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, 2004 to September 30, 2005 
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, 2004 to September 30, 2005 

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

Forces, the Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, and Coast Guard, 

the Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Air Force, 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 May 17, 2005, 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 Colonel 

Michael Child, U.S. Army, Chairman of the Joint Service Committee on 

Military Justice. Colonel Child informed the Committee that the 2001 

annual review was implemented by Executive Order in 2004. The order 

amended Rules for Courts-Martial 707, 806, 1107, and 1108, clarifying 

speedy trial rules, modifying 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 Joint Service Committee’s 2002 and 2003 annual reviews are pending at 

the Office of Management and Budget. Substantive changes in these reviews 

include provisions requiring a specific statement in the referral action 

that a case is referred as a capital case, moving the language concerning 

the unreasonable multiplication of charges from the discussion portion of 

the Manual for Courts-Martial to the main text, requiring 12 court members 

in capital courts-martial, and incorporating rules for handling sealed 

exhibits. 

The 2002 and 2003 annual reviews of the Joint Service Committee also 

contain provisions requiring the question of the lawfulness of an order to 

be determined by the military judge, increasing the maximum punishment for 

threat or hoax offenses, providing guidelines for the convening of courtsmartial by joint and combatant commanders, and providing a waiver 

provision for purposes of appellate review of any issue regarding the 

denial of a challenge for cause where the defense counsel uses a 

peremptory challenge against the same member who was unsuccessfully 

challenged for cause. 

Colonel Child stated that the Department of Defense completed 

internal coordination of the 2004 annual review and forwarded the review 

to the Department of Justice. Substantive changes in the 2004 annual 

review involve the use of a video-teleconference at courts-martial, the 

inclusion of offenses of causing death or injury to an unborn child and 
patronizing a prostitute. The 2005 annual review contains proposals to 

delete the words “without consent” from Articles 120 and 125, UCMJ, to 

establish degrees of force for rape, forcible sodomy, and indecent 

assault, to add stalking as an offense, and to consolidate various other 

sexual-related offenses under Article 134, UCMJ. He added that other 

proposals under consideration would allow an appearance by an accused at 

certain sessions under Article 39(a) by remote means, such as 

videoconferencing, so long as a defense counsel is present in the 

courtroom at the site of the Article 39(a) session, amending the statute 

of limitations for rape, murder, and child abuse, revising Military Rules 

of Evidence 412 and 513, and giving authority to military judges over 

post-trial processing. 

Senior Judge Robinson Everett also addressed the Code Committee and 

encouraged consideration of proposals to give the accused at courtsmartial the option of being sentenced by the military judge after 

conviction by court members, to change references from the “law of war” to 

the “law of armed conflict,” to give the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Armed Forces discretionary review of the actions of military 

commissions, to allow Supreme Court review of cases in which petitions for 

grant of review have been denied, and to enlarge the Court’s jurisdiction 

to include the review of administrative actions involving service members. 

By motion, the Code Committee referred these suggestions to the Joint 

Service Committee or a subcommittee for 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 

JAMES E. BAKER 

Associate Judge 

CHARLES E. “CHIP” ERDMANN 

Associate Judge 

Major General THOMAS J. ROMIG, USA 

The Judge Advocate General of the Army 

2 
Rear Admiral JAMES E. McPHERSON, JAGC, USN 

The Judge Advocate General of the Navy 

Major General JACK L. RIVES, USAF 

The 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 

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, 2004 to September 30, 2005 

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 2005 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 2005 Term of the Court, the Court admitted 305 attorneys 

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

before the Bar of the Court to 33,508. 

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 2005 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 the 

Franklin Pierce Law Center, Concord, New Hampshire; the Vermont Law 

School, South Royalton, Vermont; Harvard Law School, Cambridge, 

Massachusetts; the University of South Dakota School of Law, Vermillion, 

South Dakota; the University of North Dakota School of Law, Grand Forks, 

North Dakota; Quantico Marine Corps Base; the George Washington University 

School of Law, Washington, D.C.; the American Bar Association meeting in 

Chicago, Illinois, using the courtroom of the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; aboard the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) at 

sea; and the University of San Diego School of Law, San Diego, California. 
JUDICIAL VISITATIONS 

During the 2005 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, 2005, 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 Dean 

William F. Fox, Jr., of the Columbus School of Law and the Honorable H. F. 

“Sparky” Gierke, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed 

Forces. They were followed by speakers for this year’s conference, 

including Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor; Mr. David M. Crane, 

The Prosecutor for the Special Court for Sierra Leone; Senior Judge Jack 

B. Weinstein of the United States District Court for the Eastern District 

of New York; Major General Yishai Beer, President of the Israeli Military 

Court of Appeals and Professor of Law at Hebrew University in Jerusalem; 

Professor Lee D. Schinasi, Barry University School of Law; Professor Anne 

M. Coughlin, University of Virginia School of Law; Major Christopher W. 

Behan and Major Jeffrey C. Hagler, Judge Advocate General’s School, United 

States Army, Charlottesville, Virginia; Professor Stephen A. Saltzburg, 

George Washington University School of Law; Professor David Wippman, 

Cornell University School of Law; Professor Clifford S. Fishman, Catholic 

University of America; Professor Paul Butler, George Washington University 

School 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 

2 
JAMES E. BAKER 

Associate Judge 

CHARLES E. “CHIP” ERDMANN 

Associate Judge 

3 
USCAAF STATISTICAL REPORT 

2005 TERM OF COURT 

CUMULATIVE SUMMARY 

CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 1, 2004

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

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

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

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

CUMULATIVE FILINGS

 Master Docket .............................. 149 

 Petition Docket ............................ 779 

 Miscellaneous Docket ....................... 44

 TOTAL ...................................... 972 

CUMULATIVE TERMINATIONS

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

 Petition Docket ............................ 742 

 Miscellaneous Docket ....................... 44

 TOTAL ...................................... 899 

CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 1, 2005

 Master Docket .............................. 87 

 Petition Docket ............................ 252 

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

 TOTAL ...................................... 345 

OPINION SUMMARY

CATEGORY SIGNED PER CURIAM MEM/ORDER TOTAL

Master Docket ........... 61 2 50 113 

Petition Docket ......... 0 0 742 742 

Miscellaneous Docket .... 1 0 43 44

TOTAL ................... 62 2 835 899 

4 
FILINGS (MASTER DOCKET)

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

 Returned from Court of Criminal Appeals.... 0 

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

 Certificates filed ........................ 2 

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

 Petitions granted (from Petition Docket)... 145

 TOTAL ..................................... 147 

TERMINATIONS (MASTER DOCKET)

 Findings & sentence affirmed .............. 61 

 Reversed in whole or in part .............. 51 Signed .... 61 

 Granted petitions vacated ................. 0 Per curiam ... 2 

 Other disposition directed ................ 1 Mem/order .. 50

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

PENDING (MASTER DOCKET)

 Awaiting briefs ........................... 27 

 Awaiting oral argument .................... 35 

 Awaiting lead case decision (trailer cases) 20 

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

 TOTAL ..................................... 87 

FILINGS (PETITION DOCKET)

 Petitions for grant of review filed ....... 779 

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

 Petitions for reconsideration granted ..... 0 

 Returned from Court of Criminal Appeals ... 0

 TOTAL ..................................... 779 

TERMINATIONS (PETITION DOCKET)

 Petitions for grant denied ............. 581 

 Petitions for grant granted ............... 145 Signed 0 

 Petitions for grant dismissed ............. 5 Per curiam 0 

 Petitions for grant withdrawn ............. 11 Mem/order ..742

 TOTAL ..................................... 742 TOTAL .... 742 

PENDING (PETITION DOCKET)

 Awaiting briefs ........................... 87 

 Awaiting Central Legal Staff review ....... 129 

 Awaiting final action ..................... 36

 TOTAL ..................................... 252 

5 
FILINGS (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET)

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

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

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

 Other extraordinary relief sought ........... 18 

 Writ appeals sought ......................... 23

 TOTAL ....................................... 44 

TERMINATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET)

 Petitions denied ......................... 31 

 Petitions granted .......................... 2 

 Petitions dismissed ......................... 3 

 Petitions withdrawn ......................... 2 Signed .... 1 

 Petitions remanded ......................... 6 Per curiam 0 

 Other ....................................... 0 Mem/order.. 43

 TOTAL ....................................... 44 TOTAL ..... 44 

PENDING (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET)

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

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

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

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

RECONSIDERATIONS

ALL CASES DISPOSITIONS

Begin pending 3 Granted 0 

Filings 11 Denied 14

TOTAL 14 TOTAL 14 

End pending 0 

MOTIONS

ALL MOTIONS DISPOSITIONS

Begin pending 19 Granted 482 

Filings 545 Denied 52 

TOTAL 564 Other 0

 TOTAL 534 

End pending 30 

6 
Petition Docket Year End Pe

379

235

290

226

152

190

301

171

215

0

100200300400500

FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 
Master Docket Year End Pen

73

156

105

77 70

60

50 49 51

0

50

100150200

FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 

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

1/
Oral Arguments Per Yea

116 115

131

116 113

81

68

56 58

0

255075

100125150

FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 
Total Opinions Per Yea

117118

107

113

104

129

102

123 124

110

75 73

93

75

32

57

35

0

255075

100125150

FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY

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

143 140 145

168

129 133 131

164

227 

0

255075

100125150175200

FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 
Days from Petition Gran

to Oral Argument

213

161

189

166

148

125 127 122

130

0

50

100150200250300

FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 
Days from Oral Argument

to Final Decision

194

163 165

182

169

176 176

117

14

0

50

100150200250

FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 
Days from Petition Fili

to Final Decision

75

486

99

380

82

371

85

429

70

380

70

330

65

353

82

279

76

3

0

50

100150200250300350400450500550

FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY0

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

Final Decision in All Ca

120

139

166

139

129

110

105

119

12

0

20406080

100120140160180

FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 
Total Petitions Filed Per 

1435

1234 1197

1051

753

926 974

694

80

0

250500750

1000125015001750200022502500

FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY0
SECTION 3 

REPORT OF THE 

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

OCTOBER 1, 2004 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 

On 30 September 2005, the Army’s end strength was 492,728 Regular 

Army personnel on duty (compared to 494,291 at the end of FY 04). 

Additionally, there were 189,005 mobilized Army Reserve and 331,l77 Army 

National Guard personnel supporting operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, 

Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Middle-East. 

During this time frame, fiscal year 2005 (FY 05), and in compliance 

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

Advocate General and senior members of his staff visited 44 installations 

and commands in the United States and overseas. With the U.S. Army’s 

continued deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan and their effects on legal 

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

continued to 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 JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL’S LEGAL CENTER AND SCHOOL 

The Judge Advocate General’s Corps established a Military Paralegal 

Degree Program in coordination with the American Bar Association (ABA) and 

three partner universities. The ABA has approved three program options for 

JAGC enlisted paralegal Soldiers at the College of Mount St. Joseph, 

Eastern Michigan University, and the University of Great Falls. These 

programs apply to all JAGC paralegals (active and reserve) who have 

completed the AIT course after April of 2001. The ABA has authorized 

participating universities to grant college credit hours of paralegal study 

based upon an analysis of the individual Soldier’ s education record. 

The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School continues to 

explore better ways of delivering education to members of the Judge 

Advocate General’s Corps in the field. The recent hiring of a Chief of 

Distance Education in the Legal Center will help to bring this effort to 

fruition. 

A major renovation of the Decker Auditorium was completed earlier 

this year and has been a huge success. Large courses are comfortably held 

in that facility, including this year’s World-Wide CLE course. The 

auditorium also serves as an excellent facility for major events, such as 

Chair Lectures. We were honored this fall to have former Secretary of 

State Lawrence Eagleburger present the Hugh J. Clausen Lecture in 

Leadership. Finally, we are continuing our project with the Library of 

Congress to digitize materials, including materials regarding the original 

drafting of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 
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: 

 FY03 FY04 FY05

 White House inquiries 37 237 33 

 Congressional and other inquiries 185 234 214 

 Clemency petitions (Article 74, UCMJ) 3 3 1 

 Officer Dismissals 17 18 19 

 Article69review 122 88 96 

 Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act 3 6 22 

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

development of a web-based military justice management system. The system 

is designed to provide users worldwide with the capability of executing 

military justice actions, including the management of non-judicial 

punishment, adverse administrative actions, and courts-martial. The JAG 

Corps initiated field operational testing of this system, designated as 

eJustice Version 1.1 (V1.1), in May through July 2005. The test system 

included execution and management of Article 15s, Administrative 

Separations, Letters of Reprimand, Investigation Tracking, and Trial 

Defense client services. This operational test was conducted at a total of 

7 locations: 5 active component installations (Ft. Drum, Ft. Meade, Ft. 

Belvoir, Ft. Eustis, and the Military District of Washington) and 2 

Regional Readiness Commands (RRCs) (Pittsburgh, PA and Little Rock, AR). 

The operational test was an overall success and these locations continue to 

use eJustice. Further expansion of eJustice to other installations has 

been delayed, based on the decision to outsource further application 

development to a private vendor using commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) 

software. Development of the eJustice application using COTS software will 

continue in FY 06. 

In FY 05, the Criminal Law Division forwarded a major revision of 

Army Regulation 27-10, Military Justice, to the U.S. Army Publishing 

Agency. The publication culminates several years of staff work, resulting 

in a comprehensive revision of the regulation reflecting numerous changes 

in recent law and procedures. Changes include providing guidance on the 

2 
Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, clarifying procedures to recall 

Reserve Soldiers to active duty for purposes of court martial, and updating 

the Victim Witness Liaison program based on changes in DoD policy. The new 

regulation’s effective date is 16 December 2005 and it is available for 

review at http://www.usapa.army.mil. 

In FY 03 and 04, the Criminal Law Division prepared the final 

recommendations TJAG made to the Acting Secretary of the Army in two Army 

death sentence cases requiring action by the President. In FY 05, the 

Acting Secretary of the Army recommended approval of the death sentence in 

both cases and forwarded the cases to the Secretary of Defense. After the 

Secretary of Defense’s review in FY 05, the Secretary of the Army forwarded 

one of the cases to the President for final action. The other case remains 

with the Office of the Secretary of Defense. 

The JAG Corps enhanced its Victim Witness Program by sending 61 

victim/witness liaison personnel to the Department of Justice Fourth 

National Symposium on Victims of Federal Crime, Atlanta, Georgia during 

March 2005. 

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 17 August 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. 

In January 2005, the Army assumed the role of Executive Chair of the 

JSC, and, during FY 05, the JSC completed its twenty first annual review of 

the MCM. At the beginning of the calendar year, the JSC voted to consider 

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. The highest priorities of these 

proposals were considered during 2005 and several more of the proposals 

will be considered in the upcoming calendar year. 

Highlights of the annual review’s proposed changes include: 

amendments to Rules for Court-Martial (R.C.M.) that authorize the Military 

Judge sua sponte to overturn finding of guilty at any time prior to 

authentication of the Record of Trial under R.C.M. 917 and 1102 and allow 

the Secretary of Defense, at his discretion, to make a recommendation on 

capital changes under R.C.M. 1204(c)(2); amendments to the Military Rules 

of Evidence (M.R.E.) that exclude crimes against “de facto” children from 

3 
the spousal privilege, M.R.E. 504, and define “clergyman’s assistant” under 

the clergy privilege, M.R.E. 503; sentence enhancers for child victims of 

aggravated assault under Article 128, Assault; an increase in maximum 

punishment of confinement from 7 years to 20 years under Article 124, 

Maiming; and the addition of specific offenses for voyeurism and child 

endangerment under Article 134. 

On 14 October 2005, the President signed an Executive Order (EO) 

implementing amendments to the MCM based on the JSC’s 2002/2003 annual 

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

draft EO to implement the changes proposed in the 2004 annual review, which 

is pending Presidential approval. 

Pursuant to the 2005 Department of Defense Authorization Act, a 

subcommittee of the JSC prepared 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 CourtsMartial more closely to other Federal laws and regulations that address 

such issues. The Department of Defense recommendation on the issue, along 

with the JSC subcommittee report, was forwarded to Congress in April 2005. 

The JSC is prepared to quickly finalize MCM implementing provisions and 

forward a draft EO for presidential signature for legislative changes to 

sexual assault offenses under the UCMJ. 

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 1,100 records of trial and over 4,400 

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 over 

950 ACCA decisions upon all personnel not in confinement and closed over 

900 courts-martial cases during the past year. 

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

During FY 05, ACCA issued 18 opinions of the court and 236 memorandum 

opinions. These opinions are available on the Court’s website. The Court 

also issued 740 short-form decisions. Applications for admission to the 

bar for ACCA and rules of the court are also published and available for 

downloading at the website. 

4 
The Clerk of Court and Deputy Clerk for Records Control and Analysis 

provided instruction to Staff Judge Advocates, Military Judges, LL.M. 

degree candidates taking the military justice elective, court reporters, 

and those individuals attending military justice courses at The Judge 

Advocate General’s Legal Center and School. 

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

received from federal and state investigative agencies, law enforcement 

offices, military historians, media, veterans, and convicted persons. 

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, many expedited requests are received from state sexual offender 

registries. 

 FY03 FY04 FY05

 Freedom of Information Act 166 132 180 

 Privacy Act 73 66 110 

 Certified Copies of Convictions 375 354 213

 Total Number of Requests 614 552 503 

The Deputy Clerk of Court for Operations and her staff also provide 

assistance to overseas trial jurisdictions by preparing non-DOD civilians 

to travel and testify at courts-martial held overseas. This assistance 

included making travel arrangements, assisting with requests for expedited 

passport processing, and issuing invitational travel orders. During FY 05, 

this office processed 154 such requests. 

Trial Judiciary

A significant caseload increase in FY 2005 kept nineteen active duty 

military judges, one mobilized Army Reserve military judge, and fourteen 

reserve military judges not on active duty busy presiding over all special 

and general courts-martial worldwide. Army judges tried well over 1500 

original trials and DuBay hearings, the most trials since 1992, when the 

numbers of active and reserve Army judges were significantly higher. 

A request for restoration of three military judge positions deleted 

during the Army drawdown in 1992 is still pending, but one over strength 

judge was assigned to ease the workload. The Army realigned its six 

judicial circuits to attempt to equalize travel and workload among the 

circuits. Trials in Afghanistan, Kuwait, and Iraq totaled 141 cases for 

the FY, bringing the total number of cases tried in hostile fire pay zones 

to nearly 300 cases since the beginning of the Global War on Terrorism. 

5 
Army judges continue to preside over high profile cases, including those 

arising out of detainee operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Reserve 

military judges presided over a number of complex Article 32 hearings, 

including cases in which a capital referral was contemplated. One capital 

trial was completed; Sergeant Akbar received a death sentence in a Fort 

Bragg court-martial in April 2005. 

Military judges continued to play an active role in their military 

and civilian communities, speaking to college audiences, local bar 

associations, state bar continuing legal education courses, and to the 

National Association of Women Judges about the military justice system. 

TRIAL DEFENSE SERVICE 

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

organization for Soldiers consisting of approximately 130 active component 

and 170 Reserve component personnel, provided high quality, professional 

defense counsel to Soldiers throughout the Army from 63 active duty 

installations and 54 Reserve locations worldwide. USATDS counsel defended 

Soldiers facing the entire range of allegations under the Uniform Code of 

Military Justice. 

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

courts-martial referred in FY 05. USATDS counsel also carry a large 

workload in addition to representation at courts-martial. That additional 

Soldier support in the last six fiscal years follows. 

 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 

Administrative 

Boards 

 597 826 918 1,215 830 885 

Nonjudicial 

Punishment 

30,633 35,786 40,769 39,382 38,429 36,216 

Consultations 24,051 33,546 37,476 36,382 39,882 39,895 

 USATDS defended deployed forces around the world in Iraq, Kuwait, 

Afghanistan, Central Asia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. A provisional TDS Region, 

known as Region IX, was established in 2003, and it now includes 22 TDS 

attorneys and 11 paralegals located in 5 field offices and 6 branch offices 

throughout Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan. Despite the hazardous duty and 

austere environment, Region IX TDS counsel are providing the highest 

quality advocacy for deployed Soldiers, including representation at courtsmartial, administrative boards, and other military justice actions. 

Currently, one defense counsel stationed in Kosovo defends Soldiers in 

Kosovo and Bosnia. 

6 
 Since the start of FY 03, a regulatory change has enabled USALSA to 

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

initial detailing of counsel to a 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, defense counsel have 

successfully negotiated non-punitive dispositions of cases that otherwise 

may have been disposed of at courts-martial. 

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

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

continue to foster a close working relationship. During FY 05, DAD and TDS 

worked together on one appeal by the United States under Article 62, UCMJ. 

TDS counsel also coordinated with DAD counsel on several cases, including 

whether a writ was appropriate, assistance in a Dubay hearing, and the 

appropriateness of raising certain issues in R.C.M. 1105 matters. 

 USATDS 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 128 commissioned officers, a warrant officer and 21 enlisted 

paralegals, defends Soldiers assigned to units in the Eastern half of CONUS 

and in Europe. The 22d TDS LSO, consisting of 64 commissioned officers and 

19 enlisted paralegals, defends Soldiers in the Western half of CONUS and 

Asia. Some individual USATDS offices have established joint training 

programs with their local reserve USATDS personnel, and they have conducted 

highly successful joint training conferences. The Chief, U.S. Army Trial 

Defense Service, exercises technical supervision over the TDS LSOs. He is 

responsible for the performance of defense counsel and provides oversight 

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

TDS offices remains outstanding. Currently, reservists provide back-fill 

support to deployed counsel and paralegals at installations in CONUS and 

Germany. Moreover, several reserve judge advocates have served and are 

serving as deployed defense counsel in Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and 

Kosovo. One reserve paralegal is currently serving in Iraq. 

 Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Training for USATDS 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 help USATDS counsel hone their advocacy skills and expand their 

knowledge of military justice. Many training sessions included extensive 

practical exercises and individual critiques by experienced attorneys, as 

well as detailed discussions of pending cases, providing a focus on 

advocacy techniques. In Korea, USATDS continued to cross-train with the 

Marines in Okinawa. The training focused on courtroom skills and 

7 
expanding their knowledge of military justice, with particular emphasis on 

evidentiary objections and arguments. USATDS counsel in Europe conducted 

semi-annual regional workshops. USATDS counsel in Europe also attended the 

USAREUR Criminal Law CLE, which was sponsored by The Judge Advocate 

General’s Legal Center and School. Throughout the year, individual USATDS 

counsel are also given numerous opportunities to attend CLEs sponsored by 

The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School and sister military 

schools, as well as civilian sponsored CLEs. 

GOVERNMENT APPELLATE DIVISION 

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

United States before the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals 

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

States Supreme Court in appeals by Soldiers convicted at courts-martial 

with an adjudged sentence of either a punitive discharge or confinement for 

one year or more. 

In FY 05, GAD consisted of the Chief, Deputy Chief, two branch 

chiefs, ten appellate advocates, and three civilian paralegals. 

Additionally, throughout the year, six temporary active duty Reservists 

(TTADS) were activated for six month periods to assist with writing briefs. 

The GAD filed 1,059 final briefs with the ACCA and 17 with the CAAF. FY 05 

is notable for the strong push made to reduce the backlog of 529 cases 

pending before the ACCA. By activating TTADS, instituting a two day a 

month “Knock Out a Brief Day” program, developing subject matter experts, 

and dramatically improving the GAD brief bank, the backlog was reduced by 

157 cases during the fiscal year, ending with just 372 cases remaining to 

be briefed in the Division. 

During FY 05, the Government Appellate Division also presented oral 

argument in 23 cases before the ACCA and in 22 cases before the CAAF. Four 

of the oral arguments before the CAAF were Outreach Arguments presented at 

law schools located in New Hampshire, Vermont, South Dakota, and Chicago, 

Illinois. A fifth was presented to the Marine Corps Staff College at 

Quantico, Virginia. 

TRIAL COUNSEL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

The United States Army Trial Counsel Assistance Program (TCAP) 

fulfilled its mission of providing information, advice, training 

opportunities, and trial assistance to trial counsel worldwide. In FY 05, 

TCAP’s team of five officers and one civilian assistant was augmented with 

three additional counsel to assist with TCAP’s expanded mission of serving 

as prosecutors in several high-profile detainee abuse cases. As a third 

branch of the Army’s Government Appellate Division, TCAP is able to link 

trial counsel and appellate counsel together to resolve issues of common 

8 
importance to the successful prosecution of courts-martial. TCAP serves as 

the prosecutor’s appellate advocate for extraordinary writs and Government 

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

during habeas corpus litigation of cases that have passed through the 

ordinary course of appellate review. 

TCAP provided five basic categories of services during FY 2005: (1) 

telephone/e-mail/website assistance; (2) advocacy training courses and 

other training events; (3) dissemination of information; (4) trial 

assistance; and, (5) appellate assistance. In doing so, TCAP personnel 

accomplished the following: (1) responded to an average of over 150 

telephonic and e-mail requests for assistance per month with the new TCAP 

website receiving over 3,000 hits in its first month of operation; (2) 

conducted four regional advocacy training conferences, providing hundreds 

of hours of continuing legal education to approximately 150 judge advocates 

and 30 Army Criminal Investigation Division agents; (3) completed a 

courtroom simulation program for trial counsel in the field; (4) published 

a monthly newsletter containing updates from the courts and practical tips 

for trial counsel; (5) actively assisted in the prosecution of several 

high-profile cases including US v. Akbar, a capital case, and detainee 

abuse cases from Abu Ghraib and Bagram; and, (6) responded to ten habeas 

corpus petitions. 

In response to the emerging need for expertise in litigating both 

high profile and classified cases, TCAP has assumed the lead role in 

several courts-martial. Notwithstanding this fact, TCAP has focused on its 

primary function of assisting counsel in the field. During FY 05, TCAP 

greatly expanded its audience by including RC judge advocates in all areas 

of its mission. 

DEFENSE APPELLATE DIVISION 

The Defense Appellate Division provides appellate representation 

before the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, the Court of the Appeals for the 

Armed Forces, and the Supreme Court of the United States for Soldiers 

convicted at courts-martial who have been adjudged either a punitive 

discharge or confinement for one year or more. The Division also assists 

Trial Defense Counsel in identifying issues and preparing writs filed in 

the various courts. 

During FY 05, the division received 959 new cases. Appellate defense 

attorneys filed briefs in 907 cases before the Army Court of Criminal 

Appeals, 330 supplements to petitions for review with the Court of Appeals 

for the Armed Forces, and 14 final briefs with the Court of Appeals for the 

Armed Forces. Appellate defense counsel also filed 316 miscellaneous 

motions before the Army Court and 87 miscellaneous pleadings before the 

CAAF. Counsel argued 21 cases before the Army Court and 25 cases before 

the CAAF. 

9 
The number of new cases has risen since FY 2004 from an average of 74 

new cases per month to an average of 80 cases. Counsel have also increased 

their average cases filed per month from 10 to 11. 

FOREIGN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION 

As the Department of Defense Executive Agent for the exercise of 

foreign criminal jurisdiction, the Army, through the International and 

Operational Law Division, OTJAG, compiles information concerning the 

exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction over U.S. personnel. 

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

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

the exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction during this reporting period: 

 1 Dec 2002 1 Dec 2003 

 to to 

 30 Nov 2003 30 Nov 2004

 Foreign Offense Citations 5,874 4,593 

 Total Civilian 1,473 1,265 

 Total Military 4,401 3,328 

 Exclusive Foreign Jurisdiction 133 110 

 Concurrent Jurisdiction 4,268 3,218 

 Traffic Offenses 526 372 

 Foreign Jurisdiction Recalls 683 477 

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

authorities 7 of the 110 exclusive foreign jurisdiction cases involving 

military personnel. In concurrent jurisdiction cases in which the foreign 

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

authorities were able to obtain waivers of the exercise of this 

jurisdiction in 2,844 of the 3,218 cases. Overall, the U.S. obtained 

waivers in 88.3% of all exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction cases. This 

figure reflects an increase of 1.5% in obtaining such waivers compared to 

the previous reporting period. 

During the last reporting period, civilian employees and dependents 

were involved in 1,473 offenses. Foreign authorities released 200 of these 

cases (13.6% of the total of that reporting period) 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 1265 offenses. The foreign authorities released 434 of these cases 

(34.5% of the current total of this reporting period). This figure 

represents an increase of 20.9% in obtaining releases of foreign criminal 

jurisdiction over civilian employees and dependents. 

10 
 During this reporting period, foreign authorities tried a total of 685 

cases involving U.S. personnel. 22 trials, or 3.2%, resulted in 

acquittals. Those convicted were sentenced as follows: 17 cases resulted 

in executed confinement, 59 cases resulted in suspended confinement, and 

587 cases (85.7% 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 professional responsibility program is 

comprised of the following: (1) administratively reviewing alleged ethics 

violations and allegations of mismanagement for credibility; (2) tasking 

supervisory Army lawyers to run field inquiries; (3) reviewing reports of 

inquiry; and, (4) advising TJAG on appropriate resolution of ethics cases. 

SOCO also oversees the operation of TJAG’s Professional Responsibility 

Committee and its issuance of advisory ethics opinions. 

 The office also oversees professional responsibility training within 

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

(2) present ethics topics at professional events; and, (3) help Army 

lawyers (in close coordination 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 when warranted under the Freedom of 

Information and Privacy Acts; and, (3) maintain an attorney ethics web site 

on JAGCNET. 

Notices and Complaints during FY 2005 

Credibility Reviews. 36 notices and complaints had administrative 

dispositions after credibility reviews determined that no inquiries were 

warranted (19 less than FY 04’s 55 administrative dispositions). 

Inquiries. 20 inquiries were conducted and closed (3 more than FY 04’s 17 

closed inquiries). 11 inquiries were founded (the same as 11 founded and 

closed inquiries during FY 04). 

LITIGATION 

 Civil lawsuits requiring federal courts to interpret the UCMJ are 

relatively few in number, but remain an important part of the Litigation 

Division Military Personnel Branch’s practice. Most suits are brought by 

former Soldiers seeking collateral review of court-martial proceedings, 

usually via petitions for writs of habeas corpus filed in federal district 

courts, or in back-pay actions filed in the Court of Federal Claims. The 

following cases highlight the types of cases handled by the Army Litigation 

Division. 

11 
 The Army is currently defending the historical practice of allowing 

line officers to defend Soldiers at special courts-martial. In Payne v. 

Secretary of the Army, the plaintiff filed suit in the United States 

District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the qualifications 

of his non-attorney defense counsel. Mr. Payne, a former Army enlisted 

Soldier, was convicted of negligent homicide at a special court-martial in 

November 1960. He was represented by a military defense counsel who was 

not an attorney. This practice is consistent with Article 19, UCMJ, which 

provides that military defense counsel at a special court-martial need not 

be attorneys as long as the sentence does not exceed six months confinement 

or forfeiture of more than two-thirds pay per month for six months. 

Plaintiff petitioned the ABCMR in 1992, and again in 2004, challenging the 

qualifications of his defense counsel, but he was denied relief. He has 

filed suit claiming that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel 

and challenging the ABCMR’s denial of relief. The government has filed a 

motion to dismiss, arguing that: (1) plaintiff’s claim is barred by the 

statute of limitation; (2) his military defense counsel satisfied 

constitutional requirements; and, (3) the ABCMR lacked the authority to 

overturn plaintiff’s court-martial conviction. A decision on the 

government’s motion is pending. 

 In a highly-publicized case that has lingered for many years, Michael 

New continues to challenge his court-martial conviction. In December 2004, 

in New v. Secretary of Defense, the United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia dismissed New’s challenge to his court-martial 

conviction for refusing to wear the proper uniform. SPC New was tried by 

court-martial in 1996 for refusing to wear the United Nations insignia on 

his uniform during preparation for deployment to Macedonia. He was 

convicted of disobeying a lawful order and sentenced to a bad-conduct 

discharge. Military appellate courts affirmed the conviction. Mr. New 

then sued in district court, challenging his court-martial conviction on 

the basis that the order to wear the UN insignia was unlawful. The court 

agreed with the Army that the important issues raised by New had been fully 

litigated in the military proceedings and were thus non-reviewable. The 

district court also found his other challenges were either barred by the 

political question doctrine or were meritless. New appealed the district 

court’s dismissal of his complaint to the Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit. Appellate briefs have been filed and the case is 

pending. 

The Army successfully defended against a double-jeopardy claim by an 

Army physician who was court-martialed after entering into a pretrial 

diversion program with the D.C. Corporation Counsel for the same 

misconduct. On 31 March 2005, the United States Court of Federal Claims 

granted summary judgment to the Army in Ragard v. Army after concluding 

that plaintiff’s constitutional rights were not abridged by his courtmartial conviction. On 14 October 1997, CPT Ragard was arrested by a 

national park police officer in Washington, D.C., for engaging in oral sex 

in a public place. After plaintiff’s arrest, the Office of the D.C. 

12 
Corporation Counsel charged him with indecent exposure. Prior to trial, 

plaintiff was voluntarily placed in a pretrial diversion program. Pursuant 

to this program, he completed forty hours of community service and the D.C. 

Corporation Counsel’s Office dismissed the indecent exposure charge. Later 

that month, the Army preferred court-martial charges against CPT Ragard 

based on the same misconduct. Despite his claims that the court-martial 

amounted to double jeopardy, plaintiff admitted during the providence 

inquiry that he committed the offense of sodomy. Plaintiff was 

subsequently convicted and dismissed from the military and his dismissal 

was affirmed on appeal. He argued in his civil complaint that he was 

entitled to reinstatement in the military, back pay, retroactive 

promotions, and constructive service credit because the Army violated his 

double jeopardy protection under the Fifth Amendment and refused to abide 

by the pretrial diversion agreement plaintiff entered into with the D.C. 

Corporation Counsel’s Office. The Army argued that the court-martial was 

not double jeopardy since plaintiff was never tried for an offense by the 

D.C. Corporation Counsel Office and hence, never put in jeopardy. 

Additionally, the Army argued that it was not bound by the Pretrial 

Diversion Agreement plaintiff entered into with the D.C. Corporation 

Counsel since that office is not a federal entity. After considering the 

merits of plaintiff’s claims, the court agreed with the Army. 

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 subjects ranging from substantive criminal law to technical 

litigation skills, while at the same time supporting on-going operations by 

deploying one professor to Operation Iraqi Freedom for the first several 

months of 2005. 

 Advocacy training continues to be one of the Criminal Law 

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

training each Basic Course student on trial advocacy skills. In order to 

improve preparation of our new Judge Advocates in military justice, 

including advocacy skills, the Criminal Law Department instituted major 

changes to its Basic Course Curriculum in the summer of 2005. The theme of 

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

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

the substance and process of a criminal case in the military justice system 

from the initial report of the offense to trial and conviction or acquittal 

of the alleged offender. Every student completes a series of twelve 

clinical events tied to the fact pattern over the course of approximately 

two and one-half weeks of instruction, including a neutral trial memorandum 

13 
that addresses numerous potential issues in the case. The clinical events 

involve the students acting as both trial and defense counsel and culminate 

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

fact scenario also incorporates mandatory training in the Department of 

Defense and Department of the Army Sexual Assault Response Program, 

including changes to victim-witness initiatives. 

 In addition to improvements to the Basic Course Criminal Law 

curriculum, the Criminal Law Department made some changes to the Graduate 

Course Criminal Law curriculum as well, adding elective offerings in 

“Military Justice — Looking Ahead,” designed to focus military justice 

supervisors on preempting appellate issues at the trial level, and 

“Computers and Military Justice,” which focuses on three areas: the search 

and seizure of computers and other electronic evidence; the substantive 

crimes and defenses in the computer crimes area; and, evidentiary 

foundations for computer and electronic evidence. 

 This past spring, the Criminal Law Department welcomed the Army Court 

of Criminal Appeals to TJAGLCS in order for the Court to hear an oral 

argument in a pending case. The 166th Basic Course, the 54th Graduate 

Course, and the 23d Criminal Law Advocacy Course observed the fine oral 

arguments of both sides, and asked general questions of the military 

appellate judges following the argument. All attendees also reviewed the 

appellate briefs for both sides and received the written opinion in the 

case issued by the court. 

 The Department also continued providing instruction to military 

justice managers with a heavy emphasis placed on pre and post-trial 

processing. The forty-five students of the 11th Military Justice Managers 

Course received significant instruction on the practical “how to” of 

courts-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 CD-Rom for use in the field, including examples of 

case tracking systems and The Advocacy Trainer, to assist them in both 

their mission and to effectively continue teaching advocacy to their 

subordinate counsel. Guest speakers addressed topics that included 

criminal law management issues arising in operations in Iraq and 

Afghanistan, a view from a regional defense counsel, and comments from the 

Chief Trial Judge of the Army. 

 The Criminal Law Department continued to offer advanced advocacy 

training in the 23rd and 24th 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 once again increased the size of the course from fifty-six 

14 
(seven groups of eight) to sixty-four (eight groups of eight). For each 

course, the students performed rigorous small-group practical exercises on 

essential litigation skills, from opening statement through closing 

argument. Eight reserve component officers from around the country 

assisted the Department with the 24th CLAC course, providing invaluable 

knowledge and insight from both their prior military experience and their 

current civilian practice. Many of the Department’s Drilling Individual 

Mobilization Augmentee (DIMA) Professors serve as Assistant United States 

Attorneys or Federal Public Defenders in their civilian capacities. Their 

assistance with advocacy training is an invaluable resource for the 

Department. Due to the recently inaugurated DIMA program, many officers 

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

well, and to assist with continuous updating of the Department’s Crimes and 

Defenses Handbook, an invaluable publication for the field. 

In addition to the Military Justice Managers Course and the Criminal 

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

continuing legal education courses, including the 48th Military Judge 

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

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

members of the trial judiciary. The Department also managed the TwentyNinth Criminal Law New Developments Course attended by over 250 judge 

advocates from all services, which this year included a Twenty-Fifth 

Anniversary Celebration for the United States Army Trial Defense Service. 

In addition to hosting courses, Department professors taught classes to 

Reserve Component judge advocates at numerous Reserve On-Site Conferences, 

as well as providing case updates to appellate counsel and judges 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 and High Profile Case Management at the 

Naval Justice School in Newport, Rhode Island. 

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

distinguished speaker last spring. RADM (Ret) John D. Hutson, Dean and 

President, Franklin Pierce Law Center, and a retired Navy Judge Advocate 

General, presented the 33d Hodson Lecture on Criminal Law. RADM Hutson 

delivered a thought-provoking presentation concerning the ongoing debate 

over treatment of detainees in military custody. 

PERSONNEL, PLANS, AND POLICIES 

The attorney strength of the active component Judge Advocate 

General’s Corps at the end of FY 05 was 1,603 (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 05 

was 2,286 and the strength of the Army National Guard at the end of FY 05 

15 
was 625. The diverse composition of our attorney population included 119 

African-Americans, 48 Hispanics, 83 Asians and Native Americans, and 416 

women. The FY 05 end strength of 1,603 compares with an end strength of 

1,547 in FY 04, 1,506 in FY 03, 1,474 in FY 02, 1,462 in FY 01, 1,427 in FY 

00, 1,426 in FY 99, 1,499 in FY 98, 1,523 in FY 97, 1,541 in FY 96, and 

1,561 in FY 95. The grade distribution of the Corps’ attorneys was 5 

general officers, 132 colonels, 226 lieutenant colonels, 313 majors, and 

932 captains. An additional 90 warrant officers, 492 civilian attorneys, 

and 1,495 enlisted paralegals supported legal operations worldwide. As of 

the end of FY 05, over 650 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 

16 
APPENDIX - U.S. ARMY MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Report Period: FISCAL YEAR 2005 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/ 

DECREASE (-) OVER 

LAST REPORT 

GENERAL 825 777 48 +27.5% 

BCD SPECIAL [A] 700 680 20 +3.4% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 0 0 0 -100.0% 

SUMMARY 1,252 1,170 82 +5.8% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT +40.0% 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED [B]

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES (+ dismissals) 116 (+ 31) 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 250 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 313 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 511 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 443 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 189 

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

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 146 [C] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D] 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D] 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 1077 [C] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 1032 [E] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 191 [C] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD +7.5% 

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

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

NUMBER 975 

PERCENTAGE 90.53% 

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

 (CAAF) 

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 323 of 1077 32.08% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +4.19% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 41 of 283 14.49% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -12.77% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY USACCA 3.97% 

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD -15.35%

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

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ 

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 5 

RECEIVED 7 

DISPOSED OF 3 

 GRANTED 0 

 DENIED 2 

 NO JURISDICTION 0 

 WITHDRAWN 1 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 9 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 652 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 624 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 173 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 76 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 24 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 492,728 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 45,299 

RATE PER 1,000 91.94 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD +8.20% 

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, 2004 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 

SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF

MILITARY JUSTICE

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

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

Commander, Naval Legal Service Command made frequent inspections of legal 

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

supervise the administration of military justice. These inspections, 

conducted by subject matter experts, examined the full range of military 

justice processes at those offices inspected. 

CRIMINAL LAW DIVISION (CODE 20) 

Organization. Captain Jennifer S. Herold, JAGC, USN, relieved 

Captain Ken Bryant as the Division Director, and Lieutenant Commander 

Christopher D. Connor, JAGC, USN, relieved Lieutenant Commander Ken Ian as 

the Deputy Director. The Criminal Law Division was staffed with five active 

duty judge advocates and two civilian support personnel. The Criminal Law 

Division was supported by two reserve units. NAVJAG 113 conducted Article 

69 (a), Article 69 (b), and Article 73 reviews and NAVJAG 108 provided 

research and Action Officer support. 

Mission. Administers military justice policy within the Department of 

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

military justice matters; reviews all legislative and regulatory proposals 

affecting military justice; represents the Navy in regular meetings of the 

Joint Service Committee (JSC) on Military Justice, which is the principal 

vehicle for staffing amendments to the UCMJ and the Manual for CourtsMartial (MCM); staffs all amendments to Secretarial and JAG regulations 

implementing the UCMJ, including Chapter 1, Manual of the Judge Advocate 

General (JAGMAN); reviews all decisions of military appellate courts; 

staffs JAG certification of cases decided by the Navy-Marine Corps Court of 

Criminal Appeals (NMCCA) for review by the Court of Appeals for the Armed 

Forces (CAAF); staffs requests for Secretarial designation as general and 

special court-martial convening authority and for Secretarial substitution 

of administrative 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; 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 

fiscal year 2005, the Division Director, Code 20, participated in the 

Article 6, UCMJ, inspections of NAVLEGSVCCOM commands in the Mid-Atlantic 

and Northeast portions of the United States. 

The JSC 2005 Annual Review was forwarded to the Department of Defense 

(DoD), Office of General Counsel in accordance with the JSC’s ongoing 

review of the Manual for Courts-Martial. Among the items forwarded in the 

Annual Review were the creation of two new crimes prejudicial to the good 

order and discipline of the services. Specifically, the Review included a 

new crime of voyeurism and a new crime of child endangerment, as well as a 

proposed maximum sentence to the new stalking statute enacted by Congress 

in the National Defense Authorization Act. 

In accordance with the functions described above, the data below 

represents a small part of the Division’s day-to-day duties for fiscal year 

2005: 

Congressional and other external inquiries 60 

Internal inquiries 165 

Proposals for changes to the Manual for Courts-Martial, 

Manual for the Judge Advocate General, and Navy 

Regulations 

21 

Post Trial Delay issues 5 

Legislative Review 31 

Statistical data compilation/review 13 

Requests for Immunity 10 

Review of instructions/directives/regulations 43 

Requests for Courts-Martial Convening Authority 26 

Requests to exercise courts-martial jurisdiction 9 

Petitions to Board for Correction of Naval Records 4 

2 
Requests for Warrants of Attachment 3 

Review of requests for Certification of cases to the Court 

of Appeals for the Armed Forces 

7 

Petitions for pardon or clemency 6 

Officer Dismissals 44 

Article 69(a) and Article 69(b) review 43 

Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act 313 

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

 Legal issues addressed included: the use of prior uncharged acts of 

child molestation in a child molestation case; testimonial vice nontestimonial evidence under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004); the 

scope of appellate review in cases remanded by our superior court; the 

impact of Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) on the UCMJ offense of 

adultery; the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 2257 requiring individual 

records of performers be maintained by operators of pornographic internet 

web sites; application of the Right to Financial Privacy Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 

3401-3422; whether the lack of fixed terms of appellate judges is a 

violation of constitutional due process. 

 The court continued to submit for posting all published and authored 

decisions within one day of release and a digest of each posted case on its 

web page. The court also posts these decisions on the Navy Knowledge 

Online intranet. 

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 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, and Lieutenant 

Colonel Joseph R. Perlak, USMC, served as the Division Director and Deputy 

Director for the entire fiscal year. The Appellate Defense Division was 

staffed with 18 active duty Navy and Marine Corps judge advocates and 4 

civilian support personnel. 

3 
 Reserve Branch. The Appellate Defense Division was supported by 37 

Navy and Marine Corps Reserve judge advocates. Reserve attorneys filed 1755 

cases, representing 86% of the total initial pleadings for the year. The 

Division’s supporting Reserve units are: NR NAVJAG 109, Colunthus, Ohio; NR 

NAMAPA (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 2001 new cases were docketed at 

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

year 2005, the total number of cases pending initial review was 364. This 

represents a 268-case reduction from the number of cases pending initial 

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

significant 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 7th or higher enlargement. On September 30, 2004, that number was 

reduced to 82. By September 30, 2005, that number was further reduced to 

16. 

As depicted below, in fiscal year 2005 the Appellate Defense Division 

filed 2127 initial pleadings with the NMCCA. This number was comprised of 

1541 merit submissions, 43 summary assignments, and 543 briefs. A total of 

226 cases were petitioned to CAAF, with 43 grants of review issued. 

NMCCA FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

Briefs Filed 433 520 543 

Total Cases 

Filed 

2094 1966 2127 

USCAAF 

Petitions Filed 240 201 226 

Supplements 

Filed 

174 161 207 

Briefs Filed 12 19 26 

4 
U.S. Supreme 

Court 

 

Petitions Filed 3 1 2 

 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 also conducts a Trial Defense Counsel 

Outreach Training Program in order to provide training on recent appellate 

developments and important trial issues. 

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT DIVISION (CODE 46) 

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

Appellate Government Division is to represent the NMCCA and CAAF. In 

addition, the division provides support to staff judge advocates and trial 

counsel throughout the Navy and Marine Corps on issues related to pretrial, 

court-martial and post-trial proceedings. 

For most of the fiscal year, the Division was staffed with 12 active 

duty judge advocates and 2 civilian employees. Colonel Ralph F. Miller, 

USMC, relieved Colonel William K. Lietzau, USMC, as the Division Director. 

Commander Charles Purnell, JAGC, USN, continued as the Deputy Director. 

Reserve support continued to be critical to the accomplishment of the 

Appellate Government’s mission. The Division was supported by 16 Navy 

Reservists from 2 Navy Reserve Detachments NAVJAG 116 (Detroit) and NAMARA 

116 (Minneapolis) and 3 Marine Corps Officers as Individual Mobilization 

Augmentees. During the summer of 2005, four law student interns supported 

the Division. 

Filings at the NMCCA increased by more than 45% this fiscal year, and 

the number of filings at the CAAF increased significantly as well. Indeed, 

the number of full briefs filed by the Government at the CAAF increased by 

more than 70%. The following chart sets forth Code 46’s filings for the 

last five fiscal years: 

5 
 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

NMCCA 

 Briefs filed 395 798 761 542 700 

 Other pleadings 277 456 475 222 425 

CAAF 

 Briefs filed 41 45 12 22 38 

 Other Pleadings 82 91 152 73 115 

 

 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. Division personnel also represented the Government in a number 

of government appeals and extraordinary writs. Issues in these cases 

included jurisdictional and speedy trial 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 2005, the Division’s judge advocates participated 

in two oral argument outreaches sponsored by the CAAF. The CAAF oral 

argument outreaches were held at the University of San Diego School of Law 

and on board USS RONALD REAGAN (CVN 76). Participation in these programs 

served to educate and inform students and military members alike 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 John Rolph, Captain, JAGC, USN. Its 

mission is to provide certified military judges for Navy and Marine Corps 

general and special courts-martial. 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 34 active 

duty and 18 reserve judges serving in 12 circuits and 4 branch offices. 

During fiscal year 2005, NMCTJ provided judicial services in 359 general 

courts-martial and 1612 special courts-martial. These numbers are 

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

fiscal year 2004. 

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 Legal Center and 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 Rear 

Admiral Bruce MacDonald, JAGC, USN, who also serves as the Deputy Judge 

Advocate General of the Navy. NAVLEGSVCCOM includes 265 judge advocates, 1 

Civil Engineer Corps Officer, 31 Limited Duty (Law) Officers, 203 Legalmen, 

and 255 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: 8 Naval Legal Service Offices 

(NLSO5) , 5 Trial Service Offices (TSOs), 2 Region Legal Service Offices 

(RLSOs) and the Naval Justice School. NAVLEGSVCCOM provides counsel for 

courts-martial, administrative boards, physical evaluation boards, legal 

assistance, and local commanders. NAVLEGSVCCOM also provides assistance 

for claims processing and adjudication, and training judge advocates, 

legalmen, and other DoD personnel. During fiscal year 2005, NAVLEGSVCCOM 

provided counsel for 180 general courts-martial, 531 special courtsmartial, 199 Article 32s, 932 administrative separation boards, processed 

over 41,561 claims, provided over 250,128 legal assistance services, and 

provided command assistance services for over 3,900 commands. 

NAVAL JUSTICE SCHOOL 

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

NAVLEGSVCCOM for administrative and operational control. Commander, Naval 

Education and Training Command (CNETC) is NJS’ major resource sponsor. 

Commander, NAVLEGSVCCOM consults with CNETC on matters relating to the 

effectiveness of instruction and administration of training at NJS. 

Additionally, Commanding Officer, NJS consults with Commanding Officer, 

Center for Service Support on these same matters. The main NJS facility is 

located in Newport, Rhode Island. Teaching detachments are based in San 

Diego, California, and Norfolk, Virginia (areas of Fleet concentration). A 

one-person Branch Office is co-located with the U.S. Army’s The Judge 

Advocate General’s Legal Center and School in Charlottesville, Virginia. 

7 
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 2005, NJS provided instruction to more than 12,000 

students worldwide (including 32,761 in resident courses ranging in length 

from 2 days to more than 10 weeks). 

 Academic Programs. NJS has eight "core" courses. These courses are: 

• Basic Lawyer Course (BLC). This nine-week course, offered four 

times annually, provided 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 and administrative law. 

Upon graduation, judge advocates are certified per Article 27(b), 

UCMJ. Fiscal year 2005 graduates: 136. 

• Basic Operational Law Training (BOLT). Added to the curriculum 

this year, this one-week course is offered to all Navy and Coast 

Guard Accession judge advocates either right before or right after 

the Basic Lawyer Course. This course runs parallel with the USMC 

BOLT course, which is coordinated by USMC Headquarters for all 

Marine Corps Basic Lawyer Course students. Instruction includes 

classroom lectures and group seminar exercises in topics that 

include the law of armed conflict, law of the sea, rules of 

engagement/rules for the use of force, command and control, 

operational environmental law, information operations, and handling 

classified information. 

• Accession Legalman Course. This nine-week course trains Navy 

enlisted personnel selected for conversion to the Legalman rating. 

The course is divided into two distinct phases: military justice 

paralegal training and court reporting. There were no Legalmen 

accession students in fiscal year 2005, due to the potential rating 

merger with Yeomen, Religious Program Specialist, and Cryptologic 

Technician-Administration. 

8 
• Basic Legal Services Specialist Course. This 9 1/2-week course, 

offered 4 times annually, provides accession legal 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 2005 graduates: 85. 

• Senior Officer Course in Military Justice and Civil Law. This oneweek course trains senior officers in the execution of the legal 

responsibilities of command with instruction in nonjudicial 

punishment, court-martial procedures, administrative law, and 

operational law topics including rules of engagement/rules for use 

of force, law of armed conflict, and law of the sea. In Fiscal 

year 2005, this course was offered 30 times in 10 different 

locations, training 850 officers. 

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

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

commands not large enough to warrant assignment of a judge 

advocate. In fiscal year 2005, this course was offered 16 times in 

3 different locations, with 513 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 2005, the course was 

offered 16 times in 2 locations, graduating 315 students. 

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

Civil Law. This three-day course provides senior enlisted leaders 

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

primary focus on military justice matters. In Newport, the SELC is 

incorporated into the core curriculum at the Navy’s Senior Enlisted 

Academy. In fiscal year 2005, the SELC was offered 9 times in 3 

different locations, reaching 297 students. In Newport, this 

training was provided to 1,560 students at the Senior Enlisted 

Academy. 

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

provided 31 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. 

9 
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 2005, 31 distinct courses were offered 46 times in 11 

different locations, reaching 919 active duty and 567 reserve legal 

professionals. 

 Coordination. Through the Interservice Legal Education Review 

Committee, Commanding Officer, NJS, the Dean of Students, The Judge 

Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, and the Commandant, Air Force 

Judge Advocate General’s School meet annually to discuss new initiatives 

and opportunities for cross-training and to increase cooperation and 

efficiency in the training of legal personnel within the Department of 

Defense. 

Publications. NJS is responsible for publication of the Naval Law 

Review, study guides, materials in support of academic programs, reference 

manuals designed to assist Sea Service commanders with implementation of 

the UCMJ, and any additional materials directed by higher authority. 

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 fiscal year 2005, NJS instructors provided this 

type of training in Afghanistan, Argentina, Bosnia, Honduras, Mauritius, 

and Zambia. Additionally, NJS worked closely with the Defense Institute of 

International Legal Studies to develop training materials and classes for 

the newly formed judge advocate general branch of the Afghanistan National 

Army and participated in two separate training visits to Afghanistan. 

 Navy Professional Military Education. NJS instructors developed seven 

separate legal training modules, covering topics in operational law, 

military justice, and standards of conduct/ethics, which will be used for 

the Navy Professional Military Education (NPME) program. In the near 

future, NPME raining modules will be required for all Navy personnel to 

complete via Navy Knowledge Online (NKO). 

 Deployments. Two NJS instructors deployed to Iraq in support of 

Operation Iraqi Freedom in fiscal year 2005; one in support of Second 

Marine Expeditionary Force (II MEF) and the other in support of Task Force 

134 Detainee Operations. 

MARINE CORPS ACTIVITIES 

 There are approximately 422 active duty Marine judge advocates and 415 

Reserve Marine judge advocates. Additionally, there are 18 warrant 

officers, 508 legal specialists, and 39 court reporters working in the 

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

10 
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. 

 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; Commanding Officer, Marine Security Guard Battalion, Company B, 

Nicosia, Cyprus; and Commanding Officer, Marine Security Guard Battalion, 

Company C, Bangkok, Thailand. 

 The Marine Corps accesses 35 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 

11 
to a commission as a Second Lieutenant. Second, all Marine Corps officers 

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

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, 9 enlisted Marines are enrolled 

in a stenography/scopist course and each year 18 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 Officer Management course at Charlottesville, Virginia. In 

addition, the Marine Corps has 38 legal specialists and 1 court reporter 

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

Security Guard. Currently, enlisted Marines are encouraged to enroll 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. The 

Law School Education Debt Subsidy (LSEDS) has been approved for another 

year in the Marine Corps. Captains who have completed their initial active 

duty obligation and intend to accept career designation in the 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 threeyear commitment. 

12 
The following chart contains military justice statistical information 

for the Marine Corps in fiscal year 2004 and 2005. 

Fiscal 

Year 

End 

strength 

GCM SPCM SCM Total 

Courts 

NJP 

FY04 177,480 150 1,261 928 2,339 8,985 

FY05 180,029 187 1,137 1,022 2,346 13,386 

JAMES E. McPHERSON 

Rear Admiral, JAGC, U.S. Navy 

The Judge Advocate General of the Navy 

13 
APPENDIX - U.S. NAVY/MARINE CORPS MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

Report Period: FY 2005 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/ 

DECREASE (-) OVER LAST 

REPORT 

GENERAL 359 339 20 +1.5% 

BCD SPECIAL 1610 1549 61 -14% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 0 0 0 0% 

SUMMARY 1980 1968 12 1.3% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT - 4.6% 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES [B] 122 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 171 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 1528 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 308 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1527 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 28 

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

 APPEALS 

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 1203 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 465 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 738 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 1876 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 318 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1558 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 2088] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 446 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1642 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 991 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 375 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 616 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD +1% 

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

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

NUMBER 1876 

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 226 -10.8% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD + .2% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 48 21.2% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD + 8.3% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CCA 2.3% 

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD + 84% 

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 2 

RECEIVED 17 

DISPOSED OF 7 

 GRANTED 0 

 DENIED 7 

 NO JURISDICTION 0 

 WITHDRAWN 0 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 12 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 278 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1512 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 81 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 98 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 42 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 542,970 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 31,702 

RATE PER 1,000 5.8% 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD +10% 

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, 2004 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 

THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals rendered 476 decisions in 

fiscal year 2005. 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 

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

whether evidence obtained during a search should be suppressed based upon 

an alleged violation of the 4th Amendment, which further tainted a 

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

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

whether the record of trial in the case before the court was incomplete and 

whether the military judge erred by preventing the defense from impeaching 

the testimony of the deceased baby’s father. 

The Court lost the Chief Judge, one Senior Judge, one Associate 

Judge, and two reserve judges to retirement and one Associate Judge moved 

on to a new assignment this fiscal year. Subsequently, the Court welcomed 

a new Chief Judge, Colonel Bruce T. Brown, who joined the Court from his 

position as Staff Judge Advocate of Air Education and Training Command. 

Colonel James Moody became a Senior Judge on the Court after serving as an 

Associate Judge since 2003. The Court also welcomed Colonel Daniel 

Fincher, Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Mathews, and Lieutenant Colonel 

Joseph Jacobson. 

TRIAL JUDICIARY 

The Air Force Trial Judiciary had 22 active duty trial judges, 9 

reserve trial judges, and 9 noncommissioned officers assigned throughout 5 

judicial 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, Uniform 

Code of Military Justice (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 2005, the judges presided 

over 973 general and special courts-martial, nearly a 10% increase over FY 

04. 

At the division headquarters, Colonel David F. Brash is serving as 

the Chief Trial Judge. In June, Lieutenant Colonel Dawn R. Eflein assumed 

duties as the Deputy Chief Trial Judge after serving as a Military Trial 

Judge in the Pacific Circuit. 
The Trial Judiciary conducted the 31st Interservice Military Judges 

Seminar at Maxwell AFB, Alabama from 18 to 22 April. The seminar provided 

extensive continuing legal education and cross-feed among military trial 

judges. Over 110 military judges from all services attended. 

Our judges participated in or conducted several other training 

sessions during this period. In April, Colonel Brash instructed at the 

Advanced Trial Advocacy Course at the AFJAG School. In May, Colonel Brash 

instructed new military judges at the Military Judges Course at the Army 

Judge Advocate General Legal Center and School (TJAGLCS), University of 

Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. Colonel Brash also made annual 

supervisory visits and trained trial and defense counsel at each circuit 

workshop. 

Two military trial judges attended courses at the National Judicial 

College in Reno, Nevada. Lieutenant Colonel James “Brad” Roan attended 

“Evidentiary Issues” in April, and Colonel Barbara Brand attended “Handling 

Capital Cases.” 

GOVERNMENT TRIAL & APPELLATE COUNSEL DIVISION 

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT COUNSEL 

 At the division headquarters, Lieutenant Colonel Gary F. Spencer 

served as the Chief, Government Trial and Appellate Counsel Division and 

Lieutenant Colonel Robert V. Combs served as the Chief, Appellate 

Government Counsel. Colonel Spencer deployed from April to September 2005 

to serve as legal advisor to the NATO Air Component Command Headquarters, 

Izmir, Turkey. 

In October 2004, division counsel attended the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Armed Forces (USCAAF) Symposium sponsored by The Judge 

Advocate’s Association at Catholic University School of Law. In November 

2004, division personnel attended the Criminal Law New Developments Course 

at TJAGLCS. This course covered the previous 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. In May 2005, appellate counsel, 

including reserve counsel, attended the USCAAF Judicial Conference at 

Catholic University School of Law. These gatherings provided current 

information on appellate issues and guidance on appellate practice. 

2 
Appellate government counsel prepared and provided an appellate 

update on USCAAF and AFCCA decisions and trends in case law at trial 

counsel workshops at each of the five circuits. Additionally, division 

personnel, including circuit trial counsel, provided instruction on myriad 

military justice topics at two Trial Defense and Advocacy Courses, the 

Advanced Trial and Defense Advocacy Course, at various Major Command 

(MAJCOM) Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) conferences, and at a DoD Domestic 

Violence Policy Workshop. 

Appellate government counsel have contributed to “Project Outreach,” 

sponsored by USCAAF and AFCCA, by conducting oral arguments before 

audiences at various locations. These arguments helped educate attendees 

on the fairness and professionalism of the military justice system. 

The division produced a number of important publications this year, 

including the Appellate Update, Pocket Parts, and the Advocacy Continuing 

Education (ACE) Newsletters. 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 seven reserve judge advocates assigned as 

appellate government counsel. They continue to provide superb support, 

greatly assisting the division in carrying out its mission. In addition to 

preparing written briefs, a number of reserve counsel presented oral 

arguments before USCAAF and AFCCA during the fiscal year. 

A summary of Air Force Appellate (Government) practice follows: 

AFCCA FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05

 Briefs Filed 203 181 230 226 159 

 Cases Argued 20 12 13 14 11 

USCAAF FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05

 Briefs Filed 46 99 51 69 73 

 Cases Argued 32 28 31 15 29 

SUPREME FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05

COURT

 Petition/Waivers 

 Filed 1 0 0 0 5 

 Briefs Filed 0 0 0 0 0 

3
CIRCUIT TRIAL COUNSEL 

Personnel authorizations for the fiscal year included 17 Circuit 

Trial Counsel (CTC) at 3 continental United States (CONUS) circuit offices 

and 2 CTCs each at the Pacific and European circuit offices. The CTCs in 

all five judicial circuits conducted workshops for base-level prosecutors. 

CTCs also showcased their talents at the AFJAG 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 USCAAF, and a 

Military Appellate Advocacy Symposium sponsored by the Judge Advocates 

Association. Two appellate defense attorneys attended the Computer Crimes 

Course and two attended the Legal Aspects of Sexual Assault Course. 

Appellate defense counsel served as adjunct faculty members at the 

Trial and Defense Advocacy Course and the Advanced Trial Advocacy Course at 

the AFJAG School at Maxwell AFB, AL. Appellate defense counsel routinely 

serve as instructors at the Area Defense Counsel Orientation Courses. 

Appellate defense counsel continued to support trial defense counsel 

in the field by actively participating in defense counsel workshops in the 

Pacific, European, Eastern, Western, and Central circuits and always being 

available for telephone consults in appropriate instances. Appellate 

defense counsel also kept trial defense counsel in the field updated on new 

appellate developments in military criminal law via the Newsletter for 

Defense Practitioners. 

Appellate defense counsel have contributed to “Project Outreach,” 

sponsored by USCAAF and AFCCA, by conducting oral arguments before 

audiences at the United States Air Force Academy, The AFJAG School, Harvard 

Law School, and Grand Forks AFB, ND. These arguments helped educate 

attendees on the fairness and professionalism of the military justice 

system. 

The Division Chief and Law Office Manager joined with the Appellate 

Division Chiefs from the Army, Navy, and Coast Guard to tour the United 

States Disciplinary Barracks (USDB) at Fort Leavenworth, KS. The trip has 

resulted in better communication with the Army legal office at the USDB as 

well as the Air Force Prisoner Liaison office, and ultimately better 

services for their clients. 

4
The following figures reflect the division’s workload over the past 

five fiscal years: 

AFCCA FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05

 Briefs Filed 481 525 512 502 376 

 Cases Argued 14 12 12 14 11 

USCAAF FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05

 Supplements to 

 Petitions 457 412 219 274 268 

 Grants Briefs 31 33 22 19 32 

 Oral Arguments 31 28 26 14 29 

SUPREME COURT FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05

 Petition 6 3 3 1 0 

 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 (ADO), 

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 Office Manager. 

The Division is staffed with 84 ADCs stationed at 70 bases worldwide. 

They are assisted by 72 DPs. The Division has 21 CDCs and 5 CCDCs. The 

CCDCs, along with 1 8 of the CDCs, are stationed at circuit offices located 

at Boiling 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 ADC Program is largely 

attributable to its independence and its energized personnel. To ensure 

the best representation for Air Force clients, training remains the 

division’s top priority. On a continuing basis, each CCDC and CDC provides 

on-the-job training and mentoring to ADCs. Newly appointed defense counsel 

received formal training at the ADC Orientation held at Boiling AFB in June 

and August and at annual workshops conducted by each circuit. Each circuit 

also conducts DP training at the 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 provides adjunct faculty members for these two courses held at 

the AFJAG School. Selected defense counsel also attend Air Force inresidence force development education. 

5 
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. The division represents the Air Force on the DoD Joint Service 

Committee (JSC) on Military Justice. The division also provides 

representatives to all interservice activities involving military justice 

and support for the Article 146, UCMJ, Code Committee. Lastly, the 

division serves as the action agency for the review of military justice 

issues on applications submitted to the AFBCMR. 

During the past year, the Military Justice Division: provided 86 

formal opinions concerning AFBCMR applications; received 183 inquires in 

specific cases requiring formal written replies to senior officials, 

including the President and members of Congress; and reviewed 65 records of 

trial for review under Article 69a, UCMJ, and 3 records under Article 69b, 

UCMJ. The division presented the ninth annual Military Justice 

Administration Workshop at the AFJAG School, a “back to basics” one-week 

workshop attended by both judge advocates and paralegals. The division 

also instructed base legal office chiefs of military justice at an 18th Air 

Force workshop held at Scott Air Force Base, IL. 

The division continued its direct involvement in the development and 

implementation of DoD and Air Force sexual assault prevention and response 

policies. For example, a division representative served as a principal 

trainer for judge advocates, sexual assault response coordinators, victim 

advocates, Air Force Office of Special Investigations (0SI) agents and 

medical personnel for both DoD and the Air Force. 

Finally, division representatives played a pivotal role in the 

twenty-first annual review of the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM). The 

review resulted in proposed amendments to: specify two new paragraphs in 

Part IV, Article 134, UCMJ, proscribing voyeurism and child endangerment; 

increase the maximum punishments for assaults against child victims and for 

maiming; amend the Military Rules of Evidence to define “clergyman’s 

assistant,” and include crimes against “de facto” children in the exception 

to the spousal privilege; amend the Rules for Courts-Martial to 

specifically allow the Service Secretaries and Secretary of Defense to make 

recommendations in capital cases; and amend the Discussion in the Rules for 

Courts-Martial to clarify that, in rehearings only, the sentence that may 

be approved (as opposed to adjudged), is limited to the sentence previously 

approved. 

6 
CLEMENCY, CORRECTIONS AND OFFICER REVIEW DIVISION 

The division’s primary responsibilities continue to be to: (1) 

recommend appropriate disposition of statutorily required sentence review 

actions by the Secretary of the Air Force in officer and cadet dismissal 

cases; (2) recommend action by The Judge Advocate General or the Secretary 

of the Air Force, as appropriate, to effect statutorily authorized clemency 

for members of the Air Force under 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 2005, 547 Air Force personnel were in 

confinement. Of those, 96 inmates were in long-term confinement at the 

United States Disciplinary Barracks (USDB), Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and 

75 were serving time in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) system. A 

total of 7 inmates were enrolled in the Air Force Return-to-Duty 

Rehabilitation (RTDR) Program during this period, with 1 graduating and 

being returned to duty. The number of Air Force inmates on parole at the 

end of fiscal year 2005 was 162, a 2 percent increase from last fiscal 

year. The President pardoned one former Air Force member tried by courtmartial. The office workload of cases sent to the Secretary increased by 

30% over last fiscal year, with 19 cases acted upon. 

The division briefed each of the five Circuit Workshops on its area 

of practice, and division representatives received professional education 

themselves at the American Correctional Association annual convention. 

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 the AFJAG 

Corps’ liaison with civilian professional organizations, law schools, and 

states requiring continuing legal education. 

7 
AFJAG School Courses 

The AFJAG School conducted 44 classes (some courses are held more 

than once a year) in fiscal year 2005 for 3,518 students. Courses, 

seminars, and workshops conducted at the AFJAG School included: 

Accident Investigation Board Legal Advisor 

Advanced Environmental Law 

Advanced Labor and Employment Law 

Advanced Trial Advocacy 

Career Services Officers 

Claims and Tort Litigation 

Deployed Air Reserve Components Operations and Law 

Deployed Fiscal Law and Contingency Contracting 

Environmental Law 

Environmental Law Update 

Federal Employee Labor Law 

Judge Advocate Staff Officer 

Law Office Manager 

Legal Aspects of Sexual Assault 

Military Judges 

Military Justice Administration 

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. Three hundred sixty-one students 

attended the courses conducted in January 2005. 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-two students 

attended the 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 100 DoD sites 

throughout the United States. Approximately 1,400 personnel participated 

in DL courses in fiscal year 2005. 

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; College of Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and Education; 

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 

provides instruction at other schools, courses, and conferences throughout 

the world. In fiscal year 2005, AFJAG School personnel instructed at the 

Inter-American Air Force Academy; USAF Special Operations School; U.S. Army 

Judge Advocate General School; and the SOUTHCOM Legal Engagement 

Conference. 

 The AFJAG School participates in the Expanded International Military 

Education and Training (E-IMET) program, one of several security assistance 

programs mandated by Congress. The program promotes U.S. foreign policy 

goals as established in the Foreign Assistance Act. The E-IMET Program 

involves joint U.S. military training teams teaching human rights, military 

justice, civilian control of the military, the law of armed conflict, rules 

of engagement, and general democratic principles in countries designated as 

emerging democracies. Faculty from the AFJAG School participated in five 

E-IMET missions in fiscal year 2005. E-IMETs were conducted for Honduras, 

Afghanistan, Iraq, Mozambique and Bolivia. 

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 1 5,000 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 2005, the Legal Information Services (JAS) 

Directorate continued to exploit the force-multiplying power inherent in 

information technology (IT) by upgrading and refining existing platforms 

and services as well as developing new programs. 

JAS developed and launched an upgraded version of the “WebMAG” 

program. WebMAG is designed to help wing-level legal offices effectively 

and efficiently track and manage cases they process in Federal Magistrate’s 

Courts. 

The directorate developed and launched WebDOCS and acquired 

Interwoven Worksite to replace DocuShare. These programs help Air Force 

legal offices at all command levels store more documents on JAS servers and 

enhance their ability to manage the documents. In addition, JAS increased 

storage capacity six-times over its previous capacity. They also increased 

data security and availability by completely replacing existing server 

storage. 

JAS also developed a “real-time” (synchronous) online education 

capability by acquiring fifty (50) software licenses for Elluminate Live! 

This allows a live instructor to teach real-time over the worldwide web, 

while receiving student feedback. This furthers the JAS Distance Education 

development initiative by adding virtual classroom training capability to 

the Judge Advocate Distance Education program. JAS also launched a new, 

more effective version of the knowledgeWorks Learning Management System for 

self-paced (asynchronous) distance education, which can better track 

student progress. 

The directorate also acquired $550,000 worth of notebook computers, 

desktop computers, docking stations, and printers for the field with yearend funds. 

 JAS implemented a new, more robust Unit License Software Management 

program and completed the JAG Applications Server System Security 

Authorization Agreement (SSAA) certification and accreditation package. 

JAS also developed and launched the NASA Legal Team web site and procured 

Consolidated Legal Research for the Department of the Army. JAS fielded a 

Legal Subject Matter Expert finder to match legal assistance attorneys with 

volunteer reservists that had expertise in particular areas of law. 

 On 21 April 2005, Colonel Pamela D. Stevenson assumed duties as the 

Director of Legal Information Services. Colonel Stevenson promotes IT as a 

leadership issue: “Automate legal office processes, so that you can fully 

mentor and lead legal office professionals. Save time with automation, so 

that you can spend more time with your team.” 

10 
PERSONNEL 

 As of 30 September 2005, the Air Force Judge Advocate General's Corps 

had 1283 judge advocates on active duty. Company grade officers 

(lieutenants and captains) made up approximately 48% of that number (616). 

Slightly more than 27% were majors (351) and 15% were lieutenant colonels 

(195). Almost 9% of the Corps were colonels (115) and above, including one 

major general and five brigadier generals. The Air Force Judge Advocate 

General’s Corps Reserve includes 903 Air Force Reserve IMA, Air Force 

Reserve unit-assigned, and Air National Guard judge advocates, of whom 7% 

(63) are company grade officers and 79% (708) are field grade officers 

(majors and lieutenant colonels). The remaining 14% consists of 128 

colonels, two brigadier generals, and two major generals. 

JACK L. RIVES 

Major General, USAF 

Deputy Judge Advocate General 

Performing Duties of The Judge Advocate General 

10 U.S.C. § 8037 

11 
APPENDIX - U. S. AIR FORCE MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Report Period: FISCAL YEAR 2005 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/ 

DECREASE (-) OVER 

LAST REPORT 

GENERAL 422 388 34 +18.539% 

BCD SPECIAL 517 268 39 +0.058% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL [A] 210 

SUMMARY 144 144 0 -0.083% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT +5.453% 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 49 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 240 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 268 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 292 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 251 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 65 

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

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 638 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL [C] 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL [C] 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 530 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL [C] 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL [C] 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 476 [D] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 721 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD (476/527) 

 

 - 9.677 

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

 U.S. AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (CCA) 

NUMBER 524/530 

PERCENTAGE 98.87% 

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

 (CAAF)

PERCENTAGE OF AFCCA REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCAAF (255/537) 47.486% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD - 3.724% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED (53/255) 20.784% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD + 2.974% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CCA (53/530) 10.000% 

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD + 0.880% 

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

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ 

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 1 

RECEIVED 3 

DISPOSED OF 2 

 GRANTED 0 

 DENIED 2 

 NO JURISDICTION 0 

 WITHDRAWN 0 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 2 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 624 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 262 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 362 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 315 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 160 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 155 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 17 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 362,593 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 8,386 

RATE PER 1,000 23.13 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD -2.77% 

 

EXPLANATORY NOTES 

[A] The Air Force does not convene non-BCD SPCMs. Of the 517 SPCMs tried, there were 268 convictions with a 

 BCD adjudged, 210 convictions without a BCD adjudged and 39 acquittals. 

[B] Includes 21 officer dismissals 

[C] GCM and SPCM were not tracked separately. 

[D] Includes only decisions issued 

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, 2004 to September 30, 2005 

PERSONNEL AND TRAINING 

The Coast Guard has 183 officers designated as judge advocates 

serving on active duty, of which 140 are serving in legal billets and 43 

are serving in general duty billets. Among the 43 military attorneys 

serving “out-of-specialty” billets are the Commander of the Eighth Coast 

Guard District in New Orleans; the Deputy Director of Operations, U.S. 

Northern Command; Director, Joint Inter-Agency Task Force West; Deputy 

Assistant Commandant for Intelligence; Special Assistant to the Vice 

President of the United States; and other commanding and executive officers 

of Coast Guard cutters, groups, marine safety offices, training centers, 

and support commands. The Coast Guard also employs 73 civilian attorneys 

ranging from GS-l2 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. Additionally, one judge advocate 

is attending the graduate course at the Army Judge Advocate General’s Legal 

Center and School and will graduate in 2006 with a Masters of Law (LLM) 

degree in military law and another is a Fellow in the Center for Law and 

Military Operations. 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 being certified under Article 27(b), UCMJ. 

U. S. COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

The judges on the U.S. Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals during 

fiscal year 2005 were: 

Chief Judge Joseph H. Baum 

Judge David J. Kantor 

Judge Lane I. McClelland 

Judge Michael A. Hamel (until termination of his Court duties on 3 

June 2005 after transfer) 

Judge Gilbert E. Teal 

Judge Gary 5. Felicetti 
 In addition to the decisional work of the Court, as reflected in the 

Appendix, the judges of the Court, as well as the Clerk of the Court, have 

been involved in various professional conferences, committees, and seminars 

during the past fiscal year. 

On 18 and 19 May 2005, Judge McClelland and the Clerk of the Court 

attended the Judicial Conference of the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Armed Forces (USCAAF) at the Columbus School of Law at Catholic 

University. On 11 through 14 July 2005, Judge Felicetti attended a course 

at the National Judicial College on Scientific Evidence and Expert 

Testimony. On 14 September 2005, Judge Felicetti, as the Coast Guard 

Court’s representative, participated on a panel of judges from all the 

service courts at the Judge Advocates Association 2005 Appellate Advocacy 

Seminar, which was sponsored by USCAAF. On 22 and 23 September 2005, 

Judges McClelland, Teal, and Felicetti, and the Clerk of Court participated 

in the William S. Fulton, Jr., Appellate Military Judges Conference and 

Training Seminar at the Federal Judicial Center in Washington, D.C. On 26 

through 29 September 2005, Judge Felicetti attended a course at the 

National Judicial College on Advanced Evidence. During the past year, the 

Clerk of the Court chaired the Young Lawyer’s Division of Capitol Hill 

Chapter (CHC) of the Federal Bar Association (FBA) and is currently the 

Treasurer of the CHC of the FBA. 

During the year, Chief Judge Baum continued as a member of the 

USCAAF’s Rules Advisory Committee. 

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. 

2 
 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 

Assistance Program in Arlington, Virginia. This is in addition to the 

existing Memorandum of Understanding with the Navy that provides for four 

Coast Guard Judge Advocates to be assigned full-time as trial counsel or 

defense counsel at Navy installations. 

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

NOTE: All statistics are based on the number of courts-martial records 

received and filed at Coast Guard Headquarters during fiscal year 2005 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 05 04 03 02 01 

General Courts-Martial 07 12 08 04 15 

Special Courts-Martial 45 27 18 23 17 

Summary Courts-Martial 21 12 20 11 18 

Total 73 51 46 38 50 

ADDITIONAL MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

 Appendix A contains the Coast Guard, Fiscal Year 2005 military justice 

statistics. 

JOHN E. CROWLEY, JR. 

Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard 

The Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard 

3 
APPENDIX - U.S. COAST GUARD MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Report Period: 1 OCTOBER 2004 - 30 SEPTEMBER 2005 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/ 

DECREASE (-) OVER LAST 

REPORT 

GENERAL 7 5 2 -58% 

BCD SPECIAL 45 45 +66% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 00 00 0 UNCHANGED 

SUMMARY 21 21 0 +83% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT +45% 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 0 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 5 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 25 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 7 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 25 

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 21 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 10 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 11 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 31* 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 5 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 25 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 24* 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 9 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 14 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 28 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 6 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 22 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

+9% 

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

 U.S. COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (CCA) 

NUMBER 30 

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 4/29 14% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +2% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 2/4 50% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +23% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CGCCA 2/29 7% 

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD -5% 

* Including 1 extraordinary writ. 

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 6 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 45 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 0 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 4 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 40,908 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 1,411 

RATE PER 1,000 34.50 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD -9.35% 

Page 2 of 2