s dismissal with prejudice 

of charges against a chief master sergeant (E-9) for failure to obey his order to provide 

attorney notes for in camera review. In United States v. Gutierrez, 74 M.J. 61 (C.A.A.F. 

2105), the Court overturned eight counts of aggravated assault for an Airman with HIV, 

shifting the analytical focus to the likelihood of transmission of the virus. In United 

States v. Jones, 74 M.J.95 (C.A.A.F 2015), CAAF ruled that the de facto officer doctrine 

did not apply to TJAG’s appointment of a civilian judge on the AFCCA, and accordingly, 

Appellant’s case had not been reviewed by a properly constituted panel. In United 

States v. Wilkinson, ACM S32218 (A.F.C.C.A. 2015), the Court set aside a sex assault 

conviction, finding that the government had failed to prove an essential element. In 

United States v. Bondo, ACM 38438 (A.F.C.C.A. 2015), the Court ruled that an Airman’s 

rights were violated when he was forced to provide a phone password after requesting 

legal counsel. In United States v. Nettles, 74 M.J. 289 (C.A.A.F. 2015), the Court held 

that the Air Force had lost jurisdiction of a reserve officer, and as a result, his conviction 

and sentence were set aside. In United States v. Solis, ACM S32160 (A.F.C.C.A. 2015) 

the Court was convinced to apply the Confrontation Clause of the US Constitution to the 

rule requiring corroboration of a confession, with the results being a suppressed 

confession and four specifications being set aside. 
115 

The Appellate Defense Division continued to support trial defense counsel in the 

field through consultation, including time-critical situations. In addition to the timely 

updates on developments, division counsel provided an Appellate Update briefing to 

new area defense counsel at the Defense Orientation Courses held at The Judge 

Advocate General’s School at Maxwell AFB. 

The following figures reflect the Division’s workload over the past six fiscal years: 

AFCCA 

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15

Briefs Filed 290 299 295 221 205 195 

Cases Argued 4 9 12 10 8 101

USCAAF 

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15

Supplements to Petitions 

 

204 160 220 257 222 171 

Grant Briefs 18 11 12 5 17 6 

Cases Argued 17 17 9 10 13 132

SUPREME COURT 

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY 14 FY 15

Petitions 2 1 1 1 1 2 

Briefs in Opposition 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Briefs on the Merits 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Appellate defense counsel participated in AFCCA-sponsored Project Outreach 

oral arguments, which serve a dual-purpose as a recruiting tool while highlighting the 

fairness and professionalism of the military justice system. During the year, Outreach 

argument was presented at the George Washington University School of Law, in 

Washington, D.C. Additionally, division counsel support CAAF’s Project Outreach by 

attending oral argument presented by civilian co-counsel at the Marquette University 

Law School, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 

 

1

 Includes three cases argued by civilian co-counsel. 

2

 Includes three cases argued by civilian co-counsel. 
116 

TRIAL DEFENSE DIVISION 

 

The Trial Defense Division (JAJD) is responsible for providing all defense 

services throughout the Air Force through its worldwide team of Area Defense Counsel 

(ADCs), Defense Paralegals (DPs), Senior Defense Counsel (SDCs), Chief Senior 

Defense Counsel (CSDCs), and Defense Paralegal Managers (DPMs). The Chief, 

JAJD, is assisted by a Deputy Chief, Policy and Training, and an Office Superintendent 

at Joint Base Andrews, MD. 

During Fiscal Year 2015, the Division was staffed with 84 ADCs and 74 DPs. 

These ADC-DP teams were stationed at 69 operating locations worldwide. They were, 

in turn, supervised by the Division’s 20 SDCs and 3 CSDCs. Each SDC supervised 4 to 

5 ADC-DP teams and each CSDC in turn supervised 6 to 7 SDCs. Each of the 3 

CSDCs was assisted by a DPM to help manage enlisted issues. 

Personnel authorizations for Fiscal Year 2015 grew from 19 SDC positions to 21 

positions. This expansion resulted from the addition of manpower authorizations 

directed by the Secretary of the Air Force to address the increased workload in the 

prosecution and defense of sexual assault crimes, the rising caseload in the provision of 

legal counsel to victims of sexual assault, and the expansion of the SVC Program to 

include more classes of victims. During FY15, the SDCs were consolidated from 19 

operating sites down to the five circuit locations described above. Together, these 186 

professionals provided defense services to more than 300,000 Airmen around the 

world. 

The continuing success of the Air Force’s ADC program is largely attributable to 

its independence and the effective and zealous advocacy of its personnel. To ensure 

the best representation for Air Force clients, training remains JAJD’s top priority. Each 

SDC provided on-the-job training and mentoring to the ADCs in their charge on a 

continuing basis. Each CSDC likewise mentored the SDCs in their areas of 

responsibility. Newly appointed ADCs and DPs attend formal training at the Defense 

Orientation Course held at The Air Force Judge Advocate General’s School (AFJAGS). 

All SDCs—new and old alike--attended a Division-run Leadership Course at Joint Base 

Andrews, MD. Defense personnel also attended Trial Advocacy Courses conducted at 

both AFJAGS and various civilian sponsored courses. 

MILITARY JUSTICE DIVISION 

The Military Justice Division (JAJM) prepares opinions and policy positions for 

SecAF, CSAF, and TJAG. The Division also assembles reports on military justice 

issues requested by the White House, Congress, DoD, and the Air Staff. JAJM 

represents the Air Force on the DoD Joint Services Committee on Military Justice. The 

Division provides representatives to all interservice activities involving military justice. 

JAJM responded to numerous requests for information and provided testimony in 

frequent support of these entities. JAJM also serves as the action agency for the 

preparation of advisory opinions on military justice issues raised in applications 
117 

submitted to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR). The 

Division promulgates and updates regulations establishing Air Force policies and 

procedures for the conduct of courts-martial and other proceedings. JAJM facilitates 

designation for the exercise of military justice, preparing SecAF documents and 

Department of the Air Force Special Orders designating convening authorities. The 

Division makes recommendations to the Judiciary and TJAG for changes in military 

justice policy, prepares offices and TJAG for visits under Article 6 of the UCMJ, and 

completes other staff taskings as requested. 

During the past fiscal year, JAJM provided 138 formal opinions concerning 

AFBCMR applications; received 57 inquires in specific cases requiring formal written 

replies to senior officials, including to the President and Members of Congress; and 

reviewed 34 records of trial for review under Article 69a, UCMJ, and five records under 

Article 69b, UCMJ. Additionally, JAJM reviewed and provided over 13,000 pages of 

court records in response to over 350 requests by members of Congress, the media, 

law enforcement entities, or individuals under the Freedom of Information Act. 

The Division oversees the Victim Witness Assistance Program (VWAP). All 

military and civilian victims are eligible for a VWAP liaison if the criminal conduct 

adversely affects them or if they provide information regarding criminal activity so long 

as any portion of the investigation is conducted primarily by the Air Force. The VWAP 

was designed to ensure that all victims and witnesses of a crime who suffer physical, 

financial or emotional trauma receive the assistance and protection to which they are 

entitled. The VWAP liaison makes every effort to afford all available services, upon 

request and availability, to any person who has suffered direct physical or emotional 

harm or any other damage as a result of an offense investigated or prosecuted by Air 

Force authorities. If a victim is not entitled to receive military services the VWAP liaison 

helps them locate various agencies in their local community to include, mental health 

treatment and counseling services. 

JAJM twice presented the annual Military Justice Administration Course at 

AFJAGS; a “back to basics” weeklong course attended by both judge advocates and 

paralegals. Division personnel taught at an additional number of military justice related 

courses, to include: Gateway – an intermediate judge advocate course for majors; the 

senior officer legal orientation course; the sex crimes investigation and training course; 

the AF trial judges annual training; web based training on discovery for all bases 

throughout Europe; and post-trial issues training for 9th AF, 18th AF, and Air Force 

District of Washington. 

Division personnel also taught the JAG Corps, through numerous webcasts, on 

the new law and policies concerning the administration of military justice cases, 

particularly sexual assault cases. Highlights included instruction on the overhaul of the 

Article 32 process, the rights of victims during the court-martial process, sexual assault 

reporting requirements, interaction and requests for information with and for SVC. 
118 

JAJM recognized a number of career personnel milestones that include 

Col (s) Julie J.R. Huygen being appointed the first female director of the Division and 

Maj Wesley Braun completing his master in law with a specialty in Military Justice, the 

first Air Force JAG to have been selected and funded for such a program in 20 years. 

The Division also supported the war effort in Fiscal Year 2015 by deploying our 

noncommissioned officer in charge of central witness funding to Al Udeid Air Base, 

Qatar, for six months. Additionally, JAJM hosted summer interns, law students who 

completed at least a year of law school and expressed an interest in service as judge 

advocates. One intern applied for and was accepted into the JAG Corps. 

The Division continued to coordinate military justice actions with high-level 

agencies, such as working closely with the Department of Justice on testimonial 

immunity requests for non-military witnesses and with the Office of the Secretary of the 

Air Force on officer requests to resign rather than face trial by court-martial. JAJM 

personnel were once again instrumental in drafting proposed changes to the Military 

Rules of Evidence and Rules for Courts-Martial for pending executive orders. 

Throughout 2015, JAJM supported two panels in their respective studies of the 

military justice system: the Judicial Proceedings Panel (JPP) and the Military Justice 

Review Group (MJRG). JAJM’s support consisted of organizing the presentation and 

testimony of requested witnesses before the panels and providing responses to 

requests for information from the respective panels. The JPP was established by the 

SECDEF as required by Section 576(a)(1) of the NDAA for FY13 and in accordance 

with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 and 41 C.F.R. Section 102-2.50(a). 

The JPP is conducting an independent review and assessment of judicial proceedings 

under the UCMJ involving adult sexual assault and related offenses for the purpose of 

developing recommendations for improvements to such proceedings. As part of the 

study, JAJM assisted in identifying, prepping, and facilitating the testimony of over 20 

individual witnesses for the JPP ranging from the rank of Staff Sergeant to Brigadier 

General. In addition, JAJM assisted in providing over 150,000 pages of documents 

from over 300 courts-martial to the JPP to assist in its analysis of the military justice 

system. In February 2015, the JPP released the first of its annual reports and JAJM 

spearheaded Air Force coordination and response to the report. JAJM also produced 

various documents and briefings for Air Force leadership and the JAGC on the contents 

of the report. Finally, JAJM developed an implementation plan for those aspects of the 

report which required implementation within the Air Force. The MJRG was established 

when the SECDEF directed the General Counsel of the DoD to conduct a 

comprehensive review of the military justice system. The MJRG’s review is focused on 

the structure and operation of the UCMJ and the MCM. In 2015, the MJRG concluded 

its review of the UCMJ and provided DoD with a 1,300 page report recommending 66 

substantive legislative changes to the UCMJ. JAJM provided SecAF coordination on 

the recommended legislative changes to the UCMJ as well as leadership briefings on 

the changes and their potential impact. 
119 

CLEMENCY, CORRECTIONS AND OFFICER REVIEW DIVISION 

At the end of fiscal year 2015, 220 Air Force personnel were in confinement. Of 

those, 78 inmates were in long-term confinement at the United States Disciplinary 

Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and 43 were serving their sentence in the Federal 

Bureau of Prisons system. The number of Air Force members and former members on 

parole or Mandatory Supervised Release at the end of fiscal year 2015 was 53. 

During the reporting period, the division reviewed 20 Article 71, UCMJ, officer 

dismissal cases. The Secretary approved the dismissals in 19 of the cases, and 

granted clemency by way of substituting an administrative discharge for the adjudged 

and approved dismissal in one case involving post-traumatic stress disorder and drug 

use. The division also reviewed seven enlisted cases for Secretarial clemency under 

Article 74, UCMJ. Two of the cases contained compelling circumstances for which the 

Secretary granted clemency. One involved a basic training instructor who had a 

relationship with a technical training student at another base, and the other involved a 

young airman who suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder based on sexual abuse, 

who later used drugs. 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL’S SCHOOL 

The Air Force Judge Advocate General’s School (AFJAGS) is the educational 

arm of the JAG Corps. Located at Maxwell AFB, Alabama, the JAG School provided 

education and training in all aspects of military legal practice to attorneys and paralegals 

from all military services, other federal agencies, and several foreign countries. Military 

justice instruction topics included advocacy, administration, the rules of evidence, the 

rules of procedure, and sexual assault policy and response. JAG School faculty 

members also provided instruction on military justice for several schools and colleges 

throughout Air University, the Air Force’s center for professional military education. 

During FY 2015, JAG School faculty members instructed more than 16,000 students at 

these military institutions. 

 Additionally, the JAG School published 10 articles concerning military justice 

and other criminal justice issues in The Reporter and The Air Force Law Review. The 

Military Commander and the Law, the School’s flagship publication, is going through a 

significant rewrite and will be available to the Corps, and commanders, and first 

sergeants in July 2016. In addition, AFJAGS produces webcasts where subject-matter 

experts teach current military justice topics to personnel assigned to all base legal 

offices, area defense counsel offices, and special victims’ counsel offices. In FY 2015, 

there were several live webcasts on military justice topics including significant changes 

following the passage of the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act and the Manual 

for Courts-Martial Update. These webcasts were seen live by over 700 JAGs and 

paralegals. These webcasts are now available “on demand” on CAPSIL. CAPSIL is a 

web-based collaborative learning and management system administered by the JAG 

School and accessible to all members of the JAG Corps. 
120 

 More than 2,400 students attended in-residence and distance education courses 

in FY 2015. With nearly 60 JAG School course offerings, the following courses devoted 

substantial resources to military justice-related topics: 

Advanced Sexual Assault Litigation Course 

Advanced Trial Advocacy Course 

Annual Survey of the Law 

Article 32 Pretrial Hearing Officer Course (Distance Education) 

Defense Orientation Course (for new Area Defense Counsel and Defense Paralegals) 

Gateway (the JAG Corps’ advanced leadership course for field grade officers) 

Intermediate Sexual Assault Litigation Course (held regionally in the United States and 

overseas) 

Joint Military Judges’ Annual Training 

Judge Advocate Staff Officer Course 

Law Office Manager Course 

Military Justice Administration Course 

Paralegal Apprentice Course 

Paralegal Craftsman Course 

Senior Enlisted Legal Orientation Course 

Senior Officer Legal Orientation Course 

Special Victims’ Counsel Course 

Staff Judge Advocate Course 

Trial and Defense Advocacy Course 

Victim/Witness Assistance Program Course (Distance Education) 

 In addition to the above courses, AFJAGS continued to lead the way in the 

development of a “full spectrum” military justice curriculum, expanding the Special 

Victims’ Counsel Course from 5 to 8 duty days, as well as creating 6 new blocks of 

instruction for Special Victims’ Counsel attending the Intermediate Sexual Assault 

Litigation Course. To further enhance military justice advocacy training, AFJAGS 

continued administering the TRIALS program – “Training by Reservists in Advocacy and 

Litigation Skills” – where teams of JAG School faculty, augmented by Reserve judge 

advocates, conduct regional courses in foundational advocacy skills. In FY 2015, 

TRIALS programs were conducted at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ; DavisMonthan AFB, AZ; Maxwell AFB, AL; Charleston AFB, SC; Tinker AFB, OK; Ramstein 

AB, Germany; Lackland AFB, TX; Nellis AFB, NV; and Joint Base ElmendorfRichardson, AK. 

 Finally, AFJAGS developed and executed the inaugural Senior Enlisted Legal 

Orientation Course (SELO). This new course is a joint initiative between the Chief 

Master Sergeant of the Air Force and the JAG School. The course provides dedicated 

legal training to newly-assigned command chiefs. This two-day course is offered five 

times each year with a focus on military justice, civil law, and airman welfare/force 

readiness topics. 
121 

LEGAL INFORMATION SERVICES 

 The Legal Information Services Directorate (JAS) acquires and develops new 

legal information technology (IT) tools and improves existing ones to better support 

military justice business processes throughout the Air Force. 

 The JAG Corps continued development planning and requirements validation 

efforts in pursuit of capabilities for a Disciplinary Case Management System (DCMS) 

that will replace the Automated Military Justice Analysis and Management System 

(AMJAMS) as well as the Web-based Airman Separation Program (WASP), Judicial 

Docketing System (JDS), and other disciplinary-related applications hosted by JAS. 

Working with the Air Force’s Deputy Chief Management Officer and its consulting 

contractors, JAS and the JAG Corps military justice subject matter experts compiled a 

contextual model and data reference model, in addition to performing course of action 

analysis, which are Step 3 deliverables pursuant to the Air Force’s Service 

Development and Delivery Process (SDDP). Completion of SDDP Step 3 requirements 

is targeted for March 2016; a major milestone, shifting planning focus from requirements 

verification to funding certification and acquisition. 

 As reported last year, when the Air Force initiated the SVC Program in January 

2013, JAS deployed a SharePoint site for use by SVCs to track cases; the SharePoint 

site was designed as a temporary solution until a more robust case manager could be 

acquired and developed. Learning of a commercial case management software (Open 

Text Cordys) hosted by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), in September 2015, JAS 

contracted through DLA for the development of an SVC Case Manager System. The 

design phase was completed in late December 2015 with initial operating capability 

(IOC) scheduled for April 2016. While addressing the SVCs’ need for a case manager 

system, the project also serves as a pilot program for assessing whether the Open Text 

Cordys software is scalable for the JAG Corps’ larger Disciplinary Case Management 

System requirements. 

While planning to replace AMJAMS, AFLOA/JAS continued to coordinate with 

JAJM on needed upgrades to AMJAMS to maintain its usefulness pending funding and 

acquisition of a replacement DCMS. Two upgrade releases to AMJAMS in early 2015 

implemented security upgrades. Two additional releases in December 2015 and 

January 2016 included the ability to generate the new Report of Results of Trial 

Memorandum and validation by NAF/MAJCOM legal offices verifying the accuracy of 

adjudged findings and sentences in courts-martial. With further modifications currently 

under development regarding these recent changes, it will be possible to electronically 

push court-martial results from AMJAMS to the JAG Corps “Public Docket” webpage 

thus increasing transparency of military justice processes. 

SPECIAL VICTIMS’ COUNSEL DIVISION 

The Special Victims’ Counsel (SVC) Division advances the Air Force mission by 

promoting justice, strengthening confidence in the military justice system, and offering 
122 

legal assistance services through independent legal counsel to victims of sex related 

offenses during the investigation and prosecution process. SVCs and Special Victims’ 

Paralegals (SVPs) provide world-class representation and advocacy for armed forces 

members and dependents at military installations worldwide, protecting the rights 

afforded to crime victims. 

In Fiscal Year 2015, the Secretary of the Air Force directed new manpower 

authorizations to be added to the Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps to address 

the increased workload in the prosecution and defense of sexual assault crimes, the 

rising caseload in the provision of legal counsel to victims of sexual assault, and the 

expansion of the SVC program to include more classes of victims. This action 

expanded the capability and capacity of the SVC program by providing funded 

manpower authorizations for six Senior Special Victims’ Counsel positions (SSVC), one 

officer deputy division chief position, five additional SVCs, and fifteen enlisted Special 

Victims’ Paralegals (SVP). This action also reallocated thirty-seven captain officer 

positions back to wing legal offices in an effort to return manpower authorizations that 

were initially taken from wing legal offices at the inception of the SVC program standup. 

This increase in manpower served as a permanent investment by the Air Force in the 

SVC program to promote long-term sustainment and enhance its effectiveness. 

During FY15, the SVC Program increased from 28 SVCs in 19 locations to 33 

SVCs in 31 locations. Five of the SSVCs are located at the circuit locations mentioned 

above. They provide intermediate SVC/SVP supervision, maintain small caseloads, 

and assist SVC headquarters in responding to taskings. The headquarters staff added 

an O-5 Deputy Chief to provide supervision of the SSVCs, detail cases, and manage 

the operational aspects of the program. At end of the fiscal year, 4 of 6 SSVCs billets 

were filled; 33 of 51 SVCs billets were filled and 12 of 26 SVPs billets were filled. 

SVCs played a pivotal role in the advancement of representation of sexual 

assault victims. In response to a call for comments to the 2015 Executive Order, 

several SVCs proposed a rule change to R.C.M. 1001 which would allow a victim to 

provide an unsworn victim impact statement to the court during sentencing. The SVC 

submission was accepted and resulted in the Executive Order adding R.C.M. 1001A 

which granted the victim the ability to make an unsworn statement utilizing the AF SVC 

proposed process. In the post-trial setting, CLSV filed Amicus Curiae briefs in the 

Service Courts of Criminal Appeals and at CAAF asserting that the same protections of 

privileged psychotherapist-patient records afforded to victims at trial should apply at the 

appellate level. 

AF SVC Program leaders, possessing some of the most current, broadest and 

successful experience in representing sexual assault victims, have informed military 

policy at the highest levels. The Division Chief was interviewed on Federal News Radio 

when the SVC Program was highlighted as the Federal Agency of the Month. The SVC 

Program educated members of several Congressionally-mandated panels on the 

services provided to sexual assault victims by the SVC Program. SVCs testified at the 

MJRG and the JPP. CLSV leadership worked closely with the DoD Sexual Assault 
123 

Prevention and Response Office on landmark projects such as the To Catch a Predator 

Program, known as the “CATCH” Program, and the Retaliation Working Group. Finally, 

CLSV provided significant input to the final Joint Services Committee’s Report on 

Extending SVC Representation to DoD, and unaffiliated, civilians. 

SVCs conducted outreach to civilian and military attorneys and allied 

professionals who work in the field of victim services and representation. SVCs 

provided briefings at the American Bar Association Annual Conference, the Texas 

Association Against Sexual Assault, the National Crime Victims’ Legal Institute’s Annual 

Conference, and the Virginia State Bar Association’s Annual Continuing Legal 

Education program. Internally, the Division Chief briefed Air Force leaders at the newly 

created Senior Officer Legal Orientation Course at the Air Force JAG School. SVCs 

also educated key first responders at the Family Advocacy Annual Training Course and 

several Air Force Office of Special Investigations regional senior leader conferences. 

Finally, SVCs educated other JAG Corps members in venues such as the DoughertyNelson Continuing Legal Education Program, webcasts and local outreach. 

At the end of FY15, SVCs had represented 2006 victims over the life of the 

program, of which 51 were children. At the end of FY15, the current SVC program 

caseload was 989 active clients, of which 51 are children. In FY15, SVCs appeared in 

158 courts-martial and 202 Preliminary Hearings, filing 126 motions and arguing 122 

motions on behalf of their clients. In CY15, SVCs represented clients in 495 interviews 

with investigators, defense counsel, and trial counsel. SVCs have also provided a widerange of legal assistance services, including assisting clients who have faced retaliation 

after making a complaint of sexual assaults with expedited transfers, reassignments and 

cross-training in new career fields. 

The feedback from victims represented by an SVC remained overwhelmingly 

positive. An impressive 86% of victims surveyed indicated they were "extremely 

satisfied" with their SVC's representation and 13% were “satisfied,” resulting in an 

overall 99% satisfaction rate. Another data point has remained at the same level from 

FY14 through FY15 -- 99% of those surveyed would recommend other victims request 

an SVC. 

PERSONNEL 

As of 30 September 2015, the Air Force Judge Advocate General's Corps had 

1,186 judge advocates on active duty. Company grade officers (lieutenants and 

captains) made up approximately 47% of that number (552). Approximately 25% were 

majors (296) and approximately 19% were lieutenant colonels (226). Colonels and 

above (115), including one lieutenant general and two major generals, comprised 

approximately 10% of the Corps. As of 30 September 2015, there were 840 paralegals 

on active duty. Senior airmen and below made up approximately 25% (208) of that 

number. Staff sergeants made up approximately 28% (233), while 26% (216) were 

technical sergeants, and master sergeants made up approximately 15% (128). Senior 

master and chief master sergeants made up 5% (40) and 2% (15) respectively. In 
124 

addition, there were 856 DAF full-time civilians, of which 63% (538) were attorneys and 

37% (318) were paralegals and legal assistants. Grade breakdown includes 278 GS11s and below, 49 GS-12s, 142 GS-13s, 205 GS-14s and 172 GS-15s. The Air 

Reserve Component (ARC) of The Judge Advocate General's Corps included 996 Air 

Force Reserve Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA), Air Force Traditional Reserve 

unit-assigned, and Air National Guard judge advocates, of which 29% (292) were 

company grade officers and 59% (588) were field grade officers (majors and lieutenant 

colonels). The remaining 12% consisted of 111 colonels, three brigadier generals, and 

two major generals. The ARC also includes 426 paralegals, of which 4% (18) were 

airmen or airmen first class, 11%(47) were senior airmen, 23% (98) were staff 

sergeants, 30% (129) were technical sergeants, 25% (104) were master sergeants, 3% 

(14) were senior master sergeants, and 4% (16) were chief master sergeants. 

CHRISTOPHER F. BURNE 

Lieutenant General, USAF 

The Judge Advocate General 
TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS

RATE OF INCREASE(+)/

DECREASE (-) OVER

LAST REPORT

GENERAL 201 144 55 -7.37%

BCD SPECIAL 226 85 29 -20.14%

NON-BCD SPECIAL [A] 114

SUMMARY 97 95 2 +1.03%

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

57

51

92

108

86

34

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 235

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 145

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 90

194

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 108

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 86

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 199

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 120

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 79

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 230

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 139

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 91

1.236

NUMBER 235/235

PERCENTAGE 100.00%

81.52%

+21.29%

14.67%

+10.47%

11.96%

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

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

PERCENTAGE OF AFCCA REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCAAF 225/276 [C]

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

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 33/225

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

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY AFCCA 33/276

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

DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD -8.84%

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD (199/246)

Period: Fiscal Year 2015

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATUS (Persons)

PART 2 - DISCHARGE APPROVED

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL (CA LEVEL)

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES [B]

 NUMBER OF BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGES

SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL (CA LEVEL)

 NUMBER OF BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGES

PART 3 - RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG

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

REFERRED FOR REVIEW

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 - GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 - BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 - GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL
PENDING AT BEGINNING OF PERIOD 1

4

5

0

5

0

0

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 0

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 263

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 127

 SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 136

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 164

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 74

 SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 90

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 50

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 307,361

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 4,516

14.69%

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD -9.49%

DISPOSED OF

PART 7 - APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF, ARTICLE 69

RECEIVED

RATE PER 1,000

EXPLANATORY NOTES

[A] Of the 226 SPCMs tried, there were 85 convictions with a BCD adjudged, 112 convictions without a 

BCD adjudged, and 29 acquittals.

[B] Includes 29 officer dismissals.

 GRANTED 

 DENIED

 NO JURISDICTION

 WITHDRAWN

PART 8 - ORGANIZATION OF COURT

PART 9 - COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138

PART 10 - STRENGTH

PART 11 - NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15)
126 

SECTION 6 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE COAST 

GUARD 
127 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE U. S. COAST GUARD 

October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015 

PERSONNEL AND TRAINING 

 The Coast Guard has 194 officers designated as judge 

advocates serving on active duty. Coast Guard lawyers currently 

serving in legal billets outside the Coast Guard include the 

Staff Judge Advocate to Joint Interagency Task Force South and 

DHS Joint Task Force East, as well as senior staff attorneys (O4 and O-5) assigned to NORTHCOM, AFRICOM, SOUTHCOM, PACOM, Naval 

War College, the Defense Institute of International Legal 

Studies, and the Naval Justice School. The Coast Guard also has 

several active duty judge advocates detailed to the Department 

of Justice, Department of State, and Department of Homeland 

Security. 

 Thirty-seven judge advocates are currently assigned in nonlegal “out-of-specialty” billets. They include the Vice 

Commandant of the Coast Guard(O-9), and the Director, Exercises 

and Training, U.S. Cyber Command (O-7), and the Assistant 

Commandant for Coast Guard Intelligence and Criminal 

Investigations (O-7). Other judge advocates in out-of-specialty 

assignments include command cadre of Coast Guard cutters, 

sectors, training centers, and support commands. The Coast Guard 

employs ninety two civilian attorneys ranging from GS-13 to SES. 

In fiscal year 2015, fifteen Coast Guard officers completed 

the Navy Basic Lawyer Course in Newport, Rhode Island. All have 

been or are in the process of being certified under Article 

27(b), UCMJ. In addition, the Coast Guard sent attorneys to 

forty different courses of instruction during fiscal year 2015, 

primarily at the various service JAG schools. Twenty-three Coast 

Guard officers are currently undergoing postgraduate studies to 

complete a JD degree and will be certified as judge advocates at 

the successful completion of their studies. Two judge advocates 

are attending the Graduate Course at the United States Army 

Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School and another is 

a fellow at the Center for Law and Military Operations at 

TJAGLCS. In addition, Coast Guard judge advocates serve on the 

staffs of the Naval Justice School, and the Defense Institute 

for International Legal Studies. 
128 

U. S. COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

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

Appeals at the end of fiscal year 2015 were: 

Chief Judge Lane I. McClelland 

Judge Patrick J. McGuire 

Judge John F. Havranek 

Judge Kathleen A. Duignan 

Judge Andrew J. Norris 

Judge John S. Luce 

Judge Peter J. Clemens 

Judge Sean P. Gill 

Judge Amy E. Kovac 

Judge Benes Z. Aldana 

Judge Robert W. Bruce 

Judge Laurina M. Spolidoro 

MILITARY JUSTICE ORGANIZATION 

Fourteen Staff Judge Advocates advise eighteen officers 

exercising general court-martial jurisdiction. Those fourteen 

SJAs as well as three additional independent duty SJAs at 

training centers advise approximately 350 officers exercising 

special court-martial jurisdiction. Responsibility for detailing 

trial defense counsel to general and special courts-martial 

rests with the Chief, Office of Legal and Defense Services, a 

staff office reporting to the Deputy Judge Advocate General 

charged with providing defense and personal legal services to 

Coast Guard members. Pursuant to an inter-service memorandum of 

understanding, the U.S. Navy provides trial defense counsel for 

all Coast Guard courts-martial. In return, seven Coast Guard 

attorneys are assigned to full time duty, typically for one-year 

or two-year assignments, at one or more Navy Defense Service 

Offices. 

 The Coast Guard had two general court-martial trial judges 

and eight collateral-duty special court-martial trial judges at 

the end of fiscal year 2015. The chief trial judge details all 

military judges to Coast Guard courts-martial. 

 The Office of Military Justice at Coast Guard 

Headquarters is responsible for representing the United States 

in all court-martial appeals and providing support to staff 

judge advocates and trial counsel throughout the Coast Guard. 
129 

The office is also responsible for developing military justice 

policy for the Coast Guard, including participation on the Joint 

Service Committee on Military Justice. A CAPT (O-6) serves as 

the Chief of Military Justice. A GS-15 Highly Qualified Expert 

is also assigned to this office and also serves as Chief 

Prosecutor. Three judge advocates are assigned primary duty as 

appellate government counsel. 

 Additionally, the Coast Guard’s Special Victims’ Counsel 

(SVC) Program reached final operational capability in fiscal 

year 2015 with the hiring of a GS-15 to manage the SVC program 

and through assignment of judge advocates to all full-time SVC 

billets. Three full-time SVCs are stationed in Washington, DC, 

while the remaining three full-time SVCs, including the Program 

Deputy, are stationed in Alameda, California, to correspond with 

the West Coast Headquarters of the Legal Service Command. Twelve 

additional Coast Guard judge advocates serve as collateral duty 

SVCs. This composition and assignment of SVCs helps to ensure 

all sexual assault victims receive timely and effective 

representation and advice. Prior to representing their first 

client, all Coast Guard SVCs attend specialized certification 

training and serve in an assistant/apprentice role. 

 

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Fiscal Year 15 14 13 12 11 10 

General Courts-Martial 16 23 09 14 06 12 

Special Courts-Martial 16 22 14 14 32 20 

Summary Courts-Martial 23 30 20 17 19 09 

Total 55 75 43 45 57 41 

ADDITIONAL MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

 Appendix A contains the Coast Guard, fiscal year 2015 

military justice statistics. 

APPELLATE REVIEW PROCESS 

 In fiscal year 2015, 15 out of 22 cases complied with the 

Moreno post-trial processing timelines. In United States v. 

Baker, the convening authority took action 146 days after 

sentence. In United States v. Roy, the convening authority took 

action 160 days after sentence. In United States v. Boerlage, 

the convening authority took action 127 days after sentence. In 
130 

United States v. Tamayo, the convening authority took action 121 

days after sentence. In United States v. Bailey, the convening 

authority took action 188 days after sentence. In United States 

v. Hamilton, the convening authority took action 145 days after 

sentence. In United States v. Rankin, the case was docketed with 

the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals 39 days after the 

convening authority took action in the case. All seven cases are 

still pending review by the service appellate court. 

 The Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals met its goal of 

issuing an opinion within eighteen months or less of the date 

the case was referred in 13 of the 16 cases decided in fiscal 

year 2015. In United States v. Sparks, the court issued its 

decision twenty months after referral. In United States v. 

Demello, the court issued its decision nineteen months after 

referral. In United States v. Thomas, the court issued its 

decision nineteen months after referral. 

 The court granted relief for post-trial delay in two cases. 

In fiscal year 2015, there were no court-martial convictions 

that were reversed as a result of command influence or denial of 

the right to a speedy review. There were no cases this fiscal 

year in which the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals found a 

provision of the UCMJ unconstitutional. 

MEASURES TO ENSURE COMPETENCY OF MILITARY JUSTICE PRACTICE 

 The biggest challenge faced by the Coast Guard in ensuring 

the competency of the military justice practice is the 

relatively small number of trials conducted service-wide in a 

given year. The Coast Guard has taken several steps to provide 

additional exposure to trial work for our judge advocates. 

First, the Coast Guard added trial and trial defense 

counsel billets. In accordance with a long-standing Memorandum 

of Understanding with the Navy, the Navy provides defense 

counsel for Coast Guard courts-martial, and the Coast Guard 

provides the Navy full-time judge advocates to perform trial 

defense work. The number of Coast Guard judge advocates working 

with the Navy under this agreement has increased to seven. These 

officers typically serve two year tours as defense counsel and 

leave those assignments with significant trial experience. The 

Coast Guard has also started augmenting trial capabilities at 

the Legal Service Command (LSC). The LSC is the only legal 

office that has judge advocates serving full-time as trial 

counsel (a total of five). These trial counsel are currently 
131 

involved, in one capacity or another, in approximately eighty 

percent of the Coast Guard's courts-martial. 

Also, the Office of Military Justice provides technical 

support to staff judge advocates and trial counsel and has 

periodically participated in cases at the trial level. The GS15, an experienced retired judge advocate, has served alongside 

judge advocates as trial counsel in highly complex courtsmartial. Additionally, the office has launched an initiative to 

disseminate practice guides and resources on a Coast-Guard wide 

information sharing website. 

In addition to military justice experience, many field 

legal offices maintain active Special Assistant U.S. Attorney 

(SAUSA) relationships with one or more U.S. Attorney offices. 

These assignments also develop judge advocates’ trial and 

advocacy skills. Coast Guard SAUSAs generally prosecute felony 

cases arising out of Coast Guard operations. Five full-time 

SAUSAs in the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida, District 

of Puerto Rico, and the Central and Southern Districts of 

California focus on prosecution of drug smuggling cases, where 

the amounts seized in the drug cases are frequently measured in 

tons. These attorneys also prosecute migrant smuggling cases. 

There are also many collateral duty SAUSA relationships around 

the country with Coast Guard judge advocates assisting in 

prosecution of not only drug and migrant smuggling cases, but 

other issues ranging from environmental crimes to seaman's 

manslaughter. 

Training also forms an important part of the development 

and maintenance of trial expertise. Coast Guard judge advocates 

are trained initially with the Navy and Marine Corps at the 

Naval Justice School, and regularly participate in trial 

advocacy courses offered by the Army, Navy, and Air Force, to 

include specialized courses, most particularly those dealing 

with sexual assault. The Coast Guard has also sent judge 

advocates to courses sponsored by the Department of Justice 

National Advocacy Center and those offered by the National 

District Attorneys Association. The other armed forces permit 

the Coast Guard to make use of their Trial Counsel Assistance 

Program and Highly Qualified Experts, which significantly add to 

the depth of knowledge and expertise available to Coast Guard 

trial counsel. 

The Coast Guard had two full time general court-martial 

judges, along with eight collateral duty judges who hear only 

special courts-martial, this fiscal year. Coast Guard judges are 
132 

selected based on trial and staff judge advocate experience and 

attend initial training with all of the other services at the 

Military Judge Course at the Army's Judge Advocate General's 

Legal Center and School in Charlottesville, Virginia. Coast 

Guard judges also attend the annual Joint Military Judges 

training session. Several Coast Guard judges have also pursued 

individual courses as well as successful completion of 

certificates from the National Judicial College in Reno, Nevada. 

To date the Coast Guard has not tried a national security 

case or case referred as capital. Were such a case to arise, the 

Coast Guard would request assistance from the other armed forces 

to do so. 

The Coast Guard also provides training for civilian and 

enlisted legal support personnel to assist them in meeting legal 

technician and paralegal performance qualification standards 

prescribed by the Judge Advocate General. 

 

VIEWS OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL ON RESOURCES 

The Coast Guard consistently provides adequate resources to 

its legal program to perform its military justice functions. Its 

experienced Judge Advocates are proficient in their performance 

of military justice responsibilities. Nonetheless, the number of 

Coast Guard courts-martial continue to increase along with their 

complexities and this continues to strain the existing Coast 

Guard military justice structure. The Judge Advocate General 

chartered a working group that studied the Coast Guard’s 

military justice system and proposed ways to increase the 

proficiency of its practice. Those recommendations are being 

implemented in phases so as to ensure continuity of service. The 

service Attorneys are supported by civilians and enlisted 

personnel in the yeoman rating sufficient in number to support 

the mission. The Coast Guard is currently considering the 

feasibility of creating a separate enlisted legalman rate to 

provide both increased support and professional development of 

the enlisted workforce. 

S. D. POULIN 

Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard 

Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard 
133 

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

 October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015 (FY 2015) 

APPENDIX A: U.S. COAST GUARD MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

Report Period: 1 OCTOBER 2014 - 30 SEPTEMBER 2015 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/ 

DECREASE (-) OVER 

LAST REPORT 

GENERAL 16 15 01 -30.4% 

BCD SPECIAL 16 16 00 -27.3% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL* 0 0 00 0% 

SUMMARY 23 23 00 -23.3% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT -26.6% 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 

08 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 04 

 NUMBER OF DISMISSALS 01 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 

11 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 14 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 10 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 05 

PART 4 – WORKLOAD OF THE COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 26 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 14 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 12 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 26 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 14 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 12 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 16 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 06 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 09 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 36 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 20 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 16 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

+44% 

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

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

NUMBER 26 

PERCENTAGE 100% 

 



 As a matter of practice, the Coast Guard does not try non-BCD special courts-martial. 
134 

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

 (CAAF) 

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 5/16 33.3% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +85% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 3/5 60% 

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

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CGCCA 3/16 18.8% 

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

+66.6% 

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

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD* 71 

RECEIVED 42 

DISPOSED OF 8 

 GRANTED 0 

 DENIED 8 

 NO JURISDICTION 00 

 WITHDRAWN 00 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 105 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 24 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 10 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 14 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 8 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 6 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 02 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 04 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 39649 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 526 

RATE PER 1,000 13.3% 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD -24.7% 

______________________________

* After review of the REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE U. S. COAST GUARD 

October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2014, the total pending applications for relief under Article 69, UCMJ should 

have been reported as seventy one vice thirty three as reflected in the total pending beginning of period above.