1 

ANNUAL REPORT 

SUBMITTED TO THE 

COMMITTEES ON ARMED SERVICES 

Of the 

United States Senate 

and the 

United States House of Representatives 

And to the 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, 

SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

And the 

SECRETARIES OF THE 

ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORCE 

PURSUANT TO THE 

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 

For the Period 

October 1, 2011 to September 30, 2012 
2 

CONTENTS 

SECTION 1: JOINT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CODE COMMITTEE 

SECTION 2: REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE ARMED FORCES 

SECTION 3: REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

ARMY 

SECTION 4: REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

NAVY 

SECTION 5: REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

AIR FORCE 

SECTION 6: REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

COAST GUARD 
3 

SECTION 1 

JOINT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CODE COMMITTEE 
4 

JOINT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CODE COMMITTEE 

PURSUANT TO THE 

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 

October 1, 2011 to September 30, 2012

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

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

Force, and Coast Guard, the Staff Judge Advocate to the 

Commandant of the Marine Corps, and Professor Charles J. Dunlap, 

Jr., and Professor Keith M. Harrison, 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 6, 2012, 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 2011 Code Committee 

meeting, Chief Judge Baker called upon Colonel Charles Pede, 

U.S. Army, Executive Secretary of the Joint Service Committee on 

Military Justice (JSC), to provide a report on the work of the 

Committee. Colonel Pede briefed the Code Committee of the 

following matters that had been addressed by the Joint Service 

Committee over the past year: (1) passage of legislation 

establishing the availability of a subpoena duces tecum prior to 

the referral of charges; (2) work on refinements to Article 120, 

UCMJ, to create subdivisions of offenses depending on the age of 

the victim and to correct burden shifting issues under Article 

120; (3) establishment of new requirements to assist crime 

victims; (4) the signing of Executive Order 13593, establishing 

a victim-advocate privilege; creating a new child pornography 

offense under Article 134, UCMJ; amending the marital privilege 

to except illegal activity from the scope of the privilege; and 

establishing a victim-psychotherapist privilege; (5) work on a 

study by the newly commissioned Army Capital Litigation Study 

Group and with Congressional staffs on proposed legislation 

(STOP Act) concerning sexual assault offenses and the authority 

to convene courts-martial in such cases; (6) modification of the 

2012 Manual for Courts-Martial to include recent Executive 

Orders, revisions to Article 120, UCMJ and a discussion of 

United States v. Fosler and United States v. Jones; and (7) a 

proposal to revise the Military Rules of Evidence to mirror 

expected changes in the Federal Rules of Evidence. 
5 

 In response to a question as to whether the victim advocates 

would be properly trained to understand the nature of the 

victim-advocate privilege, Colonel Pede replied that robust 

training would be required by local offices. In reply to 

another question, it was noted that the Department of Defense 

had not yet taken a position on the STOP Act. 

 Chief Judge Baker then asked representatives for each of the 

services to summarize trends in military justice in their 

respective services. 

 For the Navy, VADM Houck observed that the Department of the 

Navy has experienced a slight decline in the number of courtsmartial and non-judicial punishments, with more trials involving 

contested charges. Cases have become more complex, resulting in 

longer trials and extended trial schedules. As for types of 

offenses, the number of sexual assault, child pornography and 

fraternization cases has increased, with most of the sexual 

assault victims being males. VADM Houck expressed concern 

regarding the STOP Act and informed the Committee that the Navy 

would establish a separate command for defense counsel on 

October 1. 

 For the Army, MG Clyde Tate, representing the Judge Advocate 

General of the Army, stated that the Army has seen an overall 

reduction in courts-martial but an increase in the number of 

sexual offenses and a 62 percent increase in child abuse cases 

referred to the Family Advocacy Program. Particular attention 

has been given to high profile murder cases, capital litigation, 

and the operation of the UCMJ in a combat environment. 

 For the Air Force, LtGen Harding also expressed concern with 

the STOP Act as well as with cases involving the synthetic drug 

known as “spice.” At the non-judicial punishment level, half of 

the drug cases in the Air Force involve spice. Accordingly, the 

Air Force has developed a synthetic drug testing program and 

currently tests about 2,900 samples per month. 

 For the Coast Guard, RADM Kenney said there has been an 

increase in the number of courts-martial, although the Coast 

Guard’s numbers are much smaller than the other services. There 

has been a rise in crimes committed with computers and a trend 

away from traditional drug offenses to those involving 

“designer” drugs such as spice. 
6 

 MG Ary stated that in the Marine Corps, the number of general 

courts-martial has been steady, but there has been a 28 percent 

reduction in special courts-martial and a 23 percent decline in 

summary courts-martial. Administrative separations have 

increased 26 percent. The three types of cases that have 

attracted the most attention have been battlefield offenses, 

hazing, and sexual offenses. Since the creation of a defense 

command in the Marine Corps, the number of acquittals has 

increased, which he views as illustrative of the health of 

defense services. Processing times have decreased due to the 

decrease in the number of cases and a new case management 

system. 

 Separate reports of the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Armed Forces and the individual Armed Forces address further 

items of special interest to the Committees on Armed Services of 

the United States Senate and the United States House of 

Representatives, as well as the Secretaries of Defense, Homeland 

Security, Army, Navy, and Air Force. 

James E. Baker 

Chief Judge 

Charles E. “Chip” Erdmann 

Associate Judge 

Scott W. Stucky 

Associate Judge 

Margaret A. Ryan 

Associate Judge 

Lieutenant General Dana K. Chipman, USA 

Judge Advocate General of the Army 

Vice Admiral James W. Houck, JAGC, USN 

The Judge Advocate General of the Navy 

Lieutenant General Richard C. Harding, USAF 

The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force 

Rear Admiral Frederick J. Kenney, USCG 

The Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard 

Major General Vaughn Ary, USMC 

Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps 
7 

Professor Charles J. Dunlap, Jr. 

Public Member 

Professor Keith M. Harrison 

Public Member 
8 

SECTION 2 

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE ARMED FORCES 
9 

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES 

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES 

September 1, 2011 to August 31, 2012 

 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 2011 Term of 

Court to the Committees on Armed Services of the United States 

Senate and the United States House of Representatives, and to 

the Secretaries of Defense, Homeland Security, Army, Navy, and 

Air Force in accordance with Article 146, Uniform Code of 

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

THE BUSINESS OF THE COURT

 The filing and disposition of cases are set forth in the 

attached statistical report and graphs for the period from 

September 1, 2011 to August 31, 2012. 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 2011 Term of Court, the Court again met 

its goal of issuing opinions in all cases heard during the Term 

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

decisions prepared by the Court’s staff is set forth in Appendix 

A. 

RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 

 Following the recommendations of the Rules Advisory Committee, 

the Court amended Rules 13A, 19(b), and 22(b) of the Court’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure. The change to Rule 13A 

provides that amicus curiae briefs submitted by supervised law 

students under the Student Practice Rule shall be filed no less 

than 14 days before the scheduled oral argument date. The 

changes to Rules 19(b) and 22(b) modify the time allotted to the 

Judge Advocates General to file certificates for review of 

decisions of the Courts of Criminal Appeals from 30 days to 60 
10 

days. Prior to adoption and amendment, the proposed change to 

Rule 13A was published for public comment in the Federal 

Register in Volume 77, No. 14 at page 3239; the changes to Rules 

19(b) and 22(b) were published in Volume 77, No. 75 at pages 

23226-28. 

BAR OF THE COURT 

 During the September 2011 Term, 300 attorneys were admitted to 

practice before the Court, bringing the cumulative total of 

admissions to the Bar of the Court to 35,783. 

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 

2011 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 

Washington University School of Law, St. Louis, Missouri; Scott 

Air Force Base, Illinois; Gonzaga University School of Law, 

Spokane, Washington; and the University of Washington School of 

Law, Seattle, Washington. In addition, the Judges of the Court 

participated in a variety of professional training, speaking and 

educational endeavors on military installations, at law schools 

and before professional groups. 

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CONFERENCE

 On March 7 and 8, 2012, the Court held its annual Continuing 

Legal Education Conference at the Columbus School of Law, 

Catholic University of America, Washington, DC. The program for 

this Continuing Legal Education Conference was certified for 

credit to meet the continuing legal education requirements of 

State Bars throughout the United States. The conference 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 speakers for this year’s conference, including 

Bruce C. Swartz, Esq., Deputy Assistant Attorney General, 

Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice; Stephen M. 

Sayers, Esq., of the law firm of Hunton & Williams; Professor 

Judith Resnik of Yale Law School; James Tierney, Esq., Director 

of the National State Attorneys General Program and Lecturer at 

Columbia Law School; Professor Keith M. Harrison of the 
11 

University of New Hampshire School of Law; Professor Deborah E. 

Lipstadt of Emory University; Captain Michael B. Shaw, Judge 

Advocate General’s Corps, U.S. Naval Reserve; Professor 

Catherine Grosso of Michigan State University; and Brigadier 

General Thomas Ayres, U.S. Army, Commandant of The Judge 

Advocate General’s Legal Center and School. 

MEMORIAL TRIBUTE FOR THE HONORABLE 

MATTHEW J. PERRY, JR. 

 On January 12, 2012, the Court met in special session in 

tribute to the memory of Judge Matthew J. Perry, Jr., who served 

as a Judge of the United States Court of Military Appeals from 

1976 to 1979, and as a Judge and Senior Judge of the United 

States District Court for the District of South Carolina from 

1979 to 2011. A World War II veteran, and the son of a World 

War I veteran, as a civil rights lawyer in South Carolina, he 

argued numerous cases, including Gantt v. Clemson Agricultural 

College, 320 F.2d 611 (4th Cir. 1963). He is remembered for his 

civility, humanity, and commitment to constitutional law. 

Speakers at the session included Chief Judge James E. Baker, 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, Chief Justice Jean 

Hoefer Toal of the Supreme Court of South Carolina, and Jesse 

Clark, Esq., former law clerk to Judge Perry. The proceedings 

of the session will be published in a future volume of the 

Military Justice Reporter. 

James E. Baker 

Chief Judge 

Charles E. “Chip” Erdmann 

Associate Judge 

Scott W. Stucky 

Associate Judge 

Margaret A. Ryan 

Associate Judge 
12 

APPENDIX A – SELECTED DECISIONS

 This appendix contains an informal summary of selected 

decisions of the September 2011 Term of Court. A full list and 

summary of the cases decided by the Court during the Term can be 

found on the Court’s website. 

United States v. St. Blanc, 70 M.J. 424 (C.A.A.F. 2012), 

holding that defense counsel’s erroneous advice as to the 

maximum sentence the accused faced on the charge of wrongful and 

knowing possession of what appeared to be child pornography did 

not make the accused’s waiver of his right to trial by members 

involuntary, and that the military judge’s reliance on the Child 

Pornography Prevention Act in determining the maximum punishment 

for wrongful and knowing possession of what appeared to be child 

pornography was plain and obvious error that materially 

prejudiced the accused’s substantial rights, entitling the 

accused to sentencing relief. 

United States v. Fry, 70 M.J. 465 (C.A.A.F. 2012), holding 

that the military judge was not bound by a state court order 

that established a limited conservatorship over the accused in 

determining whether the accused met the mental competency 

requirements for court-martial jurisdiction, and that the 

evidence supported the military judge’s conclusion that the 

accused had the mental capacity to enlist. 

United States v. Campbell, 71 M.J. 19 (C.A.A.F. 2012), holding 

1) there is only one form of multiplicity, that which is aimed 

at protection against double jeopardy; 2) that if an offense is 

multiplicious for sentencing it must be necessarily 

multiplicious for findings as well, 3) that charges are not 

required to be dismissed or merged based on an unreasonable 

multiplication of charges, and 4) that the military judge has 

discretion at sentencing to merge specifications and to not set 

the maximum punishment based on the aggregation of the maximum 

punishments for each separate offense. 

United States v. Ballan, 71 M.J. 28 (C.A.A.F. 2012), holding 

that the substantial rights of the accused were not prejudiced 

where the military judge erred in accepting the accused’s guilty 

plea to a specification under Article 134, UCMJ, that did not 

explicitly or by necessary implication contain a terminal 

element. 
13 

United States v. Weeks, 71 M.J. 44 (C.A.A.F. 2012), holding 

that the accused’s conduct in using the victims’ checking 

account information to create electronic checks through 

telephone calls to the retailer’s automated bill pay system 

produced a “writing” necessary to support a conviction for 

forgery by uttering, however because the accused did not falsely 

make a writing, his conviction for forgery could not stand. 

United States v. Watson, 71 M.J. 54 (C.A.A.F. 2012), holding 

that the accused’s deliberate concealment of his inpatient 

psychiatric treatment from his military recruiter violated the 

fraudulent enlistment article of the UCMJ, although the 

misrepresentation concerned a matter that could have been waived 

by the service, and was not an absolute bar to enlistment. 

United States v. Nash, 71 M.J. 83 (C.A.A.F. 2012), holding 

that the military judge was required to excuse a court-martial 

member on the basis of actual bias where that member sought to 

ask the accused’s wife during her testimony in a prosecution 

arising from the accused’s alleged sexual misconduct with her 

daughters whether she believed it was possible for a pedophile 

to be rehabilitated. 

United States v. Hayes, 71 M.J. 112 (C.A.A.F. 2012), holding 

that evidence that the accused consumed alcohol in a public 

place while under the age of 21, in violation of Nevada law, was 

insufficient to support a conviction for dereliction of duty 

absent evidence that the accused had a military duty to obey 

Nevada state law generally. 

United States v. Dease, 71 M.J. 116 (C.A.A.F. 2012), holding 

that an accused who consented to a urinalysis during a drug 

investigation retained an ongoing privacy interest in his urine 

sample after it was seized and before it was searched, and 

therefore could assert this privacy interest by withdrawing his 

consent to search before the sample was tested. 

United States v. Easton, 71 M.J. 168 (C.A.A.F. 2012), holding 

that Article 44(c), UCMJ, which provides that double jeopardy 

attaches in a court-martial when evidence is introduced was an 

appropriate exercise of Congressional power under Article I of 

the Constitution to regulate the land and naval forces, 

notwithstanding the holding of the Supreme Court in Crist v. 

Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 (1978), that jeopardy attaches when a jury is 

empaneled and sworn in state and federal courts. 
14 

United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), 

holding that in this contested case, the failure to allege the 

terminal element of Article 134, UCMJ, in an adultery 

specification was plain and obvious error resulting in material 

prejudice to the accused’s substantial right to notice of the 

charge against him. 

United States v. Behenna, 71 M.J. 228 (C.A.A.F. 2012), holding 

that the conviction of an Army officer for the murder of a 

person suspected of attacks on Coalition Forces in Iraq would be 

affirmed even though the military judge’s instruction on selfdefense was erroneous where the error was harmless beyond a 

reasonable doubt, and further holding that even the Government 

allegedly failed to disclose favorable information to the 

defense, it was immaterial in regard to findings and sentencing 

because the evidence substantially overlapped with other 

evidence presented by other defense experts. 

United States v. Ali, 71 M.J. 256 (C.A.A.F. 2012), holding 

that court-martial jurisdiction existed over an accused under 

Article 2(a)(10), UCMJ, where the accused was a civilian foreign 

national contractor working as an interpreter in Iraq and was 

serving with or accompanying a military unit in the field, even 

though his employment had been terminated and he was in 

confinement awaiting trial; such an accused who was tried 

outside of the United States for a crime committed outside the 

United States did not have a substantial connection with the 

United States that entitled him to Fifth and Sixth Amendment 

protections. 

United States v. Vela, 71 M.J. 283 (C.A.A.F. 2012), holding 

that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the accused 

had the requisite specific intent and knowledge to be convicted 

of aiding and abetting the wrongful placement of a weapon on the 

remains of an Iraqi national, and that the prosecution of the 

accused was not based on his immunized testimony in violation of 

his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. 
15 

USCAAF STATISTICAL REPORT

SEPTEMBER 2011 TERM OF COURT

CUMULATIVE SUMMARY

CUMULATIVE PENDING SEPTEMBER 1, 2011 

Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 

Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 

Miscellaneous Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .158 

CUMULATIVE FILINGS

Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 

Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802 

Miscellaneous Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,042 

CUMULATIVE DISPOSITIONS

Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 

Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820 

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

TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1,104 

CUMULATIVE PENDING SEPTEMBER 1, 2012

Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 

Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 

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

TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 96 

OPINION SUMMARY

CATEGORY SIGNED PER CURIAM MEM/ORDER TOTAL

Master Docket . . . . 30 3 221 254 

Petition Docket . . . 0 0 820 820 

Miscellaneous Docket 0 0 30 30

TOTAL 30 3 1,071 1,104 
16 

MEMORANDUM/ORDER SUMMARY

Orders

Denying petitions for grant of review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615 

Petitions dismissed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

 Granting withdrawal of petition for grant of Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 

 Granting petitions for grant of review with briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 

 without briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88 

 Granting petitions for grant of review and affirming the decision of the lower court . . . .25 

 Granting petitions for grant of review and affirming in part and reversing in part . . 3 

 Granting petitions for grant of review and remanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 

Deciding previously granted cases (trailer cases) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 

Denying petitions for extraordinary relief and writ-appeal petitions . . . . . . . . . 25 

Granting petitions for extraordinary relief and writ-appeal petitions . . . . . . . . . 2 

Granting withdrawal of petitions for extraordinary relief and writ-appeal petitions . . . . 1 

Dismissing petitions for extraordinary relief and writ-appeal petitions . . . . . . . . 2 

 Granting motions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 

 Denying motions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 

 Deciding granted cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,354 

MASTER DOCKET SUMMARY

FILINGS

Petitions granted from the Petition Docket . 198 

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

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

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 

DISPOSITIONS

 Decisions affirmed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 

 Reversed in whole or in part . . . . . . . . . 149 

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

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 
17 

PENDING

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

 Awaiting oral argument . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 

Awaiting lead case decision (trailer cases) . 5 

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 

PETITION DOCKET SUMMARY

FILINGS

 Petitions for grant of review filed . . . . . 802 

 Petitions for new trial filed . . . . . . . . 0 

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802 

DISPOSITIONS

 Petitions for grant of review denied . . . . . 615 

 Petitions for grant of review granted . . . . 202 

 Petitions for grant of review withdrawn . . . 2 

 Petitions for grant of review dismissed . . . 1

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820 

PENDING

 Awaiting pleadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

Awaiting Central Legal Staff review . . . . . 24 

Awaiting final action . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 
18 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET SUMMARY

FILINGS

 Writ appeals sought . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 

 Writs of habeas corpus sought . . . . . . . . 3 

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

 Other extraordinary relief sought . . . . . . 12

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 

DISPOSITIONS

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

 Petitions or appeals granted . . . . . . . . . 2 

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

 Petitions or appeals withdrawn . . . . . . . . 1 

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

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

PENDING

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

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

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

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

PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

ALL CASES DISPOSITIONS

Begin Pending 0 Denied 11 

Filed 12 Granted 1 

TOTAL 12 Dismissed 0

 TOTAL 12

End Pending 0 

MOTIONS

ALL MOTIONS DISPOSITIONS

Begin Pending 4 Granted 289 

Filed 338 Denied 47

TOTAL 342 TOTAL 336

End Pending 6 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 

SECTION 3 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

ARMY 
30 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE ARMY 

OCTOBER 1, 2011 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2012 

 During fiscal year (FY) 2012, The Judge Advocate General 

(TJAG) and senior members of his staff advised Army leadership 

on significant issues pertaining to military justice, to include 

high visibility cases and investigations. The Office of The 

Judge Advocate General (OTJAG) continued to implement programs 

improving both the administration of military justice and 

advocacy skills of military justice practitioners. In 

furtherance of TJAG’s duties under Article 6(a), Uniform Code of 

Military Justice (UCMJ), TJAG and senior leaders in the Corps 

visited more than 26 installations and commands in the United 

States and overseas, to include forward areas, discussing 

military justice issues with commanders and their respective 

Staff Judge Advocates. The JAG Corps remains committed to 

sustaining excellence in the practice of military justice 

through a variety of initiatives and programs. 

 On 2 January 2013, the President signed the National Defense 

Authorization Act (P.L. 112-239), which amended Article 146, 

UCMJ (10 U.S.C. §846). A new subparagraph was added requiring 

additional information not previously required in this annual 

Code Committee Report. The newly required information will be 

included in the FY 2013 Code Committee Report. 

OTJAG CRIMINAL LAW DIVISION 

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

missions. First, the CLD advises TJAG on military justice 

policy, legislation, opinions, and related criminal law actions. 

Specific responsibilities include promulgating military justice 

regulations; reviewing other Army Regulations for legal 

sufficiency; providing legal opinions to the Army Staff related 

to military justice matters; producing and updating military 

justice publications to include the Manual for Courts-Martial 

(Manual); 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 and requests under the Freedom of 

Information Act; and conducting reviews of court-martial cases 
31 

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 across all 

grades. 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 

TJAGLCS. The CLD also facilitates active information flow to 

and from the field using web-based media. 

 In July 2012, the Secretary of Defense created the Defense 

Legal Policy Board (DLPB) as a civilian advisory committee to 

review incidents of U.S. military-caused death, injury, or abuse 

of non-combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. The 

board’s mandate is to assess whether certain reforms are 

necessary and to evaluate generally how allegations are 

reported, investigated, and disposed of within the military. 

The DLPB is required to issue a report of its findings and 

recommendations in April 2013. The Criminal Law Division has 

provided two Judge Advocates to support the DLPB process. 

 

 Traditionally-reported CLD actions for the last three fiscal 

years are listed below. Article 69 and other reviews decreased 

in FY12 due to other mission requirements (e.g.: support to DLPB 

and sexual assault initiatives). 

 Now in its third full year, the Special Victim Prosecutor 

(SVP) program has 23 positions, all of which will be filled in 

the summer of 2013. Special Victim Prosecutors continue to 

raise the level of trial advocacy across the entire JAG Corps 

(JAGC). The Army also began efforts to formalize a Special 

Victim Capability (SVC) to further enhance our ability to 

prosecute sexual assault cases. The SVC was subsequently 

codified in the FY13 NDAA. The SVC teams will be made up of 

SVPs, Criminal Investigation Division Sexual Assault 

2010 2011 2012

Congressional and other inquiries 132 139 150

Officer Dismissals 24 21 16

Article 69 and other reviews 136 130 40

Freedom of Information/Privacy Act 31 45 11
32 

Investigators (SAI), Victim Witness Liaison (VWL), and dedicated 

paralegals. The SVC will work cooperatively to ensure thorough, 

professional investigations and prosecutions, while providing 

compassionate and immediate assistance to victims. 

 CLD conducts a bi-annual Criminal Law Synchronization Meeting 

with key criminal law stakeholders such as TJAGLCS, TCAP, DCAP, 

Defense Appellate Division, Government Appellate Division, 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. 

 In June 2011, TJAG reviewed and revised the Military Justice 

Skill Identifier program. 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. In FY 2012, 135 

Judge Advocates were awarded skill identifiers, a 20% increase 

from the 2011 total of 108. Currently there are 397 basic, 149 

advanced, 122 expert, and 70 master skill-identified judge 

advocates. 

 The Army chaired the Joint Services Committee (JSC) during 

FY12. In December 2011, Congress passed the FY 12 National 

Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) amending Article 120, which 

became effective 28 June 2012. The JSC spent much of the year 

researching and preparing a new Executive Order to update the 

Manual in conformity with the FY12 NDAA. The JSC also continued 

to shepherd the previous Executive Order updating the Military 

Rules of Evidence. As of January 2013, both proposed Executive 

Orders are yet to be approved. 

 The Manual was reprinted in 2012, which included changes 

implemented by EO 13468, EO 13552, and EO 13593, as well as 2009 

NDAA and 2012 NDAA statutory amendments. The JSC is planning to 

reprint the Manual again in early 2014 to capture the revised 

MRE; new Articles 120, 120b, and 120c; and all related 

conforming changes included in the two Executive Orders 

addressed above. 

 The JAGC Information Technology Division (ITD) continued to 

improve military justice web-based programs this year. At the 
33 

forefront of these improvements is Military Justice Online (MJO) 

which allows end-users to generate military justice actions for 

courts-martial, non-judicial punishment, administrative 

separations, and administrative reprimands. In 2012, MJO’s 

capabilities were significantly expanded through the dedication 

of an ITD team specifically assigned to making MJO a better 

application. With the addition of the ability to create 

automated customizable reports, trial counsel and paralegals can 

now reduce the time spent in creating the report and focus on 

advocacy. ITD, CLD, and KM engaged in a sustained effort to 

increase MJO use through on-site training and integration into 

officer and enlisted training doctrine. ITD representatives 

also trained more than 200 personnel at several locations and 

worked closely with TJAGCLS, NCOA, and TRADOC personnel to 

ensure MJO training is fully integrated in the institutional 

learning environment. 

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

database that tracks the number of active trial and defense 

counsel, grew to include 712 Judge Advocates. 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 fully 

implemented 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 and defense counsel are eligible to 

receive the TARL. 

 In 2011 an additional officer was attached to CLD from the 

Knowledge Management (KM) Division. KM consists of a Chief 

Knowledge Officer (O6), Deputy Knowledge Officer (CW5), and six 

KM attorney positions (O3) assigned to the core JAGC divisions. 

The KM mission is to promote an integrated JAGC approach to 

identifying, retrieving, evaluating, and sharing the Corps’ 

tacit and explicit knowledge assets to meet mission objectives. 

The Criminal Law KM attorney oversees the addition of discussion 

and documents to the milBook website and acts as a liaison 

between CLD, the field, and the KM Division. 

 

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

 The cornerstone mission of the Criminal Law Department of The 

Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School (TJAGLCS) in 

Charlottesville, Virginia is to develop, improve, and sustain 
34 

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 Judge Advocate 

General’s Corps-wide developmental cycle for military justice 

practice. At the same time, our professors provide critical 

reach-back capability for military justice practitioners of all 

Services. 

 The Department teaches a variety of student cohorts: initialentry Judge Advocates in the Basic Course; newly-assigned trial 

advocates in the Intermediate Trial Advocacy Course; mid-level 

Judge Advocates in the Graduate Course, the Military Justice 

Managers Course, the Judge Advocate Officer Advanced Course; the 

Military Judge Course; the Senior Officer Legal Orientation 

Course; and the General Officer Legal Orientation Course (GOLO). 

Except for the GOLO course provided individually to General 

Officers, all courses are taught using a sexual assault fact 

pattern and are synchronized with other JAG Corps training 

agencies. 

 This past year, the Department retired the Criminal Law 

Advocacy course (CLAC), which was a one-week basic trial 

advocacy course offered four times per year. The Department 

also launched its replacement, the two-week Intermediate Trial 

Advocacy Course (ITAC). This course was designed to follow and 

build on what the students learned in the Basic Course and 

either the New Prosecutor Course (offered by the Trial Counsel 

Assistance Program) or Defense Counsel 101 (offered by the 

Defense Counsel Assistance Program). In the ITAC, students 

learn how to conduct sophisticated case analysis of a nonstranger sexual assault, conduct voir dire, prepare 

instructions, interview a sexual assault victim, conduct a 

direct and cross examination of a sexual assault victim, 

interview and conduct direct examinations of expert witnesses, 

and use technology and visuals in opening story and closing 

argument. For the victim interviewing exercise, the Department 

uses Graduate Course students to play the role of the victim. 

The ITAC students interview those role players in the first week 

and then conduct a direct and cross of those same role players 

in the second week. For the expert witness exercise, the 

Department brings in sixteen outside experts. Two are assigned 

to each small group and the students then interview, qualify and 

conduct examinations of those real-life experts. 
35 

 The Department also retired the New Developments Course as 

part of an overall, cross-department review of courses offered 

at The Judge Advocate General’s School. Case updates are now 

provided shortly after cases are published on the Department’s 

blog called “31(b)log.” The Department also increased the 

amount of streaming video offered on the Department’s webpage. 

Last, one of the Department’s professors, in conjunction with 

another Judge Advocate at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, developed an 

application for the 2012 MCM for use on both Apple and Android 

platforms. 

U.S. ARMY JUDICIARY 

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

Criminal Appeals, Office of the Clerk of Court and the Trial 

Judiciary. 

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

 The Office of the Clerk of Court receives records of trial for 

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

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

for Extraordinary Relief. More than 750 records of trial and 

over 1,275 motions and briefs were referred to one of the three 

judicial panels of ACCA for appellate review. The Office of the 

Clerk of Court served ACCA decisions upon all personnel not in 

confinement and closed over 820 courts-martial cases during the 

past year. 

 ACCA maintains a website at https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/acca. 

ACCA’s published opinions and unpublished memorandum opinions 

and summary dispositions can be downloaded from the website. In 

FY12, Clerk’s Office staff uploaded more than 150 opinions and 

decisions of the Court to the website. Applications for 

admission to the bar of ACCA, Rules of the Court, notices, and 

forms are available on the website, as is information concerning 

how to request records under the Freedom of Information and 

Privacy Acts. 

 The Office of the Clerk of Court receives inquiries about 

courts-martial convictions from federal and state investigative 

agencies, law enforcement offices, victims, military historians, 

media, veterans, and convicted Soldiers. Because the Brady Bill 

requires the processing of handgun applications within three 

workdays, the office also receives expedited requests from the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Instant Criminal 

Background Check System. 
36 

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

courts-martial records (general courts-martial and those special 

courts-martial resulting in an approved bad-conduct discharge) 

dating from 1977. The 2011 transfer of records of trial for the 

period 1940-1976 to the National Archives and Records 

Administration in St. Louis, MO, has resulted in an overall 

decrease in the number of Freedom of Information Act requests 

that the Clerk’s Office receives. Privacy Act requests have 

largely remained constant over the last three fiscal years while 

requests from other federal agencies, which are now tracked 

separately, have increased. 

 U.S. Army Clerk of Court requests for information for the last 

three fiscal years are as follows: 

FY10 FY11 FY12

Freedom of Information Act 559 725 297

Privacy Act 100 122 113

Certified Copies of Convictions 185 91 75

Requests from Federal Agencies 0 112 245

Total Number of Requests 844 1050 730

 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. In FY12, the paralegal responsible for the Overseas 

Witness Travel Program provided assistance to ten civilian 

witnesses. 

 The Management and Program Analyst continued to provide vital 

support to the Office of the Clerk of Court and other users of 

the Army Court-Martial Information System (ACMIS) in FY12. He 

designed, developed, and implemented over 380 timely and 

accurate ad hoc reports in response to requesters in addition to 

producing and maintaining ten monthly and quarterly reports. 

 The Office of the Clerk of Court is responsible for accepting 

applications for membership in the bar of ACCA and arranges for 

the admission of military and civilian attorneys. In FY12, the 

Clerk’s Office admitted twenty-six new counsel to the bar of the 

Court and maintained accurate records of attorney disciplinary 

actions. 
37 

 The Clerk of Court provided instruction to individuals 

attending the JAG Corps’ Graduate Course and military justice 

courses at TJAGLCS. The Clerk also provided training for 

appellate counsel on promulgating orders. The Clerk’s staff 

prepared and presented briefings on post-trial matters to newly 

assigned staff judge advocates. 

 

Trial Judiciary 

 The 1180 courts-martial tried during this fiscal year 2012 

reflect nearly 100 more courts-martial tried than in 2011. 

Combine that with the trends listed below, and Army judges are 

faced with a markedly increased workload: 

1) Cases are taking longer to try (78% longer in 2012 than 

2002 for GCMs and 61% longer in 2012 than 2002 for SPCMs); 

2) More cases are contested (103% increase in 2012 over 2002 

for GCMs and 60% increase in 2012 over 2002 for SPCMs); 

3) More cases are tried to panels (38% increase in 2012 over 

2002 for GCMs but a 12% decrease in 2012 over 2002 for SPCMs); 

and 

4) More time is spent on motions practice (76% increase in 

2012 over 2002 for GCMs and 95% increase in 2012 over 2002 for 

SPCMs). 

 Army trial judges – both active and reserve component – 

continued to preside over cases in deployed environments, with 

32 general and special courts-martial tried in Iraq, Kuwait and 

Afghanistan during this period, resulting in a grand total of 

over 952 since May 2003. 

 The Trial Judiciary continued its ongoing effort to keep 

current DA Pamphlet 27-9, Military Judges’ Benchbook 

(Benchbook), approving eleven changes to that publication 

addressing: 

 (1) Article 134, Clauses 1 and 2, based on United States 

v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011); 

 (2) Instructions on the recently-enacted changes to 

Article 120, UCMJ, effective 28 June 2012; and 

 (3) A standard inquiry for military judges when lack of 

mental responsibility is raised during a providence inquiry. 
38 

 A constantly updated version of the Benchbook, along with 

links to the electronic version of that updated Benchbook, court 

dockets, other judiciary related documents and resource 

materials, can be found on the Trial Judiciary homepage at 

www.jagcnet.army.mil/usatj. 

 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. Other notable achievements by the Trial 

Judiciary included: 

*The 55th Military Judge Course graduated 43 Army, Navy, 

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

invested them as new military judges. 

 

*COL Andy Efaw mobilized and deployed to Kuwait from April to 

December 2012, presiding as a military judge over courts-martial 

convened throughout Afghanistan and Kuwait. 

U.S. ARMY TRIAL DEFENSE SERVICE 

 During FY 2012, approximately 485 active and RC judge 

advocates were serving in the U.S. Army Trial Defense Service 

(TDS) worldwide, including 155 on active duty; 207 assigned to 

one of three Legal Operations Detachments-Trial Defense (LODTD); and 123 in the Army National Guard. TDS provides high 

quality, professional defense services to Soldiers across the 

Army. Counsel are stationed at 52 active duty installations 

worldwide and 105 reserve locations. 

 TDS detailed one or more counsel to every Army special and 

general court-martial referred in FY 2012, 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 caseloads 

were as follows this year: 

 General and Special Courts-Martial: 1,102 

 Administrative Boards: 1,765 

 Nonjudicial Punishment: 38,105 

 Military Justice Consultations: 18,659 

 TDS provided defense services to Army personnel deployed to 

the CENTCOM Area of Responsibility. The TDS CENTCOM Region has 
39 

four field offices: one at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait and three in 

Afghanistan at Bagram Airfield, Camp Phoenix (Kabul), and 

Kandahar Airfield. The Regional Defense Counsel is an active 

duty Lieutenant Colonel who serves as the senior supervisory TDS 

attorney in CENTCOM. She is co-located with the Bagram Airfield 

field office. 

 In 2012, the Defense Counsel Assistance program (DCAP), 

staffed by four judge advocates and two civilian Senior 

Counsel/Trainers, continued to provide timely and exceptional 

training and advice to TDS counsel worldwide. DCAP excelled at 

providing quality instruction through the use of joint training 

with the Trial Counsel Assistance Program (TCAP). Together, 

they organized and taught four Advanced Trial Communications 

Courses, the Sexual Assault Trial Advocacy Course (SATAC), the 

Expert Witness Symposium, and the Joint Advocacy Symposium. 

 In addition to these joint training events, DCAP published a 

revised DC 101 Deskbook and distributed it to all newly assigned 

TDS counsel at six DC 101 training events conducted in the 

United States and Europe. DCAP is also developing a DC 201 

Deskbook to address more advanced subjects. Furthermore, DCAP 

organized and taught six Annual and Regional TDS training events 

and facilitated attendance by TDS counsel at non-DoD courses in 

areas such as sexual assault and capital litigation. 

 DCAP also responds to requests for advice and assistance 

submitted from counsel in the field. DCAP proactively ensured 

that TDS counsel kept abreast of all major developments through 

a series of updates called “DCAP Alerts” and “DCAP Sends.” 

DCAP’s SharePoint website and the launch of the KM milBook 

social media website further allowed free flowing discussion and 

collaboration among counsel on critical issues. Finally, DCAP 

also worked with the Defense Appellate Division to assist TDS 

counsel in the preparation and filing of extraordinary writs 

before the Army Court of Criminal Appeals and United States 

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. 

 TDS personnel in the Army Reserve are now assigned to three 

separate units. The 22nd LOD-TD consists of 67 judge advocates, 

one warrant officer, and 23 enlisted paralegals. The 22nd LODTD area of responsibility includes Northeast Asia and the United 

States west of the Mississippi River. In 2012, the 22nd LOD-TD 

mobilized six judge advocates and three paralegals for service 

in CONUS, Europe, and CENTCOM. In addition, it represented over 

1,500 Reserve Component Soldiers facing military justice and 

adverse administrative actions. 
40 

 The 154th LOD-TD transformed into two separate LODs as of 1 

May 2012, becoming the 16th LOD-TD, which encompasses the 

Northeast, Upper Midwest and Europe, and the 154th LOD-TD, which 

covers the Southeast, and Lower Mississippi River valley and 

Puerto Rico. The 154th LOD-TD, headquartered in Alexandria, VA, 

is comprised of 72 judge advocates, 24 enlisted Soldiers and one 

warrant officer. In 2012, the 154th LOD-TD mobilized thirteen 

judge advocates and nine paralegals for service in CONUS, 

Europe, and CENTCOM. Additionally, the 154th LOD-TD represented 

over 1,500 reserve component Soldiers facing military justice 

and adverse administrative actions, conducted approximately 200 

administrative hearings, and represented seven active component 

Soldiers facing courts-martial. 

 The 16th LOD-TD, headquartered at Fort Hamilton, NY, is 

comprised of 68 judge advocates, two warrant officers, and 21 

enlisted paralegals. Since June 2012, the 16th LOD-TD has 

handled 40 board actions and resolved over 250 cases. In 2012, 

the 16th LOD-TD mobilized or deployed seven Soldiers for service 

in CONUS and CENTCOM. 

 The Army National Guard (ARNG) TDS consists of 123 judge 

advocates, one civilian legal administrator, and 31 enlisted 

paralegals stationed in 46 states and territories. ARNG TDS 

supports all 54 of the states, territories, and the District of 

Columbia. In 2012, five ARNG TDS regions conducted National 

Guard TDS training, and with the support of DCAP, ARNG TDS 

conducted its first DC 101 training course. State courtsmartial continued at a modest pace with three states conducting 

a total of five general and special courts-martial. One of the 

states exercised new legislative authority to conduct its first 

court-martial in recent history. In other matters, ARNG TDS 

counsel represented more than 3,200 ARNG Soldiers and deployed 

two TDS counsel and one paralegal NCO to the CENTCOM AOR. 

GOVERNMENT APPELLATE DIVISION 

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

twenty-three active duty and four Individual Mobilization 

Augmentee military attorneys, represents the United States 

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

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

in appeals by Soldiers convicted at courts-martial with an 

adjudged sentence of either a punitive discharge or confinement 

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

before ACCA, CAAF, and the Supreme Court in government appeals 
41 

from courts-martial and petitions for extraordinary relief. 

Additionally, GAD oversees the operations of the Trial Counsel 

Assistance Program (TCAP). 

 During 2012, GAD filed 540 briefs at ACCA and 377 responses to 

petitions for grant of review and 15 briefs at CAAF. GAD 

appellate attorneys argued 44 cases before ACCA and 13 cases 

before CAAF. 

 As part of ACCA and CAAF’s Project Outreach, GAD argued four 

cases in the civilian community. The arguments were held at the 

University of Washington Law School in Seattle, Washington; 

Valparaiso Law School in Valparaiso, Indiana; George Washington 

Law School in Washington, D.C.; and Creighton Law School in 

Omaha, Nebraska. These outreach arguments are important in 

displaying our military justice system to largely civilian 

audiences. All four arguments were tremendously successful. 

 TCAP continued its mission to assist prosecutors in the field. 

In 2012, this encompassed TCAP’s traditional activities such as 

publishing a quarterly newsletter, answering questions from the 

field, and conducting training events. This year’s training 

events consisted of fifteen outreach programs at Army 

installations world-wide, three regional conferences, and 

thirteen specialty courses (e.g. advanced advocacy, child 

crimes, and forensics). As in 2011, training was focused on 

prosecuting sexual assault and domestic violence. Several of 

the courses were co-hosted with the Defense Counsel Assistance 

Program (DCAP). 

 TCAP continued the quarterly iterations of the New Prosecutor 

Course/Effective Strategies for Sexual Assault Prosecution 

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

fundamentals of military justice and prosecution of sexual 

assaults. The course is held quarterly to ensure that all new 

trial counsel attend within three to four months of becoming a 

trial counsel and to prepare counsel for the new ITAC course 

taught at the Legal Center and School. The first half of the 

NPC focuses on ensuring that new trial counsel have a 

rudimentary grasp of how (technically and tactically) they 

should move cases through the military justice process. The 

second three-day block focuses on investigations, charging 

decisions, and interaction with victims in sexual assault cases. 

 There continued to be requests from the field for direct TCAP 

assistance, including assisting in the prosecution of several 

high profile cases. The support varied from providing a Highly 
42 

Qualified Expert (HQE) to assist with trial (from behind the 

bar), to assigning a TCAP judge advocate as lead counsel. 

DEFENSE APPELLATE DIVISION 

 The Defense Appellate Division (DAD) provides appellate 

representation to eligible Soldiers and other individuals before 

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

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

States. Eligible Soldiers include those convicted at courtsmartial where the approved sentence consists of a punitive 

discharge or confinement for one year or more. DAD attorneys 

also assist military and civilian Trial Defense Counsel in the 

preparation and filing of extraordinary writs before the 

aforementioned courts. 

 The staff consists of twenty active component Judge Advocates, 

four civilian paralegals, and one noncommissioned officer 

serving two branches. As in past years, reserve component Judge 

Advocates continued to provide critical support and there are 

two mobilized reserve attorneys serving in the division. DAD 

was also fortunate to have ten Drilling Individual Mobilization 

Augmentee (DIMA) Judge Advocates. We also created two critical 

Capital Litigation DIMA positions. 

 There were 665 new cases received this year and 568 briefs 

were filed with ACCA. Of those ACCA filings, 228 raised 

substantive assignments of error. DAD attorneys also filed 388 

cases with CAAF, 147 of which raised substantive assignments of 

error. Oral arguments were made in 57 cases (44 cases before 

ACCA and 13 before CAAF). This year DAD attorneys filed five 

Article 62 appeals; eight writ petitions; and two petitions for 

writ of certiorari before the Supreme Court. 

 We handled several notable cases. In United States v. Ali, 71 

M.J. 256 (C.A.A.F. 2012), the court decided a matter of first 

impression finding that Mr. Ali, a civilian, was subject to 

court-martial jurisdiction in Iraq under Article 2(a)(10), UCMJ. 

This decision is pending a petition for writ of certiorari 

before the Supreme Court of the United States. In United States 

v. Kreutzer, 70 M.J. 444 (C.A.A.F. 2012), the court ruled that a 

Soldier under a death sentence overturned on appeal, yet in 

which convictions remain in effect, was not punished in 

violation of R.C.M. 305 and Article 13, UCMJ, when the 

disciplinary barracks failed to remove Kreutzer from death row 

for 280 days. In United States v. Akbar, Army 20050514, one of 
43 

two capital cases currently on direct appeal, two Defense 

Appellate Division attorneys argued the case before the Army 

Court on February 1, 2012. The argument focused on several 

constitutional issues including ineffective assistance of 

counsel. The Army Court affirmed SGT Akbar's findings and 

sentence in July 2012. On November 26, 2012, appellate counsel 

filed additional affidavits and other appellate exhibits along 

with a motion for en banc reconsideration of the decision as it 

relates to ineffective assistance of counsel. On January 16, 

2013, the Army court ordered the government to obtain additional 

affidavits from trial defense counsel addressing new allegations 

of ineffective assistance of counsel. The government has until 

March 17, 2013 to obtain the additional affidavits. Finally, in 

United States v. Easton, 71 M.J. 168 (C.A.A.F. 2012), the Court 

ruled that Article 44(c), UCMJ, is a constitutional exercise of 

Congress and the President’s authority in the military context 

to specifically define the point at which jeopardy attaches for 

purposes of the Fifth Amendment, notwithstanding the Supreme 

Court’s ruling in Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 (1978). The 

decision is pending a petition for writ of certiorari in the 

U.S. Supreme Court. 

 DAD attorneys continued to contribute to the public 

understanding of and support of the Military Justice System by 

representing clients at outreach arguments in cases such as 

United States v. Ali, argued at the University of Washington Law 

School. DAD attorneys also argued cases before the Army Court 

at George Washington University School of Law, Valparaiso 

University Law School, and Creighton School of Law. 

LITIGATION DIVISION 

 Civil lawsuits involving military justice matters are 

relatively few but remain an important part of the Litigation 

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

seeking collateral review of military court-martial proceedings 

pursuant to a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal 

district court. The following cases highlight the types of 

issues handled by the Army’s Litigation Division. 

 In Gray v. Gray [Private Ronald Gray v. Colonel Gray, the 

Commandant of the United States Disciplinary Barracks], 

litigation continues concerning the habeas petition of a 

military prisoner on death row. In November 2008, the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Kansas granted Private Ronald 

Gray’s motion to stay his execution and appointed counsel to 

assist him in pursuing habeas relief. In 1988, Gray was 
44 

convicted at court-martial of, among other charges, three 

specifications of premeditated murder, one specification of 

attempted murder, three specifications of rape and two 

specifications of forcible sodomy. He was sentenced to death, a 

dishonorable discharge, total forfeiture of all pay and 

allowances, and reduction to Private E-1. In 2001, at the 

conclusion of the military appellate process, the U.S. Supreme 

Court denied Gray’s petition for writ of certiorari. In 2008, 

the President approved the death sentence and the Secretary of 

the Army signed the Execution Order directing that Gray be 

executed. In April 2009, Gray filed a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus. In September 2010, the Court ruled that Gray 

could amend his petition to present additional claims. After 

the government filed its response to petitioner’s claims, in 

February 2011, petitioner filed a Petition for Extraordinary 

Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Coram Nobis with the Army 

Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) and requested the district 

court to stay the case until after ACCA acts on the petition. 

In October 2011, petitioner notified the Court that briefing was 

complete, but ACCA had yet to act on the petition. On 26 

January 2012, ACCA denied the petition, finding that Gray cannot 

meet the threshold criteria for coram nobis review. On 17 April 

2012, CAAF affirmed ACCA’s decision, dismissing Gray’s writ 

appeal without prejudice. In the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Kansas, Gray submitted his reply brief on 1 November 

2012. The habeas case is now fully briefed and is pending the 

district court’s decision. 

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

defend a challenge by a retiree recalled to active duty to face 

capital murder charges. On 28 December 2009, after ACCA and 

CAAF denied his extraordinary writs challenging the military’s 

jurisdiction to prosecute him, MSG (Ret.) Timothy Hennis filed a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina seeking an 

emergency stay of his pending court-martial. After the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied MSG (Ret.) 

Hennis’ request for a preliminary injunction to stop the courtmartial proceedings, a court-martial convicted MSG (Ret.) Hennis 

of three murder specifications and sentenced him to death. MSG 

Hennis appealed the denial of his habeas petition to the Fourth 

Circuit. Oral argument was held on 26 October 2011. On 17 

January 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth 

Circuit, in Hennis v. Hemlick, et al., affirmed the decision of 

the District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina 

which dismissed, without prejudice, the habeas petition of a 

Soldier who had yet to exhaust his opportunities within the 
45 

military justice system to raise his jurisdictional challenge. 

Petitioner unsuccessfully argued that the district court should 

immediately intervene based on his status as a retiree recalled 

to active duty and sentenced to death for murder charges of 

which he was acquitted twenty years earlier in state court and 

his contention that the military lacked jurisdiction to 

prosecute him for crimes that occurred prior to his 

reenlistment. The Court of Appeals held that it was proper for 

the district court to defer to the expertise of the military 

courts “to initially consider and resolve the mixed questions of 

fact and law comprising Hennis’s jurisdictional challenge.” 

Only after petitioner exhausts all available military remedies 

may he collaterally attack the court-martial in federal district 

court. MSG (Ret.) Hennis appealed the Fourth Circuit’s 

decision to the United States Supreme Court, which denied his 

petition for writ of certiorari on 14 May 2012. 

 Cioca, et al. v. Rumsfeld, et al. and Smith v. United States, 

et al. were brought by individuals claiming the policies of 

former Secretaries of Defense Rumsfeld and Gates fostered an 

environment in which sexual assaults occurred and remained 

largely unpunished. All plaintiffs in the Cioca case are 

current or former military members while the plaintiff in the 

Smith case was a military dependent. Plaintiffs brought these 

cases under a Bivens theory of individual liability, contending 

the defendants, through acts of omission and commission, 

violated the plaintiffs’ First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment 

rights. The defendants countered that Bivens should not be 

expanded to cover plaintiffs’ allegations. The Court agreed. 

Citing the “special factors” language of the Bivens decision, 

the Court found plaintiffs’ allegations directly implicated the 

military’s disciplinary system and were the province of the 

elected branches of government, not the judiciary. An 

additional claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) 

remained in Smith. Ms. Smith claimed that the United States 

negligently inflicted emotional distress on her during the 

investigation and prosecution of her alleged attacker. The 

Court found the FTCA barred her claim under a theory of 

prosecutorial immunity codified in 28 U.S.C. § 2674. The Court 

dismissed both cases on 9 December 2011. Cioca was appealed to 

the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments were 

originally scheduled for 4 December 2012, but have been 

postponed. No new date has been set. The Smith case was not 

appealed and the time to file an appeal has run. Two cases 

similar to Cioca have been filed in the last year, Marquet v. 

Gates and Hoffman, et al. v. Panetta, et al. The sole plaintiff 

in Marquet is a former West Point cadet. She filed her case in 
46 

the District Court for the Southern District of New York. The 

Government has filed a motion to dismiss on the same grounds 

raised in Cioca. A decision is pending. Hoffman involves 19 

plaintiffs and was filed in the District Court for the Northern 

District of California. Anticipating a venue challenge, the 

plaintiffs withdrew the case voluntarily on 30 November 2012. 

It is anticipated that they will re-file the case in the 

District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. 

OTJAG International and Operational Law Division 

 The International and Operational Law Division (IOLD), OTJAG 

provides overarching legal advice and guidance on Army 

implementation of the DoD Law of War Program. The IOLD's 

efforts to prevent violations of the law of war by Army 

personnel include evaluating all new weapons for compliance with 

international law; reviewing all operation and concept plans and 

rules of engagement for compliance with domestic and 

international law as part of the Army Staff review in the joint 

review process; and preparing directives, policies, 

instructions, and training materials to ensure that Army 

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

When Army personnel are alleged to have violated the law of war, 

the IOLD supports the reporting and investigation of the 

allegations and ensures that commanders receive legal advice and 

assistance to enable them to determine the appropriate 

disposition of such cases, which may include prosecution by 

court-martial for those subject to the UCMJ and prosecution by 

civilian authorities for others. 

 Although the UCMJ does not contain the offense of "violation 

of the law of war," it includes substantive criminal offenses 

that correspond to the war crimes delineated in 18 U.S.C. 

Section 2441 and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 

1949. Such offenses include: Article 92, Failure to Obey a 

Lawful Order or Regulation or Dereliction of Duty; Article 93, 

Cruelty and Maltreatment; Article 103, Captured and Abandoned 

Property; Article 118, Murder; and Article 128, Assault. 

 Several high-profile courts-martial involving law of war 

violations committed by Army personnel were completed in FY 

2012. The last members of the so-called "kill team" of the 5th 

Brigade (Stryker), 2nd Infantry Division, which served in 

southern Afghanistan in 2009 and 2010, were prosecuted for their 

roles in murdering three Afghan civilians, collecting body parts 

as trophies from corpses, chronicling their kills with gruesome 

photographs of Afghan casualties, illegally using marijuana and 
47 

hashish, and attacking the whistleblower who alerted the command 

to the platoon's drug use. 

 Staff Sergeant (SSG) Calvin Gibbs was found guilty as the 

ringleader of a five-member team that murdered three Afghan 

civilians. He was sentenced to life in prison with the 

possibility of parole. SSG Gibbs was also found guilty of 12 

related charges, including taking body parts as trophies from 

corpses. Three of SSG Gibbs' subordinates pleaded guilty in FY 

2011 and cooperated with the prosecution in SSG Gibbs’ courtmartial in exchange for reduced sentences. The Army dismissed 

the charges against the fifth member of the team, SPC Michael 

Wagnon. Another senior platoon member, SSG David Bram was found 

guilty of solicitation to commit murder, conspiracy to commit 

assault, and impeding an investigation. He was sentenced to 

five years confinement. 

 

 In March 2012, the Army preferred court-martial charges 

against SSG Robert Bales, who allegedly shot and killed 

seventeen Afghan civilians and wounded six others in Panjwai, 

Kandahar, Afghanistan on March 11, 2012. SSG Bales is alleged 

to have left his base alone, at night, and forcibly entered 

several homes where he is alleged to have shot and killed 

noncombatant males, females and children, setting fire to some 

of the bodies. The court-martial is ongoing. 

PERSONNEL, PLANS, AND POLICIES 

 On 30 September 2012, the Army's end-strength was 667,839 Army 

Soldiers on active duty, including Active Guard and Reserve 

(AGR) and mobilized Soldiers, compared to 706,506 at the end of 

fiscal year 2011 (FY11). The attorney strength of the Active 

Army (AA) Judge Advocate General's Corps at the end of 2012 was 

1,974 (including general officers). This total does not include 

63 officers attending law school while participating in the 

Funded Legal Education Program. The FY12 end-strength of 1,974 

compares with an end-strength of 1,897 in FY11; 1,858 in FY10; 

1,730 in FY09; 1,647 in FY08; 1,643 in FY07; 1,638 in FY06; 

1,603 in FY05; 1,547 in FY04; 1,506 in FY03; 1,474 in FY02; and 

1,462 in FY01. The diverse composition of our FY12 AA attorney 

population included 129 African-Americans, 52 Hispanics, 103 

Asians and Native Americans, and 503 women. 
48 

The grade distribution of the Corps' AA attorneys for FY12 was 

8 general officers authorized (five filling JAGC authorizations, 

two serving in MOS coded positions - the Legal Counsel to the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Chief Prosecutor 

for the Commissions - and an eighth general officer serving in a 

branch immaterial billet - Commander, Rule of Law Field Force -

Afghanistan), 145 colonels, 233 lieutenant colonels, 487 majors, 

and 1,109 captains. An additional 101 warrant officers, 567 

civilian attorneys, and 1,797 enlisted paralegals supported 

legal operations worldwide. 

 The attorney strength of the USAR Judge Advocate General's 

Corps at the end of FY12 was 1,805 (which includes officers 

serving in Troop Program Units, the Drilling Individual 

Mobilization Augmentation Program, the Individual Ready Reserve, 

and the Active Guard & Reserves) and the attorney strength of 

the Army National Guard at the end of FY12 was 846. At the end 

of FY12, over 380 Army JAGC personnel (officer and enlisted, AA 

and RC) were deployed in operations in Afghanistan, Bosnia, 

Cuba, Kosovo, Egypt, Honduras, Israel, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, 

Djibouti and elsewhere across Africa. Judge Advocates were also 

deployed in support of Hurricane Sandy relief efforts in the New 

York region. 

DANA K. CHIPMAN 

Lieutenant General, USA 

The Judge Advocate General 
49 

APPENDIX - U.S. ARMY MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Report Period: FISCAL YEAR 2012 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE 

(+)/ DECREASE (-

) OVER LAST 

REPORT 

GENERAL 725 656 69 +17.5% 

BCD SPECIAL [A] 465 444 21 +0.2% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 0 0 0 +0.0% 

SUMMARY 473 463 10 -25.2%

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

REPORT 

-7.5%

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED [B] 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL)

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES (+ 

DISMISSALS)

87 (+19) 

NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 284

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL -- NUMBER OF BCD’S 245

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GCM 405

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPCM 244

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GCM 252

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

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF 97 [C] 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D]

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D]

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 620 [C]

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 561 [E]

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 156[C]

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

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

NUMBER OF CASES 

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD

-2.1% 

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE ACCA 

NUMBER 539

PERCENTAGE 86.94%

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

FORCES (CAAF) 

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 

 

74.33%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS +1.65%

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 

 

28.26%
50 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS +142.58%

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES 

 

20.50%

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

CASES REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD +121.62%
51 

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

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF 

PERIOD 0 

RECEIVED 10

DISPOSED OF 9

GRANTED 0

DENIED 8

NO JURISDICTION 0

WITHDRAWN 1

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF 

PERIOD 1 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 555

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 419

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 170

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 46

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 15

PART 10 – STRENGTH

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 550064 [F]

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ)

NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 34772

RATE PER 1,000 63.21

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

PREVIOUS PERIOD +2.53% 

EXPLANATORY NOTES 

[A] Cases convened by GCM convening authority. 

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

[C] Includes only cases briefed and at issue. 

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

separately. 

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

withdrawn. 

[F] This number includes only Active Component Soldiers and does not 

include USAR, National Guard or AGR personnel. 
52 

SECTION 4 

 REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

NAVY 
53 

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY 

OCTOBER 1, 2011 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2012 

SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF 

MILITARY JUSTICE 

JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 

The Judge Advocate General (JAG) co-chairs with the Staff 

Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, quarterly, 

the Military Justice Oversight Council. This council also 

consists of Commander, Naval Legal Service Command (CNLSC), the 

Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and 

the Assistant Judge Advocates General. 

The JAG and CNLSC made frequent inspections of U.S. Navy 

legal offices in the United States, Europe, and the Far East in 

order to supervise the administration of military justice in 

accordance with the requirement of Article 6(a), Uniform Code of 

Military Justice (UCMJ). These inspections, conducted by 

subject matter experts, examined the full range of military 

justice processes. 

ASSISTANT JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, MILITARY JUSTICE (AJAG-MJ) 

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

duties relating to military justice matters. Additionally, the 

AJAG-MJ serves as a member of the Office of the Judge Advocate 

General (OJAG) Ethics Committee, the Judicial Screening Board, 

the Military Justice Oversight Council, and oversees OJAG’s 

Military Justice Division (Code 20) and National Security 

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

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

Activity (Code 04). In this capacity, the AJAG-MJ oversees the 

Administrative Support Division (Code 40), Appellate Defense 

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

The AJAG-MJ has the ultimate responsibility for disposition of 

all records of trial pursuant to statute, regulation, or 

appropriate appellate court rules of practice and procedure. 
54 

CRIMINAL LAW DIVISION (CODE 20) 

Organization. Code 20 was staffed by eight active duty judge 

advocates, one reservist on one-year orders, an eight-member 

reserve unit and four civilian staff members. A Highly 

Qualified Expert (HQE) was hired and joined Code 20 in September 

2012. 

 Code 20’s HQE is a former state Deputy Attorney General and 

Assistant District Attorney, with extensive experience 

litigating complex cases. In her previous positions, in 

addition to other responsibilities, she supervised, trained, and 

assisted office attorneys with all aspects of case preparation 

and trials. 

Mission. Code 20 coordinates military justice policy within 

the Department of the Navy (DON), drafts legal and policy advice 

for the JAG on a wide variety of military justice matters, and 

reviews all legislative and regulatory proposals affecting 

military justice. The Division staffs all amendments to Chapter 

One of the JAG Manual and all other Secretarial and JAG 

regulations implementing or affecting the Uniform Code of 

Military Justice (UCMJ). The Division monitors all decisions of 

military appellate courts; tracks the status of military justice 

cases; provides opinions and staffs requests for JAG 

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

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

Justice (DOJ) processing of executive pardon requests relating 

to military convictions. Code 20 staffs requests for 

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

warrants of attachment, and coordinates with DOJ to approve 

grants of immunity and orders to testify for civilian witnesses 

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

representative to the Secretary of the Navy Clemency and Parole 

Board; provides legal opinions to the Board for Correction of 

Naval Records upon request; provides informal advice for all 

Navy and Marine Corps judge advocates engaged in military 

justice matters; processes all Article 69, 73, and 74(b) UCMJ 

reviews and requests; and acts as the 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 serves as the Commander, Naval 

Legal Service Command’s (CNLSC) Special Assistant for Military 

Justice and advises CNLSC on policies, plans, resources and 

procedures affecting NLSC’s military justice mission. In that 
55 

capacity, the Code 20 Division Director and Code 20 Deputy 

Director assist the CNLSC in Article 6, UCMJ, inspections of 

NLSC commands and detachments. 

 The Code 20 Division Director continued to serve as the 

Navy’s Representative to the Joint Service Committee (JSC) for 

Military Justice and functions as the Navy’s voting group member 

at regular meetings of the JSC. The JSC is the principal 

vehicle for staffing amendments to the UCMJ and Manual for 

Courts-Martial (MCM) and provides the Navy representative for 

meetings of the joint-service working group supporting the JSC. 

The 2012 Annual Review of the MCM was completed in accordance 

with the President’s requirement. 

The Code 20 Division Director was assigned to serve as the 

Service Advisor to the Defense Legal Policy Board (DLPB). The 

Board is a federal advisory committee that provides the 

Secretary of Defense independent, informed advice, opinions, and 

recommendations concerning matters relating to legal and legal 

policy matters within the Department of Defense. Code 20’s 

responsibility involved participation in several hearings and 

responding to numerous requests for information for the 

Subcommittee reviewing and providing recommendations on military 

justice in combat zones. 

Code 20 personnel assisted in the development, production, 

and execution of Navy-wide training for sexual assault awareness 

entitled Sexual Assault Prevention and Response - 

Leadership/Fleet (SAPR-L and SAPR-F). Focused on the themes of 

awareness and courage, the training utilized a dramatization 

followed by facilitated discussion to engage all service members 

in educational, face-to-face conversations about sexual assault. 

Further, as part of the SAPR Cross Functional Team, Code 20 

personnel met monthly with Navy’s major stakeholders to discuss 

SAPR related developments across the Fleet. Code 20 personnel 

were instrumental in the development of the Defense Sexual 

Assault Incident Database, which is expected to be online in 

2013. This comprehensive database will be operated by 

Commander, Navy Installations Command (CNIC) and will allow more 

accurate tracking and reporting of sexual assault incidents. 

Improving the quality and increasing the availability of 

military justice and trial advocacy training was a cornerstone 

of the JAG’s agenda for FY12. Code 20 played an important role 

in the improvement and centralization of military justice and 

trial advocacy training for the prosecution and defense bars 

(Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard), including maximizing the 
56 

positive impact of external funding sources. Code 20 personnel 

identified and centralized requirements for military justice 

litigation and trial advocacy training to foster a collaborative 

environment. Code 20 established and maintained a Litigation 

Training Coordination Council and coordinated with the Naval 

Justice School to develop new curricula. Code 20’s civilian and 

military attorneys also provided trial advocacy, military 

justice, sexual assault, and child sexual abuse litigation 

training for senior military and civilian personnel and Naval 

Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) agents. 

 A report on the development of Performance Measures (Metrics) 

for Prosecutors and Defense Counsel was completed during FY12 by 

the Justice Management Institute under contract with Code 20. 

The performance measures were organized into six primary 

categories including due process, victims’ rights and safety, 

accountability, timeliness, competency and communication. 

Within each of these categories, two separate series of measures 

were established. “System measures” focus on macro-level 

performance of the JAG Corps and “individual measures” indicate 

the extent to which individual performance contributed to the 

attainment of overall JAG Corps goals and objectives. These 

performance measures will be used to conduct a critical selfevaluation and increase the advocacy skills and training 

curriculum of those involved in the military justice process. 

Code 20 personnel assisted in the development of guidance 

for the Navy to implement the Secretary of Defense’s mandate to 

withhold the initial disposition authority (IDA) for allegations 

of rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, and attempts to commit 

these offenses to those officers who are Special Court-Martial 

Convening Authorities in the rank of captain or colonel or 

above. Code 20 provided input on a number of various 

legislative proposals affecting military justice or sexual 

assault prevention and response. 

Code 20 personnel participated in the ongoing development 

of the Naval Justice Information System (NJIS). This involved 

regular participation in the NJIS Board of Governance and 

various technical working groups. When implemented, this 

comprehensive system will manage cases at all phases and will be 

used to integrate law enforcement, investigations, and 

corrections, as well as command and judicial actions. 

Code 20 also provided steady support to CNLSC through onsite participation in the worldwide Article 6, UCMJ, 

inspections. Throughout the year, Code 20 personnel conducted 

the military justice component of the Article 6 inspections at 
57 

eight Region Legal Service Offices (RLSOs) and five now-former 

Naval Legal Service Offices (NLSOs). 

 Code 20 enhanced its active contact with the field through the 

monthly publication of Newsletters and Sidebars. These 

publications provide cogent and prompt updates on military 

justice matters for trial practitioners and Staff Judge 

Advocates (SJAs) alike. 

 During the past year, Code 20 completed review of 57 records 

of trial under Article 69(a), UCMJ; 12 records under Article 

69(b), UCMJ; and 5 petitions under Article 73, UCMJ. 

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT DIVISION (CODE 40) 

 Organization. Code 40 was staffed with one officer, two 

civilians and ten enlisted Marine Corps staff members. 

 

 Mission. Code 40 provides administrative and logistical 

support services to the Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Review 

Activity (NAMARA) and the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal 

Appeals (NMCCA). Code 40 personnel review for completeness all 

records of trial forwarded to the NMCCA 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 Federal Records Center 

in Suitland, Maryland; and administer all NMCCA and CAAF 

mandates and judgments on remand back to field commands for 

corrective action. During FY12, Code 40 reviewed and examined 

633 records of trial for completeness prior to forwarding the 

records to the appropriate level for appellate review pursuant 

to Articles 66 and 69(a) UCMJ. 

 

APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISION (Code 45) 

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

and Marine Corps judge advocates, 1 civilian attorney, and 5 

civilian support personnel. 21 Navy and Marine Corps Reserve 

judge advocates supported Code 45. 
58 

Mission. Code 45 represents Navy and Marine Corps appellants 

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

provides assistance to trial defense counsel in the field by 

helping to file extraordinary writs before the NMCCA and CAAF, 

providing general training, and providing advice on specific 

cases in litigation. Code 45 also works closely with the 

Defense Counsel Assistance Program (DCAP) by coordinating 

training and advice given provided to counsel in the field. 

 

NMCCA FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

Briefs Filed 230 173 159 161 191 

Total Cases 

Filed 778 831 744 531 488 

Oral 

Arguments 6 14 15 20 19 

CAAF

Petitions 

with 

Supplemental 

Briefs Filed

151 96 69 81 117 

Briefs Filed 27 31 21 20 19 

Oral 

Arguments 32 23 11 7 12 

U.S. Supreme 

Court 

Petitions

6 5 6 2 3 

As depicted above, in FY12, a total of 514 new cases were 

docketed at the NMCCA and received in Code 45. Code 45 filed 

488 initial pleadings with 19 oral arguments at the NMCCA. The 

initial pleadings include 191 briefs (this number includes 

summary assignments), 297 merit submissions, and 10 summary 

assignments. A total of 117 supplemental briefs to petitions 

were filed at the CAAF, resulting in 19 full briefs and 12 oral 

arguments. 

Capital Litigation. There are no capital cases pending 

review. The last DON appellant under a capital sentence was 

afforded relief on appeal and is now incarcerated for life. 

This case was decided in August 2012. 
59 

 Assistance to Trial Defense Counsel. Code 45 provides 

advice and support to Navy and Marine Corps trial defense 

counsel around the world. Code 45’s experienced appellate 

attorneys respond to short-fused questions from trial defense 

counsel and assist in preparing and filing extraordinary writs. 

Code 45 also provides training on recent appellate developments 

and important trial issues. 

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT DIVISION (CODE 46) 

 Organization. Code 46 was staffed with ten active-duty 

judge advocates, one civilian attorney, and two civilian 

administrative employees. Code 46 was supported by a Reserve 

detachment based out of Minneapolis, Minnesota. 12 Reserve 

judge advocates augmented Code 46, contributing an average of 

two briefs per month. 

 Mission. In accordance with Article 70, UCMJ, Code 46’s 

primary mission is to represent the United States before the 

NMCCA and CAAF. Additionally, in coordination with the Navy and 

Marine Corps Trial Counsel Assistance Programs (TCAP), Code 46 

provides support to SJAs, review officers, and trial counsel 

throughout the Navy and Marine Corps on pre-trial, courtmartial, and post-trial matters. 

 Code 46 provides direct legal services to Marine and Navy 

judge advocates around the world, responding to hundreds of 

questions from the field pertaining to trial and appeal matters. 

Code 46 helps ensure the uniformity and consonance of legal 

positions taken by the United States before trial and appellate 

courts. Code 46 augments its delivery of legal advice to trial 

counsel through a robust working relationship with TCAP. Code 

46’s relationship with Service TCAP representatives helps ensure 

that important issues are not waived or surrendered for 

appellate litigation purposes by inconsistent or inaccurate 

positions by trial counsel. This coordination also facilitates 

improved communication between trial and appellate counsel and 

provides for closer coordination during government interlocutory 

appeals. 

 Pleadings. A summary of FY12 appellate activity is 

provided in the following chart. “Briefs Filed” includes 

Government briefs, answers to supplements, and supplemental 

briefs. “Other Pleadings” includes responses to extraordinary 

writs, motion responses, responses to Court Orders, and 

Petitions for Reconsideration. The number of NMCCA briefs filed 
60 

by the Government increased to 198 in FY12, and other filings to 

the NMCCA increased from 144 in FY11 to 439 in FY12. Highly 

complex topics dominated issues and briefings, to include 

military courts’ statutory duties; the limits of the UCMJ’s 

right to military counsel; Congress’ revisions to Article 120, 

UCMJ; and the President’s ability to inform substantive military 

law regarding lesser-included offenses. UCMJ Article 62 appeals 

from trial court decisions continue a downward trend: 11 in 

FY08, 9 in FY09, 3 in FY10, 2 in FY11, and 1 in FY12. The 

single UCMJ Article 62 appeal filed at the NMCCA from United 

States v. Murray involved a search and seizure issue regarding a 

military judge’s decision to suppress DNA results from a sexual 

assault examination. 

FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

NMCCA

Briefs Filed 232 154 163 188 198

Other Pleadings 340 313 373 144 439

Oral Arguments 6 14 15 20 19

CAAF

Briefs Filed 37 28 24 22 24

Other 

Pleadings

146 60 102 70 111

Oral Arguments 32 23 11 7 12

 Code 46’s practice at CAAF included certification of 

significant matters of military justice in two cases: United 

States v. Porter and United States v. Nash. 

 During FY12, Code 46 continued its representation of the 

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

This case was decided in August 2012. 

 Code 46 counsel benefitted from an intensive appellate 

advocacy training program that included attendance at the 

American Bar Association’s (ABA) Appellate Judges’ Education 

Institute, Appellate Lawyers Annual Practice Institute, the CAAF 

Annual Conference, and the Judge Advocate Association’s 

Appellate Advocacy Symposium. 

 Code 46 expanded the DON “electronic records of trial” 

program to include Camp Pendleton, California; Naval Station 

Norfolk, Virginia; Camp Lejuene, North Carolina; and Marine 

Corps Base Hawaii. 
61 

ASSISTANT JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, CHIEF JUDGE, DEPARTMENT 

OF THE NAVY (CJDON) 

 The CJDON 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’ 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. In June 2012, 

the first CJDON was promoted to Rear Admiral (Lower Half) prior 

to retirement. 

THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

(NMCCA) 

 The NMCCA is responsible for all cases referred under UCMJ 

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

entertain petitions for extraordinary relief. During FY12, the 

NMCCA was comprised of eight appellate judges, four each from 

the Navy and Marine Corps. Of these eight judges, four also 

serve on the United States Court of Military Commission Review 

(USCMCR), one of whom serves as the Chief Judge of USCMCR. The 

NMCCA was also supported by seven Navy Reserve and three Marine 

Corps Reserve appellate judges. 

The NMCCA hosted its second annual Judicial Training course 

in FY12. The course brought distinguished practitioners and 

professors to the NMCCA for three days to train active-duty, 

Reserve, and civilian court personnel. 

The NMCCA continues to maintain a website at 

http://www.jag.navy.mil/nmcca.htm, where the NMCCA’s published 

and unpublished opinions can be downloaded. In addition, the 

NMCCA maintains audio files from past oral arguments and a 

docket for upcoming oral arguments. Application for admission 

to the NMCCA bar and rules of the court are available on the 

site. 

The NMCCA was supported by four Navy and Marine Corps 

junior officer law clerks and a mid-grade officer senior law 

clerk. The clerks provide valuable legal and administrative 

support to the appellate judiciary and gain valuable legal 

analysis and writing experience to inform their later appellate 

and trial practices. 

NAVY-MARINE CORPS TRIAL JUDICIARY (CODE 52) 
62 

 Code 52 is a unified trial judiciary that provides certified 

military judges for all Navy and Marine Corps general and 

special courts-martial. Code 52 is organized into eight 

judicial circuits worldwide and is supported by Naval Reserve 

and Marine Corps Reserve Individual Mobilization Augmentees. 

During FY12, Code 52 was comprised of 22 active-duty and 17 

Reserve judges. 

 Code 52 provided comprehensive and timely judicial services to 

Fleet activities, shore activities, and Marine forces around the 

world. Marine Corps cases were tried in the forward-deployed 

combat zone in Afghanistan. Code 52 judges presided over 

numerous high-profile cases, including the final trial for the 

Haditha events. Code 52 also provided officers to serve as 

Military Judges on the Military Commissions. 

 During FY12, Code 52 realigned the areas of responsibility 

within the Circuits and established the Hawaii Judicial Circuit. 

A Navy military judge was reassigned to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, to 

preside over judicial services in addition to the Marine Corps 

military judge already assigned to the area. In addition to the 

realignment, Code 52 updated the Uniform Rules of Practice and 

the Trial Guide. 

 In FY12, Code 52 presided over 287 general courts-martial and 

854 special courts-martial, for a total of 1,141 cases. 722 

cases were tried to verdict. 

 Code 52 co-sponsored the Joint Military Judges Annual Training 

with The National Judicial College (NJC). All members of the 

active trial judiciary, and nearly all Reserve members, 

participated in this training. The NJC provided judge-specific 

training courses that Code 52 judges attended throughout the 

year. Successful completion of NJC curriculum can lead to a 

professional certificate, Masters degree, or Doctorate degree. 

Many Code 52 judges have been awarded the Professional 

Certificate in Judicial Development, General Jurisdiction Trial 

Skills from the NJC. 

 Code 52 judges also provided training at the Defense Institute 

of International Legal Studies, Navy and Marine Corps Senior 

Officers Courses, Legal Officer Courses, Naval Justice School 

Basic Lawyer Courses, the Army Judge Advocate General’s Legal 

Center and School Military Judges Course, and other Service 

courses. Code 52 judges routinely mentored judge advocates 
63 

through formal and informal training sessions in all judicial 

circuits. 

NAVAL LEGAL SERVICE COMMAND (NLSC) 

 CNLSC also serves as the Deputy Judge Advocate General of the 

Navy. 

 In FY12, NLSC was comprised of 402 judge advocates, one Civil 

Engineer Corps officer, five Limited Duty (Law) officers, 195 

legalmen, and 264 civilians. NLSC provided 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. 

 NLSC provided legal advice, services, and training to the 

Fleet through 18 commands. There were eight NLSOs, which 

provided defense and legal assistance, and nine RLSOs, which 

provided prosecution and command services. From these commands, 

NLSC provided counsel for court-martial prosecution and defense, 

administrative boards, physical evaluation boards, legal 

assistance, and legal advice to local commanders and their 

staffs. The Naval Justice School provided legal training to 

officers, enlisted and civilians for all of the Sea Services, 

including basic legal training for Navy, Marine Corps and Coast 

Guard judge advocates and legalmen. During FY12, NLSC provided 

counsel for 134 general courts-martial, 145 special courtsmartial and 1,419 administrative boards. NLSC also provided 

111,158 attorney legal assistance services and 70,121 nonattorney legal assistance customer services. NLSC continued to 

be the primary source for personnel to meet the JAG Corps’ 

Individual Augmentation (IA) requirements and provided twothirds of the personnel requirements in support of Overseas 

Contingency Operations. During FY12, 40 judge advocates and 4 

legalmen from NLSC deployed in direct support of operations in 

Iraq, Afghanistan, Djibouti, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 

 

During FY12, NLSC prepared to realign the NLSO 

organization. Realignment was necessary in order to meet 

growing demands for legal services and continue providing 

quality military justice service. As of October 1, 2012, CNLSC 

replaced eight NLSOs with four Defense Service Offices. The 

four Defense Service Offices are: Defense Service Office North, 

which covers the northeast continental U.S., Europe and 

Southwest Asia; Defense Service Office Southeast, which covers 

southeast and central continental U.S.; Defense Service Office 

Pacific, which covers Japan, Hawaii, and Southeast Asia; and 
64 

Defense Service Office West, which covers western continental 

U.S. The Defense Service Offices’ sole mission is to defend 

service members in military justice proceedings, represent them 

at administrative boards, and provide advice on non-judicial 

punishment and adverse personnel actions. 

A.

NAVAL JUSTICE SCHOOL (NJS) 

Organization. NJS is an echelon three command reporting to 

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

Island. Teaching detachments are based in San Diego, 

California, and Norfolk, Virginia (areas of fleet 

concentration). A three-person Branch Office is co-located with 

the U.S. Army’s Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School 

(TJAGLCS) in Charlottesville, Virginia. 

Mission. NJS oversees formal training of naval judge 

advocates and legalmen to ensure their career-long professional 

development and readiness; provides 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; trains 

commanders and senior officers in the practical aspects of 

military law to enable them to perform their command and staff 

duties; and trains other personnel to assist in the sound 

administration of military justice. 

In FY12, NJS provided instruction to more than 20,402 

students worldwide, including 3,545 in resident courses ranging 

in length from three days to eleven weeks. 

In addition to teaching NJS courses, NJS instructors 

provide off-site training in military justice, administrative 

law, and operational law to other commands on board Naval 

Station Newport including the Naval War College, Command 

Leadership School, Officer Development School, Senior Enlisted 

Academy, Surface Warfare Officers School Command, Officer 

Candidate School, Naval Academy Preparatory School, Limited 

Duty/Chief Warrant Officer Indoctrination School, Supply 

Officers School Command, and the Submarine Officer Advanced 

Course at Naval Submarine Base New London, Groton, Connecticut.

Academic Programs. NJS has eight “core” courses that 

include training in military justice. These courses are: 

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

offered three times annually, provides accession training for 
65 

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 

UCMJ Article 27(b). FY12 graduates: 192. 

 

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

offered once in FY12, trains Navy enlisted personnel selected 

for conversion to the legalman (LN) rating. The course provides 

ten ABA-approved credits toward a paralegal degree or 

certificate in partnership with Roger Williams University. In 

addition to military-specific training in military justice, 

court reporting, administrative investigations, and 

administrative separations, the course includes four collegelevel courses taught by NJS officer instructors: Ethics, Legal 

Research and Writing I, Introduction to Law, and Emerging Legal 

Technologies. FY12 graduates: 9. 

3. 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. FY12 graduates: 77. 

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

course, offered twice annually, provides court reporter training 

to Legal Services Specialists, pay 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 wpm, court-reporting grammar and punctuation, speech–

recognition technology, digital recording software, and the 

production of verbatim and summarized court-martial records of 

proceedings. FY12 graduates: 18. 

5. Senior Officer Course (SOC) in Military Justice and 

Civil Law. This three-day course is designed for commanding 

officers, executive officers, and officers in charge and is open 

to other officers in grades O-4 and above with NJS approval. 

The SOC trains officers in the execution of the legal 

responsibilities of command with instruction in military justice 
66 

(including sexual assault case disposition), administrative law, 

and civil law. In FY12, NJS provided 29 offerings of the SOC in 

Newport, Rhode Island; San Diego, California; Norfolk, Virginia; 

Camp Pendleton, California; Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; Parris 

Island, South Carolina; Quantico, Virginia; and Pensacola, 

Florida. Per NAVADMIN 302/12, this course is now mandatory for 

Navy O-6s en route to command. FY12 graduates: 917. 

6. Legal Officer Course. This three-week course prepares 

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

functions in commands not large enough to warrant assignment of 

a judge advocate. FY12 graduates: 498. 

7. Legal Clerk Course. 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. 

FY12 graduates: 391. 

8. Senior Enlisted Leadership Course (SELC) in Military 

Justice and Civil Law. This three-day course provides senior 

enlisted leaders of all services training in a wide range of 

military law topics with primary focus on military justice 

matters. In Newport, Rhode Island, portions of the SELC are 

incorporated into the core curriculum at the Navy's Senior 

Enlisted Academy. FY12 graduates: 347. 

Continuing Legal Education. In addition to the “core” 

courses, NJS provided 23 continuing legal education (CLE) 

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

state bar associations. Most of these courses focus upon 

military justice. In FY12, these resident courses reached 776 

active duty and 96 reserve legal professionals. 

The bi-annual Trial Counsel and Defense Counsel Orientation 

courses teach Navy and Marine Corps counsel how to effectively 

prepare, manage, and try cases from the investigation stage 

through sentencing, with a particular focus on the practical 

aspects of defense and prosecution. The Basic Trial Advocacy 

(BTA) 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. The Intermediate Trial Advocacy (ITA) course was 

designed to build upon the basic concepts covered in BTA and to 

refine trial advocacy techniques. It became clear in FY12 that 

students attending ITA were indistinguishable from students 
67 

attending BTA; therefore, while BTA will continue to be offered, 

the NJS Board of Advisors approved removing ITA from the course 

catalog after FY12. The Litigating Complex Cases course 

addresses various substantive and procedural topics of practical 

concern to trial and defense counsel handling complex cases. 

This course is designed for experienced judge advocates familiar 

with case preparation and management. The Senior Trial and 

Defense Counsel Litigation and Mentoring Course develops 

management skills for senior trial and defense counsel and gives 

senior trial and defense counsel the skills to lead and 

professionally develop junior counsel. The course also covers 

developments in military justice and guidance for supervising 

and trying more sensitive and high-visibility cases such as 

sexual assaults. 

NJS also offers specialized instruction focused on sexual 

assault litigation. Prosecution of Alcohol-Facilitated Sexual 

Assaults (PAFSA) is a week-long course taught in conjunction 

with AEquitas, the Prosecutor’s Resource on Violence Against 

Women. It focuses on substantive aspects of prosecuting 

alcohol-facilitated sexual assaults and includes small-group 

practical exercises to hone skills such as conducting direct and 

cross examinations of sexual assault nurse examiners, 

toxicologists, victims, and the accused. In addition, NJS 

facilitates two-day East Coast and West Coast Sexual Assault 

Prosecution and Investigation Mobile Training Teams (MTTs) twice 

annually for prosecutors and NCIS agents. These MTTs are 

coordinated in conjunction with TCAP. Defending Sexual Assault 

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

sexual assault litigation for defense counsel. DSAC has been 

taught in conjunction the Center for American and International 

Law in Plano, Texas. PAFSA and DSAC are among the most in 

demand NJS military justice courses. 

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, 

charging, preferral, convening courts-martial, referral, the 

Victim-Witness Assistance Program, Sexual Assault-Initial 

Disposition Authority, and post-trial processing. 

Legalman Paralegal Education Program (LPEP). Begun in 

2010, LPEP is a government-funded full-time education program 

leading to an Associate of Science degree in Paralegal Studies. 

The program is mandatory for all LNs in order to meet minimum 

occupational standards for the LN rating. Following LN 

accession, students participate in either the resident option, 
68 

during which they study in-residence at Roger Williams 

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

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

legalmen are eligible to return to Newport for the in-resident 

semester with RWU or participate in the distance learning option 

as their degree plan requires. In FY12, 25 students attended 

LPEP as resident students, and an additional 145 students were 

enrolled in the distance learning option. 

Publications. NJS publishes one edition of the Naval Law 

Review annually. NJS also publishes a course catalog, the 

USN/USMC Commander’s Quick Reference Handbook for Legal Issues 

(Quickman), as well as various study guides in support of its 

academic programs. 

Distance Learning. In FY12, NJS built upon the success of 

its Defense Connect Online (DCO) webcast program. NJS offered 

four military-justice-related DCO webcasts, including sessions 

on serving as an Article 32 investigating officer and the impact 

of the Supreme Court’s decisions in U.S. v. Lafler and U.S. v. 

Frye. Approximately 100 attendees participated in these hourlong interactive sessions and many more viewed recordings of the 

sessions, which continue to be available for viewing online. In 

addition, NJS partnered with TJAGLCS to start offering full 

courses online via Blackboard. Dubbed “NJS Online,” military 

practitioners now have worldwide access to military justice 

courses. The courses last approximately two to four weeks and 

require two to four hours of mostly self-paced work per week. 

Instructors deliver training using a variety of online teaching 

tools, including assigned readings, recorded video training 

modules, live interactive sessions using DCO, discussion boards, 

and practical assignments. The FY12 military justice course was 

“Working With Experts.” In FY13, NJS will expand NJS Online to 

offer courses on post-trial processing and ethics for trial and 

defense counsel. 

Coordination. Through the Interservice Legal Education 

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

Students for TJAGLCS; and Commandant, Air Force Judge Advocate 

General’s School meet bi-annually to discuss new initiatives and 

opportunities for cross-training and increase cooperation and 

efficiency in the training of legal personnel within the 

Department of Defense. 
69 

NAVY ACTIVITIES 

1. Military Justice Litigation Career Track (MJLCT). FY12 saw 

continued expansion in the MJLCT. At the close of FY12, there 

were 67 Navy MJLCT officers, and 45 were assigned within the 52 

MJLCT-designated billets. The remaining MJLCT officers were 

serving in billets at the Office of Military Commissions, on 

board aircraft carriers, at NJS, and attending post-graduate 

school to obtain Master of Laws degrees in Trial Advocacy. The 

“billet-fill rate” of nearly 87 percent is an improvement from 

last year’s rate of 77 percent and should stay relatively stable 

with projected FY13 rotations. 

 

 The promotion rate for MJLCT officers continues to be 

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

promotion by the FY13 boards at a rate consistent with or better 

than the overall in-zone selection rate. 

2. Sexual Assault Initiatives. The Navy implemented a multifaceted approach to address sexual assault awareness and 

training, prevention, victim response, and investigation and 

accountability. Navy judge advocates were integrally involved 

in all levels of sexual assault prevention and response 

initiatives, and a principal line of effort included optimizing 

litigation capability. 

 The Navy JAG Corps implemented several key initiatives to 

ensure that both the government and the accused receive the 

highest level of advocacy in all cases, including sexual assault 

cases. The MJLCT continues to provide officers with significant 

litigation experience to lead trial and defense departments and 

provide proven experience in the courtroom, personally 

conducting or overseeing litigation in sexual assault and other 

complex cases. This program leverages trial counsel, defense 

counsel, and judicial experience to enhance the effectiveness of 

our court-martial practice for complex cases. The Navy also 

continues to send career litigators to civilian post-graduate 

schools such as George Washington University, Georgetown 

University, Temple University, and California Western School of 

Law to receive Master of Laws degrees in litigation or trial 

advocacy. Many of the programs require students to participate 

in externships with local U.S. Attorney offices or defense 

clinics, providing practical civilian criminal justice 

experience to Navy litigators. 

 To further refine the JAG Corps’ litigation capabilities, 

in FY12, the Navy established an externship program and assigned 
70 

two mid-level career officers to work in the sex crimes units in 

the Office of the State Attorney in Jacksonville, Florida, and 

the San Diego District Attorney’s Office in San Diego, 

California. These six-week clinical training externships 

enabled the officers to gain valuable practical experience and 

insight into how civilian prosecutor’s offices manage a high 

volume of sexual assault cases. We intend to expand the program 

this year, targeting those officers who complete their Master of 

Laws degrees in trial advocacy. 

This past year, the JAG Corps hired two highly qualified 

experts (HQEs) and is in the process of hiring two more. HQEs 

channel significant sexual assault litigation experience into 

enhanced litigation skills and practices for prosecution and 

defense teams in the field. In September 2012, the Navy hired 

an HQE to work at the headquarters level to enhance sexual 

assault litigation training, trial practice and policy. She has 

nearly 20 years of experience prosecuting sex crimes, domestic 

violence and human trafficking crimes. She replaced the GS-15 

deputy director in the Criminal Law Division of OJAG and 

provides advice at the policy and training oversight level. In 

December 2012, the Navy hired an HQE to work with the Defense 

Counsel Assistance Program. He is a retired Marine Corps 

Lieutenant Colonel who completed two tours as a military judge 

while on active duty and has over 15 years of civilian 

experience as an assistant federal public defender and 

preeminent civilian military criminal defense attorney. The 

Navy is in the process of hiring another HQE with civilian 

criminal litigation and training experience who will work with 

the Trial Counsel Assistance Program. 

 

3. Synthetic Drugs. To help detect and prevent an alarming 

trend of synthetic compound abuse by service members, the Navy 

began random urine testing for synthetic compounds, including 

spice and similar products, in March 2012. The random testing 

will eventually allow for 2,500 Navy samples to be tested per 

month. Samples are collected using established urinalysis 

procedures. Synthetic compound samples are shipped to the Navy 

Drug Screening Lab in Great Lakes and then are forwarded to a 

civilian contract lab for analysis. Commanders may not take 

disciplinary or adverse administrative actions against a service 

member based solely on a positive urinalysis result from the 

civilian contract lab; however, based on DoD policy, commanders 

may use contract lab positive results to initiate an 

investigation, and the results of the investigation may be used 

as evidence in disciplinary or adverse administrative actions. 

In addition, the President signed the Synthetic Drub Abuse 
71 

Prevention Act in July 2012, making the use, possession or 

distribution of certain synthetic drugs illegal. Specifically, 

the Act added fifteen synthetic cannabinoids, commonly known as 

“spice,” and eleven synthetic cathinones, commonly known as 

“bath salts,” to Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. 

Service members caught using, distributing, or possessing these 

substances may be charged with a violation of Article 112a, 

UCMJ. 

4. Defense Counsel Assistance Program (DCAP). DCAP is aligned 

under NLSC and reports to the Chief of Staff, Naval Legal 

Service Office (COS-NLSO, as of October 1, 2012, COS-DSO). The 

DCAP office is staffed with an active-duty Navy O-5 Director colocated with Defense Service Office West in San Diego, 

California, and an active-duty Navy O-4 Deputy Director colocated with Code 45 in Washington, D.C. Both the Director and 

Deputy Director are members of the MJLCT. In December 2012, the 

Navy hired an HQE to work with DCAP. 

 

 DCAP’s mission is to provide assistance to Navy, Marine Corps, 

and Coast Guard defense counsel throughout the Fleet, offering 

advice and technical expertise on all issues relevant to 

military justice and adverse personnel actions. DCAP offers 

assistance during every phase of court-martial litigation, 

including initial case analysis, evidentiary issues, pre-trial 

motions, negotiations, openings, examinations, closings, and 

post-trial processing. 

 

 Although not typically detailed as defense counsel, DCAP 

personnel are considered members of the detailed defense 

counsel’s office and are authorized to consult with detailed 

counsel on a confidential and privileged basis through every 

phase of court-martial litigation. DCAP assistance includes 

developing case strategies, drafting motions for appropriate 

relief and crafting arguments for motion sessions, developing 

investigations, conducting discovery, requests for witnesses and 

expert assistants, developing voir dire strategies and 

questions, assisting with complex or “emergency” legal research, 

preparing clients and witnesses for testimony, and helping 

counsel prepare opening statements, closing arguments, and 

direct and cross-examination. Finally, DCAP provides advice on 

post-trial matters and frequently consults with defense counsel 

regarding professional responsibility and ethics issues. 

 DCAP provides regular training to current and prospective 

defense counsel worldwide, both through command visits and via 

Defense Connect Online, with an emphasis on providing a defense 
72 

perspective. Furthermore, DCAP created a library of relevant 

continuing legal education and regularly publishes updates and 

guidance to defense counsel through written DCAP Advisories. 

DCAP also maintains a SharePoint site, providing defense counsel 

with resources such as a motions bank, an expert witness 

database, and an online discussion forum so individual counsel 

can provide the defense community with their own experiences and 

expertise. In FY12, DCAP provided sexual assault and trial 

advocacy training during on-site visits to Naples, Pearl Harbor, 

and Yokosuka. 

 The DCAP Director is a member of the Litigation Training 

Coordination Council and works closely with NJS to provide 

comprehensive training to defense counsel of all experience 

levels. Additionally, DCAP helps ensure that training materials 

and opportunities are available and utilized by Navy defense 

counsel. 

5. Trial Counsel Assistance Program (TCAP). TCAP is aligned 

under NLSC and reports to the Chief of Staff, Region Legal 

Service Offices (COS-RLSO). TCAP is directed by a Navy O-5 who 

is a MJLCT designated Expert. The Deputy Director is a GS-15 

civilian who is a former prosecutor and specializes in sexual 

assault prosecution and victims’ rights. The Assistant Director 

is a senior O-4 MJLCT designated Specialist I. The Navy is in 

the process of hiring a new HQE with civilian criminal 

litigation and training experience who will work with the TCAP.

 

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

resources and training for Navy trial counsel worldwide. The 

program supports and enhances the proficiency of the Navy 

prosecution bar, providing experienced reach-back and technical 

expertise. TCAP provides a full spectrum of advice and serves 

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

of pre-trial investigation, court-martial litigation and posttrial processing. TCAP counsel regularly assist and advise 

trial counsel on all aspects of prosecution, including drafting 

charges, trial preparation (including handling motions), 

discovery issues, securing and preparing expert witnesses, 

devising trial strategy, and professional responsibility issues. 

TCAP collaboratively engages trial counsel in the field with 

regular case review conferences. Likewise, TCAP coordinates 

with Code 46 (Appellate Government) to ensure court-martial 

prosecutions are effectively postured to withstand appellate 

review. 
73 

When requested, TCAP provides more in-depth case 

assistance. For example, TCAP counsel have been detailed as 

trial counsel and assistant trial counsel when an advanced level 

of proficiency is demanded. In FY12, the former TCAP director 

served as trial counsel in the prosecution of a commanding 

officer for sexual assault of two subordinates. The current 

director is presently serving as trial counsel in a highvisibility sexual assault case. The Assistant Director served 

as trial counsel in one high-profile sexual assault case. In 

addition, he handled several motions in complex cases and 

mentored junior counsel from RLSO Naval District Washington. 

TCAP regularly assists several RLSO counsel with sexual assault 

victim interviews as requested. 

 

TCAP is also responsible for monitoring all high-visibility 

cases and assists OJAG in monitoring the post-trial processing 

of cases to ensure compliance with judicially-mandated 

timelines. The Director of TCAP monitors the relative 

experience levels of trial counsel through on-site, periodic 

observations of Navy judge advocates in the performance of their 

prosecution functions, and provides recommendations for 

improvement as well as resource recommendations to COS-RLSO as 

necessary. 

 

In addition to case assistance and advice, TCAP provides 

resources to assist trial counsel. TCAP maintains an online 

repository for useful resources such as sample motions and 

responses, foundation questions, articles and manuals on 

prosecution, case disposition tracking, and an expert witness 

database. TCAP expanded its expert witness database to ensure 

the ability of trial counsel to secure experts in all 

disciplines for the government and defense. The TCAP website 

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

response to demands from the field and leverages enterprise 

knowledge for remote offices. TCAP monitors questions and 

responds to postings on the site and ensures trial counsel are 

aware of all available resources. The discussion board also 

facilitates a closer prosecution bar by enabling discussions 

between trial counsel worldwide. 

 Finally, TCAP plays a significant role in trial counsel 

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

of litigation training for trial counsel. TCAP personnel 

routinely serve as instructors on a variety of courses at the 

NJS schoolhouse, on Defense Connect Online and in-person at 

offices worldwide. Navy TCAP partnered with Marine Corps TCAP 

and NCIS to plan and execute two widely attended Mobile Training 
74 

Teams (MTTs) in Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, and San Diego, 

California, supporting Navy trial counsel, Marine prosecutors, 

and NCIS criminal investigators with complex litigation training 

and advice. TCAP also provided targeted on-site mobile training 

teams to all nine RLSOs focused on trial advocacy and sexual 

assault prosecution, as well as on-site case consultation and 

assistance. TCAP assisted OJAG’s Legal Assistance Division in 

formulating the legal assistance to victims practice area and 

advised on the interface between TCAP, the Victim and Witness 

Assistance Program, and legal assistance. 

CONCLUSION 

Military Justice remained a principal focus of effort for the 

Navy in FY12. The aforementioned initiatives, particularly the 

NLSC reorganization, hiring of HQEs, emphasis on training, and 

development of common case-tracking systems, will optimize the 

Navy’s military justice capabilities. With significant 

developments on the horizon — including eliminating sexual 

assault in our ranks, addressing the problem of synthetic drug 

use, developing case management and tracking systems, and 

assessing the NLSC reorganization — continued careful selfreflection and meaningful critique will remain priorities in 

FY13. 
75 

MARINE CORPS ACTIVITIES 

In FY12, the Marine Corps litigated 125 general courtsmartial and 322 special courts-martial to completion. At any 

given time, the Marine Corps averaged approximately 600 cases 

being handled at Legal Services Support Teams (LSSTs) and Legal 

Services Support Sections (LSSSs) Marine Corps-wide. Analysis 

of military justice trends indicates that, while the number of 

general courts-martial and special courts-martial decreased in 

FY12, the complexity of those cases increased. Therefore, there 

appears to be no reduction in the demand for military justice 

resources and expertise. 

In FY12, Marine Corps LSSTs and LSSSs received 2,575 

Requests for Legal Services (RLSs) on military justice cases 

from commands within the Department of the Navy. Of those 2,575 

RLSs, 17 percent resulted in adjudicated general or special 

courts-martial. The other 83 percent were adjudicated using 

alternate forums or disposition methods. Commanders’ decisions 

to dispose of offenses through alternative dispositions still 

require advice and case-work on the trial counsel side, client 

representation on the defense side, and military justice 

expertise and advice from the cognizant Staff Judge Advocate. 

As of September 30, 2012, the Marine Corps had 65 judge 

advocates assigned to trial counsel billets and 60 judge 

advocates assigned to defense counsel billets. Comparing this 

ratio of trial and defense counsel to the number of RLSs 

received during FY12 indicates that, on average, each trial 

counsel handled 40 cases and each defense counsel handled 43 

cases during FY12. 

INITIATIVES 

Every initiative to improve the delivery of legal services 

in the Marine Corps is based on the Marine Corps Legal Services 

Strategic Action Plan 2010-2015 (SAP). In FY12, to achieve the 

SAP’s strategic goals, the Marine legal community focused its 

efforts on seven key initiatives, many of which targeted the 

practice of law in the military justice functional area. These 

initiatives were: 

1. Reorganization of the Marine Corps Legal Community. In 

FY12, the Commandant of the Marine Corps comprehensively 

reevaluated the delivery model for legal services in the Marine 

Corps and directed a complete reorganization of the legal 

community. The Commandant’s reorganization directly linked to 

the fourth of the five SAP goals: “Evaluate and, as appropriate, 
76 

adapt organizational structure to right-size the legal community 

and achieve maximum efficiency with limited resources.” The 

reorganization created a regional model that provides 

flexibility to better utilize the experience and supervision of 

more seasoned prosecutors. Practically speaking, the new 

regional model, which became fully operational on October 1, 

2012, allows the Marine Corps to place the right counsel, with 

the appropriate expertise, supervision, and support staff, on 

the right case, regardless of location. 

The legal reorganization greatly increases the experience, 

training, and expertise available for prosecuting complex cases. 

The reorganization divided the legal community into four 

geographic regions — National Capital Region, East, West, and 

Pacific. These regions are designated Legal Service Support 

Areas (LSSA) and are aligned with the structure of our regional 

installation commands. Each LSSA contains a Legal Services 

Support Section (LSSS) that is supervised by a colonel judge 

advocate officer-in-charge. Each LSSS contains a Regional Trial 

Counsel (RTC) office that is led by an experienced lieutenant 

colonel litigator whose extensive experience provides effective 

regional supervision over the prosecution of courts-martial 

cases. This new construct provides for better sharing of 

resources throughout the legal community and ensures that 

complex cases, such as sexual assaults, are assigned to 

experienced counsel best suited to handle them. 

Within the RTC is a Complex Trial Team (CTT) that gives the 

Marine Corps a special victim capability. This existing 

capability will comply with the newly required special victim 

capability established by the FY13 National Defense 

Authorization Act. The CTT contains a civilian Highly Qualified 

Expert (HQE), two experienced military prosecutors, military 

criminal investigators, a legal administrative officer, and 

paralegal support. The civilian HQE is an experienced civilian 

prosecutor who provides training and mentoring for all 

prosecutors in the region. The HQEs are assigned to the actual 

trial shops, working directly with prosecutors, where they will 

have the most impact. The HQEs will report directly to the 

cognizant RTC and will provide expertise on criminal justice 

litigation with a focus on prosecution of complex cases. 

Principal functions will be to consult and mentor on the 

prosecution of complex cases, develop and implement training, 

and create standard operating procedures for investigation and 

prosecution of sexual assault and similarly complex cases. 

Additionally, the HQEs will be responsible for the training of 

all personnel with designated responsibilities associated with 
77 

the Marine Corps Victim and Witness Assistance Program (VWAP). 

This will include being designated as the Regional Victim 

Witness Liaison Officer for Marine Corps installations. 

The two military prosecutors in the CTT are selected based 

on experience, training, and demonstrated ability as successful 

litigators. To augment the experience they already bring to the 

billet, the Marine Corps is beginning to send these prosecutors 

to the Army’s two-week course for sexual assault investigators 

at Fort Leonard Wood to help them better understand the most 

current techniques used to investigate sexual assault. The CTT 

prosecutors will either prosecute complex cases themselves or 

train and assist other counsel in the region with complex cases. 

The criminal investigators and the legal administrative officer 

in the CTT provide a key support role in complex prosecutions. 

Historically, a prosecutor was individually burdened with the 

coordination of witnesses and experts, the gathering of 

evidence, background investigations, and finding additional 

evidence for rebuttal, sentencing, or other aspects of the 

trial. These logistical elements of a trial are even more 

demanding in a complex trial; the presence of criminal 

investigators and the legal administrative officer allow Marine 

Corps prosecutors to focus on preparing their case. 

This legal reorganization complements the September 2011 

reorganization of Marine Corps defense services into the Defense 

Services Organization. The September 2011 reorganization 

mandated that funding for training, resources, and facilities be 

consistently provided across the Marine Corps legal community, 

and required equitable distribution, commensurate with mission 

requirements, between the defense function and the prosecution 

function with respect to access to resources, facilities, 

attendance at continuing legal education courses, training 

funds, and support staff. The creation of the Defense Service 

Organization also ensured defense autonomy in the assignment of 

defense counsel. 

Altogether, the legal reorganization ensures an adequate 

level of experience and supervision not only at the headquarters 

level, but also in each LSSS and LSST. To that end, the Marine 

Corps specifically classified certain key military justice 

billets, including senior trial and defense counsel, so that 

billet holders must possess a Master of Laws degree in Criminal 

Law. 
78 

2. Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 

A. Legal Assistance for Victims of Crimes. In addition to 

the victim advocate systems already in place, the Marine Corps 

implemented 10 U.S.C. § 1565b, which makes legal assistance, 

assistance by a Sexual Assault Response Coordinator, and 

assistance by a sexual assault victim advocate available to 

victims of sexual assault. The Marine Corps uses legal 

assistance attorneys to provide victims information about the 

following areas: (1) the Victim and Witness Assistance Program, 

including the rights and benefits afforded the victim; (2) the 

differences between the two types of reporting in sexual assault 

cases (restricted and unrestricted); (3) the military justice 

system, including the roles and responsibilities of the trial 

counsel, defense counsel, and investigators; (4) services 

available from appropriate agencies or offices for emotional and 

mental health counseling and other medical services; (5) the 

availability of and protections offered by civilian and military 

protective orders; and (6) eligibility for and benefits 

potentially available as part of the transitional compensation 

program. 

B. Detailing and Training of Counsel. Marine Corps 

Bulletin (MCBul) 5813, “Detailing of Trial Counsel, Defense 

Counsel, and Article 32, UCMJ, Investigating Officers” was 

published on July 2, 2012. The MCBul ensures that judge 

advocates who are detailed as trial counsel (TC), defense 

counsel (DC), and Article 32 Investigating Officers (IOs) 

possess the appropriate expertise to perform their duties. Per 

the MCBul, detailing authorities must consider a number of 

factors when detailing TC, DC, and Article 32 IOs, including 

trial experience, education, training, and the individual 

characteristics of the case (e.g., special victims). 

The Marine Corps Trial Counsel Assistance Program (TCAP) 

continued to focus on training Marine Corps trial counsel, 

paralegals, investigators, and victim witness assistance 

personnel on processing sexual assault cases. TCAP operates as 

a centralized resource for Marine Corps trial counsel by 

maintaining a restricted membership SharePoint site, answering 

calls for assistance, and providing information regarding new 

developments, including updates to regulations governing sexual 

assault cases. TCAP training events included lectures and 

practical exercises designed to develop and hone skill sets for 

legal services personnel who handle criminal cases in response 

to allegations of sexual assault. 
79 

TCAP offered week-long courses focused primarily on the 

prosecution of sexual assault cases, general trial advocacy 

skills, victim support, and prosecutorial ethics. Instruction 

was provided by a mix of experienced judge advocates and expert 

witnesses who frequently testify in sexual assault cases (e.g., 

computer forensic experts, forensic DNA analysts, sexual assault 

nurse examiners). Additionally, two-day sexual assault Mobile 

Training Teams (MTT) served to supplement the week-long TCAP 

courses, with a heavier focus on issues relating to sexual 

assault cases and limited instruction on trial advocacy. 

Marine Corps TCAP and Navy TCAP co-sponsored the annual 

Prosecuting Alcohol Facilitated Sexual Assault (PAFSA) course at 

the Naval Justice School in Newport, RI. This weeklong course 

is specifically tailored to educate and train judge advocates on 

prosecuting sexual assaults facilitated by alcohol. 

C. Withholding of Initial Disposition Authority. 

Effective June 28, 2012, the Secretary of Defense withheld 

initial disposition authority to the Special Court-Martial 

Convening Authority in the grade of O-6 or above for allegations 

of the following offenses: rape, sexual assault, forcible 

sodomy, and any attempts to commit those offenses. The 

Commandant of the Marine Corps expanded this withholding to also 

include allegations of aggravated sexual contact, abusive sexual 

contact, rape of a child, sexual assault of a child, sexual 

abuse of a child, and any attempts to commit those offenses. 

This withholding of initial disposition authority also applies 

to all other alleged offenses arising from or relating to the 

same incident, whether committed by the alleged offender or the 

alleged victim (i.e., collateral misconduct). 

3. Victim and Witness Assistance Program (VWAP). The Marine 

Corps VWAP conducted its annual training event in FY12 to train 

victim witness assistance personnel on the policies and best 

practices for responding to victims of crimes. Those trained 

included installation-level victim witness liaison officers and 

unit-level victim witness assistance coordinators, who are 

frequently first responders to allegations of sexual assault. 

During FY12, the Marine Corps VWAP trained 111 personnel who 

provide victim witness assistance on sexual assault matters. 

The Marine Corps VWAP will publish a new Marine Corps Order on 

the VWAP in FY13. The new order will be a stand-alone document 

that will highlight the importance of VWAP to commanders. 

4. Case Tracking. The Marine Corps’ Case Management System 

(CMS), first introduced during FY10, brought to Marine Corps 
80 

leadership total visibility over all cases pending worldwide. 

CMS is invaluable as a case tracker for the end-user and as an 

oversight tool. Based upon its proven success, CMS was adopted 

for use by the Navy during FY12. Upon its implementation by the 

Navy in FY13, CMS will satisfy the Congressionally-mandated 

requirement for DON to use a single case tracking system. 

5. Building Communities of Practice. Through the TCAP, trial 

counsel Marine Corps-wide are virtually linked using a 

SharePoint site, and in-person during regional training courses. 

In addition, TCAP provides a real-time helpdesk to trial counsel 

for additional help on cases, beyond the capacity of their 

regional support structure. The Defense Service Organization 

has a Defense Counsel Assistance Program that operates similar 

to the TCAP, with online SharePoint resources for sharing ideas 

as well as legal products and resources. A post-trial 

SharePoint site was also established in FY12, enabling posttrial review officers and civilian support staff to engage with 

each other on complicated questions involving post-trial 

processes. All of these resources and innovations ensure that 

Marine Corps judge advocates know they are a part of a community 

of practice – a coordinated global practice group. 

6. Manpower Initiatives Affecting Military Justice. The final 

report of the Independent Review Panel to Study the Judge 

Advocate Requirements of the Department of the Navy, published 

in February 2011, concluded that there was a requirement for 

approximately 550 active-duty Marine judge advocates. The 

Marine Corps reached that goal in April 2012 and finished FY12 

with an inventory of 559 judge advocates. 

 To retain experience in the company grade ranks, the Marine 

Corps offered 85 percent of judge advocates an opportunity to 

remain on active duty through the career designation process. 

By maintaining high career designation rates and reducing the 

cost to company grade judge advocates of staying on active duty 

through the continuation of the Law School Education Debt 

Subsidy (LSEDS) program, the Marine Corps increased the level of 

expertise in supervisory positions. 

7. Reserve Support. After reorganizing the Marine Corps active 

duty legal community, the next step is to ensure that Marine 

Forces Reserve is properly situated to support the Marine Corps’ 

legal mission. The reserve legal community began a 

reorganization effort in FY12 with an anticipated completion in 

FY13. 
81 

POST-TRIAL CASE PROCESSING 

 In FY12, over 1,000 general, special, and summary courtsmartial entered the post-trial process. The Marine Corps worked 

diligently to ensure that its post-trial processing comports 

with all notions of speedy due process. The appellate courts 

have set time standards for review, and the Marine Corps has met 

those standards consistently. 

 United States v. Moreno sets forth time limits of 120 days 

from the date of trial (sentencing) to Convening Authority’s 

Action (CAA) and 30 days from CAA to docketing of the case with 

the Court of Criminal Appeals, for a total of 150 days. In 

FY12, the Marine Corps averaged 92 days from the date of trial 

to CAA and 15 days from CAA to docketing of the case with the 

court of criminal appeals, well within the standards required by 

Moreno. At the end of FY12, no cases exceeded the post-trial 

processing time limits set by Moreno. 

 Compliance with the Moreno time limits is primarily due to 

increased vigilance by military justice supervisors at all 

levels, along with additional oversight by Judge Advocate 

Division through the use of CMS. Cases that are over 90 days 

post-disposition are flagged on CMS via an automatic alert 

system that is reported to the SJA to CMC. Cases that exceed 

120 days are flagged with a red alert and reported to the SJA to 

CMC. Because CMS is a real-time case tracker, Judge Advocate 

Division is able to identify issues before they occur and to 

offer assistance as the need arises. The institutionalization 

of active monitoring at all supervisory levels through a single 

database real-time tracking system continues to ensure that 

every LSSS and SJA office consistently meets post-trial 

processing requirements. 

 Another significant improvement in post-trial processing 

times occurred with court-reporter transcription and record of 

trial authentication. In cases with convictions, a verbatim 

transcript must be prepared for post-trial review, and then must 

be authenticated by the military judge and the trial counsel 

assigned to the case. An increase in contested and complex 

cases led to a significant rise in the average in-court hours 

spent on each case. The increased complexity also adds to the 

required time for post-trial review, as more complex cases 

require more thorough scrutiny upon review. Nevertheless, 

average transcription time actually decreased over the past 
82 

year. The enlisted community has concentrated significantly in 

the past two years on training court-reporters, and the Marine 

Corps is now benefitting from those efforts. On the officer 

side, leaders and supervisors have emphasized to trial counsel 

and the military judges that authentication must happen with 

more efficiency, resulting in a greater than 20 percent 

improvement in average authentication time as well. 

CONCLUSION 

The Marine Corps’ reorganization helped to greatly improve 

the military justice process in FY12. Having worked through 

most of the challenges presented by the reorganization, the 

Marine Corps is now better positioned than it has ever been to 

flexibly, professionally, and competently provide legal 

services. Commanders, Marines, and others who are eligible for 

legal services will be the direct beneficiaries of these 

changes. However, the Marines within the community benefit as 

well from an organization that is capable of providing 

leadership, mentorship, and support, regardless of duty station 

or location. This reorganization ensures that the best 

qualified judge advocates and support staff are assigned to the 

most complex cases, regardless of the issue or the location. In 

FY12 and beyond, the Marine Corps legal community can proceed 

knowing it is well-resourced and structured to enable the utmost 

professionalism and competence as it provides legal services 

worldwide. 

Through the abovementioned efforts, and with the Strategic 

Action Plan as its guide, the Marine Corps legal community 

promises to meet its mission in FY13 and beyond, while it 

continues to aggressively experiment with new initiatives to 

elevate the practice of law in the Marine Corps. 

The following chart reflects cases tried in the Marine 

Corps over the last five fiscal years.1

Fiscal

Year

End 

Strength

GCM SPCM SCM Total 

Courts

NJP

FY12 198,190 125 322 608 1,055 7,698

FY11 201,157 178 452 1,289 1,919 9,798

FY10 202,729 197 649 1,695 2,541 11,774

FY09 202,000 140 675 1,670 2,485 11,772

FY08 198,505 163 692 1,373 2,228 10,425

 

1 Court-martial numbers for FY10-FY11 were modified after reconciling data in the 

Marine Corps Case Management System with data in the Navy’s Case Management Tracking 

and Information System.
83 

 

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

Report Period: FY 2012 

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 137 125 115 115 22 10 +23%

BCD 

SPECIAL

138 322 127 285 11 37 -24%

NON-BCD 

SPECIAL 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SUMMARY 108 608 108 606 0 2 -49%

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

OVER LAST REPORT 

-17%

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL )

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 51

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 76

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL ) 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT 

DISCHARGES

 

227

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL 

COURTS-MARTIAL

201

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL 

COURTS-MARTIAL

247

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL 

COURTS-MARTIAL

69 

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

 APPEALS 

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF 

PERIOD 227

 GENERAL COURTSMARTIAL106

 BCD SPECIAL 

COURTS-MARTIAL

121

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 493

 GENERAL COURTSMARTIAL227

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 266
84 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 536

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 229

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 307

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF 

PERIOD

179

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 102

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 77

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

NUMBER OF CASES 

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

+1.3% 

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

 U.S. NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL 

APPEALS (CCA) 

NUMBER 493 

PERCENTAGE 100% 

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

FORCES (CAAF) 

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 

(117)

21%

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

REPORTING PERIOD 

+7%

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED (47) 40%

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

REPORTING PERIOD 

-4%

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES 

REVIEWED BY CCA

8.4% 

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

CASES REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD

+2.7%

 

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

CONT’D 

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ 

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF 

PERIOD 7 

RECEIVED 60

DISPOSED OF 59

 GRANTED 0

 DENIED 59

 NO JURISDICTION 0

 WITHDRAWN 0

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF 

PERIOD 8 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 513 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 147

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 366
85 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 209 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 102

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 107

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 47

PART 10 – STRENGTH

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 527,800

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL 

PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 15,237 

RATE PER 1,000 28

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

PREVIOUS PERIOD 17% 

 NANETTE M. DERENZI 

 Vice Admiral, JAGC, U.S. Navy 

 Judge Advocate General of the Navy 
86 

SECTION 5 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

AIR FORCE 
87 

REPORT OF 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 

OF THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 

OCTOBER 1, 2011 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2012 

THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed 261 cases in 

Fiscal Year 2012, which is more than a 20% increase in cases 

reviewed the prior year. In addition, the Court heard three 

oral arguments at offsite locations pursuant to its “Project 

Outreach” program, to include civilian audiences at Willamette 

University College of Law and Duke University School of Law, as 

well as an audience of judge advocates attending the Continental 

United States Trial Advocacy Course at Lackland AFB, TX. 

The overall size of the Court increased from five to six 

active-duty judges in 2012. The Court experienced substantial 

personnel turnover, to include a new Chief Judge, two new 

Associate Judges, and a new paralegal, after the departure of 

personnel previously assigned in those positions. The Court 

also employed a law student as a civilian legal intern for the 

summer. 

In addition to reviewing Air Force courts-martial, three of 

the Court’s appellate judges were invested to the United States 

Court of Military Commission Review (USCMCR), bringing the Air 

Force representation on that Court back to three appellate 

judges after previously assigned judges retired. 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. 

Furthermore, members of the Court went beyond their statutory 

responsibilities and used their judicial expertise to assist the 

Air Force and Department of Defense with critical environmental 

hearings. The appellate judges traveled inside and out of the 

continental United States to conduct approximately 

40 environmental impact hearings in accordance with the National 
88 

Environmental Policy Act. The judges served as presiding 

officers over the environmental hearings that allowed for 

federal receipt of public comment on how potential changes in 

Air Force missions could impact the environment. The hearings 

spanned far and wide into states and territories including 

Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Nevada, 

New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, South Carolina, Utah, 

Vermont and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

Finally, the judges and attorney law clerks maintained 

dedication to community service by serving as judges at several 

local moot court competitions hosted by various organizations, 

such as the American Bar Association, National Bar Association, 

Federal Bar Association, Black Law Students Association, Phi 

Alpha Delta Law Fraternity and the Catholic University of 

America Columbus School of Law. Like the Outreach arguments and 

internship program, discussions with attendees at such venues 

furthered civilian education and understanding of military law 

and procedure. 

TRIAL JUDICIARY 

The Air Force Trial Judiciary Directorate (JAT) is responsible 

for trying and docketing all Air Force general and special 

courts-martial and presiding over an array of federal hearings. 

The Directorate is staffed by eighteen active-duty trial judges, 

four reserve trial judges, one noncommissioned officer, and one 

civilian employee. The office of the Chief Trial Judge is colocated with the Central Docketing Office at JB Andrews, MD. 

Air Force trial judges serve within five regions and are 

dispersed at thirteen geographically advantageous locations 

around the globe. 

In Fiscal Year 2012, Air Force judges presided over 571 

general and special courts-martial. Judges also served as 

investigating officers in complex and high-profile Article 32 

investigations, as legal advisors for officer discharge boards, 

and in post-trial DuBay hearings, contingency confinement 

hearings, and competency hearings. 

The Chief Trial Judge and Chief Regional Military Judge in 

Europe covered the five courts-martial at deployed locations 

within the United States Central Command area of responsibility. 

Two of those trials took place at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan. 

Currently, three Air Force trial judges are appointed for the 

military commissions in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 
89 

Air Force trial judges taught military justice in classrooms and 

courtrooms around the world. 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, VA. Air Force trial judges trained new judge 

advocates, trial and defense counsel, and staff judge advocates 

at the Air Force Judge Advocate General’s School, Maxwell AFB, 

AL. 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. 

The Trial Judiciary continued its Air Force JAG Corps-wide 

training program, A View from the Bench. Now in its second 

year, A View from the Bench provided practical litigation and 

advocacy tips to counsel on a quarterly basis. Four judges 

wrote articles and had them distributed electronically through 

multiple venues. The Air Force JAG School hosted three webcasts 

for each judge to deliver a lecture on their article’s topic. 

This year’s webcasts included: Voir Dire, Opening Statements, 

and Motion Practice. Through this forum, the Trial Judiciary 

trained 919 members of the Air Force JAG Corps without travel 

costs. 

An Atlantic Region judge reached beyond the Air Force with his 

writing. The William & Mary Law Review published Judge Joshua 

Kastenberg’s article Hugo Black's Vision of the Lawyer, the 

First Amendment, and the Duty of the Judiciary: The Bar 

Applicant Cases in a National Security State. 

Finally, Air Force trial judges continued to hone their 

judicial skills by attending Joint Military Judges Annual 

Training (JMJAT) at the National Judicial College in Reno, NV. 

The weeklong seminar, formerly called the Interservice Military 

Judges’ Seminar, is in its 38th year. The Navy-Marine Corps 

Trial Judiciary led the planning and support for more than 100 

DoD judges. JMJAT explored search and seizure precedent and 

evolving areas of military practice. 

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 
90 

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. Through its 

enlisted court reporter program, the directorate provides 

expeditionary court reporter support for all deployed courts, 

mishaps, and other investigations. 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. 

The directorate performs its mission through five divisions: 

the Government Trial and Appellate Counsel Division (JAJG); the 

Appellate Defense Division (JAJA); the Trial Defense Division 

(JAJD); the Military Justice Division (JAJM); and the Clemency, 

Corrections and Officer Review Division (JAJR). 

GOVERNMENT TRIAL & APPELLATE COUNSEL DIVISION 

Appellate Government Counsel 

During this past year, appellate counsel vigorously 

represented the government in Article 66 and Article 67 appeals 

of Air Force courts-martial convictions. The division also 

sought and obtained certification from TJAG in four cases for 

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) 

review, and filed government appeals in two cases under Article 

62, UCMJ. 

Appellate government counsel zealously represented the 

government in oral arguments before CAAF and AFCCA. They 

contributed to Project Outreach, sponsored by CAAF and AFCCA, by 

conducting oral arguments in four cases before audiences at 

various law schools and military installations across the United 

States. These arguments helped educate attendees on the 

fairness and professionalism of the military justice system and 

provided excellent recruiting opportunities. 

Counsel provided intense advocacy training and field support. 

Division counsel educated judge advocates and paralegals at Air 

Force training events such as Trial Advocacy Courses, the 

Military Justice Administration Course, the Trial and Defense 

Advocacy Course, Numbered Air Force conferences, and the 

KEYSTONE Leadership Summit. The division also created and 

posted comprehensive trial and appellate materials on the JAJG 
91 

Learning Center hosted on the Air Force Judge Advocate General’s 

School CAPSIL online resource. Appellate counsel also published 

an electronic newsletter containing appellate updates along with 

timely and relevant articles for military justice practitioners 

at all levels. 

The division continued to fulfill its obligation to support 

war-fighting commanders through the deployment of personnel. 

One of our experienced appellate government counsel completed a 

six-month deployment to the Combined Joint Interagency Task 

Force 435, bringing legal stability and progress to Afghanistan, 

and another of our field grade appellate counsel is currently 

deployed to EUCOM. 

Throughout the year, division personnel continued to engage in 

a variety of activities designed to further the professionalism 

of military justice practice, particularly at the appellate 

level. The division’s counsel participated in events hosted by 

CAAF, including the Court’s annual Appellate Advocacy Symposium, 

hosted in conjunction with the Judge Advocates’ Association. 

Appellate government counsel have actively built relationships 

with sister service counterparts through participation in 

quarterly meetings and regular consultation on matters of common 

interest to all the services. The division also hosted one 

summer intern, a law student who had completed his second year 

of law school and expressed an interest in service as a judge 

advocate. This bright young professional significantly 

supported the division mission by conducting legal research and 

writing more appellate briefs and motions than any other intern 

in many years, and was positively influenced by his experience 

in the internship program. JAJG’s intern recently applied for 

and was granted accession as a new Air Force judge advocate upon 

completion of law school and his bar examination, continuing a 

long-standing tradition of JAJG interns advancing to service as 

Air Force judge advocates. The division also hosted two sharp 

externs, law students who graciously volunteered their time to 

support our appellate mission and have expressed interest in 

becoming judge advocates. 

The division receives crucial appellate counsel support from 

eleven assigned reserve judge advocates. They continue to 

provide superb support, greatly assisting the division in 

carrying out its mission. In addition to preparing written 

briefs, two reserve counsel presented oral arguments before CAAF 

during the fiscal year. 
92 

A summary of Air Force Appellate Government practice follows: 

AFCCA FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

Briefs Filed 188 156 123 144 233

Cases Argued 19 16 9 14 14

CAAF FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

Briefs Filed 41 23 28 29 36

Cases Argued 15 13 12 15 9

SUPREME COURT FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

Petition/Waivers 

Filed

4 3 3 1 1

Briefs Filed 0 0 0 0 0

Senior Trial Counsel 

Personnel authorizations for the fiscal year included 17 

Senior Trial Counsel (STC) at ten locations worldwide: four 

counsel at JB Andrews, MD; two counsel each at Ramstein AB, 

Germany; JB Lewis-McChord, WA; Randolph AFB, TX; and Nellis AFB, 

NV. Bases with one counsel each include Peterson AFB, CO; 

Offutt AFB, NE; Scott AFB, IL; Maxwell AFB, AL; and Kadena AB, 

Japan. STCs are detailed to prosecute cases by the division 

headquarters at JB Andrews, MD, and their primary responsibility 

is to represent the government in the most complex, litigated 

general courts-martial. STCs routinely prosecute between 70 and 

80% of all Air Force general courts-martial. They are also 

available for special courts-martial, discharge boards and other 

proceedings, as resources allow. 

In 2012, the STC program underwent a major change in structure 

with the transfer of billets from Travis AFB, CA (to Nellis AFB, 

NV), and Kadena AB, Japan (to Maxwell AFB, AL). These transfers 

are part of the continuing effort to ensure a minimum of two 

STCs at each STC location and will continue with the transfer of 

the Offutt AFB, NE, billet to Peterson AFB, CO, and the Scott 

AFB, IL, billet to Maxwell AFB, AL, on the PCS of the STC 

incumbent. 

In 2012, the STC program also underwent a major change in 

focus with the stand up of the Air Force’s first Special Victims 
93 

Trial Capability (SVT). The SVT is staffed by a cadre of 

specifically trained senior prosecutors whose primary 

responsibility is to try courts-martial involving sex offenses, 

serious domestic violence, and crimes against children. 

The SVT leverages existing resources within the STC program. 

Those seasoned STCs who meet certain qualifications (e.g. 

demonstrated litigation excellence, advanced subject-matter 

training, mastery of the legal issues common to these specialvictim cases) earn the designation SVT-STC. The Chief STC 

details these SVT-STCs against worldwide requests for this 

special capability, making them available to advise base-level 

trial counsel on interviewing victims and drafting charges, 

attend Article 32 hearings, and of course prosecute those cases 

referred to trial by courts-martial. Because the available 

number of SVT-STC is finite, and the number of cases they could 

be detailed against at times is significant, continuity of a 

particular SVT-STC through the life of a special-victim courtmartial can be difficult to maintain, but the Government Trial & 

Appellate Counsel Division continues to work with requesting 

legal offices to do just that. 

The stand up of the SVT is not merely a designation of 

personnel; it is a dedicated focus, supported by dedicated 

resources, within the Government Trial & Appellate Counsel 

Division. These SVT-STCs are supported by a deep bench of 

criminal appellate counsel, an SVT-STC co-located with the 

Defense Computer Forensic Laboratory whose primary 

responsibility is to serve as a conduit between the forensic 

experts and legal office personnel, and a new SVT-STC intake 

counsel at JB Andrews, MD, (the SVT Chief of Policy and 

Coordination) whose primary responsibility is to liaise with 

AFOSI’s special victim personnel and provide reach-back support 

to legal offices as they grapple with the myriad legal and 

factual issues these cases present. All told, this combined 

effort will ensure that the Air Force responds appropriately to 

cases involving special victims and ensure that justice is done 

in each case. 

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

temporary duty away from their home station, and represented the 

government in more than 300 courts-martial and related 

proceedings. In August, the sixth annual Senior Trial Counsel 

Conference was held at JB Andrews, MD, bringing together the 

assigned STCs as well as those projected to join the program 

during the summer assignment season. The attorneys met for a 

week of training and networking with trial and appellate 
94 

counsel. STCs also attended training courses across the country 

including the Prosecuting Complex Cases Course at the Naval 

Justice School, the Computer Crimes Course at the Naval Justice 

School, the new Special Victims Unit Course put on by the Army 

at Ft Leonard Wood, and the Sexual Assault Investigation and 

Prosecution Course put on by the Navy. STCs also continued the 

tradition of spending a week performing appellate work in our 

appellate office, which broadened their trial and appellate 

perspective and enhanced their litigation skills. 

APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISION 

The Appellate Defense Division ended Fiscal Year 2012 with 

twelve regular component (active duty) judge advocates, eight 

reserve judge advocates, one civilian attorney, and three 

paralegals. The Division moved its docket with seven personnel 

deployed—the most in Division history, at various times 

throughout the year and for absences lasting six to eight months 

including training and post-deployment reconstitution time. As 

in past years, reserve component Judge Advocates continued to 

provide significant support. The Division was fortunate to have 

Major Anthony Ortiz, an Individual Mobilization Augmentee Judge 

Advocate, perform duty for over six months alongside regular 

component appellate defense counsel. 

Promoting timely appellate review remained a priority. The 

Division considerably reduced the number of cases pending 

initial briefing to the United States Air Force Court of 

Criminal Appeals (AFCCA). Between 1 October 2011 and 30 

September 2012, the Division reduced this number from 195 to 

131, and reduced by half the number of cases in which counsel 

moved for an enlargement of time to submit assignments of error. 

For most of June and July, the Division had no cases pending 

initial filing with the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals 

greater than one year after receipt of a record of trial; 

however, by year's end, this increased to two cases. Applying 

the 18-month docketing-to-decision appellate processing standard 

of United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129, 142 (CAAF 2006), 

counsel moved AFCCA to expedite review of cases where prejudice 

was apparent, to include considerations of likelihood of success 

on the merits and loss of meaningful relief with passage of 

time. 

JAJA advocacy contributed to four AFCCA rulings favorable to 

appellants for erroneous admission of testimonial hearsay of 

laboratory officials and others in light of United States v. 
95 

Blazier, 69 M.J. 218 (CAAF 2010). Several other notable rulings 

clarified the rights of the accused and impacted the practice of 

military justice at the trial level. In United States v. Dease, 

71 M.J. 116 (CAAF 2012), in an Article 62 appeal, the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) held that 

the military judge did not abuse his discretion in ruling that 

Appellant had a privacy interest in his urine sample and could 

withdraw consent prior to testing. In United States v. Hayes, 

71 M.J. 112 (CAAF 2012), CAAF held that the conviction for a 

violation of Article 92(3), dereliction of duty, was legally 

insufficient, as the Government failed to establish through 

competent evidence that there was a specific military duty, 

under Article 92 to either obey state laws in general, or, more 

specifically, the Nevada state law concerning consumption of 

alcohol by persons under the age of twenty-one. The Article 92 

charge and its specification were dismissed. In United States 

v. Rose, 71 M.J. 138 (CAAF 2012), the court found that Appellant 

received ineffective assistance of counsel where the Appellant’s 

reasonable request for information regarding sex offender 

registration “went unanswered” by his trial defense counsel, and 

had it been correctly answered, he would have pled not guilty. 

In a significant post-Fosler ruling, CAAF held that it was plain 

error to omit the terminal element of Article 134, UCMJ, in a 

contested adultery specification in United States v. Humphries, 

71 M.J. 209 (CAAF 2012). The court stated that the Government 

did not plead the terminal element of Article 134, UCMJ, and, 

after a close reading of the trial record, there was nothing 

during the trial counsel's case-in-chief that reasonably placed 

the accused on notice of the prosecution theory as to which 

clause(s) of the terminal element of Article 134 had been 

violated. Owing in large part to post-Fosler advocacy, over 

half of all assignments of error submitted to AFCCA were filed 

as issues briefs, as compared to cases submitted on the merits, 

the highest ratio of issues-to-merits filings in many years. 

On 11 October 2012, AFCCA held oral argument in the capital 

case, United States v. Witt, ACM 36785. With the full support 

of his OCONUS commander, Major Dan Schoeni temporarily 

redeployed from Bogota, Columbia, and returned to JB Andrews, 

MD, to argue on SrA Witt’s behalf along with Mr. Dwight 

Sullivan, the Division's Senior Appellate Defense Counsel. 

The Appellate Defense Division continued to support trial 

defense counsel in the field through consultation, including in 

time-critical situations. Appellate defense counsel also kept 

counsel in the field updated on new developments in military 

criminal law via appellate updates throughout the year. These 
96 

appellate updates included briefings at five Trial Advocacy 

Courses conducted in locations around the world. 

The following figures reflect the division’s workload over the 

past five fiscal years: 

AFCCA FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

Briefs Filed 352 285 290 299 295

Cases Argued 14 16 4 9 12

CAAF FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

Supplements to 

Petitions

293 336 204 160 220

Grant Briefs 15 12 18 11 12

Cases Argued 15 13 17 17 9

SUPREME COURT FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

Petition/Waivers 

Filed

4 3 2 1 1

Briefs in 

Opposition

0 0 0 0 0

Briefs on the 

Merits

0 0 0 0 0

Appellate defense counsel participate in Project Outreach, 

sponsored by CAAF and AFCCA, by conducting oral arguments before 

external audiences with ties to the military and legal 

professions. The Project serves a dual-purpose as a recruiting 

tool while highlighting the fairness and professionalism of the 

military justice system. During the year, Outreach arguments 

were presented at Gonzaga University College of Law, Willamette 

University College of Law, University of Oklahoma School of Law, 

and Lackland AFB, TX. 

TRIAL DEFENSE DIVISION 

The Trial Defense Division (JAJD) is responsible for providing 

all defense services within the Air Force through its worldwide 

team of Area Defense Counsel (ADCs), Defense Paralegals (DPs), 

Senior Defense Counsel (SDCs), Chief Senior Defense Counsel 

(CSDCs), and Defense Paralegal Managers (DPMs). JAJD is also 

responsible for assisting Airmen in navigating the disability 
97 

evaluation system through its cadre of Disability Counsel and 

Disability Paralegals. Division personnel report to the Chief, 

JAJD, who reports to the Director, United States Air Force 

Judiciary (JAJ). The Chief, JAJD, is assisted by a Deputy 

Chief, Policy and Training, and an Office Superintendant at JB 

Andrews, MD. 

During Fiscal Year 2012, the division was staffed with eightyfour ADCs, which is one more billet than last year, thanks to an 

additional position being provided at Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ. 

The ADCs teamed with seventy-two base-level DPs stationed at 

sixty-eight bases worldwide. The division also had nineteen 

SDCs and three CSDCs. Each CSDC supervised six-seven SDCs, and 

a DPM was assigned to each of the three CSDCs. The SDCs were 

stationed at JB Andrews, MD; JB Langley-Eustis, VA; JB 

Charleston, SC; Hurlburt Field, FL; Maxwell AFB, AL; Barksdale 

AFB, LA; JB San Antonio-Randolph, TX; Sheppard AFB, TX; Tinker 

AFB, OK; Peterson AFB, CO; Offutt AFB, NE; JB Lewis-McChord, WA; 

Travis AFB, CA; Nellis AFB, NV; Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ; Yokota 

AB, Japan; Kadena AB, Japan; RAF Lakenheath, United Kingdom; and 

Ramstein AB, Germany. Each SDC was co-located with the ADC 

office at their respective location. 

The continuing success of the Air Force’s ADC Program is 

largely attributable to its independence and its zealous 

personnel. To ensure the best representation for Air Force 

clients, training remains JAJD’s top priority. Each SDC 

provided on-the-job training and mentoring to the ADCs in their 

charge on a continuing basis. Each CSDC, in turn, mentored the 

SDCs in their charge. Newly appointed ADCs and DPs received 

formal training at the combined Defense Orientation Course held 

at AFJAGS. SDCs attended a division-run Leadership Course at JB 

Andrews, MD. Defense personnel also attended Trial Advocacy 

Courses conducted at the Air Force Judge Advocate General’s 

School (AFJAGS). Furthermore, the division continues to send 

ADCs and SDCs to the Trial and Defense Advocacy Course and the 

Advanced Trial Advocacy Course at AFJAGS as appropriate. 

In addition to traditional defense services, JAJD continues to 

provide oversight responsibility for the Office of Airmen's 

Counsel (OAC) at JB San Antonio-Lackland, TX. The OAC provides 

counsel for Airmen going through the disability evaluation 

system and personally represents Airmen at the Formal Physical 

Evaluation Board hearings. The OAC grew to a total of nineteen 

personnel, adding seven active duty JAGs and seven active duty 

paralegals to the prior permanent staff of four attorneys and 
98 

one paralegal. To accommodate this growth, the OAC expanded its 

space allocation to ensure a professional, independent office. 

Upgrading of ADC facilities also remains a JAJD priority. The 

JB San Antonio-Randolph, TX, ADC office was completely remodeled 

this year to accommodate a visiting attorney's office, a break 

room, and an enclosed space for the DP. In addition, 

construction was completed at the brand-new ADC stand-alone 

facility at Al Udeid, while the finishing touches are being put 

on the new offices for the defense team at Maxwell AFB, AL, 

which should be ready for move-in early 2013. Finally, the ADC 

offices at Pope Field, NC; Grand Forks AFB, ND; and Ramstein AB, 

Germany, all received duress alarm upgrades to enhance the 

security and safety of our personnel and their clients. 

MILITARY JUSTICE DIVISION 

The Military Justice Division (JAJM) prepares opinions and 

policy positions for the Secretary of the Air Force, The Chief 

of Staff, and The Judge Advocate General. The division also 

assembles reports on military justice issues requested by the 

White House, Congress, Department of Defense and the Air Staff. 

JAJM represents the Air Force on the DoD Joint Services 

Committee on Military Justice (JSC). The division also provides 

representatives to all interservice activities involving 

military justice and support for the Article 146, UCMJ, Code 

Committee. Lastly, JAJM serves as the action agency for the 

preparation of advisory opinions on military justice issues 

raised in applications submitted to the Air Force Board for 

Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR). 

During the past fiscal year, JAJM provided 108 formal opinions 

concerning AFBCMR applications; received forty inquires in 

specific cases requiring formal written replies to senior 

officials, including the President and Members of Congress; and 

reviewed forty-two records of trial for review under Article 

69a, UCMJ, and 7 records under Article 69b, UCMJ. 

As in past years, the division presented the annual Military 

Justice Administration Workshop at the Air Force Judge Advocate 

General’s School, a “back to basics” one-week workshop attended 

by both judge advocates and paralegals. In 2012, however, the 

division held the class a second time in one year for the first 

time. Division personnel also taught at the GCMCA Staff Judge 

Advocate’s Conference, the Staff Judge Advocate Course, and 

GATEWAY, an intermediate judge advocate course for majors at 
99 

Maxwell AFB, AL. Division personnel briefed Air Force JAG Corps 

leaders on the status of their military justice programs and new 

initiatives in the military justice arena and the importance of 

swift post-trial processing during the first annual Installation 

Leadership Course. Division personnel were also very active in 

developing and providing training for Air Force sexual assault 

prevention and response policies and procedures. 

In Fiscal Year 2012, Secretary Panetta ordered a new policy 

withholding initial disposition authority for sexual assault 

accusations from commanders unless they are special courtmartial convening authorities in the grade of at least O-6. 

JAJM conducted extensive training of its SJAs and commanders to 

properly implement SecDef’s policy. Additionally, the Air Force 

is working to integrate JA and AFOSI capabilities to team senior 

trial counsel with trained investigators to build synergy in how 

we approach our investigations and prosecutions of these cases. 

Fiscal Year 2012 also marks the implementation of the new MRE 

514, creating a privilege of confidential communication between 

victims of sexual and violent offenses, and victim advocates; 

and Art. 54(e) which requires the government to provide a copy 

of the record of trial to any sexual assault victim who 

testified at trial. 

JAJM also supported the war effort in Fiscal Year 2012 by 

deploying two judge advocates to Afghanistan. 

JAJM continued to coordinate military justice actions with 

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

testimonial immunity requests for non-military witnesses and 

with the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force on officer 

requests to resign rather than face trial by court-martial. 

Division personnel were once again instrumental in drafting 

proposed changes to the Military Rules of Evidence and Rules for 

Courts-Martial for a pending executive order. 

CLEMENCY, CORRECTIONS AND OFFICER REVIEW DIVISION 

At the end of Fiscal Year 2012, 376 Air Force personnel were 

in confinement. Of those, 89 inmates were in long-term 

confinement at the United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort 

Leavenworth, KS, and 65 were serving their sentence in the 

Federal Bureau of Prisons system. Only one individual attended 

the Air Force Return-to-Duty Rehabilitation Program; that 

candidate successfully completed the program and was returned to 

duty. The number of Air Force members and former members on 
100 

parole or Mandatory Supervised Release at the end of Fiscal Year 

2012 was 82. 

During the reporting period, the division completed twelve 

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

recommended, the Secretary approved the dismissals in all cases. 

The division also prepared two cases for Secretarial clemency 

under Article 74, UCMJ. 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL’S SCHOOL 

The Air Force Judge Advocate General’s School is the 

educational arm of the JAG Corps. Located at Maxwell AFB, AL, 

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 many foreign 

countries. Military justice instruction included advocacy, 

administration, the rules of evidence, and the rules of 

procedure. JAG School faculty members also provided instruction 

on military justice for several schools and colleges throughout 

Air University, the Air Force’s center for education. During 

Fiscal Year 2012, the JAG School instructed just under 18,000 

students at these military institutions. 

Additionally, the JAG School published articles concerning 

military justice and other criminal justice issues in The 

Reporter, The Air Force Law Review, and The Military Commander 

and the Law. JAG School webcasts allow subject-matter experts 

to brief timely military justice topics to all base legal 

offices and defense offices. Recorded webcasts are available on 

CAPSIL, a web-based collaborative learning and management system 

administered by the JAG School and accessible to all members of 

the JAG Corps. The JAG School has 39 web-based training modules 

on military justice topics. 

Nearly 2,900 students attended in-residence courses in Fiscal 

Year 2012. Of those 54 courses, the following devoted 

substantial resources to military justice-related topics: 

Advanced Trial Advocacy Course 

Annual Survey of the Law (Reserve and Air National Guard) 

Article 32 Investigations Course 

Defense Orientation Course (for new ADCs and DPs) 

Interservice Military Judge’s Seminar 

Judge Advocate Staff Officer’s Course 

Law Office Manager Course 
101 

Military Justice Administration Course 

Paralegal Apprentice Course 

Paralegal Craftsman Course 

Staff Judge Advocate Course 

Trial and Defense Advocacy Course 

In addition to the above courses, the JAG School hosted trial 

advocacy courses at Lackland AFB, TX; Nellis AFB, NV; Yokota AB, 

Japan; and Ramstein AB, Germany. The courses for Fiscal Year 

2012 focused on foundational advocacy. 

LEGAL INFORMATION SERVICES 

During Fiscal Year 2012, the Legal Information Services 

Directorate (AFLOA/JAS) continued to develop new legal 

information technology (IT) tools and improve existing ones to 

better support military justice business processes throughout 

the Air Force. 

Since October 2011, AFLOA/JAS, in concert with the advice and 

assistance of a professional IT project management contractor, 

conducted a comprehensive needs assessment, identified military 

justice business processes and gathered IT requirements for 

modernizing the Automated Military Justice Administration 

Systems (AMJAMS). These efforts confirmed the need to create a 

modernized system with a common operating framework to support 

military justice practitioners at all levels leading to enhanced 

case management, increased visibility over individual cases for 

practitioners and managers, and automated functions to speed 

delivery of processes, reduce errors, and improve data capture 

for reporting and decision making purposes. These efforts 

additionally resulted in the creation of a Software Requirements 

Specification, System Use Cases, System Models, and Market 

Research, and user interface mockups. 

The next generation of AMJAMS, if funded, will support the 

following four user group modules: convening 

authorities/installation-level, trial courts, appellate courts, 

and statistical data and reports analysis, with the following 

interactive capabilities: case management including an 

electronic trial brief and proof analysis, court docketing and 

calendaring, electronic filing, electronic discovery, electronic 

record of trial production, court-member management, 

appointment, task and suspense management, document production 

and assembly, records management, victim witness assistance 

management and increased reporting and analysis capabilities. 
102 

The next generation of AMJAMS will replace legacy systems which 

currently have limited or no interface capability with AMJAMS, 

and will interface and share information with other Department 

of Defense systems. 

The current AMJAMS system was modified to maintain its 

usefulness pending funding for the next generation of AMJAMS. 

These changes included modifying the pending offenses section, 

adding a new data field to the Pretrial Agreement section, 

changing language and drop down entries, and creating a new 

report to track Senior Trial Counsel coordination on sexual 

assault allegations. Finally, the Area Defense Electronic 

Reporting (ADER) System, Spiral 2.1, was released. This Spiral 

included adding capability to track Article 15 Supplemental 

Actions, ability for temporarily assigned paralegals to open 

cases for the assigned office, ability for AFLOA/JAJD to bulk 

transfer cases from a departing defense paralegal to a newly 

assigned defense paralegal, and added new active case reports 

and individual case reports. 

PERSONNEL 

As of 30 September 2012, the Air Force Judge Advocate 

General's Corps had 1,266 judge advocates on active duty. 

Company grade officers (lieutenants and captains) made up 49% of 

that number (616); 24% were majors (307); and just over 17% were 

lieutenant colonels (220). Colonels (117) and above, including 

one lieutenant general, one major general, and four brigadier 

generals, comprised 10% of the Corps. The Air Force Judge 

Advocate General’s Corps Reserve included 901 Air Force Reserve 

IMA, Air Force Reserve unit-assigned, and Air National Guard 

judge advocates, of which 20% (183) were company grade officers 

and 69% (615) were field grade officers (majors and lieutenant 

colonels). The remaining 11% consisted of 98 colonels, 4 

brigadier generals, and 1 major general. 

On 2 January 2013, the President signed the FY13 NDAA, which 

amended section 946 of title 10, United States Code (Article 

146, UCMJ). A new subparagraph was added requiring additional 

information not previously required in this annual Code 

Committee Report. The newly required information will be 

included in the FY2013 Code Committee Report. 

 RICHARD C. HARDING 

Lieutenant General, USAF 

 The Judge Advocate General 
103 

Period: Fiscal Year 2012

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATUS (Persons)

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS

RATE OF 

INCREASE(+)/

DECREASE (-

) OVER

LAST GENERAL 182 166 16 -43.95%

BCD SPECIAL 389 111 36 -3.34%

NON-BCD SPECIAL [A] 242

SUMMARY 140 137 3 -2.86%

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

LAST REPORT

PART 2 - DISCHARGE APPROVED

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL (CA LEVEL)

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES [B] 36

 NUMBER OF BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGES 72

SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL (CA LEVEL)

 NUMBER OF BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGES 111

PART 3 - RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 - GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 124

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 - BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 111

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 - GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 44

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

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 345

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 226

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 104

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 235

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 124

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 111

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 260

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 133

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 127

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 320

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 217

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 88

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD (260/580)

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

NUMBER 226/235

PERCENTAGE 96.17%
104 

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

PERCENTAGE OF AFCCA REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCAAF 243/260 [C] 93.46%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +17.76%

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 36/243 14.81%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +6.29%

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY AFCCA 36/260 13.85%

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

DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD +4.98

PART 7 - APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF, ARTICLE 69

PENDING AT BEGINNING OF PERIOD 3

RECEIVED 0

DISPOSED OF 9

 GRANTED 0

 DENIED 8

 NO JURISDICTION 1

 WITHDRAWN 0

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 0

PART 8 - ORGANIZATION OF COURT

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 259

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 79

 SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 180

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 312

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 103

 SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 209

PART 9 - COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 27

PART 10 - STRENGTH

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 327,285

PART 11 - NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15)

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 6,318

RATE PER 1,000 19.30%

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

PERIOD -1.56%

EXPLANATORY NOTES

[A] Of the 389 SPCMs tried, there were 111 convictions with a BCD adjudged, 242 convictions without a BCD 

adjudged, and 36 acquittals.

[B] Includes 13 officer dismissals.
105 

SECTION 6 

 REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

COAST GUARD 
106 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

U. S. COAST GUARD 

October 1, 2011 to September 30, 2012 

PERSONNEL AND TRAINING 

 The Coast Guard has approximately 195 officers designated 

as judge advocates serving on active duty, of whom 150 are 

serving in legal billets and 45 are serving in “out-ofspecialty” billets. Those Coast Guard lawyers currently 

practicing law include the Staff Judge Advocate to NORTHCOM, and 

the assigned Staff Judge Advocate to Joint Interagency Task 

Force South (JIATF South), as well as staff attorneys advising 

NORTHCOM, AFRICOM, and SOUTHCOM. Among the approximately 45 

military attorneys serving in “out-of-specialty” billets are the 

Seventh District Commander, the Director, JIATF South, and other 

commanding and executive officers of Coast Guard cutters, 

sectors, training centers, and support commands. The Coast Guard 

also employs 95 civilian attorneys ranging from GS-13 to SES. 

 The Coast Guard sent attorneys to 33 different courses of 

instruction during this fiscal year, primarily at the various 

service JAG schools. Twenty-five Coast Guard officers are 

currently undergoing postgraduate studies in law 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 in the Center for Law 

and Military Operations. One civilian attorney is attending a 

LLM program in procurement law. In addition, one judge advocate 

is the attending the Master’s program at the Naval War College 

in Newport, Rhode Island. Twenty-five 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. 
107 

U. S. COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

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

Appeals during fiscal year 2012 were: 

Chief Judge Lane I. McClelland 

Judge Patrick J. McGuire 

Judge Brian T. McTague 

Judge John F. Havranek 

Judge Charlie M. Johnson 

Judge Kathleen A. Duignan (Sworn in December 2011) 

Judge Andrew Norris (Sworn in April 2012) 

 In addition to the decisional work of the Court, as reflected 

in the Appendix, the judges of the Court have been involved in 

various professional conferences, committees and seminars during 

the past fiscal year. 

MILITARY JUSTICE ORGANIZATION 

 Fourteen Staff Judge Advocates advise seventeen 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 and defense counsel to general and special courts-martial 

rests with the Chief, Office of Legal and Defense Services, a 

staff office reporting to the Deputy Judge Advocate General 

charged with providing defense and personal legal services to 

Coast Guard members. Pursuant to an inter-service memorandum of 

understanding, the U.S. Navy provides trial defense counsel for 

all Coast Guard courts-martial. In return, at least four Coast 

Guard attorneys are assigned to full time duty, typically for 

one-year or two-year assignments, at one or more Navy Defense 

Service Offices or Regional Legal Service Offices. 

 The Coast Guard has one general courts-martial judge and 

eight collateral-duty special courts-martial judges. The Chief 

Trial Judge details all military judges to Coast Guard courtsmartial. 

 The Office of Military Justice at Coast Guard Headquarters 

is responsible for representing the United States in all courtsmartial appeals and providing support to staff judge advocates 

and trial counsel throughout the Coast Guard. The office is 

also responsible for developing military justice policy for the 

Coast Guard, including participation on the Joint Service 
108 

Committee (JSC) on Military Justice. Within the office, two 

officers, a LCDR (O-4) and a LT (O-3), are assigned primary duty 

as appellate government counsel. 

TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES WITH OTHER SERVICES 

 To improve the trial advocacy skills and experience levels 

of Coast Guard Judge Advocates, the Judge Advocate General 

assigns Trial Counsel for limited periods of time (usually three 

months) to certain installations which have a robust military 

justice practice. Coast Guard Judge Advocates have been 

assigned to Marine Corps Base Quantico, Marine Corps Base Camp 

Pendleton, the Army's Trial Counsel Assistance Program in 

Arlington, Virginia, the Staff Judge Advocate for the Military 

District of Washington and the Navy Regional Service Office, 

Norfolk, VA. This year, two Judge Advocates were assigned to 

Marine Corp Base Quantico, each for 3 to 4 months temporary 

assignments. This is in addition to the existing Memorandum of 

Understanding with the Navy, discussed in the previous section, 

which provides for Coast Guard Judge Advocates to be assigned 

full-time as defense counsel at Navy Defense Service Offices or 

Navy Regional Legal Service Offices. 

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

NOTE: All statistics are based on the number of courts-martial 

records received and filed at Coast Guard Headquarters during 

fiscal year 2012 and, where indicated, records received during 

each of the four preceding fiscal years. The number of courtsmartial varies widely from year to year; consequently, this is 

not a reliable indicator of the administration of military 

justice given the relatively small number of courts-martial 

overall. 

Fiscal Year 12 11 10 09 08 

General Courts-Martial 14 06 12 12 13 

Special Courts-Martial 14 32 20 19 19 

Summary Courts-Martial 17 19 09 14 28 

Total 45 57 41 45 60 
109 

ADDITIONAL MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

 Appendix A contains the Coast Guard, Fiscal Year 2012 military 

justice statistics. 

 F. J. KENNEY 

 Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard 

 Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard 
110 

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

Statistics for 

 October 1, 2011 to September 30, 2012 (FY 2012) 

** On 2 January 2013, the President signed the FY13 NDAA, which 

amended section 946 of title 10, United States Code (Article 

146, UCMJ). A new subparagraph was added requiring additional 

information not previously required in this annual Code 

Committee Report. The newly required information will be 

included in the FY 2013 Code Committee Report. 

APPENDIX: U.S. COAST GUARD MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

Report Period: 1 OCTOBER 2011- 30 SEPTEMBER 2012 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons)

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/ 

DECREASE (-) OVER 

LAST REPORT

GENERAL 14 13 01 + 133%

BCD SPECIAL 14 14 + 16%

NON-BCD SPECIAL 00 00 00 - 70%

SUMMARY 17 17 00 + 10%

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT + 3.6%

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES

01

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 08

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES

13

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 13

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 14

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 03

PART 4 – WORKLOAD OF THE COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS∗

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 18

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 05

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 13

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 19

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 11

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 08

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 19

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 05

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 14

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 18

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 12

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 06

 

∗ The Court also decided three Writs.
111 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD

+ 35.7%

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

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

NUMBER 19

PERCENTAGE 100%

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

 (CAAF)

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 3/19 15.7%

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

REPORTING PERIOD 

- 25%

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 

0/3 

0%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD - 100%

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

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

- 25%

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

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 01

RECEIVED 00

DISPOSED OF 00

 GRANTED 00

 DENIED 00

 NO JURISDICTION 00

 WITHDRAWN 00

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 01*

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 15

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 06

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 09

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 19

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 11

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 08

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 00

PART 10 – STRENGTH

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 42932

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ)

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 969

RATE PER 1,000 22.57

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD -21.41%

* Forwarded to CG Ct. Crim. App. for Review under Art 66(d)