1 

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 the 

SECRETARIES OF THE 

ARMY, NAVY AND AIR FORCE 

PURSUANT TO THE 

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 

For the Period 

October 1, 2012 to September 30, 2013 

 
2 

CONTENTS 

SECTION 1: JOINT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CODE COMMITTEE 

SECTION 2: REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE ARMED FORCES 

SECTION 3: REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

ARMY 

SECTION 4: REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

NAVY 

SECTION 5: REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

AIR FORCE 

SECTION 6: REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

COAST GUARD 
3 

SECTION 1 

JOINT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CODE COMMITTEE 
4 

JOINT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE 

CODE COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO THE 

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 

October 1, 2012 to September 30, 2013

 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 Charles J. Dunlap, 

Jr., and Professor Keith M. Harrison, 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 5, 2013, 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 2012 Code Committee 

meeting, Major Daniel Mamber, U.S. Air Force, a member of the 

Joint Service Committee on Military Justice (JSC) Working Group, 

provided a report on the work of the Committee. Major Mamber 

provided an update for the 2011 Executive Order, which had not 

yet been signed. This order had contained changes to Military 

Rules of Evidence (MRE) 505 and 412. Due to concerns raised 

about the changes to these Rules, the changes were removed from 

the proposed Executive Order. The Department of Justice (DoJ), 

the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the Prosecution 

Office for Military Commissions expressed two concerns with the 

changes to MRE 505. The first was with the wording as to who 

would be authorized to grant permission to declassify 

information for use at courts-martial. The Joint Service 

Committee had suggested this be conferred on an Agency Head or 

Designee. DoJ, CIA, and the Prosecution Office for Military 

Commissions preferred that it be a “knowledgeable U.S. 

Official.” The second concern involved the proffer from defense 

counsel for the use of classified material at court-martial. 

The agencies believed this would be inconsistent with the 

Classified Information Procedures Act and the MCRE. The JSC 

accepted the second objection. 

As for MRE 412, the JSC proposed removing the portion of 

MRE 412(c)(3) relating to the victim’s privacy concern to comply 

with the Court’s decisions in United States v. Gaddis and United 
5 

States v. Ellerbrock. The National Security Staff expressed 

concern that this action would be problematic with victim’s 

rights advocates, so the JSC will continue work on re-drafting 

both Rules. 

Regarding the proposed 2012 Executive Order, Major Mamber 

stated that the public comment phase was complete and that the 

proposal was sent to the Department of Defense for review. The 

proposal contains the following changes to the Manual for 

Courts-Martial (MCM): 1) completion of the listing of maximum 

punishments in Part IV for Articles 120, 120(b), and 120(c); 2) 

amendment of Appendix 12 of the MCM to comport with Articles 

120(b) and (c); 3) modification of Part IV, MCM, to include the 

elements test contained in United States v. Jones; 4) 

incorporation of a new Appendix 12A containing an index of 

lesser-included offenses; 5) inclusion of a new animal abuse 

offense under Article 134; 6) amendment of Rule for CourtsMartial (RCM) 307 to state that the terminal element in Article 

134 offenses be expressly alleged in the specification; 7) 

clarification of the rule on unreasonable multiplication of 

charges; 8) establishment of a rule requiring that a copy of the 

record of trial be provided to sexual assault victims; 9) 

amendment of RCMs 209 and 809 to comply with changes in the 

contempt power of a court-martial; and 10) amendment of RCMs 405 

and 703 to account for the new power of an Article 32 

investigating officer to issue a subpoena duces tecum. 

Major Mamber also stated that the Department of Defense 

General Counsel’s Office was looking into why all of the rights 

afforded to crime victims under the Crime Victims Act were not 

included in Department of Defense Directive 1030.1. He also 

said that after the Secretary of Defense received a letter from 

the House Committee on Armed Services stating that the military 

justice system was not properly responding to the issue of 

sexual assault in the military, the Secretary directed the JSC 

to compare the military justice system’s response with that of 

civilian jurisdictions in what is now referred to as the Sexual 

Assault Comparative Study Group. 

On a separate topic, the JSC was asked to study a proposal 

for the adoption of a hazing statute in the UCMJ. Following the 

study, the JSC recommended that hazing be charged under existing 

offenses under Article 134, with added guidance in Part IV. 

Colonel David Dales, U.S. Air Force, Chair of the JSC, then 

briefed the Code Committee on the matters the JSC would be 

addressing in 2013. The first was the Air Force initiative 
6 

involving Special Victims Counsel. The General Counsel, 

Department of Defense, requested the JSC to review this 

initiative and whether it should be expanded to all of the 

services. The JSC will also study the following proposals: 1) 

substitution of the appellate courts for the President for 

approving death sentences; 2) replacement of sodomy with 

forcible sodomy as an aggravating factor in capital sentencing; 

3) amendment of Article 112 to include ingestion of drugs as a 

basis for drunk driving; 4) allowing the court reporter to 

authenticate the record of trial in a general court-martial 

acquittal; 5) allowing trial counsel to file an appeal of the 

decision of the military judge to compel production of a defense 

witness; 6) requiring the consent of the holder of a privilege 

to disclose privileged information; and 7) specifically stating 

that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act is 

not under the control of the government. 

Each of the services submitted a report to the Code 

Committee. For the Air Force, Lieutenant General Harding 

reported that there had been a 10 percent reduction in courtmartial processing times, and an increase in the number of 

appellate judges on the Court of Criminal Appeals. He added 

that the Air Force had trained 60 officers to act as special 

victims counsel. 

In the Navy, Vice Admiral DeRenzi stated that the number of 

general courts-martial had increased, but that the number of 

cases in other forums had decreased. She also said the Navy had 

re-aligned the Naval Legal Service Command by shifting the legal 

assistance function from Naval Legal Service Offices to Regional 

Legal Service Offices to enhance litigation training in the 

defense service offices and to address the increased complexity 

of cases being tried. 

For the Army, Major General Tate said that the Army had 

increased the number of special victim prosecutors, improved 

capabilities for cases involving special victims in sexual 

assault cases, and increased training for such cases for both 

prosecutors and defense counsel. 

In the Marine Corps, Major General Ary said that in the 

area of sexual assault cases, the way the services execute the 

system of adjudicating the cases involves the breadth and depth 

of the experience of trial and defense counsel, consideration of 

the victims and the victims’ bar, and the limited talent pool in 

an area of increased complexity and scrutiny. He added that the 

Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant was given Article 6 
7 

authority to conduct inspections of the system, and that the 

number of Marine Corps judge advocates increased from 435 to 

569. 

For the Coast Guard, Rear Admiral Kenney stated the 

experience was the same as the Navy’s with more sexual assault 

cases. The two foundational areas of expertise for Coast Guard 

judge advocates were operational law and military justice. The 

Coast Guard continues to participate with the Navy in the 

provision of defense services. 

 Professor Dunlap expressed concerns with the impact of 

budget problems on training and the provision of legal services, 

the change in the maximum punishment for sexual assault, the 

politicization of such cases, the lack of a Department of 

Defense Law of War Manual, the report that most of the 

individuals who experienced unwanted sexual contact were males, 

and the lack of information on the prosecution of those cases. 

Additional concerns were referred to the JSC for study. 

 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. 

James E. Baker 

Chief Judge 

Charles E. “Chip” Erdmann 

Associate Judge 

Scott W. Stucky 

Associate Judge 

Margaret A. Ryan 

Associate Judge 

Lieutenant General Flora D. Darpino, USA 

Judge Advocate General of the Army 

Vice Admiral Nanette M. DeRenzi, JAGC, USN 

The Judge Advocate General of the Navy 

Lieutenant General Richard C. Harding, USAF 

The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force 
8 

Rear Admiral Frederick J. Kenney, USCG 

The Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard 

Major General Vaughn Ary, USMC 

Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps 

Professor Charles J. Dunlap, Jr. 

Public Member 

Professor Keith M. Harrison 

Public Member 
9 

SECTION 2 

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE ARMED FORCES 
10 

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES 

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES 

September 1, 2012 to August 31, 2013 

 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 2012 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, 2012 to August 31, 2013. 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 2012 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. An informal summary of 

selected decisions prepared by the Court’s staff is set forth in 

Appendix A. 

RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 

 No changes to the Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure 

were made during the September 2012 Term of Court. 

BAR OF THE COURT 

 During the September 2012 Term, 233 attorneys were admitted 

to practice before the Court, bringing the cumulative total of 

admissions to the Bar of the Court to 36,016. 
11 

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 

2012 Term of Court. This practice, known as “Project Outreach,” 

was developed as part of a public awareness program to 

demonstrate the operation of a Federal Court of Appeals, and the 

military’s criminal justice system. The Court conducted 

hearings during this period, with the consent of the parties, 

and in conjunction with the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate 

at Fort Sill, at the University of Oklahoma School of Law, 

Norman, Oklahoma, and, in conjunction with the Offices of the 

Staff Judge Advocate at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Luke Air

Force Base, and Fort Huachuca, at the University of Arizona 

James E. Rogers College of Law, Tucson, Arizona, and at the 

United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland. 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. 

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CONFERENCE

 The Court reluctantly cancelled its annual Continuing Legal 

Education Conference. This CLE conference is designed to help 

judge advocates fulfill their CLE requirements for maintaining 

good standing in their state bars in a cost effective manner 

while addressing topics relevant to military law. For example, 

at this year’s conference, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff was scheduled to speak on the subject of sexual assault 

and the military. However, as a result of budget constraints 

related to sequestration, the military services determined that 

they were not in a position to commit to military attendance at 

the conference. 

James E. Baker 

Chief Judge 

Charles E. “Chip” Erdmann 

Associate Judge 

Scott W. Stucky 

Associate Judge 

Margaret A. Ryan 

Associate Judge 
12 

APPENDIX A – SELECTED DECISIONS

 This appendix contains an informal staff summary of 

selected decisions of the September 2012 Term of Court. A full 

list and summary of the cases decided by the Court, including 

any related concurrences and dissents, during the Term can be 

found on the Court’s website. 

Hasan v. Gross, 71 M.J. 416 (C.A.A.F. 2012), holding that 

the removal of the military judge based on the appearance of 

bias in an ongoing general court-martial was required where the 

military judge had the accused, a practicing Muslim, removed 

from the courtroom because of his beard, then ordered that the 

accused’s beard be forcibly removed, even though there was no 

command action requiring the removal of the beard or evidence 

that the beard materially interfered with the proceedings, and 

the military judge and his family had been present on the base 

the day of the underlying shooting incident. 

United States v. Spicer, 71 M.J. 470 (C.A.A.F. 2013), 

holding that the accused’s false statements to civilian law 

enforcement officials were not “official” within the meaning of 

Article 107, UCMJ, where the statements were not made in the 

line of duty, did not bear a clear and direct relationship to 

the accused’s official duties, and the civilian officials were 

not conducting any military function. 

United States v. Cote, 72 M.J. 41 (C.A.A.F. 2013), holding 

that the Government’s violation of a search warrant’s 90-day 

time limitation for conducting an offsite search was more than a 

de minimis violation of the warrant and resulted in an 

unreasonable search. 

 United States v. Tearman, 72 M.J. 54 (C.A.A.F. 2013), 

holding that chain of custody documents and internal review 

worksheets contained in a drug testing report were 

nontestimonial for purposes of the Confrontation Clause, but 

that any error in their admission into evidence was harmless 

beyond a reasonable doubt in this case. 

United States v. Bowersox, 72 M.J. 71 (C.A.A.F. 2013), 

holding that 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(1), which bars the possession 

of any visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit 

conduct, did not require proof that the depiction represent a 

real minor, and that the accused did not have a First Amendment 

privacy interest that permitted him to possess obscenity in the 

privacy of his shared barracks room. 
13 

 United States v. Irizarry, 72 M.J. 100 (C.A.A.F. 2013), 

holding that the accused’s command representatives did not 

violate his Fourth Amendment rights when they entered his offbase apartment without a warrant at the request of his landlord 

after he stopped paying rent, the landlord discovered unsanitary 

conditions in the apartment, and where the command 

representatives did not enter for law enforcement purposes. 

United States v. Riley, 72 M.J. 115 (C.A.A.F. 2013), 

holding that sex offender registration was not a collateral 

consequence of the accused’s guilty plea, and that the military 

judge abused his discretion when he accepted the guilty plea 

without questioning the defense counsel to ensure the accused 

knew of the sex offender registration consequences. 

Center for Constitutional Rights et al. v. United States 

and Colonel Denise Lind, Military Judge, 72 M.J. 126 (C.A.A.F. 

2013), holding that the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Armed Forces lacked jurisdiction under the All Writs Act to 

compel a military judge of a court-martial to grant public 

access to documents filed in the court-martial. 

United States v. Caldwell, 72 M.J. 137 (C.A.A.F. 2013), 

holding that the accused’s bona fide suicide attempt was not 

conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline under Article 

134, UCMJ, and his statements at the guilty plea inquiry did not 

establish service discrediting conduct under the general 

article. 

United States v. Goings, 72 M.J. 202 (C.A.A.F. 2013), 

holding that Article 134, UCMJ, was not unconstitutional as 

applied to the accused who was charged with committing indecent 

acts with another where the trier of fact determined that the 

charged conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline in 

the armed forces and service discrediting, and the accused was 

not prejudiced by the Government’s failure to allege the 

terminal element when charging him under the general article. 

United States v. Castellano, 72 M.J. 217 (C.A.A.F. 2013), 

holding that the Marcum factors, removing sexual activity from 

the scope of private, consensual sexual activities between 

adults, must be determined by the trier of fact. 

United States v. Gaskins, 72 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2013), 

holding that the Court of Criminal Appeals had discretion to 

order a sentencing rehearing due to the absence of a defense 

sentencing exhibit from the record of trial, where the record 
14 

included a verbatim transcript, and the Court was not required 

to affirm a sentence no greater than that which could be 

approved if there was not a verbatim transcript; and, the 

Government’s failure to allege the terminal element in a charge 

under the general article prejudiced the accused’s substantial 

right to notice of the charge against him, even where the 

evidence was sufficient to prove that his conduct violated the 

general article when the Government failed to allege the 

terminal element, mention it during trial, or put on evidence of 

it, and the accused did not defend against it. 

United States v. Kelly, 72 M.J. 237 (C.A.A.F. 2013), 

holding that the search of the accused’s personal laptop 

computer following his medical evacuation from Iraq was not a 

valid inspection or inventory and constituted an unreasonable 

search. 

United States v. Hutchins, 72 M.J. 294 (C.A.A.F. 2013), 

holding that a request from investigators to the accused for his 

consent to search his belongings, after accused invoked his 

right to an attorney, reinitiated communication with the accused 

in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the use of the 

accused’s statement at his court-martial was not harmless. 

United States v. Brown, 72 M.J. 359 (C.A.A.F. 2013), 

holding that the military judge did not abuse his discretion by 

allowing a support person to accompany a 17-year old witness to 

the witness stand in a rape prosecution. 

LRM v. Kastenberg, 72 M.J. 364 (C.A.A.F. 2013), holding 

that an alleged victim had the right to present facts and legal 

argument through special victims counsel at evidentiary hearings 

in the court-martial of another service member regarding the 

admissibility of evidence of the alleged victim’s sexual 

behavior or sexual disposition, and that the Court of Criminal 

Appeals erred in its determination that it lacked jurisdiction 

over a petition for extraordinary relief from the military 

judge’s ruling precluding the alleged victim from presenting 

facts and legal argument. 
15 

USCAAF STATISTICAL REPORT 

SEPTEMBER 2012 TERM OF COURT 

CUMULATIVE SUMMARY

CUMULATIVE PENDING SEPTEMBER 1, 2012 

 Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 

 Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

CUMULATIVE FILINGS 

 Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 

 Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806 

 Miscellaneous Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . 41

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 964 

CUMULATIVE DISPOSITIONS 

 Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 

 Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 744 

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 900 

CUMULATIVE PENDING SEPTEMBER 1, 2013 

 Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 

 Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 

 Miscellaneous Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . 1

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 

OPINION SUMMARY

CATEGORY SIGNED PER CURIAM MEM/ORDER TOTAL

Master Docket . . . . 33 4 75 112 

Petition Docket . . . 0 0 744 744 

Miscellaneous Docket 1 1 42 44

TOTAL 34 5 861 900 
16 

MEMORANDUM/ORDER SUMMARY

Orders 

 Denying petitions for grant of review . . . . 635 

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

 Granting withdrawal of petition for grant of 

 Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

 Granting petitions for grant of review 

 with briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 

 without briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 

 Granting petitions for grant of review and 

 affirming the decision of the lower court . 17 

 Granting petitions for grant of review and 

 affirming in part and reversing in part . . 15 

 Granting petitions for grant of review and 

 remanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 

 Deciding previously granted cases (trailer 

 cases) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 

 Denying petitions for extraordinary relief 

 and writ-appeal petitions . . . . . . . . . 28 

 Granting petitions for extraordinary relief 

 and writ-appeal petitions . . . . . . . . . 2 

 Granting withdrawal of petitions for 

 extraordinary relief and writ-appeal 

 petitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

 Dismissing petitions for extraordinary relief 

 and writ-appeal petitions . . . . . . . . . 9 

 Granting motions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449 

 Denying motions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 

 Deciding granted cases . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,352 

MASTER DOCKET SUMMARY

PENDING AT BEGINNING OF TERM . . . . . . . . . . . 23 

FILINGS 

 Petitions granted from the Petition Docket . . 105 

 Certificates filed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 

 Mandatory appeals filed. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 
17 

DISPOSITIONS 

 Decisions affirmed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 

 Reversed in whole or in part . . . . . . . . . 52 

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

 Certificate Dismissed . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 

PENDING AT END OF TERM 

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

 Awaiting oral argument . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 

 Awaiting lead case decision (trailer cases) . 12 

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 

PETITION DOCKET SUMMARY

PENDING AT BEGINNING OF TERM . . . . . . . . . . . 69 

FILINGS 

 Petitions for grant of review filed . . . . . 806 

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

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806 

DISPOSITIONS 

 Petitions for grant of review denied . . . . . 635 

 Petitions for grant of review granted . . . . 103 

 Petitions for grant of review withdrawn . . . 3 

 Petitions for grant of review dismissed . . . 3

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 744 

PENDING AT END OF TERM 

 Awaiting pleadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 

 Awaiting Central Legal Staff review . . . . . 47 

 Awaiting final action . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 
18 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET SUMMARY

PENDING AT BEGINNING OF TERM . . . . . . . . . . . 4 

FILINGS 

 Writ appeals sought . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 

 Writs of habeas corpus sought . . . . . . . . 6 

 Writs of error coram nobis sought . . . . . . 5 

 Other extraordinary relief sought . . . . . . 9

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 

DISPOSITIONS 

 Petitions or appeals denied . . . . . . . . . 28 

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

 Petitions or appeals dismissed . . . . . . . . 9 

 Petitions or appeals withdrawn . . . . . . . . 5

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

PENDING AT END OF TERM 

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

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

 Awaiting final action . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

ALL CASES DISPOSITIONS

Begin Pending 0 Denied 18 

Filed 20 Granted 0 

TOTAL 20 Dismissed 1

 TOTAL 19 

End Pending 1 

MOTIONS

ALL MOTIONS DISPOSITIONS

Begin Pending 6 Granted 449 

Filed 548 Denied 85 

 Dismissed 1 

TOTAL 554 TOTAL 535 

End Pending 19 
19 

Petition Docket Term End Pending

171

2 15

2 52 240

26 6 2 54

213

9 1 8 7 69

131

0

100

200

300

400

500

20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 200 7 20 08 200 9 20 10 201 1 20 12 201 3
20 

Master Docket Term End Pending

49 51

87

38

53

20

30 30

71

23 28

0

50

100

150

200

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
21 

Oral Arguments Per Year

56 58

74 74

56

65

47

43

47

35 36

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
22 

Total Opinions Per Year

32

57

35

57

53

64

51

76

25

55

41

65

37

46

27

43

32

46

23

33

34

39

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

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

TOTAL COURT OPINIONS
23 

Days from Petition Filing to Grant

164

227 195

171

152

160 162

108

61

64

81

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
24 

Days from Petition Grant

to Oral Argument

122 130

146 150

126 132

114

136 131

140

131

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
25 

Days from Oral Argument

to Final Decision

117

144

164

148

85 86 83

99 88

73

97

0

50

100

150

200

250

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
26 

Days from Petition Filing

to Final Decision

82

279

76

361

89

358

93

391

94

237

102

261

107

241

65

238

42

206

42

147

48

205

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

PETITION DOCKET (DENIAL/DISMISSAL/WITHDRAWAL)

MASTER DOCKET(GRANTED/CERTIFIED/CAPITAL CASES)
27 

Days from Filing to

Final Decision in All Cases

119

126

132

155

118

130

124

84

62

73

70

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
28 

Total Petitions Filed Per Year

694 802 779

1006 937

836

856

721 700

802 806

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

2250

2500

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
29 

SECTION 3 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE OF THE ARMY 
30 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE ARMY 

OCTOBER 1, 2012 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2013 

In fiscal year 2013 (FY13), The Judge Advocate General 

(TJAG) advised Army leadership on significant issues pertaining 

to military justice, to include high visibility cases and 

investigations. The Office of The Judge Advocate General 

(OTJAG) continued to implement programs improving both the 

administration of military justice and advocacy skills of 

military justice practitioners. In furtherance of TJAG’s duties 

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

TJAG and senior leaders in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps 

(JAGC) visited more than 26 installations and commands in the 

United States and overseas, to include forward areas, discussing 

military justice issues with commanders and their respective 

Staff Judge Advocates (SJAs). The JAGC remains committed to 

sustaining excellence in the practice of military justice 

through a variety of initiatives and programs. 

OTJAG CRIMINAL LAW DIVISION 

The OTJAG, Criminal Law Division (CLD) has two primary 

missions. First, the CLD advises TJAG on military justice 

policy, legislation, opinions, and related criminal law actions. 

Specific responsibilities include: promulgating military 

justice regulations; 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 to include the Manual for Courts-Martial 

(Manual); conducting statistical analysis and evaluation of 

trends that affect military justice within the Army; providing 

legal advice on military corrections issues, the Army drug 

testing program, sexual assault and victim assistance policies, 

and federal prosecutions; representing the Army 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 court-martial cases 

under Article 69 of the UCMJ to ascertain legal sufficiency and 

sentence appropriateness and to identify issues that may require 

corrective action by TJAG. 

Second, the CLD provides comprehensive policy guidance and 

resources to military justice practitioners in the field, which 

includes a special emphasis on training (including training 

related to sexual assault litigation) and programs designed to 

guarantee long term military justice proficiency across all 
31 

grades. The Criminal Law Division facilitates the active 

integration and synchronization of training by coordinating 

quarterly training and budget meetings with the Corps’ key 

training arms: Trial and Defense Counsel Assistance Programs 

(TCAP and DCAP) and The Judge Advocate General Legal Center and 

School (TJAGLCS). The CLD manages software initiatives for 

JAGC-wide application and facilitates active information flow to 

and from the field using web-based media. 

On July 30, 2012, the Secretary of Defense created the 

Defense Legal Policy Board (DLPB) as a civilian advisory 

committee to review incidents of U.S. military-caused death, 

injury, or abuse of non-combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan since 

2001. The DLPB’s mandate was to assess whether certain reforms 

are necessary and to evaluate generally how allegations are 

reported, investigated, and disposed of within the military. 

The DLPB issued a report of its findings and recommendations in 

May 30, 2013. The CLD provided two judge advocates to support 

the DLPB process, served as the Army representative to the DLPB, 

and was primarily responsible for gathering information and 

witnesses in response to the DLPB’s requests. 

Traditionally-reported CLD actions for the last three 

fiscal years are listed below. Article 69, UCMJ and other 

reviews decreased in FY13 due to other mission requirements 

(e.g., support to DLPB and sexual assault initiatives). 

Now in its third full year, the Special Victim Prosecutor 

(SVP) program has 23 attorney positions, all of which were 

filled in the summer of 2013. Special Victim Prosecutors 

continue to assist in the enhancement of the level of trial 

advocacy in special victim cases throughout the Army. The Army 

also began efforts to formalize a Special Victim Capability to 

further enhance our ability to prosecute sexual assault cases. 

The Special Victim Capability was subsequently codified in the 

FY13 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The Special 

Victim Capability teams will be made up of SVPs, Criminal 

Investigation Division Sexual Assault Investigators (SAI), 

Victim Witness Liaisons (VWL), and dedicated paralegals. The 

Special Victim Capability will work cooperatively to ensure 

FY11 FY12 FY13

Congressional and other inquiries 139 150 195 

Officer Dismissals 21 16 27 

Article 69 and other reviews 130 40 38 

Freedom of Information/Privacy Act 45 11 14 
32 

thorough, professional investigations and prosecutions, while 

providing compassionate and immediate assistance to victims. 

The Criminal Law Division conducts a bi-annual Criminal Law 

Synchronization Meeting with key criminal law stakeholders such 

as TJAGLCS, TCAP, DCAP, Defense Appellate Division, Government 

Appellate Division, and the U.S. Army Trial Judiciary. These 

synchronization meetings were invaluable in bringing the JAGC 

criminal law leaders together – not only to coordinate criminal 

law training across the JAGC, but also to discuss new criminal 

law initiatives that could improve and sustain the practice of 

military justice in the Army. Synchronization provides unity of 

effort and situational awareness on all criminal law training 

across multiple venues – civilian and military – allowing trial 

advocates to more easily plan for their attendance at military 

justice training events. 

In June 2011, TJAG reviewed and revised the Military 

Justice Additional Skill Identifier program (ASI). The purpose 

of the program is to help identify and sustain expertise and to 

assist in the selection of personnel for key military justice 

positions. To date, 1005 judge advocates have been awarded 

skill identifiers: 558 basic, 226 senior, 145 expert, and 76 

master skill. 

The Air Force chaired the Joint Services Committee (JSC) in 

FY12. On May 15, 2013, the President signed Executive Order 

13643 implementing the 2013 Amendments to the Manual for CourtsMartial (MCM). The Executive Order completely replaced part III 

(Military Rules of Evidence) of the MCM, and it added maximum 

punishments for new Articles 120, 120b and 123c in Part IV of 

the MCM. The Military Rules of Evidence (MRE) were amended to 

conform with the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE). In June 2013, 

the JSC submitted a comprehensive draft Executive Order to the 

Department of Defense for approval by the President. The draft 

Executive Order contains elements, explanations, lesser included 

offenses, and sample specifications for Articles 120, 120b and 

120c; amendments to Articles 47, 48, 54, and 79; amendments to 

Rules for Court-Martial (RCM) 201, 307, 405, 703, 906, 907, 916, 

920, 1003, 1005, 1104, 1105, 1106, 1107, 1307; amendments to 

Appendix 12; and proposed RCM 1105A and Appendix 12A. As of 

January 2014, the proposed Executive Order has yet to be 

approved. 

The JSC is planning to reprint the Manual for CourtsMartial (MCM) in early 2015 to capture: the revised MRE; new 
33 

Articles 120, 120b, and 120c; and all related conforming changes 

as well as mandated changes in the new FY14 NDAA. 

The JAGC Information Technology Division (ITD) continued to 

improve military justice web-based programs this year. At the 

forefront of these improvements is Military Justice Online 

(MJO), which allows end-users to generate military justice 

actions for courts-martial, non-judicial punishment, 

administrative separations, and administrative reprimands. In 

2013, MJO’s capabilities were further expanded with the addition 

of MJO Courts for the Trial Defense Service. With the addition 

of the ability to create automated customizable reports, trial 

counsel and paralegals can now reduce the time spent in creating 

reports and focus on advocacy. The ITD, CLD, and the Knowledge 

Management (KM) Division engaged in a sustained effort to 

increase MJO use through on-site training and integration into 

officer and enlisted training doctrine. The ITD also trained 

more than 200 personnel at several locations and worked closely 

with TJAGLCS, the Non Commissioned Officer Association (NCOA), 

and Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) personnel to ensure 

MJO training is fully integrated in the institutional learning 

environment. Seeking to improve training initiatives, the MJO 

team conducted the first Army JAGC-wide web-based training in 

September 2013. 

The Trial Advocates Tracking System (TATS), a web-based 

database that tracks the number of active trial and defense 

counsel, grew to 956 judge advocates. The TATS provides key 

data on the experience and training of trial advocates and helps 

in assessing military justice assignments, personnel management, 

and required training. Using TATS as a database, CLD fully 

implemented the Trial Advocate Resource Library (TARL), which 

includes basic criminal practice and military justice reference 

books that are key to the development and growth of young 

advocates. First-time trial counsel, defense counsel, and SVPs 

are eligible to receive the TARL. For FY13, 163 hard copies and 

395 electronic books have been distributed. 

In 2011, an additional officer was attached to CLD from KM. 

The KM mission is to promote an integrated JAGC approach to 

identifying, retrieving, evaluating, and sharing the Corps’ 

tacit and explicit knowledge assets to meet mission objectives. 

The CLD KM attorney oversees the addition of discussion and 

documents to the milBook website and acts as a liaison between 

CLD, the field, and the KM Division. In 2013, CLD stood up an 

inclusive document library on JAGCNET and linked it to milBook. 

The Criminal Law milBook group jumped in membership between 
34 

December 1, 2012 and November 30, 2013 from 642 to 1,484 

members. 

Judge advocates, civilian attorneys, paralegals, and legal 

administrators from around the world use the milBook Criminal 

Law group to ask questions about interpreting case law and 

strategy, and it allows them to post documents that they feel 

may be helpful to their fellow judge advocates. MilBook was 

also used to facilitate a Direct Connect Online (DCO) 

conversation between TJAG and SJAs across the Army. The CLD 

milBook page has also sparked interest in and helped to develop 

a separate TCAP group that has blossomed in recent months. 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL’S LEGAL CENTER AND SCHOOL (TJAGLCS)

 

The cornerstone mission of the Criminal Law Department of 

TJAGLCS in Charlottesville, Virginia is to develop, improve, and 

sustain excellence in the practice of military criminal law. 

The need to hone these skills in the context of a joint, 

expeditionary force at war is paramount and occupies center 

stage in all curriculum review. Instruction touches a wide 

range of subjects from substantive criminal law to technical 

litigation skills, and is fully integrated into the overall 

JAGC-wide developmental cycle for military justice practice. At 

the same time, our professors provide critical reach-back 

capability for military justice practitioners of all services. 

The department teaches a variety of courses to multiple 

student cohorts that include all services and international 

students as well. These courses include initial-entry judge 

advocates in the Officer Basic Course (OBC); newly-assigned 

trial advocates in the Intermediate Trial Advocacy Course 

(ITAC); mid-level judge advocates in the Graduate Course, the 

Military Justice Managers Course, the Judge Advocate Officer 

Advanced Course (JAOAC) for USAR and NG judge advocates, and 

Advanced Trial Communication Course; senior judge advocates in 

the Military Judge Course; commanders and senior noncommissioned officers in the Command Sergeant Major Legal 

Orientation, the Senior Officer Legal Orientation Course (SOLO); 

and the General Officer Legal Orientation Course (GOLO). Except 

for the GOLO course, which is provided individually to General 

Officers, all courses are taught using a sexual assault fact 

pattern and are synchronized with other JAGC training agencies. 

This past year, the department added a new course to its 

curriculum: the Special Victim Counsel Course. This course is 
35 

a one-week annual course designed to educate counsel in 

preparation to serve as certified Special Victim Counsel. This 

course provides students with a basic overview of the policies 

and procedures of the Special Victim Counsel Program as well as 

teaches students basic legal skills they will need to serve as a 

Special Victim Counsel. Students learn approaches to working 

with crime victims (specifically, sexual assault victims), the 

impacts of crime on victims, how to talk with sexual assault 

victims, relations with law enforcement and medical 

professionals, professional responsibility and scope of 

representation, sexual offenses under the UCMJ, victim programs 

and services, representing victims in courts-martial 

proceedings, MREs, privileges, post-trial procedures, 

corrections, clemency, and parole. The course capstone is a 

scenario-driven practicum where students address issues while 

serving as Special Victim Counsel for a hypothetical victim. 

The department also executed a distance learning iteration of 

the Special Victim Counsel Course and established an on-line 

Special Victim Counsel resource site. Additionally, the 

department played a critical role in the development of the 

Special Victim Counsel Handbook and other materials for the 

Special Victim Counsel Program. 

The department presented the Forty-First Kenneth J. Hodson 

Lecture in Criminal Law and hosted U.S. Representative Loretta 

Sanchez (D-CA) as the guest speaker. The department also 

continued its robust digital outreach program by establishing 

and maintaining a sexual assault resource site for SJAs, 

increasing the volume of scholarly posts on the department’s 

blog (“31(b)log”), providing live remote classes to the field 

via DCO, and exploring the migration of the department’s 

comprehensive deskbook to a more responsive and versatile, 

universally accessible, and user friendly on-line wiki format. 

U.S. ARMY JUDICIARY 

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

 

The Office of the Clerk of Court receives records of trial 

for review by the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) 

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

Petitions for Extraordinary Relief. More than 600 records of 

trial and over 2,400 motions and briefs were referred to one of 

the three judicial panels comprising ACCA for judicial review. 

The Office of the Clerk of Court served ACCA decisions upon all 

personnel not in confinement and coordinated with military 
36 

confinement facilities for service of confined Soldiers. The 

office closed over 700 courts-martial cases in the past year. 

In FY13, ACCA received 551 records for review pursuant to 

Article 66, UCMJ. The average processing time for those courtsmartial from sentencing to convening authority action was 185 

days. In 157 of those cases, initial action was completed by 

the convening authority within the 120 days prescribed by United 

States v Moreno. Four hundred sixty-nine of the records were 

received by ACCA within 30 days of convening authority action. 

The Army’s superior court rendered an initial decision in 

607 case in FY 13, with an average processing time of 325 days 

from receipt of the record of trial by the clerk of court to 

decision by ACCA. Of the 607 decisions, 524 were rendered 

within the 18-month period prescribed by United States v Moreno. 

There were no court-martial convictions reversed due to command 

influence, denial of the right to a speedy review, lost records, 

or other administrative deficiencies. No provision of the UCMJ 

or MCM was held unconstitutional by ACCA. 

The U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals operates a website 

at www.jagcnet.army.mil/acca. The ACCA’s published and 

unpublished memorandum opinions are publicly available on the 

website. In FY13, the office uploaded more than 240 opinions 

and decisions to the website. Additional publicly available 

information includes application materials for admission to the 

bar at ACCA; Rules of Court; oral argument schedules; and the 

procedures for making a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or 

Privacy Act (PA) request from ACCA. The website also includes a 

“FOIA Reading Room” containing frequently requested documents 

from some of the Army’s higher-profile court-martial cases. 

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

court-martial records (general courts-martial and those special 

courts-martial resulting in an approved punitive discharge) 

dating from 1977. Inquiries about current and previous courtsmartial are received from federal and state investigative 

agencies; local law enforcement offices; sex offender 

registration databases; media and news organizations; military 

historians; veterans; and Soldiers previously convicted at 

court-martial. Additionally, because the Brady Bill requires 

the processing of handgun permit applications within three 

working days, many expedited requests are received from the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Instant Background 

Check System. 
37 

Summary of information requests to ACCA for the last three 

fiscal years: 

FY 11 FY12 FY13

Freedom of Information Act 725 297 430 

Privacy Act 122 113 99 

Certified Copies of Convictions 91 75 170 

Requests from Federal Agencies 112 245 105

 

Total Number of Requests 1,050 730 804 

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. In FY13, the office provided 

assistance to nine civilian witnesses. 

The office’s Management and Program Analyst continued to 

provide vital support to the Office of the Clerk of Court, 

OTJAG, and other organizations and individuals. Using the Army 

Court-Martial Information System (ACMIS), the office designed, 

developed, and released nearly 400 timely and accurate reports 

in response to requestors both inside and outside the Department 

of Defense. 

The office’s two full-time civilian attorneys, in addition 

to supervising the office staff, provide daily guidance on posttrial processing matters to Army installations worldwide. This 

includes telephonic and email consultation on the contents of 

promulgating orders and convening authority actions following 

courts-martial. 

The Office of the Clerk of Court is also responsible for 

processing applications for admission to the ACCA bar both for 

military and civilian counsel. In FY13, the office admitted 

thirty new counsel. The office also maintains accurate records 

of attorney disciplinary actions. 

Finally, the Office of the Clerk of Court provided 

instruction to legal non-commissioned officers (NCOs), warrant 

officers, and those individuals attending military justice 

courses at TJAGLCS, as well as training for newly assigned SJAs. 

 
38 

Trial Judiciary 

The 1090 courts-martial tried in FY13 reflect slight 

decrease in total numbers of cases, returning to roughly the 

same number as tried in FY11. However, as indicated in last 

year’s report, raw numbers tell only part of the story, as the 

percentage of contested cases, the percentage of panel cases, 

the length of time in trial and the length of time in motions 

all continue to increase. 

Fiscal Year 2013 also saw an unprecedented number of highprofile cases brought to conclusion by military judges in the US 

Army Trial Judiciary, including U.S. v. Manning, U.S. v. Hasan, 

U.S. v. Bales, and U.S. v. Russell. 

Army trial judges – both active and reserve component – 

continued to preside over cases in deployed environments, with 

17 general and special courts-martial tried in Kuwait and 

Afghanistan in this period, resulting in a grand total of over 

969 cases tried in a combat theater of operations since May 

2003. 

The Trial Judiciary continued its ongoing effort to keep 

current DA Pamphlet 27-9, Military Judges’ Benchbook 

(Benchbook), which is used by all Services, approving nine 

changes to that publication addressing: 

(1) Non-forcible sodomy after U.S. v. Castellano, 72 

M.J. 217 (C.A.A.F. 2013); 

(2) False official statement after U.S. v. Spicer, 71 

M.J. 470 (C.A.A.F. 2013) and United States v. 

Capel, 71 M.J. 485 (C.A.A.F. 2013); and 

(3) Changes addressing both the 2013 Executive Order 

and the Army’s implementation of the Special 

Victims Counsel program. 

A constantly updated version of the Benchbook, along with 

links to the electronic version of that updated Benchbook, court 

dockets, other judiciary related documents and resource 

materials, can be found on the Trial Judiciary homepage at 

www.jagcnet.army.mil/USATJ#. 

 

Military judges continued playing an active role in their 

military and civilian communities, speaking to grade and high 

school audiences, local bar associations and civic 
39 

organizations, law school classes and state bar continuing legal 

education courses. Other notable achievements by the Trial 

Judiciary included: 

*The 56th Military Judge Course graduated 59 Army, Navy, 

Marine Corps, Air Force and Coast Guard students in May 

and invested them as new military judges. The 56th 

Military Judge Course also included a judge from Israel 

and a judge from Pakistan. 

 

*Colonel Michael Nelson mobilized and deployed to Kuwait 

from December 2012 to May 2013, presiding as a military 

judge over courts-martial convened throughout 

Afghanistan and Kuwait. Colonel Nelson was the last 

full-time military judge stationed in the Army Southwest 

Asia (SWA) Area of Responsibility (AOR). Since then, 

military judges from Germany have deployed four times to 

try cases in Kuwait and Afghanistan. 

U.S. ARMY TRIAL DEFENSE SERVICE 

In FY 13, approximately 480 active and Reserve Component 

(RC) judge advocates were serving in the U.S. Army Trial Defense 

Service (TDS) worldwide, including 155 on active duty; 200 

assigned to one of three Legal Operations Detachments-Trial 

Defense (LOD-TD); and 127 in the Army National Guard. The TDS 

provides high quality, professional defense services to Soldiers 

across the Army. Their counsel are stationed at 52 active duty 

installations worldwide and 105 reserve locations. 

The Trial Defense Service detailed one or more counsel to 

every Army special and general courts-martial referred in FY13, 

defending Soldiers facing the entire range of allegations under 

the UCMJ. In addition, TDS counsel assisted Soldiers facing 

other military justice related adverse administrative actions. 

The caseloads were as follows this year: 

General and Special Courts-Martial: 975 

Administrative Boards: 1604 

Nonjudicial Punishment: 29594 

Military Justice Consultations: 20193 

The Trial Defense Service provided defense services to Army 

personnel deployed to the United States Central Command 

(CENTCOM) AOR. The TDS CENTCOM Region has four field offices: 

one at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait and three in Afghanistan at Bagram 
40 

Airfield, Camp Phoenix (Kabul), and Kandahar Airfield. The 

Regional Defense Counsel is an active duty lieutenant colonel 

who serves as the senior supervisory TDS attorney in CENTCOM. 

He is co-located with the Bagram Airfield field office. 

 

In FY13, the Defense Counsel Advocacy Program (DCAP) 

staffed by four judge advocates and two civilian Senior 

Counsel/Trainers, continued to provide timely and exceptional 

training and advice to TDS counsel worldwide. Through the use 

of joint training with the TCAP, they organized and taught four 

Advanced Trial Communications Courses, the Sexual Assault Trial 

Advocacy Course (SATAC), and the Joint Advocacy Seminar. 

The DCAP also published a revised Defense Counsel (DC) 101 

Deskbook and distributed it to all newly assigned TDS counsel at 

six DC 101 training events conducted in the United States, 

Germany, and Korea. The DCAP also developed a DC 201 Deskbook 

to address more advanced subjects and distributed it to all 

assigned TDS counsel. Furthermore, DCAP organized and taught 

five Annual and Regional TDS training events and facilitated 

attendance by TDS counsel at non-DOD courses in areas such as 

sexual assault and capital litigation. 

In FY13, the DCAP received over two thousand inquiries from 

defense counsel in the form of emails, phone calls, and inperson inquiries during training events. The DCAP provided 

assistance to defense counsel in the field that included 

researching case law, answering specific questions, and 

providing sample motions, expert requests, and other trial 

documents that might be helpful in the defense of the case. The 

DCAP further ensured that TDS counsel were kept abreast of all 

major developments through a series of updates called “DCAP 

Alerts” and “DCAP Sends.” Moreover, DCAP’s website and the KM 

milBook website allowed free flowing discussions and 

collaboration among counsel on critical issues. Finally, the 

DCAP also worked with the Defense Appellate Division to assist 

TDS counsel in the preparation and filing of extraordinary writs 

before the ACCA and United States Court of Appeals for the Armed 

Forces (CAAF). 

The Trial Defense Service personnel in the Army Reserve are 

assigned to three separate units. The 22d Legal Operations 

Detachment (LOD) (TDS), headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, 

consists of 66 judge advocates, one warrant officer, and 19 

enlisted paralegals. The 22d LOD (TDS) area of responsibility 

includes the majority of states west of the Mississippi River 

along with Guam, Hawaii and Alaska. In 2013, the 22d LOD (TDS) 
41 

mobilized 14 judge advocates and three paralegals for service in 

the Continental United States (CONUS), Europe, and CENTCOM. In 

addition, it represented over 1,500 Reserve Component Soldiers 

facing military justice and adverse administrative actions. 

This included 450 board advisements and 300 Article 15, UCMJ 

advisements. 

The 154th LOD (TDS) covers the Southeast, and Lower 

Mississippi River Valley and Puerto Rico. The 154th LOD (TDS), 

headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia, is comprised of 72 judge 

advocates, 24 enlisted paralegals and one warrant officer. In 

2013, the 154th LOD (TDS) mobilized 15 judge advocates and six 

paralegals for service in CONUS, Europe, and CENTCOM. 

Additionally, the 154th LOD (TDS) represented over 1,600 reserve 

component Soldiers facing military justice and adverse 

administrative actions, handled approximately 200 administrative 

board actions, supported four Defense Institute of International 

Legal Studies (DIILS) missions to various foreign countries, and 

represented five active component Soldiers facing courtsmartial. 

The 16th LOD (TDS) covers the Northeast and Midwest. 

Headquartered at Fort Hamilton, New York, it is comprised of 62 

judge advocates, 15 enlisted paralegals, and one warrant 

officer. In 2013, the 16th LOD (TDS) mobilized 12 Soldiers for 

service in CONUS and CENTCOM. In addition, the 16th LOD (TDS) 

represented eight active component Soldiers facing courtsmartial, appeared in 70 administrative separation board 

hearings, and closed, resolved or had dismissed 320 cases. 

The Army National Guard (ARNG) TDS consists of 127 judge 

advocates, one civilian legal administrator, and 42 enlisted 

paralegals stationed in 47 states and territories. The ARNG TDS 

supports all 54 of the states, territories, and the District of 

Columbia. In 2013, state courts-martial continued at a modest 

pace with four states conducting a total of eight general 

courts-martial (GCM) and three special courts-martial (SPCM). 

Seven of the eight GCMs and one SPCM resulted in acquittals, 

were withdrawn after defense motions, or were overturned on 

appeal. In addition, considerable success at administrative 

boards resulted in several states reviewing and improving 

government process and practice. The ARNG TDS hosted 7 major 

training events, including four Consolidated Regional Training 

events, two DC 101 courses, and the first Defense Paralegal 

(DP)101 course, training a total of 186 attendees. The DCAP 

provided outstanding instruction at the DC/DP 101 events. The 
42 

ARNG TDS counsel represented nearly 3,300 ARNG Soldiers and 

deployed two TDS paralegal NCOs to the CENTCOM AOR. 

GOVERNMENT APPELLATE DIVISION 

The U.S. Army Government Appellate Division (GAD), with 23 

active duty and four Individual Mobilization Augmentee military 

attorneys, represents the United States before ACCA, CAAF, and 

the U.S. Supreme Court in appeals by Soldiers convicted at 

courts-martial with an adjudged sentence of either a punitive 

discharge or confinement for one year or more. The GAD also 

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

Supreme Court in government appeals from courts-martial and 

petitions for extraordinary relief. Additionally, GAD oversees 

the operations of the TCAP. 

In FY13, GAD filed 636 briefs at ACCA and 481 responses to 

petitions for grant of review and 29 briefs at CAAF. The GAD 

appellate attorneys argued 29 cases before ACCA and 16 cases 

before CAAF. 

As part of CAAF’s Project Outreach, GAD argued one case in 

the civilian community at the University of Arizona. Funding 

reduced the number of Project Outreach arguments from four in 

2012 to one in 2013. Outreach arguments are important in 

displaying our military justice system to largely civilian 

audiences. The argument at the University of Arizona was well 

received by a large audience. 

The Trial Counsel Assistance Program continued its mission 

to assist prosecutors in the field. In 2013, this encompassed 

TCAP’s traditional activities such as publishing a quarterly 

newsletter, distributing a “TCAP Express” memorandum to inform 

and advise the field on breaking law and issues, responding to 

legal questions to the field, and conducting training events at 

both specific installations and at centralized locations. This 

year’s training events consisted of seven outreach programs at 

Army installations world-wide, two regional conferences, and 

sixteen specialty courses (e.g. advanced advocacy, child crimes, 

and forensics). As in 2012, training was focused on prosecuting 

sexual assault and domestic violence. Several of the courses 

were co-hosted with the DCAP. 

The Trial Counsel Assistance Program continued the 

quarterly iterations of the New Prosecutor Course/Effective 

Strategies for Sexual Assault Prosecution (NPC/ESSAP), a five-
43 

day course focused equally on the fundamentals of military 

justice and prosecution of sexual assaults. The course is held 

quarterly to ensure that all new trial counsel attend within 

their first six months of becoming a trial counsel. 

Additionally, NPC/ESSAP prepares new counsel for the ITAC course 

taught at the Legal Center and School. The first half of the 

NPC focuses on ensuring that new trial counsel have a 

rudimentary grasp of how (technically and tactically) they 

should move cases through the military justice process. The 

second three-day block focuses on investigations, charging 

decisions, and interaction with victims in sexual assault cases. 

There continued to be requests from the field for direct 

TCAP assistance, including assisting in the prosecution of 

several high profile cases. The support varied from providing a 

Highly Qualified Expert (HQE) to assist with trial (from behind 

the bar), to assigning a TCAP judge advocate as lead counsel. 

DEFENSE APPELLATE DIVISION 

The Defense Appellate Division (DAD) represents individuals 

(Soldiers, Civilians, and USDB inmates) who are convicted by 

courts-martial and whose approved sentence includes either a 

punitive discharge or confinement for one year or more. The DAD 

counsel represent these individuals at ACCA, CAAF, and the U.S. 

Supreme Court. The DAD counsel also provide assistance and 

representation in interlocutory appeals and extraordinary writs. 

The staff consists of 21 active component judge advocates, 

four civilian paralegals, and one noncommissioned officer 

serving three branches, including the newly created Defense 

Complex and Capital Litigation Branch (DCCAT). As in past 

years, reserve component judge advocates continued to provide 

critical support including one mobilized reserve attorney 

serving in the division. The DAD is fortunate to have ten 

Drilling Individual Mobilization Augmentee (DIMA) judge 

advocates. Our two capital litigation DIMA attorneys provide 

critical expertise and assistance in capital litigation. The 

DAD counsel currently represents two Soldiers sentenced to 

death. 

There were over 530 new cases received this year and 668 

briefs were filed with ACCA. Of those ACCA filings, 

approximately 45% raised substantive assignments of error. The 

DAD attorneys also filed over 700 briefs with CAAF, 30% of which 

raised substantive assignments of error. Oral arguments were 
44 

made in 45 cases (27 cases before ACCA and 18 before CAAF). At 

the time of this report, DAD had 200 cases awaiting filing at 

ACCA. The DAD counsel argued several cases of note including: 

United States v. Kelly, 72 M.J. 237 (2013): CAAF heard 

oral argument at the University of Arizona Rogers 

College of Law as part of “Project Outreach.” The DAD 

counsel argued that the government violated Staff 

Sergeant (SSG) Kelly’s Fourth Amendment rights when it 

searched the files of SSG Kelly’s personal laptop 

computer after he was wounded on the battlefield in Iraq 

and evacuated to the United States for medical 

treatment. In a unanimous opinion, CAAF held that the 

government’s search for “gore,” “inappropriate,” and 

“porn” was not an inventory under Mil. R. Evid. 313(c), 

because it was a specific search for contraband and the 

government did not have a legitimate interest to invade 

SSG Kelly’s reasonable expectation of privacy. The CAAF 

also held that the government search was not a military 

inspection under Mil. R. Evid. 313(b), because it was 

not authorized by a commander with the proper authority 

and it was not conducted to ensure military fitness. 

Thus, the search violated SSG Kelly’s Fourth Amendment 

right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. 

United States v. Jasper, 72 M.J. 276 (2013): A courtmartial panel convicted Sergeant Jasper of several 

incidents of sexual abuse and sentenced him to twentythree years confinement. However, CAAF found that the 

military judge erred in preventing a pastor from 

revealing that the alleged victim had admitted to him 

that she made up the incidents to get attention. Prior 

to trial, the pastor was asked by the prosecutor to 

disclose conversations that he had with her. The victim 

authorized the pastor to disclose her communications to 

the prosecutor. CAAF held that there is no “knowing” 

requirement in Military Rule of Evidence 510(a), and 

that preventing SGT Jasper from cross-examining the 

victim about the fabrication and presenting the 

testimony of the pastor violated SGT Jasper’s 

constitutional right to cross-examination and to present 

a defense. 
45 

LITIGATION DIVISION

Civil lawsuits involving military justice matters are 

relatively few but remain an important part of the Litigation 

Division’s practice. Most suits are brought by former Soldiers 

seeking collateral review of military court-martial proceedings 

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’s Litigation Division: 

Center for Constitutional Rights, et al. v. Lind, et al. 

(D. Md.). On May 22, 2013, a number of individuals and 

advocacy groups, including the Center for Constitutional 

Rights, Julian Assange, and various media organizations, 

filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of 

Maryland requesting preliminary injunctive relief 

against the Army. Citing the First Amendment, 

plaintiffs sought public access to all briefs, orders, 

and other papers filed in the court-martial of Private 

First Class (PFC) Bradley Manning. Plaintiffs also 

sought release of transcripts and audio recordings of 

the proceedings, including access to RCM 802 

conferences. Plaintiffs previously initiated a similar 

suit in the military appellate courts, but CAAF 

dismissed plaintiffs’ case for lack of jurisdiction in 

April 2013. During the June 17, 2013 oral argument in 

Baltimore, MD, the district court inquired as to why it 

should collaterally interfere in an ongoing courtmartial and whether plaintiffs’ claims were mooted by 

the Army’s current and prospective document release 

activity. On June 19, 2013, the court issued its ruling 

and denied plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary 

injunction. Although the court found it had 

jurisdiction to hear the case and that plaintiffs’ 

claims were not moot, the court determined that 

plaintiffs could not establish irreparable harm because 

the Army had not only already released the documents 

sought but also had expressed its willingness to release 

trial documents prospectively. In essence, the court 

found that the Army’s document release procedures, and 

its commitment to conduct a reasonably transparent 

criminal trial, were not inconsistent with First 

Amendment principles. Because plaintiffs could not 

demonstrate irreparable harm or a likelihood of success 

on the merits, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for 

preliminary injunction. The court’s opinion also 

expressed a general disinclination to have a federal 
46 

district court interfere unnecessarily with a criminal 

trial conducted by a coordinate military trial court. 

Gray v. James W. Gray, Commandant, USDB (D. Kan.). In 

November 2008, Ronald Gray filed a motion in the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Kansas requesting an 

order staying his execution, originally scheduled for 

December 10, 2008, pending final resolution of federal 

habeas corpus proceedings. In 1988, Gray was convicted 

at a general court-martial of the premeditated murder of 

two women, the attempted premeditated murder of a third 

woman, the rape and sodomy of the women, and burglary 

and larceny of property of another person. Two of the 

three women were Soldiers. He was sentenced to death. 

The military appellate courts affirmed the court-martial 

conviction. In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court denied 

Gray’s petition for writ of certiorari, and his request 

for rehearing. In July 2008, the President approved the 

death sentence. In August 2008, the Secretary of the 

Army signed the Execution Order directing that Gray be 

executed. In November 2008, the U.S. District Court for 

the District of Kansas ordered a stay of execution. In 

April 2009, Gray filed a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus. The government filed its answer. The court 

subsequently granted petitioner’s request for 

appointment of additional counsel and additional time to 

respond to the government’s answer. In December 2009, 

Gray filed a response which raised three additional 

claims concerning denial of access to materials the Army 

provided to the President, mental competence at trial 

and on appeal, and lack of military jurisdiction over a 

peacetime murder in the United States. In September 

2010, the court ruled that Gray may present the 

additional claims. In February 2011, Gray filed a 

Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a 

Writ of Coram Nobis with ACCA. The ACCA denied relief 

noting that it lacked jurisdiction. The CAAF denied 

Gray’s writ appeal, without prejudice, leaving the door 

open for Gray to again raise the issue after his habeas 

proceedings. After filing three consecutive requests 

for an extension to file his traverse, Gray filed his 

reply on November 1, 2012, which completed the briefings 

in the case. The court’s decision is pending. 

The following are a group of Bivens cases from alleged 

sexual assault victims who contend that their Constitutional 

rights were violated when senior DOD, DA, and other military 
47 

officials failed to create, institute, and administer adequate 

sexual assault/harassment policies and procedures continue: 

In Cioca, et al. v. Rumsfeld and Gates (E.D.Va. & 4th 

Cir.), 29 plaintiffs brought suit against Secretary 

Rumsfeld (and later amended to include Secretary Gates) 

alleging that their Constitutional rights were violated 

when they were allegedly sexually assaulted while on 

active duty in the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, 

or Coast Guard. Filed in early 2011, the District Court 

dismissed the case in December 2011. Citing the 

“special factors” language of Bivens, the court found 

plaintiff’s allegations directly implicated the 

military’s disciplinary system and, thus, were the 

province of the elected branches of government and not 

the judiciary. On July 22, 2013, the Fourth Circuit 

Court of Appeal, as the first appellate court to address 

the issue, upheld the lower court’s dismissal in the 

Cioca case. The Fourth Circuit issued its mandate on 

August 14, 2013. Plaintiffs’ time to file a writ of 

certiorari has expired. 

In Marquet v. McHugh et al. (S.D.N.Y.), filed April 

2012, a former USMA cadet who asserts she was raped by a 

fellow cadet, alleged that former Secretary of Defense 

Gates, Secretary of the Army McHugh, and former Academy 

Superintendent Lieutenant General (LTG) Hagenbeck 

violated her First, Fifth, and Seventh Amendment rights 

by creating and maintaining an environment at West Point 

that allowed sexual assault and retaliation for 

reporting sexual assault to be committed without 

punishment. On September 11, 2013, the Court granted 

the Government’s motion to dismiss, referring to the 

Fourth Circuit decision in Cioca holding that 

Plaintiff’s claims were barred under the line of cases 

that applies Feres to Bivens claims. Plaintiffs timely 

appealed, and the parties are waiting for the scheduling 

order. 

In Doe v. Hagenbeck et al. (S.D.N.Y), filed April 2013, 

a former USMA cadet asserts she was raped by a fellow 

cadet, and alleges under Bivens that former Academy 

Superintendent LTG Hagenbeck and former Commandant of 

Cadets Major General (MG) Rapp violated her Fifth 

Amendment rights by creating and maintaining an 

environment at West Point that permitted and encouraged 

sexual assault and sexual harassment. Unlike others in 
48 

this series of similar lawsuits, plaintiff further 

alleges a number of common law torts under the Federal 

Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and also demands compensation 

under the Little Tucker Act. Following the Court’s 

August 15, 2013 protective order allowing the plaintiff 

to proceed under a pseudonym, plaintiff timely filed an 

amended complaint. On September 20 2013, the government 

filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff’s brief in 

opposition was filed on October 16, 2013. The 

government’s reply brief was filed on December 9, 2013 

and oral argument was held on December 16, 2013. 

OTJAG INTERNATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL LAW DIVISION 

In FY13, the mission and programs of the OTJAG 

International and Operational Law Division (IOLD) supported the 

military justice system across three lines of effort: 

preventing law of war violations, preparing judge advocates and 

paralegals to administer military justice in deployed 

environments, and strengthening partner nation military justice 

systems to produce highly disciplined, effective coalitions for 

future military operations. 

As part of the Army’s implementation of the Department of 

Defense (DOD) Law of War Program, IOLD aimed to prevent 

violations of the law of war by Army personnel by evaluating all 

new weapons for compliance with international law; reviewing all 

operation and concept plans and rules of engagement for 

compliance with domestic and international law; and preparing 

directives, policies, instructions, and training materials to 

ensure that Army personnel understand the principles and rules 

of the law of war. When Army personnel were alleged to have 

violated the law of war, the IOLD supported the reporting, 

investigation, and prosecution of the allegations. 

To prepare judge advocates and paralegals of all military 

Services for upcoming operational deployments to Afghanistan and 

other overseas locations, IOLD conducted three Judge Advocate 

General’s Pre-Deployment Training sessions (JPTs). The 

curriculum for each week-long JPT included several military 

justice classes, which provided an overview of general military 

justice topics, as well as detailed instruction on the unique 

aspects and logistical challenges of administering military 

justice in a deployed environment. The JPT instructors included 

judge advocates and paralegals with recent deployment experience 

and a Senior Trial Attorney from the Department of Justice, 
49 

Human Rights and Special Prosecution Section, who provided a 

class on the application of the Military Extraterritorial 

Jurisdiction Act (MEJA). 

In order to build strong, disciplined coalitions for future 

military operations, TJAG and other JAGC senior leaders 

participated in numerous legal engagements with their 

counterparts from partner nations, including Brazil, Chile, 

Peru, Italy, Great Britain, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, 

Tanzania, and Israel. Engagement discussions centered on 

lessons learned regarding the most effective practices for the 

administration of military justice and the role of military 

justice in strengthening the rule of law in society. A standard 

component of senior legal engagements conducted in the United 

States included visits to the Fort Belvoir Office of the Staff 

Judge Advocate, the USATDS, ACCA, and the U.S. Supreme Court, to 

provide a comprehensive overview of the military justice system 

throughout all pre-trial, trial, and appellate stages. In a 

separate program, IOLD judge advocates provided human rights and 

military justice training for foreign legal officers, sponsored 

by the Defense Institute for International Legal Studies, in 

various countries across South America, Africa, Europe, and 

Asia. 

PERSONNEL, PLANS, AND TRAINING 

On September 30, 2013, the Army's end-strength was 532,413 

Army Soldiers on active duty, including Active Guard and Reserve 

(AGR) and mobilized Soldiers, compared to 667,839 at the end of 

FY12. The attorney strength of the Active Army (AA) JAGC at the 

end of 2013 was 1,970 (including general officers). This total 

does not include 88 officers attending law school while 

participating in the Funded Legal Education Program (FLEP). The 

FY13 end-strength of 1,970 compares with an end-strength of 

1,974 in FY12. The diverse composition of our FY13 AA attorney 

population included 133 African-Americans, 52 Hispanics, 102 

Asians and Native Americans, and 510 women. 

The grade distribution of the Corps' AA attorneys for FY13 

was 8 general officers authorized (five filling JAGC 

authorizations, two serving in Military Occupational Specialties 

(MOS) coded positions (the Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Chief Prosecutor for the 

Commissions), and an eighth general officer (mobilized 

reservist) serving in a branch immaterial billet - Commander, 

Rule of Law Field Force - Afghanistan), 149 colonels, 246 
50 

lieutenant colonels, 498 majors, and 1,069 captains. An 

additional 103 warrant officers, 562 civilian attorneys, and 

1,626 enlisted paralegals supported legal operations worldwide. 

The attorney strength of the United States Army Reserve 

(USAR) JAGC at the end of FY13 was 1,826 (which includes 

officers serving in Troop Program Units, the DIMA Program, the 

Individual Ready Reserve, and the Active Guard & Reserves) and 

the attorney strength of the Army National Guard at the end of 

FY13 was 869. At the end of FY13, over 348 Army JAGC personnel 

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

Afghanistan, Bosnia, Cuba, Kosovo, Egypt, Honduras, Israel, 

Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Djibouti and elsewhere across Africa. 

In FY13, the JAGC continued its efforts to improve the 

quality of practice in complex cases, to include capital cases, 

national security cases, sexual assault cases, and military 

commissions proceedings. As discussed above, many of these 

efforts involved TCAP and DCAP, which provided personnel and 

expert advice to assist with numerous high profile trials. 

Along with the Legal Center and School, TCAP and DCAP were 

instrumental in capturing and disseminating lessons learned from 

these cases throughout the Corps. In addition, the SVP program 

continued to build the Army’s capability to prosecute sexual 

assault offenses and provide support to victims. 

 

Although my tenure as TJAG began toward the end of the last 

fiscal year, my interactions with senior commanders and JAGC 

leaders since that time, along with my previous service, have 

led me to conclude that the JAGC is currently resourced to 

perform its military justice functions in a fair and effective 

manner. We will continue to closely monitor both DOD-directed 

manpower reduction initiatives and emerging requirements, 

including those imposed by recent amendments to the UCMJ, to 

ensure that the JAGC retains the resources it needs to provide 

the gold-standard military justice system the Army demands and 

its Soldiers deserve. 

 

 

FLORA D. DARPINO 

Lieutenant General, US Army 

The Judge Advocate General 
51 

APPENDIX - U.S. ARMY MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Report Period: FISCAL YEAR 2013 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED [B]

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES (+ dismissals) 80 (+13) 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 263 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 182 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 371 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 180 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 244 

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 624 

PERCENTAGE 93.98% 

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

 (CAAF) 

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 441 of 684 64.47% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -13.27% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 36 of 462 7.79% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -72.43% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY USACCA 5.26% 

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD -74.34% 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/ 

DECREASE (-) OVER 

LAST REPORT 

GENERAL 714 642 72 -1.5% 

BCD SPECIAL [A] 373 347 26 -19.8% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 3 0 0 N/A 

SUMMARY 380 [G] [G] -24.5% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT -11.6% 

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 155 [C] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D] 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D] 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 664 [C] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 684 [E] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 135 [C] 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD +21.9% 
52 

APPENDIX - U.S. ARMY MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS - CONT’D 

EXPLANATORY NOTES 

[A] Cases convened by GCM convening authority. 

[B] Based on records of trial received in FY for appellate review. 

[C] Includes only cases briefed and at issue. 

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

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

[F] This number includes only Active Component Soldiers and does not include USAR, National Guard or AGR 

personnel. 

[G] SCM convictions and acquittals are not tracked. 

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ 

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 1 

RECEIVED 12 

DISPOSED OF 7 

 GRANTED 0 

 DENIED 7 

 NO JURISDICTION 0 

 WITHDRAWN 0 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 6 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 520 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 329 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 194 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 46 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 530506 [F] 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 42407 

RATE PER 1,000 79.94 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD +26.46% 
53 

SECTION 4 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY 

 
54 

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY 

OCTOBER 1, 2012 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2013 

SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF 

MILITARY JUSTICE 

JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 

 The Judge Advocate General (JAG) co-chairs the Military 

Justice Oversight Council with the Staff Judge Advocate to the 

Commandant of the Marine Corps. This council meets quarterly 

and also includes Commander, Naval Legal Service Command 

(CNLSC), the Deputy Judge Advocate General for Reserve Affairs 

and Operations, the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate to the 

Commandant of the Marine Corps, the Chief Judge of the Navy, the 

Assistant Judge Advocate General for Military Justice, the 

Assistant Judge Advocate General for Operations and Management, 

and the Deputy Director, Judge Advocate Division, for Community 

Development Strategy & Plans. 

 During the reporting period, the JAG and CNLSC regularly 

inspected U.S. Navy legal offices in the United States, Europe, 

and the Pacific 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. 

 

ASSISTANT JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, MILITARY JUSTICE (AJAG-MJ)

 The AJAG-MJ advises the JAG in the performance of statutory 

military justice duties. Additionally, the AJAG-MJ serves as a 

member of the Office of the Judge Advocate General (OJAG) Ethics 

Committee, the Judicial Screening Board, the Military Justice 

Oversight Council, and oversees OJAG’s Military Justice Division 

(Code 20) and National Security Litigation Division (Code 30). 

The AJAG-MJ is dual-hatted as the Officer in Charge of the NavyMarine Corps Appellate Review Activity (OIC, NAMARA - Code 04). 

In this capacity, the AJAG-MJ oversees the Administrative 

Support Division (Code 40), Appellate Defense Division (Code 

45), and Appellate Government Division (Code 46). The AJAG-MJ 

is responsible for disposition of all records of trial in 
55 

accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements, as well 

as applicable appellate court rules of practice and procedure. 

CRIMINAL LAW DIVISION (CODE 20) 

 Organization. During the reporting period, Code 20 was 

staffed by nine active duty judge advocates, one reservist on 

one-year orders, one Highly Qualified Expert (HQE), three 

civilian staff members, and an eight-member reserve unit. 

 

 Mission. Code 20 coordinates military justice policy 

within the Department of the Navy (DON), drafts legal and policy 

advice for the JAG on military justice matters, and reviews all 

legislative and regulatory proposals affecting military justice. 

The Division staffs amendments to military justice provisions in 

the Manual of the Judge Advocate General (JAG Manual) and all 

regulations implementing or affecting the Uniform Code of 

Military Justice (UCMJ). The Division monitors all decisions of 

military appellate courts; tracks the status of military justice 

cases; provides legal and policy opinions; staffs requests for 

JAG certification of cases for review by the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF); and, facilitates Department 

of Justice (DOJ) processing of executive pardon requests 

involving military convictions. Code 20 staffs requests for 

Secretarial designation of general, special, and summary courtmartial convening authorities, coordinates court orders and 

warrants of attachment, and coordinates with DOJ to approve 

grants of immunity and orders for civilian witnesses to testify 

at trial by court-martial. Finally, Code 20 provides a 

representative to the Secretary of the Navy Clemency and Parole 

Board; provides legal opinions to the Board for Correction of 

Naval Records upon request; provides informal advice for Navy 

and Marine Corps judge advocates practicing military justice; 

processes all Article 69, 73, and 74(b) UCMJ reviews and 

requests; and acts as the initial denial authority on all 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)/Privacy Act (PA) requests for 

information pertaining to courts-martial. 

 The Code 20 Division Director serves as Commander, Naval 

Legal Service Command’s (CNLSC) Special Assistant for Military 

Justice and advises CNLSC on policies, plans, resources and 

procedures affecting NLSC’s military justice mission. 

 The Code 20 Division Director serves as the Navy’s 

Representative to the Joint Service Committee (JSC) for Military 

Justice and functions as the Navy’s voting group member at 
56 

regular meetings of the JSC. The JSC is the principal vehicle 

for staffing amendments to the UCMJ and Manual for CourtsMartial (MCM). The JSC’s 2013 Annual Review of the MCM was 

completed in accordance with the President’s requirement, and 

two Executive Orders were drafted and submitted for the 

President’s approval and signature. 

 The Code 20 Division Director was assigned by the Secretary 

of Defense to serve as the Service Advisor to the Defense Legal 

Policy Board (DLPB). The Board is a federal advisory committee 

that provides the Secretary of Defense independent, informed 

advice, opinions, and recommendations concerning legal and legal 

policy matters within the Department of Defense. Code 20 

participated in several hearings and responded to numerous 

requests for information from the Subcommittee reviewing 

Military Justice in Combat Zones. The Subcommittee and the DLPB 

completed their report and endorsement on Military Justice in 

Combat Zones this year. 

 Code 20 also staffed requests for information from the U.S. 

Commission on Civil Rights in support of its 2013 Statutory 

Enforcement Report on Sexual Assault in the Military and 

supported the testimony of the JAG before the Commission. 

 Code 20 responded to numerous Congressional requests for 

information, provided technical assistance in drafting 

legislation and drafted and reviewed senior leadership testimony 

before the Senate Armed Services Committee and Personnel 

Subcommittee. 

 The Director of Code 20 serves as the Navy point of contact 

for requests for information and testimony before the Response 

Systems Panel on Adult Sexual Assault Crimes (RSP). The RSP was 

created by section 576 of the Fiscal Year 2013 (FY13) National 

Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to conduct an independent 

review and assessment of the systems used to investigate, 

prosecute, and adjudicate crimes involving adult sexual assault 

and related offenses under Article 120 of the UCMJ. The RSP is 

to develop recommendations regarding how to improve the 

effectiveness of such systems. 

 Code 20 was instrumental in the development of DoD and 

Navy’s Special Victims Capability (SVC), as required by section 

573 of the FY13 NDAA. Although final implementation of SVC was 

not required at the close of FY13, to ensure training of key 

stakeholders, Code 20 worked with OJAG’s Technology, Operations 

and Plans Division (Code 67) to hold the inaugural SVC course 
57 

with over 260 First Tour Judge Advocates (FTJAs), Legalmen, 

Sexual Assault and Response Coordinators (SARCs), and the Navy’s 

newly hired civilian Victim Advocates (VAs) participating. 

 Code 20 personnel continued to be instrumental in the 

development and delivery of Fleet-wide training initiatives on 

sexual assault prevention and response (SAPR), to include SAPR-L 

(Leadership); SAPR-F (Fleet); SAPR-DEP (Delayed Entry Program); 

SAPR-SD (Stand-Down); and SAPR-C (Civilian). Focusing on the 

themes of awareness and courage, the training used a 

dramatization followed by a facilitated discussion to engage all 

service members in educational, face-to-face conversations about 

sexual assault. 

 Further, as part of the SAPR Cross Functional Team (CFT), 

Code 20 personnel met monthly with Navy’s major stakeholders to 

discuss SAPR related developments across the Fleet. 

 Code 20 also facilitated the development of the Defense 

Sexual Assault Incident Database, which came online in 2013. 

This comprehensive database will be operated by Commander, Navy 

Installations Command (CNIC) and will allow more accurate 

tracking and reporting of sexual assault incidents. 

 Improving the quality and increasing the availability of 

military justice and trial advocacy training was a cornerstone 

of the JAG’s agenda for FY13. Code 20 played an important role 

in enhancing and centralizing military justice and trial 

advocacy training for the prosecution and defense bars (Navy, 

Marine Corps, and Coast Guard). Part of this effort included 

seeking to use external funding sources, including DoD SAPRO 

funding, to maximize training opportunities. However, due to 

Congressional Continuing Resolutions, Service restrictions on 

conference attendance, and sequestration, external funding from 

DoD did not materialize. As a result, some planned military 

justice courses were curtailed and others were offered online in 

lieu of in-person training. 

 Despite the lack of external funding, Code 20 continued to 

identify and centralize requirements for military justice 

litigation and trial advocacy training. Code 20 led the 

Litigation Training Coordination Council (LTCC) and coordinated 

with the Naval Justice School (NJS) to develop new curricula. 

Code 20’s attorneys also provided trial advocacy, military 

justice, sexual assault, and child sexual abuse litigation 

training to various audiences on request. 
58 

Code 20 also continued to assist in the implementation of the 

Secretary of Defense’s requirement to withhold the initial 

disposition authority (IDA) for allegations of rape, sexual 

assault, forcible sodomy, and attempts to commit these offenses, 

to those officers who are Special Court-Martial Convening 

Authorities in the rank of captain or colonel or above. 

Additionally, Code 20 provided advice on the implementation of 

the Expedited Transfer policy for alleged victims of sexual 

assault and provided input on a number of legislative proposals 

affecting military justice or sexual assault prevention and 

response. 

 Code 20 participated in the ongoing development of the 

Naval Justice Information System (NJIS). This involved regular 

participation in the NJIS Board of Governance and various 

technical working groups. When implemented, this comprehensive 

system will manage cases at all phases and will be used to 

integrate law enforcement, investigations, and corrections, as 

well as command and judicial actions. 

 Finally, during the reporting period, Code 20 reviewed 24 

records of trial under Article 69(a), UCMJ; 8 records under 

Article 69(b), UCMJ; and 1 petition under Article 73, UCMJ. 

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT DIVISION (CODE 40) 

 Organization. During the reporting period, Code 40 was 

staffed with one officer, two civilians and eight enlisted 

Marine Corps staff members. 

 

 Mission. Code 40 provides administrative and logistical 

support services to NAMARA and the Navy-Marine Corps Court of 

Criminal Appeals (NMCCA). Code 40 personnel review for 

completeness all records of trial forwarded to the NAMARA for 

appellate review pursuant to Articles 66 and 69, UCMJ; 

promulgate decisions of the NMCCA in accordance with the JAG 

Manual and the MCM; manage the OJAG court-martial central filing 

system, including original records of trial maintained at 

NAMARA; manage and retrieve archived records of trial stored at 

the Federal Records Center in Suitland, Maryland; and administer 

all NMCCA and CAAF mandates and judgments on remand back to 

commands worldwide for corrective action. During FY13, Code 40 

reviewed and examined 520 records of trial for completeness 

prior to forwarding the records for appellate review pursuant to 

Articles 66 and 69, UCMJ. 
59 

APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISION (CODE 45) 

 Organization. During the reporting period, Code 45 was 

staffed with 10 active-duty Navy and Marine Corps judge 

advocates, 1 civilian attorney, and 4 civilian support 

personnel. Code 45 was also supported by 20 Navy and Marine 

Corps Reserve judge advocates. 

 Mission. Code 45 represents Navy and Marine Corps 

appellants before the NMCCA, CAAF, and the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Code 45 provides advice and support to Navy and Marine Corps 

trial defense counsel around the world. Code 45’s experienced 

appellate attorneys respond to short-fused questions from trial 

defense counsel and assist in preparing and filing extraordinary 

writs before the NMCCA and CAAF. In coordination with the 

Defense Counsel Assistance Program (DCAP), Code 45 also provides 

training on recent appellate developments and important trial 

issues, and advises on specific cases in litigation. 

 In FY13, 437 new cases were docketed at the NMCCA and 

received in Code 45. Code 45 filed 374 initial pleadings with 

15 oral arguments at the NMCCA. The initial pleadings include 

143 briefs (this includes summary assignments), 226 merit 

submissions, and 5 summary assignments. A total of 90 

supplemental briefs to petitions were filed at the CAAF, 

resulting in 13 full briefs and 9 oral arguments. Table 1 

pertains. 

TABLE 1

 

NMCCA FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13

Briefs Filed 173 159 161 191 143 

Total Cases Filed 831 744 531 488 374 

Oral Arguments 14 15 20 19 15 

CAAF 

Petitions with Supplemental 

Briefs Filed 96 69 81 117 90 

Briefs Filed 31 21 20 19 13 

Oral Arguments 23 11 7 12 9 

U.S. Supreme Court 

Petitions 5 6 2 3 2 
60 

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT DIVISION (CODE 46) 

 Organization. During the reporting period, Code 46 was 

staffed with ten active-duty judge advocates, one civilian 

attorney, and two civilian administrative employees. Twelve 

Reserve judge advocates based out of Minneapolis, Minnesota 

augmented Code 46, contributing an average of three briefs per 

month. 

 Mission. In accordance with Article 70, UCMJ, Code 46’s 

primary mission is to represent the United States before the 

NMCCA and CAAF. Additionally, in coordination with the Navy and 

Marine Corps Trial Counsel Assistance Programs (TCAP), Code 46 

provides support to staff judge advocates (SJAs), review 

officers, and trial counsel throughout the Navy and Marine Corps 

on pretrial, court-martial, and post-trial matters. 

 

 Code 46 provides direct legal services to Marine and Navy 

judge advocates around the world, responding to hundreds of 

questions from the field on trial and appeal matters. Code 46 

helps ensure the uniformity and consonance of legal positions 

taken by the United States before trial and appellate courts. 

Code 46 augments its delivery of legal advice to trial counsel 

through a robust working relationship with TCAP. Code 46’s 

relationship with Service TCAP representatives helps ensure that 

important issues are not waived or surrendered for appellate 

litigation purposes by inconsistent or inaccurate positions by 

trial counsel. This coordination also facilitates improved 

communication between trial and appellate counsel and provides 

for closer coordination during government interlocutory appeals. 

 

 A summary of FY13 appellate activity is provided in Table 

2. “Briefs Filed” includes Government briefs, answers to 

supplements, and supplemental briefs. “Other Pleadings” 

includes responses to extraordinary writs, motion responses, 

responses to Court Orders, and Petitions for Reconsideration. 

The number of NMCCA briefs filed by the Government decreased to 

152 in FY13, and other filings to the NMCCA remained constant at 

439 in FY13. 

 
61 

TABLE 2

FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 

NMCCA 

Briefs Filed 232 154 163 188 198 152 

Other Pleadings 340 313 373 144 439 439 

Oral Arguments 6 14 15 20 19 15 

CAAF 

Briefs Filed 37 28 24 22 24 9 

Other Pleadings 146 60 102 70 111 98 

Oral Arguments 32 23 11 7 12 11 

 

 Code 46 filed five Article 62 appeals1, an uptick from FY12. 

Prior years saw eight in FY07, 11 in FY08, nine in FY09, three 

in FY10, and two in FY11. Code 46’s practice at CAAF included 

significant military justice matters: United States v. Tearman 

(Crawford-type testimonial hearsay); United States v. Hutchins 

(Edwards/Bradshaw prophylactic rule); United States v. Caldwell

(bona fide suicide attempt’s viability as an offense under the 

UCMJ); United States v. Castellano (whether judge, or members, 

decide the Marcum/Lawrence factors); United States v. Solomon 

(prior acquittal’s bearing on Mil. R. Evid. 414 evidence); 

United States v. Salyer (unlawful command influence resulting in 

recusal of military judge). Code 46 certified only one case, 

United States v. Porter, which was decided without argument per 

curiam. Code 46 assisted in trial-level litigation of complex 

appellate issues, including the appellate remand in United 

States v. Kish, dealing with alleged judicial bias, at the 

Marine Corps’ Legal Service Support Section (LSSS)-National 

Capital Region. 

 Several cases involved allegations of sexual misconduct, 

although the misconduct was not a significant factor in the 

appellate litigation. In Salyer, the appellant was convicted of 

possession of child pornography; however, his conviction was set 

aside by CAAF with prejudice based on the Government’s unlawful 

command influence in accessing the trial judge’s official 

personnel record. In U.S. v. Brown, CAAF found the military 

judge properly allowed a non-coaching victim advocate to sit 

 

1

 An appeal under Article 62, UCMJ allows the United States to 

appeal a military judge’s ruling that terminates proceedings 

with respect to a charge or specification or excludes evidence 

that constitutes substantial proof of a fact material to the 

proceeding. 
62 

next to a testifying minor victim of sexual abuse. In 

Castellano, CAAF found that when sodomy is charged under the 

UCMJ, “statute saving” factors of Lawrence v. Texas and United 

States v. Marcum must be found, beyond a reasonable doubt, by 

the trier of fact — not the military judge — in order to have a 

legally supportable conviction. In Solomon, CAAF set aside an 

abusive sexual contact conviction after finding that a military 

judge erred in admitting prior sexual misconduct evidence 

without balancing, and instructing the members on, the alibi 

evidence and acquittal for that prior misconduct. In U.S. v.

Altier, CAAF decided that a rehearing sentence including 30 days 

of confinement was not in excess of or more severe than a 

punitive discharge. In U.S. v. Wilkins, CAAF found that the 

appellant was properly convicted of abusive sexual contact as a 

lesser included offense of aggravated sexual assault where the 

appellant suffered no prejudice and did not challenge the charge 

at trial. 

 At the NMCCA, two sex crimes cases stand out. In U.S. v. 

Lawanson, the NMCCA dismissed a conviction of rape and 

aggravated sexual assault because, under the NMCCA’s reading of 

the record, the Navy had fully discharged the appellant. And in 

U.S. v. Boyer, a case involving charges of sodomy and indecent 

liberties with a child, the NMCCA set aside the convictions 

after finding that the trial counsel had committed reversible 

prosecutorial misconduct. 

 Code 46’s training to trial counsel in the field continued 

during the reporting period. At NJS’ invitation, Code 46 

produced several recorded and live broadcast courses, including 

“Protecting the Record,” and several blocks for the Litigating 

Complex Cases course including “Ex Writs, DuBays, Remands, and 

Articles 62s,” “Motions Practice,” and “Guilty Pleas.” Code 46 

also instructed trial counsel on how to protect the record, and 

on the fundamental areas of intersection between trial, posttrial processing, and appellate review at the SJA Course at NJS 

and the Trial Counsel Orientation Course. These outreach 

sessions were indispensable in increasing awareness of the 

points of failure in trial practice that are entirely 

preventable with proactive collaboration between trial and 

appellate attorneys. 

 Continuing its efforts to work hand-in-hand with other 

appellate organizations, Code 46 jointly mooted CAAF cases with 

Coast Guard appellate counsel, and was well represented at the 

American Bar Association’s (ABA) National Appellate Advocacy 

Competition, where its attorneys served as moot court judges for 
63 

multiple rounds of the regional competition. Code 46’s 

Appellate Government Counsel participated in an intensive 

appellate advocacy training program that included attendance at 

the ABA’s Appellate Judges’ Education Institute and Appellate 

Lawyers Annual Practice Institute, Bryan Garner’s Legal Research 

and Writing Seminar, and the Judge Advocate Association’s 

Appellate Advocacy Symposium. Internally, Code 46 developed a 

10-week, intensive, introductory course to quickly acquaint new 

appellate government counsel with the fundamentals of appellate 

practice. Finally, as a result of Code 46’s initiative, most of 

the Services’ appellate government counsel were brought together 

at the Washington Navy Yard for a two-day intensive Joint 

Government Appellate Training, focused on training both new and 

experienced appellate counsel, replete with experienced guest 

speakers from the Department of Justice and George Washington 

University Law School. These efforts help ensure competent and 

consistent representation of the United States by appellate 

government counsel before the service courts, the Court of 

Appeals for the Armed Forces, and the Supreme Court, and help 

ensure the interests of all Services are taken into 

consideration in all pleadings on behalf of the United States. 

 During FY13, the Division continued to expand the DON’s 

electronic record of trial program, which at year’s end included 

Camp Pendleton, Norfolk Naval Station, Camp Lejeune, and Marine 

Corps Base Hawaii. As the field activities and the Division, in 

coordination with NMCCA, expand their technological 

capabilities, the intent is to migrate all installations to 

processing a majority of their courts-martial electronically. 

ASSISTANT JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, CHIEF JUDGE, DEPARTMENT 

OF THE NAVY (CJDON)

 The CJDON (AJAG 05) is the senior supervisory jurist in the 

DON, overseeing the trial and appellate judiciaries. The CJDON 

serves as the Rules Counsel for the judiciaries and the 

community sponsor for the Navy JAG Corps’ Military Justice 

Litigation Career Track (MJLCT). The CJDON is selected by a 

competitive flag selection board and serves for three years, 

with appointment as the Assistant Judge Advocate General of the 

Navy in the third year of service. The CJDON is eligible to 

retire in the grade of rear admiral (lower half). 
64 

THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

(NMCCA) 

 The NMCCA is responsible for all cases referred under UCMJ 

Articles 62(b), 66(b), 69(d), and 73. The NMCCA may also 

entertain petitions for extraordinary relief. During FY13, the 

NMCCA was comprised of eight appellate judges, five from the 

Navy and three from the Marine Corps. Of these eight judges, 

four also serve on the United States Court of Military 

Commission Review (USCMCR), one of whom serves as the Chief 

Judge of USCMCR. The NMCCA was also supported by six Navy 

Reserve and three Marine Corps Reserve appellate judges. 

 The NMCCA hosted its third annual Judicial Training course 

in FY13. In past years, the course brought distinguished 

practitioners and professors to the NMCCA for two days to train 

active duty, Reserve and civilian personnel. However, due to 

fiscal constraints, the FY13 course relied exclusively on inhouse talent rather than outside experts, with topics being 

taught by members of the appellate judiciary, its support staff, 

and the CJDON. 

 The NMCCA continues to maintain a website at 

http://www.jag.navy.mil/nmcca.htm, where the NMCCA’s published 

and unpublished opinions are available for download. In 

addition, the NMCCA maintains audio files from past oral 

arguments and a docket for upcoming oral arguments. Application 

for admission to the NMCCA bar and rules of the court are 

available on the site. 

 The NMCCA was supported by four Navy and Marine Corps 

junior officer law clerks and a mid-grade officer senior law 

clerk. The clerks provide valuable legal and administrative 

support to the appellate judiciary and gain valuable legal 

analysis and writing experience to inform their later appellate 

and trial practices. 

NAVY-MARINE CORPS TRIAL JUDICIARY (CODE 52) 

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

trial judiciary that has as its core mission the task of 

detailing certified and trained military judges to all Navy and 
65 

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

organized into eight judicial circuits worldwide and is 

supported by Naval Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve Individual 

Mobilization Augmentees. During FY13, the NMCTJ was comprised 

of 24 active-duty and 17 Reserve judges. The previously gapped 

judge billet at Parris Island, SC, was filled by LtCol David 

Jones, USMC, during July 2013. 

 The NMCTJ provided comprehensive and timely judicial 

services to Navy fleet and shore activities and Marine Corps 

forces in the United States and abroad. Further, due to the 

changeover in judges within the U.S. Coast Guard, the NMCTJ 

provided judges for U.S. Coast Guard courts-martial. In 

addition to presiding over regularly referred courts-martial, 

the NMCTJ judges presided over numerous high-profile sexual 

assault cases and Dubay Hearings, and junior judges served as 

Investigating Officers at Article 32 hearings. The NMCTJ also 

has two trial judges assigned and available for any forthcoming 

Military Commission cases. 

 FY13 closed with the NMCTJ presiding over 291 General and 

879 Special courts-martial, for a total of 1,170 cases. 720 

cases were tried to verdict, resulting in 629 convictions and 91 

acquittals. There were 266 contested trials and 450 cases that 

reached resolution prior to trial. 

 The 2013 Joint Military Judges Annual Training was canceled 

due to budgets cuts, Service restrictions on conference 

attendance, and sequestration. In order to overcome the 

training deficit, the NMCTJ partnered with The National Judicial 

College (NJC), University of Nevada, to conduct live WebCast 

Continuing Legal Education (CLE) for all members of the trial 

judiciary on Sexual Assault and Hearsay in Military Law by 

Professor Jules Epstein; Military Rules of Evidence: 412, 413 

and 414 by the Honorable David Shakes; Daubert in the Military 

Sexual Assault Case by the Honorable Douglas J. Miles; 

Introduction of Expert Testimony to Explain Victim Behavior by 

Jennifer Gentile Long; and Voir Dire in Military Sexual Assault 

Cases by Professor Jules Epstein. All members of the trial 

judiciary participate in these classes, which will be completed 

during FY 14. Successful completion of NJC curriculum leads to 

a professional certificate, and potentially a Master’s or 

doctorate degree. 

 

 During FY13, the NMCTJ realigned geographic areas of 

responsibility within the Circuits in order to reduce travel 

costs and improve Judicial services to the Region Legal Service 
66 

Offices (RLSOs) and LSSSs. A significant cost savings was 

achieved by using video teleconferencing technology for 

arraignments and motions for courts-martial at distant 

locations. 

 The NMCTJ judges also provided military justice 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 

mentoring judge advocates through formal and informal training 

sessions. 

NAVAL LEGAL SERVICE COMMAND (NLSC) 

 CNLSC also serves as the Deputy Judge Advocate General of 

the Navy. 

 In FY13, NLSC was comprised of 415 judge advocates, one 

Civil Engineer Corps officer, four Limited Duty (Law) officers, 

160 Legalmen, and 211 civilians. NLSC provided a wide range of 

legal services to afloat and ashore commands, active-duty naval 

personnel, family members, retirees, and eligible beneficiaries 

from the other Services at 99 offices worldwide. 

 In order to more adequately meet the demand for legal 

services in the Fleet, on October 1, 2012, NLSC executed a major 

realignment, disestablishing all eight Naval Legal Service 

Offices. The Legal Assistance function was realigned to the 

nine Region Legal Service Offices and four new Defense Service 

Offices were established to provide defense and personal 

representation services to service members, including 

representation at courts-martial and administrative boards. 

Defense counsel also provide other representational services, 

including advice on non-judicial punishment and adverse 

personnel actions. 

 Additionally, as part of the realignment, all new judge 

advocates receive two years of comprehensive training in 

prosecuting and defending cases, providing legal assistance, and 

advising Navy commands. First tour judge advocates (FTJAs) are 

required to complete Professional Development Standards at their 

first duty station, following completion of the Basic Lawyer 

Course at Naval Justice School. These Standards facilitate the 

development of subject matter expertise so that our judge 
67 

advocates are fully equipped to operate effectively in their 

follow-on assignments, including supporting criminal litigation, 

providing command services, and providing legal assistance to 

Sailors and their families. Mid-level officers are assigned as 

Professional Development Officers (PDOs) to manage and track 

judge advocate training. FTJAs have reading and writing 

requirements, as well as knowledge assessments performed by PDOs 

and senior leadership. 

 Starting in May 2013, NLSC transitioned to the new military 

justice Case Management System (CMS) to comply with a 

Congressional mandate that DON implement a single court-martial 

tracking system by July 1, 2013. Working closely with the 

Office of the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the 

Marine Corps, combined Navy and Marine Corps training teams 

visited each RLSO headquarters and trained local CMS 

administrators and functional users. All commands completed the 

transition to CMS as of June 17, 2013. 

 NLSC provided legal advice, services, and training to the 

Fleet through 13 commands: four Defense Service Offices, which 

provided defense and personal representation; and, nine RLSOs, 

which provided prosecution, command services, and legal 

assistance. From these commands, NLSC provided counsel for 

court-martial prosecution and defense, administrative boards, 

physical evaluation boards, legal assistance, and legal advice 

to local commanders and their staffs. 

 During FY13, NLSC provided counsel for 120 general courtsmartial, 171 special courts-martial (to findings), and 1,077 

administrative boards. NLSC personnel also provided 11,403 

command services, 10,039 personal representation services, and 

saw 38,012 legal assistance clients. NLSC continued to be the 

primary source for personnel to meet the JAG Corps’ Individual 

Augmentation (IA) requirements and provided two-thirds of the 

personnel requirements in support of Overseas Contingency 

Operations. During FY13, 15 judge advocates and four Legalmen 

from NLSC deployed to Djibouti and Afghanistan in direct support 

of operations. 

DEFENSE COUNSEL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

 The Defense Counsel Assistance Program (DCAP) is aligned 

under NLSC and reports to the Chief of Staff, Defense Service 

Offices. The Director is an active duty Navy O-6 select MJLCT 

designated Expert and former military judge who is co-located 
68 

with DSO West in San Diego. The Deputy Director is an activeduty Navy O-4 MJLCT designated Specialist co-located with the 

Navy’s Appellate Defense Division in Washington, D.C. In 

December 2012, the Navy hired a DCAP Highly Qualified Expert 

(HQE) in sexual assault and complex litigation. DCAP’s HQE is a 

retired Marine Corps judge advocate and former military judge 

who has practiced criminal law for over three decades. 

 DCAP’s mission is to provide assistance to Navy, Marine 

Corps, and Coast Guard defense counsel throughout the Fleet, 

offering advice and technical expertise on all issues relevant 

to military justice and adverse personnel actions. DCAP offers 

assistance during every phase of court-martial litigation, 

including initial case analysis, evidentiary issues, motions 

practice, litigation and trial advocacy, and post-trial 

processing. 

 DCAP personnel are members of the Navy’s defense bar and 

are authorized to consult with detailed counsel on a 

confidential and privileged basis. DCAP assistance includes 

developing case strategies, drafting motions for appropriate 

relief, crafting arguments for motion sessions, developing 

investigations, conducting discovery, facilitating requests for 

witnesses and expert assistants, developing voir dire strategies 

and questions, assisting with complex legal research, preparing 

clients and witnesses for testimony, and helping counsel prepare 

opening statements, closing arguments, direct and crossexamination, and with post-trial matters. DCAP also frequently 

consults with defense counsel on professional responsibility and 

ethics issues. 

 In conjunction with NJS, DCAP coordinates and provides 

timely, relevant and effective training for DSO personnel. The 

DCAP Director is a member of the Litigation Training 

Coordination Council which plans comprehensive training for 

military litigators of all experience levels. In FY13, DCAP 

provided a Basic Trial Advocacy course, two Defense Counsel 

Orientation courses, and a week-long course on defending service 

members accused of sexual assault. DCAP also provides ongoing 

training to current and prospective defense counsel worldwide, 

through on-site command visits and online technologies. In 

FY13, DCAP provided sexual assault and trial advocacy training 

during site visits to Washington, DC; San Diego, CA; Bremerton, 

WA; Norfolk, VA; Jacksonville, FL; Pensacola, FL; Naples, Italy; 

and, Yokosuka, Japan. In addition, DCAP has created a library 

of relevant continuing legal education and regularly publishes 

updates and guidance to defense counsel through written DCAP 
69 

Advisories. In an effort to maintain a worldwide defense bar, 

DCAP maintains a SharePoint site, providing defense counsel with 

resources such as a motions bank, an expert witness database, 

and an online discussion forum. 

 Finally, DCAP sends Defense Mobile Training Teams (DMTTs) 

to each DSO at least twice yearly to work closely with the 

command and individual counsel, with a focus on practical issues 

in defense work and trial advocacy based on current or recent 

case scenarios. 

TRIAL COUNSEL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

 TCAP is aligned under NLSC and reports to the Chief of 

Staff, Region Legal Service Offices (COS-RLSO). TCAP is 

directed by a Navy O-5, an MJLCT designated Expert who 

previously served as a military judge, Naval Legal Service 

Office Commanding Officer, an Executive Officer and Senior 

Defense Counsel during the Trial Defense Command pilot program, 

a Senior Trial Counsel and an Assistant Senior Defense Counsel. 

The Deputy Director is a GS-15 civilian who specializes in 

sexual assault prosecution and victims’ rights. A former state 

prosecutor with extensive experience, she served as the Director 

of the National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against 

Women and is a noted author in the field. She led efforts to 

enhance Sexual Assault Prevention and Response policies and 

training, improve the Victim and Witness Assistance Program, and 

was engaged in numerous initiatives involving sexual assault 

litigation training and evaluation. The Assistant Director is a 

senior O-4 MJLCT designated Specialist I who has completed tours 

as a defense counsel, prosecutor, carrier SJA, and NJS 

instructor, and received an LL.M. in Litigation from the George 

Washington University Law School. In May 2013, the Navy hired 

an HQE to work with TCAP. The HQE has 17 years of experience, 

most notably as a civilian prosecutor specializing in crimes 

against children and as an instructor and course coordinator for 

the National District Attorneys Association. 

 TCAP’s mission is to provide advice, assistance, support, 

resources and training for Navy trial counsel worldwide. The 

program supports and enhances the proficiency of the Navy 

prosecution bar, providing experienced reach-back and technical 

expertise. TCAP provides a full spectrum of advice and serves 

as a resource for trial counsel in the field through every phase 

of trial, including pretrial investigation, court-martial 

litigation and post-trial processing. TCAP counsel regularly 
70 

assist and advise trial counsel on all aspects of prosecution, 

including drafting charges, trial preparation and motions 

practice, discovery issues, securing and preparing expert 

witnesses, devising trial strategy, and professional 

responsibility issues. TCAP collaboratively engages trial 

counsel in the field with regular case review conferences. 

Likewise, TCAP coordinates with Code 46 (Appellate Government) 

to ensure court-martial prosecutions are effectively postured to 

withstand appellate review. 

 When requested, TCAP provides more in-depth case 

assistance. For example, TCAP counsel have been detailed as 

trial counsel and assistant trial counsel when an advanced level 

of proficiency is demanded. In the past year, the TCAP Director 

served as trial counsel in the prosecution of a Naval Academy 

instructor for sexual assault of a student, and the Assistant 

Director served as trial counsel in a high-profile sexual 

assault case. 

 TCAP is also responsible for monitoring all high-visibility 

cases. The Director of TCAP monitors the relative experience 

levels of trial counsel through on-site, periodic observations 

of Navy judge advocates in the performance of their prosecution 

functions, and provides recommendations for improvement as well 

as resource recommendations to COS-RLSO as necessary. 

 In addition to case assistance and advice, TCAP provides 

resources to assist trial counsel. TCAP maintains an online 

repository of useful resources such as sample motions and 

responses, foundation questions, articles and manuals on 

prosecution, case disposition tracking, and an expert witness 

database. TCAP has expanded its expert witness database to 

ensure the ability of trial counsel to secure experts in all 

disciplines for the government and defense. The TCAP website 

also has a trial counsel discussion board that enables real-time 

response to demands from the field and leverages enterprise 

knowledge for remote offices. TCAP monitors questions and 

responds to postings on the site and ensures that trial counsel 

are aware of all available resources. The discussion board also 

facilitates a closer prosecution bar by enabling discussions 

between trial counsel worldwide. 

 Finally, TCAP plays a significant role in trial counsel 

training. TCAP partners with NJS and Code 20 in the development 

of litigation training for trial counsel. TCAP personnel 

routinely serve as instructors on a variety of courses at the 

NJS schoolhouse, online, and in-person at offices worldwide. 
71 

TCAP coordinated the planning and execution of Prosecuting 

Alcohol Facilitated Sexual Assault (PAFSA) course, an advanced 

trial advocacy course. TCAP also provided targeted on-site 

mobile training teams to all nine RLSOs which focused on trial 

advocacy and prosecution of special victims offenses, as well as 

on-site case consultation and assistance. 

VICTIMS’ LEGAL COUNSEL PROGRAM 

 On August 14, 2013, the Secretary of Defense, in an effort 

to improve victims support in sexual assault cases, directed the 

Secretaries of the Military Departments to establish a victim's 

advocacy program best suited for that Service to provide legal 

advice and representation to victims throughout the justice 

process. The Secretary of Defense further directed each Service 

to establish initial victim advocacy operating capability not 

later than November 1, 2013, with full operating capability by 

January 1, 2014. On August 15, 2013, the Vice Chief of Naval 

Operations established the Navy’s Victims’ Legal Counsel Program 

under the purview of the Judge Advocate General. 

 The Navy Victims’ Legal Counsel (VLC) Program consists of 

29 specially-trained and certified, independent judge advocates 

detailed to provide legal support to eligible victims of sexual 

assault. The initial contingent of VLC is comprised of 11 

reservists and 18 active duty judge advocates aided by ten 

administrative support personnel. Four lieutenant commanders 

are assigned to Norfolk, San Diego, Mayport and Pearl Harbor to 

serve as VLC and to provide expertise, leadership and mentorship 

to junior VLC. The VLC Program operates under an independent 

chain of command, reporting to CNLSC through an experienced O-6 

VLC Chief of Staff. 

 The primary mission of the VLC Program is to provide legal 

advice, assistance and when appropriate, advocacy for Navy 

sexual assault victims. Navy VLC will help protect victims’ 

rights through the investigative and adjudicative stages of the 

military justice process. Specifically, VLC will explain the 

investigative and military justice processes to their clients, 

advocate for victim’s rights and interests, and, when 

appropriate, appear in official proceedings on the victim's 

behalf. They will advise victims on rights afforded under the 

Victim Witness Assistance Program, advise on medical support 

including emotional and mental health counseling, assist with 

personal civil legal matters, work with SARCs and VAs to assist 

with military protective orders and restraining orders, and 
72 

accompany the victim to investigative interviews and court 

proceedings if requested by the victim. 

 The goal of the VLC Program is to complement the care and 

support Navy sexual assault victims already receive through 

SARCs and VAs by providing legal counsel and assistance 

following reports of sexual assault. VLC will be assigned 

regionally to maximize availability of counsel where needed 

most. Navy VLC serve every geographic region, including the 

United States, Europe, the Pacific, and the Middle East. 

NAVAL JUSTICE SCHOOL (NJS) 

 Organization. NJS is an echelon three command reporting to 

CNLSC. The main NJS facility is located in Newport, Rhode 

Island. Teaching detachments are based in San Diego, 

California, and Norfolk, Virginia (both significant Fleet 

concentration areas). A two-person branch office is located at 

the U.S. Army’s The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and 

School (TJAGLCS) in Charlottesville, Virginia. 

 Mission. NJS provides legal training to officers, enlisted 

and civilians from all of the Sea Services, including basic 

legal training for Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard judge 

advocates and Legalmen. NJS’s mission is to oversee formal 

training of Sea Service judge advocates and paralegals 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, to train commanders and senior 

officers in the practical aspects of military law to enable them 

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

personnel to assist in the sound administration of military 

justice. 

 In FY13, NJS provided instruction to more than 13,000 

students worldwide, including more than 3,000 students in inresident courses ranging in length from 1 day to 13 weeks. 

 In addition to teaching NJS courses, NJS instructors 

taught military justice, administrative law, and operational law 

to other commands on board Naval Station Newport including the 

Naval War College, Command Leadership School, Officer 

Development School, Senior Enlisted Academy, Surface Warfare 
73 

Officers School, Officer Candidate School, and Limited 

Duty/Chief Warrant Officer Indoctrination School. 

 Academic Programs. NJS has eight “core” courses that 

include training in military justice: 

 1. Basic Lawyer Course (BLC). This ten-week course, 

offered three times annually, provides accession training for 

all judge advocates in the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. 

The course includes extensive training in military justice and 

court-martial advocacy, as well as training in legal assistance, 

administrative law, standards of conduct, and operational law. 

Teaching methods include lecture, seminar, and practical 

exercises. Upon graduation, judge advocates are certified per 

Article 27(b), UCMJ. In FY13, 134 student judge advocates 

graduated from the BLC. 

 

 2. Legalman (LN) Accession Course. This 11-week course, 

offered twice in FY13, trains Navy enlisted personnel selected 

for conversion to the LN rating. In addition to militaryspecific training in military justice, court reporting, 

administrative investigations, and administrative separations, 

the LN Accession curriculum also includes four college-level 

courses taught by NJS officer instructors. These courses are: 

Ethics, Legal Research and Writing I, Introduction to Law, and 

Emerging Legal Technologies. Graduates of the LN Accession 

Course receive ten ABA-approved credits towards a paralegal 

degree or certificate in partnership with Roger Williams 

University. In FY13, 45 LNs graduated from the LN Accession 

Course. 

 3. Basic Legal Services Specialist Course. This 11-week 

course, offered three times annually, provides accession-level 

training to junior enlisted Marines seeking the Military 

Occupational Specialty of Marine Corps Legal Services 

Specialist. Curriculum consists of training in military 

justice, post-trial review, and legal administration. In FY13, 

81 enlisted Marines graduated from this course. 

 4. Legal Services Court Reporter Course. This 13-week 

course, offered twice annually, provides court reporter training 

to Legal Services Specialists, grades E-3 to E-7, seeking the 

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 

words per minute, court-reporting grammar and punctuation, 

speech–recognition technology, digital recording software, and 
74 

the production of verbatim and summarized courts-martial records 

of proceedings. In FY13, 13 enlisted Marines graduated from 

this course. 

 5. Senior Officer Course in Military Justice and

Civil Law (SOC). This three-day course is designed for 

commanding officers, executive officers, and officers in charge 

and is open to other officers in grades O-4 and above with NJS 

approval. The SOC trains officers in the execution of the legal 

responsibilities of command with instruction in military justice 

(including sexual assault case disposition), administrative law, 

and civil law. In FY13, NJS provided 38 offerings of the SOC in 

Newport, San Diego, Norfolk, Camp Pendleton, Camp Lejeune, 

Parris Island, Quantico, and Pensacola. Per NAVADMIN 302/12, 

this course is mandatory for O-6 Navy officers en route to 

command. In FY13, 1,090 senior officers graduated from the SOC. 

 6. Legal Officer Course (LOC). This three-week course 

prepares non-lawyer Legal Officers to perform a host of military 

law functions in commands not large enough to warrant assignment 

of a judge advocate. In FY13, NJS provided 17 offerings of the 

LOC in San Diego and Norfolk. In FY13, 481 officers graduated 

from the LOC. 

 7. Legal Clerk Course (LCC). Legal Clerks are typically 

assigned to assist non-lawyer Legal Officers within a command as 

a collateral duty. This two-week course provides training in 

the preparation of legal forms and reports, service record 

entries, nonjudicial punishment, and court-martial procedures. 

In FY13, NJS provided 17 offerings of the LCC in San Diego and 

Norfolk, graduating 369 legal clerks. 

 8. Senior Enlisted Leadership Course in Military Justice 

and Civil Law (SELC). This three-day course provides senior 

enlisted leaders of all services training in a wide range of 

military law with primary focus on military justice matters. In 

FY13, NJS provided 10 offerings of the SELC in San Diego and 

Norfolk, graduating 257 senior enlisted. 

 Continuing Legal Education. In addition to the “core” 

courses, NJS provided 21 in-resident specialty courses, many of 

which are pre-approved for continuing legal education (CLE) 

credit from state bar associations. Many of these courses focus 

on military justice. In FY13, these resident courses reached 

more than 550 legal professionals. 

 The semi-annual Trial Counsel and Defense Counsel 

Orientation courses teach Navy and Marine Corps counsel how to 
75 

effectively prepare, manage, and try cases from the 

investigation stage through sentencing, with a particular focus 

on the practical aspects of defense and prosecution. The Basic 

Trial Advocacy Course is designed to develop important trial 

advocacy skills in judge advocates in their first trial billets 

and in judge advocates transitioning to trial billets from nontrial billets. 

 NJS also offers specialized instruction focused on sexual 

assault litigation. Prosecuting Alcohol-Facilitated Sexual 

Assaults (PAFSA) is a week-long course that has been taught in 

conjunction with AEquitas, the Prosecutor’s Resource on Violence 

Against Women. The course focuses on substantive aspects of 

prosecuting alcohol-facilitated sexual assaults and includes 

small-group practical exercises to hone skills such as 

conducting direct and cross examinations of sexual assault nurse 

examiners, toxicologists, victims, and the accused. Defending 

Sexual Assault Cases (DSAC) is a week-long course that provides 

training on sexual assault litigation for defense counsel. DSAC 

is taught in conjunction with the Center for American and 

International Law in Plano, Texas. 

 NJS also continues to provide Basic and Advanced SJA 

Courses. The SJA courses incorporate military justice training 

relevant to SJAs including search and seizure, investigations, 

charging, preferral, convening courts, referral, the VictimWitness Assistance Program, Sexual Assault-Initial Disposition 

Authority (SA-IDA), and post-trial processing. 

 Legalman Paralegal Education Program (LPEP). Begun in 

2010, LPEP is a government-funded education program leading to 

an Associates of Science degree in Paralegal Studies. The 

program is mandatory for all LNs in order to meet minimum 

occupational standards for the LN rating. Following completion 

of the LN Accession course, students normally complete a 

semester of in-resident courses with Roger Williams University 

(RWU) before checking into their first permanent duty station. 

Upon checking in, they normally participate in distance learning 

with RWU until completing the degree requirements. In FY13, 57 

students attended LPEP as in-resident students, and an 

additional 158 students were enrolled in the distance learning 

option. 

 Online Legal Education. In FY13, NJS entered into a 

partnership with TJAGLCS to expand the scope and reach of legal 

education for the Sea Services. Since that time, the Online 

Legal Education department at NJS has been offering 
76 

opportunities via Defense Connect Online (DCO) and the 

Blackboard learning management system. These systems are 

accessible 24/7 and offer on-demand training and education as 

well as points of contact for feedback and instructor 

interaction. NJS has continued to offer DCO webcasts on 

emerging legal issues including, most recently, 7 sessions 

addressing same-sex partner benefits with more than 1,000 

participants. 

 In addition, NJS partnered with TJAGLCS to start offering 

full courses online via Blackboard. Dubbed "NJS Online," 

military practitioners now have worldwide access to specialty 

courses. These courses range from on-demand short courses 

covering specific topics to multi-week courses on large practice 

areas such as post-trial processing, ethics, and law of the sea. 

Instructors deliver training using a variety of online teaching 

tools, including assigned readings, recorded videos, live 

interactive sessions using DCO, discussion boards, practical 

assignments, and knowledge checks. In FY13, NJS Online provided 

more than 10,000 hours of instruction to more than 2,000 

students worldwide. 

 NJS Online has provided a valuable tool for practitioners 

around the globe by offering timely and relevant training in a 

fiscally-constrained environment. For example, this adaptive 

platform and approach enabled NJS to bring together existing 

products to produce a training module on Sexual Assault 

Prevention and Response (SAPR) for judge advocates in less than 

12 hours and to deliver the training to judge advocates as 

effectively and efficiently as possible. 

 SAPR—JAGC is mandatory JAGC-wide online training to inform 

attorneys, LNs, and other paralegals about the SAPR 

Accountability Line of Effort and to ensure a JAGC community 

baseline of knowledge on recent updates to the SAPR program; 

Article 120, UCMJ; the Military Rules of Evidence relevant to 

sexual assault cases; victims’ rights and services; and 

professional responsibility issues in sexual assault cases. 

 Publications. NJS publishes one edition of the Naval Law 

Review annually. NJS also publishes a course catalog, the 

USN/USMC Commander’s Quick Reference Handbook for Legal Issues 

(Quickman), as well as various study guides in support of its 

academic programs. 

 Coordination. Through the Interservice Legal Education 
77 

Review Committee (ISLERC), Commanding Officer, NJS, the Dean of 

Students for TJAGLCS, and the Commandant, Air Force Judge 

Advocate General’s School normally meet semi-annually to discuss 

new initiatives and opportunities for cross-training and to 

increase cooperation and efficiency in the training of legal 

personnel within the Department of Defense. Due to fiscal 

constraints, one meeting in FY13 was held via video 

teleconference. 

NAVY ACTIVITIES AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

1. Military Justice Litigation Career Track (MJLCT) 

 In 2007, to improve the overall quality of Navy courtmartial litigation, the JAG Corps established the MJLCT. The 

MJLCT is a career track for judge advocates with demonstrated 

military justice knowledge and advocacy skills. The track 

combines continued courtroom experience, training and education, 

with oversight by and access to senior, seasoned litigation 

mentors to help judge advocates develop the skills needed to 

become preeminent trial lawyers. Military Justice Litigation 

Qualified (MJLQ) officers are detailed to lead trial and defense 

departments at each of our nine RLSOs and four DSOs, which 

provide Navy prosecutors and defense counsel, respectively. 

These officers provide proven experience in the courtroom, 

personally conducting, adjudicating, or overseeing litigation in 

sexual assault and other complex cases. 

 At the close of FY13, there were 65 Navy MJLCT officers, of 

which 45 were filling the 53 MJLCT-designated billets. 

Additional officers are serving in billets at the Office of 

Military Commissions, on board aircraft carriers, at the Naval 

Justice School, in the newly-created VLC positions, and 

attending post-graduate school to obtain Master’s of Law degrees 

in Trial Advocacy. The “billet-fill rate” has held relatively 

stable for the last two years. 

 The promotion rate for MJLCT officers continues to be 

monitored, and the in-zone MJLCT officers were selected for 

promotion by the FY14 promotion selection boards at a rate 

comparable to or better than the overall in-zone selection rate. 

The FY14 O-6, O-5 and O-4 promotion selection boards selected 

five of the six MJLCT officers in-zone for promotion. 

 MJLQ recognizes judge advocates with demonstrated abilities 

in the areas of military justice knowledge and advocacy skills. 
78 

 SPECIALIST I MJLQ is the entry point for the MJLCT. A 

judge advocate may be qualified as SPECIALIST I after 

demonstrating military justice litigation proficiency and MJLCT 

potential. Candidates will normally be eligible for SPECIALIST 

I after their fourth year of active duty. 

 Following SPECIALIST I qualification, a judge advocate may 

qualify as SPECIALIST II after obtaining sufficient additional 

qualitative and quantitative military justice litigation 

experience as well as professional development as a naval 

officer. Candidates will normally be eligible for SPECIALIST II 

after their tenth year of active duty. 

 Following SPECIALIST II qualification, a judge advocate may 

qualify as EXPERT after obtaining significant additional 

quantitative and qualitative military justice litigation 

experience as well as demonstrated leadership of junior judge 

advocates. For this reason, EXPERT is ordinarily reserved for 

those judge advocates who have reached the senior-most MJLCT 

positions. Candidates will normally be eligible for EXPERT 

after their sixteenth year of active duty. 

 SPECIALIST II and EXPERT MJLQ are community management 

tools to guide the detailing, training, and professional 

development needs of MJLQ judge advocates and ensure the 

community maintains its ability to execute this core function 

across the community billet structure. Senior MJLQ judge 

advocates, in coordination with the Assistant Judge Advocate 

General (Chief Judge, Department of the Navy), who serves as the 

MJLCT community sponsor, seek to provide all MJLQ judge 

advocates with training and duty assignment opportunities that 

facilitate their professional development within the MJLCT, the 

JAG Corps, and the Navy. 

 

 Military justice litigation proficiency warranting 

qualification includes significant quantitative and qualitative 

criminal courtroom litigation experience and demonstrated 

proficiency in military justice procedure. As judge advocates 

seek MJLCT advancement, they will be required to demonstrate 

increased courtroom experience, continued growth in litigation 

leadership, and familiarity with the broader mission of the 

Navy. MJLQ judge advocates are encouraged to explore the wide 

variety of naval experiences that contribute to the development 

of a broad understanding of the duties of judge advocates, and 

to seek out detailing to non-litigation billets even after MJLQ. 

Accordingly, applicants for EXPERT MJLQ should generally have 
79 

served at least two years in a non-litigation billet prior to 

their application for qualification. 

2. Sexual Assault Initiatives 

 The Navy has implemented a multi-faceted approach to 

address sexual assault awareness and training, prevention, 

victim response, and investigation and accountability. Navy and 

Marine Corps judge advocates were integral in all levels of 

sexual assault prevention and response initiatives. Two 

principal lines of effort were Fleet-wide training and 

optimizing litigation capability. 

 When a sexual assault occurs, the DON is dedicated to 

ensuring the victim receives full-spectrum and timely support to 

include medical treatment, counseling, and legal assistance. 

With implementation of a new DoD Inspector General policy in 

January 2013, NCIS began investigating all reports of sexual 

assault to include contact offenses. In FY13, Navy continued to 

implement the Sexual Assault Initial Disposition Authority (SAIDA) policy, which withholds initial disposition authority for 

all penetration offenses to the O-6 special court-martial 

convening authority level. Additionally, the Navy continued to 

execute the Expedited Transfer policy for victims of sexual 

assault and implemented the First Flag face-to-face reporting 

requirement on command climate 30 days following a report of 

sexual assault. 

 The Navy hired 66 credentialed SARCs and 66 full-time 

professional, credentialed VAs. They work with specially-trained 

NCIS investigators and trial counsel to form the core of our 

Special Victim Capability. They will also work with VLC to 

improve and enhance victim care, confidence, and participation 

in the investigation and adjudication of sexual assault cases. 

 The Navy is also in the process of hiring 22 Deployed 

Resiliency Counselors (DRC) to serve on every Aircraft Carrier 

(CVN) and Big Deck Amphib (LHD). The DRCs will be licensed 

counselors and will also be fully trained and certified as 

SARCs. The DRC will provide individual counseling on various 

21st Century Sailor initiatives such as stress, suicide 

prevention and sexual assault. They will liaise with the 

homeport SARC to ensure continuity of victim care. They will 

augment the more than 4,000 active-duty command victim 

advocates. 
80 

 As discussed in greater detail above, the Navy is in the 

process of establishing the Congressionally-mandated Special 

Victim Capability to enhance the investigation and prosecution 

of special victims’ cases and the Navy has implemented its VLC 

program to provide eligible victims of sexual assault with legal 

support and representation. 

 The initiatives above are only a few of many that the Navy 

undertook in FY13 to address the issue of sexual assault. Other 

initiatives include the establishment of Fleet SAPR officers, 

ensuring Sexual Assault Forensic Examination (SAFE) Kits and 

qualified medical personnel at all Navy Medical Treatment 

Facilities, and the centralized publication of results of courtmartial to increase transparency of the military justice system. 

3. Synthetic Drugs. To help detect and prevent the alarming 

trend of synthetic compound abuse by service members, the Navy 

continued random urine testing for synthetic compounds, 

including spice and similar products throughout 2013. In 

January of 2013, random testing shifted from non-DoD labs to the 

Armed Forces Medical Examiners System (AFMES) and in December 

2013 testing began in the normal drug testing system at Navy 

Drug Screening Laboratories (NDSLs). For the tests conducted at 

AFMES, Commanders still could not take disciplinary or adverse 

administrative action against a service member based solely on a 

positive urinalysis result; however, based on DoD policy, 

commanders could use the positive results to initiate an 

investigation, and the results of the investigation could be 

used as evidence in disciplinary or adverse administrative 

actions. There are no limitations on the use of positive test 

results from current testing at the NDSLs for adverse 

disciplinary or administrative purposes. The new testing at 

NDSLs only tests those Spice compounds designated as controlled 

substances under the Controlled Substances Act. Because Spice 

usage is not limited to these compounds, prevalence testing, 

command directed and probable cause testing, and investigative 

testing requested by Military Criminal Investigative 

Organizations will continue to be conducted at AFMES. 

4. Additional Information

a. Compliance With Processing Time Goals

In FY13, no Navy case was dismissed on speedy trial grounds. 15 

Navy cases exceeded 120 days from sentencing to convening 

authority’s (CA) action (Moreno 1 guideline). Delay in these 

cases was primarily due to voluminous records of trial as well 
81 

as defense requests for extensions in submitting matters in 

clemency. No Navy cases exceeded 30 days from date of CA’s 

action to docketing at NMCCA (Moreno 2 guideline). Neither 

NMCCA nor CAAF granted relief in any Navy or Marine Corps case 

for unreasonable post-trial delay. Furthermore, no NMCCA cases 

exceeded the Moreno 3 guideline of 18 months from docketing to 

decision. 

b. Circumstances Surrounding Cases In Which CourtMartial Convictions Were Reversed As A Result Of Unlawful 

Command Influence (UCI), Or Denial Of The Right To A Speedy 

Review, Or Otherwise Due To Loss Of Records Of Trial Or Other 

Administrative Deficiencies 

 There was one DON appellate case in which a conviction was 

reversed based on UCI, U.S. v. Salyer (72 M.J. 415 (CAAF 2013)). 

No other cases were reversed due to UCI, denial of the right to 

a speedy review, or loss of records of trial or other 

administrative deficiencies. 

 In U.S. v. Salyer, the CAAF held that the appearance of UCI 

was raised where the government sought, through inappropriate 

means, disqualification of a military judge (MJ) because it did 

not agree with his ruling. The Court found that an objective, 

disinterested observer, fully informed of the facts and 

circumstances, might well be left with the impression that the 

prosecution had the power to manipulate which MJ presided in a 

given case depending on whether the MJ was viewed as favorable 

or unfavorable to the prosecution’s cause based on the 

government’s access to an MJ’s personnel file and through access 

to the MJ’s chain of command. The Court further held that the 

Government did not meet its burden of demonstrating that the 

case proceeded free from the appearance of unlawful influence. 

Holding that any remedy short of dismissal with prejudice would 

effectively validate the government’s actions, CAAF reversed 

NMCCA’s decision affirming appellant’s conviction and dismissed 

the finding of guilty and the sentence with prejudice. 

c. Cases In Which A Provision Of The UCMJ Was Held 

Unconstitutional 

 There was one DON appellate case which held that the nowsuperseded Article 120 was unconstitutional as applied. In U.S. 

v. Oakley (2013 CCA LEXIS 245 (NMCCA 2013)), the service member 

was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and indecent acts in 

violation of UCMJ Article 120. The defense objected that the 

military judge’s instruction to the members rendered Article 120 
82 

unconstitutional as applied, and any distinction between the 

concepts of evidence of consent and the affirmative defense of 

consent was confusing to the members. Because consent was a 

defense to all the charged offenses, the error was not harmless 

beyond a reasonable doubt, and could have contributed to the 

appellant’s convictions. The findings and sentence were set 

aside, and a rehearing authorized. The instructions to the 

court members resulted in an unconstitutional burden shift as to 

the issue of consent, which could have been prejudicial. 

d. Developments In Appellate Case Law Relating To 

Courts-Martial Involving Allegations Of Sexual Misconduct

CAAF

 In U.S. v. Brown, No. 13-0244/NA, CAAF found the military 

judge properly allowed a non-coaching victim advocate to sit 

next to a testifying minor victim of sexual abuse. 

 In U.S. v. Castellano, No. 12-0684/MC, CAAF found that when 

sodomy is charged under the UCMJ, “statute saving” factors of 

Lawrence v. Texas and United States v. Marcum must be found, 

beyond a reasonable doubt, by the trier of fact — not the 

military judge — in order to have a legally supportable 

conviction. 

 In U.S. v. Solomon, No. 13-0025/MC, CAAF set aside an 

abusive sexual contact conviction after finding that the 

military judge erred admitting prior sexual misconduct evidence 

without balancing, and instructing the members on, the alibi 

evidence and acquittal for that prior misconduct. 

 In U.S. v. Wilkins, No. 11-0486/NA, CAAF, interpreting the 

now-superseded version of Article 120, found that the appellant 

was properly convicted of abusive sexual contact as a lesser 

included offense of aggravated sexual assault, where the 

appellant suffered no prejudice and did not challenge the charge 

at trial. (The definition of "sexual act" has been amended in 

the most recent revision to Article 120 to include penetration 

of the "vulva or anus or mouth"). 

 

 In U.S. v. Medina (72 M.J. 148)CAAF held that the accused’s 

guilty plea to consensual sodomy was improvident because the 

military judge did not ensure that the accused understood the 

reasons why his sexual activity was not afforded protection 

under Lawrence v. Texas and U.S. v. Marcum. 
83 

NMCCA

 In U.S. v. Schaleger, the military judge ruled that the 

maximum punishment authorized for two specifications of sexual 

assault under the recently amended Articles 120(b)(2) and 120 

(b)(3)(A) was limited to the jurisdictional maximum of a summary 

court-martial. NMCCA overturned the ruling in U.S. v. Booker,

NMCCA 201300325. Article 120 did not specify the maximum 

punishment for the offenses, but authorized punishment “as a 

court-martial may direct.” Prior to 15 May 2013, the Manual for 

Courts-Martial (MCM) had not been amended to establish the 

maximum punishment for sexual assault. On that date, the 

Schaleger issue was mooted when the executive order revising the 

MCM was signed. 

e. Issues Associated With Implementing Recent, 

Legislatively Directed Changes To The UCMJ Or The Manual For 

Courts-Martial

Sec. 541 of the FY12 NDAA made significant changes to Article 

120 UCMJ (Rape and Sexual Assault), and added Article 120(b) 

(Rape and sexual assault of a child) and Article 120(c) (Other 

sexual misconduct). While the effective date of these offenses 

was June 28, 2012, there was no prescribed maximum punishment 

for them until May 15, 2013 when the President signed Executive 

Order (EO) 13643. The eleven-month period left trial counsel 

opining on the maximum punishment for sexual assaults, and trial 

counsel had to oppose defense arguments that the maximum 

punishment for these offenses was the statutory maximum for a 

summary court-martial (30 days confinement and no punitive 

discharge). While the summary court-martial argument was 

generally dismissed by most trial courts, it did reach the 

appellate courts on at least one occasion (U.S. v. Booker, NMCCA 

201300325). Two EOs are still pending approval and signature 

including the Part IV MCM guidance for Article 120. 

f. Measures Implemented By Each Armed Force To Ensure The 

Ability Of Judge Advocates To Competently Participate As Trial 

And Defense Counsel In, And Preside As Military Judges Over, 

Capital Cases, National Security Cases, Sexual Assault Cases, 

And Proceedings Of Military Commissions

Diversity of Skills

 Our MJLCT career litigation attorneys rotate between 

prosecution, defense and judicial assignments. Many MJLQ 

officers also serve as military and appellate judges, giving 
84 

them a unique perspective on how to formulate and articulate 

well-reasoned arguments when advising junior litigators. 

Likewise, having served as both trial and defense attorneys, our 

career litigators have a better understanding of the strengths 

and weaknesses of their cases. They are also detailed to other 

assignments, such as operational and staff judge advocate 

billets, to round out their experience in the fleet. As a 

result, our litigators understand the importance of each role in 

our military justice system - insight which serves our community 

well as these attorneys move into senior litigation positions 

and provide training and mentorship to junior officers. 

 MJLCT officers have reached the highest levels of 

leadership within the JAG Corps, to include positions as 

commanding officers, division directors, and one of our 

Assistant Judge Advocates General. MJLCT officers are heavily 

involved in the daily prosecution, defense and judgment of cases 

throughout the Service, and are serving at the Office of 

Military Commissions and as VLC as well. These officers 

continue to be detailed into repeated tours of litigationintensive billets that will improve the effectiveness and 

efficiency of the court-martial process. Several of our MJLCT 

officers have tried more than 100 contested members cases, 

several more have tried more than 50 contested trials, and half 

of the community has tried at least 20 contested cases. The 

experience is drawn from work as prosecutors, defense counsel 

and trial judges, and some MJLCT officers have extensive 

contested case experience in all three areas of practice - 

prosecution, defense, and the judiciary. Some also have 

extensive appellate experience. 

 Almost a third of the MJLCT community has experience in 

areas of capital litigation, national security cases, and 

military commissions, and nearly every MJLCT officer has 

experience in litigating sexual assault cases. Each area of 

practice - prosecution, defense, and bench - currently has MJLCT 

members who have extensive experience in sexual assault, 

capital, classified, and commissions cases, and every practice 

area has ready access to these experts for support if the need 

arises. 

Training and Education

 Additionally, NJS provides judge advocates with tiered 

military justice training taught by active component judge 

advocates and supplemented by reserve judge advocates employed 

as local, state, and federal prosecutors. Training is 
85 

centrally-managed under the oversight of a Litigation Training 

Coordination Council comprised of two Assistant Judge Advocates 

General, military justice experts from the prosecution and 

defense, policy advisors, instructors, and senior judges. 

Course requirements are established by a board of advisors from 

the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard who have extensive 

experience in litigation and training. 

 

 In addition to basic and intermediate level trial advocacy 

courses, NJS, the Office of the Judge Advocate General's 

Criminal Law Division (Code 20), TCAP and DCAP coordinate 

specialized training for Navy trial and defense counsel on 

litigating complex sexual assault crimes, using resources such 

as the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA); the 

National Institute of Justice (NIJ), a Department of Justice 

(DOJ) agency established to help foster science-based criminal 

justice practice; AEquitas, the Prosecutor's Resource on 

Violence Against Women, a DOJ-funded resource created to provide 

prosecutors with support, training, mentorship, and resources to 

improve the quality of justice in sexual violence cases; the 

Center for American and International Law; and, the National 

Criminal Defense College. 

 Every year the JAG Corps sends mid-level career litigators 

to civilian post-graduate schools to earn a Master of Laws 

(LL.M.) in litigation or trial advocacy. Of the 65 career 

litigators in the MJLCT at the end of FY13, half have earned an 

LL.M. in trial advocacy. 

 OJAG’s National Security Litigation Division (Code 30) 

provides blocks of instruction on National Security cases for 

the NJS Advanced Litigation Course, which also serves as plugand-play blocks for additional courses. Code 30 is in the 

process of clarifying the effect of changes to Military Rule of 

Evidence 505 in the latest Executive Order, and Code 30 

personnel served as moderator and a panelist for the National 

Security Case panel at the Army Intelligence Law Course at the 

U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School. As 

a result of this participation, Code 30 was invited to further 

coordinate with Army G2 legal, U.S. Army Intelligence & Security 

Command, and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Intelligence to create a joint National Security Litigation 

course. This effort is still in the planning stages but has 

been endorsed by the DoD General Counsel for Intelligence. Code 

30 advised on 34 individual national security cases, provided 

ongoing advice and assistance to the Army trial team in the 

Bradley Manning court-martial, and continued to provide ad hoc 
86 

training and advice to staff judge advocates, trial counsel, and 

defense counsel working through cases that involve classified 

information. Code 30 continues to publish and update the only 

National Security Case primer in DoD, and maintains close 

contacts with Department of Justice National Security Division 

to facilitate cooperation between the Departments in all cases. 

Trial Counsel

 Senior Trial Counsel (typically O-4 or above) are the 

nucleus of the Navy’s SVC and are prepared to prosecute other 

complex cases including capital and national security cases. 

They are hand-selected by the Judge Advocate General to fill one 

of nine Senior Trial Counsel billets. All Senior Trial Counsel 

are military justice litigation qualified (MJLQ). Upon 

reporting, all Senior Trial Counsel complete a two week special 

victims investigation course and participate in additional 

specialized training including: litigating complex cases, 

prosecuting alcohol facilitated sexual assaults, TCAP targeted 

mobile training, and monthly online special victims offense or 

litigation training. All Senior Trial Counsel regularly provide 

information to TCAP on all pending felony level investigations 

and prosecutions. Additionally, uniformed members of TCAP may 

also be detailed to cases as necessary. 

 

 Sexual assault cases are typically detailed to “core 

attorneys” assigned to each RLSO. A RLSO core attorney is a 

judge advocate (O-3 or above) who has completed at least one 

full two-year tour as a First Tour Judge Advocate (FTJA) prior 

to assuming the duties of a prosecutor. All trial counsel are 

supervised by a Senior Trial Counsel, an Executive Officer (O-5 

judge advocate), and a Commanding Officer (O-6 judge advocate) 

and have access to 24/7 support from TCAP. 

 Trial counsel receive military commission training from the 

Office of the Military Commissions once assigned to that office. 

Defense Counsel

 In addition to basic judge advocate training received by 

trial counsel as well, Navy defense counsel receive Basic Trial 

Advocacy training and attend Defense Counsel Orientation prior 

to or shortly after arriving at a DSO to serve as a core defense 

counsel. The JAG Corps also funds several Defense Counsel to 

attend Defending Sexual Assault Cases, a weeklong course held 

once a year, with the intent for all defense counsel to attend 

early in their tour. Defending Sexual Assault Cases is a course 
87 

designed to deal with the legal issues and complexities involved 

in a sexual assault case and includes practical exercises along 

with lectures. Among the faculty are renowned evidence 

professors, experienced civilian defense attorneys, and expert 

witnesses. The course allows for fulsome discussion of issues 

that pervade the average sexual assault case and includes 

practical exercises focusing on the facts of an actual trial. 

Students are given extensive access to experienced practitioners 

and expert witnesses and frequently use this time to consult 

with other attorneys on themes and issues with their current 

cases. Defense counsel will attend this course within their 

first year of reporting. Defense counsel also may attend 

training in intermediate trial advocacy and litigating complex 

cases. 

 Additionally, DCAP sends Defense Mobile Training Teams 

(DMTTs) to each DSO at least twice yearly to work closely with 

the command and individual counsel, with a focus on practical 

issues in defense work and trial advocacy based on current or 

recent case scenarios. 

 Finally, resources permitting, Navy defense counsel have 

access to relevant legal seminars aimed at the criminal defense 

attorney. One such seminar is the week long "Zealous Advocacy 

in Sexual Assault and Child Victims Cases." Last year the Navy 

sent three defense counsel to this course. Capital Litigation 

training is provided by the National Legal Aid and Defender 

Association, which provides week long seminars on litigation and 

mitigation. Last year, the Navy sent one defense counsel to 

this course. 

 Sexual assault cases are typically detailed to "core 

attorneys" assigned to a Defense Service Office (DSO). A DSO 

core attorney is a judge advocate (O-3 or above), certified to 

practice by the Judge Advocate General in accordance with 

Article 27b, UCMJ, and a member in good standing with a state 

bar, that have completed at least one full tour prior to 

assuming the duties of a defense counsel. Detailing of counsel 

is within the discretion of the DSO Commanding Officer (O-6 

judge advocate), who takes into consideration such matters as 

competence, experience and training, existing caseload, and 

availability of counsel, as well as case specifics and 

opportunities for training of counsel. A Commanding Officer may 

detail a second, more experienced counsel to a particular case 

in part to provide the opportunity for practical mentoring. 

Additionally, uniformed members of DCAP may also be detailed to 

cases. 
88 

 Defense counsel receive military commission training from 

the Office of the Military Commissions once assigned to that 

office. 

Military Judges

 The required courses for a trial judge’s judicial education 

begin with the three-week Military Judge Course, provided by the 

TJAGLCS. This course provides the foundation and requirements 

for being certified as a military trial judge by the JAG and 

also the foundation that will enable a judge to begin duty on 

the bench. The course covers court-martial process, evidence, 

procedure, constitutional rights, judicial problem solving and 

judicial methodology. It includes demonstrations and practical 

exercises. Appellate judges attend the same school for 

certification as a trial military judge. 

 In prior years, all trial judges attended the Joint 

Military Judges’ Annual Training (JMJAT). The 2013 course was 

postponed indefinitely due to the impact of sequestration and 

the continuing resolution. On odd years the training is held at 

the Air Force JAG School and on even years it is hosted by the 

NMCTJ in conjunction with the National Judicial College at Reno 

Nevada. JMJAT is the venue for continuing baseline education 

and training for all trial judges, and it is vehicle for 

discussing current topics of judicial training interest, such as 

the new Article 120, the impact of command influence in sexual 

assault cases, advanced evidence, sentencing methodology, and 

judicial ethics. 

 The NMCCA instituted a two-day, in-house annual training 

course three years ago to provide a venue for continuing 

education for active and Reserve appellate judges. The course 

serves as training for newly assigned judges and a refresher for 

experienced judges. The course focuses on court processes, 

opinion writing, ethics, appellate burdens of proof and 

persuasion, and advanced evidence. The FY12 course focused on 

advanced evidence and judicial methodology. The FY13 course 

included a specific block of instruction and discussion on the 

evolution of Article 120. Appellate judges also attend the 

annual Fulton Appellate Judges conference, which is an interservice, one-day event (the host rotates from service to 

service). The content focuses on both appellate judicial 

topics, and more broad issues of current interest in law and 

policy." Additional training through the New Appellate Judges 

Seminar hosted by New York University School of Law and the 
89 

Appellate Judges Education Institute hosted by Southern 

Methodist University School of Law are also available for NMCCA 

judges when funding permits, but it is not required for 

appellate judges. 

 The required continuing legal education (CLE) for trial 

judges, progresses each year with two courses per year, for the 

next three years. The NMCTJ judges use and attend the National 

Judicial College (NJC) because the NJC is the only fullyaccredited University that presents an average of 30 to 40 

judicially-oriented courses annually. These courses serve to 

broaden judicial experiences by exposing judges to judicial 

perspective from around the country which permit trial judges to 

explore the varying and complex dynamics of our justice system. 

This education is designed to enable judges to practice at a 

higher level than that provided by the basic judge education 

provided by the US Army. This training has and will continue to 

decrease the judge-induced error rate across the NMCTJ. The 

NJC’s courses cover a multitude of current judicial topics 

ranging from judicial writing and advanced evidence, to handling 

capital cases and general jurisdiction. This CLE requirement is 

not imposed on the appellate judiciary, because members of the 

appellate court include judges who previously served as trial 

judges subject to this requirement, and because appellate review 

generally is bound by what has been presented in a record of 

trial rather than based in the independent training that is 

intended to assist trial judges in creating the records of trial 

that will later be reviewed on appeal. 

 In FY13, the Chief Judge of the NMCTJ arranged for 

development of a series of webinar sessions by the NJC for all 

trial and appellate judges, active and Reserve, covering topics 

encountered in sexual assault trials. The content includes the 

Military Rules of Evidence and Federal Rules of evidence 

governing the “rape shield law,” MRE/FRE 412, as well as the 

rules governing the admissibility of prior sex offenses in sex 

offense trials – MRE/FREs 413 and 414, including the policy, 

cases, methods of proof, and foundational requirements. The 

courses also include common legal issues encountered by judges 

in trials involving sexual assault-type offenses; and, expert 

assistants and expert witnesses for the prosecution and defense, 

including the foundational requirements to obtain expert 

assistance, the different types of experts typically seen in 

sexual assault cases and the main issues that come with those 

experts, the foundational evidentiary requirements for expert 

testimony, including how the legal requirements for such 

evidence plays into the facts the proponent of the expert 
90 

desires the expert to discuss, and the use of experts in sexual 

assault cases to explain the effects of trauma on alleged 

victims. 

 Military judges receive specialized training in capital 

litigation, national security cases, sexual assault cases, and 

military commissions, some "just in time," and others as part of 

a CLE program. Legal education in areas encountered while 

litigating sexual assault cases is part of the initial pipeline 

training for every judge, and is picked up in various CLE 

programs after the initial training, both at the trial and the 

appellate level. Capital litigation courses for judges are 

available via the National Judicial College, and specialized 

training in classified information cases is available to judges 

just as it is for litigants. The judiciary currently holds a 

handful of practitioners who have tried classified information 

and national security cases, as well as officers with extensive 

experience in military commissions. 

g. The Independent Views Of The Judge Advocates General And 

The Staff Judge Advocate To The Commandant Of The Marine Corps

On The Sufficiency Of Resources Available Within Their 

Respective Armed Forces, Including Manpower, Funding, Training, 

And Officer And Enlisted Grade Structure, To Capably Perform 

Military Justice Functions

 As of the date this report was submitted, the Navy judge 

advocate and enlisted communities were adequately resourced. 

However, budget reductions continue to cause challenges in 

funding training. In particular, a 30% reduction in the Navy’s 

Centrally Managed Training Funding budget over the last two 

years has diminished training opportunities. Additionally, 

emerging requirements may affect this assessment. For example, 

during FY13, the new VLC program required an initial contingent 

of 30 Navy judge advocates. The Navy provided additional 

billets to meet VLC requirements and Reserve support was 

critical to initial program implementation; but the need for 

experienced counsel to immediately fill VLC program and 

supervisory billets nevertheless taxed the JAG Corps manpower. 

The adequacy of resources over the mid- and long-term is largely 

dependent on current or pending legislation that could place 

additional significant demands on judge advocate resources. For 

example, one proposal would create parallel systems of 

adjudication within the Services. The JAG will work with the 

Navy to ensure that the JAG Corps is adequately resourced to 

meet these challenges. 
91 

CONCLUSION

 Military justice remained a principal focus of effort for 

the Navy in FY13. The aforementioned initiatives, particularly 

the NLSC reorganization, the establishment of SVC capability and 

the VLC program, the emphasis on training, and the development 

of common case-tracking systems, will optimize the Navy’s 

military justice capabilities. We are committed to ensuring 

that our military justice system remains fair, effective and 

efficient. With significant developments on the horizon — 

including eliminating sexual assault in our ranks, addressing 

the problem of synthetic drug use, and developing case 

management and tracking systems — continued careful selfreflection and meaningful critique will remain priorities in 

FY14. 

 

 Nanette M. DeRenzi, 

 Vice Admiral JAGC, USN 

 The Judge Advocate General 
92 

MARINE CORPS ACTIVITIES 

 

STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE TO THE COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS 

6 March 2014 

 In Fiscal Year 2013 (FY13), the Marine Corps legal 

community continued to face significant challenges in the 

military justice arena. Changes to the Uniform Code of Military 

Justice, combined with an increasing number of complex and 

contested cases, validated the 2012 restructuring of the Marine 

Corps legal community, which ensured that we were well-placed to 

confront the new military justice landscape. As the first full 

year of the Commandant-directed restructuring, FY13 saw the 

Marine Corps reap the benefits of the superior model for the 

provision of legal services to the Marine Corps. 

 In FY13, the Marine Corps legal community achieved another 

significant milestone with the passage of the FY13 National 

Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). For the first time, the 

statutory role of the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of 

the Marine Corps was expanded beyond serving as a legal advisor 

to the Commandant. The Marine Corps now has a single officer 

responsible to the Commandant for the supervision of the 

uniformed Marine Corps legal community, further elevating our 

military justice practice. 

 In order to reinforce the successes of the last few years 

in improving our military justice practice, the Marine Corps 

needs to continually evaluate the training and assignment of 

judge advocates, as well as the number of billets available to 

support the military justice mission. Not only has the military 

justice practice increased in complexity, but the required 

number of well-trained and experienced judge advocates has 

increased. To continue the current high quality military 

justice support provided to commanders, Marines, Sailors, and 

victims, we must ensure that we are incentivizing our best judge 

advocates to remain on active duty. Likewise, we must explore 

realigning personnel and resources from specialized mission sets 

that do not require uniformed judge advocates to face the 

growing military justice mission. 
93 

 Nevertheless, our work is not done. The Marine Corps legal 

community will continue to take the steps necessary to adapt to 

evolving requirements and to improve how we support our 

commanders and Marines in a fair and efficient military justice 

system. 

 Vaughn A. Ary

Major General, USMC

Staff Judge Advocate 

to the Commandant 
U.S. MARINE CORPS ANNUAL MILITARY JUSTICE REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

94 

Table of Contents

I. Introduction.......................................... 95 

II. Military Justice by the Numbers....................... 96 

III. Post-Trial Review and Appellate Decisions............. 98 

A. Processing Time Goals 99

 

 B. Reversal of Convictions for Denial of Speedy 

 Post-Trial Review, UCI, or other Administrative

 Deficiencies 100 

IV. Complex Trial Practice................................ 101 

 A. Legal Restructuring & the DSO 101 

 

 B. Detailing Counsel 103 

 

 C. Training and Advice 104 

V. Views on the Sufficiency of Resources................. 105 

 A. Eliminate Voluntary Separation Pay for Judge 

 Advocates 106 

 B. Fully Fund Judge Advocate Continuation Pay 

 (Law School Education Debt Subsidy) 106

 C. Realign Officer Structure to Uniformed Military

 Justice Requirements 107

 D. Hire Additional Highly Qualified Experts (HQEs) 108 

VI. Conclusion............................................ 109 
U.S. MARINE CORPS ANNUAL MILITARY JUSTICE REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

95

I. Introduction 

 Fiscal Year 2013 (FY13) marked a significant milestone for 

the Marine Corps legal community. The Secretary of the Navy 

initiated a number of reforms and in January 2013, the President 

signed the FY13 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into 

law, expanding the statutory role of the Staff Judge Advocate to 

the Commandant of the Marine Corps (SJA to CMC) beyond serving 

as a legal advisor to the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC).2

 

The Marine Corps now has a Service-level legal billet with the 

statutory responsibility to supervise the entire Marine legal 

community. These new responsibilities will ensure stability, 

professionalism, and consistency in the provision of legal 

support, and especially military justice, throughout the Marine 

Corps. 

 The FY13 NDAA gave the SJA to CMC the authority to 

supervise the administration of military justice under Article 6 

of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). During the 

year, the SJA to CMC conducted a robust inspection program, 

visiting three of the four Legal Services Support Sections 

(LSSS) with a team of inspectors to assess the efficiency and 

effectiveness of military justice services. 

 FY13 was also the first full operating year of the CMCdirected restructuring of the Marine Corps legal community. The 

restructuring centralized the provision of legal services, 

particularly military justice services, into four regional Legal 

Services Support Sections (LSSSs) to enable greater supervision, 

efficiencies, and individual proficiency. The regional LSSSs 

have the flexibility and capability to better address complex 

legal cases and ensure that the right judge advocate is assigned 

to the right case at the right time. The LSSSs made full use of 

the FY13 inventory of approximately 565 Marine Corps judge 

advocates to significantly improve the ability of the Marine 

Corps to provide consistent, high-quality legal services across 

the Marine Corps. However, continuing shortages in experienced, 

field grade judge advocates have placed a premium on our 

military justice supervisors and threaten the long-term success 

of the restructuring. 

 Another key development in the Marine Corps legal community 

during FY13 was the expansion of the Case Management System 

(CMS) to incorporate the Navy, creating a Department-wide case 

 

2

 The FY13 NDAA amended 10 U.S.C. §§ 806, 1044, 5041, and 5046. 
U.S. MARINE CORPS ANNUAL MILITARY JUSTICE REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

96

tracking system in compliance with a Congressional mandate.3 CMS 

enables the Department to track cases in both Naval Services 

from “cradle to grave,” giving the Judge Advocate General of the 

Navy and the SJA to CMC visibility on all cases within the 

Department’s military justice system. 

 Through better organization, oversight, and case management 

technology, the Marine Corps legal community continues to 

elevate the practice of law, ensuring a consistently fair and 

efficient system of justice. While much has been accomplished, 

our work is not done. To further strengthen the institutional 

changes the Marine Corps legal community has made during FY13, 

the Marine Corps needs to adjust its incentives to retain field 

grade judge advocates, grow future field grade judge advocates, 

and better realign its legal resources to meet a changing and 

growing military justice mission. 

II. Military Justice By the Numbers – Trends & Analysis 

During FY13, the Marine Corps 

continued to see a steady climb in the 

number of complex and contested 

cases.4

 Marine Corps judge advocates 

litigated 135 general courts-martial 

and 292 special courts-martial to 

completion. The total number of our 

most complex cases, general courtsmarital, increased by over 11 percent 

compared to FY12, a significant growth 

in workload for military justice 

practitioners. 

Compounding the increase in the 

number of complex cases was the 

fact that almost 48% of all general 

and special courts-martial were 

contested, and over 52% of general 

 

3

 In Senate Report 112-26, which accompanied the FY12 NDAA, the 

Senate Armed Services Committee ordered the development of a 

single case tracking system within the Department of the Navy no 

later than 1 July 2013. 

4

 For the purposes of this report, a FY13 “case” is an 

adjudicated general or special court-martial where the findings, 

in cases with an acquittal, or the original sentencing date, in 

cases with a conviction, occurred within FY 13.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

FY11 FY12 FY13

Figure A. Percentage GCMs 

Contested FY11 - FY13

71 64 Contested

Guilty Plea

Figure B. FY 13 Contested GCMs
U.S. MARINE CORPS ANNUAL MILITARY JUSTICE REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

97

courts-martial were contested. This reflects a significant 

increase over FY12, where approximately 35% of all general and 

special courts-martial were contested (see Figure A and Figure 

B). The strongest 

representation of these trends 

has been in the area of sexual 

assault litigation. Between 

FY12 and FY13, the number of 

sexual assault prosecutions 

doubled, while the number of 

contested sexual assault 

prosecutions increased by over 

160% (see Figure C). 

 Over the past few years, 

the Marine Corps has seen an 

increase in the demand for 

experienced military justice 

practitioners and the 

supervisors necessary to oversee these complex cases and ensure 

that individual cases continue to move through the system. 

 

 On the other hand, there continues to be a decrease in the 

number of special courts-martial. However, this decrease is 

misleading as the corresponding increase in administrative 

discharge boards more than makes up for the reduced special 

court-martial caseload. The number of administrative discharge 

boards supported by LSSSs has increased from 306 in FY08 to 805 

in FY13, an increase of 163 percent (see Figure D). While many 

special courts-martial are uncontested, all administrative 

discharge boards are contested in some fashion. The result is a 

cumulative increase in workload for defense counsel and those 

trial counsel performing duties as a recorder. 

0 50 100

FY13

FY12

Contested Guilty Plea

Figure C. Contested Sexual 

Assault Prosecutions FY12 & FY13
U.S. MARINE CORPS ANNUAL MILITARY JUSTICE REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

98

Figure D. SPCMs and Admin Discharge Boards FY07 – FY13 

 The steadily increasing number of cases resolved through 

administrative discharge boards and other non-judicial methods 

reflects the trend that commanders are seeking other means of 

handling misconduct, especially misdemeanor-level misconduct 

such as drug use and minor military offenses. Nevertheless, 

disposition of offenses through means other than special or 

general courts-martial requires case-work by military justice 

personnel, client representation by defense personnel, and 

military justice expertise and advice by staff judge advocates. 

III. Post-Trial Review and Appellate Decisions

 Through a combination of CMS and the professionalism of our 

judge advocates and legal services specialists, the Marine Corps 

has continued its excellent rate of compliance with post-trial 

processing time goals. During FY13, the Marine Corps also 

maintained an outstanding record during appellate review, having 

no convictions reversed as a result of a denial of the right to 

a speedy trial review or otherwise remitted due to loss of 

records of trial or other administrative deficiencies. However, 

one conviction was reversed as a result of unlawful command 

influence (UCI). 

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13

Total Special Courts Martial

Total Administrative Discharge Boards
U.S. MARINE CORPS ANNUAL MILITARY JUSTICE REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

99

Figure E. Marine Corps Post-Trial Processing Times FY09 - FY13 

 A. Processing Time Goals

 In FY13, over 1000 general, special, and summary courtsmartial warranted some form of post-trial review. United States 

v. Moreno sets standards for speedy post-trial processing of 

special and general courts-martial, requiring justification of 

post-trial processing that exceeds 120 days from the completion 

of trial to convening authority’s action (CAA), or exceeds 30 

days from CAA to docketing of the case with the Court of 

Criminal Appeals. In FY13, the Marine Corps averaged 87 days 

from the date of trial to CAA and 12 days from CAA to docketing 

of the case with the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals 

(NAMARA) (see Figure E). 

 One area of significant improvement in post-trial 

processing continues to be court-reporter transcription times. 

Since many more cases are contested, and also more complex, 

there has been a significant rise in the average in-court hours 

spent on each case. Despite this growth, the average 

transcription time has decreased from 29 days to 27 days. The 

continuing decrease in transcription times, in the face of the 

increasing length and complexity of cases, reflects the 

significant improvements in training and equipment of Marine 

court reporters. 

119

83 87 92 87

13

10 10

15 12

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13

Average Days to CA's Action   

Average Days from CA's Action to Receipt by NAMARA   
U.S. MARINE CORPS ANNUAL MILITARY JUSTICE REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

 10

100

 As indicated in Figure F, every LSSS in the Marine Corps, 

on average, not only met the Moreno requirements in FY13, but 

also improved upon their averages from the prior year. Despite 

increasing numbers of hours spent on the record, the vigilance 

of military justice supervisors at all levels, combined with 

additional oversight by Judge Advocate Division, has resulted in 

our improved post-trial processing times. 

Figure F. Post-Trial Processing Averages, in Days, By LSSS, 

FY12 – FY13 

 B. Reversal of Convictions for Denial of Speedy Post

 Trial Review, UCI, or other Administrative

 Deficiencies

 In FY13, the Marine Corps had no convictions reversed for a 

violation of the right to speedy post-trial review or for 

administrative deficiencies, a result of better oversight and 

tracking of cases. The Marine Corps did have one conviction 

reversed as a result of apparent UCI. Article 37 of the UCMJ 

prohibits those persons subject to the UCMJ from attempting to 

coerce or influence court-martial actions through unauthorized 

means. In FY13, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 

(CAAF) set aside the findings and sentence in one general courtmartial due to apparent UCI: United States v. Salyer, 72 M.J. 

415 (C.A.A.F. 2013). 

 In Salyer, originally tried in 2011, a general courtmartial convicted the accused, contrary to his pleas, of 

wrongful possession of child pornography in violation of Article 

134, UCMJ, and sentenced him to confinement for two years, 

90 90 99 94

15 11

27

13

88 89 77 83

13 11

18 10

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

FY12FY13 FY12FY13 FY12FY13 FY12FY13

CAA CAA to Docketing by NMCAA

LSSS East           LSSS West         LSSS Pacific      LSSS NCR
U.S. MARINE CORPS ANNUAL MILITARY JUSTICE REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

101

forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to pay grade E1, and a bad-conduct discharge. Early on in the case, one of 

the trial counsel suspected that the military judge originally 

detailed to the case had a personal bias that affected one of 

his rulings. In order to confirm the suspected bias, the trial 

counsel’s superior, the military justice officer, accessed the 

military judge’s personnel records. In addition, the officerin-charge (OIC) of the law center handling the case telephoned 

the military judge’s supervisor to apprise him of the pending 

challenge to the military judge. In that call, the OIC conveyed 

his dissatisfaction with one of the military judge’s rulings. 

The military judge ultimately recused himself from the case. 

Upon review, CAAF held that, among other actions, accessing the 

military judge’s personnel file and calling the military judge’s 

supervisor amounted to apparent UCI and dismissed the findings 

and sentence with prejudice. 

IV. Complex Trial Practice

 During FY13, the Marine Corps has taken great strides to 

ensure that judge advocates competently participate as trial and 

defense counsel in complex cases, including capital cases, 

national security cases, sexual assault cases, and military 

commissions. In 2012, the CMC directed a comprehensive 

restructuring of the Marine Corps legal community to provide for 

better supervision of the legal services mission. The legal 

restructuring, along with the 2011 establishment of the Defense 

Services Organization (DSO), the hiring of civilian Highly 

Qualified Experts (HQEs), the higher standards for detailing 

counsel to cases, and better training and advice from the Trial 

and Defense Counsel Assistance Programs has enabled the Marine 

Corps to put highly qualified, experienced counsel on complex 

cases. Nevertheless, the growing need for experienced military 

justice supervisors, coupled with the loss of field grade judge 

advocates, continues to present obstacles for the Marine Corps 

legal community. 

 A. Legal Restructuring & the DSO

 The restructuring of the Marine Corps legal community 

regionalized the delivery of the provision of legal services to 

ensure consistent, high quality support throughout the Marine 

Corps. It created four regional LSSSs and nine subordinate 

LSSTs. A colonel judge advocate is in charge of each regional 

LSSS. To lead each region’s military justice effort, the 

restructuring created a regional trial counsel (RTC) billet, 
U.S. MARINE CORPS ANNUAL MILITARY JUSTICE REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

102

responsible to the LSSS Officer-in-Charge, that is filled with a 

lieutenant colonel judge advocate who has significant litigation 

experience, advanced education, and demonstrated ability to lead 

and mentor. 

The RTC Office 

includes a number of 

trial support assets 

that allow the RTC to 

efficiently and 

effectively supervise 

the military justice 

mission and to form 

Complex Trial Teams 

(CTT), as required. 

Each RTC Office 

includes experienced 

complex trial counsel, 

a civilian HQE, 

military 

investigators, a legal 

administrator, a 

paralegal, and support 

staff. HQEs are 

civilian prosecutors 

with decades of 

criminal justice 

experience who provide 

consultation, case assessments, and training for Marine Corps 

trial counsel throughout the region. 

 As the officer primarily responsible for the military 

justice mission, the RTC has the authority to task-organize CTTs 

from any combination of trial services personnel within the 

region, thereby greatly increasing the experience and knowledge 

available for prosecuting complex cases. With an expert staff 

and regional detailing authority, the RTC can tailor a CTT to 

meet the needs of a particular case anywhere in the region, no 

matter how complex (see Figure G). This ability to rapidly 

task-organize a CTT also satisfies the FY13 NDAA requirements 

that each Service establish special victim capabilities (SVC) 

that include specially trained and selected investigators from 

NCIS, judge advocates, victim witness assistance personnel, and 

administrative paralegal support. 

 The Marine Corps DSO, established in 2011, foreshadowed the 

regional restructuring of trial services. The DSO is led by a 

Figure G. Military Justice Organization 

within LSSS
U.S. MARINE CORPS ANNUAL MILITARY JUSTICE REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

103

colonel judge advocate, with an experienced lieutenant colonel 

regional defense counsel (RDC) for each region. The DSO is 

capable of task organization and resource sharing, similar to 

the RTC’s abilities within his region. The organization of the 

DSO ensures high quality representation by defense counsel 

throughout the Marine Corps, including on complex cases. 

 The legal restructuring greatly increases the experience, 

training, and expertise available for prosecuting all cases. 

Along with the DSO, this new construct provides for better 

sharing of resources throughout the legal community and ensures 

that only the best-suited counsel handle cases, including 

complex ones, such as sexual assaults. 

 B. Detailing Counsel 

 

 In July 2013, the Marine Corps updated the policy for 

detailing counsel in order to provide objective criteria to 

inform detailing decisions. Further, the Marine Corps developed 

new minimum qualifications for detailing counsel to special 

victim cases, including capital cases, national security cases, 

and sexual assault cases. The new standards assist the RTCs and 

RDCs in detailing the right counsel to the right cases. 

 Marine Administrative Message 336/13, “Detailing of Trial 

Counsel, Defense Counsel, and Article 32, UCMJ, Investigating 

Officers,” updates and refines detailing standards to make sure 

that judge advocates who are detailed as trial counsel, defense 

counsel, and investigating officers under Article 32, UCMJ, 

possess the appropriate expertise to perform their duties. 

Detailing authorities must consider a number of factors when 

detailing counsel or investigating officers, including trial 

experience, education, training, and the individual 

characteristics of the case. Additionally, to ensure the 

highest quality prosecution, trial counsel prosecuting sexual 

assault cases must now consult the civilian HQEs resident in RTC 

offices. 

 For special victim cases, the Marine Corps developed new 

qualification criteria and detailing guidance. Prior to serving 

as a trial counsel on any special victim case, judge advocates 

must be certified in writing as “Special Victim Qualified Trial 

Counsel.” This requires achieving specific training and 

performance milestones, including certification as a General 

Court-Martial Qualified Trial Counsel, experience as an 

assistant trial counsel in a contested court-martial involving a 
U.S. MARINE CORPS ANNUAL MILITARY JUSTICE REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

104

special victim, completion of an intermediate level trial 

advocacy training course for the prosecution of special victim 

cases, and demonstration to both the RTC and LSSS OIC that the 

counsel is prepared to try special victim cases. 

 These minimum qualification standards ensure that the trial 

counsel has the basic competence to try the case. Nevertheless, 

for this qualification system, as well as the regional 

supervisory model of the 2012 restructuring to operate as 

designed, these basically qualified trial counsel must have 

appropriate field grade supervision. 

 C. Training and Advice

 The Marine Corps continues to provide counsel with training 

and trial advice beyond the mentorship and on-the-job training 

offered by the RTC and other experienced judge advocates within 

the LSSS. Leading this training and advice effort are our HQEs. 

In FY13, the Marine Corps hired three HQEs, regionally located, 

to assist in the prosecution and defense of all complex cases, 

including sexual assaults. The HQEs are seasoned civilian 

prosecutors with significant experience in complex criminal 

litigation, to include successful trial-level work in sexual 

assault cases. Their primary job is to train counsel to 

prosecute and defend sexual assault cases by providing 

perspective, sharing best practices, and assisting with case 

preparation. Trial counsel are required to consult with their 

regional HQE within ten days of being detailed to any sexual 

assault case. Due to the success of the program, and the 

growing military justice requirements, the Marine Corps is 

working on plans to hire additional HQEs. 

 Additionally, the Marine Corps Trial Counsel Assistance 

Program (TCAP) and Defense Counsel Assistance Program (DCAP) 

provide training and advice by serving as centralized resources 

and helping to spread best practices from one region to another. 

TCAP and DCAP maintain restricted membership SharePoint sites, 

answer calls and e-mails for assistance, and provide information 

and advice regarding new legal developments, including updates 

to statutes and regulations. TCAP and DCAP also host training 

events that include lectures and practical exercises designed to 

develop and hone skill sets for counsel who handle complex 

cases. 

 In FY13, TCAP offered two week-long courses focused on the 

prosecution of sexual assault cases, attendance at which meets 
U.S. MARINE CORPS ANNUAL MILITARY JUSTICE REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

105

the training requirement to be awarded the qualification to 

prosecute special victim cases. The TCAP courses included 

training in building case theory, charging under Article 120, 

UCMJ, general trial advocacy skills, use of expert witnesses, 

victim support, and prosecutorial ethics. A mix of experienced 

experts provided the instruction, including senior judge 

advocates, district attorneys, and expert witnesses who 

frequently testify in sexual assault cases, such as computer 

forensic experts, forensic DNA analysts, toxicologists, and 

sexual assault nurse examiners. To ensure that trial counsel 

better represent the victims’ interests when prosecuting cases, 

the Marine Corps also continued its partnership with the United 

States Department of Justice’s Office for Victims of Crime 

(OVC). The OVC provided valuable financial support and 

information on current victims’ rights laws and trends. 

Finally, TCAP offered two-day sexual assault short courses to 

supplement the week-long courses. These short courses had a 

heavier focus on issues relating to sexual assault cases, 

combined with instruction on trial advocacy. 

 In addition to supervision and mentorship by more 

experienced judge advocates, consultation with HQEs, formalized 

on-the-job training, classroom training, and centralized counsel 

assistance programs, trial or defense counsel assigned to 

complex cases can receive other specialized training. For 

example, for national security cases, the Department of the Navy 

has a National Security Litigation Division, Code 30, which 

provides individualized training and advice to all trial counsel 

prosecuting national security cases. 

V. Views on the Sufficiency of Resources 

 During FY13, the Marine Corps continued to experience an 

increase in the resource demands on its personnel and military 

justice system. New and expanding requirements, such as the 

Victims’ Legal Counsel Organization (VLCO) and the Office of 

Military Commissions (OMC), combined with inventory control 

measures and the shrinking end-strength of the Marine Corps, 

placed a drain on field grade military justice supervisors. The 

impact of this drain has been magnified by the increase in the 

complexity and number of contested courts-martial, which require 

more experienced judge advocates. A deficit in field grade 

officers has the potential to offset the gains made in the 

quality of litigation we have seen won with the implementation 

of the regional supervisory model created by the 2012 

restructuring. 
U.S. MARINE CORPS ANNUAL MILITARY JUSTICE REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

106

 The quantity and quality of military justice supervisors 

are threatened by two force shaping initiatives and a diversion 

of those supervisors to billets not requiring uniformed judge 

advocates. In order to meet the growing demands for experienced 

military justice practitioners, from both new legal requirements 

and the increasing complexity of courts-marital, I have 

identified four measures that are necessary to provide the 

Marine Corps with sufficient personnel and experience to capably 

perform military justice functions. 

 A. Eliminate Voluntary Separation Pay for Judge Advocates

 

 The increasing demand for military justice supervisors is 

being undermined by the Marine Corps voluntary separation pay 

program (VSP). VSP pays eligible majors and major selects a 

significant sum of money to leave the Marine Corps. The payout 

to our experienced field grade leadership has ranged from over 

$115,000 to over $181,000. With this sum, and highly marketable 

skills, judge advocates are taking VSP in significant numbers. 

 VSP eligibility for judge advocates begins at the time when 

the Marine Corps needs them most: as they become qualified to 

fill trial leadership billets. Field grade officers are 

precisely the population required to prosecute, defend, and 

supervise complex cases, and to meet emerging requirements, such 

as the VLCO and the OMC, both of which also require experienced 

military justice practitioners. If judge advocates are removed 

from eligibility, it will help the Marine Corps retain the most 

qualified personnel to capably perform military justice 

functions. 

B. Fully Fund Judge Advocate Continuation Pay (Law School

 Education Debt Subsidy)

 

 In the FY00 NDAA, Congress authorized the payment of 

continuation pay to judge advocates because of the very issue 

the Marine Corps faces today, the growing problem in recruiting 

and retaining judge advocates in the armed services. Currently, 

the Army, Navy, and Air Force all provide the maximum amount of 

$60,000 under the statute, and eligibility extends to all 

officers who have completed their initial active duty service 

obligation. However, the Marine Corps, which titles its program 

the Law School Education Debt Subsidy (LSEDS), only provides 

$50,000, and has indicated a desire to place a cap on the number 

of judge advocates eligible. 
U.S. MARINE CORPS ANNUAL MILITARY JUSTICE REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

107

 Increasing the total LSEDS payment, and linking it to a six 

year service obligation, would enhance the ability of the Marine 

Corps to grow new field grade judge advocates. This would allow 

eligible judge advocates to handle their law school debts, which 

range from $88,000 to $215,000. A $60,000 payment for a sixyear commitment would also allow eligible judge advocates to 

remain on active-duty long enough to reach the field grade 

ranks. Unlike the Army and Air Force, the Marine Corps does not 

offer a student loan repayment program in addition to LSEDS. By 

offering LSEDS to all eligible judge advocates at the full 

amount of $60,000, the Marine Corps can help reduce 

institutional risk for a relatively minor cost, ensuring that we 

are well-placed to meet the military justice challenges of the 

future. 

 C. Realign Officer Structure to Uniformed Military

 Justice Requirements

 In order to address the long term need for experienced 

military justice practitioners, certain missions currently 

filled by uniformed judge advocates need to be realigned to 

support the military justice mission. The most efficient way is 

to civilianize those supervisory legal billets that do not 

require a uniformed judge advocate by statute or regulation, 

require institutional memory, and require specialized knowledge 

and skills that are not organically developed. The uniformed 

structure supporting those civilianized billets can then be 

realigned to reinforce existing military justice capabilities. 

 Three particular mission sets with supervisory legal 

billets meet these criteria. First, the legal assistance 

practice concerns specialized, often State law specific, areas 

of law that the Marine Corps does not organically cultivate 

expertise in, such as family law, consumer law, and estate 

planning. As such, over the past decade, my predecessors and I 

have civilianized the supervision of the legal assistance 

practice in CONUS, while retaining captain judge advocates in 

the legal assistance attorney billets. This construct places 

junior judge advocates in a role that implements our statutory 

authority to provide legal assistance services, but under the 

guidance and supervision of a civilian expert well-versed in 

local State law and legal procedure. These junior judge 

advocates thus provide a superior level of practice, even as 

they garner experience that will serve them in future uniformed 

assignments. 
U.S. MARINE CORPS ANNUAL MILITARY JUSTICE REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

108

 Second, Disability Evaluation System (DES) counsel meet the 

criteria to be civilianized. The DES Counsel program requires 

specially trained and certified legal counsel to provide advice 

to wounded, ill, and injured service members during the Physical 

Disability Evaluation process. This is another area that is 

highly specialized, does not require a uniformed judge advocate, 

and civilianization would provide continuity and a skill set 

outside those maintained or trained to by our judge advocates. 

The Marine Corps is in the process of civilianizing these 

billets. 

 Finally, the Marine Corps currently employs over twenty 

judge advocates in billets relating to environmental, land use, 

and civilian personnel law, most of which are in the rank of 

major, the key supervisory military justice rank. 

Environmental, land use, and civilian personnel law are 

specialized areas of practice for which the Marine Corps does 

not organically cultivate expertise and which do not require a 

uniformed judge advocate by statute or regulation. These fields 

entail long-term issues that need sustained effort and 

institutional memory that must span decades. In addition, the 

majority of these billets require advanced degrees in areas of 

law outside the normal practice of uniformed judge advocates. 

Environmental, land use, and civilian personnel law billets are 

primarily, and appropriately, staffed by civilians. Making this 

change would not only improve the quality of environmental, land 

use, and civilian personnel law practice within the Marine 

Corps, but would also free more field grade officers for the 

military justice mission. 

 D. Hire an Additional Highly Qualified Expert (HQE)

 As the Marine Corps legal community seeks to further 

improve the quality of services provided in support of the 

growing military justice mission, we must also improve the 

training provided to our military justice supervisors. While 

the Marine Corps legal community’s HQE program has proven to be 

a tremendous success at the regional level, our community needs 

uniform training standards, requirements, and programs. An HQE 

at the headquarters level, located within our TCAP office, would 

maintain contacts with professional legal training organizations 

and instructors throughout the country and develop a highquality training program designed to ensure that our judge 

advocates receive the best training available. The continuity 

offered by a civilian HQE would allow the course program to 
U.S. MARINE CORPS ANNUAL MILITARY JUSTICE REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

109

develop between each course, adding and removing materials as 

the legal landscape continues to evolve. 

 Additionally, a TCAP HQE would teach regional military 

justice supervisors how to run a regional training program. An 

HQE would have the knowledge and continuity to develop and 

manage a specialized Service-level training program for RTCs and 

other regional military justice supervisors, teaching them how 

to deliver superior training on the prosecution of complex 

cases. A centralized program, with decentralized execution, 

reflects a fundamental Marine Corps precept and allows regional 

supervisors, who best know their subordinates, to tailor the 

training to their region, but under the supervision of a uniform 

Service-level program. 

VI. Conclusion 

 During FY13, the Marine Corps legal community embraced a 

steadfast commitment to continue elevating the practice of law. 

We are now better positioned than ever to provide superior, 

high-quality legal services. The FY13 NDAA’s expansion of the 

statutory role of the SJA to CMC helped solidify the Marine 

Corps legal community’s future by making a single officer 

responsible for managing and supervising the community. The 

ability to exercise functional supervision over legal personnel 

within our Corps, combined with the continuing successes of the 

restructuring, ensures that the right counsel is detailed to the 

right case every time and fosters the innovation necessary to 

maintain the improvements to our community. Going forward, 

eliminating Marine Corps judge advocates from VSP eligibility, 

fully funding LSEDS, and realigning structure to the military 

justice mission will better place the Marine Corps to prosecute, 

defend, and advise on complex cases. Nevertheless, despite the 

resourcing challenges that confront the Marine legal community, 

our continuing efforts to set standards, train to standards, and 

inspect to standards will promote accountability and guarantee 

continued outstanding legal support to commanders, Marines, 

Sailors, and their families for the foreseeable future. 
110

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

Report Period: FY 2013 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/ DECREASE (-) 

OVER LAST REPORT 

 USN USMC USN USMC USN USMC 

GENERAL 121 135 103 115 18 20 -2% 

BCD SPECIAL 172 292 159 252 13 40 +1% 

NON-BCD 

SPECIAL 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

SUMMARY 31 526 30 522 1 4 -22% 

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

REPORT 

-11% 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL ) 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 

89 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 68 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL ) 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 

233 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 176

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 252

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 37 

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

 APPEALS 

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 179 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 102 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 77 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 428 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 176

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 252

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 431 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 194 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 237 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 187 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 102 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 85 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD -20% 

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

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

NUMBER 428 

PERCENTAGE 100% 

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

(CAAF) 

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF (80) 18.5% -------

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -2.5% -------

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED (38) 47.5% -------

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +7.5% -------

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CCA 8.8% -------

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

-32% -------
111

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 8 

RECEIVED 53 

DISPOSED OF 30 

 GRANTED 0 

 DENIED 30 

 NO JURISDICTION 0 

 WITHDRAWN 0 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 31 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 500 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 144 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 356 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 240 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 110 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 130 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 79 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 515,400 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 12,525 

RATE PER 1,000 24 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD -18% 
112

SECTION 5 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE AIR FORCE 
113

REPORT OF 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 

OF THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 

OCTOBER 1, 2012 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2013 

THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

 The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (JAH) reviewed and 

issued opinions in 416 cases in fiscal year 2013. This 

represents more than a fifty percent increase in cases reviewed 

from the prior year. Faced with a rising appellate workload, 

The Judge Advocate General increased the Court’s personnel 

strength in 2013 to nine active duty Judges, two reserve Judges, 

five Honors Clerks, and three paralegals, along with a Chief 

Commissioner and Clerk of the Court. The Court also saw a 

change in leadership with a new Chief Judge assuming lead over 

the largest Court in recent history. The inject of personnel 

and new business practices have enabled the Court to process 

cases at a faster pace while still maintaining the individual 

scrutiny required for each appellant. In addition to handling 

an increased appellate workload, the Court also issued an en 

banc opinion in the case of United States v. Witt, the first 

death penalty decision in over fifteen years and reduced its 

backlog of cases by over ninety percent. 

 No General or Special Court-Martial convictions were 

reversed by the Court as a result of command influence or denial 

of the right to a speedy review or otherwise remitted due to 

loss of records of trial or other administrative deficiencies. 

Neither did the Court find any provision of Title 10 to be 

unconstitutional. 

 The Court also addressed over twenty appeals under Article 

62, UCMJ, and petitions for extraordinary relief under the All 

Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. The Court held oral argument for 

ten cases, to include hearing oral argument at Willamette 

University College of Law pursuant to its “Project Outreach” 

program which is designed to educate civilian and military 

audiences about the military justice system. 

 In addition to reviewing Air Force courts-martial, three of 

the Court’s appellate judges served on the United States Court 
114

of Military Commission Review (USCMCR), bringing the Air Force 

representation on that Court back to three appellate judges 

after previously assigned judges retired. The USCMCR hears 

appeals of cases convened under the Military Commissions Act of 

2009. The USCMCR not only hears cases with a finding of guilty 

from military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, but also hears 

appeals on issues taken prior to and during trial. 

 Finally, the judges and attorney law clerks maintained 

dedication to community service by serving as judges at several 

local moot court competitions hosted by various organizations, 

such as the American Bar Association, National Bar Association, 

Federal Bar Association, Black Law Students Association, Phi 

Alpha Delta Law Fraternity and the Catholic University of 

America Columbus School of Law. Like the Outreach arguments and 

internship program, discussions with attendees at such venues 

furthered civilian education and understanding of military law 

and procedure. 

TRIAL JUDICIARY 

 The Air Force Trial Judiciary Directorate (JAT) is 

responsible for trying and docketing all Air Force general and 

special courts-martial and presiding over an array of federal 

hearings. The Directorate is staffed by twenty-one active-duty 

trial judges, four 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 

Joint Base Andrews, MD. Air Force trial judges serve within 

five regions and are dispersed at twelve geographically 

advantageous locations around the globe. 

 In Fiscal Year 2013, Air Force judges presided over 550 

general and special courts-martial. Judges also served as 

investigating officers in complex and high-profile Article 32 

investigations, as legal advisors for officer discharge boards, 

and in post-trial DuBay hearings, contingency confinement 

hearings, and competency hearings. 

 The Trial Judiciary also added three new judges to the 

Directorate. The manpower increase was driven by a proposal to 

have judges available to act as Article 32 investigating 

officers (IOs) in sexual assault cases. The previous year, 

there were nearly one hundred Article 32 investigations 

involving sexual assaults in the Air Force. 
115

 The Chief Regional Military Judge in Europe continued to 

cover courts-martial at deployed locations within the United 

States Central Command area of responsibility. Six of those 

trials took place at Bagram Air Base, AF. Currently, three Air 

Force trial judges are appointed for the military commissions in 

Guantanamo Bay, CU. 

 Air Force trial judges taught military justice in 

classrooms and courtrooms around the world. The Chief Trial 

Judge and Deputy Chief Trial Judge instructed new military 

judges at The Army Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and 

School in Charlottesville, VA. Air Force trial judges trained 

new judge advocates, trial and defense counsel, and staff judge 

advocates at the Air Force Judge Advocate General’s School 

(AFJAGS), on Maxwell AFB, AL. Air Force trial judges also 

provided practical instruction at more than a dozen trial 

advocacy courses held throughout the world to enhance current 

and future practitioners’ litigation skills. 

 Members of the Trial Judiciary continued to share their 

specialized knowledge and expertise in a wide variety of legal 

environments. Judges assigned to the Trial Judiciary conducted 

Environmental Impact Statement hearings involved in the 

stationing of aircraft in Florida and Alaska. Judges also 

published on a variety of topics that included Lt Col Joshua 

Kastenberg’s article “Recent Proposals to Change the Traditional 

Military Retirement System to Mirror the Federal Service: 

Eroding Discipline and Civil Military Relations through 

Potentially Unlawful and Certainly Questionable Acts”, and Lt 

Col Christopher M. Schumann’s article, “View from the Bench: 

Leadership in the Courtroom.” 

AIR FORCE JUDICIARY (JAJ) 

 The Air Force Judiciary Directorate is responsible for the 

administration of military justice across the Air Force. JAJ 

advises The Judge Advocate General, 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. Through its 

enlisted court reporter program, the Directorate provides 

expeditionary court reporter support for all deployed courts, 

mishaps, and other investigations. The Directorate also 
116

supervises the delivery of court reporter services worldwide for 

all in-garrison events and, through its file sharing program, 

optimizes the use of available civilian court reporter assets to 

transcribe past events. 

The Directorate performs its mission through five divisions: 

the Government Trial and Appellate Counsel Division; the 

Appellate Defense Division; the Trial Defense Division; the 

Military Justice Division; and the Clemency, Corrections and 

Officer Review Division. 

GOVERNMENT TRIAL AND APPELLATE COUNSEL DIVISION (JAJG) 

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT COUNSEL 

 During this past year, eight active duty judge advocates, 

ten reserve judge advocates, and one civilian attorney 

vigorously represented the government in Article 66 and Article 

67 appeals of Air Force courts-martial convictions. The 

Division also sought and obtained certification from TJAG in 

nine cases for United States Court of Appeals for the Armed 

Forces (USCAAF) review, and filed government appeals in five 

cases under Article 62, UCMJ, at the Air Force Court of Criminal 

Appeals (AFCCA). When appropriate, the Division also responded 

to petitions for extraordinary relief under the All Writs Act. 

The Division continued to vigorously defend the death sentence 

adjudged and approved in United States v. Witt, the Air Force’s 

first death penalty case in nearly two decades. 

 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 cases before 

audiences at various law schools and military installations 

across the United States. These arguments helped educate 

attendees on the fairness and professionalism of the military 

justice system and provided excellent recruiting opportunities. 

 Counsel provided intense advocacy training and field 

support. Division counsel educated judge advocates and 

paralegals at Air Force training events such as Trial Advocacy 

Courses, the Military Justice Administration Course, The Judge 

Advocate General’s Continuing Legal Education Course, and the 

Trial and Defense Advocacy Course, as well as other litigation 

and criminal investigation courses. The Division also created 

and posted comprehensive trial and appellate materials on the 
117

JAJG Learning Center hosted on the AFJAGS CAPSIL online 

resource. Appellate counsel also published an electronic 

newsletter containing appellate updates along with timely and 

relevant articles for military justice practitioners at all 

levels. 

 Throughout the year, Division personnel continued to engage 

in a variety of activities designed to further the 

professionalism of military justice practice, particularly at 

the appellate level. The Division’s counsel participated in 

events hosted by USCAAF. Appellate government counsel have 

actively built relationships with sister service counterparts 

through participation in quarterly meetings and regular 

consultation on matters of common interest to all the services. 

The Division also hosted one summer intern, a law student who 

had completed the second year of law school and expressed an 

interest in service as a judge advocate. 

 The Division receives crucial appellate counsel support 

from ten assigned reserve judge advocates, especially during 

manning shortages and caseload surges. They continue to provide 

superb support, greatly assisting the Division in carrying out 

its mission. In addition to preparing written briefs, two 

reserve counsel presented oral arguments during the fiscal year. 

 A summary of Air Force Appellate Government practice 

follows: 

AFCCA

FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13

Briefs Filed 156 123 144 233 188 

Cases Argued 16 9 14 14 14 

USCAAF 

FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13

Briefs Filed 23 28 29 36 30 

Cases Argued 13 12 15 9 9 

SUPREME COURT 

FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13

Petition/Waivers Filed 3 3 1 1 1 

Briefs Filed 0 0 0 0 0 
118

SENIOR TRIAL COUNSEL (STC)

 STCs are detailed to prosecute cases by the Division 

headquarters at Joint Base Andrews, MD, and their primary 

responsibility is to represent the government in the most 

complex, litigated general courts-martial. STCs prosecute 

approximately seventy to eighty percent of all Air Force general 

courts-martial and a higher percentage of the Air Force sexualassault cases. They are also available for special courtsmartial, discharge boards and other proceedings, as resources 

allow. 

 Personnel authorizations for the fiscal year included 

nineteen STCs at eight locations worldwide: six counsel at Joint 

Base Andrews, MD; two counsel each at Ramstein AB, DE; Joint 

Base Lewis-McChord, WA; Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph, TX; 

Nellis AFB, NV; Peterson AFB, CO; and Maxwell AFB, AL. Only one 

base remains a one-deep slot (Kadena AB, JP) and will likely 

remain into the foreseeable future. Summer rotations in 2013 

saw the relocation of STC billets from Peterson AFB, CO, and the 

Scott AFB, IL, billet, which completed the Division’s effort to 

consolidate STC billets. 

 In 2013, the STC program continued to solidify the changes 

of 2012, which saw the standup of the Air Force’s first Special 

Victims Trial Capability (SVT), leveraging existing resources 

within the STC program with the designation of particularly 

experienced, qualified, and trained STCs as Special Victims Unit 

(SVU) prosecutors. The SVU prosecutors handle the most serious, 

most complicated, and highest-visibility sexual-assault cases in 

the Air Force. The SVU prosecutors, as well as all the STCs, 

are supported by the SVU’s Chief of Policy & Coordination, who 

is the Division’s focal point for issues related to sexual 

assault; an STC liaison with the Defense Computer Forensics 

Laboratory, who is the Air Force’s legal expert on issues 

related to digital evidence; and a deep bench of experienced and 

motivated appellate attorneys who provide tremendous 24/7 reach 

back capability for litigation issues that arise in the field. 

 Additionally, in 2013, two STCs were selected for 

additional training and focus for cases involving (1) controlled 

substances and (2) financial crimes. These STCs are the primary 

prosecutors for courts-martial involving such issues and spend 

additional time providing consultation to requesting Wing and 

Numbered Air Force legal offices for issues related to these 

specialties. 
119

 In 2013, STCs again spent more than two thousand days on 

temporary duty away from their home stations, and represented 

the government in more than three hundred courts-martial and 

related proceedings. In July, six of the newer STCs took part 

in the first Advanced Sexual Assault Litigation Course (ASALC) 

at Maxwell AFB, AL, and three members of the Division’s 

leadership attended as faculty. Immediately following ASALC, 

all of the STCs gathered at Maxwell AFB for the first STC-SVU 

Training Course, which replaces the annual STC Conference 

typically held at Joint Base Andrews, MD. At this revamped 

Training Course, the STCs received training specially tailored 

for the high-profile cases they try (e.g., media training) and 

enhanced peer-to-peer education in a variety of subject areas. 

STCs also attended training courses across the country, both 

military and civilian (particularly courses hosted by the 

National District Attorneys Association), and continued the 

valuable tradition of spending a week performing appellate work 

in our appellate office, which broadened their trial and 

appellate perspective and enhanced their litigation skills. 

 Finally, the Division, working closely with The Judge 

Advocate General’s School, created a new sexual-assault training 

course to replace the five regional Trial Advocacy Conferences 

and to serve as a bridge between attendance at the Trial & 

Defense Advocacy and the Advanced Trial Advocacy Courses and 

ASALC. The Intermediate Sexual Assault Litigation Course 

(ISALC) is structured to provide a scalable course of 

instruction in areas specific to sexual-assault litigation. The 

first ISALC was conducted in conjunction with the Training by 

Reservists in Advocacy and Litigation Skills (TRIALS) program in 

Japan in September and offered a dozen AF and sister Service 

JAGs the opportunity to enhance their knowledge and trial skills 

under the tutelage of senior active duty and reserve JAGs 

(including the Division’s leadership). Building on that 

success, future ISALCs (both in conjunction with the TRIALS 

program and separately) will occur at Maxwell AFB, AL, Joint 

Base San Antonio-Lackland, TX, Ramstein AB, DE, and Nellis AFB, 

NV. 

APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISION (JAJA) 

 The Appellate Defense Division ended Fiscal Year 2013 with 

ten active duty judge advocates, seven reserve judge advocates, 

and three paralegals. The civilian attorney position vacated by 

the incumbent in July remained vacant due to the Air Force 

civilian hiring freeze. The Division moved its docket despite 
120

rotating fifty percent of its military attorneys during the 

summer PCS cycle. As in past years, reserve component Judge 

Advocates continued to provide significant support, even though 

they experienced turnover at a similar rate as well. 

 Promoting timely appellate review remained a priority. The 

Division considerably reduced the number of cases pending 

initial briefing to the AFCCA. Between 1 October 2012 and 1 May 

2013, that number was reduced to 107 before climbing back to 140 

on 30 September 2013. During the same time period, the number 

of cases in which counsel moved for an enlargement of time to 

submit assignments of error remained fairly steady, increasing 

from twenty to twenty-three. At its peak, the Division had 

three cases pending initial filing with the Air Force Court of 

Criminal Appeals greater than one year after receipt of a record 

of trial; however, by year's end, there were no cases in this 

status. 

 JAJA advocacy contributed to several notable rulings from 

the appellate courts. In addition, JAJA helped clarify the 

rights of accused and impacted the practice of military justice 

at the trial level. In United States v. Spicer, 71 M.J. 470 

(C.A.A.F. 2013) and United States v. Capel, 71 M.J. 485 

(C.A.A.F. 2013), CAAF held that false statements made to 

civilian law enforcement were not “official statements” and 

dismissed the charges in both cases. In United States v. Cote, 

72 M.J. 41 (C.A.A.F. 2013), CAAF held that the government’s 

violation of a ninety-day time limit to search A1C Cote’s 

electronic media was an unreasonable search. In United States 

v. Tunstall, 72 M.J. 191 (C.A.A.F. 2013), CAAF held that an 

indecent act is not a lesser included offense of aggravated 

sexual assault. In United States v. Smith, 2013 WL 3324231 

(A.F.C.C.A.), AFCCA held that life without parole was too severe 

of a sentence under the circumstances and only approved a 

sentence of life with the possibility of parole. 

 The Appellate Defense Division continued to support trial 

defense counsel in the field through consultation, including in 

time-critical situations. Appellate defense counsel also 

responded, when appropriate, on petitions for extraordinary 

relief to the AFCCA under the All Writs Act. Appellate defense 

counsel also kept counsel in the field updated on new 

developments in military criminal law via appellate updates 

throughout the year. These appellate updates included briefings 

at multiple defense orientation courses conducted at The AFJAGS. 
121

 The following figures reflect the Division’s workload over 

the past six fiscal years: 

AFCCA 

FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY 13

Briefs Filed 352 285 290 299 295 221 

Cases Argued 14 16 4 9 12 10 

USCAAF 

FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY 13

Supplements to Petitions 293 336 204 160 220 257 

Grant Briefs 15 12 18 11 12 5 

Cases Argued 15 13 17 17 9 10 

SUPREME COURT 

FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13

Petitions 4 3 2 1 1 1 

Briefs in Opposition 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Briefs on the Merits 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Appellate defense counsel participated in Project Outreach, 

sponsored by USCAAF and AFCCA, by conducting oral arguments 

before external audiences with ties to the military and legal 

professions. The Project serves a dual-purpose as a recruiting 

tool while highlighting the fairness and professionalism of the 

military justice system. During the year, Outreach arguments 

were presented at the United States Naval Academy and the 

University Of Arkansas School Of Law. 

TRIAL DEFENSE DIVISION (JAJD) 

 

 The Trial Defense Division is responsible for providing all 

defense services within the Air Force through its worldwide team 

of Area Defense Counsel (ADCs), Defense Paralegals (DPs), Senior 

Defense Counsel (SDCs), Chief Senior Defense Counsel (CSDCs), 

and Defense Paralegal Managers (DPMs). The Chief, JAJD, is 

assisted by a Deputy Chief, Policy and Training, and an Office 

Superintendent at Joint Base Andrews, MD. 

 During Fiscal Year 2013, the Division was staffed with 

eighty-five ADCs, which is one more billet than last year, 

thanks to the creation of an ADC billet at Joint Base San 

Antonio-Fort Sam Houston, Texas. The ADCs teamed with seventyfour base-level DPs stationed at sixty-nine bases worldwide. 

The Division also had nineteen SDCs and three CSDCs. Each CSDC 
122

supervised six to seven SDCs, and a DPM was assigned to each of 

the three CSDCs. In 2013, one of these CSDC positions moved 

from Joint Base Andrews, MD, to Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph, 

TX, in an attempt to move senior leadership closer to those they 

lead and supervise. The SDCs were stationed at Joint Base 

Andrews, MD; Joint Base Langley-Eustis, VA; Joint Base 

Charleston, SC; Hurlburt Field, FL; Maxwell AFB, AL; Barksdale 

AFB, LA; Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph, TX; Sheppard AFB, TX; 

Tinker AFB, OK; Peterson AFB, CO; Offutt AFB, NE; Joint Base 

Lewis-McChord, WA; Travis AFB, CA; Nellis AFB, NV; Davis-Monthan 

AFB, AZ; Yokota AB, JP; Kadena AB, JA; RAF Lakenheath, UK; and 

Ramstein AB, DE. Each SDC was co-located with the ADC office at 

their respective location. Together, these 187 professionals 

provided defense services to more than 300,000 Airmen around the 

world. 

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

largely attributable to its independence and its zealous 

personnel. To ensure the best representation for Air Force 

clients, training remains JAJD’s top priority. Each SDC 

provided on-the-job training and mentoring to the ADCs in their 

charge on a continuing basis. Each CSDC, in turn, mentored the 

SDCs in their charge. Newly appointed ADCs and DPs received 

formal training at the combined Defense Orientation Course held 

at AFJAGS. SDCs attended a Division-run Leadership Course at 

Joint Base Andrews, MD. Defense personnel also attended Trial 

Advocacy Courses conducted at AFJAGS. Furthermore, the Division 

continues to send ADCs and SDCs to the Trial and Defense 

Advocacy Course and the Advanced Trial Advocacy Course at AFJAGS 

as appropriate. 

 Fiscal year 2013 saw JAJD engaged to an unprecedented 

degree with the congressionally mandated Response Systems to 

Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel (RSP). No fewer than 5 JAJD 

attorneys met with the RSP and its various subcommittees to 

educate the Panel on the role of Air Force Defense Counsel and 

explain, from a defense perspective, the differences between the 

civilian criminal systems and the Uniform Code of Military 

Justice. JAJD members met with the RSP and/or testified in 

hearings in Washington, DC; Austin, TX; and at Joint Base San 

Antonio-Lackland, TX. 

 Finally, JAJD underwent one additional significant 

structural change this year with the Office of Airmen's Counsel 

(OAC) at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland, TX being realigned 

under the newly created Community Legal Services Directorate 

(AFLOA/CLS). 
123

MILITARY JUSTICE DIVISION (JAJM) 

 The Military Justice Division prepares opinions and policy 

positions for the Secretary of the Air Force, The Chief of 

Staff, and 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 provides 

representatives to all inter-service activities involving 

military justice and support for the Article 146, UCMJ, Code 

Committee. JAJM serves as the action agency for the preparation 

of advisory opinions on military justice issues raised in 

applications submitted to the Air Force Board for Correction of 

Military Records (AFBCMR). 

 During the past fiscal year, JAJM provided 32 formal 

opinions concerning AFBCMR applications; received 35 inquires in 

specific cases requiring formal written replies to senior 

officials, including the President and Members of Congress; and 

reviewed 55 records of trial for review under Article 69a, UCMJ, 

and one record under Article 69b, UCMJ. 

 The Division twice presented the annual Military Justice 

Administration Workshop at AFJAGS, a “back to basics” one-week 

workshop attended by both judge advocates and paralegals. 

Division personnel taught at an additional number of military 

justice related courses, to include Gateway—an intermediate 

judge advocate course for majors at Maxwell AFB, AL, the Sexual 

Assault Response Coordinator Course, the National Sexual Assault 

Course, and an American Bar Association Seminar on Sexual 

Assault prosecution. Division personnel also taught specific 

instruction on post-trial processing to one Numbered Air Force 

and two base legal offices, and numerous webcasts to the JAG 

Corps on the creation of Special Victims’ Counsel (addressed 

below). 

 JAJM was also active in educating the Corps on new law and 

policy implemented during the year. Changes to hearings under 

Article 32 of the UCMJ, to include the requirement the 

investigating officer be a Judge Advocate in sexual assault 

cases (expanded to include all cases for Air Force hearings), 

and be senior to the accused were propagated and clarified by 

JAJM through online notifications and during live instruction 

given at the courses listed above. Additionally, JAJM 

instructed the Corps on the new Air Force requirement for 
124

notification to the GCMCA within thirty days of disposition of 

sexual assault cases. 

 Within the JAG Corps, we witnessed the transformation of 

support to crime victims through the creation of a Special 

Victims’ Counsel (SVC) Program. JAJM assisted in the creation 

of the original policy and design of the program and worked with 

AFJAGS to establish the SVC Course and initial training 

strategy. JAJM was also instrumental in developing programs to 

promote SVC collaboration and communication for those designated 

to fill these innovative and ground-breaking roles. Once the 

program had been established and was successfully running, the 

Special Victims’ Counsel Division was separately established 

with Col Dawn Hankins as Chief, to take the reins and oversee 

the program’s progression to maturity. The Special Victims’ 

Counsel Division’s successes are detailed below. 

 JAJM also supported the war effort in Fiscal Year 2013 by 

deploying one of our judge advocates to Afghanistan. 

 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 courtmartial. Division personnel were once again instrumental in 

drafting proposed changes to the Military Rules of Evidence and 

Rules for Courts-Martial for pending executive orders. 

Division personnel served as the Air Force’s action officers for 

all requests for information, documents, witnesses, and support 

to the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel 

(RSP) created by the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, 

Section 576. Division members coordinated the logistics and 

support to Air Force members who testified at public RSP 

hearings and before RSP subcommittees. 

 The Air Force lost a dear friend, colleague and mentor when 

JAJM’s Associate Chief, Mr. Jim Russell, passed away 

unexpectedly on 3 March 2013. There are few in the Air Force 

JAG Family who were not touched by Jim’s wisdom, guidance, and 

leadership. 
125

CLEMENCY, CORRECTIONS AND OFFICER REVIEW DIVISION (JAJR) 

 At the end of fiscal year 2013, 385 Air Force personnel 

were in confinement. Of those, 88 inmates were in long-term 

confinement at the United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort 

Leavenworth, KS, and 66 were serving their sentence in the 

Federal Bureau of Prisons system. The number of Air Force 

members and former members on parole or Mandatory Supervised 

Release at the end of fiscal year 2013 was 99. In early 2013, 

the Secretary discontinued the in-residence Return to Duty 

Program. 

 During the reporting period, the JAJR reviewed sixteen 

Article 71, UCMJ, officer dismissal cases. As was recommended, 

the Secretary approved the dismissals in all cases. The 

Division also reviewed five enlisted cases for Secretarial 

clemency under Article 74, UCMJ. Of those, three contained 

circumstances so compelling that they were forwarded with 

recommendations of clemency, which the Secretary granted. 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL’S SCHOOL (AFJAGS) 

 AFJAGS is the educational arm of the JAG Corps. Located at 

Maxwell AFB, AL, the AFJAGS provided education and training in 

all aspects of military legal practice to attorneys and 

paralegals from all military services, other federal agencies, 

and several foreign countries. Military justice instruction 

included advocacy, administration, the rules of evidence, the 

rules of procedure, and sexual assault policy and response. 

AFJAGS faculty members also provided instruction on military 

justice for several schools and colleges throughout Air 

University, the Air Force’s center for education, including Air 

Force ROTC detachments at universities throughout AL. During 

Fiscal Year 2013, AFJAGS instructed more than 16,000 students at 

these military institutions. 

 Additionally, AFJAGS published articles 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 allow subject-matter experts to brief timely 

military justice topics to all base legal offices and defense 

offices. Recorded webcasts are available on CAPSIL, a web-based 

collaborative learning and management system administered by the 

AFJAGS and accessible to all members of the Air Force JAG Corps. 

AFJAGS has 41 web-based training modules on military justice 

topics. 
126

 Nearly 1,400 students attended in-residence courses in 

Fiscal Year 2013. Of those 58 courses, the following devoted 

substantial resources to military justice-related topics: 

 Advanced Sexual Assault Litigation Course 

 Advanced Trial Advocacy Course 

 Article 32 Investigations Course 

 Defense Orientation Course (for new ADCs and DPs) 

 GATEWAY (the JAG Corps’ advanced leadership course for 

 field grade officers) 

 Intermediate Sexual Assault Litigation Course (held 

 regionally in the United States and overseas) 

 Judge Advocate Staff Officer’s Course 

 Law Office Manager Course 

 Military Justice Administration Course 

 Paralegal Apprentice Course 

 Paralegal Craftsman Course 

 Special Victims’ Counsel Course 

 Staff Judge Advocate Course 

 Trial and Defense Advocacy Course 

 In addition to the above courses, AFJAGS continued its 

administration of the TRIALS program – “Training by Reservists 

in Advocacy and Litigation Skills” – where teams of AFJAGS 

faculty, augmented by Reserve judge advocates, conduct regional 

courses in foundational advocacy skills. In FY2013, TRIALS 

programs were conducted at Fairchild AFB, WA; Washington, DC; 

Scott AFB, IL; Davis Monthan AFB, AZ; Tinker AFB, OK; and Travis 

AFB, CA. Travel and Reservist man-day restrictions, which were 

the result of ongoing sequestration of appropriations during 

much of FY2013, required cancellation of scheduled TRIALS 

programs at Los Angeles AFB, CA; Atlanta, GA; MacDill AFB, FL; 

and Joint Base Langley-Eustis, VA. 

 Aside from the cancelled TRIALS programs, sequestration 

also caused cancellation of other FY2013 courses devoted, at 

least in part, to instruction in military justice. These were 

the Joint Military Judges Annual Training (previously known as 

the Inter-service Military Judges Seminar), the Annual Survey of 

the Law (for Reserve and Air National Guard judge advocates), 

one offering of GATEWAY, and several offerings of the 

Intermediate Sexual Assault Litigation Course. 
127

LEGAL INFORMATION SERVICES (JAS) 

 

 During FY 2013, the Legal Information Services Directorate 

continued to develop new legal information technology (IT) tools 

and improve existing ones to better support military justice 

business processes throughout the Air Force. 

 As noted in last year’s review, JAS, in concert with the 

advice and assistance of a professional IT project management 

contractor, identified requirements to fix the Automated 

Military Justice Analysis and Management System (AMJAMS) 

deficiencies and enhance commanders’ abilities to maintain good 

order and discipline. Subject-matter experts from across AFJAG 

Corps, representing the Total Force and spanning all major 

commands, participated in multiple workshops focused on 

disciplinary processes critical to commanders, as well as 

litigation needs and appellate review processing. These various 

efforts ultimately resulted in a contractor-produced Software 

Requirements Specification document and Business Use Cases in 

early FY 2013 for future use in development of a request for 

proposals. 

 

 More recently this year, JAS, in collaboration with JAJM 

and JAZ, documented the business case analysis and substantiated 

the Program Objective Memorandum documentation to request 

development funding in the FY16 budget. The requirements and 

system design necessary to remedy AMJAMS’s deficiencies support 

the use of a modular contracting methodology. If funding is 

secured and modular contracting acquisition utilized, the agile 

development of a disciplinary case management system in 

successive acquisitions of interoperable modules can occur, 

achieving the ultimate goal of enhancing the sight picture of 

commanders over all disciplinary matters. 

 The Air Force’s establishment of the SVC program in early 

2013 generated a need for a short-notice technology solution to 

assist this new program and its goal to support legal assistance 

requests from sexual assault victims. The office and program 

were set to go live on 28 January 2013, a date set by HAF and 

reported to Congress. As such, the SVC office needed an 

immediate means to track cases to create reports for TJAG, HAF, 

and ultimately Congress on the progress of the program. Because 

there was insufficient time to fully develop a stand-alone 

program from scratch or incorporate a new application within 

AMJAMS, JAS established a SharePoint site for the SVC office 

utilizing a “list” functionality with a special permission set 

to track SVC representation and assistance. The site went live 
128

prior to the official start of the SVC program and the office 

was immediately able to use the data collected to provide 

reports to those interested in this new and high-visibility 

program and to demonstrate the program’s effectiveness. 

SPECIAL VICTIMS’ COUNSEL DIVISION (CLSV) 

 The Judge Advocate General stood up the SVC Program on 28 

January 2013 as a pilot program for the Department of Defense 

(DoD) and as an important step forward in Air Force efforts to 

combat sexual assault and provide world class response 

capabilities to victims. 

 The objectives of the SVC Program are to provide support 

through independent representation; build and sustain victim 

resiliency; empower victims by enforcing their rights as a crime 

victim; and to increase the level of legal assistance provided 

to victims. An SVC’s role includes advocacy to military justice 

actors, including commanders and convening authorities; 

attending interviews with investigators, trial counsel, and 

defense counsel; providing in-court representation as permitted 

by the Manual for Courts-Martial; advocacy to other Air Force 

and DoD agencies; and advocacy to civilian prosecutors and 

agencies. 

 Initially, sixty judge advocates were selected to serve as 

SVCs part time out of necessity to allow the Air Force to field 

the program quickly as a pilot program, while working towards 

the goal of establishing a structure for SVCs to represent 

victims full time under an independent organization in the JAG 

Corps. On 1 June 2013, the SVC Program stood up as an 

independent organization in AFLOA—the Special Victims’ Counsel 

Division (CLSV) under the Community Legal Services Directorate 

(CLS). The Division is staffed with an O-6, projected GS-14 

(currently filled by an O-4), and E-7. Twenty-four SVCs and ten 

Special Victims’ Paralegals (SVP) were selected to serve in 

regional and satellite SVC offices at twenty-two locations 

worldwide. 

 Litigation over standing of victims and SVCs in courtsmartial occurred during the first week of implementation. In 

U.S. v. Daniels, a court-martial for the alleged rape and sexual 

assault of A1C L.R.M., the military judge held that the SVC 

appointed to represent A1C L.R.M. would not be permitted to make 

any arguments before the court-martial, nor would the SVC be 

permitted to speak on behalf of A1C L.R.M. in hearings held 
129

pursuant to MREs 412 (“rape shield”) and 513 (psychotherapistpatient privilege). 

 After AFCCA declined to review U.S. v. Daniels (now A1C 

L.R.M. v. Lt Col Kastenberg), finding that they lacked 

jurisdiction, pursuant to UCMJ, Article 67(a)(2), TJAG certified 

to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 

(USCAAF) three issues involving the appearance of SVCs in a 

court-martial hearing: 1) whether AFCCA erred by holding that 

it lacked jurisdiction to hear A1C L.R.M.’s petition for a writ; 

2) whether the military judge erred by denying A1C L.R.M. the 

opportunity to be heard through counsel, thereby denying A1C 

L.R.M. due process under the MREs, the CVRA, and the United 

States Constitution; and 3) whether a writ should be issued. 

Oral argument was held on 11 June 2013. 

 On 18 July 2013, USCAAF ruled that “a reasonable 

opportunity to be heard at a hearing [under MREs 412 and 513] 

includes the right to present facts and legal argument, and that 

a victim or patient who is represented by counsel be heard 

through counsel. In the decision, CAAF also stated: 

 The right to be heard through counsel is not absolute. A 

military judge has discretion under RCM 801, and may 

apply reasonable limitations, including restricting the 

victim or patient and their counsel to written 

submissions if reasonable to do so in context. If 

counsel indicates at a MRE 412 or 513 hearing that the 

victim’s or patient’s interests are entirely aligned with 

those of trial counsel, the opportunity to be heard could 

reasonably be further curtailed. 

 MREs 412 and 513 do not create a right to legal 

representation for victims or patients who are not 

already represented by counsel. 

 MREs 412 and 513 do not create a right for the victim or 

patient to appeal an adverse evidentiary ruling. 

 In just the first ten months of operation, 565 victims of 

sexual assault received SVC representation. That is compared to 

the 51 victims who sought legal assistance under the AF 

traditional legal assistance program in FY12. That steep 

increase from one type of legal support to another indicates 

that the robust and representational nature of SVC support is 

meeting a need of sexual assault victims that was previously 
130

unaddressed. SVCs have attended 93 courts-martial, 92 Article 

32 hearings, and over 700 interviews. SVCs have asserted 

victims’ privacy rights; increased their voice in the military 

justice process by informing convening authorities of their 

preferences for prosecution or non-prosecution and submitting 

post-trial victim impact statements; addressed safety concerns; 

advocated for expedited transfers or alternate duty 

locations/working hours; assisted with collateral misconduct, 

and addressed workplace/unit concerns. 

 The feedback from victims represented by an SVC has been 

overwhelmingly positive. An impressive ninety-two percent of 

victims surveyed indicated they were "extremely satisfied" with 

their SVC's representation. Additionally, fifty-three percent 

of restricted report victims represented by an SVC have 

converted their restricted report to an unrestricted report. 

This is in comparison to thirteen percent in FY11 and fifteen 

percent in FY12 who converted prior to creation of the SVC 

Program. 

 On 14 August 2013, the SVC program lost its “pilot” 

designation when the Secretary of Defense (SecDef) directed each 

Service establish a special victim’s advocacy program. This 

move was in part due to the overwhelming success of the Air 

Force SVC Program and the recognition that SVCs may help improve 

the trust and confidence of victims in the military justice 

system. 

PERSONNEL 

 As of 30 September 2013, the Air Force Judge Advocate 

General's Corps had 1,285 judge advocates on active duty. 

Company grade officers (lieutenants and captains) made up 

approximately forty-nine percent of that number (628). 

Approximately twenty-four percent were majors (304) and 

approximately eighteen percent were lieutenant colonels (229). 

Colonels (120) and above, including one lieutenant general, one 

major general, and two brigadier generals, comprised 

approximately ten percent of the Corps. The Air Force Judge 

Advocate General's Corps Reserve included 896 Air Force Reserve 

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

judge advocates, of which twenty-two percent (200) were company 

grade officers and sixty-six percent (595) were field grade 

officers (majors and lieutenant colonels). The remaining eleven 

percent consisted of ninety-six colonels, four brigadier 

generals, and one major general. 
131

STEVEN J. LEPPER 

Major General, USAF 

Performing Duties of The Judge 

Advocate General, 10 USC § 8037 
132

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS

RATE OF INCREASE(+)/

DECREASE (-) OVER

LAST REPORT

GENERAL 260 205 55 +42.86%

BCD SPECIAL 359 81 39 -8.36%

NON-BCD SPECIAL [A] 239

SUMMARY 144 139 5 +2.86%

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

70

76

81

143

76

55

Period: Fiscal Year 2013

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATUS (Persons)

PART 2 - DISCHARGE APPROVED

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL (CA LEVEL)

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES [B]

 NUMBER OF BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGES

SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL (CA LEVEL)

 NUMBER OF BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGES

PART 3 - RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 - GENERAL COURTS-MARTIA

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 - BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 - GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 320

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 217

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 99

219

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 143

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 76

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 369

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 238

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 131

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 229

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 158

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 71

+23.63

NUMBER 219/219

PERCENTAGE 100.00%

67.21%

-26.25%

13.28%

-1.53%

13.28%

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD (369/539)

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

REFERRED FOR REVIEW

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

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

PERCENTAGE OF AFCCA REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCAAF 248/369 [C]

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

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 49/369

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

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY AFCCA 49/36

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

DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD -0.57%

 G 
133

PENDING AT BEGINNING OF PERIOD 0

6

6

0

6

0

0

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 0

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 286

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 103

 SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 183

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 333

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 157

 SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 176

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 39

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 328,089

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 6,247

19.04

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD -0.26

RATE PER 1,000

EXPLANATORY NOTES

[A] Of the 359 SPCMs tried, there were 81 convictions with a BCD adjudged, 239 convictions without 

a BCD adjudged, and 39 acquittals.

[B] Includes 16 officer dismissals.

 GRANTED 

 DENIED

 NO JURISDICTION

 WITHDRAWN

PART 8 - ORGANIZATION OF COURT

PART 9 - COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138

PART 10 - STRENGTH

PART 11 - NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15)

DISPOSED OF

PART 7 - APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF, ARTICLE 69

RECEIVED
134

SECTION 6 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE COAST GUARD 
135

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE U. S. COAST GUARD 

October 1, 2012 to September 30, 2013 

PERSONNEL AND TRAINING 

 The Coast Guard has 193 officers designated as judge 

advocates serving on active duty. Coast Guard lawyers currently 

serving in legal billets outside the Coast Guard include the 

Staff Judge Advocate to NORTHCOM, the Staff Judge Advocate to 

Joint Interagency Task Force South, as well as senior staff 

attorneys (O-4 and O-5) assigned to NORTHCOM, AFRICOM, SOUTHCOM, 

PACOM, Naval War College, the Defense Institute of International 

Legal Studies, and the Naval Justice School. The Coast Guard 

will also detail a senior judge advocate to a one year 

fellowship in the Office of Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff in assignment year 2014. The Coast Guard 

also has several active duty judge advocates detailed to the 

Department of Justice, Department of State, and Department of 

Homeland Security. 

 Over forty judge advocates are currently assigned in nonlegal “out-of-specialty” billets. They include the Deputy 

Commander for the Coast Guard's Atlantic Area (O-8), the 

Director of Governmental and Public Affairs (O-7), the Executive 

Assistant to the Commandant of the Coast Guard (O-7 select), and 

a Captain detailed to the Office of the Vice President. Other 

judge advocates in out-of-specialty assignments include command 

cadre of Coast Guard cutters, sectors, training centers, and 

support commands. 

 The Coast Guard employs ninety six civilian attorneys 

ranging from GS-13 to SES. 

 The Coast Guard sent attorneys to thirty different courses 

of instruction during fiscal year 2013, primarily at the various 

service JAG schools. Twenty-two Coast Guard officers are 

currently undergoing postgraduate studies to complete a JD 

degree and will be certified as judge advocates at the 

successful completion of their studies. One judge advocate is 

attending the Graduate Course at the United States Army Judge 

Advocate General’s Legal Center and School and another is a 

fellow in the Center for Law and Military Operations at TJAGLCS. 

One senior judge advocate is attending a LLM program in national 

security law at George Washington University and one civilian 

attorney is attending an LLM program in environmental law at the 
136

University of California, Berkeley (Boalt Hall). In addition, 

one judge advocate is attending a degree program at the School 

for National Security and Resource Strategy and one is attending 

a degree program at the Naval War College. 

 Thirty Coast Guard officers completed the Navy Basic Lawyer 

Course in Newport, Rhode Island. All have been or are in the 

process of being certified under Article 27(b), UCMJ. 

U. S. COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

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

Appeals at the end of fiscal year 2013 were: 

Chief Judge Lane I. McClelland 

Judge Patrick J. McGuire 

Judge John F. Havranek 

Judge Kathleen A. Duignan 

Judge Andrew Norris 

Judge Sean P. Gill (sworn in 8 May 2013) 

Judge John S. Luce (sworn in 8 May 2013) 

 Two judges departed the Court in fiscal year 2013; Judge 

Charlie M. Johnson (departed 6 September 2013) and Judge Brian 

T. McTague (departed 4 June 2013). 

 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 

Fourteen Staff Judge Advocates advise eighteen officers 

exercising general court-martial jurisdiction. Those fourteen 

SJAs as well as three additional independent duty SJAs at 

training centers advise 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 Deputy Judge Advocate General 

charged with providing defense and personal legal services to 

Coast Guard members. Pursuant to an inter-service memorandum of 

understanding, the U.S. Navy provides trial defense counsel for 

all Coast Guard courts-martial. In return, four Coast Guard 
137

attorneys are assigned to full time duty, typically for one-year 

or two-year assignments, at one or more Navy Defense Service 

Offices or Regional Legal Service Offices. 

 The Coast Guard has one general court-martial judge and six 

collateral-duty special court-martial judges. The Chief Trial 

Judge details all military judges to Coast Guard courts-martial. 

 

 The Office of Military Justice at Coast Guard Headquarters 

is responsible for representing the United States in all courtmartial 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 on 

Military Justice. Within the office, two officers, a LCDR (O-4) 

and a LT (O-3), are assigned primary duty as appellate 

government counsel. 

 Additionally, in fiscal year 2013, the Coast Guard created 

the Office of Special Victims’ Counsel (SVC) to provide legal 

counsel to victims of sexual-related offenses. The intent of the 

SVC program is to provide additional resources to ensure victims 

of sexual assault understand their rights in the legal process 

and that those rights are observed. The Coast Guard directed 

additional funding and billets to support the program. 

 

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

NOTE: All statistics are based on the number of courts-martial 

records received and filed at Coast Guard Headquarters during 

fiscal year 2013 and, where indicated, records received during 

each of the four preceding fiscal years. 

Fiscal Year 13 12 11 10 09 

General Courts-Martial 09 14 06 12 12 

Special Courts-Martial 14 14 32 20 19 

Summary Courts-Martial 20 17 19 09 14 

Total 43 45 57 41 45 

ADDITIONAL MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

 Appendix A contains the Coast Guard, Fiscal Year 2013 

military justice statistics. 
138

APPELLATE REVIEW PROCESS 

The service’s goal is to ensure 100% compliance with posttrial processing timelines. In fiscal year 2013, the service 

fell short of that goal by one case. In that case, the Convening 

Authority took action 165 days after the sentence was announced, 

which is forty five days beyond the 120-day period prescribed 

for such action. Additionally, the case was docketed with the 

appellate court 133 days after action, which is 103 days beyond 

the 30-day prescribed period. All other cases docketed with the 

Court of Appeals in fiscal year 2013 were in compliance with 

post-trial processing times. The Coast Guard Court of Appeals 

met its goal of eighteen months or less between the time a case 

is docketed to the issuance of an opinion in each case decided 

in fiscal year 2013. 

 

 In fiscal year 2013, there were no court-martial 

convictions that were reversed as a result of command influence 

or denial of the right to a speedy review. However, there was 

one case in which the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals 

provided relief due to untimely post-trial processing. In that 

case, which was docketed in fiscal year 2012, eighty seven days 

passed from the date of the convening authority’s action until 

the time the case was docketed with the appellate court. The 

appellate court found no prejudice but, under United States v. 

Tardiff, affirmed only thirty of the sixty days of adjudged 

confinement. The findings were not affected. 

 

 There were no cases this fiscal year in which the Coast 

Guard Court of Criminal Appeals found a provision of the UCMJ 

unconstitutional. 

MEASURES TO ENSURE COMPETENCY OF MILITARY JUSTICE PRACTICE 

 The biggest challenge faced by the Coast Guard in 

developing and maintaining proficiency trying military justice 

cases is the small number of trials conducted service-wide in a 

given year. Usually there are between twenty five and forty 

courts-martial in the entire Coast Guard in a one-year period. 

The Coast Guard has taken several actions to provide additional 

exposure to trial work for our judge advocates. 

 First, the Coast Guard has a long standing Memorandum of 

Understanding with the Navy whereby the Navy provides defense 

counsel for Coast Guard courts-martial and in return the Coast 

Guard provides four judge advocates at locations around the 
139

country to work for the Navy handling courts-martial of Coast 

Guard members, as well as members of the Navy and Marine Corps. 

These officers typically serve two year tours as defense counsel 

and leave those assignments with significant trial experience. 

 The Coast Guard has had arrangements with the Marine Corps 

at Camp Lejuene, Camp Pendleton, Marine Corps Base Quantico, and 

Marine Corps Base Hawaii where Coast Guard judge advocates work 

as trial counsel for Marine cases. While the tours typically 

last between three and six months, they do provide a solid 

foundation of trial experience. In addition, Coast Guard judge 

advocates have served as trial counsel for the U.S. Army 

Military District of Washington. This year, two judge advocates 

were assigned to Navy Regional Legal Service Office, Naval 

District of Washington, and one was assigned to Marine Corps 

Base Quantico. 

 The Coast Guard Legal Service Command (LSC), the only 

command in the service dedicated to the delivery of legal 

services, was created in 2009. Among the many responsibilities 

of this command, the LSC is the only legal office that has judge 

advocates serving full time as trial counsel (a total of five). 

In addition to their principal support to mission support 

commands served by LSC, they also support other staff judge 

advocates. Accordingly, those trial counsel are currently 

involved, in one capacity or another, in approximately eighty 

percent of the Coast Guard's courts-martial. 

 Finally, the Office of Military Justice provides technical 

support to staff judge advocates and trial counsel and has 

periodically participated in cases at the trial level. 

 In addition to military justice experience, many field 

legal office maintain active Special Assistant U.S. Attorney 

relationships with one or more U.S. Attorney offices that 

develop judge advocate trial and advocacy skills. Coast Guard 

SAUSAs generally prosecute felony cases arising out of Coast 

Guard operations. Four full-time SAUSAs in the Southern and 

Middle Districts of Florida, and the Central and Southern 

Districts of California focus on prosecution of drug smuggling 

cases, where the amounts seized in the drug cases are frequently 

measured in tons, and migrant smuggling cases. There are also 

many collateral duty SAUSA relationships around the country with 

Coast Guard judge advocates assisting in prosecution of not only 

drug and migrant smuggling cases, but other issues ranging from 

environmental crimes to seaman's manslaughter. 
140

 Training also forms an important part of the development 

and maintenance of trial expertise. Coast Guard judge advocates 

are trained initially with the Navy and Marine Corps at the 

Naval Justice School. We regularly participate in trial advocacy 

courses offered by the Army, Navy, and Air Force, to include 

specialized courses, most particularly those dealing with sexual 

assault. The Coast Guard has also sent judge advocates to 

courses sponsored by the Department of Justice National Advocacy 

Center and those offered by the National District Attorneys 

Association. The other armed forces permit the Coast Guard to 

make use of their Trial Counsel Assistance Program and Highly 

Qualified Experts that significantly add to the depth of 

knowledge and expertise available to Coast Guard trial counsel. 

 As noted above, except for the four judge advocates 

assigned to the Navy at any given time pursuant to our MOU, the 

Navy provides defense counsel for Coast Guard members being 

tried by court-martial. 

 The Coast Guard has one full time general court-martial 

judge, along with six collateral duty judges who hear only 

special courts-martial. Coast Guard judges are selected based on 

trial and staff judge advocate experience and attend initial 

training with all of the other services at the Military Judge 

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

School in Charlottesville, Virginia. Coast Guard judges also 

attend the annual Joint Military Judges training session. 

Several Coast Guard judges have also pursued individual courses 

as well as successful completion of certificates from the 

National Judicial College in Reno, Nevada. 

 To date the Coast Guard has not tried a national security 

case or case referred as capital. Were such a case to arise, the 

Coast Guard would request assistance from the other armed forces 

to do so. 

 Sexual Assault cases occur in the Coast Guard and are a 

focus of training and experience efforts; most of the training 

and experience efforts outlined above are specifically designed 

to improve trial counsel knowledge and experience in sexual 

assault cases. With some exceptions, sexual assaults are the 

most significant crimes handled in the Coast Guard military 

justice system and the Coast Guard is dedicated to handling 

these cases well. The Office of Military Justice, which provides 

assistance to trial counsel, recently received approval to hire 

a civilian attorney (GS-15) with expertise in sexual assault 

prosecution to better enhance the service’s ability to handle 
141

complex sexual assault cases. Also, recent Sexual Assault 

Prevention and Response efforts have made more training funds 

available, not only to train judge advocates, but to allow them 

to work with other professionals to train all members of the 

Coast Guard in sexual assault prevention and appropriate 

response when it does happen. 

 The Coast Guard also provides training for civilian and 

enlisted legal support personnel to assist them in meeting legal 

technician and paralegal performance qualification standards 

prescribed by the Judge Advocate General. 

 

VIEWS OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL ON RESOURCES 

 The Coast Guard has sufficient judge advocates with 

sufficient experience to competently perform its military 

justice responsibilities. The service consistently provides 

adequate resources to perform military justice functions. 

Attorneys are supported by civilians and enlisted personnel in 

the yeoman rating sufficient in number to support the mission. 

There are insufficient enlisted billets to support a separate 

legal rate, posing a challenge to ensure an experienced enlisted 

legal support cadre. 

F. J. KENNEY 

Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast 

Judge Advocate General of the Coast 

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

 October 1, 2012 to September 30, 2013 (FY 2013) 
142

APPENDIX A: U.S. COAST GUARD MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

Report Period: 1 OCTOBER 2012- 30 SEPTEMBER 2013 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/ 

DECREASE (-) OVER 

LAST REPORT 

GENERAL 09 08 01 -35.7% 

BCD SPECIAL 14 12 02 0% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 00 00 00 0% 

SUMMARY 20 20 00 +17.6% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT -4.4% 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 

01 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 05 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 

06 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 03 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 05 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 01 

PART 4 – WORKLOAD OF THE COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 18 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 12 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 06 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 09 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 04 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 05 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 09 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 03 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 06 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 13 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 08 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 05 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

-52.6% 

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

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

NUMBER 19 

PERCENTAGE 100% 

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

 (CAAF) 

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 3/16 18.8% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +19% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 1/3 33.3% 

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

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CGCCA 1/16 6.3% 

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

- 

 



 The Court also decided two Art. 62 appeals. 
143

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

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 19 

RECEIVED 26 

DISPOSED OF 15 

 GRANTED 1 

 DENIED 14 

 NO JURISDICTION 00 

 WITHDRAWN 00 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 30 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 18 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 06 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 12 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 05 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 03 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 02 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 08 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 40757 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 969 

RATE PER 1,000 23.8% 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD +5.3%