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, 2008 to September 30, 2009 
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, 2008 to September 30, 2009 
CONTENTS 

Section 1: JOINT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CODE COMMITTEE 

Section 2: REPORT OF THE UNITED STATE 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, 2008 to September 30, 2009

 The Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Armed Forces, the Judge Advocates General of the Army, 

Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard, the Staff Judge Advocate 

to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and Professor David 

A. Schlueter and Mr. Michael D. Wims, Public Members 

appointed by the Secretary of Defense, submit their annual 

report on the operation of the Uniform Code of Military 

Justice (UCMJ) pursuant to Article 146, UCMJ, Title 10, 

United States Code, § 946. 

 The Code Committee met on March 3, 2009, to consider 

matters pertaining to the administration of military 

justice. The meeting was open to the public and was 

previously announced by notices in the Federal Register and 

on the Court’s website. 

 After approving the minutes of the 2008 Code Committee 

meeting, Chief Judge Effron called upon Commander J. Russell 

McFarlane, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Executive Secretary of the Joint 

Service Committee on Military Justice, to provide a report 

on the work of the Committee. Commander McFarlane informed 

the Code Committee of the following matters that had been 

addressed by the Joint Service Committee: (1) reviewing the 

Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (MCM), in light of 

amendments to Article 2(a)(10) of the UCMJ; (2) preparing of 

a draft of an enumerated Article 134, UCMJ, offense covering 

child pornography; (3) further studying the recent amendment 

to Article 120, UCMJ, involving the burden of proof; (4) 

improving the definition of “military property” in Articles 

108 and 121, UCMJ; and (5) correcting errors in the 2007 

Annual Review and updating the Discussion and Analysis 

sections of the MCM. Commander McFarlane concluded by 

informing the Code Committee that the 2008 Annual Review had 

been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget on 

February 3, 2009. 

 At the request of Professor Schlueter, the JSC will 

look into monitoring the work in amending the Federal Rules 

of Evidence and keep in mind how such changes may affect the 

Military Rules of Evidence. 
 Separate reports of the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Armed Forces and the individual Armed Forces address 

further items of special interest to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the United States Senate and the United States 

House of Representatives, as well as the Secretaries of 

Defense, Homeland Security, Army, Navy, and Air Force. 

Andrew S. Effron 

Chief Judge 

James E. Baker 

Associate Judge 

Charles E. “Chip” Erdmann 

Associate Judge 

Scott W. Stucky 

Associate Judge 

Margaret A. Ryan 

Associate Judge 

Lieutenant General Scott C. Black, USA 

Judge Advocate General of the Army 

Vice Admiral Bruce E. MacDonald, JAGC, USN 

The Judge Advocate General of the Navy 

Lieutenant General Jack L. Rives, USAF 

The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force 

Rear Admiral William D. Baumgartner, USCG 

The Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard 

Brigadier General James C. Walker, USMC 

Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps 

Professor David A. Schlueter 

Public Member 

Mr. Michael D. Wims 

Public Member 
SECTION 2 

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE ARMED FORCES 
REPORT OF THE 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE ARMED FORCES 

September 1, 2008 to August 31, 2009 

 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 

September 2008 Term of 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 for the period 

from September 1, 2008 to August 31, 2009. Additional 

information pertaining to specific opinions is available 

from the Court’s published opinions and Daily Journal. 

Other dispositions may be found in the Court’s official 

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

web site. The Court’s web site also contains a consolidated 

digest of past opinions of the Court, information on the 

Court’s history and jurisdiction, the Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, previous Annual Reports, a schedule of upcoming 

hearings, audio recordings of past hearings, and information 

on clerkship opportunities, bar admission, electronic filing 

and the Court’s library. 

 During the September 2008 Term of Court, the Court 

again met its goal of issuing opinions in all cases heard 

during the Term prior to the end of the Term. 

 Following the recommendations of the Rules Advisory 

Committee, the Court amended Rules 19(a)(5), 20(e), 

21(c)(2), 37(a), 37(b)(2) and 40(b)(3) of the Rules of 

Practice and Procedure. Prior to amendment the proposed 

changes were published for public comment in the Federal 

Register at Vol. 74, No. 82 at pages 19947-48. 

1 
These amendments were also published following adoption in 

the Military Justice Reporter at 67 M.J. LXVII-LXIX 

(C.A.A.F. 2009). They amended the times for filing of 

supplements, answers and replies to answers and incorporated 

conforming changes to account for a new electronic filing 

program. Also changed was the normal time allotted for oral 

argument from 30 minutes per side to 20 minutes per side. 

 In addition to the changes to the Rules, the Court 

established a new electronic filing program for the filing 

of petitions for grant of review, supplements, answers, 

replies to answers, and motions filed prior to action on the 

petition for grant of review. The new program will take 

effect on September 1, 2009. The Court’s Order on 

Electronic Filing and detailed Guidelines are published at 

67 M.J. LXX-LXXII. 

 During the September 2008 Term, the Court admitted 344 

attorneys to practice before its Bar, bringing the 

cumulative total of admissions before the Bar of the Court 

to 34,743. 

JUDICIAL OUTREACH

 In furtherance of a practice established in 1987, the 

Court scheduled special sessions and heard oral arguments 

outside its permanent courthouse in Washington, D.C., during 

the September 2008 Term of Court. This practice, known as 

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

awareness program to demonstrate the operation of a Federal 

Court of Appeals, and the military’s criminal justice 

system. The Court conducted hearings during this period, 

with the consent of the parties, at Washburn University 

School of Law, Topeka, Kansas; Fort Riley, Kansas; Southern 

Methodist University School of Law, Dallas, Texas; and Texas 

Tech University School of Law, Lubbock, Texas. In addition, 

the Judges of the Court participated in a variety of 

professional training, speaking and educational endeavors on 

military installations, at law schools and before 

professional groups. 

2 
CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CONFERENCE 

 On March 4 and 5, 2009, the Court held its annual 

Continuing Legal Education Conference at the Columbus School 

of Law, Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. 

The program for this Continuing Legal Education Conference 

was certified for credit to meet the continuing legal 

education requirements of State Bars throughout the United 

States. The conference opened with welcoming remarks from 

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

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. He was followed by 

speakers for this year’s conference, including Judge David 

S. Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit; Professor Henry T. Greely of the Stanford 

University School of Law; Professor David A. Harris of the 

University of Pittsburgh School of Law; Senior Judge John T. 

Downey of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, New 

Haven, Connecticut; Justice Daniel J. Crothers of the North 

Dakota Supreme Court; Brigadier General Ken Watkin, Judge 

Advocate General of the Canadian Forces; Mr. George L. Piro 

of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Mr. Rick Atkinson, 

Pulitizer Prize Winning Author and Historian; Mr. Daniel J. 

Dell’Orto, Principal Deputy General Counsel, Department of 

Defense; Ms. Amy Jeffress, Counselor to the Attorney General 

of the United States; J. Alexander Thier of the U.S. 

Institute of Peace; Judge Thomas A. Wallitsch, Senior 

Judicial Advisor for USAID; and Lieutenant Colonel Allen K. 

Goshi, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, U.S. Army. 

PASSING OF ROBINSON O. EVERETT

 On June 12, 2009, former Chief Judge Robinson O. 

Everett passed away at his home in Durham, North Carolina. 

He served as Chief Judge of the Court from 1980 to 1990, and 

as a Senior Judge until his death. A Memorial Session of 

the Court in his honor is scheduled for December 7, 2009. 

Andrew S. Effron 

Chief Judge 

James E. Baker 

Associate Judge 

Charles E. “Chip” Erdmann 

Associate Judge 

3 
Scott W. Stucky 

Associate Judge 

Margaret A. Ryan 

Associate Judge 

4 
USCAAF STATISTICAL REPORT 

SEPTEMBER 2008 TERM OF COURT 

CUMULATIVE SUMMARY

CUMULATIVE PENDING SEPTEMBER 1, 2008 

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

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

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

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

CUMULATIVE FILINGS 

 Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 

 Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 856 

 Miscellaneous Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . 31

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,002 

CUMULATIVE DISPOSITIONS 

 Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 

 Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896 

 Miscellaneous Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . 32

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,033 

CUMULATIVE PENDING SEPTEMBER 1, 2009 

 Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 

 Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 

 Miscellaneous Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . 5

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 

OPINION SUMMARY

CATEGORY SIGNED PER CURIAM MEM/ORDER TOTAL

Master Docket . 40 4 61 105 

Petition Docket . 1 0 895 896 

Miscellaneous Docket 1 0 31 32

TOTAL 42 4 987 1,033 

5 
MASTER DOCKET SUMMARY

FILINGS 

 Petitions granted from the Petition Docket . . 108 

 Certificates filed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

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

 Remanded/Returned cases. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 

DISPOSITIONS 

 Findings and sentence affirmed . . . . . . . . 68 

 Reversed in whole or in part . . . . . . . . . 36 

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

 Certificate Withdrawn . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 

PENDING 

 Awaiting briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 

 Awaiting oral argument . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 

 Awaiting lead case decision (trailer cases) . 1 

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 

PETITION DOCKET SUMMARY

FILINGS 

 Petitions for grant of review filed . . . . . 856

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

 Petitions for reconsideration granted . . . . 0 

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 856 

DISPOSITIONS 

 Petitions for grant of review denied . . . . 762 

 Petitions for grant of review granted . . . 108 

 Petitions for grant of review withdrawn . . 12 

 Petitions for grant of review dismissed . . 14

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896 

6 
PENDING 

 Awaiting pleadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 

 Awaiting Central Legal Staff review . . . . . 111 

 Awaiting final action . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET SUMMARY

FILINGS 

 Writ appeals sought . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 

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

 Writs of error coram nobis sought . . . . . . 1 

 Other extraordinary relief sought . . . . . . 16

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 

DISPOSITIONS 

 Petitions or appeals denied . . . . . . . . 32 

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

 Petitions or appeals dismissed . . . . . . . 0 

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

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 

PENDING 

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

 Awaiting staff review . . . . . . . . . . 1 

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

ALL CASES DISPOSITIONS

Begin Pending 1 Denied 12 

Filed 13 Granted 0 

TOTAL 14 Withdrawn 1

 TOTAL 13 

End Pending 1 

7 
MOTIONS

ALL MOTIONS DISPOSITIONS

Begin Pending 31 Granted 471 

Filed 522 Denied 90

TOTAL 553 TOTAL 561 

End Pending 23 

8 
 

152

190

301

171

215

252 240

266 254

213

0

100

200

300

400

500

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 

70

60

50 49 51

87

38

53

20

30

0

50

100

150

200

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 

113

81

68

56 58

74 74

56

65

47

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 

 

124

110

75 73

93

75

32

57

35

57 53

64

51

76

25

55

41

65

37

46

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

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

TOTAL COURT OPINIONS
 

129 133 131

164

227 195

171

152

160 162

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 

148

125 127 122 130

146 150

126 132

114

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 

169 176 176

117

144

164

148

85 86 83

0

50

100

150

200

250

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 

70

380

70

330

65

353

82

279

76

361

89

358

93

391

94

237

102

261

107

241

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

PETITION DOCKET (DENIAL/DISMISSAL/WITHDRAWAL)

MASTER DOCKET (GRANTED/CERTIFIED/DEATH CASES)
 

129

110 105

119

126 132

155

118

130

124

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
753

926 974

694

802 779

1006

937

836 856

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

2250

2500

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
SECTION 3 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

ARMY 
REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE ARMY 

OCTOBER 1, 2008, TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 

During fiscal year 2009 (FY 09), The Judge Advocate 

General (TJAG) and senior members of his staff visited more 

than thirty installations and commands in the United States 

and overseas, in furtherance of TJAG’s duties under Article 

6(a), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The Office 

of The Judge Advocate General (OTJAG) continued to advise 

the Army leadership and to develop policies to improve the 

legal services provided to Commanders and Soldiers in the 

U.S. Army’s worldwide, full-spectrum operations. Judge 

Advocates in forward areas enabled convening authorities to 

conduct more than eighty trials by court-martial in Iraq, 

Kuwait, and Afghanistan, while the JAG Corps continued to 

improve institutionally and maintain world class training at 

its Legal Center and School. 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL’S LEGAL CENTER AND SCHOOL 

(TJAGLCS) 

 

 Policy changes pertaining to initial military training 

for new Judge Advocates were further refined in 2009 for 

implementation in 2010. All Judge Advocates of all 

components will continue to attend the Officer Basic Course 

(OBC) in residence in Charlottesville, Virginia. Upon 

graduation from OBC, all Judge Advocates (with the exception 

of Funded Legal Education Program officers), including 

Reserve Component officers, will then attend a six-week 

Direct Commissioned Officers Course (DCC) at Fort Benning, 

Georgia. This course will be an expansion of the previous 

four-week version and will include training tasks formerly 

taught at the Basic Officer Leadership Course II (BOLC II). 

In late 2009 and early 2010, the Army will phase out BOLC II 

for all officers, regardless of branch, to speed up the pace 

at which new officers arrive at their first assignment. The 

first JA Officer Basic Course to attend the expanded DCC 

will arrive in February 2010. The Chief of the Personnel, 

Plans, and Training Office may waive attendance at these 

courses in limited circumstances. 

 Newly commissioned officers now also complete the Judge 

Advocate Tactical Staff Officer’s Course (JATSOC) within 

their first two years of service. 

1 
This twenty-hour online self-paced course introduces new 

Judge Advocates to key staff skills and processes that they 

need to succeed as a member of a staff, especially in a 

deployed environment. All officers are enrolled in this 

course when they depart Charlottesville and must complete 

the course within two years of arrival at their first duty 

station. 

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 promulgating military justice 

regulations and serving as their proponent, reviewing other 

Army Regulations for legal sufficiency, providing legal 

opinions to the Army Staff related to military justice 

matters, producing and updating military justice 

publications, conducting statistical analysis and evaluation 

of trends that affect military justice within the Army, 

providing advice on military corrections issues, the Army 

drug testing program, sexual assault and victim assistance 

policies and federal prosecutions, Army representation on 

the Joint Service Committee (JSC) on Military Justice, 

responding to congressional inquiries and requests under the 

Freedom of Information Act, and conducting reviews of courtmartial cases under Article 69 of the UCMJ for legal 

sufficiency and sentence appropriateness and to identify 

issues that may require corrective action by The Judge 

Advocate General. 

Traditionally-reported Criminal Law Division actions 

for the last three fiscal years are: 

 

 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 

White House inquiries 3 13 7 

 Congressional and other inquiries 109 132 152 

Officer Dismissals 38 31 28 

Article 69 and other reviews 106 73 99 

Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act 19 18 18 

2 
During FY 09, OTJAG successfully filled thirteen of the 

twenty-two additional attorney positions approved at the end 

of FY 2008 as part of the Army’s ongoing effort to better 

address sexual assault, and identified the remaining seven 

to fill the balance of fifteen new Special Victim Prosecutor 

positions by the end of FY 2010. In addition, OTJAG filled 

five of the seven approved Highly Qualified Expert 

positions, placing three with the Trial Counsel Assistance 

Program, one with the Defense Counsel Assistance program 

(DCAP) and one to serve as Army Chief of Advocacy at OTJAG 

Criminal Law Division. Efforts to fill the second position 

for DCAP and the position at The Judge Advocate General’s 

Legal Center and School continue. In response to continued 

concern regarding sexual assault in the military, the 

Criminal Law Division coordinated for the creation and 

execution of four new sexual assault litigation courses 

conducted jointly by the Trial Counsel Assistance Program, 

the Defense Counsel Assistance Program, and civilian 

experts. In two other initiatives, three judge advocates 

enrolled in a pilot program for a LL.M in prosecutorial 

science, and additional legal reference materials were 

provided to 122 new military justice practitioners. 

In FY 09, the Criminal Law Division supplemented the 

training provided Judge Advocates by coordinating and 

funding training in proven civilian venues, where a 

substantial network exists to support the training and 

development of both new and career prosecutors. 

Institutions providing regular training to Army judge 

advocates include the National District Attorney’s 

Association (NDAA), the National Advocacy Center (NAC), the 

American Prosecutor’s Research Institute (APRI), and the 

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). 

These organizations provide outstanding training ranging 

from advocacy to specific criminal prosecution techniques 

used by successful prosecutors throughout the nation. This 

allows our Corps to improve both military justice 

proficiency and the administration of justice within the 

United States Army. 

By the end of FY 2009, 222 Judge Advocates had received 

Military Justice Skill Identifiers. TJAG initiated the 

Military Justice Skill Identifier (SI) program to enhance 

institutional excellence in the practice of criminal law. 

3 
The SI certification provides Judge Advocates the 

opportunity to achieve four graduated levels of professional 

recognition (Basic, Advanced, Expert, and Master Military 

Justice Practitioner) based on their level of skill and 

experience as practicing military criminal lawyers. Of 

those presently designated, 124 are SI1 (Basic), 22 are SI2 

(Advanced), 35 are SI3 (Expert), and 41 are SI4 (Master). 

Through the JSC, the Army contributed to the study of 

several proposals for significant change to the UCMJ and the 

MCM, including proposed changes to articles 25, 56a, 66, 75, 

120, and 125. The Army endorsed a proposed change to the 

Manual for Courts-Martial that would codify child 

pornography offenses under article 134 and make plain the 

availability of a clause 1 or 2 offense for prosecution in 

addition to or in lieu of prosecution of an assimilated 

Title 18 child pornography offense, and including acts not 

punishable in the civilian community that might nevertheless 

constitute violations of article 134. 

 During FY 09, the Criminal Law Division, in cooperation 

with OTJAG’s Information Technology Division (ITD), 

continued to advance the JAGC’s Military Justice web-based 

initiatives. The Military Justice Online (MJO) program is a 

web-based application which allows end-users down to the 

Special Court-Martial Convening Authority level to generate 

military justice actions for nonjudicial punishment actions, 

administrative separation actions, and investigations. In 

addition, the Military Justice Report (MJR) is an on-line 

reporting system which replaced the JAG-2 report during FY 

09. Use of both the MJO and MJR became mandatory during 

July of 2009, and the response from the field has been 

positive, with end users generating thousands of actions 

using MJO. The next iteration of the military justice webbased initiatives will see both the integration of MJO and 

MJR, as well as MJO expanding to include preparation of 

courts-martial. Additionally, the Criminal Law Division, in 

concert with the Information Technology Division, developed 

the Trial Advocates Training Tracking System (TATTS), a webbased database designed to track the career progression of 

Trial Counsel and Defense Counsel. The system will be used 

to track training of individual counsel over the course of 

their careers and to identify counsel in need of further 

training. 

4 
The Criminal Law Division continued to track over 800 

high profile cases, including detainee-related 

investigations. Maintaining information on these cases 

facilitated the Division’s role in supporting The Judge 

Advocate General’s responses to Congressional and public 

inquiries with the most current information. 

Finally, the Criminal Law Division worked with the Army 

Corps of Engineers and the IMCOM leadership to develop a 

standard design and standard guide for the construction of 

Judicial Centers across the Army. The facility designs 

incorporate the most current technology for courtroom 

processes, as well as state-of-the-art physical attributes, 

and will replace dilapidated facilities on many 

installations. Just as importantly, the design allows for 

standardization that will empower trial advocates and 

paralegals, as they PCS from one duty post to another, 

enabling an instant ability to utilize the technology from 

one location to another. In light of this, the 

standardization guide also mandates particular minimal 

requirements where a renovation may be contemplated, rather 

than new construction. 

U.S. ARMY JUDICIARY

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

of Criminal Appeals, the Office of the Clerk of Court, and 

the Trial Judiciary. 

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

Court

 

The Clerk of Court receives records of trial for review 

by The U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) under 

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

under Article 62, UCMJ, and Petitions for Extraordinary 

Relief. More than 640 records of trial and over 1,600 

motions and briefs were referred to the three judicial 

panels of ACCA for appellate review. The Office of the 

Clerk of Court served ACCA decisions upon all personnel not 

in confinement and closed over 1,100 Courts-Martial cases 

during the past year. 

 

5 
ACCA maintains a website at 

https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/acca. ACCA published opinions 

and unpublished memorandum opinions can be downloaded at the 

website. Applications for admission to the bar for ACCA, 

rules of the court, notices and forms are also on the 

website. 

The Office of the Clerk of Court provided instruction 

to legal NCOs, court reporters, and those individuals 

attending the Judge Advocate General’s Corps graduate course 

and military justice courses at TJAGLCS. 

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

permanent court-martial records dating from 1939. Inquiries 

about courts-martial are received from federal and state 

investigative agencies, law enforcement offices, military 

historians, media, veterans, and convicted soldiers. 

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. 

 

 FY07 FY08 FY09

 

Freedom of Information Act 227 212 83 

Privacy Act 74 88 121 

Certified Copies of Convictions 329 272 570 

Total Number of Requests 630 572 774 

The Office of the Clerk of Court also provides 

assistance to overseas court-martial jurisdictions in 

processing requests for non-DOD civilians to travel overseas 

to testify at trials. This includes making travel 

arrangements, assisting with requests for expedited passport 

processing, and issuing invitational travel orders. 

Trial Judiciary

The 1184 reported courts-martial tried in FY09 reflect 

a slight increase from FY08. Army trial judges continue to 

preside over cases in deployed environments, with 81 general 

and special courts-martial tried in Iraq, Kuwait, and 

Afghanistan during this period, bringing to a total of over 

800 since May 2003. 

6 
Three Army trial judges presided over Military 

Commissions convened in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, including the 

cases of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Omar Khadr, Ahmed Al-Darbi, 

and Mohammed Jawad. The Army Trial Judiciary added to its 

goal of improving public transparency by posting course 

deskbooks, SOPs and the Code of Judicial Conduct on its 

homepage as well as providing links to its court calendars 

so members of the general public can access docket 

information on all Army courts-martial convened worldwide. 

The web address can be found at: www.jagcnet.army.mil/usatj. 

The Trial Judiciary also published a new set of Rules of 

Practice before Army Courts-Martial in September. 

Notable personnel developments in the Army Trial 

Judiciary included: 

• The 150th Legal Services Organization (Trial 

Judiciary) welcomed COL Patrick Reinert in August as 

its new Commander and Chief Reserve Trial Judge. 

• The 52nd Military Judge Course graduated 45 Army, 

Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Coast Guard 

students in May and invested them as new military 

judges. For the first time in 12 years, the honor 

graduate was an Army officer – LTC Mark A. Bridges, 

currently stationed at Fort Carson, Colorado. 

• COL Robert Rigsby was the first sitting District of 

Columbia Superior Court Judge to mobilize in support 

of an armed conflict and deployed to Kuwait for a 

six-month tour in April presiding as a military judge 

over courts-martial convened throughout Iraq and 

Afghanistan. 

• Mary Jenkins, the Court Administrator for the Army 

Trial Judiciary, mobilized for a one year tour of 

duty with the Office of Military Commissions Trial 

Judiciary. 

• In recognition of their outstanding judicial 

qualifications, COL Ted Dixon and COL Donna Wright 

received Certificates in General Jurisdiction Skills 

from the National Judicial College. 

• COL Tara Osborn was honored with the Distinguished 

Service Award from the National Society of Colonial 

Dames. 

7 
• COL Virginia Carlton, a National Guard judge from 

Mississippi, was appointed by the Chief Justice of 

the Mississippi Supreme Court to serve on a task 

force to republish the Mississippi Code of Judicial 

Conduct. 

Military Judges continued playing an active role in 

their military and civilian communities, speaking to 

elementary school and high school audiences, local bar 

associations and civic organizations, law school classes, 

and state bar Continuing Legal Education courses.

U.S. ARMY TRIAL DEFENSE SERVICE 

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

approximately 140 active duty, 228 Army Reserve, and 50 Army 

National Guard attorneys. USATDS provides high quality, 

professional defense services to Soldiers. USATDS counsel 

are stationed at 57 active duty installations worldwide and 

51 reserve locations. 

 

The USATDS detailed one or more counsel to every Army 

special and general courts-martial referred in FY 09, 

defending soldiers facing the entire range of allegations 

under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In addition, 

USATDS counsel assist Soldiers facing other military justice 

and administrative actions. In FY 09, the caseloads were as 

follows: 

Courts-Martial – 1184 

Administrative Boards – 451 

Nonjudicial Punishment – 33,750 

Consultations – 14,050 

 The USATDS provided defense services to Soldiers deployed 

to Kosovo and the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) Area of 

Responsibility (AOR). The USATDS CENTCOM Region has six 

field offices in Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan. There are 

four Field Offices in Iraq, at Camp Victory (Baghdad), Camp 

Liberty (Baghdad), Camp Speicher (Tikrit), and Joint Base 

Balad. There are also two branch offices in Iraq, one at 

Camp Taji and a new branch office in Basra. Kuwait has one 

field office, at Camp Arifjan, and Afghanistan has a field 

office at Bagram Air Base. 

8 
The Regional Defense Counsel, eighteen trial defense 

attorneys, and nine paralegals provide high-quality and 

mobile support to over 200,000 Soldiers deployed throughout 

CENTCOM’s expansive AOR. 

The Defense Counsel Assistance Program (DCAP) continued 

to mature in FY 2009 and grew significantly in both 

personnel and missions. DCAP, already staffed with a Chief 

and two training officers, added two mobilized reservists. 

The USATDS also hired its first Highly Qualified Expert, who 

joined the DCAP team. In 2009, DCAP created a new training 

program titled Defense Counsel 101 (DC 101), a three-day 

training program that teaches newly assigned attorneys the 

fundamentals of being a defense counsel. The first 

iteration of DC 101 was presented in August and will be 

presented again in December 2009 and throughout 2010. DCAP 

also developed training modules to train all defense counsel 

on the issues and challenges encountered in sexual assault 

cases. These classes were presented to counsel at training 

conferences and were well received. DCAP also coordinated 

training for counsel assigned to capital cases. 

 

 DCAP also continues to support the field in traditional 

ways, including helping defense counsel with analysis of 

substantive issues, tactical choices, and evidentiary issues 

in courts-martial. DCAP served as USATDS’s clearing house 

for lessons learned, trends, and appellate developments. 

DCAP used communication vehicles like “DCAP Sends,” “DCAP 

Alerts,” and “Case Notes” to disseminate information 

throughout the organization. DCAP has created a wellorganized and comprehensive website to assist counsel in the 

field offices. Even as it expanded its missions, DCAP 

continued to excel at its traditional functions of providing 

timely and accurate advice to USATDS attorneys. 

 The USATDS continued to work closely with reserve 

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

Service Legal Support Organizations (TDS LSOs). The Chief, 

USATDS, exercises technical supervision over the reserve TDS 

LSOs. He is responsible for providing oversight for the 

units' training and readiness. Reserve defense counsel 

trained with active defense counsel at individual 

installations, and reserve defense counsel attended regional 

training conferences with their active duty counterparts. 

9 
Reserve support to active duty TDS field offices was 

outstanding, with reserve officers providing critical 

support at many active component installations in addition 

to reserve mobilization and training locations. Reserve 

Judge Advocates have also deployed overseas to Germany to 

backfill for deployed active duty defense counsel. Several 

reserve defense counsel have served, and continue to serve, 

in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo. Additionally, reserve 

paralegals have mobilized and deployed to provide paralegal 

support in theater. 

 

The 22d TDS LSO consists of 85 commissioned officers, 1 

warrant officer, and 35 enlisted paralegals, and provides 

defense services to Soldiers assigned to units in East Asia 

and the Western half of the United States. In FY 2009, the 

22d TDS LSO mobilized ten attorneys and four paralegals for 

service in CONUS, Europe, and Iraq. In addition, the 22d 

TDS LSO represented over two thousand reserve soldiers 

facing military justice and administrative actions. The 

154th TDS LSO consists of 143 commissioned officers, 1 

warrant officer, and 19 enlisted paralegals, and provides 

defense services to Soldiers assigned to units in Europe and 

the Eastern half of the United States. In FY 2009, the 

154th TDS LSO mobilized 19 attorneys and 3 paralegals for 

service in CONUS, Europe, and Iraq. In addition, the 154th 

TDS LSO represented over nine hundred reserve soldiers 

facing military justice and administrative actions. 

The Army National Guard (ARNG) component of TDS 

continued to grow and develop. LTC Patrick Barnett was 

appointed its new Chief, and ARNG TDS obtained special 

status to allow positions to be filled two years in advance 

of the unit’s effective date. The response from the states 

has been exceptional. The authorized end strength is 126 

Judge Advocates, 1 warrant officer, and 47 paralegals, 

assigned in seven regions. Currently, ARNG TDS has 

approximately 50 counsel in 24 states and territories. ARNG 

TDS also hired two full-time judge advocates to serve as 

plans officers in the headquarters. The focus of effort for 

ARNG TDS is the delivery of services in states with counsel, 

continued recruitment, and the development of systems, 

policies, training, and procedures. ARNG TDS developed 

close training and support relationships with USATDS and the 

TDS LSOs. 

10 
GOVERNMENT APPELLATE DIVISION 

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

twenty-three active duty and seven Reserve Component 

military attorneys, represents the United States before the 

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

of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), and the U.S. Supreme 

Court in appeals by Soldiers convicted at courts-martial 

with an adjudged sentence of either a punitive discharge or 

confinement for one year or more, and also represents the 

United States before ACCA, CAAF, and the Supreme Court in 

government appeals from courts-martial trials and petitions 

for extraordinary relief. Additionally, GAD oversees the 

operations of the Trial Counsel Assistance Program (TCAP). 

The U.S. Army Legal Services Agency added several key 

personnel at the headquarters and in the field to implement 

the Secretary of the Army’s initiatives to improve the 

military justice system’s ability to prosecute and defend 

allegations of sexual assault, harassment, and violence. 

Keys to the effort were hiring three Highly Qualified 

Experts (HQEs) and beginning to assign fifteen additional 

prosecutors to installations in the field. 

The HQEs are civilian career prosecutors from various 

state jurisdictions, who bring a wealth of knowledge and 

experience in sexual assault prosecution. Their purpose is 

twofold: a) developing and conducting training for Army 

prosecutors in various aspects of sexual assault 

prosecutions, and b) providing case specific assistance in 

developing, evaluating and prosecuting sexual assault cases. 

 Additionally, the Secretary of the Army’s initiative 

facilitated the creation of fifteen new positions for 

special victim prosecutors (SVPs) to be assigned across the 

US, Korea and Europe. Experienced judge advocates are 

assigned to these billets with a jurisdiction to ensure 

every installation is served by an SVP. The role of the SVP 

is to provide direct input to every sexual assault 

prosecution under the UCMJ, working with Staff Judge 

Advocates on investigation and disposition of these cases. 

By the end of FY09, eight SVP positions were filled, with 

the remainder scheduled to be filled by summer 2010. 

11 
In addition to the efforts to improve sexual assault 

prosecutions in accordance with Secretary of the Army 

guidance and in concert with other ongoing TCAP initiatives, 

GAD continued to perform its core functions of representing 

the Government in court-martial appellate litigation and 

provide training and assistance to trial counsel in the 

field. In FY09, GAD filed 538 briefs with the US Army Court 

of Criminal Appeals (ACCA), nine briefs with the Court of 

Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), and answered 358 

petitions at CAAF, and filed or answered another fifteen 

writs and government appeals. In addition, military 

appellate counsel conducted oral argument in thirty cases 

before ACCA and thirteen times in CAAF, ensuring in each 

case that the government interest in upholding findings and 

sentences from courts-martial met the ends of military 

justice. 

 Of note, as part of the ACCA’s Project Outreach, GAD 

argued two cases in the civilian community, including one at 

Harvard University and one at the John Marshall School of 

Law in Chicago, Illinois. These outreach arguments are 

important in displaying the military justice process to 

largely civilian audiences. 

 In addition to the focused sexual assault prosecution 

efforts noted above, GAD, through the Trial Counsel 

Assistance Program (TCAP), provided routine support, 

assistance, expertise and review to military prosecutors 

throughout the world and in the combat zones. TCAP 

assistance came in the form of specific and often timesensitive issues in on-going courts-martial, in case reviews 

and strategy discussions for pending investigations, in onsite assistance, and in installation and regional training, 

ranging from basic issues for new prosecutors to week long 

advocacy training. Included in such training are law 

enforcement investigators and civilian counterparts from 

various departments within the Department of Justice, the 

National District Attorneys Association and various medical 

and social services professionals. 

12 
DEFENSE APPELLATE DIVISION 

 The Defense Appellate Division (DAD), with nineteen 

active duty Judge Advocates (including one mobilized 

Reservist) and nine Drilling Individual Mobilization 

Augmentee (DIMA) attorneys, provides appellate 

representation to eligible Soldiers before the ACCA, the 

CAAF, and the Supreme Court of the United States. 

Qualifying Soldiers include those convicted at courtsmartial where the approved sentence included a punitive 

discharge, dismissal, or at least one year of confinement. 

The Division also assists Trial Defense Counsel in various 

trial matters, including preparation and filing of 

extraordinary writs before the aforementioned Courts, and 

oversees the Defense Counsel Assistance Program (DCAP). 

 DAD struck some hard blows in favor of Soldiers’ 

Constitutional rights that will protect substantial Due 

Process rights for all our Soldiers. In U.S. v. Miller, 67 

M.J. 385 (C.A.A.F. 2009), in setting aside the conviction, 

the Court ruled that henceforth an article 134 Simple 

Disorder was no longer an implied lesser included offense in 

all enumerated offenses under The Code. This overruled 

longstanding precedent that had operated to convict soldiers 

of a general article 134 disorder offense despite the 

government’s inability to prove the elements of the charged 

offense. 

In response to U.S. v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110 (C.A.A.F. 

2009) (reversing a longstanding practice of liberality and 

holding that an untimely petition from a Marine was 

jurisdictionally barred), DAD has implemented new web-based 

software equipped with case management controls to protect 

Army Soldiers from losing their appellate rights due to 

untimely filings. 

 Because of Rodriguez, BRAC constraints, and other 

factors, DAD has executed several initiatives intended to 

better use our resources and provide operational flexibility 

to maintain operability as conditions change. The DADCASE 

web-based case management application is online and 100% 

operational, enabling our attorneys and paralegals to access 

a central web database from anywhere to get real-time case 

management information. This application has been 

customized to provide deadline management reports to ensure 

DAD is timely in its filings. 

13 
Additionally, CITRIX computer applications now provide all 

DAD attorneys and paralegals the capacity to access 

government communications and information from anywhere they 

can get online. In short, DAD is prepared to execute its 

mission and meet future challenges today—despite the 

challenging circumstances that may lie ahead. 

 During FY 09, DAD received 776 new cases. Appellate 

Defenders filed 792 briefs, including 12 final briefs before 

the CAAF, and 497 miscellaneous pleadings, on behalf of 

their clients before the courts. Appellate Defenders argued 

25 cases before ACCA and 10 cases before CAAF. 

 DAD continues to partner with Appellate Defenders from 

sister services. DAD maintains a continuing dialogue 

between the Service Division Chiefs. Army, Navy, and Air 

Force action attorneys have collaborated and corresponded on 

several cases of mutual interest, especially at professional 

seminars and gatherings. Also, DAD extends extensive 

support to USCG Appellate Defenders with respect to case and 

argument preparation as CG counsel have fully participated 

in our roundtable process and argument preparation program. 

DAD maintains a forward-thinking, joint posture which inures 

to the benefit of our Army Soldier clients and the benefit 

of the Service Members of our brothers and sisters in arms. 

FOREIGN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION 

 As the Department of Defense 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. 

 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: 

14 
1 Dec 2006 to 

30 Nov 2007 

1 Dec 2007 to 

30 Nov 2008 

Foreign Offense Citations 3531 2982

Total Civilian 880 864 

Total Military 2,651 2118 

Exclusive Foreign Jurisdiction 74 74 

Concurrent Jurisdiction 2577 1906 

Traffic Offenses 167 75 

Foreign Jurisdiction Recalls 351 208 

 During this reporting period, foreign authorities 

released to U.S. authorities four of the 72 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 1906 of the 2046 cases. 

Overall, the U.S. obtained waivers in 93.2% of all exclusive 

and concurrent jurisdiction cases. This figure reflects an 

increase of 5.5% in obtaining waivers compared to the 

previous reporting period. 

 During the last reporting period, civilian employees 

and dependents were involved in 880 offenses. Foreign 

authorities released 50 of these cases (5.7% 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 864 offenses. The foreign authorities 

released 26 of these cases (3.0% of the current total of 

this reporting period). This figure represents a decrease 

of 2.7% in obtaining releases of foreign criminal 

jurisdiction over civilian employees and dependents. 

 During this reporting period, foreign authorities tried 

a total of 451 cases involving U.S. personnel. Seven 

trials, or 1.6%, resulted in acquittals. Those convicted 

were sentenced as follow: 8 cases resulted in executed 

confinement, 36 cases resulted in suspended confinement, and 

400 cases (88.7% of the total trials) resulted in only fines 

or reprimands. 

15 
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 

The Professional Responsibility Branch (PRB) manages 

TJAG’s professional responsibility program, which is 

comprised of the following: (1) administratively reviewing 

for credibility alleged violations of the Army Rules of 

Professional Conduct for Lawyers and allegations of 

mismanagement by supervisors; (2) tasking supervisory 

attorneys to conduct field inquiries; (3) reviewing reports 

of inquiry; (4) advising The Judge Advocate General on 

appropriate disposition of cases; and (5) overseeing the 

operation of TJAG’s Professional Responsibility Committee. 

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

release information when warranted under the Freedom of 

Information Act and Privacy Act; and (3) maintain a 

professional responsibility website on JAGCNET. 

 The Professional Responsibility Branch (PRB) is 

responsible for ensuring complaints against attorneys are 

properly processed and that the supervisor or The Judge 

Advocate General takes appropriate action. The inquiry 

process involves two steps – a credibility determination 

and, when appropriate, a follow on preliminary screening 

inquiry. The credibility determination is the initial 

screening process whereby the supervisor assesses whether 

there is credible evidence of misconduct by the subordinate 

attorney. If the supervisory Judge Advocate determines the 

evidence is credible, PRB will transition the investigation 

to a preliminary screening inquiry to investigate the 

questioned conduct to determine whether it violated the Army 

Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyers.

LITIGATION

 Civil lawsuits involving military justice matters are 

relatively few in number but remain an important part of 

Litigation Division’s practice. Most suits are brought by 

former Soldiers seeking collateral review of military courtmartial proceedings pursuant to a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus in federal district court. The following 

cases highlight the types of issues handled by the Army 

Litigation Division. 

16 
In Gray v. Gray [PV1 Ronald Gray v. COL Gray, the 

Commandant of the United States Disciplinary Barracks], the 

U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas granted 

Private Ronald Gray’s motion to stay his execution and 

appointed counsel to assist him in pursuing habeas relief. 

In 1988, Private Gray was convicted of three specifications 

of premeditated murder, one specification of attempted 

murder, three specifications of rape, two specifications of 

forcible sodomy, and one specification of burglary. The 

court-martial unanimously sentenced Private Gray to death, a 

dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures of all pay and 

allowances, and reduction to Private E-1. The Army Court of 

Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed 

Forces affirmed the conviction and sentence. In 2001, the 

Supreme Court denied Private Gray’s petition for writ of 

certiorari and in 2008 the President ordered the sentence 

executed. On 1 April 2009, Private Gray filed a habeas 

petition challenging the panel composition and selection 

process, specific rulings by the military judge, the 

adequacy of his defense, the constitutionality of the Rules 

for Court-Martial governing death penalty cases, and the 

method of execution. On 1 May 2009, the government 

responded to the petition. On 18 December 2009, petitioner 

replied and raised additional claims including systemic 

racism within the military, denial of access to 

documentation the Army had provided to the President, mental 

incompetence at trial and on appeal, and lack of military 

jurisdiction over a peacetime murder in the United States. 

The government is currently preparing its response. 

The Army is also defending against a court-martial 

collateral attack in Hart v. Commandant, USDB, Fort 

Leavenworth, Kansas. In 2004, Major Richard K. Hart pled 

guilty to assaulting his daughter, obstructing justice, 

disobeying a superior commissioned officer, and adultery. A 

court-martial, sitting judge alone, also found him guilty of 

assault and voluntary manslaughter of his wife. The courtmartial sentenced him to 26 years confinement and a 

dismissal. On 19 March 2009, he filed a petition for writ 

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

of Kansas. 

17 
Petitioner argued: (1) ACCA and CAAF did not provide 

full and fair review of his court-martial appellate issues; 

(2) the military judge committed numerous errors; (3) the 

sentence to confinement for 26 years was disproportionate 

and inappropriately severe; and (4) the facts and 

circumstances surrounding his pre-trial restraint 

constituted unlawful pre-trial punishment and violated his 

right to due process. On 17 August 2009, the government 

responded, denying the allegations and arguing the petition 

should be denied because petitioner’s claims received full 

and fair consideration by the military courts. The case is 

pending in the district court. 

The Army successfully defended a challenge to courtmartial jurisdiction in Willenbring v. United States. The

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit unanimously 

affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Willenbring’s 

habeas petition challenging court-martial jurisdiction. The 

Army court-martialed Mr. Willenbring, while he was a member 

of the reserve component, for three rapes he had committed 

when he was a member of the regular component. Relying on 

Murphy v. Dalton, 81 F.3d 343 (3rd Cir. 1996), Mr. 

Willenbring argued Article 2(d), UCMJ only extends 

jurisdiction over offenses committed by members of the 

reserve component serving on active duty. Alternatively, 

Mr. Willenbring argued that the Army had lost jurisdiction 

to court-martial him when he was discharged from the regular 

component and subsequently reenlisted in the reserve 

component. The district court first noted that jurisdiction 

is a mixed question of law and fact, but the degree to which 

federal courts can review factual determinations with 

respect to a military habeas petition challenging 

jurisdiction is unclear. The court declined to resolve the 

issue because Mr. Willenbring did not challenge the 

essential facts found by the military courts. The court 

reviewed the legal conclusions concerning jurisdiction de 

novo. Contrary to the Third Circuit, the Fourth Circuit 

held that the term “active duty” in Article 2(d) applies to 

offenses committed on active duty in the reserve and regular 

components. The court reasoned that the statutory 

definition of “active duty” encompasses active duty service 

in both components. 

18 
It further reasoned that the context of Article 2(d) 

and Title 10 shows that Congress expressly uses the terms 

regular or reserve component when it wishes to limit a 

provision to either of those components, but did not confine 

the term “active duty” in Article 2(d) to either component. 

In rejecting Mr. Willenbring’s alternative argument, the 

court found that he did not have a complete termination of 

military status because his discharge from the regular 

component had been conditioned upon his enlistment in the 

reserve component. On 5 October 2009, the Supreme Court 

denied Mr. Willenbring’s petition for certiorari. 

In Adolph v. United States, the U.S. District Court for 

the District of Columbia dismissed Mr. Adolph’s habeas 

petition challenging his pretrial confinement. Mr. Adolph 

was a civilian contractor accompanying the military in 

Kuwait in support of Contingency Operations Enduring Freedom 

and Iraqi Freedom. The Army confined Mr. Adolph after he 

used a stolen credit card as identification to steal a 

soldier’s military personnel file, fled apprehension, 

assaulted his pursuers, and subsequently confessed to 

participating in an extensive conspiracy to steal items sent 

through the U.S. mail to service members deployed in Kuwait, 

Afghanistan, and Iraq. While the Army was coordinating with 

the Department of Justice and U.S. Marshals to transport Mr. 

Adolph to the United States, Mr. Adolph filed suit 

challenging the Army’s authority to confine him. He 

asserted that the 2006 amendment to Article 2(a)(10) 

extending UCMJ jurisdiction over civilians accompanying the 

force during a contingency operation was unconstitutional 

because Congress can only extend UCMJ jurisdiction over 

civilians in a time of declared war. The district court did 

not reach the merits of the issue because Mr. Adolph 

voluntarily dismissed his petition as moot when the Army 

transferred him to the custody of the U.S. Marshals. The 

Department of Justice prosecuted Mr. Adolph under the 

Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act in the Western 

District of Oklahoma. Pursuant to his plea, Mr. Adolph was 

convicted of making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent 

statement or representation and sentenced to two years 

probation and 104 hours of community service. 

19 
In Thomas v. USDB, the Army continues to defend against 

a challenge to a court-martial conviction which was recently 

considered in an extraordinary writ before the military 

courts while pending federal habeas review. In late 1995, 

Rochester Thomas was convicted in absentia of attempted 

rapes of a minor, rape, two specifications of forcible 

sodomy with a minor, two specifications of assault 

consummated by a battery upon a child under sixteen years, 

adultery, and indecent acts upon a minor. In April 1997, he 

was arrested in Germany following an incident in which he 

assaulted his girlfriend and stabbed her roommate. He was 

returned to military custody and convicted of attempted 

voluntary manslaughter, wrongful appropriation, two 

specifications of assault consummated by a battery, and 

desertion. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on 

appeal with some relief granted. On 28 July 2004, Mr. 

Thomas filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The 

U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denied the 

petition finding that his ineffective assistance of counsel 

(IAC) claim was defaulted and, alternatively, that he did 

not suffer actual prejudice. During pendency of his appeal 

to the Tenth Circuit, he was granted an abatement to allow 

him to seek relief in the ACCA. On 1 August 2005, Mr. 

Thomas filed a writ of error coram nobis. The ACCA assigned 

counsel who filed a supplemental writ. In February 2006, 

following briefing by the government, the ACCA summarily 

denied the petition. In April 2006, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Tenth Circuit remanded this matter for 

consideration of Mr. Thomas’ newly exhausted IAC claim. The 

district court appointed counsel who filed a supplemental 

memorandum. On 29 September 2009, the district court denied 

his petition because the military courts gave full and fair 

consideration to his IAC claim during the coram nobis 

proceedings. The district court found the record 

demonstrated full and fair consideration, even though ACCA 

only gave a summary disposition, where the briefs at the 

military court contained a detailed procedural history, the 

relevant facts, and a statement of the applicable standard 

of review for IAC claims. On 2 October 2009, Mr. Thomas 

filed a notice of appeal. 

 The Army, likewise, continues to defend against a 

challenge to a court-martial conviction in Piotrowski v. 

Commandant, USDB. 

20 
On 8 August 2001, Captain Joseph Piotrowski was convicted at 

court-martial pursuant to his pleas of involuntary 

manslaughter of a pregnant woman, three counts of drunken 

driving, conduct unbecoming an officer, and reckless 

endangerment. He was sentenced to 131⁄2 years imprisonment 

and dismissal from the service. In May 2003, while serving 

his military sentence at the USDB, Mr. Piotrowski was tried 

by the State of Florida on charges of vehicular homicide and 

DUI manslaughter for the same events. A jury found him 

guilty and sentenced him to consecutive 15-year prison terms 

on each charge, to run concurrent to his military sentence. 

His court-martial conviction and sentence were substantially 

affirmed by the military appellate courts. On 11 June 2008, 

Mr. Piotrowski filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas 

corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas 

challenging his court-martial conviction and sentence. On 

22 December 2009, following briefing, the district court 

dismissed with prejudice all claims that had previously been 

considered by the military courts. The district court 

dismissed without prejudice the claims that had not been 

raised before the military courts. 

Working with the Air Force, the Army successfully 

defended a series of challenges to the DOD’s Mandatory 

Supervised Release (MSR) Program, an involuntary program 

imposed on certain prisoners during the period between early 

release for accrual of good conduct time and the end of the 

sentence to confinement. In 2009, the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Kansas denied the nearly identical 

habeas petitions of an airman and several soldiers. In 

Huschak v. Gray and each subsequent case, the court found 

that the military’s statutory authority to establish a 

system of parole under 10 U.S.C. § 952 “is broad and plain” 

and the “essence of MSR conforms to the definition of 

parole.” Because MSR is not punishment, a court-martial is 

not required to announce MSR as part of the sentence, the 

court reasoned, the parole board procedures provide adequate 

due process, and the imposition of MSR does not affect the 

providence of a guilty plea. Moreover, the military 

prisoners waived their double jeopardy, due process, and 

guilty plea providence claims when they failed to raise them 

before the military courts. 

21 
The Army successfully defended a Freedom of Information 

Act (FOIA) suit filed by an Army death penalty litigant 

seeking documents containing the analysis and 

recommendations of The Judge Advocate General (TJAG) and 

civilian chain of command to the President in the case of 

Loving v. United States. Dwight Loving was convicted of 

murder in April 1989 while on active duty at Fort Hood, 

Texas, and sentenced to death. Following unsuccessful 

appeals, Loving’s case was forwarded to the President of the 

United States for death sentence review. On 11 August 2005, 

Loving filed a FOIA request for documents related to death 

penalty procedures and a Privacy Act request for documents 

containing the opinions and recommendations regarding his 

death sentence. The government released 133 pages in 

response to the request, but withheld 104 pages under a 

variety of grounds, including FOIA Exemption 5. On 26 

September 2006, Loving filed suit under the FOIA, Privacy 

Act and Administrative Procedures Act alleging the 

government failed to timely respond. After the suit was 

filed, the government released hundreds of additional 

documents. Loving narrowed his suit to a FOIA claim seeking 

the disclosure of four specific documents. These documents 

included the analysis and recommendations of the TJAG and 

the civilian chain of command to the President. The 

district court found that the documents were not “sentencing 

recommendations” under R.C.M. 1006(f) and that R.C.M. 

1204(c)(2) does not contain a provision for the disclosure 

of recommendations to the President. The U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the 

lower court’s ruling on 23 December 2008. Loving filed a 

petition for rehearing, which was denied on 3 March 2009. 

On 28 May 2009, Loving filed a petition to the United States 

Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. On 13 October 2009, 

the Supreme Court denied Loving’s petition. The President 

has not signed the death warrant in Loving’s case. 

PERSONNEL, PLANS, AND POLICIES 

On 30 September 2009, the Army's end-strength was 

584,685 Army Soldiers on active duty, including Active Guard 

and Reserve (AGR) and mobilized Soldiers, compared to 

655,378 at the end of fiscal year 2008. The attorney 

strength of the Active Army (AA) Judge Advocate General's 

Corps at the end of FY 09 was 1,730 (including general 

officers). 

22 
This total does not include 64 officers attending law 

school while participating in the Funded Legal Education 

Program. The FY 09 AA end-strength of 1,730 compares with 

an end-strength of 1,647 in FY08, 1,643 in FY07, 1,638 in 

FY06, 1,603 in FY 05, 1,547 in FY 04, 1,506 in FY 03, 1,474 

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

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

diverse composition of our FY09 AA attorney population 

included 123 African-Americans, 54 Hispanics, 88 Asians and 

Native Americans, and 445 women. The grade distribution of 

the Corps' AA attorneys for FY09 was 5 general officers, 124 

colonels, 242 lieutenant colonels, 384 majors and 970 

captains. An additional 88 warrant officers, 539 civilian 

attorneys, and 1,418 enlisted paralegals supported legal 

operations worldwide. The attorney strength of the RC Judge 

Advocate General's Corps at the end of FY 09 was 1988 and 

the attorney strength of the Army National Guard at the end 

of FY 09 was 696. At the end of FY 09, over 662 Army JAG 

personnel (officer and enlisted, AA and RC) were deployed in 

operations in Iraq, Egypt, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Djibouti, 

Qatar, Bosnia, Kosovo, Cuba, the Horn of Africa and 

Honduras. 

 DANA K. CHIPMAN 

 Lieutenant General, USA 

 The Judge Advocate General 

23 
APPENDIX - U.S. ARMY MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Report Period: FISCAL YEAR 2009 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/ 

DECREASE (-) OVER 

LAST REPORT 

GENERAL 638 584 54 -5.3% 

BCD SPECIAL [A] 518 491 27 +7.0% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 10 9 1 +150.0% 

SUMMARY 946 [B] [B] -24.4% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT -12.5% 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED [C]

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES (+ dismissals) 63 (+24) 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 292 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 203 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 386 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 204 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 223 

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

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

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

NUMBER 564 

PERCENTAGE 92.00% 

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

FORCES (CAAF) 

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 359 of 618 58.09% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +47.06% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 41 of 399 10.26% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +8.92% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY USACCA 6.63% 

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD +64.52% 

24 

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 65 [D] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL [E] 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL [E] 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 613 [D] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 618 [F] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 60 [D] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD -47.0% 
APPENDIX - U.S. ARMY MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS - CONT’D 

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ 

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 

RECEIVED 

DISPOSED OF 

 GRANTED 

 DENIED 

 NO JURISDICTION 

 WITHDRAWN 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 462 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 455 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 161 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 103 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 26 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 584685 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 35210 

RATE PER 1,000 60.22 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD -11.09% 

EXPLANATORY NOTES 

[A] Cases convened by a GCM convening authority. 

[B] Data not available because of an omission in the reporting requirements when Army OTJAG 

transitioned to electronic reporting. The omission has been remedied and the data will be reported in future 

years. 

[C] Based on records of trial received during FY for appellate review. 

[D] Includes only cases briefed and at issue. 

[E] GCM and BCD SPCM are not tracked separately. 

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

25 
SECTION 4 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

NAVY 
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY 

OCTOBER 1, 2008 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 

SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF

MILITARY JUSTICE

JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 

The Judge Advocate General (JAG) chairs, no less than 

quarterly, the Military Justice Oversight Committee (MJOC). 

This committee also consists of the Commander, Naval Legal 

Service Command, the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant 

of the Marine Corps, and the Assistant Judge Advocates 

General for Military Justice, Chief Judge of the Navy, and 

Operations and Management. The MJOC reviews the status of 

all military justice within the Department of the Navy, to 

include but not limited to status of compliance with 

standards set forth in United States v. Moreno (63 MJ 129 

(C.A.A.F. 2006)). 

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 

in accordance with the requirement of Article 6(a), Uniform 

Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). These inspections, 

conducted by subject matter experts, examined the full range 

of military justice processes at those offices inspected. 

 This was an extraordinary year in military justice for 

the Navy and Marine Corps. Groundbreaking cases included 

the first constitutional challenges to the new Article 120 

with three en banc published opinions from the Navy-Marine 

Corps Court of Criminal Appeals: United States v. Neal, 67 

M.J. 675 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2009) (en banc), further 

proceedings at United States v. Neal, __ M.J. ___, No. 09-

5004/N (C.A.A.F. Jan 22, 2010); United States v. Crotchett, 

67 M.J. 713 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2009) (en banc); and United 

States v. Medina, __ M.J. ___, (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Dec. 17, 

2009) (en banc). Also in FY 09, United States v. Denedo was 

reviewed by the Supreme Court. 

1 
The case looked at CAAF’s jurisdiction to grant postfinality relief and was argued before the Supreme Court on 

March 25, 2009. The case was decided on June 8, 2009, in a 

5-4 split, affirming C.A.A.F.’s extraordinary writ authority 

beyond court-martial finality. 

Another case with far-reaching implications for Navy and 

Marine Corps military justice practice was United States v. 

Foster, __ M.J. ___, (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Feb 17, 2009). 

This case identified a serious problem with post-trial delay 

in a case where initial appellate review took over 10 years 

to complete. Based on the concerns engendered by Foster, 

this year the Judge Advocate General commissioned a Report 

on the State of Military Justice within the Navy and Marine 

Corps to summarize improvements already made as well as 

recommendations for further process improvements. This 

report will be done on an annual basis. The Judge Advocate 

General is also participating in a review of departmental 

post-trial processes by the Inspector General for the 

Department of Defense. This review was mandated by the FY10 

National Defense Authorization Act. 

 

ASSISTANT JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, MILITARY JUSTICE 

Colonel Peter B. Collins, USMC, continued to serve as 

the Assistance Judge Advocate General, Military Justice 

(AJAG-MJ). After 3 years in the job, the AJAG-MJ will 

qualify for retirement at the rank of Brigadier General. 

His duties include the supervision of criminal law policy 

(Code 20), administrative support (Code 40), appellate 

defense (Code 45), and appellate government (Code 46). 

Additionally, he serves as a member of the Office of the 

Judge Advocate General Ethics Committee. He is responsible 

for coordinating administrative matters with the Navy-Marine 

Corps Court of Criminal Appeals. 

CRIMINAL LAW DIVISION (CODE 20) 

Organization. Commander David M. Harrison, JAGC, USN 

relieved Captain Christian L. Reismeier, JAGC, USN as the 

Division Director. Commander J. Russell McFarlane, JAGC, 

USN, continued to serve as the Deputy Director. Ms. Laura 

Rogers, Esq. was hired as the Director of Litigation 

Training and Ms. Teresa Scalzo, Esq. was hired as a Sexual 

Assault Litigation Specialist. 

2 
The Criminal Law Division was staffed with five active 

duty judge advocates, two civilian attorneys, two civilian 

support personnel, and two reserve units. Reserve unit 

NAVJAG 113 conducted Article 

69(a), Article 69(b), and Article 73 reviews and unit 

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 the JAG on a wide variety of military justice matters; 

reviews all legislative and regulatory proposals affecting 

military justice; and is the current Chair 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 impacting or implementing 

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

General (JAGMAN); reviews all decisions of military 

appellate courts; staffs JAG certification of cases decided 

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

for review by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 

(CAAF); staffs requests for Secretarial designation as 

general and special court-martial convening authority and 

for Secretarial substitution of administrative discharge for 

punitive discharge; provides a JAG representative to the 

Naval Clemency and Parole Board; coordinates court orders 

and warrants of attachment; provides written opinions to the 

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; coordinates the 

development of the Military Justice Litigation Career Track 

community including policy and selection boards; coordinates 

all litigation training with the Naval Justice School; 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 COMNAVLEGSVCCOM 

regarding policies, plans, resources and procedures 

affecting the military justice mission of NAVLEGSVCCOM. 

3 
In that capacity, the Division Director assists 

COMNAVLEGSVCCOM, in Article 6, UCMJ, inspections of 

NAVLEGSVCCOM commands and detachments. 

The JSC 2009 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 a new child pornography offense under Article 

134, modification of M.R.E. 504 to create an exception to 

the marital privilege when spouses are jointly involved in 

illegal activity, modification of M.R.E. 609 to conform to 

F.R.E. 609 and modification to the Discussion of Article 89 

to clarify that the uniformed officers of the Public Health 

Service and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric 

Administration, when assigned to and serving with the armed 

forces, are included in the definition of a superior 

commissioned officer for purposes of a prosecution for 

disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer. 

 During the past year, the Military Justice Division 

reviewed 44 records of trial under Article 69a, UCMJ and 13 

records under Article 69b, UCMJ. Two petitions were 

reviewed under Article 73, UCMJ. 

CRIMINAL LAW DIVISION (CODE 40) 

 Organization. Mr. James Duncan continued to serve as 

the Head, Case Management. Staff Sergeant Willie 

Richardson, USMC, relieved Gunnery Sergeant James C. Hope, 

USMC as the Senior Noncommissioned Officer in Charge. Code 

40 was staffed with nine active duty Marine judges and two 

civilians. 

Mission. Code 40 provides administrative support for 

all records of trial in Navy and Marine Corps General and 

Special courts-martial. In 2009, Code 40 reviewed over 700 

records of trial for completeness and forwarded those 

records on to the appropriate level of review, including the 

Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals for Article 66 

review and Code 20 for Article 69 review. 

4 
APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISION (Code 45) 

Organization. Captain Robert Taishoff, JAGC, USN, 

continued to serve as the Division Director. Ms. Rebecca 

Snyder, a Reserve Navy judge advocate, assumed the role of 

Deputy Director. The Appellate Defense Division was staffed 

with 9 active duty Navy and Marine Corps judge advocates and 

4 civilian support personnel. 

 The Appellate Defense Division was supported by 26 Navy 

and Marine Corps Reserve judge advocates. The various Navy 

Reserve units, which previously supported the Division - NR 

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

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; NAVJAG 519, Los Angeles, 

California; and NAVJAG 211, Fort Worth, Texas - were 

consolidated into the NAMARA 110 unit. The Unit's 

Commanding Officer is Captain Carol Lynch who will be 

relieved shortly by Captain Aaron Santa Anna. The Marine 

Corps Reserve contingent consisted of four independently 

assigned Reserve judge advocates. 

Mission. The Appellate Defense Division represents Navy 

and Marine Corps appellants before the NMCCA, CAAF, and the 

U.S. Supreme Court. It also represents some appellants 

before the Navy Clemency & Parole Board. The Division 

provides assistance to trial defense counsel in the field by 

helping to file extraordinary writs before NMCCA and CAAF, 

providing a death penalty assistance team to advise field 

defense counsel facing potential capital cases, providing 

general training, and providing advice on specific cases in 

litigation at trial. 

As depicted below, in fiscal year 2009 (FY 09), a total 

of 694 new cases were docketed at NMCCA and received in the 

Appellate Defense Division. The Appellate Defense Division 

filed 689 initial pleadings with 14 oral arguments at NMCCA. 

The initial pleadings include 149 briefs, 529 merit 

submissions, and 11 summary assignments. A total of 120 

supplemental briefs to petitions were filed at CAAF, 

resulting in 36 full briefs and 19 oral arguments. 

5 
NMCCA FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 

Briefs Filed 543 471 415 230 173 

Total Cases 

Filed 2127 1610 1165 1008 1004 

CAAF 

Petitions with 

Supplemental 

Briefs Filed 

207 173 206 151 96 

Briefs Filed 26 76 29 27 31 

U.S. Supreme 

Court Petitions 2 9 6 6 5 

Capital Litigation. All three Marine death penalty 

cases have been remanded to the convening authority or trial 

level courts. An extraordinary writ of mandamus is pending 

at NMCCA in United States v. Quintanilla. 

 Assistance to Trial Defense Counsel. The Appellate 

Defense Division provides advice and support to Navy and 

Marine Corps trial defense counsel around the world. The 

Division’s experienced appellate attorneys reply to shortfused questions from trial defense counsel and assist in 

preparing and filing extraordinary writs. The Division also 

conducts a Trial Defense Counsel Outreach Training Program 

in order to provide training on recent appellate 

developments and important trial issues. 

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT DIVISION (CODE 46) 

 Organization. The Division was staffed with 9 active 

duty judge advocates and 2 civilian administrative 

employees. Colonel Louis J. Puleo, USMC, served as Division 

Director. Mr. Brian K. Keller, former Marine judge advocate 

in the Division, continues to serve as the Deputy Director. 

 

6 
Reserve support continues to be critical to the 

accomplishment of the Code 46 mission. Code 46 is currently 

supported by NAVJAG 116 (Minneapolis, Minnesota). Reserve 

personnel contributed an average of 4-6 briefs per month. 

 Mission. In accordance with Article 70, UCMJ, the 

primary mission of the Appellate Government Division is to 

represent the United States before the NMCCA and CAAF. In 

addition, the Division provides support to staff judge 

advocates and trial counsel throughout the Navy and Marine 

Corps on issues related to pretrial, trial, and post-trial 

proceedings. 

 This year’s appellate activity is set forth in the 

following chart. CMTIS calculations for “Briefs Filed” 

include Government briefs, answers to supplements, and 

supplemental briefs. “Other Pleadings” include responses to 

extraordinary writs, motion responses, responses to Court 

Orders, and Petitions for Reconsideration. The number of 

NMCCA briefs filed by the Government has continued to 

decline to a new low of 154. There is a steady stream of 

Article 62 appeals taken from trial court decisions; the 

numbers are as follows: 0 in FY 06, to 8 in FY 07, 11 in FY 

08, and 9 in FY 09. 

 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 

NMCCA 

Briefs Filed 542 700 621 486 232 154 

Other Pleadings 22 425 333 528 340 313 

 Oral Arguments 8 16 10 8 6 14 

CAAF 

Briefs Filed 22 38 86 45 37 28 

Other Pleadings 73 128 115 158 146 60 

Oral Arguments 21 23 31 21 32 23 

 The Division continues its support to the field staff 

judge advocates and trial counsel providing “Trial Counsel 

Assistance Program” services as required, and continues its 

outreach to command staff judge advocates stressing the 

importance of diligent post-trial processing. 

 Of the high Article 62 caseload, two cases stemmed from 

the Haditha war crimes prosecutions, including Wuterich and 

Chessani. 

7 
Several of the more interesting cases arose as 

challenges to the new Article 120, UCMJ, sexual crimes 

statute. C.A.A.F. has addressed several defense challenges 

to the statute in United States v. Neal, a Navy case that 

raised a constitutional challenge to the new Article 120, 

and specifically to a provision that shifted the burden of 

proof to the defense when raising consent as an affirmative 

defense. C.A.A.F. found Article 120 constitutional on 

January 22, 2010. 

 The Division worked closely in FY 09 with the Office of 

the DoD General Counsel as well as with the United States 

Solicitor General in preparing United States v. Denedo for 

Supreme Court review. The case looked at CAAF’s 

jurisdiction to grant post-finality relief and was argued 

before the Supreme Court on March 25, 2009. The case was 

decided on June 8, 2009, in a 5-4 split, affirming 

C.A.A.F.’s extraordinary writ authority beyond court-martial 

finality. 

 During FY 09, the Division’s judge advocates 

participated in two oral arguments as part of United States 

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces’ legal outreach 

program at Southern Methodist University Law School, Dallas 

Texas, and Texas Tech University Law School, Lubbock, Texas. 

Assistant Judge Advocate General, Chief Judge, 

Department of the Navy 

 In December 2007 the Secretary of the Navy established 

the Assistant Judge Advocate General (AJAG), Chief Judge, 

Department of the Navy (CJ), whose principal duties include 

supervision and management of the trial and appellate 

judiciary within the Department of the Navy. In July 2009, 

the Secretary approved the report of the selection board 

that recommended Captain Daniel E. O'Toole, JAGC, USN, as 

the first AJAG-CJ. He assumed duties as CJ in September 

2009, and upon being detailed as the AJAG in his third year 

of service, and completing 12 months in that position, the 

AJAG-CJ will qualify for retirement at the rank of Rear 

Admiral (Lower Half). 

8 
The AJAG-CJ oversees the Department of the Navy 

judicial enterprise, including the following duties and 

responsibilities: 

 Judicial Supervision. AJAG-CJ is the senior supervisory 

jurist in the Department of the Navy, and serves as the 

reporting senior for the Chief Judge of the Navy-Marine 

Corps Trial Judiciary (NMCTJ), the Chief Judge of the NavyMarine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (NMCCA), and all 

other judges of the NMCCA, active and reserve components. 

The AJAG-CJ reports to the Judge Advocate General regarding 

any administrative impediment to the judiciary, such as a 

lack of resources, which might cause a case to fail to be 

processed in a timely manner, consistent with due process. 

 Judicial Misconduct. The AJAG-CJ is Rules Counsel for 

all inquiries into judicial misconduct involving judges of 

the NMCCA and NMCTJ. All complaints of judicial misconduct 

or unfitness will be submitted to the AJAG-CJ. 

 Judicial Screening. The AJAG-CJ is the Chair of the 

Judicial Screening Board, presiding over periodic boards to 

select the best qualified judicial candidates for 

appointment to the trial and appellate benches. 

 Judicial Training. The AJAG-CJ is responsible for the 

initial training of all judicial candidates, as well as the 

continuing education of current NMCTJ and NMCCA judges. 

 Judicial Assignments. The AJAG-CJ supervises the 

deployment of active and Reserve judicial resources to best 

serve the interests of justice within the Department of the 

Navy. This includes recommendations to the Judge Advocate 

General and the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of 

the Marine Corps on billet structure, including the number 

and geographic location of judiciary billets. 

 Community Sponsor. The AJAG-CJ serves in the capstone 

billet of the military justice litigation career track for 

judge advocates of the Navy, and is the principal strategic 

planner and community sponsor for that career track. 

9 
U.S. NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (NMCCA) 

(CODE 51) 

 Legal issues addressed included: applied the holding of 

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) to extrajudicial 

statements made by a child concerning child abuse; held that 

it was an unreasonable multiplication of charges to convict 

an accused of the same possession and receipt of child 

pornography under clauses 1 and 2 of Article 134, UCMJ, and 

as violations of 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(5) and 2252A(a)(2)(B) 

under clause 3 of Article 134, UCMJ; held that failing to 

instruct members that self-defense was a defense to 

negligent homicide was error; held relevant subsections of 

Article 120, UCMJ, constitutional both facially and as 

applied; concluded that there is no reporter’s privilege in 

military jurisprudence; applied the term indecent to a text 

message sent from one adult to another; ruled that the 

failure of the military judge to order the production of a 

suitable expert to assist the defense in a shaken baby death 

case was error; and held that computer file names suggestive 

of possession of child pornography constitute a qualifying 

offense under Military Rule of Evidence 414 and are 

therefore admissible as propensity evidence against an 

accused in a prosecution for alleged acts of child 

molestation. Additionally, the Court began to record its 

oral arguments and post the recordings on its public web 

site along with all of the Court's decisions. 

NAVY-MARINE CORPS TRIAL JUDICIARY (CODE 52) 

 The U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps have a unified trial 

judiciary entitled the Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary 

(NMCTJ). Its core mission is to provide certified military 

judges for Navy and Marine Corps general and special courtsmartial. The NMCTJ is organized into six judicial circuits 

world-wide and is supported by Naval Reserve and Marine 

Corps Reserve Individual Mobilization Augmentees. The Chief 

Judge is Captain Bruce W. MacKenzie, JAGC, USN, who was 

invested on 20 June 2008. Lieutenant Colonel Eugene H. 

Robinson, Jr., USMC, serves as Deputy Chief Judge. 

 

10 
 The NMCTJ consists of 24 active duty and 16 Reserve 

judges. During FY 09, the judges of NMCTJ presided over 237 

general courts-martial and 851 special courts-martial. The 

2010 courts-martial operational tempo is consistent with the 

declining trend over the past several years of fewer courtsmartial throughout the naval service. 

 The NMCTJ provided comprehensive and timely judicial 

services to fleet and shore activities, and to Marine forces 

in the United States and around the world, including combat 

zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Several judges also 

deployed as individual augmentees in non-judicial billets. 

Judges presided over numerous high-profile cases arising 

from incidents in Iraq. Several more judges were designated 

and appointed as trial judges for Military Commissions at 

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Judges again performed duties as 

environmental impact statement hearing officers for several 

proceedings throughout the United States conducted pursuant 

to the National Environmental Policy Act. 

 Members of the trial judiciary participated in 

continuing legal education at the Army Judge Advocate 

General’s Legal Center and School, the annual Interservice 

Military Judges Seminar (IMJS) at Maxwell Air Force Base, 

and at the National Judicial college (NJC) in Reno, Nevada. 

 Members of the NMCTJ also provided training at various 

levels, including the Defense Institute of International 

Legal Studies, Navy-Marine Corps Senior Officers Courses, 

Legal Officer Courses, Naval Justice School Basic Lawyer 

Courses, the Army Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and 

School’s Military Judges Course, and other in-service 

courses. Throughout all judicial circuits, the NMCTJ 

performed an active role in routinely mentoring judge 

advocates by means of both formal and informal training 

sessions. 

NAVAL LEGAL SERVICE COMMAND 

 Naval Legal Service Command (NAVLEGSVCCOM) is 

commanded by Rear Admiral Nanette M. DeRenzi who also 

serves as the Deputy Judge Advocate General of the 

Navy. NAVLEGSVCCOM includes 386 judge advocates, 1 

Civil Engineer Corps Officer, 10 Limited Duty (Legal) 

Officers, 213 legalmen, and 210 civilians. 

11 
NAVLEGSVCCOM provides a wide range of legal services to 

afloat and shore commands, active duty naval personnel, 

family members, retirees, and eligible beneficiaries 

from the other services at 99 offices world-wide and is 

the primary source of personnel to meet the Navy Judge 

Advocate General Corps annual Individual Augmentation 

(IA) requirements in support of the Overseas 

Contingency Operations (OCOs). NAVLEGSVCCOM consists 

of eight Naval Legal Service Offices (NLSOs), nine 

Region Legal Service Offices (RLSOs), and the Naval 

Justice School. NAVLEGSVCCOM provides counsel for 

courts-martial, administrative boards, physical 

evaluation boards, legal assistance, and local 

commanders. NAVLEGSVCCOM also provides training for 

Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard judge advocates, 

legalmen, and other DoD personnel. During fiscal year 

2009, NAVLEGSVCCOM provided counsel for 94 general 

courts-martial, 203 special courts-martial, 113 Article 

32s, and 677 Administrative Boards. NAVLEGSVCCOM also 

provided 150,303 attorney legal assistance services, 

and 66,195 customer services. 

 15% of NAVLEGSVCCOM judge advocates deployed during 

FY 09 as IAs in direct support OCOs in Iraq, 

Afghanistan, Djibouti and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 

NAVAL JUSTICE SCHOOL 

 Organization. Naval Justice School (NJS) reports to 

NAVLEGSVCCOM for administrative and operational control. 

Commander, Naval Education and Training Command (CNETC) is 

NJS’s budget submitting office. 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 two-person Branch Office is co-located 

with the U.S. Army’s Judge Advocate General's Legal Center 

and School in Charlottesville, Virginia. 

 

12 
 Mission. To oversee formal training of naval judge 

advocates, limited duty officers (Law), and legal men 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 FY 09, NJS provided instruction to more than 25,756 

students worldwide (including 3,851 in resident courses 

ranging in length from three days to eleven weeks). In 

addition to teaching at NJS, NJS instructors provide out-ofhouse teaching in military justice, administrative law, and 

operational law to other commands, including the Naval War 

College, Center for Naval Leadership, Officer Training 

Command, Senior Enlisted Academy, Surface Warfare Officers 

School Command, and the Defense Institute of International 

Legal Studies. 

 Academic Programs. NJS has eight "core" courses that 

include training in military justice. These courses are: 

1. Basic Lawyer Course (BLC). This now 10-week 

course, offered four times in fiscal year 2009, 

provides accession training for all judge advocates in 

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

includes extensive training in military justice and 

court-martial advocacy, as well as training in legal 

assistance, administrative law, and standards of 

conduct. Teaching methods include lecture, seminar, 

and practical exercises in both legal assistance skills 

and trial advocacy skills. In August 2009, the BLC was 

extended by one week to incorporate basic operational 

law training, a 1-week course, traditionally offered 

either before or after the BLC to the Navy and Marine 

Corps accession students. 

13 
Instruction includes classroom lectures and group 

seminar exercises on the law of armed conflict, law of 

the sea, rules of engagement/rules for the use of 

force, command and control, operational environmental 

law, information operations, and handling of classified 

information. During this week of instruction, Coast 

Guard students attend their own course of instruction 

on basic operational law, facilitated by local Coast 

Guard experts. Upon graduation, judge advocates are 

certified per Article 27(b), UCMJ. FY 09 graduates: 

150. 

2. Accession Legalman Course. This 11-week course, 

offered three times annually, trains Navy enlisted 

personnel selected for conversion to the legalman 

rating. The course provides 10 ABA-certified credits 

towards a paralegal degree or certificate in 

partnership with Roger Williams University. In 

addition to military specific training in military 

justice, court reporting, administrative 

investigations, and administrative separations, the 

course includes four college-level courses taught by 

NJS officer instructors: Ethics, Legal Research and 

Writing I, Introduction to Law, and Emerging Legal 

Technologies. FY 09 graduates: 56.

3. Basic Legal Services Specialist Course. This 9 

1/2-week course, offered three times annually, provides 

accession level training to junior enlisted Marines 

seeking to become Marine Corps Legal Services 

Specialists. The curriculum consists of training in 

military justice, post-trial review, and legal 

administration. FY 09 graduates: 108.

4. Legal Services Court Reporter Course. This 11-week 

course, offered twice annually, provides court reporter 

training to Legal Services Specialists, in grades E-3 

to E-7, seeking the Necessary Military Occupational 

Specialty of Marine Corps Legal Services Court 

Reporter. The curriculum consists of court reporter 

training in closed-mask capture of legal proceedings at 

225 wpm, court reporting grammar and punctuation, 

speech recognition technology, digital recording 

software, and the production of verbatim and summarized 

courts-martial proceedings. FY 09 graduates: 18. 

14 
5. Senior Officer Course in Military Justice and Civil 

Law. This 1-week course trains senior officers in the 

execution of the legal responsibilities of command with 

instruction in nonjudicial punishment, court-martial 

procedures, and administrative law. FY 09 graduates: 

743. 

6. Legal Officer Course. This 3-week course prepares 

non-lawyer Legal Officers to perform a host of 

militarylaw functions in commands not large enough to 

warrant assignment of a judge advocate. FY 09 

graduates: 518. 

 

7. Legal Clerk Course. Legal Clerks are typically 

assigned to assist non-lawyer Legal Officers within a 

command as a collateral duty. This 2-week course 

provides training in the preparation of legal forms and 

reports, service record entries, nonjudicial 

punishment, and court-martial procedures. FY 09 

graduates: 309. 

8. Senior Enlisted Leadership Course (SELC) in 

Military Justice and Civil Law. This 3-day course 

provides senior enlisted leaders of all services 

training in a wide range of military law with primary 

focus on military justice matters. In Newport, 

portions of the SELC are incorporated into the core 

curriculum at the Navy's Senior Enlisted Academy. FY 

09 graduates: 397. 

Continuing Legal Education. In addition to the "core" 

courses, NJS provided 29 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, including litigation of sexual assault 

cases; computer crimes; national security cases; prosecuting 

and defending complex cases; reserve updates; and a number 

of paralegal courses). Training was provided to active duty 

and Reserve judge advocates and enlisted legal professionals 

from the sea services, Army, Air Force, and foreign 

militaries in military justice, operational law, 

administrative law, legal assistance, and estate planning. 

Litigation of sexual assault cases was a new course added in 

FY 09. 

15 
 In FY 09, these resident courses reached 931 active 

duty and 514 Reserve legal professionals. 

 Coordination. Through the Interservice Legal Education 

Review Committee, the Commanding Officer of NJS, the Dean of 

Students of the Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and 

School, and the Commandant of the Air Force Judge Advocate 

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

initiatives and opportunities for cross-training and to 

increase cooperation and efficiency in the training of legal 

personnel within the Department of Defense. 

 Publications. NJS publishes the Naval Law Review, 

study guides, materials in support of academic programs, 

reference manuals designed to assist sea service commanders 

with implementation of the UCMJ, and any additional 

materials directed by higher authority. 

 Deployments. In FY 09, seven NJS instructors deployed 

to Iraq and Afghanistan in support of OCOs. 

MARINE CORPS ACTIVITIES

 There are approximately 390 active-duty Marine judge 

advocates and 340 Reserve Marine judge advocates. 

Additionally, there are 17 Marine warrant officers, 478 

legal specialists, and 41 speech-recognition court 

reporters. These personnel work in legal offices in support 

of the Fleet Marine Forces in the continental United States, 

overseas, and on deployment throughout the world. 

Additionally, our drilling Reserve judge advocate community 

provides substantial support to each of our offices in all 

functional areas. 

 Marine Corps judge advocates perform all manner of legal 

services, including military justice, legal assistance, 

operational law, government ethics and installation law. In 

the military justice arena, they serve as prosecutors, 

defense counsel, military judges, review officers and 

appellate counsel for both the government and service 

members. There are also currently 13 Marine judge advocates 

serving as counsel for the Office of the Military 

Commissions. 

 

16 
Marines must be confident that their personal and 

financial matters are in order. Judge advocates are an 

essential part of this process. Before deploying, Marine 

Corps judge advocates assist Marines with legal assistance 

issues involving estate planning, family law, consumer law, 

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

creditor law, adoptions, and citizenship. These services 

are provided not only to active duty services members, but 

also to family members and military retirees. 

 Marine Corps judge advocates also advise commanders 

during military operations and exercises, reviewing 

operational plans and providing advice on the law of war, 

rules of engagement, detention operations, and contingency 

contracting. 

 Other areas of practice include civil law, contract law, 

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

addition, because Marine Corps judge advocates are 

unrestricted officers, many serve in non-legal billets. 

Marine Corps judge advocates currently hold command billets 

at Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego, Miami, Florida, 

Frankfurt and West Africa. Marine judge advocates also 

serve in numerous non-legal staff billets throughout the 

Marine Corps, to include recruiting duty, recruit training, 

serving as Air Station Executive Officer, Iwakuni, Japan and 

serving as Naval attaché in Dakar, Senegal and Azerbaijan. 

 The Marine Corps legal community also includes legal 

administrative officers, legal services specialists, and 

speech recognition court reporters. Legal administrative 

officers, who come from our warrant officer ranks, provide 

review and guidance in administrative investigations, 

preliminary inquiries, and claims against the government. 

Additionally, legal administrative officers process 

involuntary administrative separation cases and serve as 

recorders for administrative discharge boards. An enlisted 

Legal Services Specialist’s general duties include the legal 

operational, managerial, clerical, and administrative duties 

incident to a law center. 

17 
Enlisted speech recognition court reporters record general 

and special courts-martial proceedings, formal 

investigations, administrative boards, staff meetings, and 

any other similar bodies (hearings) in which typewritten, 

summarized, or verbatim transcripts are required. The legal 

administrative officers, legal services specialists, and 

court reporters are the administrative backbone of the 

Marine Corps legal community. 

 Stenography served the USMC well for many years, but in 

September 2007, Marine Corps court reporting transitioned to 

speech recognition. Training costs and the corresponding 

manpower costs have been dramatically cut by eliminating the 

two-year training pipeline required by stenography school 

and replacing it with a brand new 10-week course at the 

Naval Justice School. The speech recognition technology has 

been validated and proven successful in Navy/Marine Corps 

courtrooms. The Marine Corps has merged the job 

classification for stenographer with our legal services 

specialist (4421) and have identified the court reporter 

trained Marines with an additional skill designator. This 

has permitted flexible employment and assignment of all 

transitioning court reporters and is expected to 

significantly improve the historically slow promotion rates 

for court reporters. Ultimately, the transition will create 

a more well-rounded Marine Corps Legal Services Specialist 

community. 

 The Marine Corps is increasing its accession of judge 

advocates from 35 to 60 this year from civilian law schools 

and private practice through routine recruiting channels to 

provide enough judge advocates to meet anticipated growth in 

the Marine Corps. Additionally, up to 10 judge advocates 

are contracted yearly from the active duty officer corps 

through the Marine Corps Law Education Programs and this 

year through a return to active duty board. The Marine 

Corps continues to have many more applicants than can be 

contracted each year, and the Marine Corps Recruiting 

Command uses a highly competitive board process to screen 

and select only the most qualified applicants. Applicants 

come from diverse backgrounds but can generally be described 

as coming from first or second tier ABA accredited law 

schools and having an average LSAT score above the 80th 

percentile of all scores. 

 

18 
 

 Once selected by the Marine Corps Recruiting Command, 

these personnel must undergo a three-step process to become 

a Marine Corps judge advocate. First, future judge 

advocates must attend Officer Candidate School (OCS) in 

Quantico, Virginia. This strenuous ten-week course is 

designated to test a candidate’s leadership and physical 

abilities. Successful completion of OCS is required before 

receiving a commission as a Marine Corps second lieutenant. 

Second, upon completion of OCS and successfully passing the 

bar examination of any state, all Marine Corps officers 

attend The Basic School (TBS), also located in Quantico, 

Virginia. Marine Corps officers are unrestricted officers 

and are regularly called upon to perform duties outside of 

the law. TBS is a demanding six-month program that provides 

each second lieutenant the foundation to be an infantry 

platoon commander. Finally, each judge advocate must 

complete the ten-week Basic Lawyer Course at the Naval 

Justice School in Newport, Rhode Island. While attending 

this course, officers focus on legal assistance, criminal 

law and procedure, administrative law, military trial 

advocacy, and basic operational law training. Successful 

completion of OCS, TBS, and the Basic Lawyer Course 

culminates in the officer being designated a Marine Corps 

judge advocate. 

 Continuing Legal Education (CLE) and other training 

opportunities are available for Marine Corps judge advocates 

throughout their careers. In addition to a myriad of 

courses offered by each of the service legal schools, 

Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps provides funds for judge 

advocates to attend various civilian CLE courses. 

 The Marine Corps also sends up to 13 judge advocates per 

year to postgraduate school to obtain a Master of Laws 

(LL.M.) degree. Students receive the LL.M degree from 

either the Army Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and 

School or from pre-approved civilian law schools. In the 

last several years, Marine Corps judge advocates have 

received advanced degrees from Georgetown University Law 

Center, George Washington University Law School, the 

University of San Diego School of Law, and Harvard Law 

School. 

 

19 
In addition to advanced legal courses, Marine Corps 

judge advocates also have the opportunity to be selected to 

attend advanced military studies courses every year, such as 

the Expeditionary Warfare School, the Command and Staff 

College, one of the four services’ war colleges, and various 

military fellowships. 

 The Law School Education Debt Subsidy (LSEDS) program 

went into effect during 2003 and has been approved for its 

seventh year. The average debt for new judge advocates is 

approximately $90,000.00, with an average loan payment of 

$500.00 per month. Captains who have completed their 

initial active duty obligation are eligible. The total 

authorized amount of LSEDS is $30,000.00 to be paid in 

yearly installments of $10,000.00. Officers accepting LSEDS 

incur an additional three-year commitment on active duty. 

The utilization of LSEDS assists the Marine Corps in 

retaining experienced judge advocates. 

 The majority of Marine Corps judge advocates who are 

forward- deployed are serving in support of OCO. OCOs have 

created a tremendous challenge for the Marine Corps legal 

community, with judge advocates currently serving in Iraq, 

Afghanistan, and Djibouti. In addition to the judge 

advocates that are permanently assigned to deploying Marine 

Corps forces, there is a requirement for IAs to provide 

additional legal services to various units throughout the 

Department of Defense. Marine Corps judge advocates 

currently serve as IAs with the Multinational Force-Iraq 

(MNF-I), Combined Forces Command Afghanistan, U.S. Forces 

Afghanistan Combined Joint Task Force, Combined Joint Task 

Force-Horn of Africa, Criminal Investigation Task Force as 

well as Joint Task Force, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. While there 

has been no shortage of active duty volunteers, IA billets 

are also being filled with volunteers from the Marine Corps 

Reserve. 

 Since October 2001, the Marine Corps has deployed over 

380 judge advocates and legal specialists to places such as 

Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, Haiti, Guantanamo 

Bay, Bosnia, Colombia, Thailand, Sri Lanka and Indonesia. 

Training and other preparation continues for another 40 

legal personnel who will soon deploy in support of Operation 

Enduring freedom. 

20 
Currently 46 judge advocates, 11 percent of the total Marine 

Corps judge advocate community, are deployed in support of 

the OCO. During the last two years, judge advocates have 

deployed from the vast majority of Marine Corps 

installations, including Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps. 

 Military Justice, although decreasing in numbers, 

continues to be one of the busiest areas in the practice of 

military law for Marine judge advocates. The following 

chart reflects cases tried in the Marine Corps over the last 

seven fiscal years. 

Fiscal 

Year

End 

Strength 

GCM SPCM SCM Total 

Courts 

NJP 

FY 09 202,000 140 675 1,670 2,485 11,772 

FY 08 198,505 163 692 1,373 2,228 10,425 

FY 07 180,169 149 800 1,262 2,211 15,012 

FY 06 180,416 120 964 1,262 2,346 13,217 

FY 05 180,029 187 1,137 1,022 2,346 13,386 

FY 04 177,480 150 1,261 928 2,339 8,985 

FY 03 177,779 145 818 782 1,745 8,344 

JAMES W. HOUCK 

Vice Admiral, JAGC, U.S. Navy 

Judge Advocate General of the Navy 

21 
APPENDIX - U.S. NAVY/MARINE CORPS MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Report Period: FY 2009 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/ 

DECREASE (-) OVER 

LAST REPORT 

GENERAL 234 205 29 -13% 

BCD SPECIAL 878 834 44 -11% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 0 0 0 0% 

SUMMARY 1871 1851 20 9 % 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT 1% 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 94 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 87 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( SA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 446 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 171 

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

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 44 

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

CRIMINAL APPEALS 

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 348 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 139 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 209 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 650 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 198 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 452 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 788 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 249 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 539 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 192 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 82 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 110 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD -16% 

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

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

NUMBER 788 

PERCENTAGE 100% 

22 
PART 6 - ACTIONS OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED 

FORCES 

(CAAF) 

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF (122) 15% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -16% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED (26) 21% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -3 % 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CCA 3 % 

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD -16% 

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 41 

RECEIVED 10 

DISPOSED OF 47 

 GRANTED 2 

 DENIED 45 

 NO JURISDICTION 0 

 WITHDRAWN 0 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 4 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 916 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 177 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 739 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 158 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 59 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 99 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 57 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 532,621 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 22,917 

RATE PER 1,000 43 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD 5% 

23 
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, 2008 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 

THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (AFCCA)

The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed 345 

cases in Fiscal Year 2009, reducing the number of cases 

pending before it by seven percent. In addition, the Court 

increased the number of oral arguments it heard through 

Project Outreach at civilian law schools and Air Force 

bases. The Court heard five oral arguments at Texas 

Southern University Thurgood Marshall School of Law, North 

Carolina Central University School of Law, University of 

Connecticut School of Law, Creighton University School of 

Law, and Charleston AFB, South Carolina. The argument at 

Creighton University School of Law set a record with 170 

students in attendance. 

The Court saw significant changes in its composition in 

2009. The size of the Court was reduced for the second 

straight year, this time from seven to five active-duty 

judges. After the departure of the Chief Judge due to 

permanent change of station, one Senior Judge was selected 

to become the new Chief Judge. The Court also welcomed one 

new Associate Judge and one new Honors Law Clerk after the 

retirement of two Senior Judges and the departure of one 

Honors Law Clerk due to permanent change of station. 

In addition to performing their statutory 

responsibilities, members of the Court used their judicial 

experience to assist the Air Force and Department of Defense 

in areas beyond the Court itself. Four of the appellate 

military judges served on the United States Court of 

Military Commission Review (USCMCR). In accordance with the 

Military Commissions Acts of 2006 and 2009, the USCMCR has 

automatic appellate jurisdiction over any finding of guilty 

under the Act and also hears appeals of issues taken prior 

to and during trial. 

1 
In addition, judges on the Court with trial-level 

judicial experience provided backup support for the Trial 

Judiciary Directorate. During 2009, appellate judges served 

as trial judges at Fairchild AFB, Washington; F. E. Warren 

AFB, Wyoming; Keesler AFB, Mississippi; Lackland AFB, Texas; 

Luke AFB, Arizona; Mountain Home AFB, Idaho; Sheppard AFB, 

Texas; Tinker AFB, Oklahoma; Travis AFB, California; and 

Whiteman AFB, Missouri. 

Members of the Court also continued to conduct 

Environmental Impact Hearings in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act. The appellate military 

judges presided over the hearings, allowing for federal 

receipt of public comment on any potential change in base 

mission which could impact the environment. Finally, one of 

our judges, working with the Air Force Clemency and Parole 

Board, conducted a supervision violation hearing for an Air 

Force member on parole. 

TRIAL JUDICIARY

The Air Force Trial Judiciary Directorate (JAT) is 

responsible for docketing and presiding over all Air Force 

general and special courts-martial, as well as presiding 

over an array of Federal hearings. The Directorate is 

staffed by 17 active duty trial judges, seven reserve trial 

judges, one noncommissioned officer, and one civilian 

employee. The office of the Chief Trial Judge is co-located 

with the Central Docketing Office at Bolling AFB, 

Washington, District of Columbia, and includes the Deputy 

Chief Trial Judge, one noncommissioned officer, and a 

civilian Clerk of Courts. The remaining JAT personnel—all 

trial judges—are postured in a variety of geographically 

advantageous locations around the globe, including Kadena 

AB, Japan; Travis AFB, California; McChord AFB, Washington; 

Nellis AFB, Nevada; Offutt AFB, Nebraska; Randolph AFB, 

Texas; Sheppard AFB, Texas; Eglin AFB, Florida; Charleston 

AFB, South Carolina; and Ramstein AB, Germany. Efforts are 

underway to move two more judge billets in summer 2010 to 

RAF Lakenheath, United Kingdom, and the United States Air 

Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado. 

2 
In Fiscal Year 2009, Air Force judges presided over 641 

general and special courts-martial—an increase of 78 cases 

from FY 2008. Judges also served as investigating officers 

in numerous complex and high-profile Article 32 

investigations, as legal advisors for officer Boards of 

Inquiry and other administrative boards, as hearing officers 

in parole violation hearings, and have presided at public 

hearings held to consider draft environmental impact 

statements. 

One of the division’s trial judges served with the 

Office of Military Commissions for a six-month tour. Judges 

presided over cases at Bagram AB, Afghanistan; Balad AB, 

Iraq; and Al Udeid AB, Qatar. Currently, four trial judges 

have been detailed to the military commissions in Guantanamo 

Bay, Cuba. 

Air Force judges served as ambassadors for military 

justice in classrooms and through publication. Division 

personnel instructed new military judges at The Army Judge 

Advocate General’s Legal Center and School in 

Charlottesville, Virginia. Division personnel also lectured 

at a number of Judge Advocate Staff Officer Courses at the 

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

AFB, Alabama. Air Force judges also taught at various trial 

advocacy courses and programs throughout the country and 

overseas to enhance practitioners’ litigation skills. 

Air Force judges shared their specialized knowledge and 

expertise by publishing articles in various journals. Two 

division judges published articles in the Air Force Law 

Review, entitled Depositions and a Case Called Savard and 

Military Criminal Investigations and the Stored 

Communications Act, respectively. Another judge published 

an article in The Reporter entitled The Trial Script: 

Everything You Didn’t Even Know You Didn’t Know. 

The Air Force hosted over 120 judges from all the 

uniformed services during the 35th Annual Interservice 

Military Judges’ Seminar. The seminar was held at AFJAGS in 

January. 

3 
The week-long seminar consisted of continuing legal 

education lectures, seminars on emerging issues, a variety 

of collegium opportunities, and briefings by the members of 

the National Judicial Education Program and Prof. David 

Schlueter, St. Mary’s University School of Law, San Antonio, 

Texas. 

AIR FORCE JUDICIARY 

 The Air Force Judiciary Directorate (JAJ) is 

responsible for the administration of military justice 

across the Air Force. JAJ advises The Judge Advocate 

General (TJAG), the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and the 

Secretary of the Air Force on military justice matters, 

works with the other uniformed services to propose 

legislation and modifications to executive orders pertaining 

to military justice, assists convening authorities and staff 

judge advocates in the field, and provides the highest 

quality defense services to Airmen worldwide. In addition, 

the directorate provides court reporter support for courtsmartial, discharge boards, Accident Investigation Boards and 

other hearings through its Enlisted Court Reporter program. 

JAJ is led by a Director and Superintendent. 

The directorate performs its mission through five 

divisions: The Appellate Defense Division; the Trial 

Defense Division; the Government Trial and Appellate Counsel 

Division; the Military Justice Division; and the Clemency, 

Corrections and Officer Review Division. 

GOVERNMENT TRIAL & APPELLATE COUNSEL DIVISION

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT COUNSEL

During the past fiscal year, appellate counsel 

vigorously represented the government in Article 66 and 

Article 67 appeals. The division also sought and obtained 

certification from TJAG in three cases for review by the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (USCAAF), and 

filed appeals in seven cases under Article 62, UCMJ. 

 

4 
Appellate government counsel zealously represented the 

government in oral arguments before USCAAF and AFCCA. 

Appellate government counsel contributed to Project 

Outreach, sponsored by USCAAF and AFCCA, by conducting oral 

arguments in six cases before audiences at various law 

schools and military installations. These arguments helped 

educate attendees on the fairness and professionalism of the 

military justice system and provided excellent recruiting 

opportunities. 

 Counsel took steps to become even more intensely 

involved in advocacy training and field support. Division 

counsel educated judge advocates and paralegals at Air Force 

training events such as Trial Advocacy Conferences, the 

Military Justice Administration Course, the Trial and 

Defense Advocacy Course, and several numbered air force 

conferences. The division also created an interactive 

scenario-based training module on investigating and charging 

sexual assault cases called Trauma to Trial, which division 

counsel have presented to more than 800 personnel throughout 

the Air Force. Appellate counsel and the division’s 

enlisted Superintendent presented a variety of military 

justice presentations to nearly 700 attendees at the Air 

Force JAG Corps’ KEYSTONE Leadership Summit. Appellate 

counsel also published the Trial Counsel Deskbook and an 

electronic newsletter, which contained appellate updates 

along with timely and relevant articles for military justice 

practitioners at all levels. 

The division continued to fulfill its obligation to 

support war-fighting commanders by deploying multiple 

personnel to Iraq. A reservist administratively assigned to 

the Government Trial and Appellate Counsel Division 

completed a year-long tour as Deputy Legal Advisor, Task 

Force 134. Two other division personnel also deployed to 

Iraq during the past year. Additionally, the division 

deployed several Senior Trial Counsel to prosecute courtsmartial in the AOR. 

 Along the way, division personnel continued to engage 

in a variety of activities designed to further the 

professionalism of military justice practice, particularly 

at the appellate level. 

5 
The division’s Chief Counsel organized USCAAF’s annual 

Appellate Advocacy Symposium, hosted in conjunction with the 

Judge Advocates Association. Appellate government counsel 

have actively built relationships with sister service 

counterparts through participation in quarterly meetings and 

regular consultation on matters of common interest, and by 

filing an amicus brief in a Navy-Marine Corps case before 

USCAAF involving the constitutionality of Article 120, UCMJ. 

The division also hosted three summer interns who had 

completed their second year of law school and expressed an 

interest in serving as judge advocates. These young 

professionals significantly supported the division mission 

by conducting legal research and writing appellate briefs 

and motions, and spoke positively about their experiences in 

the internship program, which included a visit to Guantanamo 

Bay to learn about detainee operations. 

 

 The division obtains crucial appellate counsel support 

from 11 assigned reserve judge advocates. They continue to 

greatly assist the division in carrying out its mission. In 

addition to preparing written briefs, one reserve counsel 

presented an oral argument before AFCCA during the fiscal 

year. 

 A summary of Air Force Appellate Government practice 

follows: 

AFCCA FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

Briefs Filed 159 207 267 188 156 

Cases Argued 11 16 20 19 16 

 

USCAAF FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

Briefs Filed 73 47 41 41 23 

Cases Argued 29 25 24 15 13 

 

SUPREME 

COURT 

FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

Petition/Wai

vers Filed 

5 0 10 4 3 

Briefs Filed 0 0 0 0 0 

6 
SENIOR TRIAL COUNSEL 

Personnel authorizations for the fiscal year included 

19 Senior Trial Counsel (STC) at 13 locations worldwide: 

three counsel at Bolling AFB, Washington, District of 

Columbia; three Instructor-Litigators (IL) at AFJAGS at 

Maxwell AFB, Alabama; two counsel each at Ramstein AB, 

Germany, and Randolph AFB, Texas; and one counsel each at 

Travis AFB, California; Nellis AFB, Nevada; Davis-Monthan 

AFB, Arizona; Peterson AFB, Colorado; Offutt AFB, Nebraska; 

Barksdale AFB, Louisiana; Langley AFB, Virginia; Osan AB, 

Korea; and Kadena AB, Japan. This marks a dramatic change 

from the former geographically-based judiciary circuits. 

STCs are detailed to prosecute cases by the division 

headquarters at Bolling AFB, and their primary 

responsibility is to represent the government in the most 

complex litigated general courts-martial. They are also 

available for special courts-martial, discharge boards and 

other proceedings, as resources allow. 

 In the past year, STCs spent more than 2,100 

days on temporary duty away from their home station, and 

represented the government in 205 courts-martial and 177 

other proceedings, including three homicide cases. STCs 

embody the notion of “one world, one circuit.” STCs cross 

any and all geographical boundaries to try cases. 

 The past year saw a continued emphasis on 

providing our STCs with the training and tools required for 

them to thrive. STCs attended many hours of training 

designed to improve their advocacy skills. In August, the 

third annual Senior Trial Counsel conference was held at 

Bolling AFB, bringing together all 19 STCs for a week of 

training and networking with trial and appellate counsel. 

Additionally, STCs attended Sexual Assault Prosecution 

Training in Battle Creek, Michigan, produced by the Michigan 

Domestic Violence Prevention and Treatment Board; the 

Advanced Trial Advocacy Course at the Air Force Judge 

Advocate General's School; the National Institute of Crime 

Prevention’s Advanced Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault 

7 
Course in Orlando, Florida; the Offender-Based Prosecution 

Training Course in Orlando, Florida, produced by the Army 

JAG Corps; the Prosecuting Sexual Assaults Course in Plano, 

Texas, produced by the Army JAG Corps; the Prosecuting 

Complex Cases Course at the Naval Justice School; the 

Computer Crimes Course at the Naval Justice School; the 

Sexual Assault Prosecution Training Course in Denver, 

Colorado, produced by the National Institute for Trial 

Advocacy; and the Sexual Assault and Major Crimes 

Prosecutions Course in Washington, District of Columbia, 

produced by the National District Attorneys Association. 

APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISION 

During Fiscal Year 2009, defense appellate counsel 

continued to zealously represent clients before the AFCCA 

and USCAAF, and through petitions filed in the U.S. Supreme 

Court. Defense appellate counsel ensure their clients’ 

Constitutional rights were protected throughout the 

pretrial, trial, and post-trial processes, and strive to 

obtain relief in the event that the Government committed any 

errors. 

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 this past fiscal year included attendance at the 

Criminal Law New Developments Course, the Judicial 

Conference sponsored by USCAAF, and a Military Appellate 

Advocacy Symposium sponsored by the Judge Advocates 

Association. Division personnel also provided appellate 

updates to several hundred JAGC members at two Trial 

Advocacy Conferences, the Senior Defense Counsel 

Orientation, and the KEYSTONE Leadership Summit. 

Appellate defense counsel continued to support trial 

defense counsel in the field by always being available for 

telephone consults in appropriate instances. Throughout the 

year, appellate defense counsel kept counsel in the field 

abreast of new appellate developments in military criminal 

law. Appellate defense counsel also contributed to Project 

Outreach, sponsored by USCAAF and AFCCA, by conducting oral 

arguments before audiences at various law schools and 

military installations. 

8 
These arguments helped educate attendees on the 

fairness and professionalism of the military justice system. 

The following figures reflect the division’s workload 

over the past five fiscal years: 

USCAAF FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

Supplements 

to Petitions 

 

 

268 371 261 293 336 

Grant Briefs 32 18 24 15 12 

Cases Argued 

 

29 

 

25 

 

24 

 

15 13 

SUPREME COURT FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

Petitions 0 0 9 4 3 

Briefs in 

Opposition 0 

 

0 0 0 0 

Briefs on the 

Merits 

 

0 

 

0 0 0 0 

9 

AFCCA FY05 FY 06 FY07 FY08 FY09

Briefs Filed 376 

638 

541 352 285 

Cases Argued 11 16 20 14 16 
TRIAL DEFENSE DIVISION 

The Trial Defense Division (JAJD) is responsible for 

providing trial defense services within the Air Force 

through the Area Defense Counsel (ADC) program. The 

division was staffed with 83 ADCs stationed at 69 bases 

worldwide. They were assisted by 70 Defense Paralegals (DP) 

at installations worldwide. ADCs and DPs are separate from 

the normal Air Force chain of command, allowing them to 

offer their clients independent legal advice. Rather than 

report to installation Staff Judge Advocates and wing 

commanders, ADCs and DPs are supervised by Senior Defense 

Counsel (SDC), who in turn report to Chief Senior Defense 

Counsel (CSDC) and the Chief, Trial Defense Division. 

 The Division had 18 regional SDCs stationed at Andrews 

AFB, Maryland; Langley AFB, Virginia; Charleston AFB, South 

Carolina; Hurlburt Field, Florida; Barksdale AFB, Louisiana; 

Randolph AFB, Texas; Sheppard AFB, Texas; Tinker AFB, 

Oklahoma; Peterson AFB, Colorado; Offutt AFB, Nebraska; 

McChord AFB, Washington; Travis AFB, California; Nellis AFB, 

Nevada; Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona; Yokota AB, Japan; Kadena 

AB, Japan; RAF Lakenheath, United Kingdom; and Ramstein AB, 

Germany. Each SDC was co-located with the ADC office at 

their respective locations. New this year, a technical 

sergeant DP is assigned to each ADC office at which an SDC 

is assigned. The division also had three InstructorLitigators (IL) assigned to AFJAGS. The ILs split their 

time between duties as instructors at AFJAGS and serve as 

defense counsel in top-priority cases, as directed by any of 

the three CSDCs. 

To ensure the best representation for Air Force 

clients, training remains the division’s top priority. On 

a continuing basis, each SDC provided on-the-job training 

and mentoring to the ADCs in their charge. Each CSDC, in 

turn, mentored the SDCs in their charge. Newly appointed 

ADCs and DPs received formal training at the combined ADC/DP 

Orientation Course held at AFJAGS. SDCs attended a JAJD-run 

Leadership Conference at Bolling AFB, Washington, District 

of Columbia. Defense personnel also attended one of three 

annual Trial Advocacy Courses conducted by AFJAGS. 

10 
In addition, the division ensured each ADC has attended 

the Trial and Defense Advocacy Course and that each SDC has 

attended the Advanced Trial Advocacy Course. Several SDCs 

were able to attend a week-long course at the U.S. Army 

Criminal Investigation Laboratory, gaining significant 

insight into forensic testing. 

 Upgrading ADC facilities is an additional JAJD 

priority. The ADC offices at Lackland AFB, Texas; 

Goodfellow AFB, Texas; F.E. Warren AFB, Wyoming; and 

Hurlburt Field, Florida, moved into new facilities during 

the fiscal year. The Chief, JAJD, attended the ribboncutting ceremony to mark the opening of the new Hurlburt ADC 

office. The Chief, JAJD, hailed the new building as the 

prototype for new ADC offices. At 2,400 square feet, the 

building is nearly double the size of the previous office. 

Additionally, the new building has a conference room and 

SIPR connections. 

MILITARY JUSTICE DIVISION

 The Military Justice Division (JAJM) 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, Department of 

Defense and the Air Staff. JAJM represents the Air Force on 

the DoD Joint Services Committee on Military Justice (JSC). 

The division also provides representatives to all 

interservice activities involving military justice and 

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

JAJM 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 fiscal year, JAJM provided 88 formal 

opinions concerning AFBCMR applications; received 86 

inquires in specific cases requiring formal written replies 

to senior officials, including the President and Members of 

Congress; and reviewed 41 records of trial for review under 

Article 69a, UCMJ, and 3 records under Article 69b, UCMJ. 

11 
The division presented the 12th annual Military Justice 

Administration Workshop at AFJAGS, a “back to basics” oneweek workshop attended by both judge advocates and 

paralegals. Division personnel also taught at the Staff 

Judge Advocates Course at Maxwell AFB, Alabama. 

 JAJM continued its direct involvement in the 

development and implementation of DoD and Air Force sexual 

assault prevention and response policies and procedures. 

The division secured over $72,000 from DoD’s Sexual Assault 

Prevention and Response Office to train 30 Air Force 

personnel in the Victim and Witness Assistance Program, with 

a special emphasis on responding to sexual assaults. JAJM 

also obtained funding for Air Force prosecutors to attend 

advocacy training focused on sexual assault trials. In 

addition, a division representative served as a principal 

trainer for judge advocates, sexual assault response 

coordinators, victim advocates, Air Force Office of Special 

Investigations (AFOSI) agents, and medical personnel for 

both DoD and the AF. 

 JAJM continued to coordinate military justice actions 

with high-level agencies, such as working closely with the 

Department of Justice on testimonial immunity requests for 

non-military witnesses and with the Office of the Secretary 

of the Air Force on officer requests to resign rather than 

face trial by court-martial. JAJM personnel also developed 

a publicly accessible online docket—allowing the public to 

learn basic details of upcoming courts-martial—and refined 

the process by which the Air Force JAG Corps works with the 

Air Force Office of Special Investigations. Finally, 

division representatives played a pivotal role in drafting 

an enumerated child pornography offense under Article 134, 

UCMJ and revising the Manual for Military Commissions to 

ensure compliance with the Military Commissions Act of 2009. 

CLEMENCY, CORRECTIONS AND OFFICER REVIEW DIVISION

At the end of Fiscal Year 2009, 354 Air Force personnel 

were in confinement. Of those, 84 inmates were in long-term 

confinement at the United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort 

Leavenworth, Kansas, and 50 were serving their sentence in 

the Federal Bureau of Prisons system. 

12 
Twelve inmates were enrolled in the Air Force Returnto-Duty Rehabilitation Program during Fiscal Year 2009, and 

four successfully completed the program and were returned to 

duty. The number of Air Force members and former members on 

parole or Mandatory Supervised Release at the end of Fiscal 

Year 2009 was 87. 

During the reporting period, the division completed 19 

Article 71, UCMJ, reviews of officer dismissal cases. As 

was recommended, the Secretary approved the dismissals in 

all cases. The division also prepared six cases for 

Secretarial clemency under Article 74, UCMJ. The Secretary 

granted clemency in one case. 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL’S SCHOOL

 AFJAGS is the educational arm of the JAG Corps. It is 

located at Maxwell AFB, Alabama, and provides education and 

training in all aspects of the military legal practice to 

attorneys and paralegals from all military services, other 

federal agencies, and many foreign countries. Specifically 

regarding the military justice system, instruction is 

provided in advocacy, administration, the rules of evidence, 

and the rules of procedure. AFJAGS faculty also provides 

instruction on military justice issues at several schools 

and colleges throughout Air University—the Air Force’s 

center for education. 

 Additionally, AFJAGS routinely publishes items 

concerning military justice and other criminal justice 

issues in The Reporter, The Air Force Law Review, and The 

Military Commander and the Law. AFJAGS webcasts introduce 

subject-matter experts and timely military justice topics to 

all base legal offices at one time. Webcasts are recorded 

and are made available at all times on a web-based 

collaborative learning and management system administered by 

AFJAGS and accessible to all members of the JAG Corps. The 

school has 31 web-based training modules on military justice 

topics. 

13 
Nearly 2,300 students attended the 44 courses held at 

AFJAGS in Fiscal Year 2009. Of those 44 courses, the 

following devoted substantial resources to military justicerelated topics: 

 

 Advanced Trial Advocacy Course 

 Annual Survey of the Law (Reserve and Air National 

Guard) 

 Defense Orientation Course (for new ADCs and DPs) 

Interservice Military Judges Conference 

Judge Advocate Staff Officer Course 

 Law Office Manager Course 

 Military Justice Administration Course 

 Paralegal Apprentice Course 

 Paralegal Craftsman Course 

 Reserve Forces Judge Advocate Course 

 Reserve Forces Paralegal Course 

 Staff Judge Advocate Course 

 Trial and Defense Advocacy Course 

 In addition to the above courses, AFJAGS hosted trial 

advocacy conferences in Charleston, South Carolina; Osan AB, 

Republic of Korea; and Ramstein AB, Germany. The 

conferences for Fiscal Year 2009 focused on sentencing 

proceedings, cross-examinations, and the use of technology 

in the courtroom. 

LEGAL INFORMATION SERVICES 

 During Fiscal Year 2009, the Legal Information Services 

directorate (JAS) continued to develop new information 

technology (IT) tools and improve existing ones to better 

support military justice practice throughout the Air Force. 

 JAS continued work on the Automated Military Justice 

Analysis and Management System (AMJAMS) throughout the year 

and prepared to launch Web AMJAMS, an entirely web-based 

application that was released in December 2009. Moving to 

the web ensures that AMJAMS complies with Standards Desktop 

Configuration requirements and is compatible with Microsoft 

Vista. During the past fiscal year, the directorate worked 

on an interface between AMJAMS and the AFOSI tracking 

system, which is scheduled to be released in the first 

quarter of Fiscal Year 2010. 

14 
The directorate also released a new version of 

Automated Defense Electronic Reporting (ADER), the primary 

IT tool used by the Air Force defense community to store and 

track case information. This latest version of ADER 

includes new reports and an administrator’s interface, and 

allows individual defense counsel and paralegals to track 

cases. These changes improve the application as a caseload 

management system. Planning and programming for additional 

features are well under way for Fiscal Year 2010. 

Finally, all Air Force courtrooms have been equipped 

with video teleconferencing (VTC) systems, which allow the 

Air Force to hold pretrial hearings and witness interviews 

without the necessity of travel. The directorate hired a 

full-time employee to manage maintenance and conference 

scheduling for the systems. 

 

PERSONNEL 

 As of 30 September 2009, the Air Force Judge Advocate 

General's Corps had 1,203 judge advocates on active duty. 

Company grade officers (lieutenants and captains) made up 

just over 50% of that number (602). Almost 24% were majors 

(283) and 16% were lieutenant colonels (196). Just over 10% 

of the Corps were colonels and above (122), including one 

lieutenant general, one major general, and four brigadier 

generals. The Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps 

Reserve included 853 Air Force Reserve IMA, Air Force 

Reserve unit-assigned, and Air National Guard judge 

advocates, of whom 11% (95) were company grade officers and 

77% (653) were field grade officers (majors and lieutenant 

colonels). The remaining 12% consisted of 101 colonels, two 

brigadier generals, and two major generals. 

JACK L. RIVES

Lieutenant General, USAF 

The Judge Advocate General 

15 
Period: Fiscal Year 2009 APPENDIX -- U.S. AIR FORCE MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATUS (Person

s) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF 

INCREASE(+)/ 

DECREASE (-) 

OVER 

LAST REPORT 

GENERAL 222 187 35 +9.35% 

BCD SPECIAL 419 169 33 +16.38 

NON-BCD SPECIAL [A] 217 

SUMMARY 114 114 0 +8.57% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE ( + ) / DECREASE ( - ) OVER LAST REPORT +12.72% 

PART 2 - DISCHARGE APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL (CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES [B] 34 

 NUMBER OF BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGES 109 

SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL (CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGES 167 

PART 3 - RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 - GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 102 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 - BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 272 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 - GENERAL COURTSMARTIAL 41 

PART 4 - WORK LOAD OF THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 263 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 157 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 106 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 328 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 142 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 186 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 345 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 170 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 175 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 246 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 129 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 117 

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD (345/390) -11.54% 

PART 5 - APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL 

APPEALS 

NUMBER 328/345 

PERCENTAGE 95.07% 

16 
PART 6 - U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES 

PERCENTAGE OF AFCCA REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCAAF (300/345) [C] 86.95% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +20.03% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED (19/300) 6.33% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -5.16% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY AFCCA 

(19/345) 4.81% 

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

DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD -2.88% 

PART 7 - APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF, ARTICLE 69 

PENDING AT BEGINNING OF PERIOD 0 

RECEIVED 3 

DISPOSED OF 3 

 GRANTED 0 

 DENIED 3 

 NO JURISDICTION 0 

 WITHDRAWN 0 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 0 

PART 8 - ORGANIZATION OF COURT 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 343 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 105 

 SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 238 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 298 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 117 

 SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 181 

PART 9 - COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 25 

PART 10 - STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 328,164 

PART 11 - NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 6,908 

RATE PER 1,000 21.05% 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD -1.567% 

17
 

EXPLANATORY NOTES 

 

[A] The Air Force does not convene non-BCD SPCMs. Of the 419 SPCMs tried, there were 169 

convictions with a BCD adjudged, 217 convictions without a BCD adjudged, and 33 acquittals. 

[B] Includes 17 officer dismissals. 

[C] Includes 36 cases which were reviewed by AFCCA during FY09 but were not forwarded to 

USCAAF until after the start of FY10. AFCCA decided these 36 cases within 60 days of the end of 

FY09 and, pursuant to R.C.M. 1203(d)(2)(A), the accused has 60 days from the time he or she was 

notified of AFCCA's decision to petition USCAAF for review. 
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, 2008 to September 30, 2009 

PERSONNEL AND TRAINING 

 The Coast Guard has 186 officers designated as judge 

advocates serving on active duty, of which 152 are serving 

in legal billets and 34 are serving in general duty billets. 

Those Coast Guard lawyers currently practicing law include 

officers assigned to NORTHCOM, AFRICOM, JIATF South, and as 

part of Multi-National Forces, Iraq. Among the 34 military 

attorneys serving in “out-of-specialty” billets are the 

Deputy Commander of Coast Guard Atlantic Area, the Military 

Aide to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other 

commanding and executive officers of Coast Guard cutters, 

sectors, training centers, and support commands. The Coast 

Guard also employs 92 civilian attorneys ranging from GS-13 

to SES. 

 The Coast Guard sent attorneys to 43 different 

courses of instruction during this fiscal year, primarily at 

the various service JAG schools. 50% of Coast Guard 

attorneys attended one or more courses of continuing legal 

education. Twenty-three Coast Guard officers are currently 

undergoing postgraduate studies in law and will be certified 

as judge advocates at the successful completion of their 

studies. Additionally, one judge advocate is attending the 

graduate course at the United States Army Judge Advocate 

General’s Legal Center and School and will graduate in 2010 

with a Masters of Law (LLM) degree in military law and 

another is a Fellow in the Center for Law and Military 

Operations. Another judge advocate is attending the Marine 

Corps War College and will graduate in the spring of 2010. 

Nineteen Coast Guard officers (including seven funded 

postgraduate program studies and twelve direct-commissioned 

lawyers) completed the Navy Basic Lawyer Course in Newport, 

Rhode Island. All have been or are in the process of being 

certified under Article 27(b), UCMJ. 

1 
U. S. COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

The judges on the U.S. Coast Guard Court of Criminal 

Appeals during fiscal year 2009 were: 

 Chief Judge Lane I. McClelland 

 Judge David J. Kantor (assignment terminated 14 May 2009) 

 Judge Elizabeth A. Pepper (assignment terminated 19 May 

2009) 

 Judge Michael J. Lodge 

 Judge Frederick J. Kenney 

 Judge Michael E. Tousley 

 Judge Patrick J. McGuire 

 Judge Brian T. McTague (assigned and sworn in on 19 May 

2009) 

 Judge William L. Chaney (assigned and sworn in on 19 May 

2009) 

 In addition to the decisional work of the Court, as 

reflected in the Appendix, the judges of the Court have been 

involved in various professional conferences, committees and 

seminars during the past fiscal year. 

MILITARY JUSTICE ORGANIZATION 

Thirteen staff judge advocates advise 15 officers 

exercising general court-martial jurisdiction and 

approximately 350 officers exercising special court-martial 

jurisdiction. Responsibility for detailing trial and 

defense counsel to general and special courts-martial rests 

with the Chief, Office of Legal and Defense Services, a 

staff office reporting to the Judge Advocate General charged 

with providing defense and personal legal services to Coast 

Guard members. This is a change over previous years 

reflecting significant changes within the Coast Guard 

structure and that of the Coast Guard legal program over the 

last year. 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. 

2 
 The Coast Guard has one general courts-martial judge 

and six collateral-duty special courts-martial judges. The 

Chief Trial Judge details all military judges to Coast Guard 

courts-martial. When the Chief Trial Judge was unavailable, 

courts-martial judges from other military services were 

detailed to general courts-martial. 

 The Office of Military Justice at Coast Guard 

Headquarters is responsible for representing the United 

States in all courts-martial appeals and providing support 

to staff judge advocates and trial counsel throughout the 

Coast Guard. The office is also responsible for developing 

military justice policy for the Coast Guard, including 

participation on the Joint Service Committee (JSC) on 

Military Justice. Within the office, three officers are 

assigned primary duty as appellate government counsel. 

TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES WITH OTHER SERVICES 

To improve the trial advocacy skills and experience 

levels of Coast Guard Judge Advocates, the Judge Advocate 

General has arranged for Coast Guard Trial Counsel to be 

assigned for limited periods of time (usually three months), 

to certain installations which have a robust military 

justice practice. Coast Guard Judge Advocates have thus far 

been assigned to Marine Corps Base Quantico, Marine Corps 

Base Camp Lejeune, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, Navy 

Region Legal Service Office Mid-Atlantic in Norfolk, 

Virginia, the Army's Trial Counsel Assistance Program in 

Arlington, Virginia, and the Staff Judge Advocate for the 

Military District of Washington. 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 courtsmartial records received and filed at Coast Guard 

Headquarters during fiscal year 2009 and, where indicated, 

records received during each of the four preceding fiscal 

years. The number of courts-martial varies widely from year 

to year; consequently, this is not a reliable indicator of 

the administration of military justice given the relatively 

small number of courts-martial overall. 

3 
Fiscal Year 09 08 07 06 05 

General Courts-Martial 12 13 16 16 07 

Special Courts-Martial 19 19 24 32 45 

Summary Courts-Martial 14 28 31 31 21 

Total 45 60 71 79 73 

 

ADDITIONAL MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

 Appendix A contains the Coast Guard, Fiscal Year 2009 

military justice statistics. 

 WILLIAM D. BAUMGARTNER 

 Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard 

 Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard 

4 
Appendix A: U. S. Coast Guard Courts-Martial/NJP Statistics

for 

October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2009 (FY 2009) 

APPENDIX: U.S. COAST GUARD MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

Report Period: 1 OCTOBER 2008- 30 SEPTEMBER 2009

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/ 

DECREASE (-) OVER 

LAST REPORT 

GENERAL ^12 09 03 -8% 

BCD SPECIAL 19 19 00 UNCHANGED 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 00 00 00 UNCHANGED 

SUMMARY 14 14 00 -50% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT -25% 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES *05 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 02 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 

07 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 05 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 07 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 03 

PART 4 – WORKLOAD OF THE COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL 

APPEALS 

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 31 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 14 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 17 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 14 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL *7 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 7 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 26 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 14 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 12 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 19 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 7 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 12 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

+4.0% 

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

 U.S. COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (CCA) 

NUMBER 14 

PERCENTAGE 100% 

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

FORCES (CAAF) 

5 
PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 6/26 23% 

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

REPORTING PERIOD 

-21% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 

1/6 

16% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -21% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CGCCA 1/26 4% 

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

-12% 

^Two cases remanded to Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals, Two 69(a) reviews 

*Two cases remanded to Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals 

U.S. COAST GUARD MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS - CONT’D

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ 

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 00 

RECEIVED 00 

DISPOSED OF 00 

 GRANTED 00 

 DENIED 00 

 NO JURISDICTION 00 

 WITHDRAWN 00 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 00 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 25 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ^^08 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 19 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 06 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ^^^05 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 01 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 01 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 43,042 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 1462 

RATE PER 1,000 33.96 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD +1.22% 

^^ Includes Two cases remanded, Two 69(a) cases 

^^^Includes three acquittals 

6