ANNUAL REPORT 

of the 

CODE COMMITTEE 

on 

MILITARY JUSTICE 

INCLUDING SEPARATE REPORTS 

of the 

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL 

OF THE U.S. ARMED FORCES 

For the Period 

October 1, 2006 to September 30, 2007 
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, 2006 to September 30, 2007 
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, 2006 to September 30, 2007 

 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 Edward J. Imwinkelried and Professor Gregory E. 

Maggs, 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 May 15, 2007, to consider matters 

pertaining to the administration of military justice. The meeting was 

open to the public. After approving the minutes of the 2006 Code 

Committee meeting, Chief Judge Andrew S. Effron noted two pending 

items from the minutes. The first item concerned a proposal for 

giving the accused the option of sentencing by military judge alone 

after findings by court members. The matter was referred to the Joint 

Service Committee for consideration. The other item involved the 

request to obtain the views of the General Counsel, Department of 

Defense, on whether Articles 18 and 21, UCMJ, should be amended to 

substitute the words “law of nations” for “law of war.” The matter is 

pending in the Department of Defense. 

Colonel Scott R. Martin, U.S. Air Force, the Chair of the Joint 

Service Committee, informed the Committee that the recommendations in 

the 2004 annual reviews of the Joint Service Committee dealing with 

the use of remote testimony, the offenses of causing death or injury 

to an unborn child and stalking had been signed by the President in an 

Executive Order on April 18, 2007. The 2005 and 2006 recommendations 

were sent to the General Counsel, Department of Defense, for review on 

December 28, 2006. These recommendations involve the elements, 

lesser-included offenses, sample specifications and maximum 

punishments for Article 120, UCMJ, offenses, increasing the maximum 

punishment for maiming to 20 years, and deletion of various offenses 

under Article 134, UCMJ, that are covered now under Article 120. 

These recommendations also proposed changes to Rules for Court-Martial 

(RCM) 916 (to conform to Article 120), RCM 920 (burden of proof for 

mistake of fact), RCM 1004 (adding aggravating factor in capital cases 

for murder committed during commission of specified Article 120 

offenses, and RCM 1204 (authorizing Service Secretaries and the 

Secretary of Defense to make recommendations in cases with approved 

capital sentences). The recommendations also propose amending 

Military Rule of Evidence (MRE) 412 (adding new Article 120 offenses), 

MRE 503 (defining clergyman’s assistant), and MRE 504 (including a “de 

facto” child as a victim as an exception to the privilege). 
 Colonel Martin concluded by summarizing the proposed changes in 

the 2007 Annual Review that would eliminate the 14-day period for 

adjudged forfeitures and reductions to take effect, allow for 

electronic records of trial, clarify rules regarding the closure of 

Article 32, UCMJ, investigations, simplify the staff judge advocate’s 

post-trial recommendations, expand the pre-trial role of military 

judges, and solidify the contempt power of military judges. 

 Lieutenant Colonel Jeff Colwell, U.S. Marine Corps, briefed the 

Code Committee on a proposal to amend Article 61, UCMJ, to allow an 

accused to waive appellate review as part of a written pretrial 

agreement. The proposal is pending before the Joint Service 

Committee. 

 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 

Major General Scott C. Black, USA 

The Judge Advocate General of the Army 

Rear Admiral Bruce E. MacDonald, JAGC, USN 

The Judge Advocate General of the Navy 

Major 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 

 2 
Brigadier General James C. Walker, USMC 

Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps 

Professor Edward J. Imwinkelried 

Public Member 

Professor Gregory E. Maggs 

Public Member 

 

 3 
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, 2006 to September 30, 2007 

 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 2007 Term of the Court to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the United States Senate and the 

United States House of Representatives, and to the Secretaries of 

Defense, Homeland Security, Army, Navy, and Air Force in accordance 

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

States Code, § 946. 

 Chief Judge H.F. “Sparky” Gierke and Judge Susan J. Crawford 

retired on September 30, 2006, having completed their 15-year terms. 

Judge Andrew S. Effron became the Chief Judge on October 1, 2006. 

Judge Scott W. Stucky and Judge Margaret A. Ryan joined the Court on 

December 20, 2006. 

THE BUSINESS OF THE COURT 

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

statistical report and graphs. Additional information pertaining to 

specific opinions is available from the Court’s published opinions and 

Daily Journal. Other dispositions may be found in the Court’s 

official reports, West’s Military Justice Reporter, and on the Court’s 

web site. 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 2007 Term of the Court, the Court admitted 332 

attorneys to practice before its Bar, bringing the cumulative total of 

admissions before the Bar of the Court to 34,116. Also during the 

Term, the Court established the position of Court Executive and 

appointed Keith L. Roberts to the position. 

 Following the recommendation of the Rules Advisory Committee and 

a period of public comment, the Court amended Rule 24 of the Rules of 

Practice and Procedure to require the filing of a Joint Appendix 

contemporaneously with the filing of the brief of the appellant or 

petitioner on and after August 1, 2007. The new Rule 24(f) was 

modeled after Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

 On June 21, 2007, the Court amended its Term of Court policy. 

 2 
Following the 2007 Term of Court, which ended on September 30, 2007, 

the subsequent Term of Court was designated as the October 2007 – 

August 2008 Term of Court (Transition), ending on August 31, 2008. 

The Term of Court beginning on September 1, 2008, and each Term 

thereafter, will be a 12-month Term of Court beginning on September 1 

of each year and ending on August 31 of the following calendar year. 

The Terms will be designated as the September Term of Court of the 

year in which the Term begins. In the 2007 Term of Court, the Court 

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

prior to the end of the Term. The last opinion of the Term was issued 

on June 22, 2007. 

JUDICIAL OUTREACH 

 In furtherance of a practice established in 1987, the Court 

scheduled several special sessions and heard oral arguments outside 

its permanent courthouse in Washington, D.C., during the 2007 Term of 

Court. This practice, known as “Project Outreach,” was developed as 

part of a public awareness program to demonstrate the operation of a 

Federal Court of Appeals, and the military’s criminal justice system. 

The Court conducted hearings during this period, with the consent of 

the parties, at Southern University School of Law, Baton Rouge, 

Louisiana; Loyola University School of Law, New Orleans, Louisiana; 

the Mississippi College of Law, Jackson, Mississippi; the University 

of Pittsburgh School of Law, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Duquesne 

University School of Law, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In addition, 

during the 2007 Term of Court, 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.

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE

 On May 16 and 17, 2007, the Court held its annual Judicial 

Conference at the Catholic University of America, Columbus School of 

Law, Washington, D.C. The program for this Judicial 

Conference was certified for credit to meet the continuing legal 

education requirements of 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 Andrew G. Oosterbaan, U.S. Department of Justice; Professor 

James W. McElhaney, Case Western University School of Law and South 

Texas School of Law; Lieutenant Colonel Thomas A. Wagoner, Jr., USMC, 

Major Jeremy A. Ball, USA, Major Deidra J. Fleming, USA, and Major 

Howard H. Hoege, III, USA, of the Judge Advocate General’s Legal 

Center and School, Charlottesville, VA; Professor Stephen F. Smith, 

 3 
University of Virginia School of Law; Mr. Robert E. Reed, Office of 

the General Counsel, Department of Defense; Mr. John S. Cooke, Federal 

Judicial Center; Major General and Honorable Justice L.W. RobertsSmith and Brigadier Ian D. Westwood, Australian Defense Force; Judge 

Abner Mikva, University of Chicago School of Law; Colonel Scott 

Martin, USAF, Chair, Joint Service Committee on Military Justice; and 

Colonel Dwight H. Sullivan, USMCR, Chief Defense Counsel, Office of 

Military Commissions. 

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 

 

 

 4 
USCAAF STATISTICAL REPORT 

2007 TERM OF COURT 

CUMULATIVE SUMMARY

CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 1, 2006 

 Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 

 Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 

CUMULATIVE FILINGS 

 Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 

 Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937 

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,132 

CUMULATIVE DISPOSITIONS 

 Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 

 Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911 

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,088 

CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 1, 2007 

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

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

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

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

OPINION SUMMARY

CATEGORY SIGNED PER CURIAM MEM/ORDER TOTAL

Master Docket . . . . 54 1 102 157 

Petition Docket . . . 0 0 911 911 

Miscellaneous Docket 0 0 20 20

TOTAL 54 1 1,033 1,088 

 

5 
MASTER DOCKET SUMMARY

FILINGS 

 Petitions granted from the Petition Docket . . 168 

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

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

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

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 

DISPOSITIONS 

 Findings and sentence affirmed . . . . . . . . 113 

 Reversed in whole or in part . . . . . . . . . 44 

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 

PENDING 

 Awaiting briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 

 Awaiting oral argument . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 

 Awaiting lead case decision (trailer cases) . 6 

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 

PETITION DOCKET SUMMARY

FILINGS 

 Petitions for grant of review filed . . . . . 935 

 Petitions for new trial filed . . . . . . . . 2 

 Petitions for reconsideration granted . . . . 0 

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937 

DISPOSITIONS 

 Petitions for grant of review denied . . . . . 733 

 Petitions for grant of review granted . . . . 168 

 Petitions for grant of review withdrawn . . . 7 

 Petitions for grant of review dismissed . . . 3

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911 

 

 6 
PENDING 

 Awaiting pleadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 

 Awaiting Central Legal Staff review . . . . . 132 

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET SUMMARY

FILINGS 

 Writ appeals sought . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 

 Writs of habeas corpus sought . . . . . . . . 5 

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

 Other extraordinary relief sought . . . . . . 8

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

DISPOSITIONS 

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

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

 Petitions or appeals dismissed . . . . . . . . 1 

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

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

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

PENDING 

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

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

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

ALL CASES DISPOSITIONS

Begin Pending 6 Denied 24 

Filed 18 Granted 0

TOTAL 24 TOTAL 24 

End Pending 0 

 

7 
MOTIONS

ALL MOTIONS DISPOSITIONS

Begin Pending 8 Granted 525 

Filed 592 Denied 64

TOTAL 600 TOTAL 589 

End Pending 11 

 8
Petition Docket Year End Pending

290

226

152

190

301

171

215

252 240

266

0

100

200

300

400

500

FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07
Master Docket Year End Pending

105

77

70

60

50 49 51

87

38

53

0

50

100

150

200

FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07
Oral Arguments Per Year

131

116 113

81

68

56 58

74 74

56

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07
Total Opinions Per Year

104

129

102

123 124

110

75 73

93

75

32

57

35

57

53

64

51

76

25

55

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07

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

TOTAL COURT OPINIONS
Days from Petition Filing to Grant

145

168

129 133 131

164

227 195

171

152

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07
Days from Petition Grant

to Oral Argument

189

166

148

125 127 122 130

146

150

126

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07
Days from Oral Argument

to Final Decision

165

182

169 176 176

117

144

164

148

85

0

50

100

150

200

250

FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07
Days from Petition Filing

to Final Decision

82

371

85

429

70

380

70

330

65

353

82

279

76

361

89

358

93

391

94

237

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07

PETITION DOCKET (DENIAL/DISMISSAL/WITHDRAWAL)

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

Final Decision in All Cases

166

139

129

110 105

119 126

132

155

118

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07
Total Petitions Filed Per Year

1197

1051

753

926 974

694

802 779

1006 937

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

2250

2500

FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07
SECTION 3 

REPORT OF THE 

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

OCTOBER 1, 2006 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2007 

 During fiscal year 2007 (FY 07), and in compliance with Article 

6(a), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), The Judge Advocate 

General and senior members of his staff visited 27 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 training of newly commissioned Judge Advocates for FY 07 

continued consistent with the significant policy changes enacted in 

the fall of FY 06. Instead of a nonresident course, all newly 

commissioned Reserve Component (RC) Judge Advocates now attend the 

resident Officer Basic Course (OBC) at the LCS in Charlottesville, 

Virginia along with their Active Army Component (AC) counterparts. In 

addition, all newly commissioned Judge Advocates, including those from 

the RC, attend the four-week Direct Commissioned Officer Course (DCO) 

immediately following the completion of the OBC, unless in limited 

circumstances they receive a waiver from the Chief, Personnel, Plans 

and Training Office (PP&TO). This training program affords all newly 

commissioned Judge Advocates the opportunity to receive leadership 

training designed to instill the Warrior Ethos. The same training 

policy provides for follow-on attendance of the AC Judge Advocates at 

the Basic Officer Leadership Course (BOLC) II, a six week, branchimmaterial course in which the majority of training is conducted in a 

tactical or field environment. Beginning in October 2008, all RC 

Judge Advocates will attend BOLC II, as well. The Chief, PP&TO may 

waive the requirement for BOLC II attendance for both AC and RC Judge 

Advocates. 

 The development and implementation of the Judge Advocate Tactical 

Staff Officer Course (JATSOC) is a new on-line training program. In 

September 2007, graduates of the 173d Officer Basic Course were 

enrolled in the course. 

2 
The JATSOC provides much-needed instruction to new Judge Advocates in 

staff officer skills. The JATSOC consists of approximately 20 hours of 

online, self-paced instruction. All Judge Advocates will be 

automatically enrolled in JATSOC upon graduation from OBC. Those 

officers with more than 48 months of commissioned service as of 1 

October 2007, or who have completed Combined Arms and Services Staff 

School (CAS3), are exempt from the JATSOC requirement. Judge 

Advocates who are required to take JATSOC will be notified via Army 

Knowledge Online (AKO) e-mail that they have been enrolled in the 

course. Those who are required to take the JATSOC will have 24 months 

from enrollment to complete the course. 

CRIMINAL LAW DEPARTMENT, TJAGLCS 

The cornerstone mission of the Criminal Law Department, TJAGLCS 

is to develop, improve, and sustain excellence in the practice of 

military criminal law. The need to hone these skills in the context 

of a joint, expeditionary, and modular force is paramount and occupies 

center stage in all curriculum review. Instruction touches a wide 

range of subjects from substantive criminal law to technical 

litigation skills, while at the same time providing critical reachback capability in support of Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom. 

Advocacy training continues to be one of the Criminal Law 

Department’s top priorities. The Department devotes significant 

effort to training each OBC student on trial advocacy skills. In 

order to improve preparation of our new Judge Advocates in military 

justice, including advocacy skills, the Criminal Law Department 

instituted major changes to its Basic Course Curriculum in the summer 

of 2005, with continuing changes in 2006 and 2007. The theme of the 

instruction is “The Anatomy of a Court-Martial.” The faculty employs 

a fact scenario based on an actual criminal case to walk the students 

through the substance and process of a criminal case in the military 

justice system from the initial report of the offense to trial and 

conviction or acquittal of the alleged offender. Every student 

completes a series of 12 clinical events tied to the fact pattern over 

the course of approximately two and one-half weeks of instruction, 

including 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 Response Program, including 

changes to victim-witness initiatives. 

3 

The Criminal Law Department continues to hone this curriculum to 

ensure relevant, operationally focused training. Most notably, the 
Criminal Law Department increased the amount of advocacy instruction 

provided, and introduced the new Article 120 rape statute (effective 1 

October 2007) throughout 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 55 students of the 13th 

Military Justice Managers Course received significant instruction on 

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

as well as substantive law instruction. As in past courses, justice 

managers received a number of resources on CD-ROM for use in the 

field, including examples of case tracking systems, as well as The 

Advocacy Trainer, to assist them in their mission and to effectively 

continue teaching advocacy to their subordinate counsel. Guest 

speakers included the Chief, Defense Counsel Assistance Program, the 

Chief Trial Judge of the Army, 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 27th and 28th Criminal Law Advocacy Courses (CLAC) in 

addition to advanced advocacy training electives for the Graduate 

Course. The two-week CLAC afforded more than 100 trial advocates 

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. RC officers from around the country 

assisted the Department with both the 27th and 28th 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 DIMA program, many officers 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 CLAC, 

the Criminal Law Department hosted a variety of continuing legal 

education courses, including the 50th Military Judge Course. The 

Course is a joint effort by all the services, including the Coast 

Guard, to provide preparatory and refresher training for the newest 

members of the trial judiciary. 

4 

The Department also managed the 31st 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 RC 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. One of the Department’s professors also 

provided instruction as a panel member at a regional conference hosted 

by the National Institute of Military Justice. 

 The Criminal Law Department was extremely pleased to host a 

distinguished speaker last spring. The Honorable H.F. “Sparky” 

Gierke, Senior Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 

presented the 35th Hodson Lecture on Criminal Law. Senior Judge 

Gierke delivered an engaging presentation detailing historical 

precedent and proposals for military justice practitioners to consider 

in shaping our system in the future. 

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 world-wide. The Army formally assumed 

the task of training all Air Force court reporters in April 2006. The 

Army adopted the new speech recognition technology method of 

transcript production, termed “redictation,” in January 2006, and also 

purchased the digital recording equipment, ForTheRecord (FTR) Gold, at 

the beginning of FY 07 for all Army courtrooms and court reporters 

world-wide. 

 In a historical joint service effort between the LCS Court 

Reporter Training Department and the Senior Court Reporter Manager of 

the Air Force, both formally adopted the same method and equipment in 

January 2007, and both services continue to train and work together in 

their common court reporting mission both at the LCS and in the field. 

 Since the inception of the new speech recognition methodology and 

digital recording equipment, the Army has trained 26 senior military 

court reporters and 12 DA civilians in redictation via a newly 

developed two-week course designed to train all legacy court 

reporters. 

5 

Additionally, the Department has trained 23 Air Force civilian 

reporters and two Air Force Enlisted Court Reporters (ECRs) in the 

redictation method during FY 07. 
 The TJAGLCS has also trained 33 new reporters in the redictation 

method, as well as one DA civilian, one AF civilian, 5 Army Reserve 

Component, 3 National Guard, and 2 ECRs since the new method was 

formally adopted in January 2006. 

 Numerous advancements and joint training opportunities have been 

made in the curriculum of the Court Reporter Course. Students learn 

speech recognition with the latest versions of the Dragon Naturally 

Speaking software, as well as the latest developments in digital 

recording technology and record of trial production. Training also 

includes integrated opportunities with the Military Judge Course and 

the CLAC, as well as the OBC where court reporting students perform 

all court reporter duties in the mock trials held in each of these 

courses. This training is beneficial to not only the court reporters, 

but also to the students by providing a more realistic training 

environment. 

 A revised draft of AR 27-10, Chapter 25, 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, 

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. 

 

6 

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

years are: 

 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07
White House inquiries 33 20 3 

Congressional and other 

inquiries 214 130 109 

Clemency petitions 

(Article 74, UCMJ) 1 0 3 

Officer Dismissals 19 28 38 

Article 69 review 96 115 106 

Freedom of Information 

Act/Privacy Act 22 15 19 

 This year, the Criminal Law Division served as the focal point 

within the Army for implementing an expansion of court-martial 

jurisdiction over civilians. The 2007 National Defense Authorization 

Act amended Article 2(a)(10) of the UCMJ to provide for court-martial 

jurisdiction over persons (civilians) serving with or accompanying the 

force during times of declared war, as has historically been the case, 

as well as during contingency operations. The Criminal Law Division 

worked with the DoD Office of General Counsel in drafting policies 

concerning appropriate authority to exercise this jurisdiction. At the 

same time, the Criminal Law Division drafted a new chapter concerning 

civilian jurisdiction as an addition to the Army’s military justice 

regulation and forwarded this draft to the field for review and 

comment. The Army also took the lead within the Joint Service 

Committee on Military Justice (JSC) to identify changes required 

within the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) in response to this 

expanded jurisdiction. 

 

 Through the JSC, the Army drafted several proposals for changes 

to the MCM that were approved by the JSC and included in a draft 

Presidential Executive Order, expected to be signed in FY 08. These 

proposals would be effective upon signature. One proposal expands the 

definition of “writing” to allow electronic records of trial to be 

served in lieu of paper copies and allows authentication of these 

records by digital signature after review of electronic copies. A 

second proposal allows, if authorized by service regulations, final 

orders directing discharge in courts-martial cases to be selfexecuting if the accused is no longer in confinement and on excess 

leave at the time the accused’s case is certified as final. A third 

proposal clarifies that, when analyzing whether an accused complied 

with a lawful order, there is a presumption that an order requires 

immediate compliance. Another proposal increases the maximum term of 

confinement allowed as punishment in manslaughter cases where the 

victim is a child under the age of 16. 

7 

In conjunction with the OTJAG Information Technology Division, the 

Criminal Law Division renewed efforts to field eJustice, a web-based 

case management system for military justice offices within the Army. 

The system will allow for standardization of practice among all legal 

offices and the capability for centralized retrieval of information 

and Army-wide statistical analysis of this information. Plans 
developed this year support a phased fielding of this system beginning 

in FY 08. 

 The Criminal Law Division completely revised the MCM in 

preparation of the publication of a new edition. The 2008 MCM will 

incorporate three Presidential Executive Orders and various statutory 

changes enacted since the 2005 edition was published. The scope and 

volume of changes makes this arguably the most significant change 

since the publication of the 1984 MCM. The new MCM will be published 

in early 2008, first electronically to be followed by publication in 

book form. In addition, two publications, DA PAM 27-7, Guide for 

Summary Court-Martial Trial Procedure, 15 April 1985, and DA PAM 27-

17, Procedural Guide for Article 32(B) Investigating Officers, 16 

September 1990, have been updated. The updates clarify procedures for 

officers to use when appointed to positions requiring them to analyze 

evidence and make rulings or recommendations based on their findings. 

Both publications will be published in 2008. 

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

Division published a Courtroom and Support Space Design and Appearance 

Guide for Staff Judge Advocates (SJAs). The guide is for use by SJAs 

who are planning to build new judicial centers or renovating existing 

courtrooms. The guide provides design details for architectural plans 

and specifications to be incorporated into these new courtroom 

projects. The Army Standard Courtroom Design is expected to be 

finalized in 2008 and will include these architectural design plans. 

This effort will be followed in 2008 by a technology plan for Army 

courtrooms. 

 The Criminal Law Division continued to track over 800 detaineerelated 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. 

8 

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

 

The Clerk of Court receives records of trial for review by the 

U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) under Article 66, Uniform 

Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), appeals under Article 62, UCMJ, and 

Petitions for Extraordinary Relief. More than 1,100 records of trial 
and over 2,900 motions and briefs were referred to 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 courts-martial 

cases during the past year. 

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

where ACCA publishes opinions and unpublished memorandum opinions can 

be downloaded. 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 courtsmartial are received from federal and state investigative agencies, 

law enforcement offices, military historians, media, veterans, and the 

convicted. 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. The Clerk of Court received the following 

inquiries over the last three fiscal years: 

 FY05 FY06 FY07 

 

Freedom of Information Act 180 255 227 

Privacy Act 110 96 74 

Certified Copies of Convictions 213 199 329 

Total Number of Requests 503 550 630 

 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
FY 07 saw 19 active duty military judges, one mobilized US Army 

RC military judge, and 18 reserve military judges not on active duty 

preside over 1,468 general and special courts-martial worldwide; a 

number that includes all post-arraignment proceedings that did not 

necessarily result in completed trials, all government 

appeals/extraordinary writs, and all post-arraignment proceedings in 

which a court-martial case report had previously been submitted to 

ACCA. This figure represents a slight increase from FY 06. Trials in 

Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait numbered 108 for FY 07, bringing the 

total number of cases tried in hostile fire combat pay zones to over 

600 since May 2003. Army judges continued to preside over high 

profile cases, including the only officer tried for misconduct related 

to the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal and a desertion case stemming 

from an Army officer’s moral opposition to the Iraq war. RC military 

judges were detailed as investigating officers in a number of complex 

Article 32 hearings, including cases involving capital referrals. 

Military judges continued playing an active role in their military and 

civilian communities, speaking to grade and high school audiences, 

local bar associations, civic organizations and state bar continuing 

legal education courses. A military judge provided instruction to 

Iraqi judges in Baghdad as part of a program to stand up the Iraqi 

judiciary, and a military judge briefed contingents of African and 

Korean judges as part of outreach efforts by the Department of State. 

U.S. ARMY TRIAL DEFENSE SERVICE 

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

130 active duty and 180 RC attorneys. USATDS provides high quality, 

professional defense services to Soldiers throughout the Army from 63 

active duty installations worldwide and 54 reserve locations. USATDS 

counsel defended Soldiers facing the entire range of allegations under 

the UCMJ. 

USATDS detailed one or more counsel to every Army special and 

general courts-martial referred in FY 07. USATDS counsel carry large 

workloads, assisting Soldiers in myriad military justice related 

actions. Representation statistics for USATDS for FY 07 are: 

 10 

Courts-Martial – 1,370 

Administrative Boards – 732 

Nonjudicial Punishment – 42,882 

Consultations – 42,245 

USATDS provided defense services to deployed forces around the 

world, including Iraq, Kuwait, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. USATDS 
CENTCOM AOR mainly encompasses Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait. 

Currently there is one Regional Defense Counsel, 18 Trial Defense 

Counsel, and 10 Paralegals deployed throughout USATDS CENTCOM AOR. 

This region was established in July 2003. USATDS Offices in Iraq are 

located in Tallil, Camp Victory (Baghdad), Camp Liberty (Baghdad), 

Taji, Balad, Ramadi, Contingency Operating Base Speicher, Mosul, and 

Kirkuk. In Kuwait, the TDS Office is located at Camp Arifjan. In 

Afghanistan, the TDS Office is located at Bagram Air Base. 

 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 five Judge Advocates, supports TDS counsel and 

their defense teams throughout the globe. DCAP’s main focus is to 

provide training, resources, and assistance for the defense of 

Soldiers in both the reserve and active components. 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. It also functions as the lead division for the Chief, TDS 

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

as well as providing 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 is one more effort by the Judge Advocate General’s 

Corps to provide the best legal representation possible to every 

Soldier. 

TDS counsel continue to foster a close working relationship with 

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

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

consisting of 122 commissioned officers, one warrant officer and 24 

enlisted paralegals, provides defense services to Soldiers assigned to 

units in the eastern half of the United States and throughout Europe. 

The 22d TDS LSO, consisting of 65 commissioned officers and 20 

enlisted paralegals, provides defense services to Soldiers assigned to 

units in the western half of the United States and Asia. Individual 

TDS offices have established joint training programs with local RC TDS 

personnel and have conducted highly successful joint training 

conferences. 

11 

 The Chief, USATDS, exercises technical supervision over RC TDS LSOs. 

The Chief is also responsible for the provision of defense counsel 

services and provides oversight for the units’ training and readiness. 

Reserve support to active duty TDS offices continues to be 

outstanding, with RC Judge Advocates providing critical support at 

many active component installations in addition to locations such as 

Camp Shelby, Mississippi, Fort Dix, New Jersey, and Fort McCoy, 

Wisconsin. RC Judge Advocates have also deployed overseas to Germany 
as backfills for AC forward deployed defense counsel. Several RC 

Judge Advocates are serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo as 

defense counsel. During any given month, TDS has anywhere from 30 to 

40 mobilized reserve counsel and paralegals throughout the Army. 

Headquarters, USATDS continued to support AC and RC awareness of 

the new National Guard TDS initiatives and National Guard TDS 

integration with our organization. Both TDS LSO commanders have built 

relationships with National Guard Trial Defense Teams (TDTs) and RDC 

Regional Trial Defense Teams (RTDTs) as the teams stand up. For the 

future, and as additional RTDTs and TDTs come on line, we intend to 

have them do as much of their Annual Training as possible with an AC 

TDS office to maximize training opportunities. Furthermore, we 

anticipate a move to 6 CONUS-based TDS LSOs. If this move occurs, the 

intent is to geographically align 6 AC CONUS-based TDS regions to 

these TDS LSOs. Finally, Headquarters, USATDS coordinated with the 

Legal Automation Army-Wide System Office to arrange for National Guard 

TDS attorney access to the Headquarters, USATDS web page and databases 

as well as the DCAP web page and databases. 

GOVERNMENT APPELLATE DIVISION 

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

United States before ACCA, 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. 

In FY 07, GAD consisted of the Chief, the Deputy Chief, three 

branch chiefs, eight appellate attorneys, and three civilian 

paralegals. Additionally, during the year, seven RC Soldiers were 

activated to assist with brief writing and other duties. The GAD 

filed 1,225 briefs with the ACCA, 21 briefs with the CAAF, and 417 

petition responses with CAAF. 

FY 07 is notable for a dramatic increase in the number of writs 

and government appeals being filed that GAD is responsible for 

handling. In the past 12 months, GAD has worked on 11 writs or 

government appeals. In previous years these were rarely utilized. 

12 

Additionally, GAD attorneys assisted the Trial Counsel Assistance 

Program (TCAP) with several death penalty/high visibility cases to 

include United States v. Murphy, United States v. Loving, United 

States v. Gray, United States v. Akbar II, United States v. Dodson, 

United States v. Forester, and United States v. Watada. 

During FY 07, GAD also presented oral argument in 25 cases before 

the ACCA and 15 cases before the CAAF. One of the oral arguments 
before the ACCA was an Outreach Argument at the United States Military 

Academy at West Point. One of the oral arguments before the CAAF was 

an Outreach Argument presented at Duquesne University. 

Trial Counsel Assistance Program

TCAP continued its mission of providing information, advice, 

training, and assistance to trial counsel worldwide. Serving also 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. In light of this, TCAP serves as the prosecutor's 

appellate advocate for extraordinary writs and Government appeals on 

issues arising before final disposition. 

TCAP's team of four officers and one civilian assistant continues 

to provide five basic categories of services: (1) telephone/e-mail 

website assistance; (2) advocacy training courses and other training 

events; (3) dissemination of information; (4) trial assistance; and 

(5) appellate assistance. In providing these services, TCAP 

accomplished the following in FY 07: (1) responded to an average of 

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

(2) expanded and continued to maintain the TCAP website, which has now 

been accessed more than 20,000 times; (3) conducted three regional 

advocacy training conferences, attended by approximately 120 Judge 

Advocates, 10% of whom were from other services; (4) continued to 

conduct practical courses for new Judge Advocates ("TC 101: How to Be 

a Trial Counsel") in the field upon request; (5) conducted three 

“Introduction to Forensic Evidence” courses at the US Army Criminal 

Investigations Laboratory (USACIL) at Fort Gillem, Georgia, training 

over 40 Judge Advocates; (6) created a new trial counsel training 

course called “Deployed Justice” for deploying Judge Advocates, and 

provided this training on three occasions to a total of more than 50 

attorneys and paralegals;(7) continued to foster a positive working 

partnership with the National Center for Missing and Exploited 

Children (NCMEC) to allow approximately 60 Judge Advocates to attend 

their training seminar for prosecuting attorneys called "Protecting 

Children From On Line Crime";(8) collaborated with NCMEC by providing 

TCAP personnel as instructors during course break-out sessions; 

13 

(9) TCAP personnel also served as instructors at various American 

Prosecutors Research Institute courses, which enhanced the reputation 

of the Judge Advocate General's Corps among the target audience of 

district attorneys throughout the country;(10) published a monthly 

newsletter containing updates on legal decisions and practical tips 

for trial counsel to use in prosecuting cases and handling recurring 

issues; (11) created and distributed the “TCAP Resource Disk” to Judge 

Advocates in the field, which included samples and templates of every 

document a trial counsel needs, information on how to handle a 
classified case, a Capital Litigation file, and a database of sample 

motions featuring more than 400 motions; (12) actively assisted in the 

prosecution of several high-profile cases including United States v. 

Martinez, United States v. Kruetzer, United States v. Steele, United 

States v. White and United States v. Watada, as well as provided 

varying levels of support on dozens of active cases worldwide; and 

(13) represented the United States in numerous extraordinary writs and 

interlocutory appeals. 

During FY 07, TCAP continued to be actively engaged with 

the Army RC and National Guard, sister services, and civilian 

counterparts. Approximately one-third of the requests for TCAP's 

assistance continued to come from the trial counsel in the Army RC and 

our sister services. Recognizing the RC's desire for assistance 

relating to military criminal justice matters, TCAP strives to include 

the RC in everything it does, such as when it provides copies of 

materials to the field. TCAP attorneys also provided training at 

Reserve on-sites for various Legal Support Organizations around CONUS. 

To further enhance the quality of legal work across the services, TCAP 

has invited the Army's sister services to its conferences. TCAP has 

also strengthened its relationships with the National District 

Attorney Association (NDAA) and the American Prosecutors Research 

Institute by serving as instructors for their courses. In turn, these 

organizations have given scholarships to TCAP to attend their training 

events. The information gained at these conferences has proven 

invaluable to counsel in the field. Additionally, if a trial counsel 

in the field has a question or needs particular assistance, TCAP’s 

relationship with the NDAA allows us to reach out to and solicit 

responses from district attorneys around the country, thus expanding 

the pool of information available to military counsel in the field. 

Finally, TCAP has established the foundation in FY 07 for growth 

and expansion within the next year. During the first two quarters of 

FY 08, TCAP will expand to include two reserve Judge Advocates to our 

organization – one from the US Army Reserve, and one from the United 

States Navy Reserve. Both attorneys will be assigned to TCAP and will 

fulfill their monthly service and annual training requirements as part 

of the TCAP team. 

14 

DEFENSE APPELLATE DIVISION 

 The Defense Appellate Division 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 and 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. 

 During FY 07, the Division received 926 new cases. Appellate 

defense attorneys filed briefs in 1,188 cases before the ACCA, 449 

supplements to petitions for review with the CAAF, and 14 final briefs 

with the CAAF. Appellate defense counsel also filed 222 miscellaneous 

pleadings before the ACCA and 104 miscellaneous pleadings before the 

CAAF. Appellate defense counsel orally argued 25 cases before the 

ACCA and 14 cases before the CAAF. 

 Also of note during FY 07, the Division filed two petitions for 

writ of certiorari before the Supreme Court of the United States. The 

Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari in both cases (United 

States v. Sanchez and United States v. Foerster). 

FOREIGN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION 

 As the DoD 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 2004 1 Dec 2005 

 to to 

 30 Nov 2005 30 Nov 2006

Foreign Offense Citations 4,178 3,686 

Total Civilian 903 808 

Total Military 3,275 2,878 

Exclusive Foreign Jurisdiction 119 94 

Concurrent Jurisdiction 3,156 2,784 

Traffic Offenses 230 226 

Foreign Jurisdiction Recalls 306 384 

 

15 

During this reporting period, foreign authorities released to 

U.S. authorities 6 of the 94 exclusive foreign jurisdiction cases 

involving military personnel. In concurrent jurisdiction cases in 

which the foreign countries had the authority to assert primary 

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

the exercise of this jurisdiction in 2,442 of the 2,784 cases. 

Overall, the U.S. obtained waivers in 87.7% of all exclusive and 

concurrent jurisdiction cases. This figure reflects a decrease of 

6.2% in obtaining waivers compared to the previous reporting period. 
 During the last reporting period, civilian employees and 

dependents were involved in 903 offenses. Foreign authorities 

released 211 of these cases (23.3% 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 808 offenses. The foreign 

authorities released 98 of these cases (12.1% of the current total of 

this reporting period). This figure represents a decrease of 11.2% in 

obtaining releases of foreign criminal jurisdiction over civilian 

employees and dependents. 

 During this reporting period, foreign authorities tried a total 

of 639 cases involving U.S. personnel. Fourteen trials, or 2.2%, 

resulted in acquittals. Those convicted were sentenced as follows: 

22 cases resulted in confinement, 44 cases resulted in suspended 

confinement, and 550 cases (86.1% of the total trials) resulted in 

only fines or reprimands. 

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. 

The highly-publicized case of New v. Secretary of Defense finally 

came to an end after more than a decade of litigation. Mr. Michael 

New challenged his 1996 court-martial conviction for refusing to wear 

the United Nations insignia on his uniform during the preparation for 

deployment to Macedonia. In May 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for 

the District of Columbia’s dismissal of Mr. New’s complaint. The 

District of Columbia Circuit concluded that the district court had 

correctly ruled that the central issues in the case had been fully 

16 

litigated in the military courts and were thus non-reviewable in the 

absence of fundamental error. The court further ruled that the 

remaining issues were without merit or barred by the political 

question doctrine. In August 2006, the District of Columbia Circuit 

denied Mr. New’s request for a rehearing en banc. In November 2006, 

Mr. New filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which the U.S. 

Supreme Court denied on 23 April 2007. 

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 pre-trial agreement limiting the 

sentence to 35 years confinement. In July 2000, Mr. Armann filed an 

appeal with the ACCA. The appeal alleged an absence of mental 

responsibility for the offenses due to taking various prescribed 

medications. In a summary opinion, ACCA found no legal error. In May 

2001, Mr. Armann appealed to CAAF, 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 was taking at the time of his courtmartial. 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 sought authorization to pursue an 

interlocutory appeal. On 27 July 2007, the district court granted the 

government’s motion for certification of order for interlocutory 

appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The 

government filed its opening brief to the Third Circuit on 22 January 

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 Watada’s 

highly-publicized trial and over the objection of both parties, the 

military judge set aside the stipulation of fact. 

17 

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 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 court-martial 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. To date, no briefing schedule has been set to address 

the merits of the habeas corpus petition. The Litigation Division is 

discussing the appropriateness of an appeal with the Department of 

Justice. 

In Howard-Pinson v. Secretary of the Army, the Army successfully 

defended against allegations of constitutional deficiencies in a 

court-martial. Mr. Howard-Pinson, a former Soldier, was convicted of 

drug distribution by a general court-martial at Fort Campbell, 

Kentucky. He alleged that his confession was obtained in violation of 

the Fifth Amendment and Miranda. He raised this issue to the trial 

court, ACCA, and CAAF. Both military appellate courts rejected his 

claims. He then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the 

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The 

government moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the 

military courts had fully and fairly considered his claims and no 

constitutional violation had occurred. On 10 July 2006, the district 

court agreed and dismissed the petition. On 1 May 2007, the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the 

district court. Howard-Pinson has not sought further review. 

The Army is also defending against a court-martial collateral 

attack in Ramsey v. Stansberry. In 1995, Mr. 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. 

18 

 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 8 August 2007, Mr. Ramsey 

noticed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. 

Informal briefs were ordered and briefing completed in November 2007. 

A decision is pending. 

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

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

Willenbring was discharged from the active 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 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 January 

16, 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 AC to RC status. 

Mr. Willenbring appealed the district court decision to the Fourth 

Circuit. Informal briefs were ordered and briefing completed in March 

2007. 

The Army is also defending two challenges arising under the 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) arising out of court-martial 

proceedings. The first of these FOIA cases is 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 the 

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. 

19 

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(f) 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. 

In MacLean v. Department of the Army, the second FOIA case, the 

Army successfully defended its ability to neither confirm nor deny the 
existence of records, known as a “Glomar denial,” in response to a 

request for professional conduct investigations of Army Judge 

Advocates. In response to a FOIA request for the records of 

investigations completed on, and/or any disciplinary action taken 

against, Army Judge Advocates who issued allegedly “illegal” military 

subpoenas to civilians in connection with court-martial proceedings, 

the Army Standards of Conduct Office declined to confirm or deny the 

existence of any records. In July 2005, the plaintiff filed suit in 

the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to 

compel the production of the records, if any. Plaintiff also sought 

to enjoin the Secretary of the Army from the policy and practice of 

issuing a Glomar denial in response to a FOIA request. In a motion 

for summary judgment, the government argued that such a response was 

proper because the public interest in disclosure of the professional 

conduct files requested does not outweigh the privacy interests of the 

individual attorneys who may be the subjects of the files, if any 

files exist. On 6 March 2007, the court agreed, granting the 

government’s motion for summary judgment. No appeal was filed. 

PERSONNEL, PLANS, AND POLICIES 

 On 30 September 2007, the Army’s end strength was 636,778 Army 

personnel on active duty, including Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) and 

mobilized Soldiers, compared to 574,456 at the end of fiscal year 

2006. 

 The attorney strength of the AC Judge Advocate General’s Corps at 

the end of FY 07 was 1,643 (including general officers). This total 

does not include 62 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 07 was 1,921 and 

the strength of the Army National Guard at the end of FY 06 was 575. 

The diverse composition of our AC attorney population included 121 

African-Americans, 45 Hispanics, 75 Asians and Native Americans, and 

414 women. 

20 

The FY 07 AC end strength of 1,643 compares with an end strength of 

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’ AC attorneys was 4 general officers, 129 colonels, 226 

lieutenant colonels, 363 majors and 896 captains. An additional 89 

warrant officers, 494 civilian attorneys, and 1,378 enlisted 

paralegals supported legal operations worldwide. As of the end of FY 

07, over 494 Army JAG personnel (officer and enlisted, AC 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 

 Major General, USA 

 The Judge Advocate General 

21 
APPENDIX - U.S. ARMY MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Report Period: FISCAL YEAR 2007 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/ 

DECREASE (-) OVER 

LAST REPORT 

GENERAL 809 772 37 +8.0% 

BCD SPECIAL [A] 625 610 15 +9.1% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 10 10 0 +66.7% 

SUMMARY 1,223 1,128 95 +7.3% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT +8.7% 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED [B]

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES (+ dismissals) 114 (+22) 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 410 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 358 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 557 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 360 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTSMARTIAL 221 

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

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 100 [C] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D] 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D] 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 1267 [C] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 1268[E] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 99 [C] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

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

CASESREVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD -4.2% 

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

APPEALS (CCA) 

NUMBER 947 

PERCENTAGE 74.74% 

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

(CAAF) 

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 423 of 1268 33.36 % 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +1.46% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 40 of 399 10.03 % 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +1.83% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY USACCA 3.15% 

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

DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD -7.35% 

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

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ 

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF 

PERIOD 2 

RECEIVED 12 

DISPOSED OF 12 

 GRANTED 3 

 DENIED 8 

 NO JURISDICTION 1 

 WITHDRAWN 0 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 2 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 632 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 576 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 177 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 59 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 37 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 636778 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT 

IMPOSED 45124 

RATE PER 1,000 70.86 

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

PERIOD -4.92% 

EXPLANATORY NOTES 

[A] Cases convened by GCM convening authority. 

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

review. 

[C] Includes only cases briefed and at issue. 

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

separately. 

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

Page 2 of 2 
SECTION 4 

REPORT OF THE 

JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY 

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY 
OCTOBER 1, 2006 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2007 

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, relieved 

Lieutenant Commander David A. Norkin, JAGC, USN, 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 decisions of 

military appellate courts; staffs JAG certification of cases decided by the NavyMarine 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 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. 
The JSC 2007 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 simplify the required contents of staff judge advocates’ post-trial 

recommendations, allow for electronic records of trial, and increase the 

punishment for voluntary and involuntary manslaughter when the crime is committed 

upon a child under 16 years of age. 

 During the past year, the Military Justice Division reviewed 36 records of 

trial under Article 69a, UCMJ and 10 records under Article 69b, UCMJ. 

Additionally, 2 petitions under Article 73, UCMJ were reviewed. 

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

 Legal issues addressed included: whether lying to a border patrol agent 

satisfied the officiality requirement for a violation of Article 107, UCMJ (false 

official statement); whether removal from life support constituted an intervening 

superseding cause sufficient to break the chain of causation to an involuntary 

manslaughter charge; whether at a rehearing on sentence the military judge may 

consider aggravation, extenuation, and mitigation evidence that did not exist at 

the time of the original sentencing; whether the accused may offer evidence of 

rehabilitative potential within the military or is limited to rehabilitative 

potential in society; whether the subsequent consent of a spouse can overcome the 

prior refusal of a suspect to consent to a search of his/her home; and the court 

adopted the definition of mental retardation from the American Association on 

Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities as it applies to the imposition of 

the death penalty in the Navy and Marine Corps. The court continued to submit 

for posting all published and authored decisions on the JAG web page and on Navy 

Knowledge Online. 

APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISION (Code 45) 

Organization. Captain Robert Taishoff, JAGC, USN, reported in the summer of 

2007 as the Division Director. 

The Appellate Defense Division was staffed with 16 active duty Navy and 

Marine Corps judge advocates and 4 civilian support personnel. 

 The Appellate Defense Division was supported by 35 Navy and Marine Corps 

Reserve judge advocates. The Division’s supporting 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 Marine 

Corps Reserve contingent consisted of five independently assigned Reserve judge 

advocates. In addition, three Navy Reserve judge advocates were activated for 

periods ranging from two to eight months to assist in caseload management. 

2 
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 

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 2007, a total of 1165 new cases were 

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

Defense Division filed 1295 initial pleadings with 8 oral arguments at NMCCA. 

The initial pleadings include 415 briefs, 875 merit submissions, and 5 summary 

assignments. A total of 206 supplemental briefs to petitions were filed at CAAF, 

resulting in 29 full briefs and 18 oral arguments. 

 

Capital Litigation. The Appellate Defense Division continued to represent 

three enlisted Marines convicted of capital offenses with sentences that include 

the death penalty. 

 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. 

3 

NMCCA FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 

Briefs Filed 433 520 543 471 415 

Initial 

Pleadings 2094 1966 2127 1610 1295 

USCAAF 

Petitions 

with 

Supplemental 

Briefs Filed 

174 161 207 173 206 

Briefs Filed 12 19 26 76 29 

U.S. Supreme 

Court 

Petitions 

3 1 2 9 6 
APPELLATE GOVERNMENT DIVISION (CODE 46) 

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

and 2 civilian administrative employees. Colonel Louis J. Puleo, USMC, replaced 

Colonel Ralph F. Miller, USMC, as the Division Director. Commander Paul C. 

LeBlanc, JAGC, USN, continued to serve as Deputy Division Director. 

Reserve support continues to be critical to the accomplishment of our 

mission. Code 46 is currently supported by two Navy reserve units, NAVJAG 116 

(Detroit, Michigan) and NAVJAG 116 (Minneapolis, Minnesota) and 4 Marine Corps 

Judge Advocates as Individual Mobilization Augmentees. Reserve personnel 

contributed an average of 13 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. 

 The migration from Nautilus to the Case Management Tracking Information 

System (CMTIS) is complete. This year’s appellate activity is set forth in the 

following chart. 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. While the number of briefs filed by 

the Government has declined since the highs of 2006, the issues raised have 

become more complex. It is expected that during fiscal year 2008, the number of 

briefs and other pleadings will return to historical norms.

 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 

NMCCA 

Briefs Filed 798 761 542 700 621 486 

Other Pleadings 456 475 222 425 333 528 

 Oral Arguments 8 6 8 16 10 8 

CAAF 

Briefs Filed 45 12 22 38 86 45 

Other Pleadings 91 152 73 128 115 158 

Oral Arguments 12 7 21 23 31 18 

4 
 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 three 

capital cases: United States v. Quintanilla, United States v. Walker, and United 

States v. Parker. 

 During fiscal year 2007, the Division’s judge advocates participated in two 

oral arguments as part of United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces’ 

legal outreach program to include those at Loyola University College of Law, New 

Orleans, Louisiana, and Southern University Law Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 

NAVY-MARINE CORPS TRIAL JUDICIARY 

The Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary (NMCTJ) is a joint Navy-Marine Corps 

activity led by Chief Judge Steven F. Day, Colonel, USMC. Its mission is to 

provide certified military judges for Navy and Marine Corps general and special 

courts-martial. The Judiciary is organized into six judicial circuits and is 

supported by Naval Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve Individual Mobilization 

Augmentees. 

The NMCTJ consists of 27 active duty and 12 reserve judges serving in 6 

judicial circuits. During fiscal year 2007, the NMCTJ provided judicial services 

in 297 general courts-marital and 1,049 special courts-martial. These numbers 

are consistent with the trend over the past few years of fewer courts-martial. 

The NMCTJ provided judicial services to Fleet and Shore activities, and to 

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

judiciary participated in continuing education at the Army Judge Advocate 

General's Legal Center and School, the Interservice Military Judges Seminar at 

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

Reno, Nevada. 

 The NMCTJ also provided training at various levels, including Navy-Marine 

Corps Senior Officers Courses, Legal Officer Courses, Naval Justice School, Basic 

Courses, and other in-service courses. The NMCTJ performed an active role in 

mentoring judge advocates through both formal and informal training sessions. 

NAVAL LEGAL SERVICE COMMAND 

 Naval Legal Service Command (NAVLEGSVCCOM) is commanded by Rear Admiral James 

W. Houck, who also serves as the Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Navy. 

NAVLEGSVCCOM includes 342 Judge Advocates, 1 Civil Engineer Corps Officer, 14 

Limited Duty (Legal) Officers, 208 Legalmen, and 230 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 

5 
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 

2007, NAVLEGSVCCOM provided counsel for 132 general courts-martial, 241 special 

courts-martial, 117 Article 32s, 400 Administrative Boards, provided 130,955 

legal assistance services, and 137,688 command services for over 3,900 commands. 

 NAVAL JUSTICE SCHOOL 

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

for administrative and operational control. Commander, Naval Education and 

Training Command (CNETC) is NJS’s budget submitting office. Commander, 

NAVLEGSVCCOM 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 one-person Branch Office is co-located with the U.S. 

Army Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School in Charlottesville, 

Virginia. 

 Mission. To oversee formal training of naval 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; and to train 

commanders and senior officers in the practical aspects of military law to enable 

them to perform their command and staff duties, and train other personnel to assist 

in the sound administration of military justice. 

 In fiscal year 2007, NJS provided instruction to more than 15,995 students 

worldwide (including 3,870 in resident courses ranging in length from 3 days to 

11 weeks). In addition to teaching at NJS courses, NJS instructors provide 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: 

6 
• Basic Lawyer Course (BLC). 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 2007 graduates: 135. 

• 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 

BLC. 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 

2007 graduates: 134. 

• Accession Legalman Course. This 11-week course, offered 3 times annually 

starting in fiscal year 2008, trains Navy enlisted personnel selected for 

conversion to the Legalman rating. After a hiatus of almost 3 years, there 

were 10 Legalman accession graduates in the first newly revised course in 

fiscal year 2007. The course has been substantially revised to provide 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. 

• Basic Legal Services Specialist Course. This 91⁄2 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, post trial 

review, and legal administration. Fiscal year 2007 graduates: 82. 

• 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 2007 graduates: 736. 

• 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 2007 graduates: 504. 

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 2007 graduates: 269. 

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

This 3-day course provides senior enlisted leaders of all services training 

in a wide range of military law with primary focus on military justice 

matters. In Newport, the SELC is incorporated into the core curriculum at 

the Navy's Senior Enlisted Academy. Fiscal year 2007 graduates: 441. 

 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 2007, these resident courses reached 1,214 active duty and 586 

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 is responsible for publication of 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. 

 Deployments. In fiscal year 2007, six NJS instructors deployed to Iraq for 6 

months in support of Task Force 134, Multi-National Force-Iraq. 

MARINE CORPS ACTIVITIES 

 There are approximately 463 active-duty Marine judge advocates and 403 

Reserve Marine judge advocates. Additionally, there are 16 warrant officers, 558 

legal specialists, and 38 court reporters working in the legal offices. 

8 
These offices support the Fleet Marine Forces in the continental United States, 

overseas, and on deployment throughout the world. Our drilling Reserve judge 

advocate community provides substantial support to each of our offices in all 

functional areas. 

 Marine Corps judge advocates perform all manner of legal services. In the 

military justice arena, they serve as prosecutors, defense counsel, military 

judges, and appellate counsel for both the government and service members. 

Before deploying, Marines must feel secure that their affairs are in order, and 

judge advocates are an essential part of this process. Our judge advocates 

assist Marines with issues involving estate planning, domestic relations law, 

consumer law, tax law, property law, landlord and tenant law, debtor and creditor 

law, adoptions, and citizenship cases. These services are offered not only to 

active duty service members, but also to family members and military retirees. 

 Marine lawyers also advise commanders during military operations, reviewing 

military operational plans and providing advice on the law of war, rules of 

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

our allies. 

Other areas of practice include civil law, contract law, international law, 

claims and tort law, and labor law. In addition, because Marine Corps judge 

advocates are unrestricted line officers, many serve in non-legal billets. For 

example, a Marine judge advocate currently serves as the Naval Attaché in Oman 

and another instructs Naval ROTC at Florida A & M University. Additionally, five 

Marine judge advocates hold positions of command to include battalion commands in 

New Orleans, Hawaii, Headquarters Marine Corps, Parris Island, and command of the 

Marine Security Guard Companies in Abu Dahbi, United Arab Emirates. 

 In addition to the judge advocates, the Marine Corps legal community also 

includes Legal Administrative Officers, Legal Services Specialists, and 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 all involuntary administrative separation cases, serve as 

recorders for administrative discharge boards, and serve as Foreign Claims 

Commissions during deployments and exercises. An enlisted Legal Services 

Specialist’s responsibilities encompass every facet of legal administration with 

the exception of courts-martial reporting. The Legal Services Specialist’s 

general duties include the legal operational, managerial, clerical, and 

administrative duties incident to a law center. Enlisted Court Reporters record 

the proceedings of special and general courts-martial, formal investigations, 

administrative boards, staff meetings, and other similar bodies (hearings) and 

prepare typewritten, summarized, or verbatim transcripts of these proceedings. 

Because of their capabilities, Marine Corps Court Reporters have been singlehandedly supporting the Office of the Military Commissions. The Legal 

Administrative Officers, Legal Services Specialists, and Court Reporters are the 

administrative backbone of our legal community. 

9 
 Stenography has served the USMC well for many years, but speech recognition 

appears best suited for our future. Test results of speech recognition (ratio of 

hours in court compared to hours to prepare a record) were impressive, with the 

newly trained speech recognition reporters at approximately the level of an 

experienced staff sergeant stenographer. Training costs, and the corresponding 

manpower costs, will be dramatically cut with a 10 week course vice 2 year 

course. The technology has also been validated by successful use in the other 

services. The intended plan is to merge our job classifications for stenographer 

and legal services specialist into one military occupational field specialty, 

with a skills designator for court reporting. This will allow us to train and 

assign court reporters properly, facilitate use of reporters in other functions 

when possible, and remedy the historically slow promotion rates for court 

reporters. 

 The Marine Corps currently contracts approximately 35 judge advocates per 

year from civilian law schools and private practice through routine recruiting 

channels. Additionally, up to 10 judge advocates are contracted yearly from the 

active duty officer corps through the Marine Corps Law Education Programs. The 

Marine Corps continues to have many more applicants than can be contracted each 

year, and the Marine Corps Recruiting Command uses a highly competitive board 

process to screen all applicants and selects only the most qualified. 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, officer candidates 

must undergo a lengthy, four-step process to become a Marine Corps judge 

advocate. First, future judge advocates must attend Officer Candidate School 

(OCS) in Quantico, Virginia. This strenuous ten-week course is designed to test 

a candidate’s leadership and physical abilities. Successful completion of OCS is 

required before receiving a commission as a Marine 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 law. The Basic School is 

a demanding six-month program that provides each lieutenant the foundation to be 

an infantry platoon commander. Third, each judge advocate must complete the tenweek Basic Lawyer Course at the Naval Justice School in Newport, Rhode Island. 

While attending this course, judge advocates focus on legal assistance, 

administrative law, and military trial advocacy. Finally, each judge advocate 

must successfully complete the Basic Operational Law Training (BOLT) course. 

BOLT provides judge advocates one week of training in operational and 

international law. Successful completion of OCS, TBS, the Basic Lawyer Course, 

and BOLT culminates in designation as a Marine judge advocate. 

 CLE and other training opportunities are available for judge advocates 

throughout their careers. In addition to a myriad of courses offered by each of 

the service judge advocate schools, HQMC provides funds for judge advocates to 

attend various civilian CLE courses. 

10 
The Marine Corps also sends up to twelve judge advocates per year to school to 

obtain a Master of Laws (LL.M.) degree. Students receive their LL.M.s from 

either the Army’s Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School or from 

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 University School of Law. 

In addition to advanced legal courses, judge advocates also have the opportunity 

to attend advanced military studies courses every year, such as the Expeditionary 

Warfare School, the Command and Staff College, one of the four services War 

Colleges, or various military fellowships. 

 The Law School Education Debt Subsidy (LSEDS) program went into effect 

during 2003 and has been approved for its fifth year. The average debt for new 

judge advocates is approximately $80,100, with an average loan payment of $500 

per month. Captains who have completed their initial active duty obligation are 

eligible. The total authorized amount of LSEDS is $30,000 to be paid in yearly 

installments of $10,000, and officers accepting LSEDS incur an additional threeyear commitment. The utilization of LSEDS assists the Marine Corps in retaining 

experienced judge advocates. 

 The majority of the judge advocates that 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, Palestine, and Djibouti. In addition to the judge 

advocates that 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 CorpsIraq, the Multinational Force-Iraq, Combined Forces Command Afghanistan, Combined 

Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa, the Central Criminal Court of Iraq, and the 

Criminal Investigation Task Force. 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, or 11% of the total Marine Corps judge advocate community is deployed 

in support of the GWOT, and during the last two years, judge advocates have 

deployed from virtually every Marine Corps installation, including Headquarters, 

U. S. Marine Corps. 

 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.

11 
Fiscal

Year

End

Strength

GCM SPCM SCM Total

Courts

NJP

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 

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

Overall, the total number of disciplinary actions has remained relatively 

consistent over the last several fiscal years. 

BRUCE E. MacDONALD 

Rear Admiral, JAGC, U.S. Navy 

Judge Advocate General of the Navy

12 
APPENDIX - U.S. NAVY/MARINE CORPS MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Report Period: FY 2007 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/ 

DECREASE (-) OVER 

LAST REPORT 

GENERAL 297 256 41 +6.8% 

BCD SPECIAL 1049 931 118 -19.2% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 0 0 0 0% 

SUMMARY 1505 1498 7 15.8% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT -31% 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL ) 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 119 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 127 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL ) 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 793 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 227 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 759 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 32 

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

 APPEALS 

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 814 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 231 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 583 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 1111 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 289 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 822 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 1590 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 373 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1217 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 335 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 141 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 194 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

 -11% 

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

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

NUMBER 1111 

PERCENTAGE 100% 

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

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 206 13% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +1%% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 71 34% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +4% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CCA 12.9% 

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD +9.5% 

Page 1 of 2
APPENDIX - U.S. NAVY/MARINE CORPS MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS - CONT’D 

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ 

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 17 

RECEIVED 13 

DISPOSED OF 15 

 GRANTED 0 

 DENIED 15 

 NO JURISDICTION 0 

 WITHDRAWN 0 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 15 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 215 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 944 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 82 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 105 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 73 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 517,963 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 16693 

RATE PER 1,000 32 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD -35.9% 

Page 2 of 2 
SECTION 5 

REPORT OF THE 

JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE AIR FORCE 
REPORT OF 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 

OF THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 

OCTOBER 1, 2006 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2007 

THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) reviewed 540 cases in fiscal 

year 2007, reducing the number of cases pending before it by about 180 cases. In 

2007, the Court heard three oral arguments through “Project Outreach” at Lackland 

Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas; Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, 

Alabama; and Chicago-Kent College of Law at the Illinois Institute of Technology, 

Chicago, Illinois. The Court is combining “Project Outreach” with JAG Corps 

recruiting goals by holding more oral arguments at civilian law schools and 

inviting local JAGs to assist with recruiting questions. Currently, there are 

Project Outreach arguments scheduled for early 2008 at Michigan State 

University’s College of Law and the Louis D. Brandeis School of Law at the 

University of Louisville. The Court is also in the final stages of implementing 

a plan to allow for electronic filing of pleadings and motions, which will result 

in resource conservation and increased simplicity in communications with the 

Court. 

In 2007, the Court saw a change in leadership with the retirement of the 

Chief Judge and a Senior Judge, as well as the departure of another Senior Judge 

and one Associate Judge due to a permanent change of station. The Court also 

lost its Chief Commissioner due to a permanent change of station and one Honors 

Law Clerk due to separation. The Court Administrator also retired after 20 years 

of active duty. As a result, the Court welcomed a new Chief Judge, two new 

Associate Judges, a new Chief Commissioner, a new Honors Law Clerk, a new Clerk 

of the Court, and a new Court Administrator. 

A number of appellate military judges have taken part in judicial activities 

outside the realm of the Court. Four of the appellate military judges have been 

appointed to 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, which includes 

the criminal prosecution of “alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in 

hostilities against the United States.” In addition to this role, members of the 

Court have also been given primary responsibility for conducting 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, former military trial judges who now serve on the Court 

perform the duties of trial judge in military courts-martial to assist the trial 

judiciary as needed. 
TRIAL JUDICIARY 

The Air Force Trial Judiciary Directorate (JAT) is vested with the 

responsibility to docket all Air Force general and special courts-martial and 

preside over an array of Federal hearings. The Directorate is staffed by twenty 

active duty judges, ten reserve judges, three paralegals, and a civilian. 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 (CDO) 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, Randolph AFB, 

Texas, Eglin AFB, Florida, Charleston AFB, South Carolina, and Ramstein AB, 

Germany. In 2007, JAT underwent extensive restructuring to maximize support to 

the Air Force mission and enhance the professional development of its personnel. 

In 2007, JAT secured an opportunity to relocate a number of judge billets to 

bases with a traditionally high number of courts-martial and/or easy access to 

transportation hubs. In the summer of 2007, the two Pacific judges moved from 

Yokota AB, Japan, to Kadena AB, Okinawa, Japan. Kadena provides quick access to 

an international airport, generally manages the busiest military justice workload 

in the Pacific, and, as a fringe benefit, offers an arguably better standard of 

living on a tropical island versus the densely populated city of Tokyo. Two 

judge billets also left Washington, D.C., and transferred to Charleston AFB and 

to Eglin AFB. Closure of most northeastern Air Force installations over the last 

two decades impacted the need to maintain a large number of trial judges in 

Washington, D.C. As a result, two slots were moved to locations in the 

Southeast. Historically, Charleston maintains a steady case load. It also 

boasts easy access to I-95 and one of the larger airports in the area. Eglin 

enjoys similar benefits including easy access to several Florida and Georgia 

bases, and historically, it had served as the home station for at least one Air 

Force trial judge. As with Okinawa, both Charleston and Eglin offer locations 

often considered geographically desirable. Efforts are already underway to move 

four more judge billets in summer 2008 to McChord AFB, Washington, Offutt AFB, 

Nebraska, Sheppard AFB, Texas, and Buckley AFB, Colorado (the Sheppard and 

Buckley fills are anticipated in summer 2009). 

The decision to move trial judges from five central locations to a diverse 

array of one- or two-judge locations presented a tremendous manpower advantage 

and a potentially concerning professional development challenge. The reposturing 

allowed JAT to eliminate all of its circuit administrator paralegal positions. 

In addition, the initiative, which moved judges closer to busy courtrooms and 

provided them with more efficient travel hubs, also meant the judges themselves 

could do more with less. Therefore, JAT will return three judge positions to The 

Judge Advocate General’s Corps in summer 2008. Considering JAT’s limited size, 

the manpower dividends from realignment are tremendous. 

2 
The aforementioned professional development concern was addressed with the 

establishment of a mentoring framework for junior judges. JAT sought to ensure 

junior judges maintained open communication with senior judges even though they 

did not physically interact on a day-to-day basis. The cross-feed of information 

and judicial mentorship is paramount given the limited number of Air Force 

judges. Therefore, as the old circuits stood-down and one- and two-judge billets 

arose, JAT implemented the creation of Chief Regional Military Judge positions. 

Chief Regional Military Judges provide judges with professional oversight, an 

experienced judicial resource, and a mentor who provides career advice and rating 

authority. 

The creation of the Chief Regional Military Judge positions to ensure the 

professional development of judges dovetails with JAT’s recently created “see-do” 

training program. New trial judges are now expected to first watch, and later 

preside over, a guilty-plea trial and also a litigated trial with members while 

under observation of a senior mentoring judge. The Chief Regional Military 

Judges serve as mentoring judges. The quasi-apprenticeship scenario for new 

judges allows them to learn their craft under expert tutelage while also 

fostering judicial collegiality and a healthy professional dialogue between 

geographically dispersed military judges. 

JAT also leveraged technology to maintain high levels of support to its 

judges and to the base legal offices who require their presence. The five 

circuit websites were closed and a new, single JAT website was launched. The JAT 

website provides a single on line resource for trial judiciary matters. The 

website also provides a cyber-residence for the CDO. The Judiciary Docketing 

System (an interactive, on line judicial calendar), various docketing documents, 

and the hyper linked Uniform Rules of Practice Before Air Force Courts-Martial 

are all maintained on JAT’s new website. Each stateside, active duty judge was 

also equipped with wireless technology enabling them to work within stringent Air 

Force security protocols and still maintain internet connectivity for research 

and communication while traveling. Plans are also already underway to link the 

Judiciary Docketing System with other military justice databases to expand its 

information capabilities, reinforce its on line capabilities, and allow for the 

creation and electronic delivery of CDO docketing documents. 

The JAT restructuring also sought to align itself with the principles of the 

Air Expeditionary Force (AEF) deployment model. Until 2007, virtually every Air 

Force trial in CENTCOM’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 new deployment model now spreads deployments across JAT’s 

geographic spectrum. Two judges are aligned in each AEF cycle in an enabler 

status. The two judges are trained and equipped to deploy and must be prepared 

to depart when requested by the AOR. As enabler assets, the judges will only 

deploy when requested and they will not occupy full-time deployed billets, nor 

will they forfeit their professional independence. 

3 
Deploying judges travel to the AOR to meet expeditionary demands, and then 

they rotate back to meet homestation demands. The frequency of enabler 

deployments is dictated by the level of operational need. The first set of AEF 

judges were postured in November 2007. 

The Trial Judiciary has maintained a steady workflow throughout the year. 

In Fiscal Year 2007, Air Force trial judges presided over 650 general and special 

courts-martial. Judges have also presided over numerous post-trial hearings, sat 

as legal advisors in high-profile Article 32 hearings and administrative 

discharge boards, assisted as hearing officers for environmental impact statement 

hearings (including one front-page hearing attended by an audience of over 350), 

reviewed tens of thousands of pages of records of trial, and served as 

instructors in a number of different forums. 

Air Force judges served as ambassadors for military justice in classrooms 

and through publication. Col Dawn Eflein, the Chief Trial Judge of the Air 

Force, participated in a Defense Institute of International Legal Studies program 

held in Buenos Aires with the Argentine Ministry of Defense to teach Argentine 

officials about sexual harassment and sexual assault issues. Col Eflein, Col Tom 

Cumbie, Lt Col John E. Hartsell, and Maj Bryan Watson also instructed new 

military judges at The Army Judge Advocate General’s School, University of 

Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. Col Eflein and Lt Col Hartsell also 

lectured at a number of Judge Advocate Staff Officers’ Courses at The Air Force 

Judge Advocate General’s School (AFJAGS), AFLOA, 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. Finally, 

Lt Col Hartsell and Major Watson authored The Decay of “Divers” and the Future of 

Charging “On Divers Occasions” in Light of United States v. Walters, 59 MJ 391 

(C.A.A.F. 2003), 61 A.F. L. Rev. (2007) (expected cite) to address the impact of 

recent case law on the court-martial process. 

JAT continues to serve as the service sponsor for the Interservice Military 

Judges’ Seminar (IMJS). IMJS is a joint forum attended by all Department of 

Defense trial judges and provides a means of ensuring military trial judges are 

kept up to date with recent developments in military criminal law and effective 

techniques of judicial management. The course includes a diverse curriculum that 

includes instruction, professional lectures, and seminars. Seminar topics 

include discussion and analysis of judge responsibilities at trial, courtroom 

procedures, rules of evidence, and recent court decisions significantly impacting 

the law. IMJS 2007 included briefings by service judges, Professor David A. 

Schlueter, Director of Trial Advocacy Programs, St. Mary’s University School of 

Law, The Honorable Andrew S. Effron, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals 

for the Armed Forces, and The Honorable Terry Everett, United States House of 

Representatives, Second Congressional District, Alabama. The Air Force trial 

judges also participated in a VTC roundtable discussion with Major General Jack 

L. Rives, The Judge Advocate General. IMJS 2007 included over 120 attendees and 

it was hosted by The Air Force Judge Advocate General’s School. 

Members of the Trial Judiciary also distinguished themselves this year 

within a number of professional communities. 

4 
Col Eflein participated in a Congressional Caucus for women’s issues attended by 

Congresswomen, Senators, and women serving as State Supreme Court Justices, 

Federal Circuit Chief Judges, and judicial leaders across the country. Col Dixie 

Morrow, who served as JAT’s senior IMA, won the Judge Advocates Association, 

Outstanding Career Armed Services Attorney Award. Lt Col Hartsell, the Deputy 

Chief Trial Judge of the Air Force, won the American Bar Association Standing 

Committee on Armed Forces Law, Outstanding Military Service Career Judge Advocate 

Award. Two judges were also recognized for their efforts as ex-officio members 

of the Military Judges’ Benchbook Committee. Col Stephen Woody and Lt Col 

Jennifer Whittier each earned the Army Achievement Medal for their extensive work 

in drafting pattern jury instructions and incorporating substantive changes to 

military sex crime offenses enumerated in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

Finally, MSgt Carmen Scott, JAT’s Office Manager, won the Outstanding Paralegal 

Senior NCO of the Year (Karen Yates-Popwell) Award for HQ AF/JA. 

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; Lieutenant Colonel 

Robert V. Combs served as the Chief Appellate Government Counsel until December 

2006, when Major Matthew Ward replaced him. 

 In October 2006, 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. In November 2006, 

division personnel attended the Criminal Law New Developments Course at The Army 

Judge Advocate General’s School. This course covered the previous year’s 

military 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 their 

sister services. In May 2007, appellate counsel, including reservists, attended 

the USCAAF Judicial Conference, held at Catholic University of America’s Columbus 

School of Law. All these gatherings provided current information on appellate 

issues and guidance on appellate practice. 

 During this time, the division continued to fulfill its obligation to 

support war-fighting commanders by deploying an appellate counsel, Captain Dylan 

Blake Williams, to Iraq for a year-long tour beginning in August 2007. Captain 

Dan Breen also deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom from January 2007 

until May 2007. The division also has another appellate counsel deploying in 

November 2007 for a six-month tour in Iraq. 

 The division warmly welcomed four summer interns, law students who had 

completed their second year of law school and expressed an interest in service as 

judge advocates. 

5 
These young professionals significantly supported the division mission by 

conducting legal research and writing appellate briefs. Three of the four 

interns have since applied for and been offered 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 the 

Appellate Update and a monthly newsletter for staff judge advocates and trial 

counsel. These documents are on the Division’s website, providing practitioners 

easy and immediate access to the latest in military justice case law. 

 There are nine reserve judge advocates assigned as appellate government 

counsel. They continue to provide superb support, greatly assisting the division 

in carrying out its mission. In addition to preparing written briefs, a number 

of reserve counsel presented oral arguments before USCAAF and AFCCA during the 

fiscal year. Of note, the division’s reserve paralegal is a law student at 

Widener University School of Law in Delaware, and was able to assist the office 

by researching issues related to several Answers to Assignments of Error. 

 A summary of Air Force Appellate Government practice follows: 

AFCCA FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07

 Briefs Filed 230 226 159 207 267 

 Cases Argued 13 14 11 16 20 

 

USCAAF FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07

 Briefs Filed 51 69 73 47 41 

 Cases Argued 31 15 29 25 24 

 

SUPREME 

COURT 

 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07

 Petition/Waivers 

Filed 

0 0 5 0 5 

 Briefs Filed 0 0 0 0 0 

SENIOR TRIAL COUNSEL 

 Personnel authorizations for the fiscal year included 19 Senior Trial 

Counsel (STC) at 12 locations worldwide: three counsel at Bolling AFB, 

Washington, D.C., and three “instructor-litigators” at The Judge Advocate 

General’s School at Maxwell AFB, Alabama, two counsel at Yokota AB, Japan, 

6 
Ramstein AB, Germany, and Randolph AFB, Texas, and one counsel each at Travis 

AFB, California, Nellis AFB, Nevada, Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona, Peterson AFB, 

Colorado, Offutt AFB, Nebraska, Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, and Langley AFB, 

Virginia. This marks a dramatic change from the former geographically-based 

judiciary circuits. Senior trial counsel are detailed to prosecute cases by the 

division headquarters at Bolling AFB, and their primary responsibility is to 

represent the government in the most complex, litigated general courts-martial. 

They are also available for special courts-martial, discharge boards and other 

proceedings, as resources allow. 

 In the past year, senior trial counsel spent more than 2,500 days on 

temporary duty away from their home station, and represented the government in 

195 courts-martial and 75 other proceedings, including three 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 

Article 32 hearings and general courts-martial in the Southwest Asia Area of 

Operations. 

 The past year saw a continued emphasis on providing our STCs with the 

training and tools required for them to thrive. In addition to an across-theboard upgrade of STC information technology systems, STCs attended many hours of 

training designed to improve their advocacy skills. August saw the first-ever 

Senior Trial Counsel Orientation at Bolling AFB. The STC Orientation brought all 

19 STCs together in one room for a week of training and networking with trial and 

appellate counsel. Former circuit counsel also attended to serve as mentors for 

the young counsel, and the week was a resounding success. Additionally, STCs 

attended the Trial Defense Advocacy 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 our appellate defense counsel remains one of the division’s 

critical priorities, particularly because of frequent turnover in counsel. 

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 actively participating in defense counsel workshops in the former 

Pacific, European, Eastern, Western, and Central circuits and always being 

available for telephone consults in appropriate instances. Appellate defense 

counsel also kept trial defense 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 

Mississippi College School of Law, AFJAGS, Lackland AFB, TX, Pittsburgh School of 

Law and Chicago-Kent College of Law. 

7 
These arguments helped educate attendees on the fairness and 

professionalism of the military justice system. 

 Appellate defense division began FY07 with approximately 345 cases pending 

initial briefing to the AFCCA. The division reduced the number of cases pending 

initial briefing to the AFCCA to 209 cases by the end of the FY. During that 

same time period, the number of enlargements were reduced significantly. 

 

The following figures reflect the division’s workload over the past five 

fiscal years: 

AFCCA 

 FY 03 FY 04 FY05 FY 06 FY07

Briefs 

Filed 

 

 512 

 

 502 

 

376 

 

 638 

 

541 

Cases 

Argued 

 

 12 

 

 14 

 

11 

 

 16 

 

20 

USCAAF 

 FY 03 FY 04 FY05 FY06 FY07

Supplements 

to 

Petitions 

 

 

 

 219 

 

274 

 

 

 268 

 

 

 371 

 

 

 261 

Grant 

Briefs 

 22 19 32 18 24 

Cases 

Argued 

 26 14 29 25 24 

SUPREME COURT 

 FY 03 FY 04 FY05 FY06 FY07

Petitions 

3 

 

1 

 

0 

 

 0 

 

9 

Briefs in 

Opposition 

 

0 

 

0 

 

0 

 

0 

 

0 

Briefs on 

the Merits 

 

0 

 

0 

 

0 

 

0 

 

0 

TRIAL DEFENSE DIVISION 

The Trial Defense Division 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, Trial Defense 

Division, Defense Paralegal Managers (DPM), and Instructor-Litigators (IL). 

8 
These personnel reported to the Chief, Trial Defense Division (JAJD), who 

reported to the Director, United States Air Force Judiciary (JAJ). The Chief, 

Trial Defense Division was assisted by the Deputy Chief, Policy and Training, and 

Office Manager. 

The Division was staffed with 81 ADCs stationed at 69 bases worldwide. They 

were assisted by 70 DPs. The Division had 18 SDCs and 3 Deputy Chiefs, each of 

whom oversaw 6 SDCs. A DPM was assigned to each of the 3 Deputy Chiefs. The 

SDCs were stationed at Andrews AFB, MD, Langley AFB, VA, Charleston AFB, SC, 

Hurlburt Field, FL, Barksdale AFB, LA, Randolph AFB, TX, Sheppard AFB, TX, Tinker 

AFB, OK, Peterson AFB, CO, Offutt AFB, NE, McChord AFB, WA, Travis AFB, CA, 

Nellis AFB, NV, Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ, Yokota AB, Japan, Kadena AB, Japan, 

Lakenheath AB, United Kingdom, and Ramstein AB, Germany. Each SDC was colocated with the ADC office at their respective location. The division also had 

three I-Ls assigned to the AFJAGS. The I-Ls split their time between duties as 

instructors at AFJAGS and serving as defense counsel in top-priority cases, as 

directed by the Chief, Trial Defense Division. In 2006, the Air Force’s newest 

ADC office was established at Al Udeid AB, Qatar, to serve clients in Southwest 

Asia. In 2007, the Al Udeid office handled more Article 15 actions than any 

other ADC office in the Air Force. 

The continuing success of the Air Force’s ADC Program is largely 

attributable to its independence and its energized personnel. To ensure the best 

representation for Air Force clients, training remains the division’s top 

priority. On a continuing basis, each SDC provided on-the-job training and 

mentoring to the ADCs in their charge. Each Deputy Chief, in turn, mentored the 

SDCs in their charge. Newly appointed defense personnel received formal training 

at the SDC, ADC, and DP Orientations held at AFJAGS. Defense personnel also 

attended an annual Trial Advocacy Course conducted by AFJAGS. In addition, the 

division ensured each ADC attended the Trial and Defense Advocacy Course and that 

all SDCs attended the Advanced Trial Advocacy Course. The Division provided 

adjunct faculty members for these two courses held at AFJAGS. Selected defense 

counsel also attended Air Force in-residence force development education. 

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 (JSC) on 

Military Justice. 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 

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 91 formal 

opinions concerning AFBCMR applications; received 129 inquires in specific cases 

requiring formal written replies to senior officials, including the President and 

9 
members of Congress; and reviewed 49 records of trial for review under Article 

69a, UCMJ, and 5 records under Article 69b, UCMJ. The division presented the 

eleventh annual Military Justice Administration Workshop at the AFJAG School, a 

“back to basics” 1-week workshop attended by both judge advocates and paralegals. 

The division also instructed base legal office chiefs of military justice at an 

18th Air Force workshop held at Scott Air Force Base, 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 served as a principal trainer 

for judge advocates, sexual assault response coordinators, victim advocates, Air 

Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI) agents and medical personnel for 

both DoD and the AF. 

 Finally, during the fiscal year, division representatives assumed the roles 

of Chairman and Executive Secretary, and Working Group Chairman, of the Joint 

Service Committee, playing 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 2007, 457 Air Force personnel were in confinement. 

Of those, 86 inmates were in long-term confinement at the United States 

Disciplinary Barracks (USDB), Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and 88 were serving time 

in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) system. One inmate was enrolled in the 

Air Force Return-to-Duty Rehabilitation (RTDR) Program during fiscal year 2007, 

and one graduated and was returned to duty. The program moved from NAVCONBRIG, 

Charleston, South Carolina, to Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, on 1 August 2007. 

The number of Air Force members and former members on parole at the end of fiscal 

year 2007 was 116. 

AIR FORCE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL’S SCHOOL 

The Judge Advocate General’s School (AFJAGS) is the educational arm of the 

Judge Advocate General’s Corps. It is located at Maxwell Air Force Base, 

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 provides 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. 

10 
Finally, the School has 13 distance learning military justice modules 

available to all judge advocates on the Judge Advocate Distance Education 

website. 

Of the 40 classes offered at AFJAGS in Fiscal Year 2007 for 1,302 students, 

the following courses had military justice related materials associated with 

them: 

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 Trial Advocacy Conference in San Antonio, 

Texas, for 143 judge advocates and paralegals. 

LEGAL INFORMATION SERVICES 

 During fiscal year 2007, the Legal Information Services (JAS) 

Directorate continued to develop new tools and programs to further the use of 

information technology (IT) in the practice of military justice throughout the 

Air Force JAG Corps. 

 JAS continued to enhance the Automated Military Justice Analysis and 

Management System (AMJAMS) throughout the year. Last year, JAS brought the 

program into compliance with the Standard Desktop, but it was still a clientserver program. In order to avoid the difficulties involved with distributing 

updates and upgrades to the field, JAS funded a contract for 1.9 million dollars 

to convert AMJAMS to an all web-based system. This new AMJAMS will stay in 

compliance with the desktop certification program and allay the necessity of 

disbursing client software around the Corps. 

 The directorate continued to develop and test the Area Defense Electronic 

Reporting (ADER) program. Presently the directorate is working on Spiral 2 of 

ADER, which will have better reporting capabilities for the defense community. 

 The Directorate has made numerous upgrades and improvements to a Foreign 

Criminal Jurisdiction (FCJ) program. In addition, the program contemplates 

11 
migrating FCJ from the Air Force Pentagon Communications Agency (AFPCA) server, 

which is a development server, to a production server in JAS. 

 This will reduce downtime and improve service to the justice community. 

PERSONNEL 

 As of 30 September 2007, the Air Force Judge Advocate General's Corps had 

1,220 judge advocates on active duty. Company grade officers (lieutenants and 

captains) made up 50% of that number (608). Slightly more than 24% were majors 

(300) and 16% were lieutenant colonels (194). Almost 10% of the Corps were 

colonels and above (118), including 2 major generals and 3 brigadier generals. 

The Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps Reserve included 885 Air Force 

Reserve IMA, Air Force Reserve unit-assigned, and Air National Guard judge 

advocates, of whom 11% (97) were company grade officers and 74% (659) were field 

grade officers (majors and lieutenant colonels). The remaining 15% consisted of 

125 colonels, 3 brigadier generals, and 1 major general. 

JACK L. RIVES 

 Major General, USAF 

 The Judge Advocate General 

12 
APPENDIX - U.S. AIR FORCE MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Period: Fiscal Year 2007 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATUS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF 

INCREASE(+)/ 

DECREASE (-) OVER

LAST REPORT 

GENERAL 239 207 32 -29.91% 

BCD SPECIAL 472 205 28 + 3.74% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL [A] 239 

SUMMARY 148 145 3 + 5.71% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE ( + ) / DECREASE ( - ) OVER LAST REPORT - 8.23% 

PART 2 - DISCHARGE APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL (CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES [B] 50 

 NUMBER OF BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGES 115 

SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL (CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGES 205 

PART 3 - RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 - GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 162 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 - BCD SPECIAL COURTSMARTIAL 203 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 - GENERAL COURTSMARTIAL 52 

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

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 525 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 346 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 179 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 362 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 160 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 202 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 540 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 305 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 235 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 347 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 201 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 146 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD (735/476) -26.53% 

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

NUMBER 362/412 

PERCENTAGE 87.86% 

 

 

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

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

PERCENTAGE OF AFCCA REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCAAF 

(381/564) (376/735) 49.63% 

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

PERIOD - 1.53% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED (68/376) 6.34% 

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

PERIOD - 11.75% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 

BY AFCCA (60/404) (68/735) 3.15% 

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

DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD - 6.10% 

PART 7 - APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF, ARTICLE 69 

PENDING AT BEGINNING OF PERIOD 3 

RECEIVED 2 

DISPOSED OF 3 

 GRANTED 1 

 DENIED 1 

 NO JURISDICTION 0 

 WITHDRAWN 0 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 0 

PART 8 - ORGANIZATION OF COURT 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 528 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 135 193 

 SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 303 335 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH 

MEMBERS 268 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 104 148 

 SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 120 

PART 9 - COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 23 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 349,732 

PART 11 - NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 7,038 

RATE PER 1,000 20.64% 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD -1.14% 

EXPLANATORY NOTES 

[A] The Air Force does not convene non-BCD SPCMs. Of the 455 SPCMs tried, there were 200 

 convictions with a BCD adjudged, 239 convictions without a BCD adjudged and 28 acquittals. 

[B] Includes 19 officer dismissals. 

Page 2 of 2
SECTION 6 

REPORT OF THE 

JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE COAST GUARD 
 REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

U. S. COAST GUARD 

October 1, 2006 to September 30, 2007 

PERSONNEL AND TRAINING 

 The Coast Guard has 211 officers designated as judge advocates 

serving on active duty, of whom 160 are serving in legal billets and 

51 are serving in “out-of-specialty” billets. Among the 51 military 

attorneys serving in “out-of-specialty” billets are flag officers who 

serve as the Commander of the Fifth Coast Guard District in 

Portsmouth; the Commander of the Ninth Coast Guard District in 

Cleveland; the Commander of the Seventeenth Coast Guard District in 

Juneau; and the Director, Global Maritime Intelligence Integration. 

Others serve as commanding and executive officers of Coast Guard 

cutters, sectors, marine safety offices, training centers, and support 

commands. The Coast Guard also employs 91 civilian attorneys ranging 

from GS-12 to SES. 

 The Coast Guard sent attorneys to 149 different courses of 

instruction during this fiscal year, primarily at the various service 

JAG schools. 69% of Coast Guard attorneys attended one or more 

courses of continuing legal education. Seventeen Coast Guard officers 

are currently studying 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 

May 2008 with a Master of Law (LLM) degree in military law and another 

judge advocate is currently a Fellow at the Center for Law and 

Military Operations. Fifteen Coast Guard officers (including six 

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 2007 were: 

Chief Judge Joseph H. Baum (relinquished duties as Chief 

 Judge on 22 January 2007 and retired on 31 January 

 2007) 

Chief Judge Lane I. McClelland (designated as Acting Chief 

 Judge on 22 January 2007) 

Judge David J. Kantor 

Judge Gilbert E. Teal (assignment terminated on 

 1 November 2006) 
Judge Gary E. Felicetti 

Judge Frederick W. Tucher 

Judge Thomas R. Cahill (Assigned and sworn in on 

 26 January 2007) 

Judge Michael J. Lodge (Assigned and sworn in on 

 26 January 2007) 

 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. 

 On 16 and 17 May 2007, Judge McClelland attended the Judicial 

Conference of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 

(USCAAF) at the Columbus School of Law at Catholic University. On 21 

September 2007, Chief Judge McClelland participated in the William S. 

Fulton, Jr., Appellate Military Judges Conference and Training Seminar 

at George Mason University School of Law in Arlington, Virginia. 

MILITARY JUSTICE ORGANIZATION 

Thirteen staff judge advocates advise 15 officers exercising 

general court-martial jurisdiction and approximately 350 officers who 

exercise special court-martial jurisdiction. Responsibility for 

detailing trial and defense counsel to general and special courtsmartial 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, courts-martial judges from other 

military services were detailed to general courts-martial. 

 The Office of Military Justice at Coast Guard Headquarters is 

responsible for representing the United States in all courts-martial 

appeals and providing support to staff judge advocates and trial 

counsel throughout the Coast Guard. The office is also responsible 

for developing military justice policy for the Coast Guard, including 

participation on the Joint Service Committee (JSC) on Military 

Justice. Within the office, three officers are assigned primary duty 

as appellate government counsel. 

 

2 
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 Trial 

Service Office East in Norfolk, Virginia, and 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 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 2007 

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. 

Fiscal Year 07 06 05 04 03

General Courts-Martial 16 16 07 12 08 

Special Courts-Martial 24 32 45 27 18 

Summary Courts-Martial 31 31 21 12 20 

Total 71 79 73 51 46 

ADDITIONAL MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

 Appendix A contains the Coast Guard, Fiscal Year 2007 military 

justice statistics. 

WILLIAM D. BAUMGARTNER 

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, 2006 to September 30, 2007 (FY 2007) 

3
APPENDIX - U.S. COAST GUARD MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Report Period: 1 OCTOBER 2006 - 30 SEPTEMBER 2007 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/ 

DECREASE (-) OVER 

LAST REPORT 

GENERAL 16 13 03 -19% 

BCD SPECIAL 24 23 01 -26% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 00 00 00 UNCHANGED 

SUMMARY 31 31 00 UNCHANGED 

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

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 02 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 09 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 10 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 11 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 10 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 02 

PART 4 – WORKLOAD OF THE COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 28 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 12 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 16 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 24* 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 11 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 10 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 25** 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 06 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 16 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 27 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 17 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 10 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

 -8.70% 

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

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

NUMBER 22 

PERCENTAGE 100% 

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

 (CAAF) 

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 10/22 45% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +15% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 3/10 30% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +1% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CGCCA 3/22 14% 

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD +5% 

* Includes three extraordinary writs in addition to courts-martial. 

** Includes three extraordinary writs in addition to courts-martial. 

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

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ 

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 0 

RECEIVED 0 

DISPOSED OF 0 

 GRANTED 0 

 DENIED 0 

 NO JURISDICTION 0 

 WITHDRAWN 0 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 0 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 10 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 22 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 6 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 2 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 3 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 41,498 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 1437 

RATE PER 1,000 34.62 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD -0.4% 

Page 2 of 2