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 

SECRETARIES OF THE 

ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORCE 

PURSUANT TO THE 

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 

For the Period 

October 1, 2002 to September 30, 2003 
CONTENTS 

Section 1: JOINT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CODE COMMITTEE 

Section 2: REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE ARMED FORCES 

Section 3: REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE ARMY 

Section 4: REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY 

Section 5: REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE AIR FORCE 

Section 6: REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE COAST GUARD 
SECTION 1 

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

CODE COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO THE 

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 

October 1, 2002 to September 30, 2003 

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

the Judge Advocate Generals of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard, 

the Director, Judge Advocate Division, Headquarters, United States Marine 

Corps, Professor Lee D. Schinasi, and United States Magistrate Judge Jacob 

Hagopian, Public Members appointed by the Secretary of Defense, submit 

their annual report on the operation of the Uniform Code of Military 

Justice pursuant to Article 146, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 

946. 

 The Code Committee met on May 15, 2003, to consider various matters 

pertaining to the administration of military justice. As in previous 

years, the meeting was open to the public. Chief Judge Crawford opened the 

meeting and invited Colonel Gary Sokoloski, USMC, the Chairman of the Joint 

Service Committee, to present an informational briefing. Colonel Sokoloski 

noted that the Department of Defense Directive (5500.17) had been amended: 

(1) to add a liaison from the Joint Staff to the Joint Service Committee, 

and (2) to change the Committee’s review cycle to end in December rather 

than May. He also noted that the 2001 Annual Review had been forwarded to 

the Office of Management and Budget for interagency review and that the 

Department of Defense was completing its review of the 2002 Annual Review. 

In addition, Colonel Sokoloski observed that the Joint Service Committee 

had been studying the increased use of technology in the courtroom, 

military justice in the joint arena, sentence credits, restitution, and 

challenges to the court members. Finally, he noted that the Joint Service 

Committee had studied the question of whether pleas of nolo contendere 

should be allowed in courts-martial but had recommended that such pleas 

should not be used. 

 The Judge Advocate General of the Navy raised the issue of whether the 

existing mandatory appellate review of courts-martial under the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice should be modified to require a servicemember to 

file an appeal. There was general agreement that any such proposal would 

require further study by the Joint Service Committee. A separate proposal 

to permit arraignments and Article 39(a), UCMJ, sessions to be conducted 

via video conferencing technology was referred to the Joint Service 

Committee for further study. 
 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. 

SUSAN J. CRAWFORD 

Chief Judge 

H. F. “SPARKY” GIERKE 

Associate Judge 

ANDREW S. EFFRON 

Associate Judge 

JAMES E. BAKER 

Associate Judge 

CHARLES E. “CHIP” ERDMANN 

Associate Judge 

Major General THOMAS J. ROMIG, USA 

The Judge Advocate General of the Army 

Rear Admiral MICHAEL F. LOHR, USN 

The Judge Advocate General of the Navy 

Major General THOMAS J. FISCUS, USAF 

The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force 

Rear Admiral JOHN E. CROWLEY, JR., USCG 

The Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard 

Brigadier General KEVIN SANDKUHLER, USMC 

Director, Judge Advocate Division 

Headquarters, United States Marine Corps 

Professor LEE D. SCHINASI 

Public Member 

Magistrate Judge JACOB HAGOPIAN 

Public Member 

2 
SECTION 2 

REPORT OF THE 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE ARMED FORCES 
REPORT OF THE 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE ARMED FORCES 

October 1, 2002 to September 30, 2003 

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 2003 Term of the 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, 10 USC § 946. 

THE BUSINESS OF THE COURT 

 The filing and disposition of cases are set forth in the attached 

statistical report and graphs. 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, West’s Military Justice Reporter and on the Court’s web site. 

 During the 2003 Term of the Court, Senior Judge Walter T. Cox III, was 

recalled and participated in the review and decision of one case. 

 During the 2003 Term of Court, the Court admitted 282 attorneys to 

practice before its Bar, bringing the cumulative total of admissions before 

the Bar of the Court to 32,871. 

PUBLIC AWARENESS PROJECT 

(PROJECT OUTREACH) 

 In furtherance of a practice established in 1987, the Court scheduled 

several special sessions and heard oral arguments in selected cases outside 

its permanent Courthouse in Washington, D.C., during the 2003 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, without objection of the parties, at 

Washington and Lee University School of Law, Lexington, Virginia, Duke 

University School of Law, Durham, North Carolina, the University of North 

Carolina School of Law, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, New England School of 

Law, Boston, Massachusetts, Suffolk University School of Law, Boston, 

Massachusetts, and Roger Williams University School of Law, Bristol, Rhode 

Island. 
 “Project Outreach” has continued to promote an increased public 

awareness of the fundamental fairness of the military criminal justice 

system and the role of the Court in its administration. The Court hopes 

that those who attend these hearings from both military and civilian 

communities will garner further appreciation for the United States 

military, the UCMJ, and the essential role both play in providing for the 

national security of the United States. 

JUDICIAL VISITATIONS 

 During the 2003 Term of Court, the Judges of the Court, consistent 

with past practice and their ethical responsibility to oversee and improve 

the entire military criminal justice system, participated in professional 

training programs for military and civilian lawyers, spoke to professional 

groups of judges and lawyers and visited with judge advocates, military 

judges, commanders, and other military personnel at various military 

installations. 

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE 

 On May 13 and 14, 2003, the Court held its annual Judicial Conference 

at the Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, Washington, 

D.C. The program for this Judicial Conference was certified for credit to 

meet the continuing legal education requirements of numerous State Bars 

throughout the United States. The Conference opened with welcoming remarks 

by the Honorable Susan J. Crawford, Chief Judge, United States Court of 

Appeals for the Armed Forces, followed by speakers for this year’s 

conference, including Dean Douglas Kmiec, Catholic University of America, 

Columbus School of Law, Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, Commander 

Michael J. Boock, JAGC, USN, Deputy Legal Counsel, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 

William H. Taft, IV, Legal Adviser, Department of State, David Crane, Chief 

Prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, Professor Michael F. 

Noone, Jr., Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, Eugene 

Fidell, Esquire, Professor Elizabeth Hillman, Rutgers-Camden School of Law, 

Professor Stephen A. Saltzburg, George Washington University School of Law, 

Professor Kenneth R. Feinberg, Georgetown University Law Center, Roscoe C. 

Howard, Jr., United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, Professor 

Anne Coughlin, University of Virginia School of Law, and Major Charles H. 

Rose, III, USA, JAGC, Professor of Criminal Law, The Judge Advocate 

General’s School, United States Army, Charlottesville, Virginia. 

SUSAN J. CRAWFORD 

Chief Judge 

H.F. “SPARKY” GIERKE 

Associate Judge 

ANDREW S. EFFRON 

Associate Judge 

2 
JAMES E. BAKER 

Associate Judge 

CHARLES E. “CHIP” ERDMANN 

Associate Judge 

3 
USCA STATISTICAL REPORT 

2003 TERM OF COURT 

CUMULATIVE SUMMARY 

CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 1, 2002

 Master Docket .............................. 50 

 Petition Docket ............................ 301 

 Miscellaneous Docket ....................... 2

 TOTAL ...................................... 353 

CUMULATIVE FILINGS

 Master Docket .............................. 113 

 Petition Docket ............................ 694 

 Miscellaneous Docket ....................... 23

 TOTAL ...................................... 830 

CUMULATIVE TERMINATIONS

 Master Docket .............................. 114 

 Petition Docket ............................ 824 

 Miscellaneous Docket ....................... 21

 TOTAL ...................................... 959 

CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 1, 2003

 Master Docket .............................. 49 

 Petition Docket ............................ 171 

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

 TOTAL ...................................... 224 

OPINION SUMMARY

CATEGORY SIGNED PER CURIAM MEM/ORDER TOTAL

Master Docket ........... 53 4 57 114 

Petition Docket ......... 0 0 824 824 

Miscellaneous Docket .... 0 0 28 28

TOTAL ................... 53 4 909 966 

4 
FILINGS (MASTER DOCKET)

 Remanded from Supreme Court ............... 0 

 Returned from Court of Criminal Appeals.... 3 

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

 Certificates filed ........................ 4 

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

 Petitions granted (from Petition Docket)... 106

 TOTAL ..................................... 113 

TERMINATIONS (MASTER DOCKET)

 Findings & sentence affirmed .............. 70 

 Reversed in whole or in part .............. 41 Signed .... 53 

 Granted petitions vacated ................. 0 Per curiam ... 4 

 Other disposition directed ................ 3 Mem/order .. 57

 TOTAL ..................................... 114 TOTAL ...... 114 

PENDING (MASTER DOCKET)

 Awaiting briefs ........................... 12 

 Awaiting oral argument .................... 27 

 Awaiting lead case decision (trailer cases) 10 

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

 TOTAL ..................................... 49 

FILINGS (PETITION DOCKET)

 Petitions for grant of review filed ....... 693 

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

 Petitions for reconsideration granted ..... 0 

 Returned from Court of Criminal Appeals ... 0

 TOTAL ..................................... 694 

TERMINATIONS (PETITION DOCKET)

 Petitions for grant dismissed ............. 1 

 Petitions for grant denied ................ 681 

 Petitions for grant granted ............... 133 

 Petitions for grant remanded .............. 5 Signed ...... 0 

 Petitions for grant withdrawn ............. 4 Per curiam .. 0 

 Other ..................................... 0 Mem/order.. 824

 TOTAL ..................................... 824 TOTAL .... 824 

5 
PENDING (PETITION DOCKET)

 Awaiting briefs ........................... 64 

 Awaiting Central Legal Staff review ....... 43 

 Awaiting final action ..................... 64

 TOTAL ..................................... 171 

FILINGS (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET)

 Remanded from Supreme Court ................. 0 

 Writs of error coram nobis sought ........... 1 

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

 Other extraordinary relief sought ........... 4 

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

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

TERMINATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET)

 Petitions withdrawn ......................... 1 

 Petitions remanded .......................... 0 

 Petitions granted ........................... 1 

 Petitions denied ............................ 19 Signed .... 0 

 Petitions dismissed ......................... 0 Per curiam. 0 

 Other ....................................... 0 Mem/order.. 21

 TOTAL ....................................... 21 TOTAL ..... 21 

PENDING (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET)

 Awaiting briefs ............................. 1 

 Awaiting Writs Counsel review ............... 2 

 Awaiting final action ....................... 1

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

RECONSIDERATIONS & REHEARINGS 

 BEGIN END DISPOSITIONS

CATEGORY PENDING FILINGS PENDING Granted Denied Total

All Cases ..... 0 8 0 0 8 8 

MOTIONS ACTIVITY

 BEGIN END DISPOSITIONS

CATEGORY PENDING FILINGS PENDING Granted Denied Other Total

All motions ..... 3 482 12 437 36 0 473 

6 
Petition Docket Year End Pen

291 295

379

235

290

226

152

190

301

0

100200300400500

FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 
Master Docket Year End Pen

119

105

73

156

105

77

70

60

50 

0

50

100150200

FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 

1/ This figure does not include 133 trailer cases to United States v. Gorski, No. 97-0034/AF.

1/
Oral Arguments Per Yea

144

112 116 115

131

116 113

81

68

0

255075

100125150

FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 
Total Opinions Per Yea

101

144

95

111

117118

107 113 104

129

102

123 124

110

75 73

93

0

255075

100125150

FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY0

TOTAL SEPARATE OPINIONS (CONCUR, CONCUR IN THE RESULT, ATOTAL COURT OPINIONS
Days from Petition Filing to 

109

151

143 140 145

168

129 133 131

0

255075

100125150175200

FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 
Days from Petition Gran

to Oral Argument

244

276

213

161

189

166

148

125 127 

0

50

100150200250300

FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 
Days from Oral Argument

to Final Decision

166 169

194

163 165

182

169 176 17

0

50

100150200250

FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 
Days from Petition Fili

to Final Decision

92

312

90

473

75

486

99

380

82

371

85

429

70

380

70

330

65

3

0

50

100150200250300350400450500550

FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY0

PETITION DOCKET (DENIAL/DISMISSAL/WITHDRAWAMASTER DOCKET (GRANTED/CERTIFIED/DEATH CASES
Days from Filing to

Final Decision in All Ca

178

138

120

139

166

139

129

110 105

0

20406080

100120140160180

FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 
Total Petitions Filed Per 

1514

1251

1435

1234 1197

1051

753

926 974

0

250500750

1000125015001750200022502500

FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY0
SECTION 3 

REPORT OF THE 

JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE ARMY 
REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE ARMY 

OCTOBER 1, 2002 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2003 

 During fiscal year 2003 (FY 03) and in compliance with Article 6(a), 

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), The Judge Advocate General and 

senior members of his staff made 28 official visits at 45 installations in 

the United States and overseas. The Judge Advocate General also 

reorganized The Judge Advocate General’s School in Charlottesville, 

Virginia, into The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School. In 

addition, the Office of The Judge Advocate General (OTJAG) continued to 

monitor courts-martial, review and prepare military publications and 

regulations, and develop and draft changes to the Manual for Courts-Martial 

(MCM) and the UCMJ. Through its Field Operating Agencies, OTJAG provided 

judicial and appellate services, advice, assistance, and professional 

education to ensure the efficient administration of military justice. 

Numbers in this report are based on an average Army end strength of 493,563 

in FY 03 as reported by the Army G-1. The Army end strength was 516,599 

for FY 02. 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL’S LEGAL CENTER AND SCHOOL 

On 25 July 2003, The Judge Advocate General activated The Judge 

Advocate General’s Legal Center and School that reorganized and 

restructured the previously existing Judge Advocate General’s School in 

Charlottesville, Virginia. The creation of the Legal Center and School is 

intended to create efficiencies for the JAG Corps and the Army by: (1) 

consolidating the JAG Corps’ strategic planning assets in one location; (2) 

capturing lessons learned and incorporating them into JAG Corps training, 

doctrine, force structure, and combat developments; (3) centralizing all 

officer, warrant officer and enlisted training at the JAG School; and (4) 

enhancing the front-line support available to deployed judge advocates by 

improving “reach-back” assistance and resources available to them, i.e., 

research, training and resource materials, and lessons learned. One of the 

JAG Corps’ three brigadier general slots was moved from Washington, DC to 

Charlottesville and re-designated as the Commander/Commandant of the Legal 

Center and School. Under the newly configured Legal Center and School, the 

Army’s Center for Law and Military Operations assumes greater significance 

as the change agent for the JAG Corps. Ultimately, the creation of the 

Legal Center and School is designed to better position the Army JAG Corps 

to support the Army of the future. 

SIGNIFICANT MILITARY JUSTICE ACTIONS 

 The Criminal Law Division, OTJAG, advises The Judge Advocate General 

on military justice policy, legislation, opinions, and related criminal law 

actions. Specific responsibilities include the following: promulgating 

military justice regulations, reviewing Army regulations for legal 

sufficiency, military corrections, the Army's drug testing program, federal 
felony and magistrate court prosecutions, producing legal opinions for the 

Army Staff relating to military justice matters, statistical analysis and 

evaluation of trends in judicial and nonjudicial punishment and responding 

to congressional inquiries. 

 Criminal Law Division individual case data for the last three fiscal 

years, a small but important part of the overall mission, is displayed 

below: 

 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03

White House inquiries 161 33 37 

Congressional and other inquiries 272 206 185 

Clemency Petitions, Article 74, 

UCMJ 

5 8 3 

Officer Dismissals 22 19 17 

Freedom of Information 

Act/Privacy Act 

13 9 3 

 The major projects for the Criminal Law Division for FY 03 included 

the initiation of a project, known as “eJustice” to develop a web based 

military justice management system. The system will provide users 

worldwide with the capability of executing the Army’s Military Justice 

System. This project will improve the Army Court-Martial Information 

System (ACMIS), which currently manages all Special and General CourtsMartial in which an arraignment has occurred. The eJustice project will 

manage all courts-martial, non-judicial punishment, and all adverse 

reprimands or administrative discharges initiated by commanders. The 

Criminal Law Division worked in FY 03 to prepare final recommendations in 

the cases of two Army death penalty cases requiring action by the 

President. Action by the Secretary of the Army is expected in FY 04. The 

JAG Corps enhanced its Victim Witness Program by hiring of a Program 

Manager assigned to the Criminal Law Division in April 2003. The Division 

has aggressively monitored Army post-trial courts-martial processing and 

reevaluated the voice recognition program currently in use by Army courtreporters. Finally, the Division requested, received, and starting the 

staffing process for an update to AR 27-10, Military Justice, last 

published in September 2002. 

JOINT SERVICE COMMITTEE (JSC) ON MILITARY JUSTICE 

The Army is the Executive Agent for publication of the Manual for 

Courts-Martial (MCM) and last published the 2002 edition. This edition 

incorporated the last three executive orders and various statutory changes. 

Upon receipt of the next executive order, we will publish a new edition. 

2 
The current version of the MCM is available electronically at 

http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/mcm2002.pdf. It is also available in 

hardcopy from the Government Printing Office at http://www.gpo.gov/ or by 

telephone at (202) 512-1800; fax (202) 512-2250. 

During the CY 03 review cycle, the JSC completed its nineteenth 

annual review of the MCM. The JSC published this review in the Federal 

Register for public comment on 15 August 2003 and held a public meeting on 

1 October 2003 to receive comments from interested parties. 

Highlights of the annual review’s proposed changes include the 

following with regard to the Rules for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.): amending 

various subsections of R.C.M. 201, R.C.M. 503 and R.C.M. 1301 to clarify 

the rules and procedures to be followed when a service member is tried by a 

court-martial convened by a combatant or joint commander and to clarify 

that members, counsel and military judges from different Services may be 

detailed to a court-martial convened by a combatant or joint commander; 

amending R.C.M. 504 to clarify that in a combatant command or joint command 

that a subordinate joint command or joint task force is ordinarily 

considered separate and detached and to clarify those authorized to 

determine when a unit is “separate or detached” include the next higher 

Joint Command GCMCA. 

The annual review also proposed amending: (1) R.C.M. 912 to conform 

military practice to federal practice and limit appellate litigation when a 

challenged panel member could have been peremptorily challenged or actually 

did not participate in the trial; and (2) amending R.C.M. 1004 making 

violations which constitute a grave breach of the law of war an aggravating 

factor for members to consider in capital cases. 

 The JSC also recommended several minor amendments to Part V of the 

MCM, Nonjudicial Punishment Procedure, to clarify that the procedures for 

nonjudicial punishment proceedings conducted in a combatant or joint 

command follow the procedures of the accused’s service. 

 The final proposal amendments concerned numerous technical amendments 

to the MCM, including changing any reference to the “Department of 

Transportation” to now reflect the “Department of Homeland Security” and 

amending or deleting portions of the Analysis to various Military Rules of 

Evidence to conform these sections to current case law. 

The JSC drafted an Executive Order (EO) to amend the MCM to implement 

these proposed changes. The JSC continues to monitor the processing of two 

additional draft EOs to implement the changes proposed in the 2001 and 2002 

review cycles, both of which are pending Presidential approval. 

3 
 The JSC continues to study, among other things, of the use of 

technology in the courtroom, the proposed expansion of subpoena authority, 

the expansion of the statute of limitations in child abuse cases and the 

effects of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Lawrence v. Texas on 

military law. 

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY: FY 03 

(See table insert, attached) 

U.S. ARMY LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY 

 The U.S. Army Legal Services Agency, a field operating agency of 

OTJAG, includes the following organizations involved in the administration 

of military justice: the U.S. Army Judiciary, the Government Appellate 

Division, the Defense Appellate Division, the Trial Defense Service, and 

the Trial Counsel Assistance Program. 

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, the Trial Judiciary, and the 

Examination and New Trials Division. 

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

 The Clerk of Court receives records of trial for review under Article 

66, Uniform Code of Military Justice. The cases are referred to one of the 

three judicial panels of the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals for 

appellate review. Also received are appeals under Article 62, Petitions 

for Extraordinary Relief, and Withdrawals from Appellate Review. 

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

court-martial records dating from 1939. Inquiries about courts-martial are 

received from federal and state investigative agencies, law enforcement 

offices, military historians, media, veterans, and the accused. Because 

the Brady Bill requires the processing of handgun applications within three 

workdays, many expedited requests are received from the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation’s National Instant Background Check System. Also, state 

sexual offender registries submit many requests. 

 

Inquiries Received FY 01 FY 02 FY03

Freedom of Information Act 214 188 166 

Privacy Act 74 60 73 

 Certified Copies of Convictions 292 417 375

 Total Number of Requests 580 665 614 

4 
The Office of the Clerk of Court provides assistance to overseas 

trial jurisdictions in processing requests for non-DOD civilians to travel 

to overseas trials. This includes making travel arrangements, assisting 

with requests for expedited passport processing, and issuing invitational 

travel orders. 

Trial Judiciary 

Military judges preside over the trial of all special and general 

courts-martial worldwide. Eighteen active duty and fourteen Army Reserve 

judges tried courts-martial in remote locations, including Kuwait and Iraq, 

as well as in military courtrooms throughout the United States, Europe, 

Japan, and Korea. Three Army Reserve judges were called to active duty to 

assist with the anticipated caseload increases, fueled in part by the call 

to active duty of Reserve and National Guard personnel, the first such call 

since the Military Justice Act of 1968. In spite of massive troop 

deployments, the overall caseload decreased only slightly, and actually 

increased at many locations within the continental United States, Germany, 

and Korea. Trials of soldiers in the Iraq and Kuwait areas commenced 

shortly after the active combat phase ended, and increased in number over 

the summer and fall. Two judicial clerks were also called to active duty 

to assist in preparation of benchbooks for possible use in trials by 

military commissions and courts-martial of enemy prisoners of war. 

Examination & New Trials Division

Pursuant to a delegation from the Judge Advocate General, the 

Examination and New Trials Division [ENT] examines UP Article 69(a) UCMJ, 

all general court-martial cases not otherwise reviewed under Article 66, 

UCMJ. Last year ENT examined 114 cases and acted on eight applications for 

relief from inferior courts-martial UP Article 69(b), UCMJ. There were no 

petitions for new trial UP Article 73 and no relief required under RCM 

1201(b)(2) where a general court-martial convening authority failed to take 

corrective action recommended by a judge advocate based on a legal error. 

ENT also performed an administrative check on 115 cases involving 

acquittals, post-trial separations UP Chapter 10 AR 635-200, and waivers of 

appellate review. As of 1 October 2003, this function was transferred to 

the Office of The Judge Advocate General, Criminal Law Division. 

U.S. ARMY TRIAL DEFENSE SERVICE 

The U.S. Army Trial Defense Service (USATDS), a defense service 

consisting of approximately 130 active duty and 170 reserve attorneys 

provided high quality, professional defense services to soldiers throughout 

the Army from 55 active duty installations worldwide and 40 reserve 

locations. USATDS counsel defended soldiers facing the entire range of 

allegations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

5 
 USATDS detailed one or more counsel to every Army special and general 

courts-martial referred in FY 03. USATDS counsel also carry a large 

workload unrelated to courts-martial representation. The workload 

unrelated to courts-martial in the last four years is displayed below. 

 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 

Administrative 

Boards 

698 597 826 918 1,215 

Nonjudicial 

Punishment 

31,595 30,633 35,786 40,769 39,382 

Consultations 26,794 24,051 33,546 37,476 36,382 

 

USATDS provided defense services to deployed forces around the world, 

including Iraq, Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Central Asia. 

Currently there are twelve defense attorneys, along with ten enlisted 

paralegals, deployed to various areas in Iraq. In order to provide a 

management and supervisory attorney structure for defense services in Iraq, 

The Judge Advocate General approved the establishment of a provisional 

USATDS Region XI in July 2003. Despite the hazardous duty and austere 

environment in Iraq, TDS counsel are providing high quality representation 

at courts-martial held in the Iraqi Theater of Operations. 

A regulatory change now enables USALSA to fund of all defense counsel 

travel from the first stage of the investigation. This funding arrangement 

will improve the overall quality of service to the soldier/client. By 

getting actively involved in the case at its earliest stages, defense 

counsel have, in many instances, successfully negotiated non-punitive 

dispositions of cases. At some locations, TDS maintained inter-service 

agreements to provide defense services to military personnel of sister 

services. Also, at select locations, TDS counsel continued to support 

soldiers at Physical Evaluation Boards. 

Over the past five years, TDS has seen an overall increase in both 

the number of courts-martial and their complexity. During FY 03, however, 

the upward trend line halted and the number of courts-martial decreased to 

the lowest number since FY 99. The decrease is largely attributable to the 

ongoing operations associated with Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring 

Freedom. 

TDS continues to expand its use of desktop video teleconference 

(DVTC) equipment to provide defense services to clients who are not colocated with TDS counsel. Offices located outside the continental United 

States (OCONUS) are making the best use of the technology. The continued 

success of the technology has generated hopes for expansion of the service 

to provide DVTC capabilities to remote areas throughout the world, 

6 
particularly for our deployed counsel in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia 

and Central Asia. TDS counsel in Europe have also developed a deployable 

resource library on CD ROM, which contains an extensive set of references, 

training materials, an attorney brief bank, standardized forms, case 

management tools, client information papers, and similar data in a readily 

portable and easily accessible format. USATDS has launched a new and 

improved website to monitor and control personnel actions, travel, 

training, and research which allows for increased active and reserve 

attorney use. 

Building on the formal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) made in 

2001, the Trial Defense Service and the Defense Appellate Division (DAD) 

continue to foster a very close working relationship. Most recently, DAD 

and TDS have coordinated to monitor post-trial processing delays to ensure 

that their clients are receiving the very best representation throughout 

both the trial and appellate process, with smooth transition of counsel 

between our organizations. 

TDS counsel continue to foster a close working relationship with 

reserve defense counsel assigned to the 154th and the 22d Trial Defense 

Service Legal Services Organizations (TDS LSOs). The 154th TDS LSO, 

consisting of 90 commissioned officers, a warrant officer and 13 enlisted 

paralegals, provides defense services to soldiers assigned to units in the 

Eastern half of CONUS and in Europe. The 22d TDS LSO, consisting of 74 

commissioned officers and 18 enlisted paralegals, provides defense services 

to soldiers assigned to units in the Western half of CONUS and Asia. Some 

individual TDS offices have established joint training programs with their 

local reserve TDS personnel and have conducted highly successful joint 

training conferences. The Chief, U.S. Army Trial Defense Service, 

exercises technical supervision over the reserve TDS LSOs. He is 

responsible for the performance of defense counsel services and provides 

oversight for the units’ training and readiness. Reserve support to active 

duty TDS offices remains outstanding, with reserve officers providing 

critical support at Fort Hood, Fort Stewart and Fort Bragg, as well as 

other offices with increased caseloads. Reserve judge advocates have also 

deployed overseas to Germany as backfills for active duty defense counsel 

who had deployed to Iraq. Finally, several reserve judge advocates have 

volunteered, have served, and are serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo, 

as deployed defense counsel. 

Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Training for TDS counsel was 

conducted in weeklong, consolidated regional conferences, attended by 

active duty and reserve TDS counsel, as well counsel from other services. 

The multi-region/multi-service approach to CLEs resulted in more productive 

and informative CLEs, benefiting all attendees. All training sessions 

included extensive practical exercises and individual critiques by 

7 
experienced attorneys. This year there was an increase in participation by 

both reserve counsel and counsel from our sister services. In Korea, TDS 

has entered an agreement for cross-training with the Marines in Okinawa. 

During first quarter of FY 03, multi-regional CLEs were conducted at Las 

Vegas, NV and Savannah, GA. Because of ongoing military operations during 

the third quarter of FY 03, multi-region CLEs were not held during the 

spring. Instead, each USATDS region conducted a regional training workshop 

on a much smaller scale. The training focused TDS counsel on honing their

courtroom skills and expanding their knowledge of military justice with 

particular emphasis on evidentiary objections and arguments. 

TRIAL COUNSEL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

 The United States Army’s Trial Counsel Assistance Program (TCAP) 

fulfilled its mission of providing information, advice, training 

opportunities, and trial assistance to American military prosecutors 

worldwide. An additional officer was added to TCAP in FY 03 and TCAP is 

now staffed by five Army judge advocates and a civilian office assistant. 

TCAP also serves as a third branch of the Army’s Government Appellate 

Division and utilizes this position to link trial and appellate counsel 

together to resolve issues of common import to the successful prosecution 

of courts-martial. In that light, TCAP serves as the prosecutor’s 

appellate advocate for extraordinary writs and Government appeals during 

the prosecution of a case and as the Government’s advocate during habeas 

corpus litigation of cases that have passed through the ordinary course of 

appellate review. In tandem, these dual missions for TCAP buttress the 

fieldwork of trial by court-martial and enhance the appellate finality of 

ensuing convictions. 

 TCAP provided five basic categories of services during FY 2003: (1) 

telephone/e-mail/and website forum inquiry assistance; (2) advocacy 

training courses and other training events; (3) dissemination of 

publications on a variety of subjects; (4) trial assistance; (5) appellate 

assistance. In so doing, TCAP personnel accomplished the following: (1) 

responded to an average of over 100 telephonic and email requests for 

assistance per month; (2) conducted six regional advocacy training 

conferences in the United States (Fort Stewart and the Germany conference 

were postponed due to deployments), providing hundreds of hours of 

continuing legal education to approximately 150 military judge advocates 

and 35 Army Criminal Investigation Division agents; (3) provided electronic 

and paper copies of countless articles and other publications to judge 

advocates around the world; (4) responded to numerous messages and 

inquiries posted therein; (5) actively participated in the preparation and 

trial of several courts-martial; and (6) responded to four extraordinary 

8 
writs and filed one Government appeal with the Court of Appeals for the 

Armed Forces (CAAF). TCAP prepared over a dozen answers and returns to 

habeas corpus petitions filed with various Offices of the U.S. Attorney or 

with the United States Court of Appeals for several circuits. 

 In response to the need for vigorous investigation, prosecution and 

treatment of sexual abuse cases, TCAP re-tooled the scenario used in its 

training conferences. The FY 03 version trained participants in a “startto-finish” approach employing complex facts and issues within a mock 

domestic abuse/rape scenario that required the students to research and 

argue their case under critical scrutiny. For FY 04, TCAP will utilize at 

six regional training conferences a scenario that presents facts and issues 

involving child abuse and child pornography. Additionally, the revised 

TCAP website should be unveiled that will include interactive training 

scenarios that allow users to train themselves on trial issues and legal 

principles involved in sexual abuse cases. 

In FY 03, at regional training conferences, TCAP expanded its client 

base to include as students National Guard, Reserve judge advocates, 

civilian victim witness advocates and judge advocates from other services. 

Finally, TCAP hosted Army Chiefs of Justice in a “train the trainers” 

conference designed to enhance the students’ skills in developing their 

subordinates’ trial advocacy abilities. 

FOREIGN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION 

As Executive Agent for foreign criminal jurisdiction, the Army, 

through the International and Operational Law Division, OTJAG, compiles 

information concerning the exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction over 

U.S. personnel. 

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

period used in other parts of this Report, provides an accurate picture of 

the exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction during this reporting period: 

 1 Dec 2000 1 Dec 2001 

 to to 

30 Nov 2001 30 Nov 2002

Foreign Offense Citations 4,498 5,303 

Total Civilian 1,074 1,084 

Total Military 3,424 4,219 

Exclusive Foreign 156 191 

Concurrent Jurisdiction 3,268 4,028 

Traffic/Other Minor Offenses 297 371 

Foreign Jurisdiction 344 472 

9 
 This year, foreign authorities released to U.S. authorities 16 of the 

191 exclusive foreign jurisdiction cases involving military personnel. In 

concurrent jurisdiction cases in which the foreign countries had the 

authority to assert primary jurisdiction, U.S. military authorities were 

able to obtain waivers of the exercise of this jurisdiction in 3,731 cases. 

Overall, the U.S. obtained waivers in 92.6% of all exclusive and concurrent 

jurisdiction cases. This figure reflects a 1.5% decrease in such waivers 

from 2000-2001, when the relevant figure was 94.1%. 

 During the last reporting period, civilian employees and dependents 

were involved in 1,074 offenses. Foreign authorities released 112 of these 

cases (10.4 % of this total) to U.S. military authorities for 

administrative action or some other form of disposition. This year, 

civilian employees and dependents were involved in 1,084 offenses. The 

foreign authorities released 225 of these cases (20.8 % of the current 

total). 

 Foreign authorities tried a total of 931 cases. Ten trials, or 1.1%, 

resulted in acquittals. Those convicted were sentenced as follows: 18 

cases resulted in executed confinement; 48 cases resulted in suspended 

confinement; and 855 cases (91.8 % of the total trials) resulted in only 

fines or reprimands. 

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 

The Standards of Conduct Office (SOCO) manages TJAG’s professional 

responsibility program. This program comprises (1) administratively 

reviewing complaints for credibility, (2) tasking judge advocates to run 

field inquiries concerning professional misconduct allegations, 

(3) reviewing reports of inquiry, and (4) advising TJAG on appropriate 

resolution of ethics cases. SOCO oversees the operation of TJAG’s 

Professional Responsibility Committee and its issuance of advisory ethics 

opinions. 

 

 The office also oversees professional responsibility training within 

the Army. SOCO attorneys: (1) give informal one-on-one ethics advice, (2) 

present ethics topics at professional events, and (3) help judge advocates 

(in close communication with The Judge Advocate General’s School) to give 

training programs at commands and offices. 

 

 Additionally, SOCO actively manages information to: (1) track ethics 

cases, (2) release information under the Freedom of Information and Privacy 

Acts, and (3) keep an attorney ethics web site. 

10 
Notices and Complaints during FY 2002 

 

• Credibility Reviews. 63 notices and complaints had administrative 

disposition after credibility reviews determined that no inquiries 

were warranted (up almost 100 percent from FY 2002’s 32 

administrative dispositions). 

 

• Inquiries. 18 inquiries were conducted and closed (up 66 percent 

from FY 2002’s 6 closed inquiries). 7 inquiries were founded 

(compared with no founded inquiries of the 6 total inquiries closed 

during FY 2002). 

LITIGATION 

Civil lawsuits requiring federal courts to interpret the UCMJ remain 

few in number; however such cases involve significant legal issues for the 

Army. Most suits are by soldiers and former soldiers seeking collateral 

review of court-martial proceedings, usually via petitions for writs of 

habeas corpus filed in federal district courts, or in back-pay actions 

filed in the Court of Federal Claims. Other suits involve challenges to 

confinement conditions, to decisions to deny clemency or parole, to parole 

revocation, or to other administrative actions taken by confinement 

facility officials. 

 The Army Litigation Division successfully defended a challenge to the 

administrative revocation of a discharge obtained by fraud in Rooney v. 

Secretary of the Army. The U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia rejected plaintiff’s argument, among others, that the UCMJ and the 

Constitution prohibit the administrative revocation of a discharge. Major 

Rooney, a United States Military Academy and Health Professionals 

Scholarship Program graduate, obtained a discharge from AR-PERSCOM while he 

was participating in the Medical Corps’ Non-funded Medical Education 

Program, administered by the Office of the Surgeon General. Under this 

program, Major Rooney was temporarily released from active duty into the 

IRR, upon his written agreement to return and serve his remaining eightyear active duty service obligation (ADSO). During that year, Major Rooney 

procured his discharge and the Army subsequently revoked it based on 

evidence that it was procured under fraudulent circumstances. The Court 

agreed with the Army that under the provisions of AR 135-175, a discharge 

revocation need be based only on "some" evidence of “fraudulent 

circumstances,” and therefore rejected Rooney’s claim that the Army acted 

arbitrarily or capriciously. The Court also held that the existence of the 

fraudulent discharge provisions of Articles 3 and 83, UCMJ, do not prohibit 

the administrative revocation of a fraudulent discharge. 

11 
 The United States Court of Federal Claims maintained the limited 

scope of review of collateral attacks on courts-martial in Brown v. United 

States, a case challenging the qualifications of the military judge. 

Brown, a military prisoner convicted of a number of sexual assaults on a 

minor, challenged his court-martial and demanded back pay on the ground 

that the military judge was not properly qualified and certified to preside 

over his case because the judge was in an inactive status with her state 

bar at the time of trial. The Court rejected Brown’s claims, dismissing 

for failure to state a claim that portion of his complaint asserting a 

breach of his enlistment contract because military pay claims are governed 

by statute rather than contract principles. Relying on Burns v. Wilson and 

its progeny in the Federal Circuit, the Court entered summary judgment for 

the Army on the remainder of his complaint, finding the issue of the 

judge’s qualifications had been fully and fairly litigated in the military 

criminal appellate system. 

 In November 2003, the Litigation Division assisted with the oral 

argument before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, defending a January 2003 

District Court decision in Barber v. United States. The case involved a 

female Private First Class who refused an order to have an anthrax 

vaccination. Private First Class Barber was scheduled to move to Korea, 

and the vaccine was required as part of her transition overseas. The 

District Court granted the Army’s motion to dismiss the case, agreeing that 

it could not judicially review the under other than honorable conditions 

discharge received for refusing the anthrax vaccination. Private First 

Class Barber had requested the discharge to avoid her pending courtmartial. The lower court adopted the Army’s argument that this case is 

confined to plaintiff’s refusal to obey a lawful order, rather than a forum 

for debating the merits of the vaccination program. The court cited 

several reasons for not reviewing the discharge: 1) Private First Class 

Barber has not pursued her administrative remedies through the Army 

Discharge Review Board and the Army Board for Correction of Military 

Records; 2) she consented to the other than honorable discharge by 

requesting it instead of being court-martialed; and 3) it was inappropriate 

for the judiciary to second-guess the Army on a military personnel decision 

in an area of military -- rather than judicial -- expertise. Review of the 

vaccination program, the court determined, should be left to the Executive 

and Legislative Branches. We presented essentially the same arguments to 

the appellate court, and are presently awaiting its decision on the appeal. 

EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

Developing, improving, and sustaining our military justice practice 

remains the cornerstone mission of The Criminal Law Department of The Judge 

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

Virginia. The Criminal Law Department continued instruction on wideranging subjects ranging from substantive criminal law to technical 

litigation skills. 

12 
Assisting practitioners in the field is a main focus for the 

Department. Accordingly, the Department leveraged existing technology to 

provide helpful resources for counsel and military judges. Each outline 

created by Department professors is now hyperlinked to the case opinion 

located on the Lexis website. Current desk books containing the 

Department’s most recent outlines are located at 

http://www.jagcnet.army.mil/TJAGLCS (publications). Additionally, the 

Crimes and Defenses Handbook, an indispensable tool for practitioners, saw 

its first major revision since 1995 and was introduced to the field this 

past year. Like the outlines, the Handbook is hyperlinked to allow the 

practitioner a useful and timesaving way to conduct thorough research 

anywhere in the world. 

Advocacy training continues to be a top priority for the Criminal Law 

Department. The Department devotes significant effort to training each 

Basic Course and Advanced Trial Advocacy Course student on trial advocacy 

skills. Basic Course students serve as trial counsel or defense counsel in 

three advocacy exercises, an administrative separation board, a guilty plea 

court-martial, and a contested court-martial. The Department provides a 

number of advocacy resources, including The Advocacy Trainer, to each Basic 

Course student in a concerted effort to encourage continued advocacy 

training in the field. 

 

The Department continued instruction to military justice managers 

with a heavy emphasis on post-trial processing. The 42 students of the 9th 

Military Justice Managers Course received significant instruction on the 

practical “how to” of court-martial post-trial processing as well as 

substantive law instruction. As in the past two courses, justice managers 

received a number of resources on CD-Rom for use in the field, including 

examples of case tracking systems. 

The Criminal Law Department continued to offer advanced advocacy 

training in the 19th and 20th Criminal Law Advocacy Courses in addition to 

advanced advocacy training electives for the Graduate Course. The two-week 

Criminal Law Advocacy Courses afforded 103 trial advocates more 

individualized and specialized trial advocacy training. Augmented with 

four Reserve Component officers, all of whom practice civil and criminal 

litigation in their civilian capacities, for each course, the students 

performed rigorous small-group practical exercises on essential litigation 

skills from opening statement through closing argument. 

In addition to the Military Justice Managers Course and the Criminal 

Law Advocacy Courses, The Criminal Law Department also hosted a variety of

continuing legal education courses, including the 46th Military Judge 

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

Coast Guard, to provide preparatory and refresher trainer for the newest 

13 
members of the trial judiciary. The Department also managed the TwentySixth Criminal Law New Developments Course attended by 228 judge advocates 

from all services. In addition to hosting courses, Department professors 

taught classes to Reserve Component judge advocates at Reserve On-Sites as 

well as providing case updates to appellate court judges and counsel at the 

Judge Advocate Association Appellate Conference and the Fulton Conference. 

Finally, The Criminal Law Department was very fortunate to host a 

distinguished American jurist last year. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered 

the 31st Hodson Lecture on Criminal Law. Justice Scalia provided the 

standing-room only audience with an insightful view of his Constitutional 

interpretation. Also of note, Department members, along with other Legal 

Center and School members, provided a Russian delegation with examples of 

military justice in action through demonstrations of a mock nonjudicial 

punishment proceeding and a mock court-martial. The demonstrations 

provided the delegation, which included General-colonel of Justice 

Aleksandr Savenkov, with an example of our unique adversarial system. 

PERSONNEL, PLANS, AND POLICIES 

The attorney strength of the active component Judge Advocate 

General’s Corps at the end of FY 03 was 1,506 (including general officers). 

This total does not include 72 officers attending law school while 

participating in the Funded Legal Education Program. The attorney strength 

of the reserve component Judge Advocate General’s Corps at the end of FY 03 

was 1,999 and the strength of the Army National Guard at the end of FY 03 

was 608. The diverse composition of our attorney population included 122 

African-Americans, 40 Hispanics, 71 Asians and Native Americans, and 387 

women. The FY 03 end strength of 1,506 compares with an end strength of 

1474 in FY 02, 1,462 in FY 01, 1,427 in FY 00, 1,426 in FY 99, 1,499 in FY 

98, 1,523 in FY 97, 1,541 in FY 96, 1,561 in FY 95, 1,575 in FY 94, and 

1,646 in FY 93. The grade distribution of the Corps’ attorneys was 5 

general officers; 124 colonels; 215 lieutenant colonels; 318 majors; and 

844 captains. An additional 83 warrant officers, 428 civilian attorneys, 

and 1,516 enlisted paralegals supported legal operations worldwide. 

THOMAS J. ROMIG 

Major General, USA 

The Judge Advocate General 

14 
APPENDIX - U.S. ARMY MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Report Period: FISCAL YEAR 2003 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/ 

DECREASE (-) OVER 

LAST REPORT 

GENERAL 689 657 32 -12.6% 

BCD SPECIAL [A] 644 631 13 +8.8% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 21 20 1 +110% 

SUMMARY 858 812 46 0% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT -1.6% 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED [B]

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES (+ dismissals) 115 + 16 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 291 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 338 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 612 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 477 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 201 

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

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 115 [C] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D] 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D] 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 760 [C] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 753 [E] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 123 [C] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD -4.1% 

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

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

NUMBER 1086 

PERCENTAGE 69.98% 

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

 (CAAF) 

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 283 of 753 37.58% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +14.57% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 39 of 293 13.31% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +33.63% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY USACCA 5.18% 

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD ] +48%

Page 1 of 2 
APPENDIX - U.S. ARMY MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS - CONT’D 

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ 

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 1 

RECEIVED 11 

DISPOSED OF 10 

 GRANTED 0 

 DENIED 10 

 NO JURISDICTION 0 

 WITHDRAWN 0 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 2 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 537 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 559 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 152 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 85 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 22 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 493,563 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 43,037 

RATE PER 1,000 87.14 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD -4.77% 

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. 

Page 2 of 2 
SECTION 4 

REPORT OF THE 

JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY 
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY 

OCTOBER 1, 2002 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2003 

SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF

MILITARY JUSTICE

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

Military Justice (UCMJ), the Judge Advocate General and the Deputy Judge 

Advocate General made frequent inspections of Navy legal offices in the 

United States, Europe, and the Far East in order to supervise the 

administration of military justice. These inspections, conducted by 

subject matter experts, examined the full range of military justice 

processes at those offices inspected, to include significant portions of 

the officers, enlisted personnel, and civilians, who currently comprise the 

Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps and legal community. 

ARTICLE 69(a), UCMJ, EXAMINATIONS 

 Twenty-five general courts-martial records of trial that were not 

statutorily eligible for automatic review by the Navy-Marine Corps Court of 

Criminal Appeals (NMCCA) were forwarded for examination to the Office of 

the Judge Advocate General in fiscal year 2003. An additional 28 cases 

were pending at the end of fiscal year 2002. Of the 27 cases completed, 

none required corrective action by the Judge Advocate General. At the 

close of fiscal year 2003, 26 cases were pending review. 

ARTICLE 69(b), UCMJ, APPLICATIONS 

 In fiscal year 2003, applications for review under Article 69(b), 

UCMJ, were received in 21 cases. At the end of fiscal year 2002, 15 such 

applications were pending. Of these 36 cases, 16 cases were denied on the 

merits. At the end of fiscal year 2003, 20 cases were pending review. 

ARTICLE 73, UCMJ, PETITIONS 

 One petition was received in the Office of the Judge Advocate General 

during fiscal year 2003, and that case is still pending review. 

APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISION (Code 45) 

Mission. The Appellate Defense Division represents Navy and Marine 

Corps appellants before the NMCCA, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed 

Forces (CAAF), and the U.S. Supreme Court. It also represents some 

appellants before the Navy Clemency & Parole Board. The Division provides 

assistance to trial defense counsel in the field by helping to file 

extraordinary writs before NMCCA and CAAF, providing a death penalty 

assistance team to advise field defense counsel facing potential capital 

cases, and providing advice on specific cases in litigation at trial. 
 Organization. Commander George F. Reilly, JAGC, USN, and Lieutenant 

Colonel Eric B. Stone, USMC, served as Division Director and Deputy 

Director the entire fiscal year. The Division’s mission is accomplished 

through the integrated efforts of both active duty and Reserve Navy and 

Marine Corps judge advocates. A highly talented team of 17 Navy and Marine 

Corps judge advocates participated in accomplishing the Division’s active 

duty mission during fiscal year 2003. In the summer of 2003, two active 

duty law student interns, a Navy lieutenant and Marine Corps Captain, also 

supported the Division. These officers received training in military 

justice and provided invaluable support to the Division as legal research 

assistants. Additionally, the Appellate Defense Division hosted three law 

school students from local law schools. The interns received extensive 

instruction in legal research and writing and, in turn, assisted Division 

counsel in the preparation of court-martial appeals. 

 The Division was fully staffed with civilian personnel. A lead legal 

clerk/office manager and two legal clerks assisted the active duty 

personnel and one additional legal clerk was assigned exclusively to the 

Reserve Branch. 

Reserve Branch. The Appellate Defense Division relied heavily on the 

invaluable support of 45 Navy and Marine Corps Reserve judge advocates. 

Reserve attorneys filed 1460 cases, representing 70% of the total initial 

pleadings for the year. 

The Division’s supporting Reserve units maximize productivity with 

flexible drilling, where their duties permit them to work from home or 

offices rather than expending the added time and expense of traveling to a 

local Reserve Center. The Reserve Branch centralized database makes this 

arrangement possible. The Reserve Branch Head maintains this database 

tracking every case from assignment to the Reserve Branch, through 

assignment to counsel, mailing, review of work product, and subsequent 

filing. In summer 2003, the database was expanded to improve tracking of 

CAAF petitions, motions, and supplemental briefs. 

The Division’s supporting Reserve units are: NR NAVJAG 109, 

Columbus, Ohio; NR NAMARA (Defense) 111, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; NAVJAG 

519, Los Angeles, California; and NAVJAG 211, Fort Worth, Texas. 

Additionally, the Division received volunteer support from four dedicated 

Naval Reserve judge advocates from Voluntary Training Unit 614. The Marine 

Corps Reserve contingent consisted of 12 independently assigned Reserve 

judge advocates. 

2 
 Appellate Representation. A total of 2160 new cases were received by 

the Appellate Defense Division. Despite considerable efforts at reducing 

the numbers of cases pending filing of initial pleadings, the Division 

realized a 66 case increase in these numbers. At the end of fiscal year 

2003, the total number of cases pending initial review was 1038, however, 

we expect to reduce this number in the upcoming fiscal year. 

As depicted below, the Appellate Defense Division filed 2094 initial 

pleadings with the NMCCA. This number was comprised of 1483 merit 

submission, 178 summary assignments, and 433 briefs. Division counsel 

engaged in oral argument before the NMCCA in 10 cases. 

A total of 240 cases were petitioned to CAAF, with 27 grants of 

review issued. Division counsel engaged in oral argument before the CAAF 

in seven cases. 

Below is a comparison of this year’s Appellate Defense statistics 

with those of the previous two fiscal years. 

NMCCA FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 

Briefs Filed 324 677 433 

Total Cases Filed 1722 2406 2094 

Oral Arguments 12 8 10 

USCAAF 

Petitions Filed 140 290 240 

Supplements Filed 111 237 174 

Briefs Filed 19 13 12 

Oral Arguments 19 11 7 

U.S. Supreme 

Court 

 

Petitions Filed 6 0 3 

3 
Capital Litigation. During fiscal year 2003, the Appellate Defense 

Division continued to represent three enlisted Marines convicted of capital 

offenses, whose sentences included the death penalty. A Reserve Marine 

Corps judge advocate with extensive capital litigation experience was 

mobilized for a 1-year period to serve as lead counsel in United States v. 

Quintanilla, a capital case tried at Camp Pendleton in 1996. A team of 

active duty and Reserve counsel prepared and filed the defense brief with 

NMCCA within 5 months of the reservist’s mobilization. A Reserve Navy 

judge advocate was mobilized for a 6-month period to work on the case of 

United States v. Parker, a capital case tried at Camp Lejeune in 1993. In 

September 2003, NMCCA granted a defense motion for a mental health 

evaluation to determine whether Lance Corporal Parker is mentally retarded, 

which could bar his execution under Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 

(2002). In United States v. Walker, another capital case tried at Camp 

Lejeune in 1993, the Appellate Defense Division filed a motion for summary 

reversal of the sentence due to exclusion of mitigating evidence. The 

NMCCA, however, denied the motion without prejudice to raising the same 

issue in Lance Corporal Walker’s plenary brief. The Appellate Defense 

Division also filed a brief as amicus curiae with the Court of Appeals for 

the Armed Forces, urging the Court to grant a petition for writ of error 

coram nobis filed by Army Private Dwight Loving. Private Loving, whose 

case was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1996, seeks a writ overturning 

his death sentence on the ground that the military death penalty system is 

inconsistent with Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002). 

The Navy-Marine Corps Capital Litigation Resource Center (CLRC), 

unique among the services, is co-located with the Appellate Defense 

Division and provides advice on pretrial, trial, and sentencing strategies 

in military death penalty cases. It also serves as a research and resource 

clearinghouse with banks of motions relating to capital litigation as well 

as information about expert consultants and witnesses. The CLRC maintains 

a close working relationship with defense judge advocates from all 

services. The CLRC also plays a large role in training trial and appellate 

defense counsel at the annual Defense Complex Litigation Course taught at 

the Naval Justice School, Newport, Rhode Island. During fiscal year 2003, 

the CLRC provided assistance to the field in several cases that were either 

referred capital or where capital referral was a possibility. 

Initiatives. The Division presented a proposal to amend the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice at the annual meeting of Code Committee on 

Military Justice. The proposal focused on special court-martial 

convictions – and suggested that these cases should receive formal 

appellate review only if requested by the convicted service member. This 

proposal posits that such procedures would better focus appellate resources 

where they are needed most – for serious cases, and those service members 

who actually want their cases reviewed. Called “Mandatory Review Upon 

Petition,” it is now being studied by the Joint Service Committee. 

4 
Support for the Fleet

Trial Defense Assistance. The Appellate Defense Division provided 

advice and support to Navy and Marine Corps trial defense counsel around 

the world. The Division maintained a rotating Field Call watch comprised 

of experienced appellate attorneys who replied to short-fused questions 

from trial defense counsel and assisted in preparing and filing 

extraordinary writs. 

Extraordinary Writs of Appeal. Six extraordinary writs were 

submitted to the military courts of appeal on behalf of accused service 

members at court-martial or on behalf of service members serving sentences 

in military confinement facilities. Appellate Defense attorneys evaluated 

the issues for viability as extraordinary writs, researched and developed 

the issues for presentation, and presented the writs to the courts of 

appeal. 

Contributions to Continuing Legal Education. Appellate defense 

attorneys lectured at national and local military justice seminars and 

symposia throughout the year. This year, appellate defense attorneys gave 

a series of presentations at training sessions for trial defense counsel at 

Camp Lejeune, North Carolina (current topics in appellant litigation and 

issue preservation at trial); two lectures at Duke University Law School 

(military death penalty and professional responsibility); one lecture at 

the Naval Post Graduate School (military/civilian relations); several 

lectures at Naval Justice School, Newport, Rhode Island (military death 

penalty); one lecture at the Navy Legal Service Office in Pensacola, 

Florida (recent CAAF decisions and issue preservation), and one lecture at 

the National Legal Aid and Defenders Association’s “Life in the Balance” 

course in Austin, Texas (military death penalty). 

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT DIVISION (CODE 46) 

The primary mission of the Appellate Government Division is to 

represent the United States at the appellate level in general and special 

courts-martial arising from the Navy and Marine Corps, pursuant to Article 

70, Uniform Code of Military Justice. In addition, the Division provides 

support to staff judge advocates and trial counsel throughout the Navy and 

Marine Corps on issues related to pretrial, court-martial and post-trial 

proceedings. 

At the end of fiscal year 2003, the Division had nine active duty 

judge advocates and two civilian staff members. Colonel Michael E. 

Finnie, USMC, relieved Colonel Rose M. Favors, USMC, in the billet of 

Division Director. Commander Robert P. Taishoff, JAGC, USN, continued in 

the billet of Division Deputy. 

5 
Reserve support is critical to the accomplishment of Appellate 

Government’s mission. Utilizing direct support from 12 Navy Reservists 

from two Navy Reserve Detachments (NAVJAG 116 (Detroit) and NAMARA 116 

(Minneapolis)) and three Marine Corps officers as Individual Mobilization 

Augmentees, the Division revised the manner in which it employed its 

Reserve assets. Streamlining the process by which cases are assigned, 

tracked and filed, the Deputy Director now monitors a “one to one” active 

duty/Reserve counterpart approach to brief filing. This approach 

significantly improved the responsiveness, training, and integration our 

Reserve assets into our appellate mission as evidenced by the quality, 

timeliness, and increased production of their briefs. The Division also 

continues to benefit from their collective experience and perspective as 

civilian practitioners. 

During summer 2003, two law student interns, and one Marine Corps 

officer participating in the Funded Law Education Program, supported the 

staff. These individuals provided invaluable assistance to the Division 

as researchers, analysts, and moot court judges as well as receiving 

considerable training in the military justice system. 

The Division continued to institute several organizational changes in 

response to manpower challenges. To the maximum extent possible, those 

duties that did not require a judge advocate to perform, or an officer to 

execute, were delegated to the civilian staff. In addition, greater 

emphasis was placed on cross-training the civilian staff so that no task 

would go unattended in anyone's absence. As a result, productivity by 

counsel and civilian staff significantly improved. Additionally, 

technology upgrades in the NAUTILUS database allowed each attorney to more 

carefully track their caseload and create simple pleadings that were 

previously done by the administrative support staff. 

During fiscal year 2003, the Division filed approximately the same 

number of substantive pleadings at the NMCCA as it did in fiscal year 2002. 

In fiscal year 2003, the Division saw a sharp reduction in briefs filed at 

the CAAF and an increase in other pleadings. The following chart reflects 

these statistics: 

6 
 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 

NMCCA 

 Briefs filed 395 798 761 

 Other pleadings 277 456 475 

CAAF 

 Briefs filed 41 45 12 

 Other pleadings 82 91 152 

During fiscal year 2003, Division judge advocates presented oral 

argument at the United States Naval Academy for the outreach program 

sponsored by the NMCCA. Participation in these programs served to educate 

and inform students at this institution about the fairness and 

professionalism of the military justice system. Division counsel responded 

to numerous requests for assistance from Navy and Marine staff judge 

advocates and trial counsel regarding government appeals and petitions for 

extraordinary relief. Issues in these cases included evidentiary rulings 

by military judges and suppression of evidence, among others. 

The Division continued to revise Trial Counsel Assistance Program 

procedures. Procedures were refined with a view towards ensuring accurate, 

complete, and timely responses to inquiries from the fleet while not 

detracting from Appellate Government counsels' ability to accomplish the 

Division's primary mission. Although telephone calls still served as the 

primary means of communication, the e-mail procedures developed during 

fiscal year 2002 continued to prove to be extremely efficient, reliable and 

manageable. Further, a new tracking system was established in order to 

keep accurate records of the numbers of calls received. 

During fiscal year 2003, members of the Division received training 

consistent with their duties as appellate counsel. Courses included: the 

Criminal Law New Developments Course at The Army JAG School; advocacy 

skills training through the Department of Justice; a computer crimes 

course; and, the Association of Government Attorneys in Capital Litigation 

Course. Several members of the Division attended the Judge Advocates 

Associate Symposium on Appellate Practice at Catholic University. Other 

members of the Division attended the CAAF Judicial Conference. 

In September, as a result of flooding from Hurricane Isabelle, 

Appellate Government’s operations were moved to Bldg 200 on the Washington 

Navy Yard. Despite this major interruption, counsel and staff maintained a 

positive attitude and kept the work moving in timely fashion. Currently, 

the plan is to move back to our spaces in March 2004. 

7 
NAVY-MARINE CORPS TRIAL JUDICIARY 

The Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary is a joint Navy-Marine Corps 

activity led by the Chief Judge. Its mission is to provide certified 

military judges for Navy and Marine Corps general and special courtsmartial. The Judiciary is organized into 12 judicial circuits and is 

supported by Naval Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve Individual Mobilization 

Augmentees. 

The Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary (NMCTJ) consists of 32 active 

duty and 27 reservists serving in 12 circuits and five branch offices. 

During fiscal year 2003, NMCTJ provided judicial services in 315 general 

courts-martial and 1854 special courts-martial. These numbers represent a 

decrease in both general and special courts-martial as compared to fiscal 

year 2002. 

NMCTJ provided judicial services to Fleet and Shore Activities, and 

Marine Forces in the United States and around the world. Members of the 

Trial Judiciary participated in continuing education at The Army Judge 

Advocate’s General’s School, the Interservice Military Judge’s Seminar at 

Maxwell Air Force Base, and various courses at the National Judicial 

College at the University of Nevada, Reno. 

NMCTJ also provided training at various levels, including the NavyMarine Corps Senior Officer Course, Naval Justice School Basic Course, and 

other in-service courses. NMCTJ performed an active role in mentoring 

judge advocates through both formal and informal training sessions. 

NAVAL LEGAL SERVICE COMMAND 

Naval Legal Service Command (NAVLEGSVCCOM) is commanded by the Deputy 

Judge Advocate General of the Navy and includes 291 Judge Advocates, 1 

Civil Engineer Corps Officer, 17 Limited Duty (Legal) Officers, 205 

Legalmen, and 208 civilians. NAVLEGSVCCOM provides a wide range of legal 

services to Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard afloat and ashore commands, 

active duty naval personnel, family members, and retirees from 58 offices 

world-wide: eight Naval Legal Service Offices (NLSOs), six Trial Service 

Offices (TSOs), and the Naval Justice School. NAVLEGSVCCOM provides 

counsel for courts-martial, administrative proceedings, physical evaluation 

boards, legal assistance, and advice to line commanders. NAVLEGSVCCOM also 

provides assistance for claims processing, and adjudication, and training 

judge advocates, legalmen, and other DOD personnel. During fiscal year 

2003, NAVLEGSVCCOM provided counsel for 196 General Courts-martial, 712 

8 
Special Courts-martial, 190 Article 32s, 1,082 Administrative Boards, 

processed over 45,000 claims, provided over 277,900 legal assistance 

services, and provided command assistance services for over 3,900 commands. 

NAVLEGSVCCOM is currently beta testing the Military Justice model of 

the HELM (Home Electronic Legal Manager) system for time management. The 

Legal Assistance Time Management program has been implemented at all sites. 

It is expected to field the Military Justice module at all sites in fiscal 

year 2004. 

NAVAL JUSTICE SCHOOL 

Organization. Naval Justice School (NJS) reports to Commander, Naval 

Legal Service Command, for administrative and operational control. The 

main NJS facility is located in Newport, Rhode Island. Teaching 

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

(areas of fleet concentration), while a 1-person Branch Office is colocated with The Judge Advocate General's School of the Army in 

Charlottesville, Virginia. 

Mission. NJS provides accession and continuing legal training to 

Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard judge advocates, Limited Duty Officers 

(Law), enlisted legal professionals, and international students. Training 

is also provided to sea service commanders, senior officers, legal 

officers, senior enlisted leaders, and others in the sound administration 

of military law. In fiscal year 2003, NJS provided instruction to more 

than 10,000 students worldwide (including 2,547 in resident courses ranging 

in length from 2 days to more than 9 weeks). 

Academic Programs. NJS has seven "core" courses, each with primary 

focus on military justice. These courses are: 

• Accession Judge Advocate Course. This 9-week course, offered four 

times annually, provides accession training for all judge 

advocates in the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. The course 

includes extensive training in military justice and court-martial 

advocacy, as well as training in legal assistance, operational 

law, and administrative law. Upon graduation, judge advocates are 

certified per Article 27(b), UCMJ. Fiscal year 2003 graduates: 

138. 

• Accession Legalman Course. This 9-week course, offered four times 

annually, trains Navy enlisted personnel selected for conversion 

to the Legalman rating. The course is divided into two distinct 

phases: military justice paralegal training and court-reporting. 

Fiscal year 2003 graduates: 113.

9 
• Basic Legal Specialist Course. This 9 1/2-week course, offered 

four 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. Fiscal year 2003 graduates: 85. 

• Senior Officer Course in Military Justice and Civil Law. This 1-

week course trains senior officers in the execution of the legal 

responsibilities of command with instruction in nonjudicial 

punishment, court-martial procedures, and administrative law. In 

fiscal year 2003, this course was offered 21 times in 11 different 

locations, training 606 officers. 

• Legal Officer Course. This 3-week course prepares non-lawyer 

"legal officers" to perform a host of military law functions in 

commands not large enough to warrant assignment of a judge 

advocate. In fiscal year 2003, this course was offered 16 times in 

3 different locations, with 507 graduates. 

• Legal Clerk Course. Legal Clerks are typically assigned to assist 

non-lawyer legal officers within a command as a collateral duty. 

This 2-week course provides training in the preparation of legal 

forms and reports, service record entries, nonjudicial punishment, 

and court-martial procedures. In fiscal year 2003, the course was 

offered 19 times in 4 different locations, graduating 342 

students. 

• Senior Enlisted Leadership Course (SELC) in Military Justice and 

Civil Law. This 3-day course provides senior enlisted leaders of 

all services training in a wide range of military law with primary 

focus on military justice matters. In fiscal year 2003, the SELC 

was incorporated into the core curriculum at the Navy's Senior 

Enlisted Academy (SEA). The course was offered six additional 

times in 4 different locations, reaching another 177 students. 

• Continuing Legal Education. In addition to the "core" courses, 

NJS provided a number of continuing legal education (CLE) courses. 

Twenty-five CLE offerings focused primarily upon military justice 

with training including: intermediate and advanced trial advocacy 

skills; computer crimes; legal research and writing; national 

security cases; prosecuting and defending complex cases; reserve 

updates; and a number of paralegal courses. Training was provided 

10 
• to active duty and reserve judge advocates and enlisted legal 

professionals from the sea services, Army, Air Force, and foreign 

countries in military justice and other topics including, 

operational law, administrative law, legal assistance, and estate 

planning. In fiscal year 2003, 32 distinct courses were offered 40 

times in 9 different locations, reaching 822 active duty and 713 

reserve legal professionals. 

Coordination. Through the Interservice Legal Education Review 

Committee (ISLERC), Commanding Officer of NJS and Commandants of the Army 

and Air Force JAG Schools meet semi-annually to discuss new initiatives and 

opportunities for cross-training and to increase cooperation and efficiency 

in the training of legal personnel within the Department of Defense. 

Publications. NJS is responsible for publication of the Naval Law 

Review, all materials in support of academic programs, and any additional 

materials directed by higher authority. In addition to publishing Volume 

49 of the Naval Law Review, which included articles on Military Justice, 

Operational Law, Environmental Law, and Military Commissions, NJS published 

updated student study guides and three reference manuals designed to assist 

sea service commanders with implementation of the UCMJ. 

Additional Training. NJS participated in the Expanded International 

Military Education and Training Program, a security assistance program 

mandated by Congress. Instruction was provided in a variety of areas with 

primary focus on military justice and procedure. NJS instructors provided 

training in Albania, Kyrgystan, Macedonia, Moldova, Namibia, and South 

Africa. NJS also worked closely with the Defense Institute of 

International Legal Studies and provided extensive training to 11 senior 

foreign military and government attorneys participating in the Military Law 

Development Program. NJS instructors also provided more than 600 hours of 

instruction, primarily in military law and procedure, at nine different 

schools and conferences throughout the United States. 

MARINE CORPS ACTIVITIES 

 There are approximately 436 active-duty Marine judge advocates and 400 

Reserve Marine judge advocates. Additionally, there are 18 warrant 

officers and 467 enlisted members working in legal offices. These offices 

support the Fleet Marine Forces in the continental United States, overseas 

and on deployment throughout the world. Our drilling Reserve judge 

advocate community provides substantial support to each of our offices in 

all functional areas. 

11 
 Marine Corps judge advocates perform a variety of missions. They work 

in the military criminal justice system as prosecutors, defense counsel, 

military judges, appellate defense counsel, or appellate government counsel 

in cases of all descriptions. Legal assistance judge advocates assist 

Marines, Sailors, military retirees, and family members in estate planning, 

domestic relations law, consumer law, tax law, property law, landlord and 

tenant law, debtor and creditor law, adoptions, and citizenship cases. 

Marine judge advocates also advise commanders during military operations, 

review military operational plans and provide advice on the Law of War, 

rules of engagement, and domestic law relating to the employment of force 

and support of our allies. Other proactive areas include pre-mobilization 

legal assistance, environmental law, civil law, contract law, international 

law, claims and tort law, and labor law. 

Since Marine Corps judge advocates are unrestricted line officers, 

many also serve in non-legal billets. For example, this year, Marine judge 

advocates served as Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Security Forces 

Company, Kings Bay, Georgia; Commanding Officer, Support Battalion, Marine 

Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, California; Commanding Officer, Support 

Battalion, Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, South Carolina; 

Commanding Officer, 2d Recruit Training Battalion, Marine Corps Recruit 

Depot, San Diego, California; Commanding Officer, 3rd Battalion, Marine 

Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, California; Commanding Officer, 

Headquarters Battalion, Barstow, California; Commanding Officer, Marine 

Corps Security Forces Company, Bremerton, Washington; and Commanding 

Officer, Headquarters and Service Battalion, Marine Corps Base, Kaneohe 

Bay, Hawaii. 

The Marine Corps accesses 45 judge advocates a year from civilian law 

schools and private practice. Approximately 10 judge advocates per year 

are lateral transfers from other Marine Corps occupational fields via the 

Law Education Program. We continue to have more applicants than openings 

and are able to use a board process to screen all applicants to ensure the 

highest quality. Applicants come from diverse backgrounds and all have law 

degrees from ABA accredited law schools. They have higher than average 

LSAT scores and have successfully completed the rigorous Marine Corps 

Officer Candidate Course training program. 

 The process of becoming a Marine Corps judge advocate is four-fold. 

First, eligible applicants must attend Officer Candidate School (OCS) in 

Quantico, Virginia. This strenuous ten-week course is designed to test a 

candidate’s leadership and physical abilities. Successful completion 

leads to a commission as a Second Lieutenant. Second, all Marine Corps 

officers attend The Basic School (TBS). The Basic School is a rigorous, 

12 
6-month program that provides each lieutenant the foundation to be an 

infantry platoon commander. The phrase “every Marine a rifleman” applies 

even to judge advocates. Third, each judge advocate must complete the 

Basic Lawyer Course at the Naval Justice School in Newport, Rhode Island. 

Finally, each judge advocate must successfully complete the newly 

implemented Basic Operational Law Training (BOLT) course. BOLT provides 

judge advocates a week of training in operational and international law. 

Successful completion of OCS, TBS, the Basic Lawyer Course, and BOLT 

culminates in designation as a judge advocate. 

Upon reporting to their commands, various continuing legal education 

training opportunities are available to include command and Headquarters, 

U.S. Marine Corps sponsored programs. Currently, training opportunities 

are available at each of the service judge advocate schools. Additionally, 

various civilian continuing legal education opportunities are provided for 

judge advocates. Approximately twelve judge advocates each year are 

selected for advanced (LL.M.) training at civilian law schools and the 

Judge Advocate General’s School of the U.S. Army. Additionally, each year, 

five to six judge advocates attend a military specific training course such 

as Expeditionary Warfare School, Command and Staff College, or War College. 

Our warrant officer and enlisted members also undergo a significant 

training regime. On average, 10 enlisted Marines are enrolled in a 

stenography/scopist course and each year 30 enlisted Marines attend the 

Legal Service Specialist Mid-Career Course at Naval Justice School. We 

also had 6 enlisted Marines attend the Law Office management course at 

Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, and the Senior NCO management course at 

Charlottesville, Virginia. In addition, we have enlisted Marines filling 

non-legal billets as Drill Instructors, Recruiters, and Marine Security 

Guard. Currently, enlisted Marines are enrolled in paralegal programs and 

have the opportunity to attend legal education courses offered by the 

Marine Corps, Army, Navy, and Air Force, including the Legalman/Legal 

Services Specialist Mid-Career Course and Legal Research and Writing at the 

Naval Justice School. 

The average debt for new Marine Corps judge advocates is $57,000. 

Following the other services, the Law School Education Debt Subsidy (LSEDS) 

has now been approved and is undergoing implementation in the Marine Corps. 

Captains who have completed their initial active duty obligation and intend 

to augment into the regular Marine Corps are eligible. Selection to major 

is the upper parameter for eligibility. Thirty thousand dollars is the 

authorized payment to be made in yearly installments of $10,000. Officers 

accepting LSEDS incur a further 3 year commitment. 

13 
 The following chart contains military justice statistical 

information for the Marine Corps in fiscal year 2002 and 2003. 

Fiscal 

Year 

End 

strength 

GCM SPCM SCM Total 

Courts 

NJP Total 

Adseps 

FY 03 177,779 145 818 782 1,745 8,344 7,096 

FY 02 173,733 223 1,419 1,009 2,651 8,523 11,868 

MICHAEL F. LOHR 

Rear Admiral, JAGC, U.S. Navy 

The Judge Advocate General of the Navy 

14 
APPENDIX - U.S. NAVY/MARINE CORPS MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

Report Period: FY 2003 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/ 

DECREASE (-) OVER LAST 

REPORT 

GENERAL 315 291 24 -3.7% 

BCD SPECIAL 1854 1815 39 -1.5% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 0 0 0 0% 

SUMMARY 1990 1955 35 -5.1% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT -1.3% 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 99 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 205 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( SA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 1391 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 324 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1360 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 36 

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

 APPEALS 

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 2198 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 716 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1482 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 1727 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 334 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1393 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 2162 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 341 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1821 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 1764 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 709 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1055 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD +1.2% 

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

 U.S. NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (CCA) 

NUMBER 1727 

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 235 10% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +5.4% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 22 10.6% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +3% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CCA 1.2% 

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD -+1.4% 

Page 1 of 2 
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 15 

RECEIVED 21 

DISPOSED OF 16 

 GRANTED 0 

 DENIED 16 

 NO JURISDICTION 0 

 WITHDRAWN 0 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 20 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 249 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1732 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 66 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 116 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 117 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 557,716 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 28,114 

RATE PER 1,000 50.6 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD --10.8% 

Page 2 of 2 
SECTION 5 

REPORT OF THE 

JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE AIR FORCE 
REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE AIR FORCE 

OCTOBER 1, 2002 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2003 

THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals rendered 402 decisions in 

fiscal year 2003. This represents a slight decrease from last fiscal 

year’s 435 decisions. The Court continued its “Project Outreach” program, 

hearing oral arguments around the country. The Court heard argument at the 

United States Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado, on the scope 

of an inspection of a trainee’s personal laptop computer at Keesler Air 

Force Base, Mississippi. The Court also heard argument at Scott Air Force 

Base, Illinois, on the factual and legal sufficiency of certain convictions 

for indecent assault, larceny, and false official statement. Finally, the 

Court heard oral argument at The Judge Advocate General School at Maxwell 

Air Force Base, Alabama, on whether the appellant’s conviction for indecent 

acts with a child was factually sufficient and whether his conviction for 

possessing child pornography, contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(A), 

stands in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ashcroft v. Free Speech 

Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). 

The Court was busy this past year with a large turnover of appellate 

military judges in 2003. The Court lost many seasoned judges to retirement 

or change of station. The Court is now at full strength, however, with 

nine active duty judges and six reserve judges. Senator Lindsey Graham and 

Assistant Secretary of the Interior Craig Manson were among the Court’s new 

reserve judges. 

TRIAL JUDICIARY 

The Air Force Trial Judiciary had an average of 22 active duty trial 

judges, six reserve trial judges, and nine noncommissioned officers 

assigned throughout five judiciary circuits worldwide. The military 

judges’ duties include: presiding over all general and special courtsmartial tried in the United States Air Force; serving as investigating 

officers under Article 32, UCMJ; serving as legal advisors for officer 

discharge boards and other administrative boards; conducting parole 

violation hearings; and presiding at public hearings held to consider draft 

environmental impact statements. Fiscal year 2003 was once again a very 

busy year for the USAF Trial Judiciary. Though the numbers were down from 

the previous year, judges presided over more than 800 general and special 

courts-martial around the world. 

 

 The Trial Judiciary conducted the Twenty-Ninth Interservice Military 

Judges’ Seminar, from 22-25 April 2003 at The Air Force Judge Advocate 

General School, Maxwell AFB, Alabama. This seminar was attended by 116 

military judges from the trial judiciaries of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, 

Coast Guard, Air Force and a military judge from the Canadian armed forces. 
 The Chief Trial Judge attended the last week and a half of the 

Military Judges’ Course conducted at The Army Judge Advocate General School 

in Charlottesville, Virginia, from 28 April - 16 May 2003 to participate in 

a roundtable presentation with the Chief Trial Judges of the sister 

services, conduct seminars with the new judges, evaluate moot court 

exercises, and participate in the graduation ceremony. 

 

Our active duty and reserve judges attended several seminars and 

courses this year. Air Force judges were represented at the “Handling 

Capital Cases” symposium at the National Judicial College (NJC), the 

Advanced Criminal Evidence Course, held by the NJC in Reno, NV, and the 

Criminal Law New Developments Course at the Army JAG School. 

Our judges continue to interface with a variety of legal programs 

throughout the military. One such program of note is Defense Institute of 

International Legal Studies (DIILS). Colonel Pittman was heavily involved 

with the DIILS, making several trips to Brazzaville, Republic of the Congo, 

to train members of their armed forces in legal principles unique to Congo. 

Colonel Murnane also worked closely with the Defense Institute of 

International Legal Studies, by participating in training programs with the 

military forces in Latvia and Argentina. Her direct involvement with the 

Latvian Armed Forces led to the passage in the Saiema (Latvian parliament) 

of language she and her team drafted to create a mobile military justice 

process to aid Latvia in its successful bid to become a full partner in the 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In Argentina, Colonel Murnane provided 

essential legal training to the Argentine military on how the military and 

media should interact in a democracy. 

GOVERNMENT TRIAL & APPELLATE COUNSEL DIVISION 

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT COUNSEL 

In November 2003, five appellate counsel attended the Criminal Law 

New Developments Course at the Army Judge Advocate General School. This 

course covered the latest military cases in all significant areas of 

criminal law. In addition to providing new appellate counsel an update in 

the most recent criminal law developments, it was an opportunity for both 

appellate counsel and trial counsel to spend several hours together and 

discuss ways to better serve the base legal offices. In October 2003, five 

appellate counsel attended the USCAAF Symposium sponsored by The Judge 

Advocate’s Association at Catholic University School of Law. Also, in May 

2003, the Division Chief and seven appellate counsel, including four 

reserve appellate counsel, attended the USCAAF Judicial Conference, at 

Catholic University School of Law. These conferences provided current 

information on appellate issues and guidance on appellate practice. 

2 
In October, the Division Chief and three appellate government 

counsel, including one reserve counsel, provided in-depth training at the 

Military Justice Administration Course (MJAC) conducted at the Air Force 

Judge Advocate General School (AFJAGS). 

Appellate government counsel prepared and provided an appellate 

update on USCAAF and AFCCA decisions and trends in case law at trial 

counsel workshops at each of the five circuits. Additionally, the Division 

Chief provided instruction on myriad of military justice topics at the 

Information Operations Law Course and the Advanced Trial and Defense 

Advocacy Course in April 2003, and the Staff Judge Advocate Course in June 

of 2003. 

 Appellate government counsel have contributed to “Project Outreach,” 

sponsored by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and the Air Force 

Court of Criminal Appeals, by conducting oral arguments before audiences at 

the United States Air Force Academy, The Air Force Judge Advocate General 

School, Duke University School of Law, the University of North Carolina 

School of Law, Scott Air Force Base, Roger Williams University School of 

Law, Creighton University School of Law, and Offutt Air Force Base, 

educating attendees on the fairness and professionalism of the military 

justice system. 

 The Division produced a number of important publications this year, 

including the Appellate Update, the Advocacy Continuing Education (ACE) 

Newsletters and the 2003 Trial Counsel Desk book. In turn, these documents 

were placed on the Division’s website, providing practitioners easy and 

immediate access to the latest in military justice case law. 

 Currently, there are eleven reserve judge advocates assigned as 

appellate government counsel. They continue to provide superb support, 

greatly assisting the Division in carrying out its mission. In addition to 

preparing written briefs, six reserve counsel presented oral arguments 

before the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for 

the Armed Forces during the fiscal year. 

 A summary of Air Force Appellate (Government) practice follows: 

AFCCA FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03

 Briefs Filed 230 151 203 181 230 

 Cases Argued 11 19 20 12 13 

USCAAF FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03

 Briefs Filed 29 23 46 99 51 

 Cases Argued 27 28 32 28 31 

3 
SUPREME COURT FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03

 Petition Waivers 

 Filed 2 1 1 0 0 

 Briefs Filed 0 0 0 0 0 

CIRCUIT TRIAL COUNSEL 

 Manning authorizations for the fiscal year included 17 Circuit Trial 

Counsel (CTC) at three circuit offices in CONUS, while 4 CTCs cover the 

Pacific and European theaters, 2 per theater. During fiscal year 2003, 

CTCs tried 201 general courts-martial and 59 special courts-martial. In 

November, several CTCs attended the Criminal Law New Developments Course at 

the Army JAG School. The CTCs in all five judicial circuits conducted 

workshops for base-level prosecutors. Circuit Trial Counsel also showcase 

their talents teaching as adjunct instructors at the Trial and Defense 

Advocacy Course and the Advanced Trial and Defense Advocacy Course. 

APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISION 

 Training for our appellate defense counsel remains one of the 

division’s highest priorities. This training included the Criminal Law New 

Developments Course at the Army Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and 

School in Charlottesville, VA, the Judicial Conference sponsored by the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and a Military Appellate 

Advocacy Symposium sponsored by the Judge Advocates Association. In 

addition, three of our appellate defense counsel attended the Winning Brief

seminar sponsored by LawProse, Inc. 

Appellate defense counsel served as adjunct faculty members twice at 

the Trial and Defense Advocacy Course at the Air Force Judge Advocate 

General School at Maxwell AFB, AL. Appellate defense counsel also served 

as instructors at two Area Defense Counsel Orientation Courses. 

Appellate defense counsel continued to support trial defense counsel 

in the field by actively participating in defense counsel workshops in the 

Pacific, European, Eastern, and Central Circuits. Appellate defense 

counsel also kept trial defense counsel in the field updated on new 

appellate developments in military criminal law via our weekly Newsletter 

for Defense Practitioners. 

Appellate defense counsel contributed to “Project Outreach” sponsored 

by the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) and the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Armed Forces (USCAAF) by participating in oral arguments 

before audiences at: the United States Air Force Academy, CO; the General 

4 
Hemingway Annual Paralegal Symposium at Scott AFB, IL; the Air Force Judge 

Advocate General School at Maxwell AFB, AL; Washington and Lee School of 

Law in Lexington, VA; Duke School of Law in Durham, NC; North Carolina 

School of Law in Chapel Hill, NC; and, Roger Williams School of Law in 

Bristol, RI. “Project Outreach” helps educate students and personnel 

involved in civilian legal practice about the fairness and professionalism 

of the military justice system. 

The following figures reflect the division’s workload over the past 

five fiscal years: 

AFCCA FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03

 Briefs Filed 507 399 481 525 512 

 Cases Argued 9 15 14 12 12 

USCAAF FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03

 Supplements to 

 Petitions 416 330 457 412 219 

 Grant Briefs 26 28 31 33 22 

 Cases Argued 23 25 31 28 26 

SUPREME COURT FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03

 Petitions 0 1 6 3 3 

 Briefs in Opposition 0 0 0 0 0 

 Briefs on the Merits 0 0 0 0 0 

TRIAL DEFENSE DIVISION 

The Trial Defense Division is responsible for providing all trial 

defense services within the Air Force through Area Defense Counsel (ADC), 

Defense Paralegals (DP), Circuit Defense Counsel (CDC), and Chief Circuit 

Defense Counsel (CCDC). These personnel report to the Chief, Trial Defense 

Division (JAJD), who reports to the Director, United States Air Force 

Judiciary (JAJ). The Chief, Trial Defense Division is assisted by the 

Deputy Chief and Law Office Manager. 

The Division is manned with 83 ADCs stationed at 70 bases worldwide. 

They are assisted by 72 DPs. The Division has 21 CDCs and 5 CCDCs. The 

CCDCs, along with all but three of the CDCs, are stationed at the circuit 

offices located at Bolling AFB, DC, Randolph AFB, TX, Travis AFB, CA, 

Ramstein AB, Germany, and Yokota AB, Japan. A single defense paralegal 

manager is assigned to each of the three CONUS circuits and the European 

Circuit. 

5 
The continuing success of the Air Force’s Area Defense Counsel 

Program is largely attributable to its independence and its energized 

personnel. To ensure the best representation for Air Force clients, 

training remains the division’s top priority. Seven CDCs attended the 

Criminal Law New Developments Course at the Army Judge Advocate General 

School. On a continuing basis, each CCDC and CDC provides on-the-job 

training and mentoring to ADCs. Newly appointed defense counsel receive 

formal training at the Area Defense Counsel Orientation held at Bolling AFB 

in June and September and at annual workshops conducted by each Circuit. 

Each circuit conducts DP training at annual workshops. In addition, the 

division ensured each ADC attended the Trial and Defense Advocacy Course 

and that all CDCs attended the Advanced Trial Advocacy Course. The 

Division provided adjunct faculty members for these two courses held at the 

Air Force Judge Advocate General School. 

MILITARY JUSTICE DIVISION 

The Military Justice Division prepares opinions and policy positions 

for The Judge Advocate General and for the Air Force Board for Correction 

of Military Records. They also assemble reports on military justice issues 

requested by the White House, Congress, DoD and the Air Staff. The 

division represents the Air Force on the DoD Joint Service Committee (JSC) 

on Military Justice. The division also provides representatives to all 

interservice activities involving military justice and support for the Code 

Committee. Lastly, the division serves as the action agency for the review 

of military justice issues on applications submitted to the Air Force Board 

for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR). 

 During the past year, the Military Justice Division: (1) provided 93 

formal opinions concerning AFBCMR applications; (2) received 164 inquires 

in specific cases requiring either formal written replies to senior 

officials, including the President and members of Congress; (3) reviewed 44 

records of trial for review under Article 69a, UCMJ, two records under 

Article 69b, UCMJ, and one record under Article 73, UCMJ; and (4) presented 

the seventh annual Military Justice Administration Workshop at the Air 

Force Judge Advocate General School; over 120 judge advocates and 

paralegals attended the “back to basics” one-week workshop. 

CLEMENCY, CORRECTIONS AND OFFICER REVIEW DIVISION 

The Division's primary responsibilities continue to be to (1) 

recommend appropriate disposition of statutorily required sentence review 

actions by the Secretary of the Air Force in officer and cadet dismissal 

cases; (2) recommend action by The Judge Advocate General or the Secretary 

of the Air Force, as appropriate, to effect statutorily authorized clemency 

for members of the Air Force under court-martial sentence; (3) represent 

The Judge Advocate General on the Air Force Clemency and Parole Board; (4) 

make recommendations for the Secretary of the Air Force to the Attorney 

6 
General on Presidential Pardon applications by court-martialed Air Force 

members; and (5) advise The Judge Advocate General and the Security Forces 

Center on corrections issues. 

At the end of fiscal year 2003, 511 Air Force personnel were in 

confinement. Of those, 83 inmates were in long-term confinement at the 

United States Disciplinary Barracks (USDB), Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and 

73 were serving time in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) system. A 

total of 34 inmates were enrolled in the Air Force Return-to-Duty 

Rehabilitation (RTDR) Program during this period, with eight graduating and 

being returned to duty. The number of Air Force inmates on parole at the 

end of fiscal year 2003 was 135, an 11 percent increase from last fiscal 

year. 

AIR FORCE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL SCHOOL 

 The Air Force Judge Advocate General (AFJAG) School is one of eight 

professional continuing education schools in Air University's Ira C. Eaker 

College for Professional Development at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. 

The AFJAG School is located in The William L. Dickinson Law Center, a 

56,000 square foot academic facility dedicated in 1993. The Dickinson Law 

Center also houses the David C. Morehouse Center for Paralegal Studies and 

the Air Force Legal Information Services Division (JAS). The AFJAG School 

provides legal education and training to attorneys and paralegals from all 

military services, other federal agencies, and many foreign countries. The 

AFJAG School faculty provides instruction at several Air University schools 

and colleges as well as courses throughout the Department of Defense. The 

AFJAG School publishes The Reporter, The Air Force Law Review and The 

Military Commander and the Law. The AFJAG School maintains AFJAG 

Department liaison with civilian professional organizations, law schools, 

and states requiring continuing legal education. 

AFJAG School Courses 

 The AFJAG School conducted 40 classes (some courses are held more 

than once a year) in Fiscal Year 2003 for 4,647 students. Courses, 

seminars, and workshops conducted at the AFJAG School included: 

 

 Accident Investigation Board Legal Advisor 

Advanced Environmental Law 

 Advanced Labor and Employment Law 

 Advanced Trial Advocacy 

 Career Services Officers 

 Claims and Tort Litigation 

 Deployed Air Reserve Components Operations and Law 

 Deployed Fiscal Law and Contingency Contracting 

 Environmental Law 

 Environmental Law Update 

7 
 Federal Employee Labor Law 

 Federal Income Tax Law 

 Housing Privatization 

 Information Operations Law 

 International Law 

 Judge Advocate Staff Officer 

 Law Office Manager 

 Legal Aspects of Information Operations 

 Legal Aspects of Sexual Assault 

 Military Judges 

 Military Justice Administration 

 Negotiation and Appropriate Dispute Resolution 

 Operations Law 

 Paralegal Apprentice 

 Paralegal Craftsman 

 Reserve Forces Judge Advocate 

 Reserve Forces Paralegal 

 Roles of Civilians in Military Operations 

 Staff Judge Advocate 

 Trial and Defense Advocacy 

Off-Site Courses 

The AFJAG School conducts four “Annual Surveys of the Law” for judge 

advocates and paralegals in the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard. 

The surveys provide concise legal updates and extensive reviews of recent 

developments in military justice. The surveys are conducted at a civilian 

conference facility in Denver, Colorado. 520 students attended the course 

conducted in January 2003. 

Distance Learning (DL) Courses 

 The AFJAG School conducted two DL courses, the Air Force Systems and 

Logistics Contracting Course and the Fiscal Law Course, by live satellite 

broadcast (one-way video and two-way audio) to more than 50 Air Force and 

Army sites throughout the United States. Approximately 1,900 personnel 

participated in DL courses in fiscal year 2003. 

Outside Teaching 

 In addition to teaching AFJAG School courses, faculty members provide 

over 1,200 academic hours of instruction annually on a wide range of legal 

topics in other colleges, schools, and courses within Air University. 

These include: Air War College; Air Command and Staff College; Squadron 

Officer School; College of Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and Education; 

School of Advanced Airpower Studies; International Officer School; Officer 

8 
Training School; Senior Noncommissioned Officer Academy; USAF First 

Sergeant Academy; Professional Military Comptroller School; Group 

Commanders' Course; Wing Commanders’ Seminar; Advanced Personnel Officer 

Course; and the Chaplain Orientation Course. Additionally, the faculty 

performs more than 1,000 hours of instruction annually in other schools, 

courses, and conferences throughout the world. In fiscal year 2003, AFJAG 

School personnel instructed at the Inter-American Air Force Academy; USAF 

Special Operations School; U.S. Army Judge Advocate General School; 

American Society of Military Comptrollers Conference; SOUTHCOM Legal 

Engagement Conference; Federal Bar Association Contracting Conference; and 

the D.C National Guard Leadership Conference. 

 

 The AFJAG School participates in the Expanded International Military 

Education and Training (E-IMET) program, one of several security assistance 

programs mandated by Congress. The program promotes U.S. foreign policy 

goals as established in the Foreign Assistance Act. The E-IMET Program 

involves joint U.S. military training teams teaching human rights, military 

justice, civilian control of the military, the law of armed conflict, rules 

of engagement, and general democratic principles in countries designated as 

emerging democracies. Faculty from the AFJAG School participated in four 

E-IMET missions in fiscal year 2003. E-IMETs were conducted for Honduras, 

Bangladesh, Moldova, and Mali. 

Publications 

 Each year, the AFJAG School publishes two issues of The Air Force Law 

Review, a professional legal journal consisting of articles of interest to 

Air Force judge advocates, civilian attorney advisors, and others with an 

interest in military law. The Law Review is a scholarly legal publication 

that encourages candid discussion of relevant legislative, administrative, 

and judicial developments. Additionally, four issues of The Reporter, the 

Department's quarterly legal publication containing articles of general 

interest, were produced and distributed. The AFJAG School continues to 

distribute large quantities of its most popular publication, The Military 

Commander and the Law, a 550+ page compendium of concise legal papers 

addressing issues confronting military commanders. The printed version was 

updated in Fiscal Year 2002 and more than 15,000 copies were printed and 

distributed worldwide. An electronic version is available on-line at 

http://milcom.jag.af.mil. 

LEGAL INFORMATION SERVICES 

 During fiscal year 2003, the Legal Information Services (JAS) 

Directorate continued to exploit the force-multiplying power inherent in 

information technology (IT) by launching ten new software initiatives while 

continuing to upgrade and refine five of its existing platforms and 

services. 

9 
 Most notable among its new initiatives, JAS developed a Federal Legal 

Information Through Electronics (FLITE) registration application which now 

enables DoD attorneys and paralegals to register on-line for free access to 

FLITE’s electronic legal research capabilities. 

 A second JAS initiative involved the acquisition of Genesys, a web 

based collaboration tool, which provides legal personnel the ability to 

conduct desktop teleconferencing on the web from their government office 

computers. This new technology will save money by reducing the demand for 

costly and time-consuming face-to-face meetings and video teleconferencing. 

 JAS created a Staff Judge Advocate-Law Office Manager (SJA-LOM) Claims 

Report to assist SJAs and LOMs in managing their legal offices. JAS 

created a medical malpractice claims report to track the status of medical 

malpractice claims along with an ad hoc query program for the claims. 

During the calendar year in question, JAS developed several new programs to 

manage claims filed under international agreements and tort litigation. 

 In March 2003, JAS acquired a new software package for the JAS help 

desk. The new software will allow JAS to better manage and serve the needs 

of its IT customers across the Air Force and DoD. 

 JAS began hosting the CAAF electronic filing system and continued to 

host the public web sites for both CAAF and the AFCCA. 

 JAS created a new cyber law web page along with a JAS home web page, 

for JAS, during the noted time period. These two new web pages will allow 

JAS to better serve the IT requirements of its diverse and complex customer 

base. 

 JAS created a host of other IT initiatives during the noted period 

including the creation of 40 Rapid Deployment Kits (RDK). Each RDK 

contains a laptop computer, a printer, digital camera, legal materials on 

DVDs and CD-ROMS packaged in a hardened carrying case that meets carry-on 

restrictions for commercial airlines. Judge Advocates and paralegals 

deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom were outfitted with, found 

utility in, and loved the RDK. 

 JAS developed an Officer Performance Report (OPR) and Enlisted 

Performance Report (EPR) and Performance Feedback (PF) Tracker which now 

allows Air Force Legal personnel to know, 60 to 30 days in advance of the 

need to accomplish an OPR, EPR or PF. In addition to the OPR/EPR/PF 

tracker, JAS created an Air Force-wide Administrative Discharge System, 

which will now allow AFJAG personnel, for the first time, to process and 

track the status of administrative discharges. 

10 
 JAS migrated its major applications to a new Sun4800 server, replacing 

two older servers. The new server is faster, easier to maintain, more 

reliable, and provides higher availability. All parts, including 

processors, motherboards, and power supplies are redundant, and repairs can 

be made without interrupting service. 

 JAS released the newest Automated Military Justice Analysis and 

Management System (AMJAMS) updates, which streamlined the production of 

reports, added features that allowed the Judiciary to shut down their 

Access database, and provided a variety of other enhancements. 

 The final two new IT initiatives JAS launched during the noted time 

period were the AMJAMS and Armed Forces Claims Information Management 

System (AFCIMS) Robo Demo Training Modules which can be found on the new 

JAS Customer Support Branch web page, and the key personnel locater (KPL) 

in the TJAG family of products. The KPL, which was introduced by one of 

JAS’ adjunct staff members in D.C. at JAZ, will save time by facilitating 

the easy finding of National Guard and Reserve personnel in the National 

Capitol Region (NCR). 

 From all indications, 1 October 2002 – 30 September 2003 represented a 

banner year for JAS IT initiatives. Experts at JAS were unleashed and 

encouraged to find and create new and better IT initiatives to better help 

its Air Force and DoD customers across the board. Colonel Steven Linder, 

the JAS Director for seven years, retired in June 2003 and Colonel Morris 

Davis succeeded him. Colonel Davis was tasked by TJAG and the SECAF, prior 

to the start of his tenure at JAS, to serve on a fact-finding team directed 

to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct and harassment at the US 

Air Force Academy. Following his tenure on the fact-finding team, Colonel 

Davis assumed the JAS mantle. 

 JAS personnel received a shot in the arm and a morale booster from the 

June 2003 visit of Retired Air Force Colonel Calvin M. Vos. Colonel Vos, 

now 92 years old, is the founder of FLITE and of the AFJAG Corps 

Information Technology Office, which evolved into the JAS legal information 

directorate. Colonel Vos launched the AFTJAG and the DoD into using 

computers to store and retrieve legal information in the 1960s! At the 

time, Colonel Vos was the Staff Judge Advocate assigned to the Air Force 

Accounting And Finance Center. 

LEGAL ASSISTANCE AND PREVENTIVE LAW PROGRAM 

The Legal Assistance Division oversees a global legal assistance and 

preventive law program. During CY 2003, Air Force legal assistance 

programs served over 268,000 clients, prepared over 70,000 wills and nearly 

290,000 powers of attorney, and notarized almost 450,000 documents. The 

Division also instituted a new, automated, user-friendly on-line 

statistical and data tracking program for legal assistance that eliminates 

11 
the burden of manually preparing an annual written report. The program 

allows the Department, at all levels of command, to immediately retrieve 

data on the volume of legal assistance work each office completes, 

organized by criteria such as type of legal issue and grade of client. The 

new program, known as WebLIONS, also contains a client conflict checker, a 

services valuation calculator, and dozens of templates for powers of 

attorney. 

During the 2003 tax-filing season, a record 105 Air Force legal 

offices offered electronic tax filing services to those eligible for 

military tax program assistance. These sites filed 133,539 electronic 

federal returns and 15,165 federal paper returns, for a total of 148,704 

federal income tax returns, as well as 33,169 state electronic returns and 

38,361 state paper returns, for a total of 71,530 state income tax returns. 

Employing 3,296 volunteers worldwide, the Air Force tax program assisted 

members in filing 220,234 returns, at a savings of $25,545,674 in fees. 

Implemented in 2002, the web-based Tax Program Reporting System allows all 

levels of command to immediately access the data in real time. Again, 

significant time and effort are saved in preparing the annual report of the 

tax program. 

PERSONNEL 

 As of 30 September 2003, the Air Force Judge Advocate’s Corps had 

1387 judge advocates on active duty. Company grade officers (lieutenants 

and captains) made up approximately half of that number (676). Slightly 

more than 25% were majors (3789) and 16% were lieutenant colonels (216). 

Almost ten percent of the Corps were colonels (122) and above, including 

two major generals and three brigadier generals. 

THOMAS J. FISCUS 

Major General, USAF 

The Judge Advocate General 

12 
APPENDIX - U. S. AIR FORCE MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Report Period: FISCAL YEAR 2003 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/ 

DECREASE (-) OVER 

LAST REPORT 

GENERAL 351 329 22 -37.76% 

BCD SPECIAL 471 243 30 +22.65% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL [A] 198 

SUMMARY 101 100 1 -15.12% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT -30.23% 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 85* 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 218 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 248 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 312 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 256 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 43 

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

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 480 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL [B] 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL [B] 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 567 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL [B] 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL [B] 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 402 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 645 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD (563:564) 

 

 +.17% 

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

 U.S. AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (CCA) 

NUMBER 563:568 

PERCENTAGE 99.11% 

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

 (CAAF)

PERCENTAGE OF AFCCA REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCAAF (211/404) 52.23% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -15.32% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED (60/211) 28.43% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +18.19% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CCA (60/404) 14.85% 

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD (423:381) +7.94% 

Page 1 of 2 
APPENDIX - U.S. AIR FORCE MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS - CONT’D 

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ 

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 1 

RECEIVED 3 

DISPOSED OF 3 

 GRANTED 0 

 DENIED 3 

 NO JURISDICTION 0 

 WITHDRAWN 0 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 1 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 546 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 235 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 311 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 276 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 116 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 160 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 14 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 367,855 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 9092 

RATE PER 1,000 24.72 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD -.18% 

 

EXPLANATORY NOTES 

[A] The Air Force does not convene non-BCD SPCMs. Of the 471 SPCMs tried, there were 243 convictions with a 

 BCD adjudged, 198 convictions without a BCD adjudged and 30 acquittals. 

[B] GCM and SPCM were not tracked separately. 

* Includes 28 officer dismissals 

Page 2 of 2 
SECTION 6 

REPORT OF THE 

JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE COAST GUARD 
REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE U. S. COAST GUARD 

October 1, 2002 to September 30, 2003 

THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

 On March 1, 2003, the U.S. Coast Guard transferred intact to the newly 

created Department of Homeland Security. The legislation that created the 

Department of Homeland Security amended 10 U.S.C. § 801(1) to allow the 

Secretary of Homeland Security to designate The Judge Advocate General of 

the Coast Guard. Secretary Ridge subsequently designated the Chief Counsel 

of the Coast Guard as the “Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard.” 

Previously, the General Counsel of the Department of Transportation was The 

Judge Advocate General. 

PERSONNEL AND TRAINING 

 The Coast Guard has 176 officers designated as law specialists (judge 

advocates) serving on active duty, of which 139 are serving in legal 

billets and 37 are serving in general duty billets. Among the 37 military 

attorneys serving “out-of-specialty” are the Vice Commandant of the Coast 

Guard, the Commander of the Eighth Coast Guard District in New Orleans, the 

Military Assistant to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other 

commanding and executive officers of Coast Guard cutters, groups, marine 

safety offices, training centers, and support commands. Three of the five 

Coast Guard officers selected for flag rank this year are attorneys. The 

Coast Guard also employs 69 civilian attorneys ranging from GS-12 to SES. 

 The Coast Guard sent attorneys to 41 different courses of instruction 

during this fiscal year, primarily at the various service JAG schools. 83% 

of Coast Guard attorneys attended one or more courses of continuing legal 

education. Twenty-two Coast Guard officers are currently undergoing 

postgraduate studies in law and will be certified as law specialists at the 

successful completion of their studies. Seven students will graduate in 

2004, seven will graduate in 2005, and eight will graduate in 2006. 

Fourteen Coast Guard officers (including five funded postgraduate program 

studies and nine direct-commissioned lawyers) completed the Navy Basic 

Lawyer Course in Newport, Rhode Island. All have been or are in the 

process of becoming certified under Article 27(b), UCMJ. 
U. S. COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

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

fiscal year 2003 were: 

Chief Judge Joseph H. Baum 

Judge David J. Kantor 

Judge Robert W. Bruce (until his retirement on 1 July 2003) 

Judge Gary A. Palmer 

Judge Thomas R. Cahill 

Judge Lane I. McClelland (administered oath on 19 June 2003) 

 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. 

 In April, Judge Cahill attended the one-week Military Judges Seminar, 

TJAGSA, at Maxwell AFB, Montgomery, AL. 

 In May, Judge Palmer represented the Court on a panel of appellate 

military judges that made a presentation as part of the training course for 

new military judges at the Army Judge Advocate General School in 

Charlottesville, VA. 

 On 22 and 23 September 2003, the judges participated in the William 

S. Fulton, Jr. Appellate Military Judges Conference and Training Seminar at 

the Federal Judicial Center in Washington, D.C. The seminar included a 

panel discussion on “What I Wish I Had Known as a New Appellate Judge” with 

Judge Cahill representing the Court as a panel member, and break out 

sessions with judges from the other service courts discussing “Lawrence v. 

Texas and the UCMJ,” “Post Trial Delay – Diaz,” and “Sentence Credit 

Issues.” Chief Judge Baum served as a discussion group leader. 

 On 26 September, Judge Cahill served as a panelist on a panel of 

court of criminal appeals judges presenting a “View from the Appellate 

Bench” discussion at the Judge Advocates Association appellate advocacy 

seminar, Columbus School of Law, Catholic University, Washington, D.C. 

Chief Judge Baum served another term this past year as a member of 

the Rules Advisory Committee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed 

Forces. 

2 
MILITARY JUSTICE ORGANIZATION 

Thirteen staff judge advocates advise 15 officers exercising 

general court-martial jurisdiction and approximately 350 officers 

exercising special court-martial jurisdiction. Responsibility for 

detailing trial and defense counsel to general and special courts-martial 

rests with the staff judge advocate of the cognizant Maintenance and 

Logistics Command; Atlantic for east-coast cases and Pacific for west-coast 

cases. Pursuant to an inter-service memorandum of understanding, the U.S. 

Navy provides trial defense counsel for all Coast Guard courts-martial. In 

return, at least four Coast Guard attorneys are assigned to full time duty 

at one or more Navy Legal Service Offices or Trial Service Offices. 

 The Coast Guard has one general courts-martial judge and 13 

collateral-duty special courts-martial judges. The Chief Trial Judge 

details all military judges to Coast Guard courts-martial. When the Chief 

Trial Judge was unavailable, courts-martial judges from other military 

services were detailed to general courts-martial. 

 The Office of Military Justice at Coast Guard Headquarters is 

responsible for representing the United States in all courts-martial 

appeals and providing support to staff judge advocates and trial counsel 

throughout the Coast Guard. The office is also responsible for developing 

military justice policy for the Coast Guard, including participation on the 

Joint Service Committee (JSC) on Military Justice. Within the office, two 

officers are assigned primary duty as appellate government counsel. 

 On August 1, 2003, the Judge Advocate General reorganized several 

elements within the headquarters staff to create a new element entitled 

“Legal and Defense Services Staff.” This staff element will combine all 

legal functions involving personal representation, such as appellate 

defense counsel, physical disability evaluation system counsel, and legal 

assistance. Currently, one officer is assigned primary duty as appellate 

defense counsel. 

NEW MILITARY JUSTICE BILLETS 

Due to continued growth in Coast Guard end-strength, which is 

expected to result in a concomitant increase in the military justice 

workload, the fiscal year 2004 budget provides four additional attorney 

billets for military justice. The billets are expected to be filled in the 

third quarter of fiscal year 2004. The billets include an additional 

appellate defense counsel, an appellate government counsel, a trial 

counsel, and a billet in support of military commissions. 

3 
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 2003 and, 

where indicated, records received during each of the four preceding fiscal 

years. The number of courts-martial vary widely from year to year, but 

this is not a reliable indicator of the administration of military justice 

given the relatively small number of courts-martial overall. 

Fiscal Year 03 02 01 00 99

General Courts-Martial 08 04 15 10 6 

Special Courts-Martial 18 23 17 23 17 

Summary Courts-Martial 20 11 18 11 3 

Total 46 38 50 44 26

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 Seven of the eight accused tried by general courts-martial this fiscal 

year were tried by military judge alone. One elected to be tried by a 

general court-martial composed of officer and enlisted members. All eight 

general courts-martial resulted in convictions. Three accused tried by 

general courts-martial were nonrated (pay grades E-1 through E-3), three 

were petty officers (pay grades E-4 through E-6), one was a chief petty 

officer (pay grades E-7 through E-9), and one was a commissioned officer 

(W-1 through O-9). 

 The following table summarizes the sentences adjudged in general 

courts-martial tried by military judge alone (seven convictions): 

Sentence Cases Imposed

dishonorable discharge/dismissal- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

bad-conduct discharge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 

confinement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 

hard labor without confinement- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 

reduction in pay-grade - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 

fined (total $1,700.00) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 

restriction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 

forfeiture of all pay and allowances - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 

partial forfeiture of pay and allowances - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

4 
 The following table summarizes the sentences adjudged in general 

courts-martial tried by members (one conviction): 

Sentence Cases Imposed

dishonorable discharge- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 

bad-conduct discharge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 

confinement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 

hard labor without confinement- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

reduction in pay-grade - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

fined (total $0.00) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 

restriction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

forfeiture of all pay and allowances - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 

partial forfeiture of pay and allowances - - - - - - - - - - - 0 

 The following table compares the frequency of imposition of the four 

most common punishments imposed at general courts-martial in the past five 

fiscal years. 

 Reduction Punitive 

 Number of in Discharge/ 

FY Convictions Forfeitures Confinement Pay-Grade Dismissal

03 8 1 (13%) 5 (63%) 6 (75%) 5 (63%) 

02 4 1 (25%) 3 (75%) 3 (75%) 4 (100%) 

01 15 4 (27%) 14 (93%) 13 (87%) 10 (67%) 

00 9 5 (56%) 7 (78%) 6 (67%) 6 (67%) 

99 6 0 (0%) 6 (100%) 6 (100%) 5 (83%) 

 The following table shows the distribution of the 95 specifications 

referred to general courts-martial in fiscal year 2003. 

Violation of the UCMJ, Article No. of Specs.

 81 (conspiracy) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12 

 83 (fraudulent enlistment, appointment, or separation)- - - - 1 

 92 (failure to obey order or regulation) - - - - - - - - - - 14 

107 (false official statements)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 19 

108 (military property of United States – loss, damage, 

 destruction, or wrongful disposition)- - - - - - - - - - 4 

120 (rape or carnal knowledge) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 

121 (larceny or wrongful appropriation) - - - - - - - - - - - 4 

125 (sodomy) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 

128 (assault) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

130 (housebreaking) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10 

133 (conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman) - - - - - - 4 

134 (general) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20

 95 

5 
 Eight general courts-martial received and filed at Coast Guard 

Headquarters in FY 2003 was double the number received the previous fiscal 

year, but eight is in general accord with longer term averages. The Coast 

Guard has averaged 9 general courts-martial per year over the last 5 years 

with 4 to 15 cases a year. This increase in general courts-martial in FY 

2003 is somewhat offset by the decrease in special courts-martial. 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 Fifteen of the eighteen accused tried by special courts-martial this 

fiscal year were tried by military judge alone. Two elected to be tried by 

special courts-martial with enlisted and officer members, and one with 

officer members. All of the special courts-martial resulted in convictions 

and thirteen accused received a BCD. Three accused tried by special courtmartial pled guilty to all charges and specifications. Fifteen of the 

accused whose charges were referred to special courts-martial were nonrated 

(pay grades E-1 through E-3), two were petty officers (pay grades E-4 

through E-6), one was a chief petty officer (pay grades E-7 through E-9), 

and none were commissioned officers (W-1 through O-9). 

 The following table summarizes the sentences adjudged in the eighteen 

special courts-martial cases. 

Sentence Cases Imposed

bad-conduct discharge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13 

confinement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16 

hard labor without confinement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 

reduction in pay-grade - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15 

fined (total $0.00) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 

restriction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 

partial forfeiture of pay and allowances- - - - - - - - - - - 2 

reprimand - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 

 The following table compares the frequency of imposition of the four 

most common punishments imposed at special courts-martial in the past five 

fiscal years. 

 Reduction 

 Number of in 

FY Convictions Forfeitures Confinement Pay-Grade BCD

03 18 2 (11%) 16 (88%) 15 (83%) 13 (72%) 

02 23 9 (39%) 22 (96%) 17 (74%) 18 (78%) 

01 17 9 (53%) 17 (100%) 12 (71%) 9 (53%) 

00 23 8 (35%) 20 (87%) 19 (83%) 10 (43%) 

99 17 8 (47%) 15 (88%) 16 (94%) 9 (53%) 

6 
 The following table shows the distribution of the 114 specifications 

referred to special courts-martial in fiscal year 2003. 

Violation of the UCMJ, Article No. of Specs.

 80 (attempts)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 

 83 (fraudulent enlistment, appointment, or separation) - - 2 

 85 (desertion) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 

 86 (unauthorized absence)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9 

 87 (missing movement)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 

 91 (insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, 

 noncommissioned officer, or petty officer) - - - - - - 2 

 92 (failure to obey order or regulation) - - - - - - - - - 12 

107 (false official statement)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 

111 (drunken or reckless driving) - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

112a (wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled 

 substance) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 27 

121 (larceny or wrongful appropriation) - - - - - - - - - - 12 

123 (forgery) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10 

123a (making, drawing, or uttering check, draft or order 

 without sufficient funds)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 

125 (sodomy)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

128 (aggravated assault)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 

134 (general) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16

 114 

 There was a 22% decrease in special courts-martial received and filed 

at Coast Guard Headquarters this fiscal year over last fiscal year. Over 

the past five years the Coast Guard has averaged twenty special courtsmartial per year with seventeen to twenty-three special courts-martial a 

year. 

JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL ACTION UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ 

 The Judge Advocate General referred one case to the Coast Guard Court 

of Criminal Appeals pursuant to Article 69(d)(1), UCMJ. 

ADDITIONAL MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

 Appendix A contains the Coast Guard, Fiscal Year 2003 military justice 

statistics. 

JOHN E. CROWLEY, JR. 

Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard 

The Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard 

7 
APPENDIX - U.S. COAST GUARD MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Report Period: 1 OCTOBER 2002 - 30 SEPTEMBER 2003 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/ 

DECREASE (-) OVER LAST 

REPORT 

GENERAL 8 8 0 +100% 

BCD SPECIAL 18 18 -22% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 0 0 0 UNCHANGED 

SUMMARY 20 20 0 +82% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT +21% 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 1 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 4 

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 5 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 18 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 3 

PART 4 – WORKLOAD OF THE COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 14 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 4 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 10 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 24* 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 7 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 16 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 25** 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 8 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 16 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 13 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 3 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 10 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

-22% 

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

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

NUMBER 24 

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 2/24 8% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -8% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 2/8 25% 

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

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CGCCA 2/24 8% 

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD -1% 

* One extraordinary writ not a court-martial. 

** One extraordinary writ not a court-martial. 

Page 1 of 2 
APPENDIX - U.S. COAST GUARD MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS - CONT’D

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ 

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 0 

RECEIVED 0 

DISPOSED OF 0 

 GRANTED 0 

 DENIED 0 

 NO JURISDICTION 0 

 WITHDRAWN 0 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 0 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 7 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 15 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 3 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 2 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 39,619 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 1,658 

RATE PER 1,000 41.85 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD +4.35% 

Page 2 of 2