ANNUAL REPORT 

of the 

CODE COMMITTEE 

on 

MILITARY JUSTICE 

INCLUDING SEPARATE REPORTS 

of the 

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

THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL 

OF THE U.S. ARMED FORCES 

For the Period 

October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2006 
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, 2005 to September 30, 2006 
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, 2005 to September 30, 2006 

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

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

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

Corps, and Professor Edward J. Imwinkelried and Professor Gregory E. 

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

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

Justice pursuant to Article 146 of the Uniform Code of Military 

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

 The Code Committee met on May 16, 2006, to consider matters 

pertaining to the administration of military justice. The meeting was 

open to the public. Colonel Flora Darpino, JA, U.S. Army, the Chair 

of the Joint Service Committee, informed the Committee that the 

recommendations in the 2002 and 2003 annual reviews of the Joint 

Service Committee had been signed by the President in an Executive 

Order in October, 2005. The 2004 recommendations were pending review 

at the Department of Justice. These recommendations deal with 

permitting remote testimony at courts-martial, and adding provisions 

in the Manual for Courts-Martial under Article 119a, UCMJ, involving 

the death of or injury to an unborn child, and under Article 120a, 

stalking. Colonel Darpino added that the 2005 review contains 

provisions involving the offense of child endangerment, sentence 

enhancers in cases with child victims, increasing the punishment for 

maiming, giving the military judge the authority to overturn guilty 

findings prior to authentication of the record of trial, and adding a 

provision for a post-trial recommendation from the Secretary of 

Defense in capital cases. The review also addresses evidentiary 

issues governing “de facto” children and the status of the clergy 

privilege as it pertains to clergy assistants. Colonel Darpino 

concluded her briefing by stating that current considerations include 

finalizing the Manual for Courts-Martial provisions for the revised 

Article 120, UCMJ, and the authority of the military judge during 

post-trial processing. 

 Judge Erdmann then reported to the Committee on the work of a 

sub-committee appointed to review suggested changes to the UCMJ by 

Senior Judge Robinson Everett. Senior Judge Everett’s suggestions 

were: to allow the accused to elect sentencing by the military judge 

after findings have been made by court members; to amend Articles 18 

and 21 of the UCMJ by using the words “law of nations” instead of “law 

of war”; to authorize the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 

to conduct discretionary review of cases tried by military tribunals; 

to broaden the authority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed 

Forces under the All Writs Act; to re-examine the issue of affording 
life tenure to the judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed 

Forces; and to develop a more effective manner for the review of 

administrative discharges, specifically other than honorable 

discharges. 

 Judge Erdmann summarized that the sub-committee recommended 

further discussion on two of the suggestions: sentencing by the 

military judge after findings by court members, and amending Articles 

18 and 21, UCMJ. The Code Committee agreed to seek the positions of 

the Judge Advocates General before proceeding further on the first 

issue. On the second, Judge Erdmann noted that this matter had been 

previously referred to the International Law Division for review. The 

Code Committee agreed to request the General Counsel to expand on the 

request to analyze the matter. 

 Judge Erdmann also stated that there had been consideration of 

recommending a change to the membership of the Code Committee 

involving the judges of the court and that the matter was still under 

discussion. 

 Separate reports of the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Armed Forces and the individual Armed Forces address further items of 

special interest to the Committees on Armed Services of the United 

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

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

Force. 

Andrew S. Effron 

Chief Judge 

James E. Baker 

Associate Judge 

Charles E. “Chip” Erdmann 

Associate Judge 

Scott W. Stucky 

Associate Judge 

Margaret A. Ryan 

Associate Judge 

Major General Scott C. Black, USA 

The Judge Advocate General of the Army 

Rear Admiral Bruce E. MacDonald, JAGC, USN 

The Judge Advocate General of the Navy 

Major General Jack L. Rives, USAF 

The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force 

2 
Rear Admiral William D. Baumgartner, USCG 

The Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard 

Brigadier General James C. Walker, USMC 

Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps 

Professor Edward J. Imwinkelried 

Public Member 

Professor Gregory E. Maggs 

Public Member 

 * NOTE: During the reporting period, the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Armed Forces was composed of the following Judges: Chief Judge 

H.F. “Sparky” Gierke, Judge Susan J. Crawford, Judge Andrew S. Effron, 

Judge James E. Baker, Judge Charles E. “Chip” Erdmann. Chief Judge 

Gierke and Judge Crawford retired on September 30, 2006. Judge Effron 

became Chief Judge on October 1, 2006. Judge Stucky and Judge Ryan 

joined the Court on December 20, 2006. 

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, 2005 to September 30, 2006 

 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 2006 Term of the Court to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the United States Senate and the 

United States House of Representatives, and to the Secretaries of 

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

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

States Code, § 946. 

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 2006 Term of the Court, the Court admitted 276 

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

admissions before the Bar of the Court to 33,784. 

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 2006 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 Barry University School of Law, Orlando, Florida; 

Florida A & M University School of Law, Orlando, Florida; Columbus 

School of Law, Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.; the 

United States Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado; Denver 

University School of Law, Denver, Colorado; and the Washington College 

of Law, American University, Washington, D.C. 

JUDICIAL VISITATIONS 

 During the 2006 Term of Court, the Judges of the Court 

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 17 and 18, 2006, the Court held its annual Judicial 

Conference at the Catholic University of America, Columbus School of 

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

certified for credit to meet the continuing legal education 

requirements of State Bars throughout the United States. The 

conference opened with welcoming remarks from Dean Vera V. Miles 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 Ruth Bader Ginsburg; Judge John J. Farley, III, 

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; Professor David A. Koplow, 

Georgetown University Law Center; Professor Peter B. Rutledge, 

Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America; Professor 

Stephen A. Salzburg, George Washington University School of Law; 

Professor Edward J. Imwinkelried, University of California, Davis 

School of Law; Mr. Karl F. Schneider, Deputy Assistant Secretary of 

the Army; Mr. Brian F. Spector, Kenny Nachwalter, P.A.; Colonel Dwight 

H. Sullivan, USMCR, Chief Defense Counsel, Office of Military 

Commissions; Captain Kurt A. Johnson, JAGC, USN, Staff Judge Advocate, 

NORAD/Northern Command; and Lieutenant Colonel Mark L. Johnson and 

Major Christopher W. Behan, Judge Advocate General’s School, 

Charlottesville, Virginia. 

Andrew S. Effron 

Chief Judge 

James E. Baker 

Associate Judge 

Charles E. “Chip” Erdmann 

Associate Judge 

Scott W. Stucky 

Associate Judge 

Margaret A. Ryan 

Associate Judge 

 2 
USCAAF STATISTICAL REPORT 

2006 TERM OF COURT 

CUMULATIVE SUMMARY 

CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 1, 2005 

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

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

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

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

CUMULATIVE FILINGS 

Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 

Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,006 

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

TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,145 

CUMULATIVE TERMINATIONS 

Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 

Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,018 

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

TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,212 

CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 1, 2006 

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

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

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

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

OPINION SUMMARY

CATEGORY SIGNED PER CURIAM MEM/ORDER TOTAL

Master Docket . . . . . 69 4 92 165 

Petition Docket . . . . 0 1 1,017 1,018 

Miscellaneous Docket. . 2 0 27 29

TOTAL . . . . . . . . . 71 5 1,136 1,212 

FILINGS (MASTER DOCKET) 

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

Returned from Court of Criminal Appeals . 1 

Mandatory appeal filed . . . . . . . . . 0 

 3 
Certificates filed . . . . .. . . . . . . 5 

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

Petitions granted from Petition Docket. . 110

TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 

TERMINATIONS (MASTER DOCKET)

Findings and sentence affirmed . . . . . 113 

Reversed in whole or in part . . . . . . 52 Signed . . . 71 

Granted petitions vacated . . . . . . . . 0 Per Curiam . 5 

Other disposition directed . . . . . . . 0 Mem/Order . 92

TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 TOTAL 165 

PENDING (MASTER DOCKET)

Awaiting briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 

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

Awaiting lead case decision (trailer cases) 1 

Awaiting final action . . . . . . . . . . 4 

TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 

FILINGS (PETITION DOCKET)

Petitions for grant of review filed . . . 1,003 

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

Petitions for reconsideration granted . . 1 

Returned from Court of Criminal Appeals . 1 

TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,006 

TERMINATIONS (PETITION DOCKET)

Petitions for grant denied . . . . . . . 826 

Petitions for grant granted . . . . . . . 181 Signed . . . 0 

Petitions for grant dismissed . . . . . . 1 Per Curiam . 1 

Petitions for grant withdrawn . . . . . . 10 Mem/Order .1,017

TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,018 TOTAL 1,018 

PENDING (PETITION DOCKET)

Awaiting briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

Awaiting Central Legal Staff review . . . 134 

Awaiting final action . . . . . . . . . . 8 

TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 

FILINGS MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET

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

Writs of error coram nobis sought . . . . 0 

Writs of habeas corpus sought . . . . . . 2 

4 
Other extraordinary relief sought . . . . 15 

Writ appeals sought . . . . . . . . . . . 6

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

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET TERMINATIONS

 

Petitions denied . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 

Petitions granted . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 

Petitions dismissed . . . . . . . . . . . 0 

Petitions withdrawn . . . . . . . . . . . 0 Signed . . . 2 

Petitions remanded . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Per curiam . 0 

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Mem/order . 27

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

PENDING ON MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET

Awaiting briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 

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

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

TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 

RECONSIDERATIONS

ALL CASES DISPOSITIONS

Begin pending 0 Granted 1 

Filings 27 Denied 20

TOTAL 27 TOTAL 21 

Ending pending 6 

MOTIONS

ALL MOTIONS DISPOSITIONS

Begin pending 30 Granted 499 

Filings 518 Denied 41 

TOTAL 548 Other 0

 TOTAL 540 

End pending 8 

 

5 
Petition Docket Year End Pending

235

290

226

152

190

301

171

215

252 240

0

100

200

300

400

500

FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06
Master Docket Year End Pending

156

105

77

70

60

50 49 51

87

38

0

50

100

150

200

FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06
Oral Arguments Per Year

115

131

116 113

81

68

56 58

74 74

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06
Total Opinions Per Year

107

113

104

129

102

123 124

110

75 73

93

75

32

57

35

57 53

64

51

76

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06

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

TOTAL COURT OPINIONS
Days from Petition Filing to Grant

140 145

168

129 133 131

164

227 195

171

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06
Days from Petition Grant

to Oral Argument

161

189

166

148

125 127 122 130

146 150

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06
Days from Oral Argument

to Final Decision

163 165

182

169 176 176

117

144

164

148

0

50

100

150

200

250

FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06
Days from Petition Filing

to Final Decision

99

380

82

371

85

429

70

380

70

330

65

353

82

279

76

361

89

358

93

391

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06

PETITION DOCKET (DENIAL/DISMISSAL/WITHDRAWAL)

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

Final Decision in All Cases

139

166

139

129

110 105

119

126

132

155

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06
Total Petitions Filed Per Year

1234 1197

1051

753

926 974

694

802 779

1006

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

2250

2500

FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06
SECTION 3 

REPORT OF THE 

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

OCTOBER 1, 2005, TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 

During this time frame, fiscal year 2006 (FY 06), and in 

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

The Judge Advocate General and senior members of his staff visited 28 

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 worldwide, review and prepare military publications and regulations, and 

develop and draft changes to the 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 (LCS)

In the fall of FY 06, several significant policy changes affected 

training for newly commissioned Judge Advocate officers. First, 

instead of a nonresident course, all newly commissioned Reserve 

Component (RC) Judge Advocates now attend the resident Officer Basic 

Course at the LCS in Charlottesville, Virginia with their Active 

Component (AC) counterparts. In limited circumstances, the Chief, 

Personnel, Plans, and Training Office (PP&TO) may approve an exception 

and permit a RC Judge Advocate to complete the Basic Course through 

the nonresident program. Second, all newly commissioned Judge 

Advocates, including those from the RC, attend the 4-week Direct 

Commissioned Officer Course (DCO) immediately following the completion 

of the Officer Basic Course in Charlottesville, unless they receive a 

waiver from the Chief, PP&TO. This policy, enacted to provide all 

newly commissioned Judge Advocates the opportunity to receive 

leadership training designed to instill the Warrior Ethos, is 

applicable to the 171st Officer Basic Course (September 2006 through 

December 2006) and all courses after that. The same policy provides 

for the follow-on attendance of the AC Judge Advocates at the Basic 

Officer Leadership Course (BOLC) II, a six-week, branch-immaterial 

course in which the majority of training is conducted in a tactical or 

field environment. Beginning in October 2008, all RC Judge Advocates 

will attend BOLC II, as well. The Chief, PP&TO may waive the 

requirement for BOLC II attendance for both AC and RC Judge Advocates. 

 In FY 06, the LCS upgraded several of its core classrooms. 

Upgrades included the installation of new desks and chairs in the 

Graduate Course classroom, activation of wireless capability for 

Graduate Course students within their classroom, and insulation in the 

Basic Course and Graduate Course classrooms. The insulation is 

designed to permit the provision of classified training. 
 The LCS library continued to digitize materials from its 

collections and add them to its Web site with the Federal Research 

Division of the Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd). 

Originally developed to digitize documents dealing with the 

legislative history of the UCMJ, the site expanded in FY 06 to include 

historical Manuals for Courts-Martial, the 1920 GPO reprint of 

Winthrop’s Military Law and Precedents, Army Field Manual 34-52 that 

addresses Intelligence Interrogation, and the legislative history of 

the Military Commissions Act of 2006. 

The LCS continues to refine instruction to better support 

operational missions of the Army, but also retains a major focus on 

developing, improving, and sustaining excellence in the practice of 

military criminal law through the efforts of the Criminal Law 

Department. Instruction touches a wide range of subjects from 

substantive criminal law to technical litigation skills, while at the 

same time providing critical reach-back capability in support of 

Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom. 

Advocacy training continues to be one of the Criminal Law 

Department’s top priorities. The Department devotes significant 

effort to training each Basic Course student on trial advocacy skills. 

In order to improve preparation of our new Judge Advocates in military 

justice, the Criminal Law Department instituted major changes to its 

Basic Course Curriculum in the summer of 2005, with continuing changes 

in 2006. The theme of the instruction is “The Anatomy of a CourtMartial.” 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 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 (DoD) and Department of the Army 

Sexual Assault Response Program, including changes to victim-witness 

initiatives. The Criminal Law Department continues honing this 

curriculum to ensure relevant, operationally focused training. 

This past spring, the Criminal Law Department welcomed the Army 

Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) to present an oral argument in a 

pending case. The 169th Basic Course, the 54th Graduate Course, and the 

25th Criminal Law Advocacy Course observed the superb oral arguments 

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

judges following the argument. 

2 
All attendees also reviewed the appellate briefs for both parties and 

received the written opinion in the case issued by the Court. 

The Criminal Law Department also continued instruction to 

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

processing. The forty-five students of the 12th Military Justice 

Managers Course received significant instruction on the practical “how 

to” of court-martial pre and post-trial processing as well as 

substantive law instruction. As in the past three courses, justice 

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

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

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

continue teaching advocacy to their subordinate counsel. Guest 

speakers included the Chief, Trial Defense Service, the Chief Trial 

Judge of the Army, the Deputy Clerk of ACCA, and the Senior Legal 

Advisor to the Army Review Boards Agency. 

The Criminal Law Department continued to offer advanced advocacy 

training in the 25th and 26th 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 RC and counsel slated to deploy to Iraq 

and Afghanistan, the Department increased the size of the 25th 

Criminal Law Advocacy Course from fifty-six (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. 

Reserve component officers from around the country assisted the 

Department with both the 25th and 26th CLAC courses, providing 

invaluable knowledge and insight from both their prior military 

experience and their current civilian practice. Many of the 

Department’s Drilling Individual Mobilization Augmentee (DIMA) 

Professors serve as Assistant United States Attorneys or Federal 

Public Defenders in their civilian capacity. Due to the recently 

inaugurated Drilling IMA program, many officers were able to return 

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

assist with continual 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 49th 

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. 

3 
 The Department also managed the Thirtieth Criminal Law New 

Developments Course attended by nearly 300 judge advocates from all 

services, including substantial representation from the trial and 

appellate bench. In addition to hosting courses, Department 

professors taught classes to RC judge advocates at numerous Reserve 

On-Site Conferences, other venues including regional Trial Defense 

Service training, and the U.S. Army Europe Criminal Law Conference. 

Professors presented instruction at the Court of Appeals for the Armed 

Forces (CAAF) Conference and Interservice Military Judges Course in 

the spring, as well as providing case updates to appellate counsel and 

judges at the Judge Advocate Association Appellate Conference in the 

fall. One of the Department’s professors also provided instruction on 

the 4th Amendment implications for computer crime at a regional 

conference hosted by the Naval Justice School in San Diego. 

Finally, the Criminal Law Department was extremely pleased to 

host The Honorable Paul D. Clement, Solicitor General of the United 

States, who presented the 34th Hodson Lecture on Criminal Law. The 

Solicitor General delivered a thought-provoking presentation 

concerning Supreme Court treatment of cases involving unlawful enemy 

combatants. 

The LCS provided at least two hours of professional 

responsibility instruction to attorneys attending every course hosted 

by the LCS in Charlottesville, as well as at remote and on-site 

locations, in satisfaction of TJAG’s and state bar professional 

responsibility continuing legal education requirements. The LCS 

faculty worked diligently to identify areas of emergent professional 

responsibility challenges in military practice and incorporate into 

the instruction how attorneys can handle these situations and stay 

within the bounds of the Rules of Professional Responsibility. 

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. 

4 
 Criminal Law Division individual case data and actions for the 

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

mission, are displayed below: 

 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06

 White House inquiries 237 33 20 

Congressional and other 

inquiries 234 214 130 

Clemency petitions (Article 74, 

UCMJ) 3 1 0 

Officer Dismissals 18 19 28 

Article 69 review 88 96 115 

Freedom of Information 

Act/Privacy Act 6 22 15 

 

This year, a key focus for the Criminal Law Division has been 

Army courtroom designs. The Criminal Law Division is consulting with 

a variety of experts to create specifications and architectural plans 

to standardize new and modified Army courtrooms. This standardized 

design will meet the requirements of all participants in the courtmartial process, to include the military judge, counsel, court 

members, support personnel, witnesses, spectators and others, by 

insuring adequate facilities, security, and appropriate layout. It 

will lower the cost of new construction and modification by 

eliminating the need for each installation to develop its own design. 

The design will also take into account new technologies appropriate 

for military courts, such as video-teleconferencing capabilities and 

evidence presentation systems. The Criminal Law Division is assisting 

installations as they work for funding to complete plans and assist 

with new construction and modification at installations. This project 

will continue into FY 07. 

 In FY 06, the Criminal Law Division reviewed proposed legislation 

for military commissions. Upon passage of the Military Commission Act 

of 2006 (MCA), the Criminal Law Division continued, as a member of the 

DoD working group, drafting and reviewing implementing regulations for 

the MCA. The result of this work will be the procedural and 

evidentiary rules for Military Commissions to try detainees suspected 

of committing acts of terrorism or war crimes. In accordance with the 

MCA, where practical and consistent with military or intelligence 

activities, the principles of law and rules of evidence used in 

general courts-martial for service members will be used in Military 

Commissions. 

 

5 
Throughout FY 06, the Criminal Law Division continued to track 

approximately 800 detainee related investigations and other highprofile cases. Detainee related cases include: physical abuse, whether 

resulting in injury or death; other crimes against detainees, 

including larceny and sex crimes; and failures of leadership or other 

duties involving detainee operations, including disobeying orders and 

dereliction of duty. Since military justice is an inherently 

decentralized process, the efforts include frequent communication with 

Staff Judge Advocates and Chiefs of Military Justice sections in the 

field. This information allows the Criminal Law Division to report 

trends to The Judge Advocate General and to respond to Congressional 

and other inquiries with the most current information. 

 

A new Criminal Law Case Tracking System (CLCS), instituted during 

FY 06, allows the Criminal Law Division to electronically file 

opinions and answers to queries sent from field units. This system 

allows a search of all open actions, those recently closed and older 

completed actions. Those within the Division can search these actions 

by subject matter or by using a key-word search. 

The JAG Corps enhanced its Victim Witness Program by conducting 

their victim witness liaison training on 22 – 25 May 2006, in Orlando, 

Florida with 56 total DoD attendees, including 36 Army victim witness 

liaisons. 

 

 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 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. 

Through the end of calendar year 2006, the Army has continued in 

its role of Executive Chair of the JSC, due to rotate to the Air Force 

at the beginning of 2007. This year the JSC completed its twenty 

first review of the MCM. At the beginning of 2006, the JSC voted to 

consider numerous proposals for change to the UCMJ and the MCM 

including, but not limited to, making most punishment imposed 

effective at the time of sentencing, allowing for digital records of 

trial, and revising post-trial processing procedures. 

6
Highlights of this review’s proposed changes include: amendments 

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

sua sponte to overturn a 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 charges 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 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); the 

addition of specific offenses for stalking and child endangerment 

under Article 134; and the addition and implementation of the 

significant, statutory change to Article 120 (Rape), of the MCM, 

including the elements of offenses under the new Article 120, lesser 

included offenses, and sample specifications. The new Article 120 

will go into effect in October 2007. 

 

On 10 August 2006, the JSC published a notice in the Federal 

Register containing a proposed Executive Order implementing these 

changes. On 18 September 2006, the JSC held a meeting open to the 

public seeking oral comments on the proposed changes. Written 

comments from the public were accepted through 13 October 2006. In 

December 2006, the JSC published a summary in the Federal Register of 

all comments received from the public, and the final version of the 

proposed Executive Order. The proposed Executive Order was 

subsequently forwarded to the DoD Office of the General Counsel for 

staffing to the President. 

U.S. ARMY JUDICIARY 

The U.S. Army Judiciary consists of ACCA, Office of the Clerk of 

Court and the Trial Judiciary. 

ACCA/Office of the Clerk of Court

 

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

under Article 66, UCMJ; appeals under Article 62, UCMJ, and Petitions 

for Extraordinary Relief. More than 1,200 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 ACCA decisions upon all personnel not in confinement and closed 

over 950 Courts-Martial cases during the past year. 

7 
ACCA maintains a website at https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/acca. 

ACCA opinions and memorandum opinions are published and can be 

downloaded at the website. Applications for admission to the bar for 

ACCA and rules of the court are also published and can be downloaded. 

The Office of the Clerk of Court provided instruction to legal 

NCOs, Court Reporters and those individuals attending the Judge 

Advocate General graduate course and military justice courses at the 

LCS. 

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

court-martial records dating from 1939. Inquiries about courtsmartial are received from federal and state investigative agencies, 

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

accused. Because the Brady Bill requires the processing of handgun 

applications within three workdays, many expedited requests are 

received from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Instant 

Background Check System. Also, state sexual offender registries 

submit many requests. The number and types of records requests are 

noted below: 

 

 FY04 FY05 FY06

 

Freedom of Information Act 132 180 255 

Privacy Act 66 110 96 

Certified Copies of Convictions 354 213 199

Total Number of Requests 552 503 550 

The Office of the Clerk of Court also provides assistance to 

overseas trial jurisdictions in processing requests for non-DOD 

civilians to travel to overseas trials. This includes making travel 

arrangements, assisting with requests for expedited passport 

processing, and issuing ITOs. 

Trial Judiciary

FY 06 saw twenty-one AC military judges, one mobilized US Army 

Reserve military judge, and thirteen RC military judges not on active 

duty preside over nearly 1350 general and special courts-martial 

worldwide, a number which includes all post-arraignment proceedings 

which do not necessarily result in completed trials, all government 

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

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

ACCA. This figure represents a slight decrease from FY 05. 

8 
A United States Marine Corps military judge presided over two 

Army courts-martial arising out of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse 

scandal, the first use of the recently promulgated cross-service 

detailing agreement between the military services. Trials in Iraq, 

Afghanistan, and Kuwait numbered 144 for the FY, bringing the total 

number of cases tried in hostile fire combat pay zones to over 475 

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

cases, including those arising out of detainee operations in 

Afghanistan and Iraq. Reserve military judges were detailed as 

investigating officers in a number of complex Article 32 hearings, 

including cases involving capital referrals. Military judges 

continued playing an active role in their military and civilian 

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

associations and civic organizations and state bar continuing legal 

education courses. 

TRIAL DEFENSE SERVICE 

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

130 AC and 187 RC attorneys. USATDS provides high quality, 

professional defense services to Soldiers throughout the Army from 63 

active duty installations worldwide and 54 reserve locations. USATDS 

counsel defended Soldiers facing the entire range of allegations under 

the UCMJ. At the end of FY 06, trial defense counsel were defending 

14 Soldiers charged with murder. 

USATDS detailed one or more counsel to every Army special and 

general courts-martial referred in FY06. USATDS counsel also carry a 

large workload, assisting Soldiers in a myriad of other military 

justice related actions. The numbers for FY 06 are as follows: 

Courts-Martial – 1,328 

Administrative Boards – 690 

Nonjudicial Punishment – 42,814 

Consultations – 34,955 

USATDS provided defense services to deployed forces around the 

world, including Iraq, Kuwait, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. USATDS Region 

IX encompasses Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, and the CENTCOM AOR. 

Currently there is 1 Regional Defense Counsel, 18 Trial Defense 

Counsel, and 10 paralegals deployed throughout USATDS Region IX. This 

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

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

Balad, Ramadi, COB Speicher, Mosul, and Kirkuk. In Kuwait, the USATDS 

Office is located at Camp Arifjan, which is outside of Kuwait City. 

In Afghanistan, the USATDS Office is located at Bagram, a former 

Soviet air base. 

9 
Despite the hazardous duty and austere environment in Region IX, 

USATDS counsel are providing tremendous representation at courtsmartial and assistance in other military justice actions throughout 

the region. Region IX counsel tried nearly 150 courts-martial while 

approximately 110 other preferred cases were resolved under Chapter 

10. There is one counsel and one paralegal deployed to Kosovo. These 

Soldiers fall under USATDS Europe. 

USATDS counsel continue to foster a close working relationship 

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

Service Legal Support Organizations (USATDS LSOs). The 154th USATDS 

LSO provides defense services to soldiers assigned to units in the 

eastern half of the United States and in Europe. The 22d USATDS LSO 

provides defense services to soldiers assigned to units in the western 

half of the United States and Asia. The Chief, USATDS, exercises 

technical supervision over the reserve USATDS LSOs. He is responsible 

for the provision of defense counsel services and provides oversight 

for the units’ training and readiness. Some individual USATDS offices 

have established joint training programs with local RC USATDS 

personnel and have conducted highly successful joint training 

conferences. Reserve support to active duty USATDS offices continues 

to be outstanding, with reserve officers providing critical support at 

many AC installations in addition to locations such as Camp Shelby, 

Mississippi, Fort Dix, New Jersey, and Fort McCoy, Wisconsin. Reserve 

judge advocates have also deployed overseas to Germany as backfills 

for active duty forward deployed defense counsel. Several RC judge 

advocates are serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo as defense 

counsel. During any given month, USATDS has anywhere from 30 to 40 

mobilized RC counsel and paralegals throughout the Army. 

In some recent courts-martial cases, AC counsel in USATDS Region 

V (Fort Lewis) have been partnered with RC counsel who are experienced 

litigators. This initiative has promoted the professional development 

of AC defense counsel through training and mentoring and other USATDS 

regions plan to implement similar programs for their defense counsel. 

In FY 06, Headquarters, USATDS, created the Defense Counsel 

Assistance Program (DCAP), which is similar to the Trial Counsel 

Assistance Program (TCAP). DCAP is designed to assist with the 

training and education of defense counsel, while also supporting 

Headquarters, USATDS, with policy initiatives and military justice 

related issues. 

Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Training for USATDS counsel was 

conducted in week-long, consolidated regional workshops, attended by 

AC and RC USATDS counsel, as well as counsel from other services. 

 

10 
The multi-region/multi-service approach to CLEs resulted in more 

productive and informative CLEs, benefiting all attendees. CLEs are 

designed to assist USATDS counsel in improving their advocacy skills. 

All training sessions included extensive practical exercises and 

individual critiques by experienced attorneys. In Korea, USATDS 

continued to cross-train with the Marines and Air Force in Okinawa and 

Japan. The training focused USATDS counsel on refining their 

courtroom skills and expanding their knowledge of military justice 

with particular emphasis on evidentiary objections and arguments. 

USATDS counsel in Europe conducted semi-annual joint regional 

workshops. Throughout the year, individual USATDS counsel are also 

given numerous opportunities to attend CLE’s sponsored by the LCS, 

sister service schools, as well as civilian sponsored CLE’s. 

GOVERNMENT APPELLATE DIVISION 

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

represents the United States before ACCA, CAAF, and the U.S. Supreme 

Court in appeals by Soldiers convicted at courts-martial with an 

adjudged sentence of either a punitive discharge or confinement for 

one year or more. 

 In FY 06, GAD consisted of the Chief, the Deputy Chief, three 

branch chiefs, ten appellate attorneys, and three civilian paralegals. 

Additionally, during the year, six RC soldiers were activated to 

assist with brief writing and other duties. The GAD filed 1,138 

briefs with the ACCA and 17 briefs with the CAAF. FY 06 is notable 

for a continued commitment to reducing the backlog of cases pending 

before the ACCA. By increasing focus, maintaining RC support, using 

subject matter experts, and refining case tracking methods, the 

backlog was significantly reduced from 372 cases to 198 cases at 

year’s end. 

 During FY 06, GAD also presented oral argument in 17 cases before 

the ACCA and 16 cases before the CAAF. One of the oral arguments 

before the ACCA was an Outreach Argument at the LCS. One of the oral 

arguments before the CAAF was an Outreach Argument presented at the 

American University Washington College of Law. 

TRIAL COUNSEL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

The U.S. Army Trial Counsel Assistance Program (TCAP) continued 

its mission of providing information, advice, training, and assistance 

to trial counsel worldwide. TCAP’s team of four officers and one 

civilian assistant was augmented with two additional counsel to assist 

with TCAP’s expanded mission of serving as lead prosecutors in several 

high-profile detainee abuse cases. Serving also as a GAD branch, TCAP 

links trial counsel and appellate counsel together to resolve issues 

of common concern in the successful prosecution of courts-martial. 

11 
In light of this, TCAP serves as the prosecutor’s appellate 

advocate for extraordinary writs and Government appeals on issues 

arising before final disposition. In addition, TCAP represents the 

Government during habeas corpus litigation of cases that have 

completed the ordinary course of appellate review. 

 TCAP provided five basic categories of services: (1) telephone/email/website assistance; (2) advocacy training courses and other 

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

assistance; and (5) appellate assistance. In providing these 

services, TCAP has accomplished the following in FY 06: (1) responded 

to an average of more than 200 telephonic and e-mail requests for 

assistance per month; (2) created and maintained the TCAP website, 

which was accessed more than 14,000 times during 2006; (3) conducted 

five regional advocacy training conferences, attended by 276 judge 

advocates, 38 of whom were from other services; (4) developed a 

practical course for judge advocates titled “TC 101: How to Be a 

Trial Counsel” and provided this instruction on twelve occasions to 

approximately 160 judge advocates across several military 

installations; (5) worked with the LCS to integrate this practical 

instruction into the Officer Basic curriculum; (6) created a new 

introductory course on “Forensic Evidence” to teach judge advocates 

about the services available at the U.S. Crime Lab at Fort Gordon, 

Georgia, and to foster communication between judge advocates and lab 

personnel; (7) provided forensic evidence training to thirty judge 

advocates in two sessions; (8) worked with The National Center for 

Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) to develop a course for judge 

advocates on “Protecting Children from On Line Crime”; (9) drafted a 

memorandum of understanding with NCMEC, whereby NCMEC provided ten 

fully funded slots to TCAP for each of its six courses; (10) 

collaborated with NCMEC by providing TCAP personnel as instructors 

during course break-out sessions; (11) TCAP personnel also served as 

instructors at various American Prosecutors Research Institute 

courses, which enhanced the reputation of the Judge Advocate General’s 

Corp among the target audience of district attorneys throughout the 

country; (12) published a monthly newsletter containing updates on 

legal decisions and practical tips for trial counsel to use in 

prosecuting cases and handling recurring issues; (13) created and 

distributed compact discs to judge advocates in the field, which 

included “TC 101,” samples of every document a trial counsel needs, 

“How to Handle a Classified Case,” “Capital Litigation” and “Basics of 

DNA”;(14) actively assisted in the prosecution of several high-profile 

cases including United States v. Martinez, United States v. Lewis, 

United States v. Kruetzer, as well as the detainee abuse cases from 

Abu Ghraib and Bagram; 

12 
(15) responded to ten habeas corpus petitions; and (16) completed more 

than twenty GAD appellate briefs and two government appeals. 

 During FY 06, TCAP continued to be actively engaged with Army RC, 

sister service, and civilian counterparts. Approximately one-third of 

the requests for TCAP’s assistance continued to come from the RC. 

 

Recognizing the RC’s desire for assistance relating to military 

criminal justice matters, TCAP strives to include the RC in everything 

it does, such as when it provides copies of materials to the field. 

 

Another example of TCAP’s RC support is the instruction that it 

provided at the training on-sites for the 75th and 8th Legal Support 

Organizations. To further enhance the quality of legal work across 

the services, TCAP has invited the Army’s sister services to its 

conferences. TCAP has also strengthened its relationships with the 

National District Attorney Association (NDAA) and the American 

Prosecutors Research Institute by serving as instructors for their 

courses. In turn, these organizations have given scholarships to TCAP 

to attend their courses. The information gained at these conferences 

has proven invaluable to counsel in the field. Additionally, if a 

trial counsel in the field has a question, the NDAA will solicit 

responses from district attorneys around the country, thus expanding 

the pool of information. 

DEFENSE APPELLATE DIVISION 

 The Defense Appellate Division provides appellant representation 

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

United States. Qualifying Soldiers include Soldiers convicted at 

courts-martial and the approved sentence includes either a punitive 

discharge or at least one year of confinement. The Division also 

assists Trial Defense Counsel in various trial issues, including the 

preparation and filing of writs in the courts mentioned above. 

 During FY 06, the Division received 972 new cases. Appellate 

defense attorneys filed briefs in 1000 cases before ACCA, 400 

supplements to petitions for review with CAAF, and 15 final briefs 

with the CAAF. Appellate defense counsel also filed 238 miscellaneous 

pleadings before the Army Court and 84 miscellaneous pleadings before 

the CAAF. Appellate defense counsel argued 14 cases before the Army 

Court and 12 cases before the CAAF. 

FOREIGN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION 

 As the DoD Executive Agent for the exercise of foreign criminal 

jurisdiction, the Army, through the International Law and Operations 

Division, OTJAG, compiles information concerning the exercise of 

foreign criminal jurisdiction over U.S. personnel. 

13 
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 2003 1 Dec 2004 

 to to 

 30 Nov 2004 30 Nov 2005

 

Foreign Offense Citations 4,593 4,178 

 Total Civilian 1,265 903 

 Total Military 3,328 3,275 

 Exclusive Foreign Jurisdiction 110 119 

 Concurrent Jurisdiction 3,218 3,156 

 Traffic Offenses 372 230 

 Foreign Jurisdiction Recalls 477 306 

During this reporting period, foreign authorities released to 

U.S. authorities 6 of the 119 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 2,963 of the 3,156 cases. 

Overall, the U.S. obtained waivers in 93.9% of all exclusive and 

concurrent jurisdiction cases. This figure reflects an increase of 

5.6% in obtaining waivers compared to the previous reporting period. 

 During the last reporting period, civilian employees and 

dependents were involved in 1,265 offenses. Foreign authorities 

released 437 of these cases (34.5% of the total of that reporting 

period) to U.S. military authorities for administrative actions or 

some other form of disposition. In this reporting period, civilian 

employees and dependents were involved in 903 offenses. The foreign 

authorities released 211 of these cases (23.3% of the current total of 

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

obtaining releases of foreign criminal jurisdiction over civilian 

employees and dependents. 

 During this reporting period, foreign authorities tried a total 

of 499 cases involving U.S. personnel. Three trials, or 0.6%, 

resulted in acquittals. Those convicted were sentenced as follows: 

12 cases resulted in executed confinement, 52 cases resulted in 

suspended confinement, and 432 cases (86.6% of the total trials) 

resulted in only fines or reprimands. 

14 
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 

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

professional responsibility program, which is comprised of the 

following: (1) administratively reviewing alleged violations of the 

Army Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyers and allegations of 

mismanagement by supervisors for credibility; (2) tasking supervisory 

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

inquiry; (4) advising TAJAG on appropriate disposition of cases; and 

(5) overseeing the operation of TJAG’s Professional Responsibility 

Committee. 

 

 SOCO also manages information to: (1) track inquiries; (2) 

release information when warranted under the Freedom of Information 

Act and Privacy Act; and (3) maintain a professional responsibility 

website on JAGCNET. 

Complaints during FY 06 

SOCO is responsible for ensuring complaints against attorneys are 

properly processed and that the supervisor or The Assistant Judge 

Advocate General takes appropriate action. The inquiry process 

involves two steps – a credibility determination, and when 

appropriate, a follow on preliminary screening inquiry. The 

credibility determination is the initial screening process whereby the 

supervisor assesses whether there is credible evidence of misconduct 

by the subordinate attorney. If the supervisory judge advocate 

determines the evidence is credible, SOCO will transition the 

investigation to a preliminary screening inquiry to investigate the 

questioned conduct to determine whether it violated the Army Rules of 

Professional Conduct for Lawyers. 

In FY 06, SOCO closed 40 cases compared to 56 in FY 05 and 72 in 

FY 04. Of the 40 cases closed this year, 31 were closed unfounded 

following the credibility determination and the remaining 9 were 

founded and closed following completion of the preliminary screening 

inquiry and action by The Assistant Judge Advocate General. The 9 

founded cases are consistent with the 11 founded cases in both FY 04 

and FY 05. SOCO carried over from FY 06 into FY 07 105 cases compared 

to 39 cases carried over from FY 05 into FY 06. 

LITIGATION

 Civil lawsuits requiring federal courts to interpret the UCMJ are 

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

Litigation Division’s practice. 

15 
Most suits are brought by former Soldiers seeking collateral review of 

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

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

filed in the Court of Federal Claims. The following cases highlight 

the types of cases handled by the Army Litigation Division. 

The Army successfully defended 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 

U.S. 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 a 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 Army Board for Correction of Military 

Records (“ABCMR”) in 1992, and again in 2004, challenging the 

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

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

counsel and challenged the ABCMR’s denial of relief. On March 24, 

2006, the court granted the government’s motion to dismiss, finding 

plaintiff’s wrongful discharge claim and collateral attack on his 

court-martial conviction were both barred by the statute of 

limitations, and the ABCMR’s denial of relief was proper. The 

appointment of defense counsel who are not licensed attorneys is not a 

practice followed in courts-martial cases today. 

The Army successfully defended a challenge by a former prisoner 

to a sentence of contingent confinement in Dickson v. Probation 

Office. The petitioner was tried by general court-martial in the 

Military District of Washington for drug distribution. He received a 

$20,000 fine, with two years of contingent confinement if the fine was 

not paid. He did not pay the fine, claiming that he was indigent. An 

indigency hearing was held at Ft. Knox, Kentucky, and his claim was 

rejected. He was sentenced to the two years of contingent 

confinement; however, that only led to his parole being extended two 

years. Mr. Dickson challenged the application of the contingent 

confinement before both ACCA and the Court of Appeals of the Armed 

Forces, but his claims were rejected. Mr. Dickson filed a habeas 

petition in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of 

Florida. The case was transferred to the Western District of Kentucky 

and then transferred back to the Southern District of Florida. 

16 
 While these transfers occurred, Mr. Dickson’s parole expired. 

The government filed a brief arguing that because Mr. Dickson was no 

longer in custody, and that he was only challenging his sentence and 

not the underlying conviction, he did not suffer any consequences 

separate and apart from his underlying conviction and the court lacked 

jurisdiction to hear his petition. Additionally, the government 

argued that the military courts fully addressed Mr. Dickson’s claims. 

The court agreed and dismissed Mr. Dickson’s petition. 

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

against allegations of constitutional deficiencies in a court-martial. 

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

distribution by a general court-martial at Fort Campbell, KY. He 

alleged that his confession was obtained in violation of the Fifth 

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

before ACCA and the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces; however, his 

claim was rejected by the military courts. He then filed a petition 

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

District of Virginia. The government moved to dismiss the petition on 

the grounds that the military courts had fully and fairly considered 

his claims and no constitutional violation had occurred. On July 10, 

2006, the district court agreed and dismissed the petition. The case 

is currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth 

Circuit. 

In the highly publicized case of New v. Secretary of Defense, Mr. 

Michael New continues to challenge his 1996 court-martial conviction 

for refusing to wear the United Nations insignia on his uniform during 

the preparation for deployment to Macedonia. In May 2006, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the 

United States District Court for the District of Columbia’s dismissal 

of Mr. New’s complaint. The District of Columbia Circuit found that 

the district court had correctly ruled that the central issues in the 

case had been fully litigated in the military courts and were thus 

non-reviewable in the absence of a fundamental error. The U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit further held that the 

remaining issues were meritless or barred by the political question 

doctrine. In August 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit denied Mr. New’s request for a rehearing en banc. 

In November 2006, Mr. New filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. 

 The Army successfully defended recent revisions to Army 

Regulation (“AR”) 27-10 (Military Justice) in Pope v. Sivious. The 

petitioner, former Sergeant Patrick Pope, was convicted at a general 

court-martial at Fort Drum, NY, in September 2005. He improperly 

charged several thousand dollars of personal expenses to a government 

credit card issued to him as the NCOIC of a funeral detail and was 

sentenced to three years confinement and a fine of $34,500. 

17 
The petitioner argued that he was out of the Army one day before his 

court martial because he received his final accounting of pay, cleared 

post, and received his discharge certificate (DD 214); therefore, the 

Army did not have jurisdiction over him at the time of his courtmartial. However, in 2002 the Army revised AR 27-10 in response to a 

decision from the Court of Appeal for the Armed Forces (Smith v. 

Vanderbush). The revision to the regulation makes any discharge 

issued after the preferral of charges void until the charge is 

dismissed or the convening authority takes action on the case. On 

October 18, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of 

Oklahoma dismissed the habeas petition after reviewing the magistrate 

judge’s report and recommendation and the revisions to the regulation. 

The court opined that the petitioner was in the Army at the time of 

his court-martial and dismissed the habeas petition on the basis that 

the petitioner had not exhausted his military appellate remedies. 

In MacLean v. Department of the Army, the Army is defending its 

ability to neither confirm nor deny the existence of records, known as 

a “Glomar denial,” in response to a Freedom of Information Act 

(“FOIA”) request for professional conduct investigations of Army Judge 

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

investigations completed on, and/or any disciplinary action taken 

against, Army judge advocates who issued allegedly “illegal” military 

subpoenas to civilians, SOCO declined to confirm or deny the existence 

of any records. Plaintiff filed suit in the U.S. District Court for 

the Southern District of California to compel the production of the 

records, if any. 

Plaintiff also seeks to enjoin the Secretary of the Army from the 

policy and practice of issuing a Glomar denial in response to a FOIA 

request. In a motion for summary judgment, the Army argued that such 

a response was proper because the public interest in disclosure of the 

professional conduct files requested does not outweigh the privacy 

interests of the individual attorneys who are the subjects of the 

files, if any files exist. Plaintiff’s response to the Army’s motion 

was due in December 2006 with oral argument scheduled for early 2007. 

PERSONNEL, PLANS, AND POLICIES 

On 30 September 2006, the Army’s end strength was 574,456 Army 

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

mobilized Soldiers, compared to 567,152 at the end of fiscal year 

2005. 

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

the end of FY 06 was 1,638 (including general officers). 

18 
This total does not include 63 officers attending law school while 

participating in the Funded Legal Education Program. The attorney 

strength of the RC Judge Advocate General’s Corps at the end of FY 06 

was 2,785 and the strength of the Army National Guard at the end of FY 

06 was 569. The diverse composition of our AC attorney population 

included 121 African-Americans, 51 Hispanics, 93 Asians and Native 

Americans, and 415 women. The FY 06 AC end strength of 1,638 compares 

with an end strength of 1,603 in FY 05, 1,547 in FY 04, 1,506 in FY 

03, 1,474 in FY 02, 1,462 in FY 01, 1,427 in FY 00, 1,426 in FY 99, 

1,499 in FY 98, 1,523 in FY 97, and 1,541 in FY 96. The grade 

distribution of the Corps’ AC attorneys was 4 general officers, 128 

colonels, 228 lieutenant colonels, 361 majors and 917 captains. An 

additional 90 warrant officers, 500 civilian attorneys, and 1,416 

enlisted paralegals supported legal operations worldwide. As of the 

end of FY 06, over 780 Army JAG personnel (officer and enlisted, AC 

and RC) had deployed in operations in Iraq, Egypt, Kuwait, 

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

(afloat) and Honduras. At the end of FY 06, 390 Army JAG personnel 

were deployed. 

SCOTT C. BLACK 

Major General, USA 

The Judge Advocate General 

19
APPENDIX - U.S. ARMY MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Report Period: FISCAL YEAR 2006 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE 

(+)/ DECREASE (-) 

OVER LAST REPORT 

GENERAL 749 723 26 -9.2% 

BCD SPECIAL [A] 573 556 17 -18.1% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 6 6 0 N/A (none last 

year) 

SUMMARY 1,140 1,074 66 -9.0% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT -12.9% 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED [B]

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES (+ 

dismissals) 

142 (+28) 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 455 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 335 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 636 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 332 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 182 

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

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 194 [C] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D] 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D] 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 1228 [C] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 1323[E] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 99 [C] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD +21.1% 

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

(CCA) 

NUMBER 1001 

PERCENTAGE 81.52% 

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

 PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 435 of 1323 32.88 % 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +34.67% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 45 of 457 9.85 % 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +9.76% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY USACCA 3.40% 

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

DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD -14.36% 

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 9 

RECEIVED 8 

DISPOSED OF 15 

 GRANTED 0 

 DENIED 15 

 NO JURISDICTION 0 

 WITHDRAWN 0 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF 

PERIOD 2 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 606 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 508 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 143 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 71 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 21 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 574,456 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT 

IMPOSED 42,814 

RATE PER 1,000 74.53 

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

PREVIOUS PERIOD -18.94% 

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, 2005 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 

 SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF 

MILITARY JUSTICE 

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

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

Commander, Naval Legal Service Command made frequent inspections of 

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

to supervise the administration of military justice. These 

inspections, conducted by subject matter experts, examined the full 

range of military justice processes at those offices inspected. 

CRIMINAL LAW DIVISION (CODE 20) 

Organization. Captain Christian L. Reismeier, JAGC, USN relieved 

Captain Jennifer Herold as the Division Director, and Lieutenant David 

A. Norkin, JAGC, USN relieved Lieutenant Commander Christopher Connor 

as the Deputy Director. The Criminal Law Division was staffed with 

five active duty judge advocates, three civilian support personnel, 

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

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

Action Officer support. 

Mission. Administers military justice policy within the 

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

wide variety of military justice matters; reviews all legislative and 

regulatory proposals affecting military justice; represents the Navy 

in regular meetings of the Joint Service Committee (JSC) on Military 

Justice, which is the principal vehicle for staffing amendments to the 

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

Secretarial and JAG regulations implementing the UCMJ, including 

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

decisions of military appellate courts; staffs JAG certification of 

cases decided by the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals 

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

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

special court-martial convening authority and for Secretarial 

substitution of administrative 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 Code 20 Division Director serves as Special 

Assistant for Military Justice, Naval Legal Service Command 

(NAVLEGSVCCOM), and advises Commander, NAVLEGSVCCOM regarding 

policies, plans, resources and procedures affecting the military 

justice mission of NAVLEGSVCCOM. In that capacity, the Division 

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

inspections of NAVLEGSVCCOM commands and detachments. In fiscal year 

2006, the Division Director participated in the Article 6, UCMJ, 

inspections of NAVLEGSVCCOM commands in Europe and the Pacific 

Northwest. 

The JSC 2006 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 amendments to the rape statute, 

UCMJ, Article 120, to include sexual offenses currently charged under 

UCMJ, Article 134 and amendments to the Military Rules of Evidence 

relating to cases involving alleged sexual misconduct. 

 During the past year, the Military Justice Division reviewed 20 

records of trial under Article 69a, UCMJ and 6 records under Article 

69b, UCMJ. Additionally, 29 petitions under Article 73, UCMJ were 

reviewed. One case was forwarded to NMCCA for review. 

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

Legal issues addressed included: the applicability of R.C.M. 707 

speedy trial rule to rehearings on sentence; speedy post-trial review 

under both the Due Process Clause of the Constitution and Article 66, 

UCMJ; the severance of an attorney-client relationship without the 

consent of the accused; application of waiver of speedy trial issue 

under Article 10, UCMJ, when the matter is first raised on appeal; an 

individual's right to privacy in temporarily abandoned property; the 

impact of unlawful command influence during the post-trial processing 

of a case; waiver in a pretrial agreement of the right to assert an 

unreasonable multiplication of charges; the admissibility of personnel 

records supporting the allegation of unauthorized absence under the 

Sixth Amendment; the applicability of the marital privilege when 

testifying regarding allegations of adultery; and the defense of truth 

when communicating a threat to harm another's reputation. 

 The court continued to post all published and authored decisions 

on the JAG web page and on the Navy Knowledge Online intranet. 

2 
APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISION (Code 45) 

Organization. Captain Robert B. Blazewick, JAGC, USN, and 

Lieutenant Colonel Richard R. Posey, USMC, reported in the summer of 

2006, and serve as the Division Director and Deputy Director. 

 

The Appellate Defense Division was staffed with 17 active duty 

Navy and Marine Corps judge advocates and 4 civilian support 

personnel. 

 The Appellate Defense Division was supported by 37 Navy and Marine 

Corps Reserve judge advocates. Reserve attorneys filed 1427 cases, 

representing 89% of the total initial pleadings for the year. The 

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

Ohio; NR NAMARA (Defense) 111, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; NAVJAG 519, 

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

Additionally, the Division received volunteer support from four Naval 

Reserve judge advocates from Voluntary Training Unit 614. The Marine 

Corps Reserve contingent consisted of five independently assigned 

Reserve judge advocates. In addition, four Marine Corps Reserve and 

two Navy Reserve Judge Advocates, not attached to Appellate Defense 

Division units were activated for periods ranging from two to eight 

weeks to assist in caseload management. 

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. 

 A total of 1610 new cases were docketed at NMCCA and received in 

the Appellate Defense Division. At the end of fiscal year 2006, the 

total number of cases pending initial review was 318. This represents 

a 36-case reduction from the number of cases pending initial review at 

the end of fiscal year 2005. The Division also achieved significant 

reduction in the number of cases pending initial pleadings in excess 

of one year. On October 1, 2003, there were 234 cases in a 7th or 

higher enlargement. A year later, that number was reduced to 82. By 

September 30, 2005, it was 16, and on September 30, 2006, the number 

was 2. 

3 
As depicted below, in fiscal year 2006, the Appellate Defense 

Division filed 1610 initial pleadings with the NMCCA. This number was 

comprised of 1097 merit submissions, 42 summary assignments, and 471 

briefs. A total of 188 cases were petitioned to CAAF, with 56 grants 

of review issued. 

 

NMCCA FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 

Briefs Filed 433 520 543 471 

Total Cases Filed 

 

2094 1966 2127 1610 

USCAAF 

Petitions Filed 

240 201 226 188 

Supplements Filed 

174 161 207 173 

Briefs Filed 12 19 26 76 

U.S. Supreme Court Petitions 

3 1 2 9* 

*Seven petitions for certiorari, one Amicus brief, and one correction. 

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. 

4 
 The Division also conducts a Trial Defense Counsel Outreach Training 

Program in order to provide training on recent appellate developments 

and important trial issues. 

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT DIVISION (CODE 46) 

 Organization. The Division was staffed with 12 active duty judge 

advocates and 2 civilian employees. Colonel Ralph F. Miller, USMC, 

continued to serve as the Division Director. Commander Paul LeBlanc, 

JAGC, USN relieved Commander Charles Purnell, JAGC, USN, as the Deputy 

Director in July 2006. 

 Reserve support continued to be critical to the accomplishment of 

the Division’s mission. The Division was supported by 13 Navy 

Reservists from 2 Navy Reserve Detachments: NAVJAG 116, Detroit, 

Michigan; and NAMARA 116, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and 3 Marine Corps 

Officers as Individual Mobilization Augmentees. 

Reserve units contributed an average of 17 briefs per month and 

periodically served on Active Training (AT) orders for 1 to 2 weeks 

per year. Lieutenant Commander Paul Bunge, JAGC, USNR, joined the 

Division for a period of 6 months on Active Duty for Special Work 

(ADSW) orders in February 2006. During the summer of 2006, three law 

student interns supported the Division. 

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

of the Appellate Government Division is to represent the United States 

before the NMCCA and CAAF. In addition, the Division provides support 

to staff judge advocates and trial counsel throughout the Navy and 

Marine Corps on issues related to pretrial, court-martial and posttrial proceedings. 

 The case tracking system migrated this fiscal year from Nautilus 

to the Case Management Tracking Information System (CMTIS). CMTIS 

calculations for “Briefs Filed” included Government briefs, answers to 

supplements, and supplemental briefs, all of which involved 

significant research and writing. CMTIS calculations for “Other 

Pleadings” included responses to extraordinary writs, motion 

responses, responses to Court Orders, and Petitions for 

Reconsideration. The number of full briefs filed by the Government at 

the CAAF increased by more than 100%. The Division participated in 

more oral arguments this fiscal year than in any previous year. The 

following chart sets forth the Division’s filings and oral arguments 

for the last six fiscal years. 

5 
 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 

NMCCA 

Briefs Filed 395 798 761 542 700 621 

Other Pleadings 277 456 475 222 425 333 

 Oral Arguments 12 8 6 8 16 10 

CAAF 

Briefs Filed 41 45 12 22 38 86 

Other Pleadings 82 91 152 73 128 115 

Oral Arguments 19 12 7 21 23 31 

The Division maintained an active Trial Counsel Assistance 

Program, providing advice to trial counsel and staff judge advocates 

by telephone and E-mail concerning active trial cases on hundreds of 

occasions. Division judge advocates conducted training at all major 

Navy and Marine Corps installations on post trial processing. 

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. 

 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. 

Following oral argument at CAAF, the case of United States v. 

Quintanilla was returned to the Convening Authority for a rehearing on 

sentencing. 

 During fiscal year 2006, the Division’s judge advocates 

participated in four oral argument outreach programs sponsored by 

CAAF. Oral argument outreach programs were held at the University of 

Denver Sturm College of Law, Denver, Colorado; the Catholic University 

of America Columbus School of Law, Washington, D.C.; Barry University 

Law School, Orlando, Florida; and Florida A & M University College of 

Law, Orlando, Florida. Participation in these programs served to 

educate and inform students and military members alike about the 

fairness and professionalism of the military justice system. 

6 
NAVY-MARINE CORPS TRIAL JUDICIARY 

The Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary (NMCTJ) is a joint NavyMarine Corps activity led by Chief Judge Steven F. Day, Colonel, USMC. 

Its mission is to provide certified military judges for Navy and 

Marine Corps general and special courts-martial. The Judiciary is 

organized into six judicial circuits and is supported by Naval Reserve 

and Marine Corps Reserve Individual Mobilization Augmentees. 

The NMCTJ consists of 31 active duty and 15 reserve judges serving 

in 6 judicial circuits. During fiscal year 2006, the NMCTJ provided 

judicial services in 278 general courts-marital and 1,299 special 

courts-martial. These numbers show there were fewer general and 

special courts-martial tried in fiscal year 2006 than in the previous 

fiscal year. 

The NMCTJ provided judicial services to Fleet and Shore 

activities, and to Marine Forces in the United States and around the 

world. 

Members of the trial judiciary participated in continuing 

education at the Army Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and 

School, the Interservice Military Judges Seminar at Maxwell Air Force 

Base, and various courses at the National Judicial College in Reno, 

Nevada. 

 

The NMCTJ also provided training at various levels, including 

Navy-Marine Corps Senior Officers Courses, Legal Officer Courses, 

Naval Justice School, Basic Courses, and other in-service courses. 

The NMCTJ performed an active role in mentoring judge advocates 

through both formal and informal training sessions. 

NAVAL LEGAL SERVICE COMMAND 

 Naval Legal Service Command (NAVLEGSVCCOM) is commanded by RADM 

James W. Houck, JAGC, USN who also serves as the Deputy Judge Advocate 

General of the Navy. NAVLEGSVCCOM includes 438 judge advocates, 1 

Civil Engineer Corps Officer, 18 Limited Duty (Law) Officers, 288 

Legalmen, and 230 civilians. NAVLEGSVCCOM provides a wide range of 

legal services to afloat and ashore commands, active duty naval 

personnel, family members, and retirees from 99 offices world-wide. 

In April of this year, a realignment of JAG Corps community assets 

from Commander Naval Installations Command and the Navy Regions to 

OJAG/NLSC provided a framework for the development of Region Legal 

Service Offices (RLSOs), which stood-up on 1 July. 

7 
This realignment builds RLSOs that will provide the Navy, Fleet and 

shore-based commands alike, with improved legal service support while 

at the same time finding efficiencies and savings. After this 

realignment, NAVLEGSVCCOM consists of eight Naval Legal Service 

Offices (NLSOs), nine Region Legal Service Offices (RLSOs), and the 

Naval Justice School. NAVLEGSVCCOM provides counsel for courtsmartial, administrative boards, physical evaluation boards, legal 

assistance, and local commanders. NAVLEGSVCCOM also provides training 

for Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard judge advocates, legalmen, and 

other DoD personnel. During fiscal year 2006, NAVLEGSVCCOM provided 

counsel for 158 general courts-martial, 368 special courts-martial, 

195 Article 32s, 1,032 administrative separation boards, provided over 

249,921 legal assistance services, and 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 Judge Advocate General's Legal Center 

and School in Charlottesville, Virginia. 

Mission. To oversee formal training of naval judge advocates, 

limited duty officers (LAW), and legalmen to ensure their career-long 

professional development and readiness; to provide comprehensive formal 

training to all Sea Service judge advocates and other legal personnel 

in order to promote justice and ensure the delivery of quality legal 

advice and other services to the commander; and to train commanders and 

senior officers in the practical aspects of military law to enable them 

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

assist in the sound administration of military justice. 

 In fiscal year 2006, NJS provided instruction to more than 9,696 

students worldwide (including 2,526 in resident courses ranging in 

length from 2 days to more than 10 weeks). 

 

8 
Academic Programs. NJS has eight "core" courses. These courses are: 

• Basic Lawyer Course (BLC). This 9-week course, offered 4 times 

annually, provides accession training for all judge advocates in 

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

extensive training in military justice and court-martial 

advocacy, as well as training in legal assistance and 

administrative law. Upon graduation, judge advocates are 

certified per Article 27(b), UCMJ. Fiscal year 2006 graduates: 

132. 

• Basic Operational Law Training (BOLT). This 1-week course is 

offered to all Navy accession judge advocates either right before 

or right after the BLC. 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. Fiscal year 2006 graduates: 

106.

• Accession Legalman Training. This 11-week course trains Navy 

enlisted personnel selected for conversion to the Legalman 

rating. There were no Legalman accession students in fiscal year 

2006, due to the potential rating merger with Yeomen, Religious 

Program Specialist, and Cryptologic Technician-Administration. 

Since the Legalman rating has been reopened, NJS will offer the 

Accession Legalman Course again in fiscal year 2007. However, 

the course has been substantially revised to provide ABA 

certified credits towards a paralegal degree. 

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

offered 4 times annually, provides accession level training to 

junior enlisted Marines seeking the Military Occupational 

Specialty of Marine Corps Legal Services Specialist. Curriculum 

consists of training in military justice, post trial review, and 

legal administration. Fiscal year 2006 graduates: 74. 

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

1-week course trains senior officers in the execution of the 

legal responsibilities of command with instruction in nonjudicial 

punishment, court-martial procedures, administrative law, and 

operational law topics including rules of engagement/rules for 

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

year 2006 graduates: 663. 

9 
• Legal Officer Course. This 3-week course prepares non-lawyer 

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

commands not large enough to warrant assignment of a judge 

advocate. Fiscal year 2006 graduates: 453. 

• Legal Clerk Course. Legal Clerks are typically assigned to 

assist non-lawyer legal officers within a command as a collateral 

duty. This 2-week course provides training in the preparation of 

legal forms and reports, service record entries, nonjudicial 

punishment, and court-martial procedures. Fiscal year 2006 

graduates: 279. 

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

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

all services training in a wide range of military law with 

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

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

Enlisted Academy. Fiscal year 2006 graduates: 314. 

 Continuing Legal Education. In addition to the "core" 

courses, NJS provided 31 continuing legal education (CLE) courses, 

many of which are pre-approved for CLE credit from state bar 

associations. Most of these courses focus upon military justice 

(e.g., intermediate and advanced trial advocacy skills; computer 

crimes; legal research and writing; national security cases; 

prosecuting and defending complex cases; reserve updates; and a number 

of paralegal courses). 

Training was provided to active duty and reserve judge advocates and 

enlisted legal professionals from the Sea Services, Army, Air Force, 

and foreign countries in military justice, as well as other topics, 

including operational law, administrative law, legal assistance, and 

estate planning. In fiscal year 2006, these resident courses reached 

1,523 active duty and 389 reserve legal professionals. 

 Coordination. Through the Interservice Legal Education Review 

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

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

Force Judge Advocate General’s School, meet bi-annually to discuss new 

initiatives and opportunities for cross-training and to increase 

cooperation and efficiency in the training of legal personnel within 

the Department of Defense. 

 

10 
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. In conjunction with the Defense Institute of 

International Legal Studies, NJS participated in the Expanded 

International Military Education and Training Program, a security 

assistance program provided for by Congress. The primary focus of 

this instruction is on military justice and procedure. In fiscal year 

2006, NJS instructors provided this type of training in Afghanistan, 

Argentina, Columbia, El Salvador, Zambia, and the Congo during 

training visits that usually lasted 1 to 2 weeks. 

Deployments. In fiscal year 2006, four NJS instructors deployed 

to Iraq for 6 months in support of Task Force 134 and Operation Iraqi 

Freedom. 

MARINE CORPS ACTIVITIES 

 There are approximately 446 active duty Marine judge advocates and 

415 Reserve Marine judge advocates. Additionally, there are 16 

warrant officers, 460 legal specialists, and 38 court reporters 

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

Forces in the continental United States, overseas, and on deployment 

throughout the world. Our drilling Reserve judge advocate community 

provides substantial support to each of our offices in all functional 

areas. 

 Marine Corps judge advocates perform a variety of missions. They 

work in the military criminal justice system as prosecutors, defense 

counsel, military judges, appellate defense counsel, or appellate 

government counsel in cases of all descriptions. 

Legal assistance judge advocates assist Marines, Sailors, military 

retirees, and family members in estate planning, domestic relations 

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

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

judge advocates also advise commanders during military operations, 

review military operational plans and provide advice on the Law of 

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

of force and support of our allies. Other proactive areas include 

pre-mobilization legal assistance, environmental law, civil law, 

contract law, international law, claims and tort law, and labor law. 

11 
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, 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, Marine Security Guard 

Battalion, Company I, Ft Lauderdale, Florida; Commanding Officer, 

Marine Security Guard Battalion, Company C, Bangkok, Thailand; 

Commanding Officer, Headquarters and Service Battalion, Marine Forces 

Reserve, New Orleans, Louisiana, and Commanding Officer, Headquarters 

and Service Battalion, Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii. 

 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 are 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 fourfold. First, eligible applicants must attend Officer Candidate School 

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

designed to test a candidate’s leadership and physical abilities. 

Successful completion leads to a commission as a Second Lieutenant. 

Second, all Marine Corps officers attend the Basic School (TBS). The 

Basic School is a rigorous, 6-month program that provides each 

lieutenant the foundation to be an infantry platoon commander. The 

phrase “every Marine a rifleman” applies even to judge advocates. 

Third, each judge advocate must complete the Basic Lawyer Course at 

the Naval Justice School in Newport, Rhode Island. 

Finally, each judge advocate must successfully complete the newly 

implemented Basic Operational Law Training (BOLT) course. 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. 

12 
 Currently, training opportunities are available at each of the 

services 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 6 enlisted Marines attend 

the Law Office management course at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, 

and the Senior Noncommissioned management course at Charlottesville, 

Virginia. In addition, the Marine Corps has 38 legal specialists and 

1 court reporter filling non-legal billets as Drill Instructors, 

Recruiters, and Marine Security Guards at U.S. embassies and 

consulates. Currently, enlisted Marines are enrolled in paralegal 

programs and have the opportunity to attend legal education courses 

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

Legalman/Legal Services Specialist Mid-Career Course and Legal 

Research and Writing at the Naval Justice School. 

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

Following the other services, the Law School Education Debt Subsidy 

(LSEDS) has now been approved and is undergoing implementation in the 

Marine Corps. Captains who have completed their initial active duty 

obligation and intend to augment into the regular Marine Corps are 

eligible. Selection to Major is the upper parameter for eligibility. 

Thirty thousand dollars is the authorized payment to be made in yearly 

installments of $10,000. Officers accepting LSEDS incur a further 3-

year commitment. 

 

13 
 The following chart contains military justice statistical 

information for the Marine Corps in fiscal years 2005 and 2006. 

Fiscal 

Year 

End 

strength 

GCM SPCM SCM Total 

Courts 

NJP Total 

Adseps 

FY06 180,416 120 962 1,262 2,346 13,217 5,010 

FY05 180,029 187 1,137 1,022 2,346 13,386 4,734 

BRUCE E. MacDONALD 

Rear Admiral, JAGC, U.S. Navy 

The Judge Advocate General of the Navy 

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

Report Period: FY 2006

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/ 

DECREASE (-) OVER LAST 

REPORT 

GENERAL 278 250 28 -23% 

BCD SPECIAL 

 1299 1240 59 -19.3% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 0 0 0 0% 

SUMMARY 1789 1774 15 -10% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT -15.1% 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL ) 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 104 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 99 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL ) 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 884 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 318 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1218 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTSMARTIAL  49 

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

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 991 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 375 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 616 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 1610 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 362 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1248 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 1787 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 416 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1191 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 814 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 231 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 583 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD -14% 

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE U.S. NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF 

CRIMINAL APPEALS (CCA) 

NUMBER 1582 

PERCENTAGE 00% 

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

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 188 12% 

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

REPORTING PERIOD 

-1.2% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 56 30% 

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

REPORTING PERIOD 

+8% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY 

CCA 

3.4% 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD +16% 

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 12 

RECEIVED 11 

DISPOSED OF 6 

 GRANTED 0 

 DENIED 6 

 NO JURISDICTION 0 

 WITHDRAWN 0 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF 

PERIOD 17 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 229 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1226 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 49 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 75 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 107 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 530,613 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT 

IMPOSED 26,080 

RATE PER 1,000 4.9% 

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

PREVIOUS PERIOD -17.7% 

Page 2 of 2 
SECTION 5 

REPORT OF THE 

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

OF THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 

OCTOBER 1, 2005 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 

THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (AFFCA) 

AFCCA rendered 782 decisions in fiscal year 2006. The Court 

continued its “Project Outreach” program, hearing oral arguments at 

locations around the country as a means of familiarizing Air Force 

members and the public with the appellate process of the military 

justice system. The Court heard argument at Lackland Air Force Base, 

Texas, Travis Air Force Base, California, Maxwell Air Force Base, 

Alabama, and in the National Capital Region before the Phi Alpha Delta 

International Law Fraternity. The issues involved in those cases 

included whether unlawful command influence deprived an appellant of 

due process of law, whether a general court-martial convening 

authority’s (GCMCA) participation in administering a referral officer 

promotion report and promotion non-recommendation to an appellant 

prior to his court-martial disqualified the GCMCA from acting in the 

case, whether it was error for a military judge to admit evidence of 

uncharged misconduct, over defense objection, pursuant to Military 

Rule of Evidence 413, and whether a military judge abused his 

discretion when he overruled a defense objection to an expert witness’ 

opinion testimony. 

During the fiscal year, the Court lost one Senior Judge to 

retirement as well as one Senior Judge, four Associate Judges, the 

Chief Commissioner, one Honors Law Clerk, the Chief Court 

Administrator and the Clerk of Court as a result of permanent change 

of station (PCS) moves. Subsequently, the Court welcomed four new 

Associate Judges – Colonel Dawn E.B. Scholz, Colonel David R. Francis, 

Colonel Laurence M. Soybel and Colonel Steven B. Thompson, two new 

Honors Law Clerks and a new Chief Court Administrator. 

TRIAL JUDICIARY 

 The Air Force Trial Judiciary had 21 active duty trial judges, 12 

reserve trial judges, and 6 noncommissioned officers assigned 

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 2006, the 

judges presided over 796 general and special courts-martial, a 19% 

decrease from FY05. 

At the division headquarters, Colonel Dawn R. Eflein is serving 

as the Chief Trial Judge, following the retirement of Colonel David 
Brash. In August, Lieutenant Colonel John E. Hartsell assumed duties 

as the Deputy Chief Trial Judge. 

The Trial Judiciary conducted the 32nd Interservice Military 

Judges Seminar at Maxwell AFB, AL 28-31 March. The seminar provided 

extensive continuing legal education and cross-feed among military 

trial judges. Over 110 military active duty and reserve judges from 

all services attended. 

Our judges participated in or conducted several other training 

sessions during this period. In May, Colonels Brash and Eflein 

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

Army Judge Advocate General School, University of Virginia, 

Charlottesville, VA. In August, Colonel Morrow and Major Kratz 

instructed at the Advanced Trial and Defense Advocacy Course, Air 

Force Judge Advocate General’s School (AFJAGS), Air University, 

Maxwell AFB, AL. In September, Colonel Eflein instructed at the Judge 

Advocate Staff Officers’ Course, AFJAGS. Colonel Brash and Eflein 

also made annual supervisory visits and trained trial and defense 

counsel at several regional workshops. 

In March 2006, the judiciary began to reorganize in accordance 

with the Air Force Chief of Staff’s Directive to centralize judiciary 

circuit management, eliminate regional circuits, and relocate 

judiciary and circuit personnel as appropriate. The Directive was 

part of The Judge Advocate General’s Corps (TJAGC) 21 initiative to 

re-examine ways to deliver legal services to the Air Force. The 

effort has allowed the Trial Judiciary to move two judges from Travis 

AFB, California to Nellis AFB, Nevada in July 2006. Several 

additional moves are planned to relocate judges closer to busy 

military justice bases and to major airport hubs. TJAGC 21 also 

centralized all Air Force docketing in the United States to a single 

office located at Bolling AFB, Washington DC. Centralized docketing 

allows greater visibility on the availability of judges and secures 

quicker trial dates for the parties. 

Three military trial judges attended courses at the National 

Judicial College. Colonels Eflein, Mike Burd, and Ron Gregory 

attended “Handling Capital Cases” in Seattle, Washington, in June. 

GOVERNMENT TRIAL & APPELLATE COUNSEL DIVISION 

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT COUNSEL 

 At the division headquarters, Colonel Gary F. Spencer served as 

the Chief, Government Trial and Appellate Counsel Division, until July 

2006 when Colonel Gerald R. Bruce replaced him; Lieutenant Colonel 

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

2 
In October 2005, division counsel attended the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (USCAAF) Symposium at The 

Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, sponsored by 

The Judge Advocate’s Association. 

In November 2005, division personnel attended the Criminal Law 

New Developments Course at the Army Judge Advocate General School. 

This course covered the previous year’s military cases. In addition 

to providing new counsel an update in criminal law developments, it 

was an opportunity for appellate counsel and trial counsel to discuss 

ways to better serve base legal offices and each other; it also 

provided an opportunity for our counsel to establish contacts with 

counterparts in their sister services. In May 2006, appellate 

counsel, including reservists, attended the USCAAF Judicial 

Conference, also held at Catholic University’s School of Law. All 

these gatherings provided current information on appellate issues and 

guidance on appellate practice. 

 During this time, the division continued to fulfill its 

obligation to support war-fighting commanders by deploying its senior 

appellate counsel, Major Matthew Ward, to Iraq from March to September 

2006. 

 

 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 produces a number of important publications, 

including the Appellate Update, Pocket Parts, the Advocacy Continuing 

Education (ACE) Newsletters, and a monthly newsletter for staff judge 

advocates and trial counsel. These documents are on the Division’s 

website, providing practitioners easy and immediate access to the 

latest in military justice case law. 

 There are 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. Of note, 

the division’s reserve paralegal is a law student at Widener 

University School of Law in Delaware; this summer she performed a 

special tour, during which she researched and drafted several Answers 

to Assignments of Error, which were submitted to AFCCA under her 

signature under the supervision of division counsel. 

 

3 
A summary of Air Force Appellate (Government) practice follows: 

AFCCA FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06

 Briefs Filed 181 230 226 159 207

 Cases Argued 12 13 14 11 15

 

USCAAF FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06

 Briefs Filed 99 51 69 73 47

 Cases Argued 28 31 15 29 25

SUPREME 

COURT 

FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06

 Petition/Waivers 

Filed 

0 0 0 5 0

 Briefs Filed 0 0 0 0 0

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. 

However, the end of the fiscal year saw the standing down of the 

geographically-based judiciary circuits. Although there are still 

prosecutors currently assigned at the locations formerly known as 

circuit offices, they are in the process of being reorganized and 

relocated. The new circuit trial counsel program will be a little 

leaner, with 19 counsel assigned at 12 locations worldwide: three 

counsel at Bolling AFB, Washington DC and three “instructorlitigators” at The Judge Advocate General’s School at Maxwell AFB, 

Alabama; two counsel at Yokota AB, Japan, Ramstein AB, Germany, and 

Randolph AFB, Texas; and one counsel at Travis AFB, California; Nellis 

AFB, Nevada; Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona; Peterson AFB, Colorado; 

Offutt AFB, Nebraska; Barksdale AFB, Louisiana; and Langley AFB, 

Virginia. All circuit trial counsel will be detailed to prosecute 

cases by the division headquarters at Bolling AFB, and their primary 

responsibility will be to represent the government in the most 

complex, litigated general courts-martial. They are also available 

for special courts-martial, discharge boards and other proceedings, as 

resources allow. 

 In the past year, circuit trial counsel represented the 

government in 324 courts-martial and 109 other proceedings. In one 

notable case, circuit trial counsel prosecuted a capital murder case 

and secured the first death penalty sentence in the Air Force in many 

years. Currently, there are three murder cases being prosecuted in 

Air Force courts-martial around the world, and six circuit trial 

counsel are assigned as lead prosecutors. 

4 
APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISION 

 Training for our appellate defense counsel remains one of the 

division’s critical priorities. Frequent turnover in counsel make 

this an especially invaluable area of interest. Training included the 

Criminal Law New Developments Course, the Judicial Conference 

sponsored by USCAAF, and a Military Appellate Advocacy Symposium 

sponsored by the Judge Advocates Association. 

Appellate defense counsel served as adjunct faculty members at 

the Trial and Defense Advocacy Course and the Advanced Trial Advocacy 

Course at AFJAGS. Appellate defense counsels 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 appellate updates throughout the year. 

Appellate defense counsel have contributed to “Project Outreach,” 

sponsored by USCAAF and AFCCA, by conducting oral arguments before 

audiences at the United States Air Force Academy, AFJAGS, Lackland 

AFB, TX, and Grand Forks AFB, ND. These arguments helped educate 

attendees on the fairness and professionalism of the military justice 

system. 

 Appellate defense division began FY06 with approximately 547 

cases pending initial briefing to the AFCCA. The division reduced 

the number of cases pending initial briefing to the AFCCA to 345 cases 

by the end of the FY. During that same time period the number of 

enlargements were reduced significantly. The total AFCCA, CAAF Supp 

and CAAF Grant briefs filed by the appellant defense division were 

1,027, a 52% increase over the previous fiscal year. 

 

The following figures reflect the division’s workload over the 

past five fiscal years: 

AFCCA 

FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY05 FY 06

Briefs 

Filed 

 525 512 502 376 638 

Cases 

Argued 

 12 12 14 11 16 

5 
USCAAF 

 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY05 FY06

Supplements 

to 

Petitions 

 

 412 219 274 268 371 

Grant 

Briefs 

 33 22 19 32 18 

Cases 

Argued 

 28 26 14 29 25 

SUPREME COURT 

 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY04 FY05

Petitions 

3 

 

3 

 

1 

 

0 

 

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 was responsible for providing all 

trial defense services within the Air Force through Area Defense 

Counsel (ADC), Defense Paralegals (DP), Circuit Defense Counsel (CDC), 

and Chief Circuit Defense Counsel (CCDC). These personnel reported 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 was staffed with 84 ADCs stationed at 71 bases 

worldwide. They were assisted by 72 DPs. The Division had 21 CDCs 

and 5 CCDCs. The CCDCs, along with most of the CDCs, were stationed 

at circuit offices located at Bolling AFB, DC, Randolph AFB, TX, 

Travis AFB, CA, Ramstein AB, Germany, and Yokota AB, Japan. There was 

also a CDC located at Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ, Nellis AFB, NV, Maxwell 

AFB, AL, Hurlburt Field, FL, and Kadena AB, Japan. A single defense 

paralegal manager was assigned to each of the circuits. In 2006, the 

Air Force’s newest ADC office was established at Al Udeid AB, Qatar, 

to serve clients in Southwest Asia. 

The continuing success of the Air Force’s ADC Program is largely 

attributable to its independence and its energized personnel. 

6 
 To ensure the best representation for Air Force clients, 

training remains the division’s top priority. 

On a continuing basis, each CCDC and CDC provided on-the-job training 

and mentoring to ADCs.Newly appointed defense counsel received formal 

training at the ADC Orientation held at Bolling AFB in May and August 

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

conducted DP training at the annual workshops. In addition, the 

division ensured each ADC had attended the Trial and Defense Advocacy 

Course and that all CDCs had attended the Advanced Trial Advocacy 

Course. The Division provided adjunct faculty members for these two 

courses held at AFJAGS. Selected defense counsel also attended Air 

Force in-residence force development education. 

MILITARY JUSTICE DIVISION 

 The Military Justice Division prepares opinions and policy 

positions for The Judge Advocate General. The division also assembles 

reports on military justice issues requested by the White House, 

Congress, DoD and the Air Staff. The division represents the Air 

Force on the DoD Joint Service Committee (JSC) on Military Justice. 

The division also provides representatives to all interservice 

activities involving military justice and support for the Article 146, 

UCMJ, Code Committee. Lastly, the division serves as the action 

agency for the review of military justice issues on applications 

submitted to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records 

(AFBCMR). 

 During the past year, the Military Justice Division: provided 44 

formal opinions concerning AFBCMR applications; received 120 inquires 

in specific cases requiring formal written replies to senior 

officials, including the President and members of Congress; and 

reviewed 67 records of trial for review under Article 69a, UCMJ, and 4 

records under Article 69b, UCMJ. The division presented the tenth 

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 and procedures and a division representative served 

as a principal trainer for judge advocates, sexual assault response 

coordinators, victim advocates, Air Force Office of Special 

Investigations (OSI) agents and medical personnel for both DoD and the 

AF. 

7 
Finally, division representatives played a pivotal role in 

drafting Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) implementing provisions and 

preparing a draft Executive Order for presidential signature for 

legislative changes to sexual assault offenses under Article 120 of 

the UCMJ. 

CLEMENCY, CORRECTIONS AND OFFICER REVIEW DIVISION 

At the end of fiscal year 2006, 505 Air Force personnel were in 

confinement. Of those, 87 inmates were in long-term confinement at 

the United States Disciplinary Barracks (USDB), Fort Leavenworth, 

Kansas, and 85 were serving time in the Federal Bureau of Prisons 

(BOP) system. A total of 3 inmates were enrolled in the Air Force 

Return-to-Duty Rehabilitation (RTDR) Program during this period, with 

3 graduating and being returned to duty. The number of Air Force 

inmates on parole at the end of fiscal year 2006 was 178, a 9 percent 

increase from last fiscal year. The President pardoned one former Air 

Force member tried by court-martial in 1978. 

The officer dismissal case workload remained consistent over the 

previous fiscal year, with 17 cases acted upon by the Secretary. 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’S SCHOOL 

 AFJAGS is the educational arm of the Judge Advocate General’s 

Corps. It is located at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, and provides 

education and training in all aspects of the military justice system 

to attorneys and paralegals from all military Services, other federal 

agencies, and many foreign countries. Specifically, instruction is 

given in advocacy, procedure and administration. AFJAGS faculty also 

provides military justice instruction at several schools and colleges 

throughout Air University—the Air Force’s center for education. 

Additionally, AFJAGS routinely publishes military and criminal justice 

items in The Reporter (a quarterly journal), The Air Force Law Review

(published biannually) and The Military Commander and the Law (updated 

annually). 

Of the 42 classes held at AFJAGS in Fiscal Year 2006 for 2,657 

students, the following courses had military justice related materials 

associated with them: 

 Advanced Trial Advocacy 

 Annual Survey of the Law (Reserve and Air National Guard) 

 Judge Advocate Staff Officer 

 Law Office Manager 

 Legal Aspects of Sexual Assault 

 

8 
Military Judges 

 Military Justice Administration 

 Paralegal Apprentice 

 Paralegal Craftsman 

 Reserve Forces Judge Advocate 

 Reserve Forces Paralegal 

 Staff Judge Advocate 

 Trial and Defense Advocacy 

LEGAL INFORMATION SERVICES 

 During fiscal year 2006, the Legal Information Services (JAS) 

Directorate continued to develop new tools and programs to further the 

use of information technology (IT) in the practice of military justice 

throughout the Air Force JAG Corps. 

 JAS continued to enhance the Automated Military Justice Analysis 

and Management System (AMJAMS) throughout the year. The most 

significant obstacle overcome during the year was compliance with the 

Air Force Standard Desktop Configuration. 

A tremendous amount of effort was expended to ensure that 

military justice practitioners were able to continue to use the 

program. Additional changes included increased security, new special 

identifiers for sexual assault and alcohol involvement, better on-line 

query capability and improved web reports. Also an Executive Summary 

Report was developed to provide leadership with a more succinct 

overview of their military justice program. 

 The directorate developed and beta-tested the first-ever software 

application intended to assist ADC offices in documenting and tracking 

cases as well as to enable Defense Counsel leadership to oversee 

workload. The Area Defense Electronic Reporting (ADER) application 

will furnish ADCs a web-based application providing cradle-to-grave 

case management. Additionally, ADER will provide statistical reports 

not previously available and, through an interface with AMJAMS, will 

ensure consistency of such reports. 

 In order to enhance the effectiveness of the new Central 

Docketing Office (CDO), the directorate also acquired and fielded the 

Judicial Docketing System (JDS). JDS is a modified commercial 

application that provides the CDO with web access to the calendars of 

the military judges. This allows docketing decisions to be made 

quickly and efficiently and replaces an outdated grease board process. 

PERSONNEL 

 As of 30 September 2006, the Air Force Judge Advocate General's 

Corps had 1254 judge advocates on active duty. 

9 
Company grade officers (lieutenants and captains) made up 

approximately 49% of that number (611). 

Slightly more than 26% were majors (327) and 15% were lieutenant 

colonels (194). Almost 10% of the Corps were colonels and above 

(122), including two major generals and four brigadier generals. The 

Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps Reserve included 926 Air 

Force Reserve IMA, Air Force Reserve unit-assigned, and Air National 

Guard judge advocates, of whom 12% (111) were company grade officers 

and 73% (677) were field grade officers (majors and lieutenant 

colonels). The remaining 15% consisted of 134 colonels, three 

brigadier generals, and one major general. 

JACK L. RIVES 

Major General, USAF 

The Judge Advocate General 

10 
APPENDIX - U.S. AIR FORCE MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Period: Fiscal Year 2006 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATUS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF 

INCREASE(+)/ 

DECREASE (-) OVER

LAST REPORT 

GENERAL 341 297 44 -19.19% 

BCD SPECIAL 455 200 29 -11.99% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL [A] 226 

SUMMARY 140 139 1 - 0.03% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE ( + ) / DECREASE ( - ) OVER LAST REPORT -13.25% 

PART 2 - DISCHARGE APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL (CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES [B] 67 

 NUMBER OF BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGES 221 

SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL (CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGES 195 

PART 3 - RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 - GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 271 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 - BCD SPECIAL COURTSMARTIAL 197 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 - GENERAL COURTSMARTIAL 75 

PART 4 - WORK LOAD OF THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 721 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL [C] 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL [C] 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 472 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL [C] 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL [C] 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 735 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 458 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD (735/476) +54.41% 

PART 5 - APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

NUMBER 472/497 

PERCENTAGE 94.87% 

 

 

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

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

PERCENTAGE OF AFCCA REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCAAF 

(381/564) (376/735) 51.16% 

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

PERIOD + 3.67% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED (68/376) 18.09% 

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

PERIOD - 2.69% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 

BY AFCCA (60/404) (68/735) 9.25% 

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

DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD - 0.75% 

PART 7 - APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF, ARTICLE 69 

PENDING AT BEGINNING OF PERIOD 0 

RECEIVED 4 

DISPOSED OF 1 

 GRANTED 0 

 DENIED 1 

 NO JURISDICTION 0 

 WITHDRAWN 0 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 3 

PART 8 - ORGANIZATION OF COURT 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 528 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 193 

 SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 335 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH 

MEMBERS 268 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 148 

 SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 120 

PART 9 - COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 17 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 349,732 

PART 11 - NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 7,616 

RATE PER 1,000 21.78% 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD -1.35% 

EXPLANATORY NOTES 

[A] The Air Force does not convene non-BCD SPCMs. Of the 455 SPCMs tried, there were 200 

convictions with a BCD adjudged, 226 convictions without a BCD adjudged and 29 acquittals. 

[B] Includes 20 officer dismissals. 

[C] GCM and SPCM were not tracked separately. 

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, 2005 to September 30, 2006 

PERSONNEL AND TRAINING 

The Coast Guard has 196 officers designated as judge advocates 

serving on active duty, of which 146 are serving in legal billets and 

50 are serving in general duty billets. Among the 50 military 

attorneys serving in "out-of-specialty" billets are the Commander of 

the Ninth Coast Guard District in Cleveland; Commander of the 

Seventeenth Coast Guard District in Juneau; Director, Global Maritime 

Intelligence Integration; Deputy Assistant Commandant for Intelligence 

and Criminal Investigations; Special Assistant to the Vice President 

of the United States; and other commanding and executive officers of 

Coast Guard cutters, sectors, marine safety offices, training 

centers, and support commands. The Coast Guard also employs 78 

civilian attorneys ranging from GS-12 to SES. 

The Coast Guard sent attorneys to 38 different courses of 

instruction during this fiscal year, primarily at the various service 

JAG schools. 76% 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 United States Army Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and 

School and will graduate in 2007 with a Masters of Law (LLM) degree in 

military law and another is a Fellow in the Center for Law and 

Military Operations. Twenty Coast Guard officers (including seven 

funded postgraduate program studies, ten direct-commissioned lawyers, 

and three civilian attorneys) 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 2006 were: 

 Chief Judge Joseph H. Baum 

 Judge David J. Kantor 

 Judge Lane I. McClelland 

 Judge Gilbert E. Teal 

 Judge Gary E. Felicetti 

 Judge Frederick W. Tucher (Assigned on 28 July 2006 and 

 sworn in on 3 August 2006). 

 In addition to the decisional work of the Court, as reflected in 

the Appendix, the judges of the Court have been involved in various 
professional conferences, committees and seminars during the past 

fiscal year. 

 On 17 and 18 May 2006, Judges McClelland and Teal 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 12 September 2006, Judge McClelland participated on 

a.pane1 of judges at the Judge Advocates Association (JAA) Appellate 

Advocacy Seminar. On 14 September 

2006, Judges McClelland and Kantor participated in the William S. 

Fulton, Jr., Appellate Military Judges Conference and Training 

Seminar at the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building in 

Washington, D.C. Judge McClelland has also attended most of the JAA 

Inn of Court monthly meetings in the past year. During the year, Chief 

Judge Baum continued as a member of the USCAAF’s Rules Advisory 

Committee. 

 On 13 July 2006, Chief Judge Baum was presented the Justice 

Tom C. Clark Outstanding Government Lawyer Award by the District 

of Columbia Chapter of the Federal Bar Association for his exceptional 

record of public service over the past 53 years. 

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 courtsmartial rests with the staff judge advocate of the cognizant 

Maintenance and Logistics Command; Atlantic for eastcoast cases and 

Pacific for west-coast cases. Pursuant to an 

inter-service memorandum of understanding, the U.S. Navy provides 

trial defense counsel for all Coast Guard courts-martial. In 

return, at least four Coast Guard attorneys are assigned to full time 

duty at one or more Navy Legal Service Offices or Regional Legal 

Service Offices. 

 The Coast Guard has one general courts-martial judge and 13 

collateral-duty special courts-martial judges. The Chief Trial 

Judge details all military judges to Coast Guard courts-martial. 

When the Chief Trial Judge was unavailable, courts-martial judges 

from other military services were detailed to general courts-martial. 

 The Office of Military Justice at Coast Guard Headquarters 

is responsible for representing the United States in all courtsmartial appeals and providing support to staff judge advocates and 

trial counsel throughout the Coast Guard. 

2 
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 2006 

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 06 05 04 03 02 

General Courts-Martial 16 07 12 08 04 

Special Courts-Martial 32 45 27 18 23 

Summary Courts-Martial 31 21 12 20 11 

Total 79 73 51 46 38 

ADDITIONAL MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Appendix A contains the Coast Guard, Fiscal Year 2006 

military justice statistics. 

William D. Baugartner 

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 2005 - 30 SEPTEMBER 2006 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE 

(+)/ DECREASE (-) 

OVER LAST REPORT 

GENERAL 16 16 0 +42% 

BCD SPECIAL 32 31 01 +31% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 0 0 0 UNCHANGED 

SUMMARY 31 31 0 +17% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT +72% 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 03 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 08 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 12 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 11 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 12 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTSMARTIAL 05 

PART 4 – WORKLOAD OF THE COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 28 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 06 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 22 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 24* 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 11 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 12 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 23 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 05 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 18 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 28 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 12 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 16 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

-4.17% 

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE U.S. COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (CCA) 

NUMBER 23 

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 7/23 30% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +16% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 

2/4 

29% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -21% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CGCCA 

2/29 

9% 

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

DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD +2% 

* One extraordinary writ not a court-martial. 

Page 1 of 2 
APPENDIX - U.S. COAST GUARD MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS - CONT'D 

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ 

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF 

PERIOD 0 

RECEIVED 0 

DISPOSED OF 0 

 GRANTED 0 

 DENIED 0 

 NO JURISDICTION 0 

 WITHDRAWN 0 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF 

PERIOD 0 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 13 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 30 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 3 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 2 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 1 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 40,867 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT 

IMPOSED 1,432 

RATE PER 1,000 35% 

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

PREVIOUS PERIOD +.50% 

Page 2 of 2