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, 2007 to September 30, 2008 
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, 2007 to September 30, 2008

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

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

Coast Guard, the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine 

Corps, and Professor David A. Schlueter and Mr. Michael D. Wims, 

Public Members appointed by the Secretary of Defense, submit their 

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

(UCMJ) pursuant to Article 146, UCMJ, Title 10, United States Code, § 

946. 

 The Code Committee met on March 4, 2008, to consider matters 

pertaining to the administration of military justice. The meeting was 

open to the public and was previously announced by notices in the 

Federal Register and on the Court’s website. 

 After approving the minutes of the 2007 Code Committee meeting, 

Chief Judge Effron called upon Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Wand, U.S. 

Air Force, Executive Secretary of the Joint Service Committee, to 

provide a report on the work of the Joint Service Committee. 

Lieutenant Colonel Wand first informed the Code Committee of the 

issuance of the 2008 edition of the Manual for Courts-Martial. He 

then summarized the status of the recommendations of the Joint Service 

Committee. The 2004 recommendations, which were contained in 

Executive Order 13430, were signed by the President on April 18, 2007. 

The 2005 and 2006 recommendations, contained in Executive Order 13447, 

were signed on September 28, 2007. Included in this order were the 

conforming provisions for legislative changes made to Article 120, 

UCMJ. 

 Lieutenant Colonel Wand stated that the 2007 recommendations, 

which were published in the Federal Register, had been forwarded to 

the General Counsel of the Department of Defense. The contents of 

this review include provisions for laying the groundwork for allowing 

electronic records of trial, using abbreviated records of trial in 

cases terminated after findings, simplifying the requirements for the 

staff judge advocate’s recommendation, providing for self-executing 

final orders when the accused is not in confinement and appellate 

review is complete, and clarifying the criteria for closing Article 

32, UCMJ, hearings. Also included are recommendations to change Part 

IV of the Manual for Courts-Martial regarding the time for compliance 

to obey an order and to increase the maximum punishment for 

manslaughter in the case of a child victim. 
 Lieutenant Colonel Wand added that the 2007 Annual Review’s 

legislative proposals are to eliminate the 14-day waiting period for 

adjudged forfeitures of pay and reductions in grade to take effect, 

and to conform the requirements of Articles 19 and 54, UCMJ, for 

verbatim transcripts and authentication of the record in cases 

reviewed under Article 66(b), UCMJ. Also, the Joint Service Committee 

is in the process of studying several proposals, including provisions 

for a new paragraph for the Manual for Courts-Martial on child 

pornography offenses, an amendment to Article 120, UCMJ, regarding 

burden shifting in cases involving affirmative defenses, a new section 

on jurisdiction over civilians, new rules for the protection of 

government information under Military Rules of Evidence 505 and 506, 

the creation of a rule governing pre-referral subpoena duces tecum 

power and solidifying the contempt power of military judges. 

 Subsequent to the Code Committee meeting, the 2007 

recommendations, which were contained in Executive Order 13468, were 

signed by the President on July 24, 2008. They are published in the 

Federal Register at Vol. 73, No. 145 at pages 43827-39. 

 Also during this Term, the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) amended Article 136, UCMJ, by 

adding subsection (c), to provide the Judges of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces the authority to administer 

oaths. 

 

 Separate reports of the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Armed Forces and the individual Armed Forces address further items of 

special interest to the Committees on Armed Services of the United 

States Senate and the United States House of Representatives, as well 

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

Force. 

Andrew S. Effron 

Chief Judge 

James E. Baker 

Associate Judge 

Charles E. “Chip” Erdmann 

Associate Judge 

Scott W. Stucky 

Associate Judge 

Margaret A. Ryan 

Associate Judge 

Lieutenant General Scott C. Black, USA 

Judge Advocate General of the Army 
Vice Admiral Bruce E. MacDonald, JAGC, USN 

The Judge Advocate General of the Navy 

Lieutenant General Jack L. Rives, USAF 

The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force 

Rear Admiral William D. Baumgartner, USCG 

The Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard 

Brigadier General James C. Walker, USMC 

Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps 

Professor David A. Schlueter 

Public Member 

Mr. Michael D. Wims 

Public Member 
SECTION 2 

REPORT OF THE 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE ARMED FORCES 
REPORT OF THE 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE ARMED FORCES 

October 1, 2007 to August 31, 2008 

 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 October 2007 – August 2008 Term of 

Court (Transition) to the Committees on Armed Services of the United 

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

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

Force in accordance with Article 146, Uniform Code of Military 

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

 As noted in last year’s annual report, the Court has amended its 

Term of Court policy on June 21, 2007. See 65 M.J. 288 (2007). The 

term of court will now run from September 1 to August 31. This will 

afford the Court greater opportunity to hear cases at the outset of 

the term, facilitate the timely issuance of opinions, and enhance the 

ability of counsel to incorporate the case law from one term to the 

next. 

THE BUSINESS OF THE COURT

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

statistical report and graphs. For this report, the statistics and 

graphs cover an eleven-month period, from October 1, 2007 to August 

31, 2008. Additional information pertaining to specific opinions is 

available from the Court’s published opinions and Daily Journal. 

Other dispositions may be found in the Court’s official reports, the 

Military Justice Reporter, and on the Court’s web site. The Court’s 

web site also contains a consolidated digest of past opinions of the 

Court, information on the Court’s history and jurisdiction, the Rules 

of Practice and Procedure, previous Annual Reports, a schedule of 

upcoming hearings, audio recordings of past hearings, and information 

on clerkship opportunities, bar admission, electronic filing and the 

Court’s library. 

 During the October 2007 – August 2008 Term of Court (Transition), 

the Court again met its goal of issuing opinions in all cases heard 

during the Term prior to the end of the Term. The last opinion of the 

Term was issued on July 15, 2008. 
 Following the recommendations of the Rules Advisory Committee, 

the Court amended Rules 21(f), 27(b), 30, and 36A of the Rules of 

Practice and Procedure. Prior to amendment the proposed changes were 

published for public comment in the Federal Register at Vol. 72, No. 

229 at pages 67597-99 and Vol. 73, No. 124 at page 36378. These 

amendments were also published following adoption in the Military 

Justice Reporter at 66 M.J. 98-99 and 67 M.J. 16 (C.A.A.F. 2008). 

They established guidelines for the withdrawal of a petition for grant 

of review, set the maximum length for writ-appeal petitions, changed 

language from “working” days to “business” days to conform to language 

in other Rules, and instituted requirements for citations to 

supplemental authorities to call for reasons why the supplemental 

authorities are pertinent and significant, to limit the citation 

letter to 350 words, to require the attachment of the cited 

supplemental authorities, and to direct submission to the Court by 

overnight delivery or more expeditious means if filed less than five 

business days prior to oral argument. 

 During the October 2007 – August 2008 Term of Court (Transition), 

the Court admitted 283 attorneys to practice before its Bar, bringing 

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

34,399. 

JUDICIAL OUTREACH

 In furtherance of a practice established in 1987, the Court 

scheduled special sessions and heard oral arguments outside its 

permanent courthouse in Washington, D.C., during the October 2007 – 

August 2008 Term of Court (Transition). This practice, known as 

“Project Outreach,” was developed as a part of a public awareness 

program to demonstrate the operation of a Federal Court of Appeals, 

and the military’s criminal justice system. The Court conducted 

hearings during this period, with the consent of the parties, at 

Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis School of Law, 

Indianapolis, Indiana; Indiana University School of Law, Bloomington, 

Indiana; George Mason University School of Law, Arlington, Virginia; 

the Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America, 

Washington, D.C.; the University of Montana School of Law, Missoula, 

Montana; and Malmstrom Air Force Base, Great Falls, Montana. In 

addition, the Judges of the Court participated in a variety of 

professional training, speaking and educational endeavors on military 

installations, at law schools and before professional groups. 

 

2 
CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CONFERENCE

 On March 5 and 6, 2008, the Court held its annual Continuing 

Legal Education Conference at the Columbus School of Law, Catholic 

University of America, Washington, D.C. The program for this 

Continuing Legal Education Conference was certified for credit to meet 

the continuing legal education requirements of State Bars throughout 

the United States. The conference opened with welcoming remarks from 

the Honorable Andrew S. Effron, Chief Judge, United States Court of 

Appeals for the Armed Forces. He was followed by speakers for this 

year’s conference, including Professor Laura Dickinson of the 

University of Connecticut School of Law; Professor Michael Klarman of 

the University of Virginia School of Law; Professor David Segal of the 

University of Maryland; Seth Waxman, Esq., former Solicitor General of 

the United States; Admiral Michael Mullen, USN, Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff; Rear Admiral Stephen Pietropaoli, USN (Retired), 

former Chief of Information for the Department of the Navy; Eric 

Schmitt of the New York Times; Jamie McIntyre of CNN; Dr. Jonathan 

Shay of the Department of Veterans Affairs; Major Dana J. Chase, USA, 

Major Kwasi Hawks, USA, and Major Howard H. Hoege, III, USA, of the 

Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, Charlottesville, 

Virginia; Major Ira Perkins, USAF, 15 Air Base Wing, Hickam Air Force 

Base, Hawaii; and Major W. James Annexstad, USAF, The Judge Advocate 

General’s School, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. 

Andrew S. Effron 

Chief Judge 

James E. Baker 

Associate Judge 

Charles E. “Chip” Erdmann 

Associate Judge 

Scott W. Stucky 

Associate Judge 

Margaret A. Ryan 

Associate Judge 

 

3 
USCAAF STATISTICAL REPORT 

OCTOBER 2007 – AUGUST 2008 TERM OF COURT (TRANSITION) 

CUMULATIVE SUMMARY

CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 1, 2007 

 Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 

 Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 

 Miscellaneous Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . 3

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322 

CUMULATIVE FILINGS 

 Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 

 Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836 

 Miscellaneous Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . 24

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 993 

CUMULATIVE DISPOSITIONS 

 Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 

 Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848 

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,035 

CUMULATIVE PENDING SEPTEMBER 1, 2008 

 Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 

 Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 

 Miscellaneous Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . 6

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 

OPINION SUMMARY

CATEGORY SIGNED PER CURIAM MEM/ORDER TOTAL

Master Docket . . . . 60 4 102 166 

Petition Docket . . . 0 0 848 848 

Miscellaneous Docket 1 0 20 21

TOTAL 61 4 970 1,035 

4 
MASTER DOCKET SUMMARY

FILINGS 

 Petitions granted from the Petition Docket . . 128 

 Certificates filed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

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

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

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 

DISPOSITIONS 

 Findings and sentence affirmed . . . . . . . . 117 

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

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 

PENDING 

 Awaiting briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 

 Awaiting oral argument . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 

 Awaiting lead case decision (trailer cases) . 1 

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

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

PETITION DOCKET SUMMARY

FILINGS 

 Petitions for grant of review filed . . . . . 836 

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

 Petitions for reconsideration granted . . . . 0 

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836 

DISPOSITIONS 

 Petitions for grant of review denied . . . . . 715 

 Petitions for grant of review granted . . . . 128 

 Petitions for grant of review withdrawn . . . 2 

 Petitions for grant of review dismissed . . . 3

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848 

PENDING 

 Awaiting pleadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 

 Awaiting Central Legal Staff review . . . . . 107 

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 

5 
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET SUMMARY

FILINGS 

 Writ appeals sought . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 

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

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

 Other extraordinary relief sought . . . . . . 7

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 

DISPOSITIONS 

 Petitions or appeals denied . . . . . . . . . 18 

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

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

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

 Petitions or appeals remanded . . . . . . . . 1

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

PENDING 

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

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

 Awaiting final action . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

ALL CASES DISPOSITIONS

Begin Pending 0 Denied 11 

Filed 12 Granted 0

TOTAL 12 TOTAL 11 

End Pending 1 

MOTIONS

ALL MOTIONS DISPOSITIONS

Begin Pending 11 Granted 417 

Filed 502 Denied 65

TOTAL 513 TOTAL 482 

End Pending 31 

6 
Petition Docket Year End Pending

226

152

190

301

171

215

252 240

266 254

0

100

200

300

400

500

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Master Docket Year End Pending

77

70

60

50 49 51

87

38

53

20

0

50

100

150

200

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Oral Arguments Per Year

116 113

81

68

56 58

74 74

56

65

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Total Opinions Per Year

102

123 124

110

75 73

93

75

32

57

35

57 53

64

51

76

25

55

41

65

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

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

TOTAL COURT OPINIONS
Days from Petition Filing to Grant

168

129 133 131

164

227 195

171

152

160

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Days from Petition Grant

to Oral Argument

166

148

125 127 122 130

146 150

126 132

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Days from Oral Argument

to Final Decision

182

169 176 176

117

144

164

148

85 86

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Days from Petition Filing

to Final Decision

85

429

70

380

70

330

65

353

82

279

76

361

89

358

93

391

94

237

102

261

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

PETITION DOCKET (DENIAL/DISMISSAL/WITHDRAWAL)

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

Final Decision in All Cases

139

129

110 105

119

126 132

155

118

130

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Total Petitions Filed Per Year

1051

753

926 974

694

802 779

1006 937

836

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

2250

2500

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
 2

SECTION 3 

REPORT OF THE 

JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE ARMY 

 
 3

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE ARMY 

OCTOBER 1, 2007, TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 

During fiscal year 2008 (FY 08), and in compliance with Article 6(a), 

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

members of his staff visited 29 installations and commands in the United States 

and overseas. With the U.S. Army’s continued deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan 

and their effects on legal operations world-wide, the Office of The Judge 

Advocate General (OTJAG) continued to advise the Army leadership and develop 

policies to improve the provision of legal services to Army Commanders, Soldiers, 

and support activities world-wide. Structural changes and assignment 

prioritization have allowed the Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) Corps to fully 

support the operational law needs of the Army while continuing to maintain a 

superior military justice system and provide the full range of support in other 

legal areas. In addition, the JAG Corps continues to invest in its future by 

maintaining a world class Legal Center and School in Charlottesville, Virginia, 

and placing an emphasis on recruiting and training the very best legal personnel. 

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

The policy changes made in 2006 affecting the education of newly 

commissioned Judge Advocates were fully implemented as of 1 October 2008. All 

Judge Advocates of all components now attend the Officer Basic Course (OBC) in 

residence in Charlottesville, Virginia. Additionally, as of 1 October 2008, all 

Judge Advocates (with the exception of Funded Legal Education Program officers), 

including USAR and National Guard officers attend the four-week Direct 

Commissioned Officer's Course (DCO) and the six-week, branch immaterial, Basic 

Officer Leadership Course (BOLC) immediately following their course in 

Charlottesville. This additional 10 weeks of training and education affords all 

newly commissioned Judge Advocates the opportunity to receive leadership and 

Soldier Skills training that instills the Warrior Ethos. The Chief of the 

Personnel, Plans, and Training Office (PP&TO) at the Office of The Judge Advocate 

General (OTJAG) may waive attendance at these courses in limited circumstances. 

Newly commissioned officers now also complete the Judge Advocate Tactical 

Staff Officer Course (JATSOC) within their first two years of service. This is a 

20-hour online, self-paced course designed to introduce new Judge Advocates to key 

staff skills and processes that they need to succeed as a member of a staff - 

particularly in a deployed environment. All officers are enrolled in this course 

when they depart Charlottesville and must complete the course within two years of 

their arrival at their first duty station. 

CRIMINAL LAW DEPARTMENT, TJAGLCS 

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

General’s Legal Center and School (TJAGLCS) in Charlottesville, Virginia is to 

develop, improve, and sustain excellence in the practice of military criminal 

law. Military justice skills are critical in our joint and expeditionary force. 

Accordingly, instruction touches a wide range of subjects from substantive 

criminal law to technical litigation skills, while at the same time providing 

critical reach-back capability in support of the global war on terrorism. 
 4

Advocacy training continues to be the Criminal Law Department's top 

priority. Approximately one-third of the criminal law instruction provided to 

each Basic Course student consists of small group trial advocacy training. This 

advocacy-heavy approach reflects the continuing evolution of a 2005 decision to 

shift the content of the Basic Course criminal law training towards advocacy. All 

criminal law instruction now revolves around "The Anatomy of a Court-Martial" 

exercise. The exercise consists of a fact scenario based on an actual criminal 

case which is used to walk students through the substance and process of a 

criminal case in the military justice system from the initial report of the 

offense to trial and conviction or acquittal of the alleged offender. In addition 

to plenary criminal law instruction, each Basic Course student completes a series 

of twelve clinical events tied to the fact pattern over the course of seventeen 

days of instruction. This instruction also includes completing a neutral trial 

memorandum that addresses numerous potential issues in the case. The clinical 

events involve the students acting as both trial and defense counsel, and 

culminate with a negotiated guilty plea and contested court-martial exercise. The 

fact scenario also incorporates mandatory training in the Department of Defense 

and Department of the Army Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program, 

including changes to victim-witness initiatives. The Criminal Law Department 

continues honing this curriculum to ensure relevant, operationally focused 

training. Most notably, the Criminal Law Department increased the amount of 

advocacy instruction provided, and incorporated reference to the new Article 120 

rape statute (effective 1 October 2007) into the training scenario. 

The Criminal Law Department also continued instruction to military justice 

managers and senior paralegals with a heavy emphasis on pre and post-trial 

processing. The sixty-two students of the 14th Military Justice Managers Course 

received significant instruction on the practical "how to" of court-martial pre 

and post-trial processing as well as substantive law instruction. As in past 

courses, justice managers left with a number of resources on CD-Rom for use in 

the field, including samples of case tracking systems and The Advocacy Trainer, 

to assist them in organizing their caseload and to assist with providing 

continuing advocacy training at their home installations. Guest speakers included 

the Chief Trial Judge of the Army, representatives from the Defense Counsel 

Assistance Program, the Deputy Clerk of the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, and 

the Senior Legal Advisor to the Army Review Boards Agency. 

The Criminal Law Department continued to offer advanced advocacy training in 

the 29th and 30th Criminal Law Advocacy Courses in addition to advanced advocacy 

training electives for the Graduate Course. The two-week Criminal Law Advocacy 

Courses (CLAC) afforded more than 100 trial advocates more individualized and 

specialized trial advocacy training. For each course, the students performed 

rigorous small-group practical exercises on essential litigation skills from 

opening statement through closing argument. Reserve component officers from 

around the country assisted the Department with both the 29th and 30th CLAC 

courses, providing invaluable knowledge and insight from both their prior 

military experience and their current civilian practice. Many of the Department’s 

Drilling Individual Mobilization Augmentee (DIMA) Professors serve as Assistant 

United States Attorneys or Federal Public Defenders in their civilian capacity. 

Their assistance with advocacy training is an invaluable resource for the 

Department. Due to the recently inaugurated Drilling IMA program; many officers 
 5

were able to return for the basic course advocacy training exercises as well, and 

to assist with continual updating of Department publications for the field. 

In addition to the Military Justice Managers Course and the Criminal Law 

Advocacy Courses, the Criminal Law Department hosted a variety of continuing 

legal education courses, including the 51st 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 members of the trial judiciary. 

The Department also managed the 32nd Criminal Law New Developments Course 

attended by nearly 300 Judge Advocates from all services, including substantial 

representation from the trial and appellate bench. In addition to hosting 

courses, Department professors taught classes to Reserve Component Judge 

Advocates at numerous Reserve On-Site Conferences, other venues including 

regional Trial Defense Service training, and the U.S. Army Europe criminal law 

conference. Professors presented instruction at the Court of Appeals for the 

Armed Forces Conference and Interservice Military Judges Course in the Spring, as 

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

Advocate Association Appellate Conference and the Fulton Judges Conference in the 

Fall. Two of the Department’s professors also provided instruction to the 2008 

Marine Corps Staff Judge Advocate's conference at Peterson Air Force Base in 

Colorado. 

In March of 2008, TJAGLCS hosted an ACCA oral argument in the case of United 

States v. Hearn to allow OBC students to observe an actual appellate oral 

argument. BG Butch Tate, Chief Judge of the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals, 

presided on a panel of three judges and then responded to procedural questions 

from the students after the oral argument. 

Finally, the Criminal Law Department was extremely pleased to host a 

distinguished speaker last spring. Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, Dean of 

the Academic Board, United States Military Academy presented the 36th Hodson 

Lecture on Criminal Law. BG Finnegan delivered an engaging presentation 

discussing the history and future of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

COURT REPORTER TRAINING DEPARTMENT, TJAGLCS 

The Court Reporter Training Department is responsible for training all Army and 

Air Force military and Department of Defense (DoD) civilian court reporters 

worldwide. The Army formally assumed the task of 

training all Air Force court reporters in April 2006. In January 2006, the Army 

also adopted the new speech recognition technology method of transcript 

production known as “redictation” and also purchased the digital recording 

equipment, For The Record (FTR) Gold, at the beginning of FY07 for all Army 

courtrooms and court reporters worldwide. With end of the year funding for FY08, 

the Army has purchased upgrades for the originally purchased FTR Gold systems to 

include upgrades for LogNotes, a digital note taking system that links digital 

audio with notes utilizing timestamp synchronization. 

The relationship with the TJAGLCS Court Reporter Training Department and the 

Senior Court Reporter Manager of the Air Force continues to foster a joint 
 6

training environment at The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School. 

Continued use of FTR Gold and LogNotes by both the Army and Air Force allows for 

joint court reporter support in deployed and garrison environments. During FY08, 

the United States Marine Corps officially cancelled their stenographic machine 

typist training program and adopted the same process as the Army and Air Force for 

production of court-martial transcripts, except for the use of the LogNotes. 

Continuing efforts are being made to develop joint training authorizations with 

the USMC Court Reporters. These efforts include a proposal for changes in USMC 

training policy that could lead to creation of a single joint institution for DoD 

level training of all court reporters. 

Since the introduction of the new speech recognition methodology and digital 

recording equipment, the Army has trained34 Army and 18 DA civilian legacy court 

reporters in a two-week course designed to retrain legacy court reporters in the 

redictation method. Additionally, the Department has also trained a total of 28 

Air Force civilian reporters and 2 Air Force Enlisted Court Reporters (ECRs) in 

the redictation method via the same two-week course. 

During the FY08 training sessions, TJAGLCS trained a total of 27 new court 

reporters; including 16 active duty Army, 3 active duty Air Force, 4 Army 

Reserve, 3 Army National Guard, and 1 Air Force Civilian reporter. The total new 

court reporters trained since the inception of the redictation program in January 

2006 stands at 60, including one DA civilian, two AF civilian, nine Army Reserve 

Component, six National Guard, and five ECRs. 

Students in the two-week redictation course and the nine-week court reporter 

course are trained in realistic training situations and environments. Both 

courses include training on actual courtroom audio from courts-martial cases 

tried around the world. This practice, in turn, assists field offices by 

transcribing actual pending records of trial and thereby decreasing their 

caseloads. Additionally, students in the nine-week course also receive realistic 

joint training by participating in courtroom exercises built into the Criminal 

Law Advocacy Course, the Military Judge's course, and the Officer Basic Course. 

These realistic training opportunities have proven to be advantageous to all 

parties involved and translate into real word mission accomplishment. 

Finally, a revised draft of AR 27-10, Chapter 26, Court Reporting, is being 

staffed with Criminal Law Division, OTJAG and will be included in the next update 

to AR 27-10. 

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 

and serving as their proponent, reviewing other Army Regulations for legal 

sufficiency, providing legal opinions to the Army Staff related to military 

justice matters, producing and updating military justice publications, conducting 

statistical analysis and evaluation of trends that effect military justice within 

the Army, providing advice on military corrections issues, the Army drug testing 

program, sexual assault and victim assistance policies and federal prosecutions, 

participating as members of the Joint Service Committee on Military Justice 
 7

(JSC), responding to congressional inquiries and requests under the Freedom of 

Information Act, and conducting reviews of court-martial cases under Article 69 

of the UCMJ to identify issues that may require corrective action. 

Criminal Law Division case data and actions for the last three fiscal years 

are: 

 FY 06 FY 07 FY08 

White House inquiries 20 3 13 

Congressional and other inquiries 130 109 132 

Clemency petitions (Article 74, 0 2 6 

Officer Dismissals 28 38 31 

Article 69 and other reviews 115 106 131 

Freedom of Information Act/Privacy 15 19 18 

In FY 2008, The Judge Advocate General implemented several initiatives 

intended to ensure long-term institutional excellence in the practice of criminal 

law in the Army JAG Corps. He first directed rating scheme and duty position 

refinements at Brigade Combat Teams and Offices of the Staff Judge Advocate to 

maintain and improve supervision and provision of trial counsel services to 

commanders. Second, he initiated the skill identifier program offering Judge 

Advocates the opportunity to achieve 4 graduated levels of professional 

recognition, from Basic to Master Military Justice Practitioner, based on their 

level of skill and experience as practicing military criminal lawyers. Finally, 

as a result of the Army’ new Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program 

initiated in September 2008, The Judge Advocate General ultimately recommended, 

and the Secretary of the Army approved, the addition of 20 Judge Advocates to 

fill 5 Trial Counsel Assistance Program positions and 15 new Special Victim 

Prosecutor positions to be filled in FY 2009. As part of the same initiative, the 

Secretary of the Army also approved the hiring of 7 Highly Qualified Experts as 

support for the Army JAG Corps’ effort to better address the prosecution and 

defense of sexual assault offenses. These initiatives were complemented by the 

publication of several practice aids, and the development of additional training 

regimens intended to provide comprehensive training and education on criminal law 

for all Judge Advocates throughout their respective careers. 

Through the JSC, the Army endorsed several proposals for changes to the UCMJ 

and the MCM that were approved by the JSC and included: proposed amendment to 

Article 47 providing the use of subpoenas duces tecum prior to referral by trial 

counsel and investigating officers under Article 32; reconciliation of several 

provisions of the Rules for Courts-Martial with the new Article 2(a)(10) that 

extended jurisdiction over persons accompanying the force during contingency 

operations; and, provision of a definition of "military property" to resolve 

ambiguities in the definition and prosecution of such property offenses under the 

UCMJ. 

In conjunction with the OTJAG Information Technology Division, the Criminal 

Law Division debuted Military Justice Online, a comprehensive web-based case 

management system for military justice offices within the Army. The system allows 
 8

for standardization of practice among all legal offices and the capability for 

centralized retrieval of information and Army-wide statistical analysis of this 

information. 

In furtherance of an initiative begun in FY 06, the Criminal Law Division 

secured final approval for an Army Standard Courtroom Design, including a standard 

technology plan. The design is based on the Courtroom and Support Space Design 

and Appearance Guide for Staff Judge Advocates (SJAs) and provides parameters to 

build new judicial centers or renovate existing courtrooms. 

The Criminal Law Division continued to track over 800 detainee-related 

investigations and other high profile cases. Maintaining information on these 

cases allowed the Division to report trends to The Judge Advocate General and to 

respond to Congressional and other inquiries with the most current information. 

U.S. ARMY, JUDICIARY

The U.S. Army Judiciary consists of the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals, 

Office of the Clerk of Court, and the Trial Judiciary. U.S. Army Court of 

Criminal Appeals/Office of the Clerk of Court The Clerk of Court receives records 

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

Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); appeals under Article 62, 

UCMJ, and Petitions for Extraordinary Relief. More than 900 records of trial and 

over 1,900 motions and briefs were referred to one of the three judicial panels 

of ACCA for appellate review. The Office of the Clerk of Court served ACCA 

decisions upon all personnel not in confinement and closed over 1,500 CourtsMartial cases during the past year. 

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

opinions and unpublished memorandum opinions can be downloaded at the website. 

Applications for admission to the bar for ACCA, rules of the court, and notice of 

any form are also on the website. 

The Office of the Clerk of Court provided instruction to legal NCOs, court 

reporters and those individuals attending the Judge Advocate General's Corps' 

graduate course and military justice courses at TJAGLCS. 

The Clerk of Court is the custodian of the Army's permanent court-martial 

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

federal and state investigative agencies, law enforcement offices, military 

historians, media, veterans, and 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. 

 FY06 FY07 FY08 

Freedom of Information Act 255 227 212 

Privacy Act 96 74 88 

Certified Copies of Convictions 199 329 272 

Total Number of Requests 550 630 572 
 9

The Office of the Clerk of Court also 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

The nearly 1200 courts-martial tried in FY 2008 reflect a 10% decline from 

the same period a year ago. Army trial judges continue to preside over cases in 

deployed environments, with over 130 general and special courts-martial tried in 

Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan during this period, bringing to a total of over 650 

since May 2003. Five trial judges were selected to preside as military judges for 

the Military Commissions convened in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The first courtmartial of a civilian contractor accompanying an armed force during a time of 

declared war or contingency operation pursuant to the newly enacted Article 

2(a)(10), UCMJ, was completed at Baghdad, Iraq. The accused pleaded guilty to 

wrongful appropriation, obstructing justice, and making a false official 

statement and was sentenced to 5 months confinement. The Judge Advocate General 

approved a new Code of Judicial Conduct for Army Trial and Appellate Judges, 

patterned after the 2007 ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct. The Military Judges 

Benchbook Committee drafted new pattern instructions for use by military justice 

practitioners from all services implementing Congressional legislation enacting 

new substantive crimes under Articles 119a and 120, UCMJ. The Army Trial 

Judiciary homepage at www.jagcnet.army.mil/usatj added a link to allow members of 

the general public access to docket information on all Army courts-martial 

convened worldwide. The 150th Legal Services Organization (Trial Judiciary) 

welcomed COL Robert Smith as its new Commander and Chief Reserve Trial Judge. The 

51st Military Judge Course graduated 41 Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and 

Coast Guard students and invested them as new military judges, to include the first 

female African-American military judge in the U.S. Army, LTC Kirsten Brunson, and 

the first Article III judge certified as a reserve military judge, Judge Frank 

Whitney of the United States District Court for the Western District of North 

Carolina. Military Judges continued playing an active role in their military and 

civilian communities, speaking to grade and high school audiences, local bar 

associations and civic organizations and state bar continuing legal education 

courses. 

TRIAL DEFENSE SERVICE 

The U.S. Army Trial Defense Service (USATDS) has approximately 137 active 

duty and 229 reserve attorneys. USATDS provides high quality, professional 

defense services to Soldiers throughout the Army from 57 active duty 

installations worldwide and 51 reserve locations. 

USATDS detailed one or more counsel to every Army special and general courtmartial referred in FY 08, defending soldiers facing the entire range of 

allegations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. USATDS counsel carry a 
 10

large workload, assisting Soldiers in a myriad of other military justice related 

actions. The numbers for FY 08 are as follows: 

Courts-Martial - 1,272 

Administrative Boards - 461 

Nonjudicial Punishment – 41,227 

Consultations - 34,620 

USATDS provided defense services to deployed forces around the world, 

including Iraq, Kuwait, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. USATDS CENTCOM AOR region was 

established in July 2003, mainly encompassing Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait. 

USATDS Offices in Iraq are located in Camp Speicher (Tikrit), Joint Base Balad, 

Camp Liberty (Baghdad), Camp Victory (Baghdad), and Taji. There is also a USATDS 

Office at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait and one at Bagram, Afghanistan. Currently, USATDS 

has 1 Regional Defense Counsel, 17 Trial Defense Counsel, and 6 paralegals 

deployed throughout CENTCOM AOR. Defense counsel in Kuwait also provide legal 

support to Soldiers throughout the region, to include Qatar, Saudi Arabia, 

Djibouti and Egypt. 

The Defense Counsel Assistance Program (DCAP) continues to be an 

overwhelming success. DCAP is designed to assist with the training and education 

of defense counsel, while also supporting Headquarters, USATDS, with policy 

initiatives and military justice related issues. DCAP, staffed with three Judge 

Advocates (a chief and two training officers), supports TDS counsel and their 

defense teams worldwide. DCAP's main focus is to provide training, resources, and 

assistance for the defense of Soldiers in the reserve and active components, and 

the National Guard. DCAP is a resource for Regional Defense Counsel and Senior 

Defense Counsel to improve the legal skills and knowledge base of their counsel 

and paralegals, conducting training locally, regionally and in theater on a 

regular basis. 

In its continued effort to share the experiences and expertise of TDS 

attorneys, DCAP issued approximately 40 editions of “DCAP Sends” this year. DCAP 

is developing DC 101, a training class for new counsel certification which will 

premier in FY 2009. Additionally, DCAP functions as the lead division for the 

Chief, TDS, on the development of future U.S. Army policies as they impact TDS. 

It also provides substantive policy analysis on issues stemming from doctrine, 

regulations, executive orders, and legislation. In addition, DCAP serves as the 

liaison with Defense Appellate Division, U.S. Army Legal Services Agency, for 

extraordinary writs by defense counsel. DCAP also provides assistance, as 

requested, to defense counsel in our sister services. DCAP is one more effort by 

the Judge Advocate General’s Corps to provide the best legal representation 

possible to every Soldier. 

Active duty TDS counsel continue to foster a close working relationship with 

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

Legal Support Organizations (TDS LSOs). The 154th TDS LSO, consisting of 153 

commissioned officers, 2 warrant officers, and 24 enlisted paralegals, provides 

defense services to Soldiers assigned to units in the Eastern half of the United 

States, Minnesota, Puerto Rico, and Europe. The 22d TDS LSO, consisting of 76 

commissioned officers, 3 warrant officers, and 41 enlisted paralegals, provides 

defense services to Soldiers assigned to units in the Western half of the United 
 11

States and Asia. Individual TDS offices have established joint training programs 

with local reserve TDS personnel and have conducted highly successful joint 

training conferences. The Chief, USATDS, exercises technical supervision over 

the reserve TDS LSOs. He is responsible for providing defense counsel services 

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

TDS offices continues to be outstanding, with reserve officers providing critical 

support at many active component installations in addition to locations such as 

Fort Snelling, Minnesota; Boston, Massachusetts; Fort Dix, New Jersey; and 

Mobile, Alabama. Reserve Judge Advocates have also deployed overseas to Germany 

as backfills for active duty forward deployed defense counsel. Several reserve 

defense counsel have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo. Additionally, 

reserve paralegals have held the front in paralegal support down-range. During 

any given month, TDS has anywhere from 30 to 40 reserve counsel and paralegals 

mobilized throughout the Army. 

Headquarters, (HQ) USATDS continues to encourage Active Army (AA) and RC 

awareness of the new National Guard (NG) TDS initiatives and NG TDS integration 

with USATDS. The NG TDS office should be operational in 2009 since the new chief, 

COL Gary S. Owens, has been selected. The two TDS LSO commanders have built 

relationships with NG Trial Defense Teams (TDTs) and RDC Regional Trial Defense 

Teams (RTDTs) as the teams stand up. Moving forward, we plan to have TDTs and 

RTDTs conduct as much AT as possible with an AC TDS office to maximize training 

opportunities. Furthermore, we anticipate a move to 6 CONUS based TDS LSOs, 

which we intend to geographically align with our 6 AA CONUS based TDS regions. 

HQ, USATDS continues to coordinate with the Information Technology Division to 

arrange for NG TDS attorney access to the HQ, USATDS web page and databases as 

well as the DCAP web page and databases. Finally, DCAP conducted several 

training courses with the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps trial defense offices. 

USATDS will continue to provide comprehensive experiences to our counsel and 

the best defense available to our military clients. 

GOVERNMENT APPELLATE DIVISION 

The U.S. Army Government Appellate Division (GAD) represents the United 

States before the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA), the U.S. Court of 

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

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

punitive discharge or confinement for one year or more. GAD also represents the 

United States before ACCA, CAAF, and the Supreme Court in government appeals from 

courts-martial trials and petitions for extraordinary relief. 

In FY 08, GAD consisted of the Chief, the Deputy Chief, three branch chiefs, 

eight appellate attorneys, and three civilian paralegals. Additionally, during 

the year, seven Army Reserve Component Soldiers were activated to assist with 

brief writing, oral arguments, and other duties. 

During the last fiscal year GAD filed 1,067 briefs with ACCA, 19 briefs with 

CAAF, and 461 petition responses with CAAF. GAD also presented oral argument in 

25 cases before ACCA and 14 cases before CAAF. One of the oral arguments before 

ACCA was an Outreach Argument at The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and 

School in Charlottesville, Virginia. Two of the oral arguments before CAAF were 
 12

Outreach Arguments presented at the University of Montana Law School in Missoula 

and at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Great Falls, Montana. 

The dramatic increase in the number of writs and government appeals noted in 

FY 07 continued in FY 08. This year, GAD worked on 15 writs and government 

appeals during the fiscal year. Historically, prior to FY 07, these options were 

rarely pursued. 

GAD attorneys also assisted the Trial Counsel Assistance Program (TCAP) with 

several death penalty/high visibility cases to include United States v. Martinez, 

United States v. Kreutzer, United States v. Hennis, United States v. Watada, 

United States v. Davila, United States v. Ali, and Loving v. United States. 

Trial Counsel Assistance Program (TCAP)

TCAP continued its mission of providing information, advice, training, and 

assistance to trial counsel worldwide. Serving in its role as a GAD branch, TCAP 

links trial counsel and appellate counsel together to resolve issues of common 

concern in the successful prosecution of courts-martial. TCAP also serves as the 

prosecutor's appellate advocate for extraordinary writs and government appeals on 

issues arising before final disposition. 

TCAP's team of five officers and one civilian assistant continued to provide 

five basic categories of services: (1) telephone/e-mail/website assistance; (2) 

advocacy training courses and similar training events; (3) dissemination of 

information/newsletter and resource materials; (4) trial assistance; and (5) 

appellate assistance on extraordinary writs and government appeals. In providing 

these services, TCAP accomplished the following in FY 08: (1) responded to an 

average of more than 250 telephonic and e-mail requests for assistance per month; 

(2) updated, expanded and launched a new and more user friendly TCAP website 

which has been accessed 30,736 times since inception; (3) conducted five regional 

advocacy training conferences for over 125 trial counsel, 10% of whom were from 

other services; (4) conducted six prosecution based training courses for new Judge 

Advocates (TC 101) which trained over 100 Judge Advocates; (5) conducted three 

“Introduction to Forensic Evidence” courses at the U.S. Army Criminal 

Investigations Laboratory (USACIL) at Fort Gillem, Georgia, which trained over 40 

Judge Advocates; (6) conducted five prosecution based training courses for 

deploying and back-filling Judge Advocates (Deployed Justice) which trained over 75 

Judge Advocates and paralegals; (7) conducted two prosecution based training 

conferences in cooperation with the National Center for Missing and Exploited 

Children (Protecting Children From On Line Crime) which trained 24 Judge 

Advocates; (8) served as instructors at various American Prosecutors Research 

Institute (APRI) courses which enhanced the reputation of the Judge Advocate 

General's Corps among the target audience of district attorneys throughout the 

country; (9) served as instructor for the International Association of 

Prosecutors (IAP) conference on “New Technologies in Crime and Prosecution” in 

Singapore; (10) published monthly newsletters containing updates on legal 

decisions and practical tips for trial counsel; (11) updated and distributed the 

“TCAP Resource Disk” to Judge Advocates which contains thousands of sample 

documents, templates, and legal briefs related to all aspects of trial 

preparation and prosecution, to include numerous resource materials regarding 

national security cases, classified information cases, and capital murder cases; 
 13

(12) provided a trial counsel advisor for the Criminal Law Advocacy Course (CLAC) 

at Charlottesville, Virginia to assist 25 Judge Advocate students in the 

preparation of their moot court exercise; (13) actively assisted in the 

prosecution of high-profile cases in United States v. Martinez, United States v. 

Kruetzer, United States v. Hennis, United States v. Davila, United States v. 

Watada, United States v. Gray, Unites States v Newell, United States v. Clayborn, 

United States v. Shore, United States v. Corrales, and United States v. Ali, as 

well as provided a wide range of advice and support to trial counsel on dozens of 

active cases worldwide; and (14) represented the United States in numerous 

extraordinary writs and interlocutory appeals before ACCA and CAAF. 

During FY 08, TCAP also continued to be actively engaged with and provided 

services to the Army Reserve Component (RC) and the National Guard, our sister 

services, and our civilian counterparts. Approximately one-third of the requests 

for TCAP assistance continue to come from RC trial counsel in the Army and our 

sister services. Recognizing the RC’s need for quality assistance relating to 

military criminal justice matters, TCAP has included the RC in all of TCAP’s 

training opportunities. TCAP attorneys regularly provide training and advice to 

Judge Advocates at RC on-site conferences being conducted by Legal Support 

Organizations (LSO). Most recently, TCAP provided instruction to 35 Army RC 

Judge Advocates attending an on-site training conference for the 4th LSO located 

in New York City, New York. To further ensure and strengthen the support being 

provided to the RC, TCAP has created and formalized a RC support cell within TCAP 

which is comprised of RC Judge Advocates from the 151st LSO as well as a Navy RC 

Judge Advocate. 

To enhance the quality of legal work across the military services, TCAP has 

invited Judge Advocates from the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps to attend TCAP 

conferences, and TCAP has partnered with the Naval Justice School to provide 

instructors for the Navy’s Complex Crime Course held at the NJS in Newport, Rhode 

Island. TCAP has also continued to solidify its relationship with its civilian 

counterparts in the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) and the 

American Prosecutors Research Institute by providing instructors for their 

courses such as the APRI conference for the “Prevention of Sexual Violence 

Against Women.” In turn, these organizations have provided TCAP with experienced 

prosecutors to serve as instructors at TCAP conferences. Due to this strong 

working relationship with NDAA and APRI, TCAP has also been provided access to 

the advice and counsel of district attorneys from all over the country and TCAP 

has, in turn, been able to relay this wealth of knowledge and experience to 

military prosecutors in the field. 

DEFENSE APPELLATE DIVISION 

The Defense Appellate Division (DAD) provides appellate representation to 

qualifying Soldiers before the ACCA, the CAAF, and the Supreme Court of the 

United States. Qualifying Soldiers include Soldiers convicted at courts-martial 

where the approved sentence includes either a punitive discharge or at least one 

year of confinement. The Division also assists Trial Defense Counsel in various 

trial issues, including preparation and filing of writs in the courts mentioned 

above. 
 14

Of note, in U.S. v. Balboa, DAD assisted the defense by filing an 

extraordinary writ challenging the constitutionality of Article 120 relating to 

sexual assault of an impaired victim. DAD argued that the statute’s double 

burden shifting scheme violates the Constitution, as does the statute’s definition 

of consent which states that the element of “substantial incapacitation” can never 

equate to consent, thereby creating a mandatory presumption against the 

affirmative defense of consent and requiring the defense to disprove an element 

of the offense. DAD also argued that the Trial Judiciary is exceeding its lawful 

authority in its current practice of ignoring the new statute and applying the 

definitions and defenses from the older, superseded version of Article 120. In 

U.S. v. Mr. Muhammad Alaa Ali, DAD filed an extraordinary writ on behalf of Mr. 

Ali, a Canadian-Iraqi tried at court-martial under the new Art. 2, U.C.M.J., 10 

U.S.C. Sec. 802(a)(10). On Mr. Ali’s behalf DAD argued the amendment to the UCMJ 

was unconstitutional as it violated Article I and Mr. Ali’s due process rights as 

a civilian and specifically requested appellate review of the case. The writ was 

denied by both the Army Court and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. 

During FY 08, the Division received 900 new cases. Appellate defense 

attorneys filed briefs in 1,032 cases before the ACCA, 464 supplements to 

petitions for review with the CAAF, 13 final briefs with the CAAF, and three 

petitions for certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. Appellate 

defense counsel also filed 220 miscellaneous pleadings before the ACCA and 153 

miscellaneous pleadings before the CAAF. Appellate defense counsel orally argued 

18 cases before the ACCA and 16 cases before the CAAF. 

Appellate defenders continue fighting for Soldier rights which shape our 

military practice. Army appellate defense arguments in cases like U.S. v. Lopez 

de Victoria (holding that a newly extended statute of limitations can’t resurrect 

an offense barred by the previous statute of limitations), U.S. v. Barrett 

(holding that AR 27-10 may not disqualify panel members on the basis of their 

military occupation), and U.S. v. Medina (holding that the Punitive General 

Article 134(a) and (b) are not per se lesser included offenses of Article 134(c)) 

continue to shape the practice of military justice for all of the services. 

FOREIGN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION 

As the Department of Defense Executive Agent for the exercise of 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 2005 

 to 

 30 Nov 2006 

 1 Dec 2006 

to 

 30 Nov 2007 

Foreign Offense Citations 3,68 3,531 

Total Civilian 808 880 

Total Military 2,87 2,651 
 15

Exclusive Foreign 94 74 

Concurrent Jurisdiction 2,78 2,577 

Traffic Offenses 226 167 

Foreign Jurisdiction 384 351 

During this reporting period, foreign authorities released to U.S. 

authorities 10 of the 74 exclusive foreign jurisdiction cases involving military 

personnel. In concurrent jurisdiction cases in which the foreign countries had 

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

to obtain waivers of the exercise of this jurisdiction in 2,290 of the 2,651 

cases. Overall, the U.S. obtained waivers in 88.9% of all exclusive and 

concurrent jurisdiction cases. This figure reflects an increase of 1.2% in 

obtaining waivers compared to the previous reporting period. 

During the last reporting period, civilian employees and dependents were 

involved in 808 offenses. Foreign authorities released 98 of these cases (8.2% of 

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

administrative actions or some other form of disposition. In this reporting 

period, civilian employees and dependents were involved in 880 offenses. The 

foreign authorities released 50 of these cases (5.7% of the current total of this 

reporting period). This figure represents a decrease of 2.5% in obtaining releases 

of foreign criminal jurisdiction over civilian employees and dependents. 

During this reporting period, foreign authorities tried a total of 534 cases 

involving U.S. personnel. Eight trials, or 1.5%, resulted in acquittals. Those 

convicted were sentenced as follows: 14 cases resulted in executed confinement, 

35 cases resulted in suspended confinement, and 477 cases (89.3% of the total 

trials) resulted in only fines or reprimands. 

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 

The Professional Responsibility Branch (PRB) manages TJAG's professional 

responsibility program, which is comprised of the following: (1) administratively 

reviewing for credibility alleged violations of the Army Rules of Professional 

Conduct for Lawyers and allegations of mismanagement by supervisors; (2) tasking 

supervisory attorneys to conduct field inquiries; (3) reviewing reports of 

inquiry; (4) advising the Deputy Judge Advocate General (DJAG) on appropriate 

disposition of cases; and (5) overseeing the operation of TJAG's Professional 

Responsibility Committee. PRB also manages information to: (1) track inquiries; 

(2) release information when warranted under the Freedom of Information Act and 

Privacy Act; and (3) maintain a professional responsibility website on JAGCNET. 

The Professional Responsibility Branch (PRB) is responsible for ensuring 

complaints against attorneys are properly processed and that the supervisor or 

the Deputy Judge Advocate General takes appropriate action. The inquiry process 

involves two steps - a credibility determination and, when appropriate, a follow 

on preliminary screening inquiry. The credibility determination is the initial 

screening process whereby the supervisor assesses whether there is credible 

evidence of misconduct by the subordinate attorney. If the supervisory Judge 

Advocate determines the evidence is credible, PRB will transition the 

investigation to a preliminary screening inquiry to investigate the questioned 
 16

conduct to determine whether it violated the Army Rules of Professional Conduct 

for Lawyers. 

LITIGATION 

Civil lawsuits requiring federal courts to interpret the UCMJ are relatively 

few in number, but remain an important part of the Litigation Division’s 

practice. Most suits are brought by former Soldiers seeking collateral review of 

military court-martial proceedings, 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. The following cases highlight the types of cases 

handled by the Army Litigation Division. 

In Armann v. Warden, FCI McKean, the U.S. District Court for the Western 

District of Pennsylvania granted Mr. Kurtis Armann’s request for an evidentiary 

hearing in connection with his collateral challenge to his court-martial 

conviction. In March 1999, then-Private Armann pled guilty to attempted 

premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit premeditated murder and was 

sentenced to 38 years confinement and a dishonorable discharge. He had a pretrial agreement limiting the sentence to 35 years confinement. In July 2000, Mr. 

Armann filed an appeal with the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA). The 

appeal alleged an absence of mental responsibility for the offenses because he 

was taking various prescribed medications at the time of the offenses. In a 

summary opinion, ACCA found no legal error. In May 2001, Mr. Armann appealed to 

the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), this time arguing that he 

lacked sufficient mental capacity to stand trial because he had allegedly been 

administered Accutane, an issue not previously raised to ACCA. Mr. Armann also 

requested a new trial based on the Accutane issue. In a summary opinion, CAAF 

considered the matters, affirmed the ACCA opinion, and denied the request for new 

trial. In April 2004, Mr. Armann filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in 

district court claiming that he had not been competent to stand trial as a result 

of the various medications he took at the time of his court-martial. On 31 May 

2007, the district court ordered an evidentiary hearing. Believing that the 

district court erred in concluding that the military courts failed to accord full 

and fair consideration to Armann’s claims, the Army took an interlocutory appeal 

to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. After oral argument, the 

Third Circuit reversed the district court’s order for an evidentiary hearing on 

28 November 2008. 

The Army also is litigating the merits of a habeas petition after the U.S. 

District Court for the Western District of Washington entered a preliminary 

injunction staying court-martial proceedings in Watada v. Head. In February 

2007, 1LT Watada was charged with missing movement and four specifications of 

conduct unbecoming an officer. Pursuant to a pretrial agreement, 1LT Watada 

entered into a stipulation of fact in exchange for the dismissal of two of the 

specifications for conduct unbecoming an officer. During 1LT Watada’s highlypublicized trial and over the objection of both parties, the military judge set 

aside the stipulation of fact. This resulted in a government motion for a 

mistrial, which the military judge granted. 1LT Watada then petitioned the ACCA 

to stay his court-martial, arguing retrial was barred by the double jeopardy 

clause. ACCA denied the petition because 1LT Watada had not moved to dismiss the 

retrial in the trial court. After the military judge denied his motion to 
 17

dismiss, 1LT Watada filed a new petition with ACCA. ACCA denied his petition and 

rejected his claim, finding no abuse of discretion by the military judge. 1LT 

Watada then sought review of his double jeopardy claim before the CAAF. CAAF 

declined to review the case. 1LT Watada then filed a habeas petition in district 

court. On 8 November 2007, the district court found that 1LT Watada had 

demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and ordered a stay of courtmartial proceedings. The district court held that there was no manifest 

necessity for the mistrial, that the military judge abused his discretion in 

rejecting the stipulation of fact, and that the military judge did not adequately 

consider possible alternatives to a mistrial. On 21 October 2008, the district 

court entered an order barring the military court from re-trying 1LT Watada on the 

missing movement charge and two of the four specifications of conduct unbecoming 

an officer because it would violate 1LT Watada’s Fifth Amendment right to be free 

from double jeopardy. In December 2008, the Army recommended that the Department 

of Justice appeal the decision. The US Attorney’s Office for the Western 

District of Washington has recommended against appeal of the decision. 

The Army is also defending against a court-martial collateral attack in 

Ramsey v. Stansberry. In 1995, Richard Joseph Ramsey pled guilty to rape, 

forcible sodomy, assault, burglary, and wrongfully communicating a threat, and 

was sentenced to 29 years confinement and a dishonorable discharge. In his 

petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in the U.S. District Court for the 

Eastern District of North Carolina on 23 October 2006, Mr. Ramsey argued that: 

(1) the CAAF order was not signed by the clerk of the court; (2) CAAF improperly 

failed to grant his motion for default judgment; (3) CAAF improperly failed to 

grant his motion for reconsideration; and (4) CAAF failed to conduct a de novo 

review of the record. He also alleged that ACCA improperly denied him the 

appointment of military counsel. On 18 July 2007, the district court ruled that 

the military courts had given full and fair consideration to Mr. Ramsey’s claims 

and that any issue not raised to the military courts was waived and denied his 

petition. On 19 December 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 

denied Mr. Ramsey’s appeal of the district court ruling and, on 20 February 2008, 

the court denied Mr. Ramsey’s petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. Mr. 

Ramsey filed a mandamus petition in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, which the court denied on 23 September 2008 finding 

that this was the second time Mr. Ramsey had raised the same issue in district 

court. On 16 October 2008, Mr. Ramsey filed a notice of appeal. Mr. Ramsey’s 

petition to proceed in forma pauperis was granted and he filed his brief with the 

court on 25 November 2008. Mr. Ramsey never served the government with either the 

notice of appeal or his informal brief and, as a consequence, the government has 

not responded. On 6 January 2009, Mr. Ramsey sent the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Fourth Circuit a letter asking about the status of his case. The Court 

responded the same day by informing Mr. Ramsey that it received his informal 

brief and is considering his appeal. (Under the circumstances it is customary 

for the government to respond only if directed by the Court to do so.) 

The Army continues to defend against a challenge to court-martial 

jurisdiction in Willenbring v. United States. In 1992, Charles B. Willenbring 

was discharged from the Army but the very next day he entered the United States 

Army Reserve. He later pled guilty to three specifications of rape committed 

while he was on active duty. He was sentenced to 36 years confinement and a 

dishonorable discharge. He was also convicted of four additional specifications 
 18

of rape by the state of North Carolina. On 12 January 2004, Mr. Willenbring 

filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing, among other things, that the 

court-martial lacked jurisdiction over him because he had been honorably 

discharged after the offenses had been committed. On 28 June 2005, the U.S. 

District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina denied his petition for 

a writ of habeas corpus. However, on 1 May 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Fourth Circuit ruled the district court had not addressed petitioner’s 

jurisdictional argument and remanded the petition. The government argued that the 

military courts had fully addressed petitioner’s jurisdictional challenge and 

properly found that the court-martial had jurisdiction. On 16 January 2007, the 

district court ruled that the court-martial had proper jurisdiction because there 

was not a complete termination of petitioner’s military status when he 

transferred from active to reserve status. Mr. Willenbring appealed the district 

court decision to the Fourth Circuit. Informal briefs were ordered and briefing 

completed in March 2007. The Fourth Circuit held oral argument on 5 December 

2008. 

The Army is defending a challenge under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

arising out of court-martial proceedings, Loving v. United States. Loving was 

convicted of murder in 1989 while on active duty at Fort Hood, Texas, and 

sentenced to death. 

Following unsuccessful appeals, his case was prepared for forwarding to the 

President of United States for action on the execution of plaintiff's sentence. 

Plaintiff then filed a FOIA request seeking documents related to death penalty 

procedures and a Privacy Act request for documents containing opinions or 

recommendations regarding his death sentence. In September 2006, plaintiff filed 

administrative appeals and the current action in district court seeking release 

of the documents. After the Army released many of the documents, plaintiff 

refined his request to ten documents withheld by the Army as exempt under FOIA 

Exemption 5. These documents included the analysis and recommendations of The 

Judge Advocate General of the Army and the civilian chain of command to the 

President. The district court found that the documents were not “sentencing 

recommendations” under R.C.M 1006(1) and that R.C.M. 1204(c)(2) does not contain 

a provision for the disclosure of recommendations to the President. On 26 July 

2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the 

government’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff’s case with 

prejudice. The case is pending appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia. 

PERSONNEL, PLANS, AND POLICIES 

On 30 September 2008, the Army’s end-strength was 655,378 Army Soldiers on active 

duty, including Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) and mobilized Soldiers, compared to 

636,778 at the end of fiscal year 2007. The attorney strength of the Active Army 

(AA) Judge Advocate General’s Corps at the end of FY 08 was 1,647 (including 

general officers). This total does not include 58 officers attending law school 

while participating in the Funded Legal Education Program. The attorney strength 

of the RC Judge Advocate General’s Corps at the end of FY 08 was 1970 and the 

attorney strength of the Army National Guard at the end of FY 08 was 574. The 

diverse composition of our AA attorney population included 120 African-Americans, 

54 Hispanics, 77 Asians and Native Americans, and 427 women. The FY 08 AA end-
 19

strength of 1647 compares with an end-strength of 1643 in FY07, 1,638 in FY06, 

1,603 in FY 05, 1,547 in FY 04, 1,506 in FY 03, 1,474 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, and 1,541 in FY 

96. The grade distribution of the Corps’ AA attorneys was 5 general officers, 122 

colonels, 232 lieutenant colonels, 365 majors and 923 captains. An additional 90 

warrant officers, 515 civilian attorneys, and 1,484 enlisted paralegals supported 

legal operations worldwide. As of the end of FY 08, over 610 Army JAG personnel 

(officer and enlisted, AA and RC) had deployed in operations in Iraq, Egypt, 

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

(afloat) and Honduras. 

SCOTT C. BLACK 

Lieutenant General, USA 

The Judge Advocate General 
 20

APPENDIX – U.S. ARMY MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Report Period: FISCAL YEAR 2008 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE 

(+)/ DECREASE (-) 

OVER LAST REPORT 

GENERAL 674 631 43 -16.7% 

BCD SPECIAL [A] 484 469 16 -22.6% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 4 4 0 -60.0% 

SUMMARY 1,252 1,153 99 +2.4% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT -19.5% 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED [B]

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL) 

NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES (+ 

dismissals) 

94 (+22) 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 410 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 339 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTSMARTIAL 532 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL 

COURTS-MARTIAL 

335 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL 

COURTS-MARTIAL 

228 

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

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF 

PERIOD 99 [C] 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D] 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D] 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 1133 [C] 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 1167[E] 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF 

PERIOD 

 65 [C] 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

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

OF CASES 

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

-8.0% 

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE U.S. ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

(CCA) 

NUMBER 1067 

PERCENTAGE 92.94% 
 21

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

(CAAF)

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 461 

of 1167 39.50% 

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

REPORTING PERIOD 

+18.41% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 

47 of 499 

9.42 % 

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

REPORTING PERIOD -6.08% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY 

USACCA 

 4.03% 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD +27.94% 

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ 

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF 

PERIOD 

RECEIVED 

DISPOSED OF 

 GRANTED 

 DENIED 

 NO JURISDICTION 

 WITHDRAWN 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF 

PERIOD 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 536 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 444 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 138 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 44 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 21 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 655378 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT 

IMPOSED 44390 

RATE PER 1,000 67.73 

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

PREVIOUS PERIOD -4.42% 

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.
SECTION 4 

REPORT OF THE 

JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY 
 2

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY 

OCTOBER 1, 2007 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 

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 (JAG) and the Commander, Naval Legal 

Service Command made frequent inspections of 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. 

CRIMINAL LAW DIVISION (CODE 20)

Organization. Captain Christian L. Reismeier, JAGC, USN continued to serve 

as the Division Director, and Commander J. Russell McFarlane, JAGC, USN, 

continued to serve as the Deputy Director. The Criminal Law Division was staffed 

with five active duty judge advocates, three civilian support personnel, and two 

reserve units. NAVJAG 113 conducted Article 69(a), Article 69(b), and Article 73 

reviews and NAVJAG 108 provided research and Action Officer support. 

Mission. Administers military justice policy within the Department of the 

Navy; drafts legal and policy advice for JAG on a wide variety of military 

justice matters; reviews all legislative and regulatory proposals affecting 

military justice; represents the Navy in regular meetings of the Joint Service 

Committee (JSC) on Military Justice, which is the principal vehicle for staffing 

amendments to the UCMJ and the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM); staffs all 

amendments to Secretarial and JAG regulations implementing the UCMJ, including 

Chapter 1, Manual of the Judge Advocate General (JAGMAN); reviews all decisions 

of military appellate courts; staffs JAG certification of cases decided by the 

Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (NMCCA) for review by the Court of 

Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF); staffs requests for Secretarial designation 

as general and special court-martial convening authority and for Secretarial 

substitution of administrative discharge for punitive discharge; provides JAG 

representative to Naval Clemency and Parole Board; coordinates court orders and 

warrants of attachment; provides written opinions to Board for Correction of 

Naval Records (BCNR); reviews records of trial forwarded to JAG for review under 

Article 69(a) and (b), UCMJ; reviews requests forwarded to JAG for consideration 

under Article 73, UCMJ; and publishes timely guidance to all military justice 

practitioners in the Department of the Navy. 

In addition, the Code 20 Division Director serves as Special Assistant for 

Military Justice, Naval Legal Service Command (NAVLEGSVCCOM), and advises 

Commander, NAVLEGSVCCOM regarding policies, plans, resources and procedures 

affecting the military justice mission of NAVLEGSVCCOM. In that capacity, the 

Division Director assists Commander, NAVLEGSVCCOM, in Article 6, UCMJ, 

inspections of NAVLEGSVCCOM commands and detachments. 
 3

The JSC 2008 Annual Review was forwarded to the Department of Defense (DoD), 

Office of General Counsel, in accordance with the JSC’s ongoing review of the 

Manual for Courts-Martial. Among the items forwarded in the Annual Review were 

changes that clarified what punishments could be imposed on civilians tried at 

courts-martial, modifications of the definition of military property to make 

clear that it does not include all government property, and amendments to 

Appendices 21 and 23 to explain changes to certain Rules for Courts-Martial and 

Punitive Articles. 

 During the past year, the Military Justice Division reviewed 39 records of 

trial under Article 69a, UCMJ and 10 records under Article 69b, UCMJ. No 

petitions under Article 73, UCMJ were reviewed. 

U.S. NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (CODE 07) 

 Legal issues addressed included: when the use of a complete, duplicate copy 

of an authenticated record of trial is permissible; the reasonableness of the 

time given to a substitute expert on addiction medicine to prepare to testify in 

a capital case on the issue of voluntary intoxication related to the issue of 

specific intent with regard to robbery and premeditated murder; the right of an 

accused in a capital case to have independent testing of the physical evidence 

admitted at trial; whether a military judge's decision to quash a subpoena for 

all film associated with an interview of an accused by a national television 

network fell within the Court's jurisdiction to review under Article 62(a)(1)(B), 

UCMJ; and whether the Court has jurisdiction under Article 62, UCMJ, to review a 

military judge's mistrial declaration. Additionally the Court added a case 

digest to its public web site, to which the Court continues to post all of its 

published and authored opinions. 

APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISION (Code 45) 

Organization. Captain Robert Taishoff, JAGC, USN, continued to serve as the 

Division Director and Lieutenant Colonel Richard Posey, USMC, as the Deputy 

Director. The Appellate Defense Division was staffed with 14 active duty Navy 

and Marine Corps judge advocates and 4 civilian support personnel. 

 The Appellate Defense Division was supported by 31 Navy and Marine Corps 

Reserve judge advocates. The Division’s supporting Navy Reserve units are: NR 

NAVJAG 109, Columbus, Ohio; NR NAMARA (Defense) 110, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; 

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

Reserve Units are consolidating into the NAMARA 110 unit by the end of 2008. 

Captain Carol Lynch is the Commanding Officer of NAMARA 110. The Marine Corps 

Reserve contingent consisted of six independently assigned Reserve judge 

advocates. 

Mission. The Appellate Defense Division represents Navy and Marine Corps 

appellants before the NMCCA, 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, provides a death penalty assistance 
 4

team to advise field defense counsel facing potential capital cases, provides 

general training, and provides advice on specific cases in litigation at trial. 

As depicted below, in fiscal year 2008, a total of 1008 new cases were 

docketed at NMCCA and received in the Appellate Defense Division. The Appellate 

Defense Division filed 940 initial pleadings with 6 oral arguments at NMCCA. The 

initial pleadings include 230 briefs, 710 merit submissions, and 0 summary 

assignments. A total of 151 supplemental briefs to petitions were filed at CAAF, 

resulting in 27 full briefs and 32 oral arguments. 

NMCCA FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 

Briefs Filed 520 543 471 415 230 

Total Cases 

Filed 1966 2127 1610 1165 1008 

USCAAF 

Petitions 

with 

Supplemental 

Briefs Filed 

161 207 173 206 151 

Briefs Filed 19 26 76 29 27 

U.S. Supreme 

Court 

Petitions 

1 2 9 6 6 

Capital Litigation. All three Marine death penalty cases have been remanded 

to the convening authority or trial level courts. 

 Assistance to Trial Defense Counsel. The Appellate Defense Division provides 

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

world. The Division’s experienced appellate attorneys reply to short-fused 

questions from trial defense counsel and assist in preparing and filing 

extraordinary writs. The Division also conducts a Trial Defense Counsel Outreach 

Training Program in order to provide training on recent appellate developments 

and important trial issues. 

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT DIVISION (CODE 46) 

 Organization. The Division was staffed with 10 active duty judge advocates 

and 3 civilian administrative employees. Colonel Louis J. Puleo, USMC, served as 

Division Director. Commander Paul C. LeBlanc, JAGC, USN, ended his tour as 

Deputy Division Director and was replaced by Mr. Brian K. Keller, former Marine 

judge advocate in the Division. 
 5

 Reserve support continues to be critical to the accomplishment of Code 46’s 

mission. Code 46 is currently supported by NAVJAG 116 (Minneapolis, Minnesota), 

after the disestablishment of NAVJAG 116 (Detroit, Michigan). Code 46 is also 

supported by 3 Marine Corps judge advocates as Individual Mobilization 

Augmentees. Reserve personnel contributed an average of 6 briefs per month. 

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

Appellate Government Division is to represent the United States before the NMCCA 

and CAAF. In addition, the Division provides support to staff judge advocates 

and trial counsel throughout the Navy and Marine Corps on issues related to 

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

 This year’s appellate activity is set forth in the following chart. The Case 

Management Tracking Information System (CMTIS) calculations for “Briefs Filed” 

include Government briefs, answers to supplements, and supplemental briefs. 

“Other Pleadings” include responses to extraordinary writs, motion responses, 

responses to Court Orders, and Petitions for Reconsideration. The number of 

NMCCA briefs filed by the Government has continued to decline to a new low of 

232. As with last year, the complexity of issues and briefing has continued to 

rise. Moreover, not reflected in the chart below is the increasing stream of 

Article 62 appeals taken from trial court decisions; the number has risen from 0 

in fiscal year 2006, to 8 in fiscal year 2007, to 11 in fiscal year 2008. 

 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 

NMCCA 

Briefs Filed 761 542 700 621 486 232 

Other Pleadings 475 222 425 333 528 340 

 Oral Arguments 6 8 16 10 8 6 

CAAF 

Briefs Filed 12 22 38 86 45 37 

Other Pleadings 152 73 128 115 158 146 

Oral Arguments 7 21 23 31 21 32 

 The Division continues its support to the field staff judge advocates and 

trial counsel providing “Trial Counsel Assistance Program” services as required 

and continues its outreach to command staff judge advocates, stressing the 

importance of diligent post-trial processing. 

 The Division continued its representation of the United States in two capital 

cases: United States v. Walker and United States v. Parker. 
 6

 Of the high Article 62 caseload, two cases, Wuterich and Chessani, stemmed 

from the Haditha war crimes prosecutions. 

 The Division worked closely in fiscal year 2008 with the Office of the DoD 

General Counsel as well as with the United States Solicitor General in preparing 

the Petition for Certiorari in United States v. Denedo, a case determining CAAF’s 

jurisdiction to grant post-finality relief. The Solicitor General elected to 

file the petition, incorporating revisions from the Division and OGC, on 28 

August 2008. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review this issue. 

 During fiscal year 2008, the Division’s judge advocates participated in four

oral arguments as part of United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces’ 

legal outreach program to include those at Indiana University School of LawBloomington, Indiana, George Mason University School of Law, Arlington, Virginia, 

and The Catholic University School of Law, Washington, D.C. 

NAVY-MARINE CORPS TRIAL JUDICIARY (CODE 05) 

 The Navy and Marine Corps have a unified trial judiciary entitled the NavyMarine Corps Trial Judiciary (NMCTJ). Its core mission is to provide certified 

military judges for Navy and Marine Corps general and special courts-martial. 

The NMCTJ is organized into six judicial circuits world-wide and is supported by 

Naval Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve Individual Mobilization Augmentees. 

Formerly led by Chief Judge Steven F. Day, Colonel, USMC (from 1 Oct 07 to 20 Jun 

08), Captain Bruce W. MacKenzie, JAGC, USN, was invested as the Chief Judge on 20 

June 2008. Lieutenant Colonel Eugene H. Robinson, Jr., USMC, was appointed to 

serve as Deputy Chief Judge in July 2008. 

 The NMCTJ consists of 26 active duty and 18 reserve judges. During fiscal 

year 2008, the judges of NMCTJ presided over 269 general courts-martial and 984 

special courts-martial. The 2008 courts-martial operational tempo is consistent 

with the declining trend over the past several years of fewer overall courtsmartial throughout the naval service. 

 The NMCTJ provided comprehensive and timely judicial services to Fleet and 

Shore activities, and to Marine Forces in the United States and around the world, 

including forward deployed combat zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Several 

judges also deployed as individual augmentees in non-judicial billets. Judges 

presided over numerous high-profile cases such as the separate incidents at 

Haditha and Hamdaniyah, Iraq, both as Article 32 investigating officers and 

presiding judges in courts-martial proceedings. Several judges were designated 

and appointed as trial judges for Military Commissions at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 

Colonel R. H. Kohlmann, USMC, Circuit Military Judge of Eastern Judicial Circuit, 

was appointed as the Chief Judge of the Military Commissions. Judges also 

performed duties as environmental impact statement hearing officers for several 

proceedings throughout the United States conducted pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 

 Most members of the trial judiciary participated in the annual Interservice 

Military Judges Seminar (IMJS). Hosted this year for the first time by the 
 7

NMCTJ, IMJS was held at the National Judicial College (NJC) in Reno, Nevada, and 

included courses on Advanced Evidence and Judicial Writing. NMCTJ judges also 

attended various other courses throughout the year at the NJC. Successful 

completion of NJC courses may lead to receipt of a professional certificate, or 

potentially, a master’s or doctorate degree. Many NMCTJ judges have received the 

professional certificate in Judicial Development, General Jurisdiction Trial 

Skills from the NJC. Several NMCTJ judges serve as adjunct faculty members at 

NJC, most notably the Chief Judge. 

 The NMCTJ also provided training at various levels, including the Defense 

Institute of International Legal Studies, Navy-Marine Corps Senior Officer 

Courses, Legal Officer Courses, Naval Justice School Basic Lawyer Courses, the 

Army Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School’s Military Judges Course, 

and other in-service courses. Throughout all judicial circuits, the NMCTJ 

performed an active role in routinely mentoring judge advocates by means of both 

formal and informal training sessions. 

NAVAL LEGAL SERVICE COMMAND

 Naval Legal Service Command (NAVLEGSVCCOM) is commanded by Rear Admiral James 

W. Houck who also serves as the Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Navy. 

NAVLEGSVCCOM includes 349 Judge Advocates, 1 Civil Engineer Corps Officer, 14 

Limited Duty (Legal) Officers, 193 Legalmen, and 241 civilians. NAVLEGSVCCOM 

provides a wide range of legal services to afloat and ashore commands, active 

duty naval personnel, family members, retirees, and eligible beneficiaries from 

the other services at 99 offices world-wide. NAVLEGSVCCOM consists of eight 

Naval Legal Service Offices (NLSOs), nine Region Legal Service Offices (RLSOs), 

and the Naval Justice School. NAVLEGSVCCOM provides counsel for courts-martial, 

administrative boards, physical evaluation boards, legal assistance, and local 

commanders. NAVLEGSVCCOM also provides training for Navy, Marine Corps and Coast 

Guard judge advocates, legalmen, and other DoD personnel. During Fiscal Year 

2008, NAVLEGSVCCOM provided counsel for 120 general courts-martial, 215 special 

courts-martial, 128 Article 32s, 433 administrative boards, provided 127,330 

attorney legal assistance services, 138,345 customer services, and 125,371 

command services for over 3,900 commands. 

 NAVAL JUSTICE SCHOOL 

 Organization. Naval Justice School (NJS) reports to NAVLEGSVCCOM for 

administrative and operational control. Commander, Naval Education and Training 

Command (CNETC) is NJS’s budget submitting office. COMNAVLEGSVCCOM consults with 

CNETC on matters relating to the effectiveness of instruction and administration 

of training at NJS. Additionally, Commanding Officer, NJS consults with 

Commanding Officer, Center for Service Support on these same matters. 

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

detachments are based in San Diego, California, and Norfolk, Virginia (areas of 

Fleet concentration). A two-person Branch Office is co-located with the Army 

Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School in Charlottesville, Virginia. 
 8

 Mission. To oversee formal training of sea service judge advocates, limited 

duty officers (Law), and legalmen to ensure their career-long professional 

development and readiness; to provide comprehensive formal training to all sea 

service judge advocates and other legal personnel in order to promote justice and 

ensure the delivery of quality legal advice and other services to the commander; to 

train commanders and senior officers in the practical aspects of military law to 

enable them to perform their command and staff duties; and to train other personnel 

to assist in the sound administration of military justice. 

 In fiscal year 2008, NJS provided instruction to more than 25,975 students 

worldwide (including 3,553 in resident courses ranging in length from 3 days to 

11 weeks). In addition to teaching at NJS courses, NJS instructors provided outof-house teaching in military justice, administrative law, and operational law to 

other commands, including the Naval War College, Center for Naval Leadership, 

Officer Training Command, Senior Enlisted Academy, Surface Warfare Officers 

School Command, and the Defense Institute of International Legal Studies. 

 Academic Programs. NJS has eight “core” courses that include training in 

military justice. These courses are: 

1. Basic Lawyer Course. This 9-week course, offered 4 times annually, 

provides accession training for all judge advocates in the Navy, Marine 

Corps, and Coast Guard. The course includes extensive training in military 

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

administrative law, and standards of conduct. Teaching methods include 

lecture, seminar, and practical exercises in both legal assistance skills 

and trial advocacy skills. Upon graduation, judge advocates are certified 

per Article 27(b), UCMJ. Fiscal year 2008 graduates: 139. 

2. Basic Operational Law Training (BOLT). This 1-week course is offered to 

all Navy and Marine Corps accession judge advocates either before or after 

the Basic Lawyer Course. Instruction includes classroom lectures and group 

seminar exercises on the law of armed conflict, law of the sea, rules of 

engagement/rules for the use of force, command and control, operational 

environmental law, information operations, and handling classified 

information. Fiscal year 2008 graduates: 116. 

 

3. Accession Legalman Course. This 11-week course, offered 3 times 

annually, trains Navy enlisted personnel selected for conversion to the 

Legalman rating. The course provides 10 ABA certified credits towards a 

paralegal degree or certificate in partnership with Roger Williams 

University. In addition to military specific training in military justice, 

court reporting, administrative investigations, and administrative 

separations, the course includes four college-level courses taught by NJS 

officer instructors: Ethics, Legal Research and Writing I, Introduction to 

Law, and Emerging Legal Technologies. Fiscal year 2008 graduates: 61.

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

4 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, 
 9

post trial review, and legal administration. Fiscal year 2008 graduates: 

111. 

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

course trains senior officers in the execution of the legal responsibilities 

of command with instruction in nonjudicial punishment, court-martial 

procedures, and administrative law. Fiscal year 2008 graduates: 638. 

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

Officers to perform a host of military law functions in commands not large 

enough to warrant assignment of a judge advocate. Fiscal year 2008 

graduates: 453. 

 

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

non-lawyer Legal Officers within a command as a collateral duty. This 2-

week course provides training in the preparation of legal forms and reports, 

service record entries, nonjudicial punishment, and court-martial 

procedures. Fiscal year 2008 graduates: 298. 

8. Senior Enlisted Leadership Course (SELC) in Military Justice and Civil 

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

training in a wide range of military law topics with primary focus on 

military justice matters. In Newport, the SELC is incorporated into the 

core curriculum at the Navy's Senior Enlisted Academy. Fiscal year 2008 

graduates: 468. 

 Continuing Legal Education. In addition to the “core” courses, NJS provided 

31 Continuing Legal Education (CLE) courses, many of which are pre-approved for 

CLE credit from state bar associations. Most of these courses focus upon 

military justice (e.g., intermediate and advanced trial advocacy skills; computer 

crimes; national security cases; prosecuting and defending complex cases; reserve 

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

duty and reserve judge advocates and enlisted legal professionals from the sea 

services, Army, Air Force, and foreign countries in military justice, operational 

law, administrative law, legal assistance, and estate planning. In Fiscal year 

2008, these resident courses reached 757 active duty and 512 reserve legal 

professionals. 

 

 Coordination. Through the Interservice Legal Education Review Committee, 

Commanding Officer, NJS; the Dean of Students, The Judge Advocate General’s Legal 

Center and School; and the Commandant, Air Force Judge Advocate General’s School, 

meet bi-annually to discuss new initiatives and opportunities for cross-training 

and to increase cooperation and efficiency in the training of legal personnel 

within the Department of Defense. 

 Publications. NJS publishes the Naval Law Review, study guides, materials 

in support of academic programs, reference manuals designed to assist sea service 

commanders with implementation of the UCMJ, and any additional materials directed 

by higher authority. 
 10

 Deployments. In fiscal year 2008, nine NJS instructors deployed to Iraq in 

support of Task Force 134, Multi-National Force-Iraq, and I Marine Expeditionary 

Force. 

MARINE CORPS ACTIVITIES 

 There are approximately 450 active-duty Marine judge advocates and 420 

Reserve Marine judge advocates. Additionally, there are 18 Marine warrant 

officers, 462 legal specialists, and 48 speech-recognition court reporters. 

These personnel work in legal offices in support of the Fleet Marine Forces in 

the continental United States, overseas, and on deployment throughout the world. 

Additionally, the drilling Reserve judge advocate community provides substantial 

support to each office in all functional areas. 

 Marine Corps judge advocates perform all manner of legal services, including 

military justice, legal assistance, operational law, government ethics and 

installation law. In the military justice arena, they serve as prosecutors, 

defense counsel, military judges, review officers and appellate counsel for both 

the government and service members. There are also currently 13 Marine judge 

advocates serving as counsel for the Office of the Military Commissions. 

 Marines must be confident that their personal and financial matters are in 

order. Judge advocates are an essential part of this process. Before deploying, 

Marine judge advocates assist Marines with legal assistance issues involving 

estate planning, family law, consumer law, tax law, property law, landlord and 

tenant law, debtor and creditor law, adoptions, and citizenship. These services 

are provided not only to active duty services members, but also to family members 

and military retirees. 

 Marine judge advocates also advise commanders during military operations and 

exercises, reviewing operational plans and providing advice on the law of war, 

rules of engagement, detention operations, and contingency contracting. 

 Other areas of practice include civil law, contract law, international law, 

claims, tort law, and labor law. In addition, because Marine judge advocates are 

unrestricted officers, many serve in non-legal billets. Marine judge advocates 

currently hold command billets in New Orleans, Hawaii, Parris Island, Iwakuni, 

Henderson Hall, Headquarters Marine Corps, Abu Dahbi and Frankfurt. Marine judge 

advocates also serve in numerous non-legal staff billets throughout the Marine 

Corps, to include recruiting duty, providing martial arts instruction, and 

serving as Naval attaché in Dakar, Senegal and Azerbaijan. 

 The Marine Corps legal community also includes legal administrative officers, 

legal services specialists, and speech recognition court reporters. Legal 

administrative officers, who come from our warrant officer ranks, provide review 

and guidance in administrative investigations, preliminary inquiries, and claims 

against the government. Additionally, legal administrative officers process 

involuntary administrative separation cases and serve as recorders for 

administrative discharge boards. An enlisted legal services specialist’s general 

duties include the legal operational, managerial, clerical, and administrative 

duties incident to a law center. Enlisted speech recognition court reporters 

record general and special courts-martial proceedings, formal investigations, 
 11

administrative boards, staff meetings, and any other similar bodies (hearings) in 

which typewritten, summarized, or verbatim transcripts are required. The legal 

administrative officers, legal services specialists, and court reporters are the 

administrative backbone of the Marine Corps legal community. 

 Stenography served the USMC well for many years, but in September 2007, 

Marine Corps court reporting transitioned to speech recognition. Training costs 

and the corresponding manpower costs have been dramatically cut by eliminating 

the 2 year training pipeline required by stenography school and replacing it with 

a brand new 10-week course at the Naval Justice School. The speech recognition 

technology has been validated and proven successful in Navy/Marine Corps 

courtrooms. The Marine Corps has merged the job classification for stenographer 

with our legal services specialist (4421) and have identified the court reporter 

trained Marines with an additional skill designator. This has permitted flexible 

employment and assignment of all transitioning court reporters and is expected to 

significantly improve the historically slow promotion rates for court reporters. 

Ultimately, the transition will create a more well-rounded Marine Corps legal 

services specialist community. 

 The Marine Corps currently accesses approximately 35 judge advocates per year 

from civilian law schools and private practice through routine recruiting 

channels. Additionally, up to 10 judge advocates are accessed yearly from the 

active duty officer corps through the Marine Corps Law Education Program. The 

Marine Corps continues to have many more applicants than can be accessed each 

year, and the Marine Corps Recruiting Command uses a highly competitive board 

process to screen and select only the most qualified applicants. Applicants come 

from diverse backgrounds but can generally be described as coming from first or 

second tier ABA accredited law schools and having an average LSAT score above the 

80th percentile of all scores. 

 Once selected by the Marine Corps Recruiting Command, these personnel must 

undergo a lengthy, four-step process to become a Marine judge advocate. First, 

future judge advocates must attend Officer Candidate School (OCS) in Quantico, 

Virginia. This strenuous ten-week course is designated to test a candidate’s 

leadership and physical abilities. Successful completion of OCS is required 

before receiving a commission as a Marine Corps second lieutenant. Second, upon 

completion of OCS and successfully passing the bar examination of any state, all 

Marine Corps officers attend The Basic School (TBS), also located in Quantico, 

Virginia. Marine Corps officers are unrestricted line officers and are regularly 

called upon to perform duties outside of the legal community. The Basic School 

is a demanding six-month program that provides each second lieutenant the 

foundation to be an infantry platoon commander. Third, each judge advocate must 

complete the ten-week Basic Lawyer Course at the Naval Justice School in Newport, 

Rhode Island. While attending this course, officers focus on legal assistance, 

criminal law and procedure, administrative law, and military trial advocacy. 

Finally, upon completion of the Basic Lawyer Course, each officer must 

successfully complete the Basic Operational Law Training (BOLT) course. The one 

week BOLT course consists of operational and international law training. 

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

culminates in the officer being designated a Marine judge advocate. 
 12

 Continuing Legal Education (CLE) and other training opportunities are 

available for Marine judge advocates throughout their careers. In addition to a 

myriad of courses offered by each of the Service legal schools, Headquarters, 

U.S. Marine Corps provides funds for judge advocates to attend various civilian 

CLE courses. 

 The Marine Corps also sends up to 13 judge advocates per year to school to 

obtain a Master of Laws (LL.M.) degree. Students receive the LL.M degree from 

either the Army Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School or from preapproved civilian law schools. In the last several years, Marine judge advocates 

have received advanced degrees from Georgetown University School of Law, George 

Washington University School of Law, the University of San Diego School of Law, 

and Harvard Law School. 

 In addition to advanced legal courses, Marine judge advocates also have the 

opportunity to be selected to attend advanced military studies courses every 

year, such as the Expeditionary Warfare School, the Command and Staff College, 

one of the four Service’s War Colleges, and various military fellowships. 

 The Law School Education Debt Subsidy (LSEDS) program went into effect during 

2003 and has been approved for its sixth year. The average debt for new judge 

advocates is approximately $80,100.00, with an average loan payment of $500.00 

per month. Captains who have completed their initial active duty obligation are 

eligible. The total authorized amount of LSEDS is $30,000.00 to be paid in 

yearly installments of $10,000.00. Officers accepting LSEDS incur an additional 

three-year commitment on active duty. The utilization of LSEDS assists the 

Marine Corps in retaining experienced judge advocates. 

 The majority of Marine judge advocates who are forward deployed are serving 

in support of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). The GWOT has created a 

tremendous challenge for the Marine Corps legal community, with judge advocates 

currently serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Djibouti. In addition to the judge 

advocates who are permanently assigned to deploying Marine Corps forces, there is 

a significant requirement for individual augmentees (IAs) to provide additional 

legal services to various units throughout the Department of Defense. Marine 

Corps judge advocates currently serve as IAs with the Multinational Corps-Iraq 

(MNC-I), the Multinational Force-Iraq (MNF-I), Combined Security Transition 

Command Afghanistan, Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa, the Central 

Criminal Court of Iraq, Criminal Investigation Task Force as well as Civil 

Affairs and Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) billets across Iraq. While 

there has been no shortage of active duty volunteers, IA billets are also being 

filled with volunteers from the Marine Corps Reserve. 

 Since October 2001, the Marine Corps has deployed over 340 judge advocates 

and legal specialists to such sites as Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, 

Haiti, Guantanamo Bay, Bosnia, Colombia, Thailand, Sri Lanka and Indonesia. 

Training and other preparation continues for another 30 legal personnel who will 

soon deploy in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Currently 46 judge advocates, 

11% of the total Marine Corps judge advocate community, are deployed in support 

of the GWOT. During the last two years, judge advocates have deployed from the 

vast majority of Marine Corps installations, including Headquarters, U.S. Marine 

Corps. 
 13

 Military Justice continues to be one of the busiest areas in the practice of 

military law for Marine judge advocates. The following chart reflects cases 

tried in the Marine Corps over the last six fiscal years. 

Fiscal

Year

End

Strength

GCM SPCM SCM Total

Courts

NJP

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

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

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

FY 05 180,029 187 1,137 1022 2,346 13,386 

FY 04 177,480 150 1,261 928 2,339 8,985 

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

While the number of general courts-martial have remained consistent over the 

years, special courts-martial have decreased, while we have experienced a 

substantial increase in summary courts-martial. 

BRUCE MacDONALD 

Vice Admiral, JAGC, U.S. Navy 

Judge Advocate General of the Navy 
 14

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

Report Period: FY 2008 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE 

(+)/ DECREASE (-) 

OVER LAST REPORT 

GENERAL 269 236 33 -9% 

BCD SPECIAL 984 898 86 -6% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 0 0 0 0% 

SUMMARY 1713 1672 41 14% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT 4% 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL ) 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 126 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 108 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL ) 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 665 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTSMARTIAL 222 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTSMARTIAL 630 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL 

COURTS-MARTIAL 

 42 

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

 APPEALS 

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF 

PERIOD 338 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 148 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 198 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 947 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 268 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 679 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 937 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 272 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 665 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF 

PERIOD 

 348 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 139 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 209 

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

CASES 

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

 

-41% 

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

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

NUMBER 937 

PERCENTAGE 100% 
 15

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

 (CAAF) 

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF (146) 16% 

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

PERIOD 

 3% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED (55) 38% 

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

PERIOD 

 3% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY 

CCA 

 6% 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD -29% 

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

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ 

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF 

PERIOD 43 

RECEIVED 49 

DISPOSED OF 51 

 GRANTED 0 

 DENIED 47 

 NO JURISDICTION 0 

 WITHDRAWN 0 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 41 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 1,086 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 191 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 895 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 167 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 78 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 89 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCM 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 62 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 530,733 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT 

IMPOSED 21,778 

RATE PER 1,000 41 

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

PERIOD 27% 
SECTION 5 

REPORT OF THE 

JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE AIR FORCE 
2

REPORT OF 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 

OF THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 

OCTOBER 1, 2007 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 

THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) reviewed 390 cases in 

Fiscal Year 2008, reducing the number of cases pending before it by over 80 

cases. In 2008, the Court heard four oral arguments through “Project Outreach” 

at Michigan State University College of Law, University of Louisville Louis D. 

Brandeis School of Law, Syracuse University College of Law, and Lackland Air 

Force Base (AFB) in San Antonio, Texas. The Court is combining “Project 

Outreach” with Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps recruiting goals by holding 

more oral arguments at civilian law schools and inviting local JAGs to assist 

with recruiting questions. In 2008, the Court became the first and only military 

Court of Criminal Appeals permitting the e-mail filing of pleadings by military 

appellate counsel, civilian appellate counsel, and the appellants. This process 

was designed and implemented at no additional financial cost and has resulted in 

resource conservation. 

In 2008, the size of the Court was reduced from nine to seven active-duty 

judges. The Court welcomed three new Associate Judges after the retirement of 

one Senior Judge and one Associate Judge and the departure of two Senior Judges 

and one Associate Judge due to permanent changes of station. Two of the three 

Honors Clerks assigned to the Court deployed in 2008. One served as the Deputy 

Staff Judge Advocate to the Office of the Administrative Review of the Detention 

of Enemy Combatants and the second served with the Criminal Investigation Task 

Force - Iraq. 

In addition to performing their statutory responsibilities, members of the 

Court used their judicial experience to assist the Air Force and Department of 

Defense (DOD) in areas beyond the Court itself. Four of the appellate military 

judges serve on the United States Court of Military Commission Review (USCMCR). 

In accordance with the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the USCMCR has automatic 

appellate jurisdiction over any finding of guilty under the Act and also hears 

appeals or issues taken prior to and during trial. Those judges on the Court 

with trial level judicial experience provide back-up support for the trial 

judiciary. During 2008, appellate judges served as trial judges at Ramstein Air 

Base (AB), Germany, Patrick AFB, Florida, Shaw AFB, South Carolina, and Hurlburt 

Field, Florida. Members of the Court continued to conduct Environmental Impact 

Hearings in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The appellate 

military judges preside over the hearings, allowing for federal receipt of public 

comment on any potential change in base mission which could impact the 

environment. Finally, one of our judges participated in the State Department’s 

“Open World Program - Rule of Law.” The judge educated Russian judges about our 

military justice system and the appeals process. 
3

TRIAL JUDICIARY 

 

The Air Force Trial Judiciary Directorate (JAT) is responsible for 

docketing all Air Force general and special courts-martial and presiding over an 

array of Federal hearings. The Directorate is staffed by 17 active-duty judges, 

nine reserve judges, three paralegals, and one civilian employee. The Chief 

Trial Judge of the Air Force is responsible for all functions within JAT. 

The Office of the Chief Trial Judge is co-located with the Central Docketing 

Office (COO) at Bolling AFB, Washington D.C. and includes the Deputy Chief 

Trial Judge, the JAT Office Manager, a civilian Clerk of Courts, and two 

docketing paralegals. The remaining JAT personnel, all trial judges, are 

now postured in a variety of geographically advantageous locations around 

the globe including, Kadena AB, Japan, Travis AFB, California, Nellis AFB, 

Nevada, McChord AFB, Washington, Offutt AFB, Nebraska, Randolph AFB, Texas, 

Eglin AFB, Florida, Charleston AFB, South Carolina, and Ramstein AB, 

Germany. Efforts are underway to move two more judge billets in summer 2009 

to Sheppard AFB, Texas, and Colorado Springs, Colorado. 

The Trial Judiciary has maintained a steady workflow throughout the 

year. In Fiscal Year 2008, Air Force trial judges presided over 563 general 

and special courts-martial Judges have also presided over numerous posttrial hearings, sat as regal advisors in high-profile Article 32, Uniform 

Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), hearings and administrative discharge 

boards, assisted as hearing officers for environmental impact statement 

hearings, reviewed tens of thousands of pages of records of trial, and 

served as instructors in a number of different forums. 

Until 2007, virtually every Air Force trial in Central Command’s area 

of responsibility (AOR) was presided over by a judge from Europe. The 

Europe-centric nature of previous deployments placed a disproportionate 

burden on a single set of judges; concomitantly, it limited JAT's remaining 

judges from participating in a professionally rewarding opportunity. JAT’s 

deployment model now spreads deployments across JAT’s geographic spectrum. 

Two judges are aligned in each Air and Space Expeditionary Force cycle and 

are trained and equipped to deploy. They must be prepared to depart when 

requested. Two Air Force military judges deployed during 2008. Lt Col 

Douglas Cox served a four month tour in Iraq and Lt Col Carl Reed deployed 

as the staff judge advocate to Ali Al Salem Air Base, Kuwait. Col Dawn 

Eflein, the Chief Trial Judge of the Air Force, presided over the first Air 

Force court-martial in Afghanistan, serving as the trial judge at Bagram AB. 

Maj Chuck Wiedie presided over a court-martial at Barad AB, Iraq, and Col 

Steve Woody presided over a case at All Al Salem AB, Kuwait. Air Force 

judges have also presided over cases in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. 

Currently, four trial judges are detailed to the Military Commissions in 

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 

Air Force judges served as ambassadors for military justice in 

classrooms and through publication. Col Eflein, Coi Tom Cumbie, Lt Col John 

Hartsell, and Maj Le Zimmerman instructed new military judges at The Army 

Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School in Charlottesville, 

Virginia. Col Eflein and Maj Kate Oler lectured at a number of Judge 
4

Advocate Staff Officers’ Courses at The Air Force Judge Advocate General’s 

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

various trial advocacy courses and programs throughout the country and 

overseas to enhance practitioners’ litigation skills. 

Air Force military judges have shared their specialized knowledge and 

expertise by publishing articles in various journals. Maj Bryan Watson 

published two articles in the Air and Space Power Journal: “A Look Down 

the Slippery Slope: Domestic Operations, Outsourcing, and the Erosion of 

Military Culture,” and “La Ley de la Inocencia Perdida: La Ley Internacional 

y la Realidad Moderna de los Nines Soldados” (“The Law of Lost Innocence: 

International Law and the Modern Reality of Child Soldiers,”). Lt Col 

Hartsell and Maj Watson published an article in the Reporter, When Lies Have 

Value. The Admissibility of Uncharged False Exculpatory Statements in PreSentencing.” Col Steven Ehlenbeck and Maj Joseph Kiefer published articles 

in the Reporter entitled “Judge Alone Sentencing” and "Using Technology in 

the Courtroom,” respectively. Lt Col Reed published a book review on 

Unintended Consequences: The United States at War in Joint Forces Quarterly. 

GOVERNMENT TRIAL & APPELLATE COUNSEL DIVISION 

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT COUNSEL 

At the division headquarters, Colonel Gerald R. Bruce continued to serve as 

the Chief, Government Trial and Appellate Counsel Division (JAJG). Major (now 

Lieutenant Colonel) Matthew Ward served as the Chief Appellate Government Counsel 

until July 2008, when Major Jeremy S. Weber replaced him. 

Division counsel attended the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed 

Forces (USCAAF) Symposium at The George Mason University School of Law, 

sponsored by the Judge Advocate’s Association. Division personnel also attended 

the Criminal Law New Developments Course at The Army Judge Advocate General’s 

Legal Center and School. This course covered the previous year’s appellate 

cases. In addition to providing new counsel an update in criminal law 

developments, it was an opportunity for appellate counsel and trial counsel to 

discuss ways to better serve base legal offices and each other; it also provided 

an opportunity for our counsel to establish contacts with counterparts in the 

sister services. Along these lines, appellate government counsel have actively 

built relationships with sister service appellate government divisions through 

participation in quarterly meetings and regular consultation on matters of 

common interest. 

During this past year, the division continued to fulfill its obligation to 

support war-fighting commanders by deploying multiple personnel to Iraq. Lt Cal 

Rob May, a judge advocate administratively assigned to JAJG, is serving a yearlong tour as Deputy Legal Advisor, Task Force 134. Capt Blake Williams deployed 

to Iraq for 365 days as part of Task Force 134, and Capt Jeff McBride deployed to 

Iraq for six months to join the Rule of Law Task Force. Two other Division 

personnel, Lt Col John T a t , a reservist, and MSgt Jeffrey Julig, also recently 

deployed to Iraq. Additionally, JAJG deployed several Senior Trial Counsel (STC) 

to prosecute courts-martial in the AOR. 
5

The division warmly welcomed three summer interns, law students who had 

completed their second year of law school and expressed an interest in service as 

judge advocates. These young professionals significantly supported JAJG’s 

mission by conducting legal research and writing appellate briefs and motions. 

All three interns have since applied for direct appointments as Air Force judge 

advocates. 

Appellate government counsel contributed to “Project Outreach,” sponsored 

by USCAAF and AFCCA, by conducting oral arguments before audiences at various law 

schools and military installations. These arguments helped educate attendees on 

the fairness and professionalism of the military justice system and provided 

excellent recruiting opportunities. 

The division produces a number of important publications, including a 

highly-acclaimed newsletter for staff judge advocates and trial counsel. In 

addition, 2008 marked the publication of the Trial Counsel Deskbook, the first 

update of this important reference book in four years. The Trial Counsel 

Deskbook is a 300-page-plus collection of relevant case law summaries on the full 

range of military justice issues trial practitioners face. These documents are 

on JAJG’s updated and revamped web page, providing practitioners easy and 

immediate access to the latest in military justice case law. 

Air Force appellate counsel created a comprehensive template for responding 

to defense petitions for certiorari to the US Supreme Court. The template was 

praised by the DoD General Counsel’s Office and mandated as the model for all 

services to follow. JAJG also created a new Appellate Counsel Deskbook, which 

serves as an effective orientation primer for new counsel and reference for 

experienced advocates. 

STC and appellate government counsel delivered several key military justice 

briefings at the Air Force Judge Advocate General Corps’ annual KEYSTONE 

Worldwide Leadership Summit. Also, our trial and appellate counsel continued to 

provide critical field support, reach back capability, and military justice 

expertise to legal offices at all levels of command throughout the Air Force. 

A summary of Air Force Appellate Government practice follows: 
6

SENIOR TRIAL COUNSEL 

Personnel authorizations for the fiscal year included 19 STC at the 

following 13 worldwide locations: three counsel at Bolling AFB, Washington, 

D.C.; three Instructor-Litigators (IL) at AFJAGS at Maxwell AFB, Alabama; two 

counsel each at Ramstein AB, Germany, and Randolph AFB, Texas; one counsel each 

at Yokota AB, Japan, Travis AFB, California, Nellis AFB, Nevada, Davis-Monthan 

AFB, Arizona, Peterson AFB, Colorado, Offutt AFB, Nebraska, Barksdale AFB, 

Louisiana, and Langley AFB, Virginia, and at a new position created at Osan AB, 

Korea. STCs are no longer limited to prosecuting cases in artificial 

geographical boundaries but rather can be detailed to any case throughout the 

world (a dramatic change from the former geographically-based circuit judiciary 

program). The detailing authority is at the division level at Bolling AFB, and 

the STC’s primary responsibility is to represent the government in the most 

complex, litigated general courts-martial. They are also available for special 

courts-martial, discharge boards and other proceedings, as resources allow. 

In the past year, STCs spent more than 1,956 days on temporary duty away 

from their home station, and represented the government in 156 courts-martial and 

110 other proceedings, including two homicide cases. STCs embody the notion of 

one world, one circuit. STCs crossed any and all geographical boundaries to try 

cases, including serving as deployed counsel in the AOR. STCs have consistently 

supported at least two-thirds of all Air Force general courts-martial, as well as 

numerous special courts-martial and other military justice proceedings. 

The past year saw a continued emphasis on providing STCs with the training 

and tools required to thrive as the Air Force's premier prosecutors. STCs 

attended many hours of training designed to improve their advocacy skills. In 

August, the annual STC Conference was held at Bolling AFB, which included a week 

of training and networking with trial and appellate counsel. Additionally, STC 

attended a civilian Career Prosecutors course, a civilian cyber law course, a 

course on prosecuting classified trials, an orientation to the United States Army 

Criminal Investigations Laboratory (USACIL) course, the Navy Computer Crimes 

JAJG obtains crucial trial and 

appellate counsel support from FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 

Briefs Filed 226 159 207 267 188 

 Cases Argued 14 11 16 20 19 

USCAAF FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 

 

 Briefs Filed 69 73 47 41 41 

 Cases Argued 15 29 25 24 15 

SUPREME COURT FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 

Petitions Waivers 0 5 0 10 4 

 Filed 

 Briefs Filed 0 0 0 0 0 
7

Course, the Advanced Trial Advocacy Course, Prosecuting Complex Cases at the 

Naval Justice School, and the Protecting Children Online for Prosecutors Course 

conducted by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in 

Alexandria, Virginia. 

APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISION 

Training for Air Force appellate defense counsel remains one of the 

division’s critical priorities. Frequent turnover in counsel makes this 

invaluable. Training included the Criminal Law New Developments Course, the 

Judicial Conference sponsored by USCAAF, and a Military Appellate Advocacy 

Symposium sponsored by the Judge Advocates Association. 

Appellate defense counsel continued to support trial defense counsel in 

the field by always being available for telephone consults in appropriate 

instances. Appellate defense counsel also kept counsel in the field updated 

on new appellate developments in military criminal law via appellate updates 

throughout the year. 

Appellate defense counsel have contributed to “Project Outreach,” 

sponsored by USCAAF and AFCCA, by conducting oral arguments before audiences at 

the Michigan State University’s College of Law, the Louis D. Brandeis School of 

Law at the University of Louisville, Syracuse University College of Law, and the 

Trial Advocacy Conference at Lackland AFB, TX. These arguments helped educate 

attendees on the fairness and professionalism of the military justice system. 

Appellate Defense Division began Fiscal Year 2008 with approximately 209 

cases pending initial briefing to the AFCCA. The division reduced the number of 

cases pending initial briefing to the AFCCA to 175 cases by the end of the 

fiscal year. During that same time period, the number of requests for 

enlargement of time to file documents was significantly reduced. 

The following figures reflect the division’s workload over the past five fiscal 

years: 

AFCCA FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08

Briefs Filed 502 376 638 541 352 

Cases Argued 14 11 16 20 14 

USCAAF FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08

Supplements to Petitions 274 268 371 261 293 

Grant Briefs 19 32 18 24 15 

Cases Argued 14 29 25 24 15 

SUPREME COURT FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08

Petitions 1 0 0 9 4 

Briefs on the Merits 0 0 0 0 0
8

TRIAL DEFENSE DIVISION 

The Trial Defense Division (JAJD) was responsible for providing all trial 

defense services within the Air Force through Area Defense Counsel (ADC), 

Defense Paralegals (DP), Senior Defense Counsel (SDC), Deputy Chiefs, JAJD, 

Defense Paralegal Managers (DPM), and Instructor Litigators (IL). These 

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

States Air Force Judiciary. The Chief, JAJD, was assisted by the Chief, 

Policy and Training, and Office Manager. 

The Division was staffed with 83 ADC stationed at 69 bases worldwide. They 

were assisted by 70 DP. JAJD had 18 SDC and three Deputy Chiefs, each of whom 

oversaw six SDC. A DPM was assigned to each of the three Deputy Chiefs. The SDC 

were stationed at Andrews AFB, Maryland, Langley AFB, VA, Charleston AFB, South 

Carolina, Hurlburt Field, Florida, Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, Randolph AFB, Texas, 

Sheppard AFB, Texas, Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, Peterson AFB, Colorado, Offutt AFB, 

Nebraska, McChord AFB, Washington, Travis AFB, California, Nellis AFB, Nevada, 

Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona, Yokota AB. Japan, Kadena AB, Japan, Lakenheath AB, 

United Kingdom, and Ramstein AB, Germany. Each SDC was co-located with the ADC 

office at their respective location. The division also had three IL assigned to 

the AFJAGS. The IL split their time between duties as instructors at AFJAGS and 

serving as defense counsel in top-priority cases, as directed by the Chief, JAJD. 

In 2008, the Al Udeid, Qatar, office added a second ADC. For the second year in 

a row, the Al Udeid office handled more Article 15, UCMJ, actions than any other 

ADC office in the Air Force. 

The continued success of the Air Force’s ADC Program is largely attributable 

to its independence and its energized personnel. To ensure the best 

representation for Air Force clients, training remains JAJD’s top priority. On a 

continuing basis, each SDC provided on-the-job training and mentoring to the 

ADC in their charge. Each Deputy Chief. in turn, mentored the SDC in their 

charge. Newly appointed defense personnel received formal training at the SDC, 

ADC, and DP Orientations held at AFJAGS. Defense personnel also attended one of 

three regional Trial Advocacy Courses conducted by AFJAGS; one in the Pacific, 

one in Europe and one in the continental United States (CONUS). In addition, the 

division ensured each ADC attended the Trial and Defense Advocacy Course and that 

all SDC attended the Advanced Trial Advocacy Course. The Division provided 

adjunct faculty members for these two courses held at AFJAGS. Several SDC were 

able to attend a week long course at the USACIL, gaining significant insight into 

the forensic testing they perform. 

MILITARY JUSTICE DIVISION 

The Military Justice Division prepares opinions and policy positions for 

The Judge Advocate General. The division also assembles reports on military 

justice issues requested by the White House, Congress, DoD and the Air Staff. The 

division represents the Air Force on the DoD Joint Service Committee on Military 

Justice (JSC). The division also provides representatives to all interservice 

activities involving military justice and support for the Article 146, UCMJ, Code 

Committee. Lastly, the division serves as the action agency for the review of 
9

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: provided 71 formal 

opinions concerning AFBCMR applications; answered 99 inquires in specific cases 

requiring formal written replies to senior officials, including the President 

and members of Congress; and reviewed 39 records of trial under Article 69a, 

UCMJ, and one record under Article 69b, UCMJ. The division presented the twelfth 

annual Military Justice Administration Workshop at the AFJAGS, a "back to basics" 

1-week workshop attended by both judge advocates and paralegals. The division 

also instructed numbered air force legal office chiefs of military justice at a 

workshop hosted by 18th Air Force at Scott AFB, IL. 

The division continued its direct involvement in the development and 

implementation of DoD and Air Force sexual assault prevention and response 

policies and procedures. A division representative, Mr. Jim Russell, served as a 

principal trainer for judge advocates, sexual assault response coordinators and 

victim advocates. 

During the fiscal year, the division chief, Col Scott Martin and his 

successor Cal Steve Thompson, served in the role of Chairman of the JSC. Lt Col 

Tom Wand served as Executive Secretary and Working Group Chairman. They played 

pivotal roles in drafting Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) implementing provisions 

and preparing a draft Executive Order for presidential signature for changes to 

the MCM. 

CLEMENCY, CORRECTIONS AND OFFICER REVIEW DIVISION 

At the end of Fiscal Year 2008, 328 Air Force personnel were in confinement. 

Of those, 82 inmates were in long-term confinement at the United States 

Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and 51 were serving their 

sentence in the Federal Bureau of Prisons system. Six inmates were enrolled in 

the Air Force Return-to-Duty Rehabilitation Program during Fiscal Year 2008, and 

one successfully completed the program and was returned to duty. The number of 

Air Force members and former members on parole at the end of Fiscal Year 2008 was 

109. 

AIR FORCE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S SCHOOL 

AFJAGS is the educational arm of the JAG Corps. It is located at Maxwell 

AFB, Alabama, and provides education and training in all aspects of the military 

justice system to attorneys and paralegals from all military Services, other 

federal agencies, and many foreign countries. Specifically, instruction is given 

in advocacy, procedure and administration. AFJAGS faculty also provide military 

justice instruction at several schools and colleges throughout Air University-the 

Air Force’s center for education. Additionally, AFJAGS routinely publishes 

military and criminal justice items in The Reporter (a quarterly journal), The 

Air Force Law Review (published biannually) and The Military Commander and the 

Law (updated annually). AFJAGS monthly webcasts introduce subject matter experts 

and timely military justice topics to up to 50 base legal offices worldwide at 

one time. Finally, the School has 14 distance learning military justice modules 
10

available to all judge advocates on the Judge Advocate Distance Education 

website. 

Of the 46 classes offered at AFJAGS in Fiscal Year 2008 for 1,927 students, 

the following courses included military justice related materials: 

Advanced Trial Advocacy Course 

Annual Survey of the Law (Reserve and Air National Guard) 

Area Defense Counsel Orientation Course 

Defense Paralegal Orientation Course 

Interservice Military Judges Conference 

Judge Advocate Staff Officer Course Law 

Office Manager Course Military Justice 

Administration Course Paralegal 

Apprentice Course Paralegal Craftsman 

Course 

Reserve Forces Judge Advocate Course 

Reserve Forces Paralegal Course Senior 

Defense Counsel Course Staff Judge 

Advocate Course Trial and Defense 

Advocacy Course 

In addition, AFJAGS hosted a CONUS United States Trial Advocacy Conference 

in San Antonio, Texas, and for the first time a Pacific and European Trial 

Advocacy Conference focusing on voir dire and impeachment. 

LEGAL INFORMATION SERVICES 

During Fiscal Year 2008, the Legal Information Services Directorate (JAS) 

continued to develop new information technology (IT) tools and improve existing 

ones to better support military justice practice throughout the Air Force. 

JAS continued work on the Automated Military Justice Analysis and 

Management System (AMJAMS) throughout the year, and is making steady progress 

toward moving AMJAMS to an entirely web-based application by the end of the CY 

09. Moving to the Web is necessary to ensure AMJAMS stays in compliance with 

improved DoD and Air Force IT security requirements. 

The directorate made the Judicial Docketing System (JDS) available to more 

users this year. JDS is a web-based calendar system that is the cornerstone of 

the new centralized docketing process. Expanding the user group eases 

synchronization of judicial assets, including court reporters, and maximizes 

efficiency in the administration of military justice. 

JAS continued to improve Automated Defense Electronic Reporting (ADER), the 

primary IT tool used by the Air Force defense community to store case 

information. This year’s improvements focused on making ADER more versatile in 

the realm of worldwide caseload management. 
11

Finally, the directorate finalized the first ever joint Army and Air 

Force purchase of Computer Assisted Legal Research. This joint approach 

resulted in tremendous savings overall. 

PERSONNEL 

As of 30 September 2008, the Air Force JAG Corps had 1,198 judge advocates on 

active duty. Company grade officers (lieutenants and captains) made up nearly 

50% of that number (601). Slightly more than 24% were majors (289) and 16% were 

lieutenant colonels (192). Almost 10% of the Corps were colonels and above 

(116), including one lieutenant general, one major general, and four brigadier 

generals. The Air Force JAG Corps Reserve included 884 Air Force Reserve 

Individual Mobilization Augmentees, Air Force Reserve unit-assigned, and Air 

National Guard judge advocates, of whom 14% (125) were company grade officers and 

73% (641) were field grade officers (majors and lieutenant colonels). 

 

The remaining 13% consisted of 113 colonels, three brigadier generals, and 

two major generals. 

JACK L. RIVES 

Lieutenant General, 

USAF The Judge 

Advocate General 
APPENDIX – U.S. AIR FORCE MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS Period: Fiscal Year 2008 

PART 1 – BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATUS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS RATE OF INCREASE(+)I

DECREASE (-) OVER 

LAST REPORT 

GENERAL 203 _ 174 29 -15.06% 

BCD SPECIAL 360 174 22 -23.73%

NON-BCD SPECIAL [A] 164 

SUMMARY 105 103 2 _ -

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+ ) / DECREASE (- ) OVER LAST REPORT -22.24% 

PART 2 - DISCHARGE APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL (CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES [B] 58 

NUMBER OF BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGES 88 

SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL ICA LEVEL) 

NUMBER OF BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGES 174 

PART 3 - RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 - GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 159 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 156 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 - GENERAL OURTS- 40 

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

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 347 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 201 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 146 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 306 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 150 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 156 

TOTAL CASES 

/

 390 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 194 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 196 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD _ 263 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 157 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 106 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD (390/540) -27.77% 

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

NUMBER 307/315 

PERCENTAGE 97.46 % 

CMF Report (AF Stats FY2008).xls Page 1 of 2
PART 6 - U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES 

PERCENTAGE OF AFCCA REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCAAF (261/390) 66.92% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +17.29% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED (30/261) 11.49% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+}/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING +5,15%

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED By (30/390) 7.69%

RATE OF INCREASE (+ ) 1 DECREASE (- }OVER NUMBER OF CASES REVIEWED 

DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD +4,54% 

CAAF Report (AF Stats FY2008).xls Page 2 of 2 

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF ARTICLE 

PENDING AT BEGINNING OF PERIOD 0 

RECEIVED 1 

DISPOSED OF 1 

GRANTED 

DENIED 

NO JURISDICTION 

WITHDRAWN 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 0 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURT 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 285 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 188 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 278 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 106 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 172 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 17 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVEW DUTY STRENGTH 327,848 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 7,018 

RATE PER 1,000 21.41% 

RATE OF INCREASE(+)/DECREASE(-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD +.77% 

EXPLANATORY NOTES 

[A] The Air Force does not convene non-BCD SPCMs. Of the 360 SPCMs 

tried, there were 174 convictions with a BCD adjudged, 164 convictions 

without a BCD adjudged and 22 acquittals. 

[B] Includes 21 officer dismissals. 
SECTION 6 

REPORT OF THE 

JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE COAST GUARD 
2

 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

U. S. COAST GUARD 

October 1, 2007 to September 30, 2008 

PERSONNEL AND TRAINING 

The Coast Guard has 184 officers designated as judge advocates serving on 

active duty, of which 150 are serving in legal billets and 34 are serving in 

general duty billets. Those Coast Guard lawyers currently practicing law include 

officers assigned to NORTHCOM, AFRICOM, JIATF South, and as part of MultiNational Forces, Iraq. Among the 34 military attorneys serving in "out-ofspecialty" billets are the Commander of the Fifth Coast Guard District in 

Portsmouth, Virginia; Commander of the Seventeenth Coast Guard District in 

Juneau, Alaska; Director, Global Maritime Intelligence Integration; and other 

commanding and executive officers of Coast Guard cutters, sectors, training 

centers, and support commands. The Coast Guard also employs 85 civilian 

attorneys ranging from GS-13 to SES. 

The Coast Guard sent attorneys to 43 different courses of instruction 

during this fiscal year, primarily at the various service JAG schools. 50% of 

Coast Guard attorneys attended one or more courses of continuing legal 

education. Twenty-three Coast Guard officers are currently undergoing 

postgraduate studies in law and will be certified as judge advocates at the 

successful completion of their studies. Additionally, one judge advocate is 

attending the graduate course at the United States Army Judge Advocate General's 

Legal Center and School and will graduate in 2009 with a Masters of Law (LLM) 

degree in military law and another is a Fellow in the Center for Law and 

Military Operations. Another judge advocate will begin the Sloan Fellows program 

at MIT beginning in June 2009. Sixteen Coast Guard officers (including seven 

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 being 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 2008 were: 

Chief Judge Lane I. McClelland Judge David 

J. Kantor Judge Frederick W. Tucher Judge 

Michael J. Lodge Judge Patrick J. McGuire 

Judge Elisabeth A. Pepper Judge Frederick 

J. Kenney 
3

In addition to the decisional work of the Court, as reflected in the 

Appendix, the judges of the Court have been involved in various professional 

conferences, committees and seminars during the past fiscal year. 

MILITARY JUSTICE ORGANIZATION 

Thirteen staff judge advocates advise 15 officers exercising general courtmartial jurisdiction and approximately 350 officers exercising special courtmartial 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 Regional Legal 

Service Offices. 

The Coast Guard has one general courts-martial judge and 10 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, courtsmartial judges from other military services were detailed to general courtsmartial. 

The Office of Military Justice at Coast Guard Headquarters is responsible 

for representing the United States in all courts-martial appeals and providing 

support to staff judge advocates and trial counsel throughout the Coast Guard. 

The office is also responsible for developing military justice policy for the 

Coast Guard, including participation on the Joint Service Committee (JSC) on 

Military Justice. Within the office, three officers are assigned primary duty as 

appellate government counsel. 

TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES WITH OTHER SERVICES 

To improve the trial advocacy skills and experience levels of Coast Guard 

Judge Advocates, the Judge Advocate General has arranged for Coast Guard Trial 

Counsel to be assigned for limited periods of time (usually three months), to 

certain installations which have a robust military justice practice. Coast Guard 

Judge Advocates have thus far been assigned to Marine Corps Base Quantico, Marine 

Corps Base Camp Lejeune, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, Navy Region Legal 

Service Office Mid-Atlantic in Norfolk, Virginia, the Army's Trial Counsel 

Assistance Program in Arlington, Virginia. This is in addition to the existing 

Memorandum of Understanding with the Navy that provides for four Coast Guard 

Judge Advocates to be assigned full-time as trial counsel or defense counsel at 

Navy installations. 

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

NOTE: All statistics are based on the number of courts-martial records received 

and filed at Coast Guard Headquarters during fiscal year 2008 and, where 

indicated, records received during each of the four preceding fiscal years. The 

number of courts-martial varies widely from year to year; consequently, this is 

not a reliable indicator of the administration of military justice given the 

relatively small number of courts-martial overall. 
4

Fiscal Year 08 07 06 05 04

General Courts-Martial 13 16 16 07 12

Special Courts-Martial 19 24 32 45 27

Summary Courts-Martial 28 31 31 21 12

Total 60 71 79 73 51

ADDITIONAL MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Appendix A contains the Coast Guard, Fiscal Year 2008 military 

justice statistics. 

WILLIAM D. BAUMGATNER 

Rear Admiral, U. S Coast Guard 

Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard 

Appendix A: U. S. Coast Guard Courts-Martial/NJP Statistics for October 1, 2007 

to September 30, 2008 (FY 2008) 
5

APPENDIX - U.S. COAST GUARD MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Report Period: 1 OCTOBER 2007 - 30 SEPTEMBER 2008 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE 

(+)/ DECREASE (-) 

OVER LAST REPORT 

GENERAL 13 12 01 -9% 

BCD SPECIAL 19 19 00 -8% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 00 00 00 UNCHANGED 

SUMMARY 28 28 00 UNCHANGED 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT +4% 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 00 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 09 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 12 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTSMARTIAL 09 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL 

COURTS-MARTIAL 

12 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL 

COURTS-MARTIAL 

03 

PART 4 – WORKLOAD OF THE COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF 

PERIOD 27 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 17 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 10 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 25* 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 09 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 12 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 21** 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 12 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 05 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF 

PERIOD 

 31 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 14 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 17 

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

OF CASES REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD -16% 

* Includes four extraordinary writs in addition to courts-martial. 

** Includes four extraordinary writs in addition to courts-martial.

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE USCG COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (CCA)

NUMBER 21 

PERCENTAGE 100% 
6

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

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 

8/18 

 44% 

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

REPORTING PERIOD 

 -1% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 

3/8 

 37% 

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

REPORTING PERIOD 

 +7% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY 

CGCCA 3/18 

 16% 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD +2% 

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ 

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF 

PERIOD 00 

RECEIVED 00 

DISPOSED OF 00 

 GRANTED 00 

 DENIED 00 

 NO JURISDICTION 00 

 WITHDRAWN 00 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF 

PERIOD 00 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 28 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 12 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 16 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 04 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 01 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 03 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 03 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 42,603 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT 

IMPOSED 1395 

RATE PER 1,000 32.74 

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

PREVIOUS PERIOD -1.88%