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, 2003 to September 30, 2004 
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, 2003 to September 30, 2004 
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, 2003 to September 30, 2004 

 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 Gregory E. 

Maggs and Professor Edward J. Imwinkelried, Public Members appointed by the 

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

Code of Military Justice pursuant to Article 146, Uniform Code of Military 

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

 The Code Committee met on September 22, 2004, to consider various matters 

pertaining to the administration of military justice. The meeting was open to 

the public. The Code Committee received a briefing from the Chairman of the 

Joint Service Committee, Captain Kenneth R. Bryant, Judge Advocate General’s 

Corps, U.S. Navy. Captain Bryant stated that the committee’s 2001 annual review 

was submitted as a draft Executive Order containing changes to Rules for CourtsMartial 707, 806, 1107, and 1108, clarifying speedy trial rules, amending 

procedures for control of spectators at courts-martial, adding a provision on 

sentence reassessment by a superior authority, and clarifying the authority to 

remit or suspend sentences. The 2002 and 2003 annual reviews, which were also 

sent to Office of Management and Budget, contain changes that will provide a 

definition of a “capital” case and require the convening authority to 

affirmatively refer an offense as capital if the death penalty is to be 

authorized, prohibit the unreasonable multiplication of charges, require not less 

than 12 court members in capital courts-martial, provide guidance on the marking, 

handling and examination of sealed exhibits, and issue procedures in handling 

cases from joint commands. 

Captain Bryant added that the 2004 annual review includes a proposal to use 

remote testimony for interlocutory matters and pre-sentencing hearings, and 

another to add offenses for cases involving the death or injury to an unborn 

child or the patronizing of a prostitute. 

 Captain Bryant also reported on other initiatives under examination by the 

Joint Service Committee, including a revision of Article 143 of the Uniform Code 

of Military Justice to extend the statute of limitations for child abuse offenses 

to the life of the child or five years, whichever is greater, modification of 

Article 125 in view of Lawrence v. Texas, and the study of a comprehensive sexual 

offense statute. 
Following Captain Bryant, Colonel Denise Vowell, U.S. Army, briefed the Code 

Committee on a recent military justice study which is currently under review 

within the Army. Colonel Vowell said that this study concluded that military 

commanders should continue to decide who is tried, what offenses are charged, the 

level of the court-martial, and whether clemency should be afforded. The study 

also considered an enlargement of the authority of military judges to cover the 

time from preferral of charges or imposition of restraint, whichever occurs 

first, through the date the record of trial is received by appellate authorities. 

She said that the study concluded that, Article 98, which has not been used, 

should be repealed, and the contempt power under Article 48 should be amended to 

mirror that held by federal judges. 

Colonel Vowell reported that the study also recommended changing the manner 

by which court members are selected and the procedure used by military judges in 

taking guilty pleas, to make sentences effective when adjudged (except for death 

and punitive discharge cases), to authorize electronic records of trial, to 

eliminate the requirement for a post-trial staff judge advocate’s recommendation, 

to enact a comprehensive sexual offense statute, and to incorporate in the Manual 

for Courts-Martial specific offenses covering child neglect, child pornography, 

and identity theft. 

Senior Judge Robinson Everett also addressed the Code Committee and made 

several proposals. First, he suggested that the accused should be able to elect 

to be sentenced by the military judge after findings have been made by court 

members. Second, he proposed consideration of amending Articles 18 and 21 of the 

Code by adding words referring to the “Law of Nations” rather than the “Law of 

War.” Next, he recommended that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 

be granted authority to conduct discretionary review of case tried by military 

tribunals. Lastly, he recommended that the Court’s authority under the All Writs 

Act should be enlarged, that there be a re-examination of life tenure for the 

judges of the Court, and that a more effective manner be developed to review 

administrative discharges, particularly “other than honorable” discharges. 

The Code Committee referred Senior Judge Everett’s proposals to the Joint 

Service Committee for further review. 

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 

Committee 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. 

H. F. “SPARKY” GIERKE 

Chief Judge 

SUSAN J. CRAWFORD 

Associate Judge 

ANDREW S. EFFRON 

Associate Judge 

2 
JAMES E. BAKER 

Associate Judge 

CHARLES E. “CHIP” ERDMANN 

Associate Judge 

Major General THOMAS J. ROMIG, USA 

The Judge Advocate General of the Army 

Rear Admiral JAMES E. McPHERSON, JAGC, USN 

The Judge Advocate General of the Navy 

Major General JACK L. RIVES, USAF 

Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Air Force 

Rear Admiral JOHN E. CROWLEY, JR., USCG 

The Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard 

Brigadier General KEVIN SANDKUHLER, USMC 

Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of 

 the Marine Corps 

Headquarters, United States Marine Corps 

Professor GREGORY E. MAGGS 

Public Member 

Professor EDWARD J. IMWINKELRIED 

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, 2003 to September 30, 2004 

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 2004 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, § 946, 

United States Code. 

THE BUSINESS OF THE COURT 

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

report and graphs. Additional information pertaining to specific opinions is 

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

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

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

 During the 2004 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 33,203. 

 On September 30, 2004, Susan J. Crawford completed a five-year term as Chief 

Judge. H.F. “Sparky” Gierke assumed the office of Chief Judge on October 1, 

2004. 

PUBLIC AWARENESS PROJECT 

(PROJECT 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 2004 Term of Court. This practice, 

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

to demonstrate the operation of a Federal Court of Appeals, and the military’s 

criminal justice system. The Court conducted hearings during this period, 

without objection of the parties, at Offutt Air Force Base and Creighton 

University School of Law in Omaha, Nebraska, the Catholic University, Columbus 

School of Law, Washington, D.C., William and Mary School of Law, Williamsburg, 

Virginia, the University of Maryland School of Law, Baltimore, Maryland, 

Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C., and the United States Coast 

Guard Academy, New London, Connecticut. 
 The Court hopes that those who attend Project Outreach hearings from both 

the military and civilian communities will garner further appreciation for the 

United States military, the UCMJ, and the essential role both play in providing 

for the national security of the United States. 

JUDICIAL VISITATIONS 

 During the 2004 Term of Court, the Judges of the Court, consistent with past 

practice and their ethical responsibility to oversee and improve the entire 

military criminal justice system, participated in professional training programs 

for military and civilian lawyers, spoke to professional groups of judges and 

lawyers, and visited with judge advocates, military judges, commanders, and other 

military personnel at various military installations. 

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE 

 On May 18 and 19, 2004, 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 by the Honorable Susan J. 

Crawford, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 

followed by speakers for this year’s conference, including Mr. Bryan Garner of 

LawProse, Inc., the Honorable Joe D. Whitley, General Counsel, Department of 

Homeland Security, Senior Judge Wayne E. Alley, U.S. District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma, Lieutenant Colonel David Robertson and Major Ernest 

Harper of the Judge Advocate General’s School, United States Army, 

Charlottesville, Virginia, Deputy Solicitor General Michael R. Dreeben, Professor 

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

General Edward G. Anderson, III, Deputy Commander, U.S. Northern Command, 

Professor Peter B. Rutledge, Catholic University of America, Professor David C. 

Baldus, University of Iowa College of Law, and Lieutenant Colonel David Fillman, 

U.S. Air Force, Office of the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force. 

H.F. “SPARKY” GIERKE 

Chief Judge 

SUSAN J. CRAWFORD 

Associate Judge 

ANDREW S. EFFRON 

Associate Judge 

JAMES E. BAKER 

Associate Judge 

CHARLES E. “CHIP” ERDMANN 

Associate Judge 

2 
USCAAF STATISTICAL REPORT 

2004 TERM OF COURT 

CUMULATIVE SUMMARY 

CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 1, 2003

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

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

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

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

CUMULATIVE FILINGS

 Master Docket .............................. 136 

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

 Miscellaneous Docket ....................... 29

 TOTAL ...................................... 967 

CUMULATIVE TERMINATIONS

 Master Docket .............................. 134 

 Petition Docket ............................ 758 

 Miscellaneous Docket ....................... 27

 TOTAL ...................................... 919 

CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 1, 2004

 Master Docket .............................. 51 

 Petition Docket ............................ 215 

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

 TOTAL ...................................... 272 

OPINION SUMMARY

CATEGORY SIGNED PER CURIAM MEM/ORDER TOTAL

Master Docket ........... 53 4 77 134 

Petition Docket ......... 0 0 758 758 

Miscellaneous Docket .... 0 0 27 27

TOTAL ................... 53 4 862 919 

3 
FILINGS (MASTER DOCKET)

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

 Returned from Court of Criminal Appeals.... 1 

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

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

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

 Petitions granted (from Petition Docket)... 130

 TOTAL ..................................... 136 

TERMINATIONS (MASTER DOCKET)

 Findings & sentence affirmed .............. 63 

 Reversed in whole or in part .............. 71 Signed .... 53 

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

 Other disposition directed ................ 0 Mem/order .. 77

 TOTAL ..................................... 134 TOTAL ...... 134 

PENDING (MASTER DOCKET)

 Awaiting briefs ........................... 11 

 Awaiting oral argument .................... 24 

 Awaiting lead case decision (trailer cases) 11 

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

 TOTAL ..................................... 51 

FILINGS (PETITION DOCKET)

 Petitions for grant of review filed ....... 801 

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

 Petitions for reconsideration granted ..... 0 

 Returned from Court of Criminal Appeals ... 0

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

TERMINATIONS (PETITION DOCKET)

 Petitions for grant dismissed ............. 2 

 Petitions for grant denied ................ 618 

 Petitions for grant granted ............... 130 

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

 Petitions for grant withdrawn ............. 8 Per curiam .. 0 

 Other ..................................... 0 Mem/order.. 758

 TOTAL ..................................... 758 TOTAL .... 758 

PENDING (PETITION DOCKET)

 Awaiting briefs ........................... 85 

 Awaiting Central Legal Staff review ....... 88 

 Awaiting final action ..................... 42

 TOTAL ..................................... 215 

4 
FILINGS (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET)

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

 Writs of error coram nobis sought ........... 3 

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

 Other extraordinary relief sought ........... 5 

 Writ appeals sought ......................... 16

 TOTAL ....................................... 29 

TERMINATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET)

 Petitions withdrawn ......................... 0 

 Petitions remanded .......................... 1 

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

 Petitions denied ............................ 25 Signed .... 0 

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

 Other ....................................... 0 Mem/order.. 27

 TOTAL ....................................... 27 TOTAL ..... 27 

PENDING (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET)

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

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

 Awaiting final action ....................... 3

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

RECONSIDERATIONS & REHEARINGS 

 BEGIN END DISPOSITIONS

CATEGORY PENDING FILINGS PENDING Granted Denied Total

All Cases ..... 0 11 3 0 8 8 

MOTIONS ACTIVITY

 BEGIN END DISPOSITIONS

CATEGORY PENDING FILINGS PENDING Granted Denied Other Total

All motions ..... 12 392 19 347 38 0 385 

5 
Petition Docket Year End Pe

295

379

235

290

226

152

190

301

171

0

100200300400500

FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 
Master Docket Year End Pen

105

73

156

105

77

70

60

50 49 

0

50

100150200

FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 

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

1/
Oral Arguments Per Yea

112 116 115

131

116 113

81

68

56 

0

255075

100125150

FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 
Total Opinions Per Yea

95

111 117118 107113 104

129

102

123 124

110

75 73

93

75

32

0

255075

100125150

FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY

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

151

143 140 145

168

129 133 131

164

0

255075

100125150175200

FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 
Days from Petition Gran

to Oral Argument

276

213

161

189

166

148

125 127 12

0

50

100150200250300

FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 
Days from Oral Argument

to Final Decision

169

194

163 165

182

169

176 176

11

0

50

100150200250

FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 
Days from Petition Fili

to Final Decision

90

473

75

486

99

380

82

371

85

429

70

380

70

330

65

353

82

2

0

50

100150200250300350400450500550

FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY0

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

Final Decision in All Ca

138

120

139

166

139

129

110 105

11

0

20406080

100120140160180

FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 
Total Petitions Filed Per 

1251

1435

1234 1197

1051

753

926 974

69

0

250500750

1000125015001750200022502500

FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY0
SECTION 3 

REPORT OF THE 

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

OCTOBER 1, 2003 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 

 During fiscal year 2004 (FY 04) and in compliance with Article 6(a), 

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

senior members of his staff made 27 official visits at 27 installations in 

the United States and overseas. With the U.S. Army’s continued significant 

with deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan and their effects on legal 

operations world-wide, the Office of The Judge Advocate General (OTJAG) 

continued to monitor courts-martial world-wide, review and prepare military 

publications and regulations, and develop and draft changes to the Manual 

for Courts-Martial (MCM) and the UCMJ. Through its Field Operating 

Agencies, OTJAG provided judicial and appellate services, advice, 

assistance, and professional education to ensure the efficient 

administration of military justice. The Army end strength number for this 

year includes 494,291 Regular Army personnel on duty as of 30 September 

2004, as reported by the Army G1. The Army end strength was 493,563 for FY 

03. Additionally, there were 204,131 mobilized Army Reserve and 342,918 

Army National Guard personnel supporting operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, 

Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Middle-East. 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL’S LEGAL CENTER AND SCHOOL 

On 17 June 2004, The Judge Advocate General activated The Judge 

Advocate General's Noncommissioned Officer’s Academy (NCOA) that moved from 

the previously existing academy at Fort Jackson, South Carolina. The 

movement of Noncommissioned Officers Academy brings another asset under the 

Legal Center and School that offers the ability to incorporate training, 

doctrine, force structure, and combat developments while centralizing all 

officer, warrant officer and enlisted training at the JAG School. This 

effort, in combination with the newly created Legal Center and School last 

year, marks a significant milestone towards forging the future of The Judge 

Advocate General's Corps and the U.S. Army. 

SIGNIFICANT MILITARY JUSTICE ACTIONS 

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

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

actions. Specific responsibilities include the following: promulgating 

military justice regulations, reviewing Army regulations for legal 

sufficiency, military corrections, the Army's drug testing program, federal 

felony and magistrate court prosecutions, producing legal opinions for the 

Army Staff relating to military justice matters, statistical analysis and 

evaluation of trends in judicial and nonjudicial punishment and responding 

to congressional inquiries. 
 Criminal Law Division individual case data and actions for the last 

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

displayed below: 

 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04

White House inquiries 33 37 237 

Congressional and other 

inquiries 206 185 234 

Clemency petitions (Article 74, 

UCMJ) 8 3 3 

Officer Dismissals 19 17 18 

Article 69 review 90 122 88 

Freedom of Information 

Act/Privacy Act 9 3 6 

 A continuing project for the Criminal Law Division is “eJustice,” the 

development of a web-based military justice management system. In October 

2004, the Army JAG Corps assigned two full-time subject matter experts to 

work on this project, a colonel and master sergeant, both very experienced 

in military justice. The JAG Corps will initiate field testing of this 

system in CY05. The system will provide users worldwide with the 

capability of executing the Army’s Military Justice System. This project 

will improve the Army Court-Martial Information System (ACMIS), which 

currently manages all Special and General Courts-Martial in which an 

arraignment has occurred. The eJustice project will manage all courtsmartial, non-judicial punishment, and all adverse reprimands or 

administrative discharges initiated by commanders. The Criminal Law 

Division in FY 03 and 04 prepared final recommendations in two Army death 

sentence cases requiring action by the President. Action by the Acting 

Secretary of the Army was taken in CY 04 and transmitted to OSD for 

forwarding to the President for final action. The JAG Corps enhanced its 

Victim Witness Program by training 55 victim/witness liaison personnel at 

regional training conferences conducted in Southbridge, Massachusetts 

(June) and Denver, Colorado (August). 

JOINT SERVICE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY JUSTICE 

 The Joint Service Committee on Military Justice (JSC) was originally 

established by the Judge Advocates General and the Secretary of 

Transportation (Coast Guard) on August 17, 1972. It conducts an annual 

review of the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) as required by Executive 

Order 12473 and DOD Directive 5500.17. The JSC proposes and evaluates 

amendments to the UCMJ, MCM, and serves as a forum for exchanging military 

justice information among the services. 

2 
During FY 04, the JSC completed its twentieth annual review of the 

MCM. This review was published in the Federal Register for public comment 

on 15 Sep 04 and a public meeting was held on 15 Oct 04 to receive comments 

from interested parties. Highlights of the annual review’s proposed 

changes include: amendments to Rules for Court-Martial (R.C.M.) that allow 

the use of remote means to provide testimony for interlocutory matters and 

presentencing; the addition of MCM provisions such as elements, sample 

specifications, explanations, etc. to recently passed legislation, 10 

U.S.C. § 919a Art. 119a, Death or Injury of an Unborn Child; and the 

addition of patronizing a prostitute as a specific offense under Art. 134 

(within the current pandering and prostitution offense, Art. 134). 

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

these proposed changes. On 3 Dec 04, the President signed an Executive 

Order implementing amendments to the MCM based on the JSC’s 2001 annual 

review cycle. The JSC continues to monitor the processing of an additional 

draft EO to implement the changes proposed in the consolidated review 

cycles of 2002 and 2003, which is pending Presidential approval. 

The JSC is completing an analysis of how sexual assault cases may be 

prosecuted more effectively, and what effect the Supreme Court’s decision 

in the case of Lawrence v. Texas may have on military law. Pursuant to the 

2005 Department of Defense Authorization Act, the JSC is preparing a report 

for Congress with the objective of determining what changes are required to 

improve the ability of the military justice system to address issues 

relating to sexual assault and to conform the Uniform Code of Military 

Justice and the Manual for Courts-Martial more closely to other Federal 

laws and regulations that address such issues. The report is due to 

Congress by 1 Mar 05. 

In the next calendar year, the Army will become the Executive Agent 

for the JSC. At that time, the Army will submit to the JSC numerous 

proposals for change to the UCMJ and the MCM including, but not limited to, 

broader contempt power for military judges, modifying the process by which 

panel members are selected, revising guilty plea practice, and streamlining 

post-trial processing. 

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY: FY 04 

(See table insert, attached) 

U.S. ARMY LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY 

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

OTJAG, includes the following organizations involved in the administration 

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

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

the Trial Counsel Assistance Program. 

3 
U.S. ARMY JUDICIARY

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

Appeals, Office of the Clerk of Court, and the Trial Judiciary. 

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

 

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

Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) under Article 66, Uniform Code of 

Military Justice (UCMJ); appeals under Article 62, UCMJ, and Petitions for 

Extraordinary Relief. More than 1,050 records of trial and over 3,900 

motions and briefs were referred to one of the three judicial panels of 

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

decisions upon all personnel not in confinement and closed over 840 CourtsMartial cases during the past year. 

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

opinions and memorandum opinions are published and capable of downloading 

at the website. Applications for admission to the bar for ACCA and rules 

of the court are also published and capable of downloading at the website. 

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

Court Reporters and those individuals attending military justice courses at 

The Judge Advocate General Legal Center and School. 

 The Clerk of Court is the custodian of the Army’s permanent courtsmartial records dating from 1939. Inquiries about courts-martial are 

received from federal and state investigative agencies, law enforcement 

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

the Brady Bill requires the processing of handgun applications within three 

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

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

sexual offender registries submit many requests. 

 

 FY 02 FY03 FY04

 

Freedom of Information Act 188 166 132 

Privacy Act 60 73 66 

Certified Copies of Convictions 417 375 354

Total Number of Requests 665 614 552 

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. 

4 
Trial Judiciary 

During FY 2004, military judges presided over the trial of all Army 

special and general courts-martial worldwide, to include 137 trials in 

Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, and Bosnia. This brings the number of cases 

tried in deployed environments since the beginning of the Global War on 

Terrorism to 154, as of 30 September 2004. The eighteen active duty trial 

judges were augmented with one USAR judge on a voluntary extension of her 

call to active duty to support Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi 

Freedom. The remaining thirteen Army Reserve judges ably tried cases 

throughout the world during periods of annual training. Judges presided 

over both Article 32 hearings and trials in an unusually large number of 

high-profile cases arising out of combat operations and mobilizations of 

reserve and National Guard soldiers. Rarely charged offenses, such as 

looting, consorting with the enemy, mutilation of a corpse, and aiding the 

enemy made their appearance in military courtrooms worldwide. Efforts to 

ensure Soldiers’ 6th Amendment confrontation rights were complicated by 

deployments of witnesses, victims, and accused Soldiers. The caseload 

remained roughly equivalent to that of FY 2003, and down only slightly from 

FY 2002, in spite of widespread troop deployments. Army judges played 

significant roles in the Military Justice Review Committee’s fresh look at 

modernizing the UCMJ and the MCM. The Trial Judiciary published two new 

Benchbooks, one for use in trials of enemy prisoners of war and another for 

trial of civilians under occupation law. Trial judges continued to play a 

vital role in the advocacy training provided trial and defense counsel 

through Bridging the Gap sessions after most trials, Gateway to Practice 

training for newly assigned advocates (including many mobilized reservists) 

and judges, participation in TDS and TCAP seminars, and in providing formal 

instruction at the Criminal Law Advocacy Courses, the Military Justice 

Managers’ Course, and the Graduate Course military justice electives. 

U.S. ARMY TRIAL DEFENSE SERVICE

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

consisting of approximately 130 active duty and 170 reserve attorneys 

provided high quality, professional defense services to soldiers throughout 

the Army from 63 active duty installations worldwide and 54 reserve 

locations. USATDS counsel defended soldiers facing the entire range of 

allegations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

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

courts-martial referred in FY04. USATDS counsel also carry a large 

workload unrelated to representation at courts-martial. The workload 

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

5 
 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 

Administrative 

Boards 

698 597 826 918 1,215 830 

Nonjudicial 

Punishment 

31,595 30,633 35,786 40,769 39,382 38,429 

Consultations 26,794 24,051 33,546 37,476 36,382 39,882 

 

USATDS provided defense services to deployed forces around the world, 

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

Currently there are 21 defense attorneys, along with seven enlisted 

paralegals, deployed throughout the provisionally established USATDS Region 

IX. That region includes Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait. This region has 

been in effect since July 2003. Despite the hazardous duty and austere 

environment in Region IX, TDS counsel are providing high quality 

representation throughout the region, including representation at contested 

courts-martial in the Iraqi Theater of Operations. 

Since the start of FY03, a regulatory change has enabled USALSA to 

fund all defense counsel travel for courts-martial, beginning with the 

initial detailing of counsel to a given client. This funding arrangement 

has improved the overall quality of service to the soldier/client. By 

getting actively involved in cases at the earliest stages, in many 

instances defense counsel have successfully negotiated non-punitive 

dispositions of cases that otherwise may have been disposed of at courtsmartial. 

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

number of courts-martial and their complexity. However, the number of 

courts-martial seems to have peaked in FY 02 at 1365. Since then, it 

decreased slightly to 1284 in FY 03 and again slightly to 1243 in FY 04. 

The Rules of Practice Before Army Courts-Martial, which were revised in May 

2004, have placed an increased emphasis on formality, especially where 

motions practice is concerned. This change is likely to foster an increase 

in the complexity of future courts-martial. 

Concerning the allegations of detainee abuse at the Abu Ghraib 

prison, TDS has been tracking at the Headquarters level which counsel 

represent which clients, in order to prevent any conflicts of interest from 

arising. Despite the large numbers of clients, it has been necessary to 

detail counsel from outside TDS for only a few cases. Such cases have 

included detailing counsel who have served recently in TDS but who are now 

assigned in other billets in the JAG Corps. 

6 
Building on the formal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) established 

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

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

and TDS worked together at a Continuing Legal Education (CLE) course in 

Germany. Also, during FY04, DAD counsel and TDS counsel worked together on 

3 writs and 1 direct appeal. These joint efforts were very successful and 

both sides look forward to more collaboration in the future. 

In FY04 TDS provided detailed input for defense-specific military 

justice matters in furtherance of the E-justice paperless program for 

tracking military justice actions. This input included frequent meetings 

with the Criminal Law Division of the Office of the Judge Advocate General, 

as well as meetings with the technical experts who are designing the 

software for the program. Field-testing of the E-justice system is 

expected to take place in FY05. 

TDS counsel continue to foster a close working relationship with 

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

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

consisting of 122 commissioned officers, a warrant officer and 24 enlisted 

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

Eastern half of CONUS and in Europe. The 22d TDS LSO, consisting of 65 

commissioned officers and 20 enlisted paralegals, provides defense services 

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

individual TDS offices have established joint training programs with their 

local reserve TDS personnel and have conducted highly successful joint 

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

exercises technical supervision over the reserve TDS LSOs. He is 

responsible for the performance of defense counsel services and provides 

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

duty TDS offices remains outstanding, with reserve officers providing 

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

other offices with increased caseloads. Reserve judge advocates have also 

deployed overseas to Germany as backfills for active duty defense counsel 

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

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

as deployed defense counsel. 

Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Training for TDS counsel was 

conducted in weeklong, consolidated regional workshops, attended by active 

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

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

informative CLEs, benefiting all attendees. The training for all CLEs was 

designed to assist TDS counsel in honing their advocacy skills and 

expanding their knowledge of discrete military justice topics. All 

training sessions included extensive practical exercises and individual 

critiques by experienced attorneys. In Korea, TDS continued to cross-train 

with the Marines in Okinawa. The training focused TDS counsel on honing 

their courtroom skills and expanding their knowledge of military justice 

7 
with particular emphasis on evidentiary objections and arguments. TDS 

counsel in Europe conducted semi-annual joint regional workshops, as well 

as sending senior defense counsel to a management workshop for a week in 

November 2004. Throughout the year, individual TDS counsel are also given 

numerous opportunities to attend CLE’s sponsored by the Army Judge Advocate 

General’s School, sister military schools, as well as civilian sponsored 

CLE’s. 

TRIAL COUNSEL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

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

continued its mission of providing information, advice, training 

opportunities, and trial assistance to American military prosecutors 

worldwide. Composed of five Army judge advocates and supported by a 

civilian secretary, TCAP also serves as a third branch of the Army’s 

Government Appellate Division and utilizes this position to link trial and 

appellate counsel together to resolve issues of common import to the 

successful prosecution of courts-martial. In that light, TCAP serves as 

the prosecutor’s appellate advocate for extraordinary writs during the 

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

litigation of cases that have passed through the ordinary course of 

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

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

ensuing convictions. 

 TCAP provided assistance in all five basic categories of services 

during FY04: (1) telephone, e-mail, and website forum inquiry assistance; 

(2) advocacy training courses and other training events; (3) dissemination 

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

appellate assistance. In so doing, TCAP personnel accomplished the 

following: (1) responded to an average of over 100 telephonic and email 

requests for assistance per month; (2) conducted five regional advocacy 

training conferences in the United States, providing over 165 hours of 

continuing legal education to approximately 145 military judge advocates 

and 23 Army Criminal Investigation Division agents; (3) provided electronic 

and paper copies of countless articles and other publications to judge 

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

on the TCAP WEB site; (5) actively participated in the preparation and 

trial of numerous courts-martial; and (6) responded to two extraordinary 

writs and government appeals filed in either the Army Court of Criminal 

Appeals (ACCA) or the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), as well 

as 8 answers and returns to habeas corpus petitions filed with various 

Offices of the U.S. Attorney or with the United States Court of Appeals for 

several circuits. 

 In response to the emerging need for expertise in litigating high 

profile and classified cases, TCAP has assumed a lead role in several 

courts-martial. As the Army at war generates incidents that result in 

courts-martial, the expertise to handle classified information at those 

proceedings has come to the forefront. TCAP has become extremely active in 

8 
providing guidance and litigation support to those cases involving classified 

information. TCAP has assisted in cases arising out of the Joint Task Force 

at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and the prisoner-abuse cases out of both the Abu 

Ghraib prison in Iraq and Bagram, Afghanistan. Additionally, TCAP personnel 

provided litigation support to three murder cases to include one case 

referred capital. With the Department of Defense expanding use of Task 

Forces, TCAP foresees an increased workload in litigation support at courtsmartial in FY 05 in jurisdictions without a fully augmented military justice 

section. 

FOREIGN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION 

As the Executive Agent for foreign criminal jurisdiction, the Army, 

through the International and Operational Law Division, OTJAG, compiles 

information concerning the exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction over 

U.S. personnel. 

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

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

the exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction during this reporting period: 

 1 Dec 2001 1 Dec 2002 

 to to 

30 Nov 2002 30 Nov 2003

Foreign Offense Citations 5,303 5,874 

Total Civilian 1,084 1,473 

Total Military 4,219 4,401 

Exclusive Foreign Jurisdiction 191 133 

Concurrent Jurisdiction 4,028 4,268 

Traffic Offenses 3711

 526 

Foreign Jurisdiction Recalls 472 683 

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

authorities 12 of the 133 exclusive foreign jurisdiction cases involving 

military personnel. In concurrent jurisdiction cases in which the foreign 

countries had the authority to assert primary jurisdiction, U.S. military 

authorities were able to obtain waivers of the exercise of this 

jurisdiction in 3,706 cases. Overall, the U.S. obtained waivers in 86.8% 

of all exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction cases. This figure reflects a 

5.8% decrease in obtaining such waivers from 2001-2002, when the relevant 

figure was 3,731 cases (92.6%). 

_______________ 

1 In the previous reporting period, we erroneously used the category “Traffic/Other Minor 

Offenses” and reported 371 cases. The correct category is “Traffic Offenses” and the 

correct data for the reporting period should have been 350 cases. 

9 
 During the last reporting period, civilian employees and dependents 

were involved in 1,084 offenses. Foreign authorities released 225 of these 

cases (20.8 % of this total) to U.S. military authorities for 

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

period, civilian employees and dependents were involved in 1,473 offenses. 

The Foreign authorities released 200 of these cases (13.6 % of the current 

total of this reporting period). 

 This reporting period, foreign authorities tried a total of 958 

cases. Thirteen trials, or 1.4%, resulted in acquittals. Those convicted 

were sentenced as follows: 24 cases resulted in executed confinement, 87 

cases resulted in suspended confinement, and 834 cases (87.1% of the total 

trials) resulted in only fines or reprimands. 

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 

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

responsibility program. This program comprises: (1) administratively 

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

field inquiries concerning professional misconduct allegations, (3) 

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

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

Professional Responsibility Committee and its issuance of advisory 

opinions. 

 The office also oversees professional responsibility training within 

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

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

(in close communication with The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and 

School) to give training programs at commands and offices. 

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

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

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

Notices and Complaints During FY 2004 

Credibility Reviews. 55 notices and complaints had administrative 

disposition after credibility reviews determined that no inquiries were 

warranted (down 13 percent from FY 2003’s 63 administrative dispositions). 

Inquiries. 17 inquiries were conducted and closed (1 less inquiry than FY 

2003). 11 inquiries were founded (compared with 7 founded inquiries of the 

18 total inquires closed during FY 2003). 

10 
LITIGATION 

Litigation Division defends numerous federal court challenges to 

military personnel policies involving the involuntary activation of Reserve 

soldiers and the involuntary retention of soldiers beyond their term of 

service pursuant to the Stop Loss policy: 

In Parrish v. Rumsfeld, et al, (E.D.N.C.), an Individual Ready 

Reserve (IRR) officer challenges his orders to active duty. CPT Parrish 

completed his Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) scholarship Military 

Service Obligation (MSO) in December 2003; however, he did not request to 

resign his commission until June 2004, one month after receiving orders to 

active duty. Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 12203, appointments of officers are 

indefinite, and the Army is holding 1LT Parrish’s request to resign in 

abeyance until after he reports to active duty. Parrish filed suit, 

seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent his activation. After a 

hearing, on September 1, 2004, the District Court denied Parrish’s request 

for preliminary relief. CPT Parrish has orders to report to active duty on 

9 January 2005. The Court has yet to rule on the government’s motion to 

dismiss/motion for summary judgment. 

In Ferriola v. Rumsfeld, et al, (S.D.N.Y.), a Reserve officer 

assigned to a Military Police unit challenged his orders to active duty. 

CPT Ferriola completed his ROTC scholarship MSO in February 2004. 

Ferriola, who had previously mobilized with his Reserve unit in support of 

Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), submitted his resignation request in June 

2004. Subsequently, he was involuntarily reassigned to another unit that 

had been activated and was subject to Stop Loss. Ferriola filed suit on 

October 22, 2004 challenging his orders to active duty. On November 3, 

2004, the Chief, Army Reserve approved Ferriola’s resignation request and 

issued orders discharging him from the Army. 

In Rhone v. Rumsfeld, et al, (S.D.N.Y.), an IRR soldier challenged 

his orders to active duty, alleging action must be taken on his application 

for conscientious objector status prior to his activation. After a 

hearing, on November 1, 2004, the Court denied his request for a 

preliminary injunction enjoining the Army from requiring him to report for 

active duty on November 2, 2004. 

 

In Doe v. Rumsfeld, et al, (E.D.Calif.), an anonymous soldier 

assigned to 2668th Transportation Company, a California Army National Guard 

unit, filed a habeas petition and request for preliminary relief. Doe 

enlisted in the “Try One” National Guard program whereby a soldier leaving 

active duty can enlist in the National Guard for one year. In February 

2004, Doe extended his enlistment one additional year. His enlistment ends 

on or about May 1, 2005, but Stop Loss will prevent him from leaving the 

military at that time. Doe’s unit was recently activated for a two year 

tour of duty one of which will be in Iraq (mid-December deployment). On 

11 
November 22, 2004, the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed the 

District Court’s decision denying Doe’s request for a preliminary 

injunction to enjoin the Army from deploying him to Iraq pending his 

challenge to the military’s Stop Loss policy. Litigation Division has 

filed an opposition to the habeas petition and is waiting a decision from 

the District Court. 

EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

The cornerstone mission of the Criminal Law Department of The Judge 

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

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

military criminal law. Events in the last year once again brought military 

justice to the forefront, and the Criminal Law Department continued 

instruction on many different subjects, ranging from substantive criminal 

law to technical litigation skills, all while one Department Professor 

deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

Advocacy training continues to be one of the Criminal Law 

Department’s top priorities. The Department devotes significant effort to 

training each Basic Course and Advanced Trial Advocacy Course student on 

trial advocacy skills. Basic Course students serve as trial counsel or 

defense counsel in two advocacy exercises: a guilty plea court-martial; 

and a contested court-martial. 

The Department also continued instruction to military justice 

managers with a heavy emphasis on pre and post-trial processing. The 

forty-four students of the 10th 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 the 

past three courses, justice managers received a number of resources on CDRom 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 addressed topics ranging from criminal law management issues 

arising in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a view from a regional 

defense counsel, comments from the Chief Trial Judge of the Army, Colonel 

Denise Vowell, and others greatly enhanced the program of instruction. 

The Criminal Law Department continued to offer advanced advocacy 

training in the 21st and 22d Criminal Law Advocacy Courses in addition to 

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

Criminal Law Advocacy Courses (CLAC) afforded more than 100 trial advocates 

more individualized and specialized trial advocacy training. In fact, due 

to high demand for the course, including personnel from the Reserve 

Component and counsel slated to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan, the 

Department increased the size of the 22d Criminal Law Advocacy Course from 

fifty-six (seven groups of eight) to sixty-four (eight groups of eight). 

12 
For each course, the students performed rigorous small-group practical 

exercises on essential litigation skills from opening statement through 

closing argument. Eight Drilling Individual Mobilization Augmentees (DIMA) 

from around the country assisted the Department with the 22d CLAC course, 

providing invaluable knowledge and insight from both their prior military 

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

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 

newly established Drilling IMA program, many new USAR officers were able to 

return for the basic course advocacy training exercises as well. The new 

program allows the officers to drill for pay and points for periods other 

than the two weeks of active duty annually. Previously, the officers 

drilled for points only during those other periods. 

In addition to the Military Justice Managers Course and the Criminal 

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

continuing legal education courses, including the 47th Military Judge’s 

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

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

members of the Trial Judiciary. The Department also managed the 27th 

Criminal Law New Developments Course attended by over 200 judge advocates 

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

taught classes to Reserve Component judge advocates at numerous Reserve OnSite Conferences as well as providing case updates to appellate counsel and 

judges and counsel at the Judge Advocate Association Appellate Conference 

and the Fulton Conference in the fall. Professors also presented 

instruction at the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Conference and 

Interservice Military Judges Course in the spring. One of the Department’s 

professors also provided instruction in military capital litigation at the 

Naval Justice School in Newport, Rhode Island. 

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

distinguished lawyer and advocate last spring. Frank W. Dunham, Jr., the 

Public Defender for the Eastern District of Virginia, the first person to 

hold that position, delivered the 32d Hodson Lecture on Criminal Law. Mr. 

Dunham delivered a magnificent presentation concerning his representation 

of two of the highest profile defendants in the nation, Zacarias Moussaoui 

and Yaser Esam Hamdi. 

PERSONNEL, PLANS, AND POLICIES 

The attorney strength of the active component Judge Advocate 

General’s Corps at the end of FY 04 was 1,547 (including general officers). 

This total does not include 66 officers attending law school while 

participating in the Funded Legal Education Program. The attorney strength 

of the reserve component Judge Advocate General’s Corps at the end of FY 04 

was 2,308 and the strength of the Army National Guard at the end of FY 04 

was 541. The diverse composition of our attorney population included 130 

13 
African-Americans, 52 Hispanics, 76 Asians and Native Americans, and 412 

women. The FY 04 end strength of 1,547 compares with an end strength of 

1,506 in FY 03, 1,474 in FY02, 1,462 in FY 01, 1,427 in FY 00, 1,426 in FY 

99, 1,499 in FY 98, 1,523 in FY 97, 1,541 in FY 96, 1,561 in FY 95, 1,575 

in FY 94, and 1,646 in FY 93. The grade distribution of the Corps’ 

attorneys was 5 general officers; 129 colonels; 219 lieutenant colonels; 

308 majors; and 886 captains. An additional 90 warrant officers, 465 

civilian attorneys, and 1,576 enlisted paralegals supported legal 

operations worldwide. As of the end of FY04, over 550 Army JAG personnel 

(officer and enlisted, active and reserve component) were deployed in 

operations in Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Djibouti, Qatar, Bosnia, Kosovo, 

Cuba, the Horn of Africa (afloat), and Honduras. 

THOMAS J. ROMIG 

Major General, USA 

The Judge Advocate General 

14 
APPENDIX - U.S. ARMY MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Report Period: FISCAL YEAR 2004 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/ 

DECREASE (-) OVER 

LAST REPORT 

GENERAL 647 628 19 -6.1% 

BCD SPECIAL [A] 677 663 14 +5.1% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 5 5 0 -76.2% 

SUMMARY 755 711 44 -12% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT -5.8% 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED [B]

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES (+ dismissals) 111 + 18 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 240 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 330 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 446 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 410 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 174 

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

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 120 [C] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D] 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D] 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 1002 [C] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 976 [E] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 146 [C] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 29.6% 

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

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

NUMBER 878 

PERCENTAGE 87.63% 

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

 (CAAF) 

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 310 of 1002 30.94% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -17.67% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 47 of 312 15.06% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +13.15% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY USACCA 4.69% 

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD -9.46%

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 14 

DISPOSED OF 11 

 GRANTED 0 

 DENIED 10 

 NO JURISDICTION 1 

 WITHDRAWN 0 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 5 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 520 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 603 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 127 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 79 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 32 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 494,291 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 42,004 

RATE PER 1,000 84.97 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD -2.49% 

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, 2003 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 

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) 

 Mission. Oversees 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 on Military Justice (JSC), which is the principal 

vehicle for staffing amendments to the UCMJ and the Manual for CourtsMartial (MCM), served as JSC Chairman and Executive Secretary during 2004; 

staffs all amendments to Secretarial and JAG regulations implementing the 

UCMJ; reviews all decisions of military appellate courts; staffs JAG 

certification of cases decided by the NMCCA for review by the Court of 

Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF); reviews all CAAF decisions, advising 

of all important issues and recommending appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court 

where appropriate; coordinates amendments to Chapter 1, Manual of the Judge 

Advocate General (JAGMAN); staffs requests for Secretarial designation as 

general and special court-martial convening authority and for Secretarial 

substitution of administrative for punitive discharge; staffs requests for 

JAG authorization to refer charges for trial by court-martial after 

adjudication of similar charges by State or foreign courts; provides JAG 

representative to Naval Clemency and Parole Board; provides informal 

professional ethics advice service for all Navy and Marine Corps judge 

advocates engaged in trial work; 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 Division Director, Code 20, 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. In 

2004, the Division Director, Code 20, participated in the Article 6, UCMJ, 

inspections of NAVLEGSVCCOM commands in the Pacific and in the southeast 

portion of the United States. 

The JSC 2004 Annual Review was forwarded to the General Counsel, 

Department of Defense (DoD), during Navy tenure as Chairman and Executive 

Secretary, JSC. Items in the Review included, among other things, the 

implementation of the DoD technology in courts-martial study, addition of 

an offense of “Patronizing a Prostitute,” and amendments to the MCM to 

reflect the addition of Article 119a, UCMJ (“Unborn Victims of Violence Act 

of 2004”). 

During the past year, the Military Justice Division reviewed 41 

records of trial under Article 69a, UCMJ and 28 records under Article 69b, 

UCMJ. One petition under Article 73, UCMJ was denied during the year. The 

one petition that was pending at the end of fiscal year 2003 was denied. 

Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals 

The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals issued decisions in 

2,069 cases during fiscal year 2004. During that same period the court 

docketed 1,508 new cases for review. 

Legal issues addressed included: unlawful command influence; the 

application of Wharton's Rule; the legality of various provisions in 

pretrial agreements in which the accused limits or waives certain rights; 

termination of in personam jurisdiction; whether an individual can be 

convicted of leaving the scene of a single-vehicle accident; witness 

sequestration; when an accused who dies post-trial is entitled to abatement 

of his case; acceptable limitations on an accused's right to make an 

unsworn statement; and the accused's right to prevent the military judge 

from instructing the members on the accused's right to remain silent at 

trial. 

 At the start of fiscal year 2004 the Court was staffed with eight 

appellate judges sitting in four decisional panels, including one panel for 

national security cases, two active duty commissioners, three Reserve 

appellate judges, three Reserve commissioners, and five civilian employees. 

By the end of fiscal year 2004, the Court was staffed with ten appellate 

judges, two active duty commissioners, five Reserve appellate judges, seven 

Reserve commissioners, and five civilian employees. In the fourth quarter 

of fiscal year 2004, the Court received 180 additional man-days of Reserve 

support, which were spread among assigned Reserve judges and commissioners, 

and three ad hoc commissioners. 

2 
APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISION (Code 45) 

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 Naval Clemency & Parole Board. 

The Division provides assistance to trial defense counsel in the field by 

helping to file extraordinary writs before the NMCCA and CAAF, providing a 

death penalty assistance team to advise field defense counsel facing 

potential capital cases, providing training to trial defense counsel, and 

providing advice on specific cases in litigation at trial. 

Organization. Captain Pamela A. Holden, JAGC, USN, reported to the 

Appellate Defense Division on October 1, 2003, and served as the Director 

for the entire fiscal year. The Deputy Director, Lieutenant Colonel Eric 

B. Stone, USMC, was relieved by Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Perlak, USMC, in 

July 2004. 

The staffing of the Appellate Defense Division was increased to a 

total 21 active duty Navy and Marine Corps Judge Advocates. In an effort 

to reduce the number of cases pending initial review, the Division was also 

augmented with two mobilized reserve attorneys and two temporary duty 

attorneys. The Division was fully staffed with civilian personnel and was 

augmented for the entire year with a Reserve Legalman Chief to provide 

support to the Reserve Program. 

Reserve Branch. The Appellate Defense Division relied heavily on the 

invaluable support of 37 Navy and Marine Corps Reserve judge advocates. 

Reserve attorneys filed 1,536 cases, representing 78% of the total initial 

pleadings for the year. 

The Division’s supporting Reserve units maximize productivity with 

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

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

local Reserve Center. The Division’s supporting Reserve units are: NR 

NAVJAG 109, Columbus, Ohio; NR NAMARA (Defense) 111, Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma; NAVJAG 519, Los Angeles, California; and NAVJAG 211, Fort Worth, 

Texas. Additionally, the Division received volunteer support from four 

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

Corps Reserve contingent consisted of five independently assigned Reserve 

judge advocates. 

 Appellate Representation. A total of 1,508 new cases were docketed 

at the NMCCA and received in the Appellate Defense Division. At the end of 

fiscal year 2004, the total number of cases pending initial review was 632. 

This represents a 406-case reduction from the number of cases pending 

initial review at the end of last fiscal year. The Division also achieved 

3 
a two-thirds reduction in the number of cases pending initial pleadings in 

excess of one year. On October 1, 2003, there were a total of 234 cases in 

a seventh or higher enlargement. On September 30, 2004, that number was 

reduced to 82. The Division continues to work a successful plan to further 

reduce the number of cases pending initial pleadings. 

 As depicted below, the Appellate Defense Division filed 1966 initial 

pleadings with the NMCCA. This number was comprised of 1368 merit 

submissions, 78 summary assignments, and 520 briefs. Division counsel 

engaged in oral argument before the NMCCA in 8 cases. 

 A total of 201 cases were petitioned to CAAF, with 26 grants of 

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

in 21 cases. 

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

with those of the previous two fiscal years 

NMCCA FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 

Briefs Filed 677 433 520 

Total Cases 

Filed 

2406 2094 1966 

Oral Arguments 8 10 8 

USCAAF 

Petitions Filed 290 240 201 

Supplements 

Filed 

237 174 161 

Briefs Filed 13 12 19 

Oral Arguments 11 7 21 

U.S. Supreme 

Court 

 

Petitions Filed 0 3 1 

4 
 Capital Litigation. The Appellate Defense Division continued to 

represent three enlisted Marines convicted of capital offenses with 

sentences that included the death penalty. 

Assistance to Trial Defense Counsel. The Appellate Defense Division 

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

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

comprised of experienced appellate attorneys who replied to short-fused 

questions from trial defense counsel and assisted in preparing and filing 

extraordinary writs. The Division has also instituted a Trial Defense 

Counsel Outreach Training Program in order to provide training on recent 

appellate developments and important trial issues represent three enlisted 

Marines convicted of capital offenses with sentences that included the 

death penalty. 

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT DIVISION (Code 46) 

The primary mission of the Appellate Government Division is to 

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

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

70, UCMJ. 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. 

For most of the fiscal year, the Division was staffed with nine 

active duty judge advocates, but by the end of fiscal year 2004, the end 

strength had increased to eleven active duty judge advocates and two 

civilian staff members. Colonel William K. Lietzau, USMC, relieved Colonel 

Michael E. Finnie, USMC, as the Division Director. Commander Charles 

Purnell, JAGC, USN, relieved Commander Robert P. Taishoff, JAGC, USN, as 

the Deputy Director. 

Reserve support continued to be critical to the accomplishment of the 

Appellate Government’s mission. The Division was supported by 14 Navy 

Reservists from two Navy Reserve Detachments (NMAVJAG 116 (Detroit) and 

NAMARA 116 (Minneapolis)) and four Marine Corps Officers as Individual 

Mobilization Augmentees. The Division was also supported during the summer 

of 2004 by a law student intern, a Navy lieutenant participating in the 

funded Law Education Program. 

Filings at the NMCCA decreased modestly for the year, while they 

increased at the CAAF. Flooding from Hurricane Isabelle was a major 

disruption to the Division’s operations for the year. The following chart 

sets forth Appellate Government’s filings for the last four fiscal years: 

5 
FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 

NMCCA 

 Briefs filed 395 798 761 542 

 Other pleadings 277 456 475 222 

CAAF 

 Briefs filed 41 45 12 22 

 Other Pleadings 82 91 152 73 

 

The Division maintained an active Trial Counsel Assistance Program, 

providing advice and counsel to trial counsel and staff judge advocates by 

telephone and e-mail concerning active trial cases on hundreds of 

occasions. Appellate Government also represented the Government in a 

number of government appeals and extraordinary writs. Issues in these 

cases included jurisdictional and evidentiary rulings by military judges, 

among other issues. 

The Division continued its representation of the United States in 

three capital cases: United States v. Quintanilla, and the companion cases 

of United States v. Walker and United States v. Parker.

During fiscal year 2004, the Division’s judge advocates participated 

in four oral argument outreaches sponsored by the NMCCA and CAAF. The 

NMCCA oral argument was held at the Roger Williams University Law School. 

CAAF oral argument outreaches were held at William and Mary College of Law, 

Georgetown University Law School, and American University Law School. 

Participation in these programs served to educate and inform students at 

these institutions about the fairness and professionalism of the military 

justice system. 

NAVY-MARINE CORPS TRIAL JUDICIARY 

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

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

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

supported by Naval Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve Individual Mobilization 

Augmentees. 

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

duty and 23 reserve judges serving in 12 circuits and four branch offices. 

During fiscal year 2004, NMCTJ provided judicial services in 313 general 

courts-martial and 1872 special courts-martial. These numbers are 

consistent with the number of general and special courts-martial tried in 

fiscal year 2003. 

6 
 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 School, the Interservice Military Judges Seminar at 

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

College in Reno, NV. 

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

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

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

role in mentoring judge advocates through both formal and informal training 

sessions. 

NAVAL LEGAL SERVICE COMMAND 

Naval Legal Service Command (NAVLEGSVCCOM) is commanded by Commander, 

NAVLEGSVCCOM, who also serves as the Deputy Judge Advocate General of the 

Navy. NAVLEGSVCCOM includes 293 Judge Advocates, 1 Civil Engineer Corps 

Officer, 16 Limited Duty (Legal) Officers, 204 Legalmen, and 208 civilians. 

NAVLEGSVCCOM provides a wide range of legal services to afloat and ashore 

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

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

Service Offices (TSOs), two Regional 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 assistance for claims 

processing, and adjudication, and training judge advocates, legalmen, and 

other DOD personnel. During fiscal year 2004, NAVLEGSVCCOM provided 

counsel for 167 General Courts-martial, 615 Special Courts-martial, 193 

Article 32s, 943 Administrative Boards, processed over 41,000 claims, 

provided over 264,793 legal assistance services, and provided command 

assistance services for over 3,900 commands. 

NAVLEGSVCCOM is currently fielding the Military Justice model of the 

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

allow the practitioner the ability to manage cases electronically and allow 

HQ, NLSC the ability to reach down and collect productivity data. 

 Two Regional Legal Service Office pilot projects, RLSO Northwest and 

RLSO Europe and Southwest Asia, were initiated during fiscal year 2004. The 

Regional Legal Service Office concept will combine all regional Staff Judge 

Advocates with the local Trial Service Office. 

NAVAL JUSTICE SCHOOL

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

Legal Service Command (CNLSC) for administrative and operational control. 

Commander, Naval Education and Training Command (CNETC) is NJS’s major 

claimant and resource sponsor. CNLSC consults with CNETC on matters 

relating to the effectiveness of instruction and administration of training 

7 
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), while a one-person Branch Office is co-located with the 

U.S. Army’s The 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 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 2004, NJS provided instruction to more than 12,000 

students worldwide (including 3,806 in resident courses ranging in length 

from 2 days to more than 9 weeks). 

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

focus on military justice. These courses are: 

• Basic Lawyer Course. This 9-week course, offered four times 

annually, provides accession training for all judge advocates in 

the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. The course includes 

extensive training in military justice and court-martial advocacy, 

as well as training in legal assistance, operational law, and 

administrative law. Upon graduation, judge advocates are 

certified per Article 27(b), UCMJ. Fiscal year 2004 graduates: 

128. 

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

times annually, trains Navy enlisted personnel selected for 

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

distinct phases: military justice paralegal training and courtreporting. Fiscal year 2004 graduates: 74.

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

four times annually, provides accession level training to junior 

enlisted Marines seeking the Military Occupational Specialty of 

Marine Corps Legal Services Specialist. Curriculum consists of 

training in military justice, post trial review, and legal 

administration. Fiscal year 2004 graduates: 89. 

8 
• Senior Officer Course in Military Justice and Civil Law. This 1-

week course trains senior officers in the execution of the legal 

responsibilities of command with instruction in nonjudicial 

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

Fiscal year 2004, this course was offered 24 times in 11 different 

locations, training 672 officers. 

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

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

commands not large enough to warrant assignment of a judge 

advocate. In fiscal year 2004, this course was offered 16 times in 

3 different locations, with 512 graduates. 

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

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

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

forms and reports, service record entries, nonjudicial punishment, 

and court-martial procedures. In fiscal year 2004, the course was 

offered 16 times in 2 locations, graduating 296 students. 

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

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

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

focus on military justice matters. In fiscal year 2004, the SELC 

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

Enlisted Academy in Newport. In 2004, the SELC was offered 11 

times in 7 different locations, reaching 337 students. 

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

provided 34 continuing legal education (CLE) courses. Most of 

these courses focused primarily upon military justice with training 

including: intermediate and advanced trial advocacy skills; 

computer crimes; legal research and writing; national security 

cases; prosecuting and defending complex cases; reserve updates; 

and a number of paralegal courses. Training was provided to active 

duty and reserve judge advocates and enlisted legal professionals 

from the Sea Services, Army, Air Force, and foreign countries in 

military justice and other topics including, operational law, 

administrative law, legal assistance, and estate planning. In 

fiscal year 2004, 34 distinct courses were offered 51 times in 7 

different locations, reaching 954 active duty and 682 reserve legal 

professionals. 

9 
 Coordination. Through the Interservice Legal Education Review 

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

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

opportunities for cross-training and to increase cooperation and efficiency 

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

 Publications. NJS is responsible for publication of the Naval Law 

Review, study guides, and other 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. 

 Additional Training. NJS participated in the Expanded International 

Military Education and Training Program, a security assistance program 

mandated by Congress. The primary focus of this instruction is on military 

justice and procedure. In 2004, NJS instructors provided this type of 

training in Argentina, Nigeria, Bosnia, and Columbia. NJS also worked 

closely with the Defense Institute of International Legal Studies and 

provided extensive training to 40 senior foreign military and government 

attorneys participating in the Military Law Development Program. NJS 

instructors also provided 411 hours of instruction, primarily in military 

law and procedure, to 8,231 students at 8 different schools and conferences 

throughout the United States.

MARINE CORPS ACTIVITIES 

There are approximately 450 active-duty Marine judge advocates and 415 

Reserve Marine judge advocates. Additionally, there are 19 warrant 

officers, 450 legal specialists, and 39 court reporters working in the 

legal offices. These offices support the Fleet Marine Forces in the 

continental United States, overseas, and on deployment throughout the 

world. Our drilling Reserve judge advocate community provides substantial 

support to each of our offices in all functional areas. 

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

the military criminal justice system as prosecutors, defense counsel, 

military judges, appellate defense counsel, or appellate government counsel 

in cases of all descriptions. Legal assistance judge advocates assist 

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

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

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

Marine judge advocates also advise commanders during military operations, 

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

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

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

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

law, claims and tort law, and labor law. 

10 
Since Marine Corps judge advocates are unrestricted line officers, 

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

advocates served as Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Security Forces 

Company, Kings Bay, Georgia; Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Security 

Forces Company, Bremerton, Washington; Commanding Officer, Support 

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

Commanding Officer, 1st Recruit Training Battalion, Marine Corps Recruit 

Depot, Parris Island, South Carolina; Commanding Officer, 2d Recruit 

Training Battalion, Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, South 

Carolina; Commanding Officer, 4th Recruit Training Battalion, Marine Corps 

Recruit Depot, Parris Island, South Carolina; Commanding Officer, 2d 

Recruit Training Battalion, Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, 

California; Commanding Officer, Headquarters Battalion, Barstow, 

California; and Commanding Officer, Marine Security Guard Battalion, 

Company B, Nicosia, Cyprus. 

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

schools and private practice. Approximately 10 judge advocates per year 

are lateral transfers from other Marine Corps occupational fields via the 

Law Education Program. The Marine Corps continues to have more applicants 

than openings and is able to use a board process to screen all applicants 

to ensure the highest quality are accepted. Applicants come from diverse 

backgrounds and all have law degrees from ABA accredited law schools. They 

have higher than average LSAT scores and have successfully completed the 

rigorous Marine Corps Officer Candidate Course training program. 

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

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

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

candidate’s leadership and physical abilities. Successful completion leads 

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

attend the Basic School (TBS). The Basic School is a rigorous, 6-month 

program that provides each lieutenant the foundation to be an infantry 

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

judge advocates. Third, each judge advocate must complete the Basic Lawyer 

Course at the Naval Justice School in Newport, Rhode Island. Finally, each 

judge advocate must successfully complete the newly implemented Basic 

Operational Law Training (BOLT) course. BOLT provides judge advocates a 

week of training in operational and international law. Successful 

completion of OCS, TBS, the Basic Lawyer Course, and BOLT culminates in 

designation as a Marine judge advocate. 

Upon reporting to their commands, various continuing legal education 

training opportunities are available to include command and Headquarters, 

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

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

various civilian continuing legal education opportunities are provided for 

judge advocates. Approximately 12 judge advocates each year are selected 

11 
for advanced (L.L.M.) training at civilian law schools and the Army’s Judge 

Advocate General’s Legal Center and School. Additionally, each year, five 

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

the Expeditionary Warfare School, Command and Staff College, or the Naval 

War College. 

The Marine Corps warrant officer and enlisted members also undergo a 

significant training regime. On average, 11 enlisted Marines are enrolled 

in a stenography/scopist course and each year 30 enlisted Marines attend 

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

The Marine Corps also had six enlisted Marines attend the Law Office 

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

Noncommissioned management course at Charlottesville, Virginia. In 

addition, the Marine Corps have 34 legal specialists and one court reporter 

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

Security Guard. Currently, enlisted Marines are enrolled in paralegal 

programs and have the opportunity to attend legal education courses offered 

by the Marine Corps, Army, Navy, and Air Force, including the 

Legalman/Legal Services Specialist Mid-Career Course and Legal Research and 

Writing at the Naval Justice School. 

The average debt for new Marine Corps judge advocates is $68,841. 

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

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

Captains who have completed their initial active duty obligation and intend 

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

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

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

accepting LSEDS incur a further 3-year commitment. The following chart 

contains military justice statistical information for the Marine Corps in 

fiscal year 2003 and 2004. 

Fiscal 

Year 

End 

strength 

GCM SPCM SCM Total 

Courts 

NJP Total 

Adseps 

FY04 177,480 150 1261 928 2,339 8,985 9,051 

FY03 177,779 145 818 782 1,745 8,344 7,096 

MICHAEL F. LOHR 

Rear Admiral, JAGC, U.S. Navy 

The Judge Advocate General of the Navy 

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

Report Period: FY 2004 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/ 

DECREASE (-) OVER LAST 

REPORT 

GENERAL 313 282 31 -.6% 

BCD SPECIAL 1872 1807 65 +1.% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 0 0 0 0% 

SUMMARY 1954 1924 30 -1.8% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT -.5% 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 105 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 163 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( SA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 1289 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 264 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1237 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 23 

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

 APPEALS 

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 1764 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 709 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1055 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 1508 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 270 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1238 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 2069 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 520 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1549 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 1203 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 465 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 738 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD -4.3% 

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

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

NUMBER 1508 

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 201 -10.6% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -.6% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 26 12.9% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -9.9% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CCA 1.8% 

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD +18.2% 

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 20 

RECEIVED 17 

DISPOSED OF 28 

 GRANTED 0 

 DENIED 28 

 NO JURISDICTION 0 

 WITHDRAWN 0 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 9 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 241 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1746 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 72 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 126 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 123 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 550,677 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 28,659 

RATE PER 1,000 5.2 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD +1.3% 

Page 2 of 2 
SECTION 5 

REPORT OF THE 

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

OCTOBER 1, 2003 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 

THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals rendered 527 decisions in 

fiscal year 2004. This represents a significant (31%) increase from last 

fiscal year’s 402 decisions. The Court continued its “Project Outreach” 

program, hearing oral arguments at installations around the country as a 

means of exposing Air Force members and the public to the appellate process 

of the military justice system. During this period, the Court heard 

argument at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, on whether an airman’s 

uncorroborated admission of pre-service drug use to a fellow airman was 

sufficient to corroborate her subsequent confession to law enforcement 

personnel. The Court also heard oral argument at the Air Force Judge 

Advocate General (AFJAG) School at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, whether 

it was plain error for the military judge to allow an expert witness to 

testify about the truthfulness of the victim in a forcible sodomy case. 

The Court lost one Senior Judge to retirement this fiscal year, and 

welcomed Colonel Craig Smith to the bench. Colonel Smith joined the Court 

from his position as Chief of the Military Justice Division, Air Force 

Legal Services Agency. 

TRIAL JUDICIARY 

 The Air Force Trial Judiciary had 21 active duty trial judges, 7 

reserve trial judges, and 9 noncommissioned officers assigned throughout 5 

judiciary circuits worldwide. The military judges’ duties include: 

presiding over all general and special courts-martial tried in the United 

States Air Force; serving as investigating officers IAW Article 32, UCMJ; 

serving as legal advisors for officer discharge boards and other 

administrative boards; conducting parole violation hearings; and presiding 

at public hearings held to consider draft environmental impact statements. 

In fiscal year 2004, the judges presided over 890 general and special 

courts-martial, a 7% increase over FY 03. 

 At the division headquarters, Colonel David F. Brash, formerly Chief 

Circuit Military Judge (CCMJ), Pacific Circuit, replaced Colonel John J. 

Powers as Chief Trial Judge. Colonel Powers retired from active duty with 

over 30 years of service. Lieutenant Colonel Rodger A. Drew, Jr., Deputy 

Chief Trial Judge, assumed Staff Judge Advocate duties at Grand Forks AFB, 

ND. 
 The Trial Judiciary conducted the 30th Interservice Military Judges’ 

Seminar (IMJS) at Maxwell AFB, AL, 20 - 23 April. The seminar provided 

extensive continuing legal education and cross-feed among military trial 

judges. Over 110 military judges from all services attended, along with 

one Canadian military judge. Shortly before the IMJS, Colonel Brash and 

Colonel Powers presided over the second annual AETC Moot Court Competition, 

which was held at Maxwell AFB in April. 

 Our judges have participated in or conducted several other training 

sessions during this period. In May, Colonel Powers and Lieutenant Colonel 

Drew provided instruction to the new military judges at the Military 

Judges’ Course at the Army Judge Advocate General School, University of 

Virginia, Charlottesville VA. Colonel Powers attended the Annual Survey of 

the Law in Denver, CO, and attended a conference on the Legal and Policy 

Implications of Courtroom Technology in Williamsburg, VA. Colonel Powers 

and Lieutenant Colonel Drew conducted a number of training sessions 

including two ADC Orientation briefings. Lieutenant Colonel Drew also 

trained new ADCs on the Computer Benchbook. Colonel Brash and Colonel 

Powers also made supervisory visits and conducted training to trial and 

defense counsel at all circuit workshops. 

 Air Force military judges were active in professional associations, 

including the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, and 

various state and local bar associations. Lieutenant Colonel Drew was 

nominated for the ABA Judicial Division’s William R. McMahon Award. His 

nomination was based on his trailblazing work in developing and improving 

computerized tools for military judges, such as the Computer Benchbook and 

the Judges’ Reference. Colonel Linda Murnane served as the 2003 - 2004 

Chair of the Military Courts Committee, National Conference of Specialized 

Court Judges, Judicial Division, American Bar Association. In August 2004, 

Lieutenant Colonel Drew replaced Colonel Murnane as the Chair of the 

Military Courts Committee. In January 2004, Colonel Murnane participated 

as part of a Mobile Education Team (MET), on behalf of the Defense 

Institute of International Legal Studies (DIILS) in Kigali, Rwanda. Last 

May, Colonel Murnane also participated in a DIILS trip to Papua New Guinea. 

GOVERNMENT TRIAL & APPELLATE COUNSEL DIVISION 

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT COUNSEL 

 In October 2003, division counsel attended the CAAF Symposium 

sponsored by The Judge Advocate’s Association at Catholic University School 

of Law. In November 2003, Division personnel attended the Criminal Law New 

Developments Course at the Army Judge Advocate General School. This course 

covered the last year’s military cases in the areas of criminal law. 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 the base legal offices; and it provided an opportunity 

for our counsel to establish contacts with their counterparts in the sister 

services. Appellate counsel also attended a computer crimes course in 

2 
February 2004. In May 2004, appellate counsel, including reserve counsel, 

attended the CAAF Judicial Conference at Catholic University School of Law. 

These gatherings provided current information on appellate issues and 

guidance on appellate practice. Finally in October 2004, appellate 

government counsel, including one reserve counsel, provided in-depth 

training at the Military Justice Administration Course (MJAC) conducted at 

the Air Force Judge Advocate General (AFJAG) School. 

 Appellate government counsel prepared and provided an appellate 

update on CAAF and AFCCA decisions and trends in case law at trial counsel 

workshops at each of the five circuits and at TJAG's GCM Conference. 

Additionally, division personnel, including circuit trial counsel, provided 

instruction on myriad military justice topics at an Operations Law Course, 

two Trial Defense and Advocacy Courses, the Advanced Trial and Defense 

Advocacy Course, at various SJA conferences, and the Staff Judge Advocate 

Course. 

 Appellate government counsel have contributed to “Project Outreach,” 

sponsored by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and the Air Force 

Court of Criminal Appeals, by conducting oral arguments before audiences at 

the United States Air Force Academy, The AFJAG School, Scott Air Force 

Base, Harvard Law School, Creighton University School of Law, and Offutt 

Air Force Base. These arguments helped educate attendees on the fairness 

and professionalism of the military justice system. 

 Also, at the invitation of laboratory personnel, an appellate 

government counsel visited the Air Force Drug Testing Laboratory at Brooks 

AFB, TX, to review the lab's procedures from the viewpoint of an 

experienced trial practitioner. 

 The division produced a number of important publications this year, 

including the Appellate Update, the Circuit Watch, Pocket Parts, the 

Advocacy Continuing Education (ACE) Newsletters and the 2004 Trial Counsel 

Desk book. These documents were also placed on the Division’s website, 

providing practitioners easy and immediate access to the latest in military 

justice case law. 

 Currently, 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, two reserve counsel presented oral arguments 

before the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for 

the Armed Forces during the fiscal year. 

3 
 A summary of Air Force Appellate (Government) practice follows:

AFCCA FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04

 Briefs Filed 151 203 181 230 226 

 Cases Argued 19 20 12 13 14 

USCAAF FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04

 Briefs Filed 23 46 99 51 14 

 Cases Argued 28 32 28 31 15 

SUPREME COURT FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04

 Petition Waivers 

 Filed 1 1 0 0 0 

 Briefs Filed 0 0 0 0 0 

CIRCUIT TRIAL COUNSEL 

 Manning authorizations for the fiscal year included 17 Circuit Trial 

Counsel (CTC) at 3 CONUS circuit offices and 2 CTCs each at the Pacific and 

European circuits. The CTCs in all five judicial circuits conducted 

workshops for base-level prosecutors. Circuit Trial Counsel also showcased 

their talents at the Air Force Judge Advocate General School, teaching as 

adjunct instructors at the Trial and Defense Advocacy Course and the 

Advanced Trial and Defense Advocacy Course. 

APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISION 

 Training for our appellate defense counsel remains one of the 

division’s highest priorities. This training included the Criminal Law New 

Developments Course, the Judicial Conference sponsored by the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Armed Forces, and a Military Appellate Advocacy Symposium 

sponsored by the Judge Advocates Association. In addition, two of our 

appellate defense counsel attended the Winning Brief seminar sponsored by 

LawProse, Inc., and two of our attorneys attended an Advanced Legal Writing 

Course. Three attorneys attended a legislative history training seminar at 

the Library of Congress in Washington, DC. 

Appellate defense counsel served as adjunct faculty members twice at 

the Trial and Defense Advocacy Course and once at the Advanced Trial 

Advocacy Course at the Air Force Judge Advocate General School at Maxwell 

AFB, AL. Appellate defense counsel also served as instructors at two Area 

Defense Counsel Orientation Courses. 

4 
Appellate defense counsel continued to support trial defense counsel 

in the field by actively participating in defense counsel workshops in the 

Pacific, European, Eastern, and Central circuits. Appellate defense 

counsel also kept trial defense counsel in the field updated on new 

appellate developments in military criminal law via our Newsletter for 

Defense Practitioners. Appellate defense counsel contributed to “Project 

Outreach.” 

The following figures reflect the division’s workload over the past 

five fiscal years: 

AFCCA FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04

 Briefs Filed 399 481 525 512 502 

 Cases Argued 15 14 12 12 14 

USCAAF FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04

 Supplements to 

 Petitions 330 457 412 219 274 

 Grants Briefs 28 31 33 22 19 

 Cases Argued 25 31 28 26 14 

SUPREME COURT FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04

 Petitions 1 6 3 3 1 

 Briefs in Opposition 0 0 0 0 0 

 Briefs on the Merits 0 0 0 0 0 

TRIAL DEFENSE DIVISION 

The Trial Defense Division is responsible for providing all trial 

defense services within the Air Force through Area Defense Counsel (ADC), 

Defense Paralegals (DP), Circuit Defense Counsel (CDC), and Chief Circuit 

Defense Counsel (CCDC). These personnel report to the Chief, Trial Defense 

Division (JAJD), who reports to the Director, United States Air Force 

Judiciary (JAJ). The Chief, Trial Defense Division is assisted by the 

Deputy Chief and Law Office Manager. 

The Division is manned with 83 ADCs stationed at 70 bases worldwide. 

They are assisted by 72 DPs. The Division has 21 CDCs and 5 CCDCs. The 

CCDCs, along with all but three of the CDCs, are stationed at the circuit 

offices located at Bolling AFB, DC, Randolph AFB, TX, Travis AFB, CA, 

Ramstein AB, Germany, and Yokota AB, Japan. A single defense paralegal 

manager is assigned to each of the circuits. 

The continuing success of the Air Force’s Area Defense Counsel 

Program is largely attributable to its independence and its energized 

personnel. To ensure the best representation for Air Force clients, 

training remains the division’s top priority. On a continuing basis, each 

CCDC and CDC provides on-the-job training and mentoring to ADCs. Newly 

5 
appointed defense counsel receive formal training at the Area Defense 

Counsel Orientation held at Bolling AFB in June and September and at annual 

workshops conducted by each Circuit. Each circuit also conducts DP 

training at annual workshops. In addition, the division ensures each ADC 

has attended the Trial and Defense Advocacy Course and that all CDCs have 

attended the Advanced Trial Advocacy Course. The Division also provides 

adjunct faculty members for these two courses held at the Air Force Judge 

Advocate General School. 

MILITARY JUSTICE DIVISION 

 The Military Justice Division prepares opinions and policy positions 

for The Judge Advocate General and for the Air Force Board for Correction 

of Military Records (AFBCMR). The division also assembles reports on 

military justice issues requested by the White House, Congress, DoD and the 

Air Staff. It represents the Air Force on the DoD Joint Service Committee 

(JSC) on Military Justice. The division also provides representatives to 

all interservice activities involving military justice and support for the 

Code Committee. Finally, the division serves as the action agency for the 

review of military justice issues on applications submitted to the AFBCMR. 

 During the past year, the Military Justice Division: provided 79 

formal opinions concerning AFBCMR applications; received 169 inquires in 

specific cases requiring either formal written replies to senior officials, 

including the President and members of Congress; and reviewed 29 records of 

trial for review under Article 69a, UCMJ, 11 records under Article 69b, 

UCMJ, and 2 records under Article 73, UCMJ. The division also sponsored a 

DoD Victim and Witness Assistance Training Conference, attended by 108 DoD 

members. The division also presented the eighth annual Military Justice 

Administration Workshop at the Air Force Judge Advocate General School, a 

“back to basics” one-week workshop attended by 102 judge advocates and 

paralegals. 

 Lastly, division representatives played a pivotal role in the 

twentieth annual review of the MCM and the DoD review on how the services 

respond to sexual assault. The former review resulted in proposed 

amendments to: create a new UCMJ article proscribing the act of 

patronizing a prostitute; implement the Unborn Victims of Violence Act by 

making it a separate punishable offense (an Article 119a, UCMJ violation) 

to injure or kill an unborn child during the commission of an act of 

violence against a pregnant mother; and amend the MCM to allow the use of 

video tele-conferencing (VTC) technology during Article 39a sessions and 

VTC and telephonic technology during the sentencing phase of courtsmartial. The DoD review resulted in a new DoD sexual assault prevention 

policy designed to improve prevention of sexual assault, enhance victim 

support and increase accountability. 

6 
CLEMENCY, CORRECTIONS AND OFFICER REVIEW DIVISION 

The Division's primary responsibilities continue to be: (1) 

recommend appropriate disposition of statutorily required sentence review 

actions by the Secretary of the Air Force in officer and cadet dismissal 

cases; (2) recommend action by The Judge Advocate General or the Secretary 

of the Air Force, as appropriate, to effect statutorily authorized clemency 

for members of the Air Force under a court-martial sentence; (3) represent 

The Judge Advocate General on the Air Force Clemency and Parole Board; (4) 

make recommendations for the Secretary of the Air Force to the Attorney 

General on Presidential Pardon applications by court-martialed Air Force 

members; and (5) advise The Judge Advocate General and the Security Forces 

Center on corrections issues. 

At the end of fiscal year 2004, 440 Air Force personnel were in 

confinement. Of those, 83 inmates were in long-term confinement at the 

United States Disciplinary Barracks (USDB), Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and 

71 were serving time in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) system. A 

total of 11 inmates were enrolled in the Air Force Return-to-Duty 

Rehabilitation (RTDR) Program during this period, with 6 graduating and 

being returned to duty. The number of Air Force inmates on parole at the 

end of fiscal year 2004 was 165, a 22 percent increase from last fiscal 

year. 

AIR FORCE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL SCHOOL 

 The Air Force Judge Advocate General (AFJAG) School is one of eight 

professional continuing education schools in Air University's Ira C. Eaker 

College for Professional Development at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. 

The AFJAG School is located in The William L. Dickinson Law Center, a 

56,000 square foot academic facility dedicated in 1993. The Dickinson Law 

Center also houses the David C. Morehouse Center for Paralegal Studies and 

the Air Force Legal Information Services Division (JAS). The AFJAG School 

provides legal education and training to attorneys and paralegals from all 

military services, other federal agencies, and many foreign countries. The 

AFJAG School faculty provides instruction at several Air University schools 

and colleges as well as courses throughout the Department of Defense. The 

AFJAG School publishes The Reporter, The Air Force Law Review, and The 

Military Commander and the Law. The AFJAG School maintains AFJAG 

Department liaison with civilian professional organizations, law schools, 

and states requiring continuing legal education. 

AFJAG School Courses 

 The AFJAG School conducted 42 classes (some courses are held more 

than once a year) in fiscal year 2004 for 4,273 students. Courses, 

seminars, and workshops conducted at the AFJAG School included: 

7 
 Accident Investigation Board Legal Advisor 

 Advanced Environmental Law 

 Advanced Labor and Employment Law 

 Advanced Trial Advocacy 

 Career Services Officers 

 Claims and Tort Litigation 

 Deployed Air Reserve Components Operations and Law 

 Deployed Fiscal Law and Contingency Contracting 

 Environmental Law 

 Environmental Law Update 

 Federal Employee Labor Law 

 Federal Income Tax Law 

 Housing Privatization 

 Information Operations Law 

 International Law 

 Judge Advocate Staff Officer 

 Law Office Manager 

 Legal Aspects of Information Operations 

 Legal Aspects of Sexual Assault 

 Military Judges 

 Military Justice Administration 

 Negotiation and Appropriate Dispute Resolution 

 Operations Law 

 Paralegal Apprentice 

 Paralegal Craftsman 

 Reserve Forces Judge Advocate 

 Reserve Forces Paralegal 

 Staff Judge Advocate 

 Trial and Defense Advocacy 

Off-Site Courses 

 The AFJAG School conducts four “Annual Surveys of the Law” for judge 

advocates and paralegals in the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard. 

The surveys provide concise legal updates and extensive reviews of recent 

developments in military justice. The surveys are conducted at a civilian 

conference facility in Denver, Colorado. In January 2004, 416 students 

attended the survey course. The Advanced Environmental Law Course was also 

taught off-site in Washington D.C. This course provides a policy overview 

and update on significant changes in the law for DoD environmental 

professionals at the policy level. Forty-six students attended this 

environmental law course. 

Distance Learning (DL) Courses 

 The AFJAG School conducted two DL courses, the Air Force Systems and 

Logistics Contracting Course and the Fiscal Law Course, by live satellite 

broadcast (one-way video and two-way audio) to more than 50 Air Force and 

Army sites throughout the United States. Approximately 1,550 personnel 

participated in DL courses in fiscal year 2004. 

8 
Outside Teaching 

 In addition to teaching AFJAG School courses, faculty members provide 

over 1,200 academic hours of instruction annually on a wide range of legal 

topics in other colleges, schools, and courses within Air University. 

These include: Air War College; Air Command and Staff College; Squadron 

Officer School; the College of Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and Education; 

the School of Advanced Airpower Studies; International Officer School; 

Officer Training School; Senior Noncommissioned Officer Academy; USAF First 

Sergeant Academy; Professional Military Comptroller School; Group 

Commanders' Course; Wing Commanders’ Seminar; Advanced Personnel Officer 

Course; and the Chaplain Orientation Course. Additionally, the faculty 

performs more than 1,000 hours of instruction annually in other schools, 

courses, and conferences throughout the world. In fiscal year 2004, AFJAG 

School personnel instructed at the Inter-American Air Force Academy; USAF 

Special Operations School; U.S. Army Judge Advocate General School; 

American Society of Military Comptrollers Conference; SOUTHCOM Legal 

Engagement Conference; and the Federal Bar Association Contracting 

Conference. 

 The AFJAG School participates in the Expanded International Military 

Education and Training (E-IMET) program, one of several security assistance 

programs mandated by Congress. The program promotes U.S. foreign policy 

goals as established in the Foreign Assistance Act. The E-IMET Program 

involves joint U.S. military training teams teaching human rights, military 

justice, civilian control of the military, the law of armed conflict, rules 

of engagement, and general democratic principles in countries designated as 

emerging democracies. AFJAG School faculty participated in four E-IMET 

missions in fiscal year 2004. E-IMETs were conducted for Honduras, 

Romania, Albania, and the Czech Republic. 

Publications 

 Each year, the AFJAG School publishes two issues of The Air Force Law 

Review, a professional legal journal consisting of articles of interest to 

Air Force judge advocates, civilian attorney advisors, and others with an 

interest in military law. The Law Review is a scholarly legal publication 

that encourages candid discussion of relevant legislative, administrative, 

and judicial developments. Additionally, four issues of The Reporter, the 

Department's quarterly legal publication containing articles of general 

interest, were produced and distributed. The AFJAG School continues to 

distribute large quantities of its most popular publication, The Military 

Commander and the Law, a 550+ page compendium of concise legal papers 

addressing issues confronting military commanders. The printed version was 

updated in Fiscal Year 2004 and more than 15,000 copies were printed and 

distributed worldwide. An electronic version is available on-line at 

http://milcom.jag.af.mil. 

9 
LEGAL INFORMATION SERVICES 

 During fiscal year 2004, the Legal Information Services (JAS) 

directorate continued its mission to leverage Air Force legal capabilities 

and services with the latest advancements in information technology. JAS 

developed and launched several new innovative software and program 

initiatives, while continuing to upgrade and refine existing programs, 

platforms, and services. 

 As a result of continuing product reviews, JAS upgraded several 

existing capabilities. The Automated Military Justice Analysis and 

Management Systems (AMJAMS) was upgraded to include rehearing information. 

Also, “WebPDI” was developed and launched in order to collect and track JAG 

personnel assignment preferences and the database is now “tied” to 

information contained in the ROSTER database. A query server multi-engine 

search tool was added to the Federal Legal Information Through Electronics 

(FLITE) system to make searches faster and more effective. JAS also 

updated the public version of the TJAG public web site to give it a more 

professional appearance and make it more user friendly. 

 In addition to upgrading existing applications, JAS created several 

new programs to assist judge advocates, paralegals, and civilian personnel 

by automating certain functions. For example, JAS created and launched a 

Patent and Royalty Tracking program for the Air Force General Counsel’s 

Office. JAS also created and launched “WebMag,” which is an information 

collection and tracking program to assist wing-level legal offices in 

coordinating and managing their Federal Magistrate Court programs. 

 Additionally, JAS purchased and launched Case Management Software 

from Law Manager to assist litigation teams in managing their cases. Early 

in the year, JAS created and implemented a new project-tracking system that 

was programmed entirely by JAS production staff. This new system, called 

“Projects,” helps JAS track its many ongoing projects and produces 

management displays and reports. This program was made available on FLITE 

for use by base offices. 

 Another new program called “Suspense” was developed and is available 

for use. Suspense is a program that enables users to assign, review, 

annotate, and track tasks. In a continuous effort to save money, JAS 

completed a review of all law library book purchases, created a core 

library matrix, and fielded a new version of the Network Resource 

Allocation and Management System (NetRAMS). 

 JAS replaced the Air Force Judge Advocate General (AFJAG) School 

Access database for the Judge Advocate Staff Officer Course (JASOC) with a 

new application for tracking students and course information. This new 

program has a direct connection to the Course Nominating System and Roster 

to easily create class rosters and track student course completion. 

10 
 JAS acquired a license for “knowledgeWorks,” a learning management 

system (LMS), from techniques.org. This system, named Judge Advocate 

Distance Education or “JADE,” gives the Air Force JAG Corps an “in-house” 

capability to both create and distribute distance-training modules over the 

Internet. JAS is also developing the capability to create distancelearning courseware in a collaborative effort with the AFJAG School. 

 Finally, JAS renewed agreements for web hosting services with the 

Coast Guard General Counsel’s Office, the Boards of Correction of Military 

Records, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the Air Force General 

Counsel’s Office, and the Defense Contracting Management Agency. 

PERSONNEL 

 As of 30 September 2004, the Air Force Judge Advocate General's Corps 

had 1377 judge advocates on active duty. Company grade officers 

(lieutenants and captains) made up approximately 49% of that number (673). 

Slightly more than 27% were majors (376) and 14% were lieutenant colonels 

(201). Almost 9% of the Corps were colonels (121) and above, including two 

major generals and four brigadier generals. 

JACK L. RIVES 

Major General, USAF 

Deputy Judge Advocate General 

11 
APPENDIX - U. S. AIR FORCE MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Report Period: FISCAL YEAR 2004 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/ 

DECREASE (-) OVER 

LAST REPORT 

GENERAL 356 316 40 +1.404% 

BCD SPECIAL 514 264 46 +8.36% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL [A] 204 

SUMMARY 157 154 3 +35.66% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT +45.42% 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 83* 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 192 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 264 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 286 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 261 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 29 

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

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 591 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL [B] 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL [B] 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 537 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL [B] 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL [B] 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 527 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 638 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD (402:527) 

 

 +23.7% 

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

 U.S. AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (CCA) 

NUMBER 544:547 

PERCENTAGE 99.45% 

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

 (CAAF)

PERCENTAGE OF AFCCA REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCAAF (381/564) 51.21% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -1.02% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED (49/275) 17.81% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -10.62% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CCA (49/537) 9.12% 

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD -5.73% 

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

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ 

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 1 

RECEIVED 2 

DISPOSED OF 2 

 GRANTED 0 

 DENIED 2 

 NO JURISDICTION 0 

 WITHDRAWN 0 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 1 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 532 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 213 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 319 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 338 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 143 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 195 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 19 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 376,044 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 9741 

RATE PER 1,000 25.90 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD +1.18% 

 

EXPLANATORY NOTES 

[A] The Air Force does not convene non-BCD SPCMs. Of the 514 SPCMs tried, there were 264 convictions with a 

 BCD adjudged, 204 convictions without a BCD adjudged and 46 acquittals. 

[B] GCM and SPCM were not tracked separately. 

* Includes 26 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, 2003 to September 30, 2004 

COURTROOM DEDICATION 

On December 2, 2003, a dedication ceremony was held to commemorate 

the opening of a new courtroom for the Coast Guard Court of Criminal 

Appeals in Arlington, Virginia. This marks the first time the Court has 

had a dedicated courtroom facility. Speakers at the dedication ceremony 

included then Chief Judge Susan Crawford and the Honorable William K. 

Suter, Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court. 

PERSONNEL AND TRAINING 

 The Coast Guard has 177 officers designated as judge advocates serving 

on active duty, of which 139 are serving in legal billets and 38 are 

serving in general duty billets. Among the 38 military attorneys serving 

“out-of-specialty” are the Commander of the Eighth Coast Guard District in 

New Orleans, Special Assistant to the President in the Office of Homeland 

Security; Deputy Director of Operations, U.S. Northern Command; Director, 

Joint Inter-Agency Task Force West and other commanding and executive 

officers of Coast Guard cutters, groups, marine safety offices, training 

centers, and support commands. The Coast Guard also employs 69 civilian 

attorneys ranging from GS-12 to SES. 

 The Coast Guard sent attorneys to 35 different courses of instruction 

during this fiscal year, primarily at the various service JAG schools. 82% 

of Coast Guard attorneys attended one or more courses of continuing legal 

education. Twenty-one Coast Guard officers are currently undergoing 

postgraduate studies in law and will be certified as judge advocates at the 

successful completion of their studies. Eight students will graduate in 

2005, six will graduate in 2006, and seven will graduate in 2007. 

Additionally, one judge advocate is attending the graduate course at The 

Army Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School and will graduate in 

2005 with a master’s of law (LLM) degree in military law. Nineteen Coast 

Guard officers (including seven funded postgraduate program studies and 

twelve direct-commissioned lawyers) completed the Navy Basic Lawyer Course 

in Newport, Rhode Island. All have been or are in the process of becoming 

certified under Article 27(b), UCMJ. 

U. S. COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

The judges on the U.S. Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals during 

fiscal year 2004 were: 

Chief Judge Joseph H. Baum 

Judge David J. Kantor 

Judge Gary A. Palmer (until his retirement on 1 July 2004) 
Judge Thomas R. Cahill (until termination of his duties on 8 

September 2004 after transfer) 

Judge Lane I. McClelland 

Judge Michael A. Hamel (administered oath on 25 May 2004) 

Judge Gilbert E. Teal (administered oath on 23 June 2004) 

Judge Gary E. Felicetti (administered oath on 8 September 2004) 

 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. 

 The Court traveled to George Mason University School of Law to hear 

oral argument before students and faculty in United States v. Abdul-Rahman, 

59 M.J. 924 (C.G. Ct. Crim. App. 2004) on 20 February 2004 as part of 

Project Outreach, a program instituted by the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Armed Forces to expand awareness of the military justice 

appellate process by taking appellate hearings to the service academies, 

law schools, and other locations. After the hearing adjourned, in 

furtherance of Project Outreach objectives, the judges and appellate 

counsel entertained questions from the audience not pertaining to this case 

or its issues. 

In April 2004, Judge Teal attended the Interservice Military Judges 

Seminar at the Air Force Judge Advocate General School at Maxwell AFB, in 

AL. 

 In April and May 2004, Judge Hamel and Judge Felicetti attended the 

Military Judges Course at the Army Judge Advocate General School in 

Charlottesville, VA. 

 On 8 September 2004, the judges participated in the Coast Guard’s 

2004 Legal Officers Conference, Military Justice Day at the Army Judge 

Advocate General School in Charlottesville, VA. The Conference that day 

included informative presentations and discussions on the “State of 

Military Justice,” “Trial and Sentencing,” “Post-Trial,” a status report on 

the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals and current trends in military 

law by Judge Lane McClelland. 

On 16 and 17 September 2004, the judges participated in the William 

S. Fulton, Jr. Appellate Military Judges Conference and Training Seminar at 

the Federal Judicial Center in Washington, D.C. The conference was hosted 

by the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals and featured an opening address 

by Judge “Sparky” Gierke. The conference also included informative 

presentations on “Standards of Review & Article 66(c), UCMJ” by Colonel 

Bill Barto, USA; “Judicial Review & the Manual for Courts-Martial” by 

Professor Gregory Maggs, George Washington University School of Law; “A 

Historical Perspective on the Military Appellate Courts” by Professor 

Jonathan Lurie, Rutgers University; “Amending the Manual for Courts2 
Martial” by LTC Michele Shields, USA; “Due Process & Military Commissions” 

MG (ret.) John Altenberg, Jr., Appointing Authority, DLSA; “Judicial Ethics 

& Professional Responsibility” by Professor Ronald Rotunda, George Mason 

University School of Law; and “Selected topics in Criminal Law & Procedure” 

by The Judge Advocate General’s School Faculty. Judge McClelland, Judge 

Hamel, Judge Teal, and Judge Felicetti were in attendance. 

Chief Judge Baum served another term this past year as a member of 

the Rules Advisory Committee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed 

Forces. 

MILITARY JUSTICE ORGANIZATION 

Thirteen staff judge advocates advise 15 officers exercising 

general court-martial jurisdiction and approximately 350 officers 

exercising special court-martial jurisdiction. Responsibility for 

detailing trial and defense counsel to general and special courts-martial 

rests with the staff judge advocate of the cognizant Maintenance and 

Logistics Command; Atlantic for east-coast cases and Pacific for west-coast 

cases. Pursuant to an inter-service memorandum of understanding, the U.S. 

Navy provides trial defense counsel for all Coast Guard courts-martial. In 

return, at least four Coast Guard attorneys are assigned to full time duty 

at one or more Navy Legal Service Offices or Trial Service Offices. 

 The Coast Guard has one general courts-martial judge and 13 

collateral-duty special courts-martial judges. The Chief Trial Judge 

details all military judges to Coast Guard courts-martial. When the Chief 

Trial Judge was unavailable, courts-martial judges from other military 

services were detailed to general courts-martial. 

 The Office of Military Justice at Coast Guard Headquarters is 

responsible for representing the United States in all courts-martial 

appeals and providing support to staff judge advocates and trial counsel 

throughout the Coast Guard. The office is also responsible for developing 

military justice policy for the Coast Guard, including participation on the 

Joint Service Committee (JSC) on Military Justice. Within the office, 

three officers are assigned primary duty as appellate government counsel. 

TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES WITH OTHER SERVICES 

To improve the trial advocacy skills and experience levels of Coast 

Guard Judge Advocates, the Judge Advocate General has arranged for Coast 

Guard Trial Counsel to be assigned for limited periods of time (usually 

three months), to certain installations which have a robust military 

justice practice. Coast Guard Judge Advocates have thus far been assigned 

to Marine Corps Base Quantico, Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, Navy Trial 

Service Office East in Norfolk, Virginia, and the Army's Trial Counsel 

3 
Assistance Program in Falls Church, Virginia. This is in addition to the 

existing Memorandum of Understanding with the Navy that provides for four 

Coast Guard Judge Advocates to be assigned full-time as trial counsel or 

defense counsel at Navy installations. 

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

NOTE: All statistics are based on the number of courts-martial records 

received and filed at Coast Guard Headquarters during fiscal year 2004 and, 

where indicated, records received during each of the four preceding fiscal 

years. The number of courts-martial vary widely from year to year, but 

this is not a reliable indicator of the administration of military justice 

given the relatively small number of courts-martial overall. 

Fiscal Year 04 03 02 01 00

General Courts-Martial 12 08 04 15 10 

Special Courts-Martial 27 18 23 17 23 

Summary Courts-Martial 12 20 11 18 11 

Total 51 46 38 50 44 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 Eleven of the twelve accused tried by general courts-martial this 

fiscal year were tried by military judge alone. One elected to be tried by 

a general court-martial composed of officer and enlisted members. All 

twelve general courts-martial resulted in convictions. Four accused tried 

by general courts-martial were nonrated (pay grades E-1 through E-3), six 

were petty officers (pay grades E-4 through E-6), and two were commissioned 

officers (W-1 through O-9). 

 The following table summarizes the sentences adjudged in general 

courts-martial tried by military judge alone (eleven convictions): 

Sentence Cases Imposed

dishonorable discharge/dismissal- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 

bad conduct discharge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 

confinement- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11 

hard labor without confinement- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 

reduction in pay-grade - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9 

fined (total $0.00) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 

restriction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 

forfeiture of all pay and allowances - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 

partial forfeiture of pay and allowances - - - - - - - - - - - 0 

 The following table summarizes the sentences adjudged in general 

courts-martial tried by members (one conviction): 

4 
Sentence Cases Imposed

dishonorable discharge- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 

bad-conduct discharge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

confinement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

hard labor without confinement- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 

reduction in pay-grade - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

fined (total $0.00) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 

restriction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 

forfeiture of all pay and allowances - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 

partial forfeiture of pay and allowances - - - - - - - - - - - 0 

 The following table compares the frequency of imposition of the four 

most common punishments imposed at general courts-martial in the past five 

fiscal years. 

 Reduction Punitive 

 Number of in Discharge/ 

FY Convictions Forfeitures Confinement Pay-Grade Dismissal

04 12 4 (33%) 12 (100%) 10 (83%) 12 (100%) 

03 8 1 (13%) 5 (63%) 6 (75%) 5 (63%) 

02 4 1 (25%) 3 (75%) 3 (75%) 4 (100%) 

01 15 4 (27%) 14 (93%) 13 (87%) 10 (67%) 

00 9 5 (56%) 7 (78%) 6 (67%) 6 (67%) 

 The following table shows the distribution of the 184 specifications 

referred to general courts-martial in fiscal year 2004. 

Violation of the UCMJ, Article No. of Specs.

 80 (attempts) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 

 86 (absence without leave) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 

 92 (failure to obey order or regulation) - - - - - - - - - - 13 

 93 (cruelty and maltreatment) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

107 (false official statements) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 

112 (drunk on duty) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 

112a (wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled 

 substance) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16 

120 (rape or carnal knowledge)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 

121 (larceny or wrongful appropriation) - - - - - - - - - - - 4 

123 (forgery) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 

125 (sodomy)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 

128 (assault) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 

134 (general) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 111

 184 

 Twelve general courts-martial represent a 50% increase in general 

courts-martial records received and filed at Coast Guard Headquarters in FY 

2004 over the previous fiscal year. The Coast Guard has averaged 10 

general courts-martial per year over the last 5 years with four to fifteen 

cases a year. 

5 
SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 Twenty-five of the twenty-seven accused tried by special courtsmartial this fiscal year were tried by military judge alone. Two elected 

to be tried by special courts-martial with enlisted and officer members. 

Twenty-five of the special courts-martial resulted in convictions, two in 

acquittals, and fifteen accused received a BCD. Seven accused tried by 

special court-martial pled guilty to all charges and specifications. Seven 

of the accused whose charges were referred to special courts-martial were 

nonrated (pay grades E-1 through E-3), sixteen were petty officers (pay 

grades E-4 through E-6), four were chief petty officers (pay grades E-7 

through E-9), and none were commissioned officers (W-1 through O-9). 

 The following table summarizes the sentences adjudged in the twentyfive special courts-martial cases. 

Sentence Cases Imposed

bad-conduct discharge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15 

confinement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 19 

hard labor without confinement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 

reduction in pay-grade - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 24 

fined (total $0.00) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

restriction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 

partial forfeiture of pay and allowances- - - - - - - - - - - 7 

reprimand - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 

 The following table compares the frequency of imposition of the four 

most common punishments imposed at special courts-martial in the past five 

fiscal years. 

 Reduction 

 Number of in 

FY Convictions Forfeitures Confinement Pay-Grade BCD

04 25 7 (28%) 20 (80%) 24 (96%) 15 (60%) 

03 18 2 (11%) 16 (88%) 15 (83%) 13 (72%) 

02 23 9 (39%) 22 (96%) 17 (74%) 18 (78%) 

01 17 9 (53%) 17 (100%) 12 (71%) 9 (53%) 

00 23 8 (35%) 20 (87%) 19 (83%) 10 (43%) 

 The following table shows the distribution of the 177 specifications 

referred to special courts-martial in fiscal year 2004. 

Violation of the UCMJ, Article No. of Specs.

 78 (accessory after the fact)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

 80 (attempts)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

 83 (fraudulent enlistment, appointment, or separation) - - 2 

 86 (unauthorized absence)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 

 89 (disrespect toward superior commissioned officer) - - - 1 

6 
 90 (assaulting or willfully disobeying superior, 

 commissioned officer) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

 91 (insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, 

 noncommissioned officer, or petty officer) - - - - - - 4 

 92 (failure to obey order or regulation) - - - - - - - - - 40 

 93 (cruelty and maltreatment) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

 95 (resistance, breach of arrest, and escape) - - - - - - 1 

107 (false official statement)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16 

108 (military property of United States – loss, damage, 

 destruction, or wrongful disposition)- - - - - - - - - 1 

109 (property other than military property of United States - 

 waste, spoilage, or destruction) - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

112a (wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled 

 substance) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 27 

120 (rape and carnal knowledge) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 

121 (larceny or wrongful appropriation) - - - - - - - - - - 6 

123 (forgery) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 

123a (making, drawing, or uttering check, draft or order 

 without sufficient funds)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

125 (sodomy)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

128 (aggravated assault)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 

134 (general) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 52

 177 

 There was a 50% increase in special courts-martial received and filed 

at Coast Guard Headquarters this fiscal year over last fiscal year. Over 

the past five years the Coast Guard has averaged twenty-two special courtsmartial per year with seventeen to twenty-seven special courts-martial a 

year. 

ADDITIONAL MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

 Appendix A contains the Coast Guard, Fiscal Year 2004 military justice 

statistics. 

JOHN E. CROWLEY, JR. 

Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard 

The Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard 

7 
APPENDIX - U.S. COAST GUARD MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Report Period: 1 OCTOBER 2003 - 30 SEPTEMBER 2004 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/ 

DECREASE (-) OVER LAST 

REPORT 

GENERAL 12 12 0 +50% 

BCD SPECIAL 27 25 +50% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 0 0 0 UNCHANGED 

SUMMARY 12 12 0 -40% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT +11% 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 4 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 8 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 15 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 12 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 10 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 0 

PART 4 – WORKLOAD OF THE COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 13 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 3 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 10 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 28 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 13 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 15 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 22* 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 7 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 15 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 21 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 10 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 12 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

-12% 

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

 U.S. COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (CCA) 

NUMBER 28 

PERCENTAGE 100% 

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

 (CAAF) 

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 3/26 12% 

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

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 3/11 27% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +2% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CGCCA 3/26 12% 

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD +50% 

* United States v. St. Pierre, 59 M.J. 750 (C.G.Ct.Crim.App. 2004) was counted twice. The case was decided on 21 Jan. 

04; later an order denying reconsideration was published on 5 Mar. 04. The court issued two opinions in United States v. 

Hughes. Initially, the case was decided on 21 May 04, and subsequently on 24 June 04 after granting reconsideration. 

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 11 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 25 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 2 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 2 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 40,226 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 1,764 

RATE PER 1,000 43.85 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD +2% 

Page 2 of 2