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, 2010 to September 30, 2011 
CONTENTS 

SECTION 1: JOINT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CODE 

COMMITTEE 

SECTION 2: REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES 

SECTION 3: REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF 

THE ARMY 

SECTION 4: REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF 

THE NAVY 

SECTION 5: REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF 

THE AIR FORCE 

SECTION 6: REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF 

THE COAST GUARD 
SECTION 1 

JOINT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CODE COMMITTEE 
JOINT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE 

CODE COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO THE 

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 

October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2011

 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 1, 2011, 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 2010 Code Committee 

meeting, Chief Judge Effron called upon Colonel Charles 

Pede, U.S. Army, Executive Secretary of the Joint Service 

Committee on Military Justice (JSC), to provide a report on 

the work of the Committee. Colonel Pede briefed the Code 

Committee of the following matters that had been addressed 

by the Joint Service Committee over the past year: (1) an 

amendment to Article 48, UCMJ, was signed into law which 

increased the maximum punishment for contempt and expanded 

contempt authority to include willful disobedience of the 

lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree or command of a 

military court; (2) the signing of Executive Order 13552, 

establishing provisions for fines, contents of post-trial 

recommendations, and a definition of military property; (3) 

discussion of the Military Rules of Evidence to include a 

request for a new Executive Order that would establish a 

victim-advocate privilege; (4) discussion of a proposal 

establishing enumerated Article 134 offenses for animal 

cruelty and child pornography; (5) a proposal to amend 

Article 47, UCMJ, to provide subpoena authority prior to 

referral to a court-martial; 
(6) discussion of changes to Article 120, UCMJ, to separate 

cases involving child victims from other offenses, to make 

offenses gender and orientation neutral, to include the 

offense of forcible sodomy and repeal Article 125, UCMJ, 

and to specify that rape and sexual assault could include 

penetration with objects or body parts. 

 Colonel Pede also stated that the JSC is considering a 

change to the offense of adultery under Article 134 that 

would cover same gender marriages. 

 In response to a question concerning a recent article 

regarding the effectiveness of trials by court-martial in a 

combat environment, Colonel Pede replied that the JSC is 

discussing the matter, but that further research is needed. 

 

Replying to another question on whether the JSC 

tracked trends in the conduct of armed forces personnel, 

Colonel Pede said this was done by the services and the 

information was only anecdotal. 

 The issue of whether the Judges of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces should continue as 

members of the Code Committee was raised. Chief Judge 

Effron said the matter had been discussed, and he would 

refer it to Judge Baker as the next Chief Judge for 

consideration. 

 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 Dana K. Chipman, USA 

Judge Advocate General of the Army 

Vice Admiral James W. Houck, JAGC, USN 

The Judge Advocate General of the Navy 

Lieutenant General Richard C. Harding, USAF 

The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force 

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 
SECTION 2 

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE ARMED FORCES 
REPORT OF THE 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE ARMED FORCES 

September 1, 2010 to August 31, 2011 

 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 2010 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, 2010 to August 31, 2011. 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 2010 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. A summary of 

selected decisions prepared by the Court’s staff is set 

forth in Appendix A. 

RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 

 Following the recommendations of the Rules Advisory 

Committee, the Court amended Rules 9(e) and 41(b) of the 

Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure to more accurately 

describe court security personnel and to specifically 

incorporate a recent amendment to Article 48, UCMJ, 

concerning contempt. Prior to adoption and amendment, the 
proposed changes were published for public comment in the 

Federal Register in Volume 76, No. 43 at page 12082. On 

May 19, 2011, the Court also adopted another recommendation 

of the Rules Advisory Committee and issued an order 

concerning the redaction of information from pleadings 

filed with the Court. The information to be redacted 

covers social security numbers, names of minor children, 

dates of birth, financial account numbers, home addresses, 

and names of complainants and victims in sexual offense 

cases. 70 M.J. 135-36. 

BAR OF THE COURT 

 During the September 2010 Term, the Court admitted 387 

attorneys to practice before its Bar, bringing the 

cumulative total of admissions before the Bar of the Court 

to 35,483. 

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 2010 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, at the Brooklyn 

Law School, Brooklyn, New York, Hofstra University School 

of Law, Hempstead, New York, the University of the Pacific 

McGeorge School of Law, Sacramento, California, and 

Stanford University School of Law, Stanford, California. 

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

 On March 9 and 10, 2011, the Court held its annual 

Continuing Legal Education Conference at the Columbus 

School of Law, Catholic University of America, Washington, 

D.C. The program for this Continuing Legal Education 

Conference was certified for credit to meet the continuing 

legal education requirements of State Bars throughout the 

United States. The conference opened with welcoming 
remarks from the Honorable Andrew S. Effron, Chief Judge, 

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. He 

was followed by speakers for this year’s conference, 

including Andrew J. Pincus, Esq., private practitioner; 

Professor Bernard J. Hibbitts, University of Pittsburgh 

School of Law; Major General F. Andrew Turley, Air National 

Guard Assistant to the Judge Advocate General of the Air 

Force; Professor Douglas A. Berman, The Ohio State 

University Moritz College of Law; Dr. Robert Heinssen, 

Acting Director, Division of Services and Intervention 

Research of the National Institute of Mental Health; 

General Peter W. Chiarelli, Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Army; 

Lieutenant Colonel Jack Ohlweiler, U.S. Army, Chair of the 

Administrative and Civil Law Department of the Army Judge 

Advocate General’s Legal Center and School; Brigadier 

General Blaise Cathcart, Judge Advocate General of the 

Canadian Forces; Mr. Peter Grande, Chief of Staff of the 

U.S. Disciplinary Barracks; and Professor Stephen Gillers, 

New York University School of Law. 

COMMEMORATION OF THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY 

OF THE COURTHOUSE

 The Court met in special session on October 1, 2010, 

to commemorate the centennial of its historic courthouse. 

In attendance were the Honorable John Roberts, Chief 

Justice of the United States, and the Honorable David 

Sentelle, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit. Speakers included 

Chief Judge Sentelle, Judge Scott Stucky, and Professor 

Steven Goldblatt of the Georgetown University Law Center. 

The proceedings are published in the Military Justice 

Reporter at 69 M.J. LXXV-LXXXVI. 

James E. Baker 

Chief Judge 

Charles E. “Chip” Erdmann 

Associate Judge 

Scott W. Stucky 

Associate Judge 

Margaret A. Ryan 

Associate Judge 
APPENDIX A – SELECTED DECISIONS

 This appendix contains a summary of selected decisions 

prepared by the Court’s staff. 

Lesser Included Offenses

United States v. Alston, 69 M.J. 214 (C.A.A.F. 2010), 

holding that aggravated sexual assault is a lesser included 

offense of rape by force. 

United States v. Bonner, 70 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2011), holding 

that assault consummated by a battery is a lesser included 

offense of wrongful sexual contact. 

United States v. Girouard, 70 M.J. 5 (C.A.A.F. 2011), 

holding that negligent homicide is not a lesser included 

offense of premeditated murder. 

United States v. McMurrin, 70 M.J. 15 (C.A.A.F. 2011), 

holding that negligent homicide is not a lesser included 

offense of involuntary manslaughter. 

United States v. Arriaga, 70 M.J. 51 (C.A.A.F. 2011), 

holding that housebreaking is a lesser included offense of 

burglary. 

Sufficiency of Charges

United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011), 

holding that in a prosecution for adultery in violation of 

Article 134, UCMJ, the terminal element of prejudice to 

good order and discipline or service discrediting conduct 

was not necessarily implied in the specification and would 

not survive a motion to dismiss; in addition, an allegation 

that accused “wrongfully” engaged in adulterous conduct did 

not imply the terminal element. 

Self-Incrimination

United States v. Clark, 69 M.J. 438 (C.A.A.F. 2011), 

holding that the prosecutor’s use of demeanor evidence that 

the accused’s lowered his head and slumped his shoulders 

during interrogation violated the accused’s Fifth Amendment 

right to silence. 
Confrontation

United States v. Blazier, 69 M.J. 218 (C.A.A.F. 2010), 

holding that in a prosecution for wrongful drug use, (1) 

admission of testimonial statements in drug testing reports 

signed by analysts at the testing laboratory that included 

the tests conducted, what substances were detected, and the 

nanogram levels of each substance violated the 

Confrontation Clause; (2) the cross-examination of the drug 

testing laboratory official regarding the results of test 

reports containing the hearsay statements of two laboratory 

analysts was not sufficient to satisfy the accused’s right 

to confront the analysts; and (3) machine-generated 

printouts of raw data and calibration charts in the 

laboratory report were not hearsay for Confrontation Clause 

purposes and could form the basis of the laboratory 

official’s expert testimony explaining and analyzing those 

documents. 

United States v. Lusk, 70 M.J. 278 (C.A.A.F. 2011), holding 

that a limiting instruction was required when the 

laboratory drug testing report contained inadmissible 

hearsay and the report was to be used to establish a basis 

for expert testimony regarding the reliability of another 

admissible test. 

United States v. Sweeney, 70 M.J. 296 (C.A.A.F. 2011), 

holding that the admission into evidence of a drug 

laboratory report for the accused’s urinalysis violated the 

Confrontation Clause, was testimonial and constituted plain 

error where the laboratory made the memorandum after the 

accused had been charged and addressed it to the Region 

Legal Service Office, and the document had no purpose but 

to function as an affidavit and the declarant was not 

subject to cross-examination. 

Speedy Trial

United States v. Schuber, 70 M.J. 181 (C.A.A.F. 2011), 

holding that the accused’s pretrial restriction did not 

amount to “arrest” under Article 10, UCMJ, and that his 

speedy trial right was not violated. 

Child Pornography

United States v. Beaty, 70 M.J. 39 (C.A.A.F. 2011), holding 

that the maximum punishment in a prosecution for possession 
of “what appears to be” child pornography under Article 

134, UCMJ, is confinement for four months as a general 

disorder and not the maximum of ten years confinement 

reflected in 18 U.S.C. § 2252A. 

United States v. Phillips, 70 M.J. 161 (C.A.A.F. 2011), 

holding that in a prosecution for possession of child 

pornography under Article 134, UCMJ, clause 2 alleging that 

the conduct was of a nature to bring discredit upon the 

armed forces, it was not necessary to prove that the public 

was actually aware of the conduct for a conviction. 

Eyewitness Identification

United States v. Baker, 70 M.J. 283 (C.A.A.F. 2011), 

holding that a pretrial identification was unnecessarily 

suggestive where the victim was shown a single digital 

photograph of the accused following the police officer’s 

comment that they had found someone the victim “should take 

a look at.” 

Guilty Pleas

United States v. Soto, 69 M.J. 304 (C.A.A.F. 2011), holding 

that the parties’ failure to disclose the provision of a 

pretrial agreement requiring the accused to request a badconduct discharge before the military judge accepted the 

accused’s guilty plea rendered the plea improvidently 

entered. 

United States v. Hartman, 69 M.J. 467 (C.A.A.F. 2011), 

holding that an accused’s guilty plea to consensual sodomy 

in the presence of a third party was improvident where the 

military judge did not explain to the accused the 

difference between conduct constitutionally protected under 

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and conduct that 

may be prosecuted criminally under Article 125, Uniform 

Code of Military Justice. 

Burden of Proof in Sexual Assault Prosecution

United States v. Prather, 69 M.J. 338 (C.A.A.F. 2011), 

holding that Article 120, UCMJ, which places the burden on 

the accused to prove consent when raising it as a defense 

to a sexual assault prosecution, shifted the burden to the 

defense to disprove an implied element of the offense in 

violation of due process, and by initially assigning the 
burden of proving an affirmative defense on the accused, 

then shifting the burden to the prosecution to disprove the 

affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt, created a 

legal impossibility. 

United States v. Medina, 69 M.J. 462 (C.A.A.F. 2011), 

holding that the instructions to the members that consent 

was a defense to the charge of aggravated sexual assault 

and that the prosecution had the burden of proving beyond a 

reasonable doubt that consent did not exist was harmless 

error where the members were not instructed of the 

statutory scheme that required an accused to prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that the victim consented, 

and that the instructions were clear and correctly conveyed 

the prosecution’s burden. The Court stated it was not 

within its province to rewrite the statute to conform to 

the Constitution, as that would invade the legislative 

domain. 

Military Rule of Evidence 412

United States v. Gaddis, 70 M.J. 248 (C.A.A.F. 2011), 

holding that the balancing test of Rule 412 is not facially 

unconstitutional, but its current iteration which purports 

to balance the “alleged victim’s privacy” against the 

probative value of the evidence is needlessly confusing and 

could lead a military judge to exclude evidence that is 

constitutionally required. 

United States v. Ellerbrock, 70 M.J. 314 (C.A.A.F. 2011), 

holding that the erroneous exclusion of constitutionally 

required evidence of alleged victim’s prior extramarital 

affair, which was relevant to whether the victim had a 

motive to lie about the consensual nature of her sexual 

encounter with the accused, was not harmless. 

Judicial Conduct

United States v. Martinez, 70 M.J. 154 (C.A.A.F. 2011), 

holding that the conduct of the supervising judge in 

conferring privately with the prosecutor and then 

accompanying the presiding military judge into chambers 

during recess and deliberations created an appearance that 

neither was impartial, but such conduct did not amount to 

plain error in this case. 
USCAAF STATISTICAL REPORT 

SEPTEMBER 2010 TERM OF COURT 

CUMULATIVE SUMMARY

CUMULATIVE PENDING SEPTEMBER 1, 2010 

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

 Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 

CUMULATIVE FILINGS 

 Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 

 Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 700 

 Miscellaneous Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862 

CUMULATIVE DISPOSITIONS 

 Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 

 Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 704 

 Miscellaneous Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829 

CUMULATIVE PENDING SEPTEMBER 1, 2011 

 Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 

 Petition Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 

OPINION SUMMARY

CATEGORY SIGNED PER CURIAM MEM/ORDER TOTAL

Master Docket . . . . 41 5 36 82 

Petition Docket . . . 0 0 704 704 

Miscellaneous Docket 0 0 43 43

TOTAL 41 5 783 829 
MEMORANDUM/ORDER SUMMARY

Orders 

 Denying petitions for grant of review . . . . 584 

 Granting withdrawal of petition for grant of 

 Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

 Granting petitions for grant of review 

 with briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 

 without briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 

 Granting petitions for grant of review and 

 affirming the decision of the lower court . 10 

 Granting petitions for grant of review and 

 affirming in part and reversing in part . . 8 

 Granting petitions for grant of review and 

 remanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 

 Deciding previously granted cases (trailer 

 cases) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 

 Denying petitions for extraordinary relief 

 and writ-appeal petitions . . . . . . . . . 36 

 Granting petitions for extraordinary relief 

 and writ-appeal petitions . . . . . . . . . 1 

 Granting withdrawal of petitions for 

 extraordinary relief and writ-appeal 

 petitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 

 Dismissing petitions for extraordinary relief 

 and writ-appeal petitions . . . . . . . . . 4

 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 783 

MASTER DOCKET SUMMARY

FILINGS 

 Petitions granted from the Petition Docket . . 119 

 Certificates filed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 

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

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

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 
DISPOSITIONS 

 Decisions affirmed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 

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

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

 Certificate Withdrawn . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 

PENDING 

 Awaiting briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

 Awaiting oral argument . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 

 Awaiting lead case decision (trailer cases) . 54 

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 

PETITION DOCKET SUMMARY

FILINGS 

 Petitions for grant of review filed . . . . . 699 

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

 Petitions for reconsideration granted . . . . 0 

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 700 

DISPOSITIONS 

 Petitions for grant of review denied . . . . . 584 

 Petitions for grant of review granted . . . . 119 

 Petitions for grant of review withdrawn . . . 1 

 Petitions for grant of review dismissed . . . 0

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 704 

PENDING 

 Awaiting pleadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 

 Awaiting Central Legal Staff review . . . . . 30 

 Awaiting final action . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET SUMMARY

FILINGS 

 Writ appeals sought . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 

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

 Writs of error coram nobis sought . . . . . . 2 

 Other extraordinary relief sought . . . . . . 9

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 

DISPOSITIONS 

 Petitions or appeals denied . . . . . . . . . 36 

 Petitions or appeals granted . . . . . . . . . 1 

 Petitions or appeals dismissed . . . . . . . . 4 

 Petitions or appeals withdrawn . . . . . . . . 2 

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

 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 

PENDING 

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

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

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

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

PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

ALL CASES DISPOSITIONS

Begin Pending 0 Denied 11 

Filed 12 Granted 0 

TOTAL 12 Dismissed 1

 TOTAL 12 

End Pending 0 

MOTIONS

ALL MOTIONS DISPOSITIONS

Begin Pending 10 Granted 211 

Filed 263 Denied 58

TOTAL 273 TOTAL 269 

End Pending 4 
Petition Docket Term End Pending

190

301

171

215

252 240

266 254

213

91 87

0

100

200

300

400

500

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Master Docket Term End Pending

60

50 49 51

87

38

53

20

30 30

71

0

50

100

150

200

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Oral Arguments Per Year

81

68

56 58

74 74

56

65

47 43 47

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Total Opinions Per Year

75 73

93

75

32

57

35

57 53

64

51

76

25

55

41

65

37

46

27

43

32

46

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

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

TOTAL COURT OPINIONS
Days from Petition Filing to Grant

133 131

164

227 195

171

152

160 162

108

61

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Days from Petition Grant 

 to Oral Argument

125 127 122 130

146 150

126 132

114

136

131

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Days from Oral Argument 

 to Final Decision

176 176

117

144

164

148

85 86 83

99

88

0

50

100

150

200

250

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Days from Petition Filing 

to Final Decision

70

330

65

353

82

279

76

361

89

358

93

391

94

237

102

261

107

241

65

238

42

206

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

PETITION DOCKET (DENIAL/DISMISSAL/WITHDRAWAL)

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

Final Decision in All Cases

110 105

119

126

132

155

118

130 124

84

62

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Total Petitions Filed Per Year

926 974

694 802 779

1006 937

836 856 721 700

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

2250

2500

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
SECTION 3 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

ARMY 
REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE ARMY 

OCTOBER 1, 2010 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 

 During fiscal year 2011, The Judge Advocate General 

(TJAG) and senior members of his staff 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 Corps 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. The JAG Corps remains committed to 

sustaining excellence in the practice of military justice 

through a variety of initiatives and programs. 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL’S LEGAL CENTER AND SCHOOL 

(TJAGLCS) 

 

The cornerstone mission of the Criminal Law Department 

of The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School 

(TJAGLCS) in Charlottesville, Virginia is to develop, 

improve, and sustain excellence in the practice of military 

criminal law. 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, 

while at the same time providing critical reach-back 

capability for military justice practitioners of all 

services. 

The Department teaches a variety of student cohorts: 

initial-entry judge advocates in the Basic Course; newlyassigned trial advocates in the Criminal Law Advocacy 

Course; mid-level judge advocates in the Graduate Course; 

newly-assigned military judges in the Military Judge 

Course; and senior officers in the Senior Officer Legal 

Orientation Course. All of these courses are taught using 

a sexual assault fact pattern. In addition, the Department 

teaches newly-assigned military justice managers in the 

1 
Military Justice Managers Course and general criminal 

law practitioners in the New Developments Course. 

The Department recently restructured the Basic Course 

to focus on active-learning rather than passive-learning 

techniques. The students take a sexual-assault fact 

pattern from the report of the sexual assault through the 

announcement of sentence, focusing on the prosecution and 

defense of sexual assault cases as well as the proper 

administration of the Sexual Harassment/Assault Response 

and Prevention (SHARP) and Victim/Witness Liaison (VWL) 

programs. Students now participate in fourteen trial 

advocacy workshops, which include a mock pretrial 

confinement review, Article 32 investigation, motion 

hearings, trial on the merits, and presentencing. 

Throughout these workshops, Basic Course students learn 

substantive and procedural military justice issues, ethical 

obligations, and trial advocacy skills. 

The Department also restructured the Graduate Course 

to focus on skills they will need to succeed as mid-level 

leaders in the military justice system by using a mock 

sexual assault case. The Department hosted panels of 

senior judge advocates and experts to: discuss 

expectations of mid-level military justice leaders and 

military justice philosophies; provide advice on briefing 

convening authorities; and educate students regarding 

toxicology and victim/offender behaviors in sexual assault 

cases. The students then supervise the process of the mock 

sexual assault case and brief a general court-martial 

convening authority (played by senior judge advocates, 

including general officers). Their military justice 

training culminates with the post-trial processing of the 

mock case. 

The Department revised the instruction provided to 

newly-assigned brigade and battalion commanders at the 

Senior Officer Legal Orientation Course. In addition to 

receiving instruction on unlawful command influence and 

convening authority duties within the military justice 

system, the senior officers receive instruction on SHARP 

and victim/offender behavior tendencies in sexual assault 

cases. 

2 
 The senior officers are then provided a sexual 

assault fact pattern, make a transmittal decision on the 

case, and discuss their SHARP obligations to the victim. 

 The Department continued to incorporate social media 

into its learning platform, to include revising the 

Department blog; creating a Twitter feed and Facebook page; 

and increasing the amount of streaming video offered on the 

Department’s webpage. 

OTJAG CRIMINAL LAW DIVISION 

 The Criminal Law Division (CLD), OTJAG 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 advice on 

military corrections issues, the Army drug testing program, 

sexual assault and victim assistance policies and federal 

prosecutions, Army representation on the Joint Service 

Committee (JSC) on Military Justice, responding to 

congressional inquiries and requests under the Freedom of 

Information Act, and conducting reviews of court-martial 

cases under Article 69 of the UCMJ for 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 grades. CLD 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 TJAGLCS. 

3 
The CLD also facilitates active information flow to and 

from the field using web-based media. 

 Traditionally-reported CLD actions for the last three 

fiscal years are: 

The Special Victim Prosecutor (SVP) policy was revised 

to authorize eight additional SVP positions for a total of 

twenty-three. One additional SVP is now positioned in 

Afghanistan, and the additional seven will assume duties in 

the summer of 2012 at installations that are currently 

underserved by the existing SVPs. The current sixteen SVPs 

each work very closely with the sexual assault litigation 

experts from the Trial Counsel Assistance Program (TCAP), 

and have developed habitual geographical relationships to 

enhance their effectiveness. To increase SVP effectiveness 

in practice and as mentors to other Trial Counsel, CLD 

provided each SVP six specially selected, criminal practice 

books that are fundamental to the prosecution of sexual 

assault cases. 

In July 2010, CLD began to better synchronize and 

integrate military justice training across our Corps. This 

effort culminated with the creation of the Consolidated 

Criminal Law Training Calendar and Criminal Law 

Synchronization Meeting. 

The quarterly meeting includes 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, which 

occurred three times during 2011, were invaluable in 

bringing the JAG Corps’ (JAGC) criminal law leaders 

together – not only to coordinate criminal law training 

across the JAGC, but to discuss new criminal law 

initiatives that could improve and sustain the practice of 

military justice in the Army. 

4 

 2009 2010 2011

Congressional and other 

inquiries 159 132 139 

Officer Dismissals 28 24 21 

Article 69 and other reviews 99 136 130 

Freedom of 

Information/Privacy Act 18 31 

 

45 
The calendar provides 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 Skill Identifier program. 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. By the end of 2011, 603 Judge Advocates 

had received skill identifiers, an 18% increase from the 

2010 total of 495. Currently there are 337 basic, 90 

advanced, 107 expert, and 69 master skill-identified judge 

advocates. 

In January 2011, the Army assumed the reins as the 

Chair of the Joint Services Committee (JSC). After several 

months’ effort, Executive Order (EO) 13593 was approved by 

the President on 13 December 2011, bringing new changes to 

the Manual for Courts-Martial. The changes include a new 

Article 134 offense prohibiting the possession, receipt, 

viewing, distribution, or production of child pornography 

and a new Military Rule of Evidence creating a privilege 

for communications between a victim advocate and a victim 

of a sexual assault or violent offense. Also, the 2012 

National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was approved by 

the President on 31 December 2011. After two years’ 

effort, Congress approved the JSC recommended changes to 

Article 120. Effective 28 June 2012, rape, sexual assault, 

and other sexual crimes will be separated into three 

distinct statutes: Article 120 for adult victims, Article 

120b for child victims, and Article 120c for other sexual 

offenses. 

The NDAA also extended subpoena power to the preferral 

stage in general courts-martial. Article 54 was also 

amended to require a record of trial be provided to victims 

in sexual assault courts-martial who testified during the 

proceedings. The JSC will work diligently to prepare a 

proposed 2012 EO to incorporate these amendments into a new 

Manual for Courts-Martial (Manual). 

5 
 The Manual is scheduled to be reprinted in 2012, which 

will include changes implemented by EO 13468, EO 13552, and 

EO 13593, as well as 2009 NDAA and 2012 NDAA statutory 

amendments. In addition to these voluminous changes, the 

JSC is completing its in-depth review and revision of the 

Military Rules of Evidence (MRE). In step with the 

December 2011 revision of the Federal Rules of Evidence, 

the MRE have been restyled and revised in like fashion. 

The revised MRE are scheduled to be included in a separate 

EO to be submitted to the President. The JSC is planning 

to reprint the Manual again in early 2013 to capture the 

revised MRE; new Articles 120, 120b, and 120c; and all 

related conforming changes. 

 The JAGC Information Technology Division (ITD) 

continued to improve military justice web-based programs 

this year. Military Justice Online (MJO), an application 

that has been online for three years, allows end-users to 

generate military justice actions for nonjudicial 

punishment, administrative separations and reprimands. In 

2011, MJO capabilities were significantly expanded by the 

development, testing, and implementation of the MJO CourtsMartial Module allowing users to create nearly all 

documents required for court-martial practice. This new 

module will improve document uniformity and consistency and 

create detailed military justice reports to accurately 

track court-martial cases across the Army. ITD and CLD 

engaged in a sustained effort to increase MJO use through 

on-site training and integration into officer and enlisted 

training doctrine. ITD representatives also trained 390 

personnel at ten locations and worked closely with TJAGCLS, 

NCOA, and TRADOC personnel to ensure MJO training is fully 

integrated. 

The Trial Advocates Tracking System (TATS), a webbased database that tracks the number of active trial and 

defense counsel, grew to include 653 Judge Advocates in 75 

organizations. 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. 

6 
First-time trial and defense counsel are eligible to 

receive the TARL. 

 An additional officer was attached to CLD this year 

from the new Knowledge Management (KM) Division, which 

consists of a Chief Knowledge Officer (O6), Deputy 

Knowledge Officer (CW5), and six KM attorney positions (O3) 

assigned to the core competency divisions. The KM attorney 

acts as a liaison between CLD, the field, and the KM 

Division, whose mission it is to promote an integrated JAG 

Corps approach to identifying, retrieving, evaluating, and 

sharing the Corps’ tacit and explicit knowledge assets to 

meet mission objectives. 

U.S. ARMY JUDICIARY

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

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

the Trial Judiciary. 

 

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

Court

 

The 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, Uniform Code of Military Justice 

(UCMJ), appeals under Article 62, UCMJ, and Petitions for 

Extraordinary Relief. More than 775 records of trial and 

over 1,250 motions and briefs were referred to one of the 

three judicial panels of ACCA for appellate review. The 

Office of the Clerk of Court served ACCA decisions upon all 

personnel not in confinement and closed over 820 courtsmartial cases during the past year. 

 ACCA maintains a website at 

https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/acca. ACCA’s published 

opinions and unpublished memorandum opinions and summary 

dispositions can be downloaded from the website. 

Applications for admission to the bar of ACCA, Rules of the 

Court, notices, and forms are available on the website, as 

is information concerning how to request records under the 

Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts. 

7 
The Clerk of Court is the custodian of the Army’s 

permanent courts-martial records (general courts-martial 

and those special courts-martial resulting in an approved 

bad-conduct discharge) dating from 1977. In June 2011, as 

the office prepared for the Court’s BRAC move from 

Arlington Virginia, to Fort Belvoir, Virginia, the Clerk 

transferred permanent custody of court-martial records from 

1939-76 to the National Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA). NARA relocated these files from the Washington 

National Records Center in Suitland, Maryland, to a storage 

facility in St. Louis, Missouri. Requests for courtsmartial records before 1977 must now be directed to NARA. 

The Office of the Clerk of Court receives inquiries 

about courts-martial convictions from federal and state 

investigative agencies, law enforcement offices, military 

historians, media, veterans, and convicted soldiers. 

Because the Brady Bill requires the processing of handgun 

applications within three workdays, the office also 

receives many expedited requests from the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation’s National Instant Check System. State 

sexual offender registries and the U.S. Marshals’ Service 

submit many requests. 

U.S. Army Clerk of Court requests for information for 

the last three fiscal years are as follows: 

 2009 2010 2011 

Freedom of Information Act 83 559 725 

Privacy Act 121 100 122 

Certified Copies of Convictions 570 185 91 

Requests from Federal Agencies 0 0 112 

Total Number of Requests 774 884 1050 

In previous fiscal years, requests from other federal 

agencies were counted as FOIA requests. The Office of the 

Clerk of Court is now tracking such requests separately, 

because they are outside of the purview of FOIA. 

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. 

8 
This includes making travel arrangements, assisting 

with requests for expedited passport processing, and 

issuing invitational travel orders. In 2011, the paralegal 

responsible for the Overseas Witness Travel Program 

provided assistance to thirty witnesses. In addition, the 

paralegal serving as the Appellate Victim Liaison in the 

Office of the Clerk of Court provided support and 

assistance to more than 100 victims of crime, keeping them 

informed of the status of their cases in the appellate 

review process. 

The Management and Program Analyst continued to 

provide vital support to the Office of the Clerk of Court 

and other users of the Army Court-Martial Information 

System (ACMIS) in 2011. He designed, developed, and 

implemented over 300 timely and accurate ad hoc reports in 

response to requesters in addition to producing and 

maintaining ten monthly and quarterly reports. He also 

designed and implemented new sections on the ACCA website 

and uploaded more than 120 ACCA decisions to the website, 

simplifying the records requests process and making Court 

decisions available to the public and military justice 

practitioners almost immediately. 

The Office of the Clerk of Court is responsible for 

accepting applications for membership in the bar of ACCA 

and arranges for the admission of military and civilian 

attorneys. In 2011, the Clerk’s Office admitted more than 

sixty new counsel to the bar of the Court and maintained 

accurate records of attorney disciplinary actions. 

The Office of the Clerk of Court also provided 

instruction to legal NCOs, court reporters and those 

individuals attending the JAG Corps’ Graduate Course and 

military justice courses at TJAGLCS. 

Staff members provided support to military justice 

offices in the field concerning post-trial courts-martial 

practice and assisted with revisions to the Post-Trial 

Handbook and implementation of the new AR 27-10 relating to 

self-executing punitive discharges. 

 

9 
Trial Judiciary

The 1082 courts-martial tried during this fiscal year 

reflect a slight increase over the 1070 courts-martial 

tried in 2010. Army trial judges – both active and reserve 

component – continued to preside over cases in deployed 

environments, with 70 general and special courts-martial 

tried in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan during this period, 

resulting in a grand total of over 920 since May 2003. The 

Trial Judiciary continued its ongoing effort to keep 

current DA Pamphlet 27-9, Military Judges’ Benchbook 

(Benchbook), approving eleven changes to that publication 

addressing: 

1. The statutory burden shifting for Article 120 

affirmative defenses, following United States v. Medina, 69 

M.J. 462 (C.A.A.F. 2011); 

2. Lesser-included offenses, following United States 

v. Jones, 68 M.J. 465 (C.A.A.F. 2010); 

3. Immigration status in guilty pleas, following 

Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S.Ct. 1473 (2010); 

4. Guilty pleas to non-forcible sodomy, following 

United States v. Hartman, 69 M.J. 467 (C.A.A.F. 2011). 

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 

organizations, law school classes and state bar continuing 

legal education courses. Other notable achievements by 

individual members of the Trial Judiciary included: 

*The 54th Military Judge Course graduated 38 Army, 

Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Coast Guard students in 

May and invested them as new military judges. 

10 
*COL Frank Whitney, a United States District Court 

judge in the Western District of North Carolina, mobilized 

and deployed to Kuwait for a six-month tour of duty 

presiding as a military judge over courts-martial convened 

throughout Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait. COL Whitney was 

the first sitting Article III judge to do so. 

*COL Reynold “Pete” Masterton also deployed to Kuwait 

for a year-long tour of duty as the Chief Circuit Judge, 

5th Judicial Circuit. In that capacity, COL Masterton both 

tried and supervised other military judges trying courtsmartial both in the CENTCOM Area of Responsibility and the 

EUCOM AOR. 

*COL Tara Osborn was appointed as Chair of the 

Military Courts Committee of the American Bar Association's 

National Conference of Specialized Court Judges. 

*COL Denise Lind was appointed to the George 

Washington Law School Faculty as a Professorial Lecturer in 

Law. 

*In recognition of his outstanding judicial 

qualifications, Colonel James Pohl received a Certificate 

in General Jurisdiction Trial Court Skills from the 

National Judicial College. 

U.S. ARMY TRIAL DEFENSE SERVICE 

This year more than 500 active and RC attorneys were 

serving in the U.S. Army Trial Defense Service (USATDS) 

worldwide, including 100 Army National Guard. USATDS 

provides high quality, professional defense services to 

Soldiers throughout the Army. USATDS counsel are stationed 

at 57 active duty installations worldwide and 51 reserve 

locations. 

USATDS detailed one or more counsel to every Army 

special and general court-martial referred in 2011, 

defending Soldiers facing the entire range of allegations 

under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In addition, 

USATDS counsel assisted Soldiers facing other military 

justice related adverse administrative actions. 

11 
The caseloads were as follows this year: 

General and Special Courts-Martial: 1,074 

Administrative Boards: 1,823 

Nonjudicial Punishment: 41,300 

Military Justice Consultations: 20,836 

The USATDS provided defense services to approximately 

158,000 Soldiers deployed throughout the CENTCOM AOR, 

primarily in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan. As of the end 

of 2011, the USATDS CENTCOM Region had eight field offices 

in CENTCOM after closing one of the Iraq field offices. Of 

the remaining field offices, one each remained at Balad, 

Iraq, Camp Victory, Iraq, Camp Speicher, Iraq, and Camp 

Arifjan, Kuwait. Meanwhile, TDS support in Afghanistan 

expanded to accommodate the evolving mission in CENTCOM, 

growing from two to four field offices. The four offices 

are located at Bagram Air Base, Kandahar Air Base, Sharana 

and Camp Phoenix, in Kabul. The Regional Defense Counsel 

is an active duty Lieutenant Colonel who serves as the 

senior supervisory TDS attorney in CENTCOM. His 

headquarters moved from Camp Victory in Iraq to Bagram Air 

Base in Afghanistan. He maintains sixteen trial defense 

attorneys and nine paralegals working under him in support 

of the TDS mission in CENTCOM. 

 

In 2011, DCAP lost one of its two Highly Qualified 

Experts (HQEs) to retirement. In a continuing era of 

declining resources and limited travel, DCAP nevertheless 

excelled at providing training through creativity, 

flexibility, seeking opportunities for joint training with 

government counsel, and good stewardship. DCAP organized 

and debuted a new joint training opportunity, the Joint 

Advocacy Symposium. DCAP brought in several renowned trial 

advocacy practitioners to immerse counsel in an intensive 

trial skills improvement workshop utilizing their realworld cases. DCAP also updated the Sexual Assault Trial 

Advocacy Course (SATAC), a two-week joint advanced advocacy 

training course which debuted successfully in 2010. The 

Expert Witness Symposium once again provided a group of 

trial and defense counsel exposure to ten expert witnesses 

who regularly testify in courts-martial. DCAP developed 

and published the DC 101 Deskbook to be used by counsel 

attending the DC 101 training and then to keep as a 

permanent resource. 

12 
DCAP continued to support the field in traditional 

manners by timely and effectively answering questions 

submitted from counsel. DCAP proactively ensured that 

practitioners in the field kept abreast of all major 

developments by means of publishing a series of updates 

called “DCAP Alerts” and “DCAP Sends.” Updates and 

expansions to the Sharepoint website continued to provide 

instant and comprehensive, around the clock support to 

counsel in the field. DCAP’s other ongoing initiatives 

include uploading training materials, including a motions 

bank and an expert witness database, and beginning several 

ongoing chat rooms to maintain discussion among counsel on 

such critical issues as post-trial processing and new 

developments. 

The 22nd TDS Legal Support Organization (LSO) consists 

of 90 commissioned officers, 1 warrant officer, and 29 

enlisted paralegals. The 22nd LSO encompasses East Asia 

and the United States west of the Mississippi River. In 

2011, the 22nd LSO mobilized eight attorneys and four 

paralegals for service in CONUS, Europe, and CENTCOM. In 

addition, the TDS LSO represented over 2,300 reserve 

component Soldiers facing military justice and adverse 

administrative actions. The 154th TDS LSO consists of 146 

commissioned officers, two warrant officers, and thirtyfour enlisted paralegals. The 154th LSO encompasses Europe, 

Puerto Rico, and the United States east of the Mississippi 

River as well as Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri. In 

2011, the 154th LSO mobilized fifteen attorneys and twelve 

paralegals for service in CONUS, Europe and CENTCOM. 

Additionally, the 154th LSO also represented over 2,000 

reserve component Soldiers facing military justice and 

adverse administrative actions. 

The Army National Guard (ARNG) TDS consists of 100 

commissioned officers, one civilian legal administrator, 

and eighteen enlisted paralegals stationed in 46 states and 

territories. The AOR for ARNG TDS encompasses all 54 of 

the states, territories, and the District of Columbia. 

13 
In 2011, four ARNG TDS regions conducted the first 

ever National Guard specific TDS training conferences. 

Moreover, the presence of an independent trial defense 

service afforded three states the ability to pursue general 

courts-martial under their respective state codes of 

military justice resulting in one acquittal, one guilty 

plea, and one case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In 

other matters, ARNG TDS counsel represented more than 1,500 

ARNG Soldiers. 

GOVERNMENT APPELLATE DIVISION 

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

with twenty-three active duty and four Individual 

Mobilization Augmentee military attorneys, represents the 

United States before the Army Court of Criminal Appeals 

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

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

at courts-martial with an adjudged sentence of either a 

punitive discharge or confinement for one year or more. 

GAD also represents the United States before ACCA, CAAF, 

and the Supreme Court in government appeals from courtsmartial and petitions for extraordinary relief. 

Additionally, GAD oversees the operations of TCAP. 

During 2011, GAD filed 502 briefs at ACCA and 434 

responses to petitions for grant of review and 11 briefs at 

CAAF. GAD appellate attorneys argued twenty-seven cases 

before ACCA and fifteen cases before CAAF. 

 As part of ACCA’s Project Outreach, GAD argued two 

cases in the civilian community -one at Howard University 

School of Law in Washington, D.C., and the other at South 

Texas College of Law in Houston, Texas. These outreach 

arguments are important in displaying military justice to 

largely civilian audiences. Both arguments were 

tremendously successful. 

 TCAP continued its mission to assist prosecutors in 

the field. In 2011, this encompassed TCAP’s traditional 

activities such as publishing a quarterly newsletter, 

answering questions from the field, and conducting training 

events. 

14 
Last year’s training events consisted of fourteen outreach 

programs at Army installations world-wide, four regional 

conferences, and eleven specialty courses (e.g. advanced 

advocacy, child crimes, and forensics). As in 2010, 

training was focused on prosecuting sexual assault and 

domestic violence. Several of the courses were co-hosted 

with DCAP. 

 TCAP introduced the New Prosecutor Course (NPC), a 

six-day course focused equally on the fundamentals of 

military justice and prosecution of sexual assaults. The 

NPC will be held once a quarter to ensure that all new 

trial counsel attend within three to four months of 

becoming a trial counsel. 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 was a significant rise in requests from the 

field for direct TCAP assistance, including the prosecution 

of over 30 cases in 2011. The support varied from 

providing a HQE to assist with trial (from behind the bar) 

to assigning a TCAP judge advocate as lead counsel. 

Finally, TCAP continued to supervise the growth of the 

Special Victim Prosecutor (SVP) program. The first SVP was 

assigned to Afghanistan this year, which also saw the first 

sexual assault case tried by a SVP in theater. 

DEFENSE APPELLATE DIVISION 

 The Defense Appellate Division (DAD) provides 

appellate representation to eligible Soldiers and other 

individuals before the Army Court of Criminal Appeals 

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

and the Supreme Court of the United States. Eligible 

Soldiers include those convicted at courts-martial where 

the approved sentence consists of a punitive discharge or 

confinement for one year or more. DAD attorneys also 

assist military and civilian Trial Defense Counsel in the 

preparation and filing of extraordinary writs before the 

aforementioned courts. 

15 
The staff consists of nineteen active component Judge 

Advocates, four civilian paralegals, and one 

Noncommissioned officer serving in two branches and 

including a training officer. As in past years, reserve 

component Judge Advocates continued to provide critical 

support. DAD was fortunate to have seven Drilling 

Individual Mobilization Augmentee Judge Advocates. 

There were 565 new cases received this year and 558 

cases filed with ACCA. Of those ACCA filings, 183 raised 

substantive assignments of error. DAD attorneys also filed 

517 cases with CAAF, 102 of which raised substantive 

assignments of error. Oral arguments were made in more 

than twenty cases. This year DAD attorneys filed four 

Article 62 appeals; two writ petitions; and one petition 

for certiorari before the Supreme Court. DAD attorneys 

also filed an extensive brief addressing six substantive 

issues in United States v. Akbar, a capital case, and a 

substantial supplemental brief raising three additional 

issues not previously raised in this case. 

As the move toward a strict elements test for lesser 

included offenses continues, DAD attorneys argued United 

States v. Alston, 69 M.J. 214 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (whether 

aggravated sexual assault is a lesser included offense to 

rape) and United States v. Girouard, 70 M.J. 5 (C.A.A.F. 

2011) (whether negligent homicide is a lesser included 

offense to murder). DAD attorneys also briefed a case of 

first impression in United States v. Ali, 70 M.J. 514 (Army 

Ct. Crim. App. 2011) regarding the use of Article 2(a)(10), 

UCMJ to prosecute a civilian accompanying the force. In 

United States v. Watson, 69 M.J. 415 (C.A.A.F. 2011), the 

court decided a novel issue regarding the interplay between 

administrative and punitive discharges in light of Army 

regulations. Finally, DAD attorneys argued cases to ensure 

a constitutional application of Military Rule of Evidence 

412 in United States v. Gaddis, 70 M.J. 248 (C.A.A.F. 2011) 

(holding a constitutional use of M.R.E. 412) and United 

States v. Ellerbrock, 70 M.J. 314 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (holding 

an unconstitutional use of M.R.E. 412). 

DAD attorneys represented clients at outreach 

arguments hosted by ACCA and thereby contributed to the 

public understanding of and support for the Military 

Justice System. 

16 
In one notable case argued at the South Texas College 

of Law, a DAD attorney successfully advocated for the 

complete dismissal of a serious charge using changes in the 

law regarding lesser included offenses. 

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. 

In Gray v. Gray [Private Ronald Gray v. Colonel Gray, 

the Commandant of the United States Disciplinary Barracks], 

litigation continues concerning the habeas petition of a 

military prisoner on death row. In November 2008, the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Kansas granted Private 

Ronald Gray’s motion to stay his execution and appointed 

counsel to assist him in pursuing habeas relief. In 1988, 

Gray was convicted at court-martial of, among other 

charges, three specifications of premeditated murder, one 

specification of attempted murder, three specifications of 

rape and two specifications of forcible sodomy. He was 

sentenced to death, a dishonorable discharge, total 

forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to 

Private E-1. 

In 2001, at the conclusion of the military appellate 

process, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Gray’s petition for 

writ of certiorari. In 2008, the President approved the 

death sentence and the Secretary of the Army signed the 

Execution Order directing that Gray be executed. In April 

2009, Gray filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. In 

September 2010, the court ruled that Gray could amend his 

petition to present additional claims. After the government 

filed its response to petitioner’s claims, in February 

2011, petitioner filed a Petition for Extraordinary Relief 

in the Nature of a Writ of Coram Nobis with the Army Court 

of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) and requested the district court 

to stay the case until after ACCA acts on the petition. 

17 
In October 2011, petitioner notified the court that 

briefing was complete, but ACCA had yet to act on the 

petition. On 26 January 2012, ACCA denied the petition, 

finding that Gray cannot meet the threshold criteria for 

coram nobis review. 

 In Hennis v. Helmick, et al., the government continues 

to defend a challenge by a retiree recalled to active duty 

to face capital murder charges. 

 On 28 December 2009, after ACCA and CAAF denied his 

extraordinary writs challenging the military’s jurisdiction 

to prosecute him, MSG (Ret.) Timothy Hennis filed a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina 

seeking an emergency stay of his pending court-martial. 

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

denied MSG (Ret.) Hennis’ request for a preliminary 

injunction to stop the court-martial proceedings, a courtmartial convicted MSG (Ret.) Hennis of three murder 

specifications and sentenced him to death. MSG Hennis 

appealed the denial of his habeas petition to the Fourth 

Circuit. Oral argument was held on 26 October 2011. On 

17 January 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Fourth Circuit, in Hennis v. Hemlick, et al., affirmed the 

decision of the District Court for the Eastern District of 

North Carolina which dismissed, without prejudice, the 

habeas petition of a Soldier who had yet to exhaust his 

opportunities within the military justice system to raise 

his jurisdictional challenge. Petitioner unsuccessfully 

argued that the district court should immediately intervene 

based on his status as a retiree recalled to active duty 

and sentenced to death for murder charges of which he was 

acquitted twenty years earlier in state court and his 

contention that the military lacked jurisdiction to 

prosecute him for crimes that occurred prior to his 

reenlistment. The Court of Appeals held that it was proper 

for the district court to defer to the expertise of the 

military courts “to initially consider and resolve the 

mixed questions of fact and law comprising Hennis’s 

jurisdictional challenge.” Only after petitioner exhausts 

all available military remedies may he collaterally attack 

the court-martial in federal district court. 

18 
Cioca, et al. v. Rumsfeld, et al. and Smith v. United 

States, et al. were brought by individuals claiming the 

policies of former Secretaries of Defense Rumsfeld and 

Gates fostered an environment in which sexual assaults 

occurred and remained largely unpunished. All plaintiffs 

in the Cioca case are current or former military members 

while the plaintiff in the Smith case was a military 

dependent. 

Plaintiffs brought these cases under a Bivens theory 

of individual liability, contending the defendants, through 

acts of omission and commission, violated the plaintiffs’ 

First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The 

defendants countered that Bivens should not be expanded to 

cover plaintiffs’ allegations. The court agreed. Citing 

the “special factors” language of the Bivens decision, the 

court found plaintiffs’ allegations directly implicated the 

military’s disciplinary system and were the province of the 

elected branches of government, not the judiciary. An 

additional claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) 

remained in Smith. Ms. Smith claimed that the United 

States negligently inflicted emotional distress on her 

during the investigation and prosecution of her alleged 

attacker. The court found the FTCA barred her claim under 

a theory of prosecutorial immunity codified in 28 U.S.C. § 

2674. The court dismissed both cases on 9 December 2011. 

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on 5 January 2012. 

PERSONNEL, PLANS, AND POLICIES 

 On 30 September 2011, the Army’s end-strength was 

706,506 Army Soldiers on active duty, including Active 

Guard and Reserve (AGR) and mobilized Soldiers, compared to 

661,360 at the end of fiscal year 2010 (FY10). The 

attorney strength of the Active Army (AA) Judge Advocate 

General’s Corps at the end of 2011 was 1,897 (including 

general officers). This total does not include 69 officers 

attending law school while participating in the Funded 

Legal Education Program. The FY11 end-strength of 1,897 

compares with an end-strength of 1,858 in FY10, 1,730 in 

FY09, 1,647 in FY08, 1,643 in FY07, 1,638 in FY06, 1,603 in 

FY05, 1,547 in FY04, 1,506 in FY03, 1,474 in FY02, and 

1,462 in FY01. The diverse composition of our FY11 AA 

attorney population included 132 African-Americans, 58 

Hispanics, 96 Asians and Native Americans, and 473 women. 

19 
The grade distribution of the Corps’ AA attorneys for FY11 

was 6 general officers authorized (five filling JAGC 

authorizations and a sixth general officer serving in a 

branch immaterial billet), 136 colonels, 245 lieutenant 

colonels, 449 majors, and 1,062 captains. 

An additional 98 warrant officers, 561 civilian attorneys, 

and 1,942 enlisted paralegals supported legal operations 

worldwide. The attorney strength of the RC Judge Advocate 

General’s Corps at the end of FY11 was 1,849 (which 

includes officers serving in Troop Program Units, the 

Drilling Individual Mobilization Augmentation Program, the 

Individual Ready Reserve, and the Active Guard & Reserves) 

and the attorney strength of the Army National Guard at the 

end of FY10 was 822. At the end of FY11, over 612 Army 

JAGC personnel (officer and enlisted, AA and RC) were 

deployed in operations in Afghanistan, Africa, Bosnia, 

Cuba, Kosovo, Egypt, Honduras, Iraq, Kuwait, and Qatar. 

 DANA K. CHIPMAN 

 Lieutenant General, USA 

 The Judge Advocate General 

20 
APPENDIX - U.S. ARMY MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Report Period: FISCAL YEAR 2011 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE 

(+)/ DECREASE (-

) OVER LAST 

REPORT 

GENERAL 617 580 36 +1.1% 

BCD SPECIAL [A] 464 442 21 +4.0% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 0 0 0 -100.0% 

SUMMARY 632 619 13 -22.83% 

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

REPORT 

-9.9% 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED [B]

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES (+ 

DISMISSALS) 

73 (+26) 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 240 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL -- NUMBER OF BCD’S 196 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GCM 351 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPCM 196 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GCM 213 

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

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF 115 [C]

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D]

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D]

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 555 [C]

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 573 [E]

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 97 [C]

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

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

NUMBER OF CASES 

 REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

-8.6% 

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE ACCA 

NUMBER 506 

PERCENTAGE 91.17% 

21 
PART 6 - ACTIONS OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED

FORCES (CAAF)

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 73.12%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS +2.57%

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 11.65%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS +94.17%

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES 9.25%

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

CASES REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD +99.78% 

22 
APPENDIX - U.S. ARMY MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS - CONT’D 

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF 

PERIOD 0 

RECEIVED 13 

DISPOSED OF 11 

 GRANTED 0 

 DENIED 11 

 NO JURISDICTION 0 

 WITHDRAWN 0 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF 

PERIOD 2 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 476 

 SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 406 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 158 

 SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 56 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 14 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 569139 [F] 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 36942 

RATE PER 1,000 64.91 

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

PREVIOUS PERIOD +0.32% 

EXPLANATORY NOTES 

[A] Cases convened by GCM convening authority. 

[B] Based on records of trial received during FY for 

appellate review. 

[C] Includes only cases briefed and at issue. 

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

tracked separately. 

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

appeals withdrawn. 

[F] This number includes only Active Component Soldiers 

and does not include USAR, National Guard or AGR 

personnel. 

23 
SECTION 4 

 REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

NAVY 
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY 

OCTOBER 1, 2010 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 

SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF 

MILITARY JUSTICE 

JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 

The Judge Advocate General (JAG) chairs, monthly, the 

Military Justice Oversight Council. This council also 

consists of the Commander, Naval Legal Service Command 

(COMNAVLEGSVCCOM), the Staff Judge Advocate to the 

Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the Assistant Judge 

Advocates General. 

The JAG and the COMNAVLEGSVCCOM made frequent 

inspections of U.S. Navy legal offices in the United 

States, Europe, and the Far East in order to supervise the 

administration of military justice in accordance with the 

requirement of Article 6(a), Uniform Code of Military 

Justice (UCMJ). These inspections, conducted by subject 

matter experts, examined the full range of military justice 

processes. 

 Fiscal Year 2011 saw continued expansion in Military 

Justice Litigation Career Track (MJLCT). There are 

currently 64 officers in the career track and 52 MJLCT 

designated billets. This excess includes 10 percent 

programmed to serve “outside” the track in officer 

development billets such as post-graduate school, 

Individual Augmentees or carrier CJAs. The promotion rate 

for MJLCT officers continues to be monitored and the inzone officers designated for that community were promoted 

on the FY12 boards at a rate consistent with or better than 

a “best and fully qualified” rate as compared to the 

overall selection rate. 

1 
ASSISTANT JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, MILITARY JUSTICE(CODE 02) 

AJAG-MJ advises the JAG in the performance of his 

statutory duties relating to military justice matters. 

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

Judge Advocate General’s Ethics Committee, the Judicial 

Screening Board, and the Military Justice Oversight 

Council, and oversees OJAG’s Military Justice Division 

(Code 20), and the National Security Litigation Division 

(Code 30). The AJAG-MJ is dual-hatted as the Officer in 

Charge of Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Review Activity (Code 

04). In this capacity, he oversees the Administrative 

Support Division (Code 40), Appellate Defense Division 

(Code 45), and Appellate Government Division (Code 46). 

AJAG-MJ has the ultimate responsibility for disposition of 

all records of trial received for review or other 

dispositions pursuant to statute, regulation, or 

appropriate appellate court rules of practice and 

procedure. 

CRIMINAL LAW DIVISION (CODE 20) 

Organization. The Criminal Law Division was staffed 

with eight active duty judge advocates, four civilian 

support personnel, and two reserve units. Reserve unit 

NAVJAG 113 conducted Article 69(a) and 69(b), UCMJ, reviews 

and unit NAVJAG 108 provided research and Action Officer 

support. 

Mission. Coordinates military justice policy within 

DON. Drafts legal and policy advice for the JAG on a wide 

variety of military justice matters; reviews all 

legislative and regulatory proposals affecting military 

justice. The Division staffs all amendments to Chapter 1 

of the JAG Manual and all other Secretarial and JAG 

regulations implementing or affecting the UCMJ. It 

monitors all decisions of military appellate courts; tracks 

the status of ongoing, important, and high-profile military 

justice cases; provides an opinion and staffs JAG 

certification of cases for review by NMCCA or CAAF; and 

facilitates DOJ processing of executive pardon requests 

relating to military convictions. 

2 
The Division staffs requests for Secretarial designation 

as general, special and summary court-martial convening 

authority; coordinates court orders and warrants of 

attachment and coordinates with DOJ to approve grants of 

immunity/orders to testify for civilian witnesses at trial 

by court-martial. 

Finally, the Division provides a JAG representative to 

the SECNAV Clemency and Parole Board; upon request, 

provides legal opinions to the Board for Correction of 

Naval Records; provides informal advice for all Navy and 

Marine Corps judge advocates engaged in military justice 

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

reviews and requests; and acts as the initial denial 

authority on all FOIA/Privacy Act requests for information 

pertaining to courts-martial. 

The Code 20 Division Director serves as Special 

Assistant for Military Justice, NAVLEGSVCCOM, and advises 

COMNAVLEGSVCCOM regarding policies, plans, resources and 

procedures affecting the military justice mission of 

NAVLEGSVCCOM. In that capacity, the Division Director 

assists COMNAVLEGSVCCOM, in Article 6, UCMJ, inspections of 

NAVLEGSVCCOM commands and detachments. 

 The Code 20 Division Director continued to serve as the 

Navy Representative to the Joint Service Committee for 

Military Justice (JSC), and functions as the Navy’s voting 

group member at regular meetings of the JSC, which is the 

principal vehicle for staffing amendments to the UCMJ and 

MCM, and provides a Navy representative for meetings of the 

joint-service working group supporting the JSC. The 2011 

Annual Review was completed in accordance with the 

President’s requirement that the MCM be reviewed annually. 

 During the past year, the Military Justice Division 

completed review of 45 records of trial under Article 

69(a), UCMJ and 14 records under Article 69(b), UCMJ. No 

petitions were reviewed under Article 73, UCMJ. 

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT DIVISION (CODE 40) 

Organization. The Administrative Support Division was 

staffed with one officer, two civilians and ten enlisted 

Marine Corps staff members. 

3 
 Mission. Provides administrative and logistical 

support services to personnel assigned to NAMARA and NMCCA. 

Reviews for completeness all records of trial forwarded to 

the NMCCA for appellate review pursuant to Article 66, 

UCMJ; promulgates decisions of the NMCCA in accordance with 

the JAG Manual and the Manual for Courts-Martial; manages 

the OJAG court-martial central filing system, including 

original records of trial maintained at NAMARA; manages and 

retrieves archived records of trial stored at the Federal 

Records Center in Suitland, Maryland; and administers all 

NMCCA and CAAF mandate/judgments on remand back to field 

commands for corrective action. During FY11, NAMARA Code 

40 reviewed and examined over 718 records of trial for 

completeness prior to forwarding those records to the 

appropriate level for appellate review pursuant to Articles 

66 and 69(a) UCMJ. 

 The Administrative Support Division continued 

implementation of its “digital records of trial” program, 

expanding the program to include two major Navy commands: 

Region Legal Service Office, Mid-Atlantic and Region Legal 

Service Office, Southeast and three Marine Corps commands: 

Camp Lejeune, Camp Pendleton, and Marine Corps Air Ground 

Combat Center 29 Palms. Additionally, the program was 

expanded from including only guilty pleas to a number of 

contested cases. This program allows the forwarding of 

only one paper copy of the record of trial to Washington 

DC, with the required copies for the Court of Criminal 

Appeals, defense, and Government, fulfilled by a bookmarked 

PDF record of trial. 

APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISION (CODE 45) 

 Organization. The Appellate Defense Division was 

staffed with nine active duty Navy and Marine Corps judge 

advocates and four civilian support personnel. Twenty-four 

Navy and Marine Corps Reserve judge advocates supported the 

Appellate Defense Division. The two units are Navy Reserve 

unit, NAMARA 110, and the Marine Corps Reserve contingent 

which consisted of four independently assigned Marine judge 

advocates. 

4 
Mission. The Appellate Defense Division represents Navy 

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

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

before the Naval Clemency & Parole Board. The Division 

provides assistance to trial defense counsel in the field 

by helping to file extraordinary writs before NMCCA and 

CAAF, providing a death penalty assistance team to advise 

field defense counsel facing potential capital cases, 

providing general training, and providing advice on 

specific cases in litigation at trial. 

As depicted below, in fiscal year 2011, a total of 598 

new cases were docketed at NMCCA and received in the 

Appellate Defense Division. The Appellate Defense Division 

filed 531 initial pleadings, which include 161 briefs, 351 

merit submissions, and 19 summary assignments. A total of 

81 supplemental briefs to petitions were filed at CAAF, 

resulting in 20 full briefs. 

 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 

NMCCA 

Briefs Filed 415 230 173 159 161 

Total Cases Filed 750 778 831 744 531 

Oral Arguments 8 6 14 15 19 

CAAF 

Petitions with 

Supplemental Briefs 

Filed 

29 27 31 21 20 

Briefs Filed 206 151 96 69 81 

Oral Arguments 21 32 23 11 7 

U.S. Supreme Court 

Petitions 6 6 5 6 2 

Capital Litigation. The sole remaining death penalty 

case has been returned from remand and is at NMCCA. 

 Assistance to Trial Defense Counsel. The Appellate 

Defense Division provides advice and support to the Navy 

Defense Counsel Assistance program as well as Navy and 

Marine Corps trial defense counsel around the world. The 

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

file extraordinary writs. The Division also conducts a 

Trial Defense Counsel Outreach Training Program in order to 

provide training on recent appellate developments and 

important trial issues. 

5 
APPELLATE GOVERNMENT DIVISION (CODE 46) 

 Organization. The Appellate Government Division was 

staffed with nine active duty judge advocates, one civilian 

attorney, and two civilian administrative employees. The 

Appellate Government Division is supported by NAVJAG 116, a 

reserve detachment based out of Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

Reserve support continues to be critical to the 

accomplishment of our mission and the Appellate Government 

Division was augmented by 16 reserve judge advocates. 

Reserve judge advocates contributed an average of four

briefs per month. 

 Mission. Per Article 70, Uniform Code of Military 

Justice (UCMJ), the primary mission of the Appellate 

Government Division is to represent the United States 

before the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals 

(NMCCA) and CAAF. Additionally, in coordination with the 

Navy and Marine Corps Trial Counsel Assistance Programs, 

Code 46 continues to provide outreach and support to staff 

judge advocates, review officers, and trial counsel 

throughout the Navy and Marine Corps on issues related to 

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

 Briefs and Arguments. A summary of this year’s 

appellate activity is set forth in the below chart. 

“Briefs Filed” include Government briefs, answers to 

supplements, and supplemental briefs. “Other Pleadings” 

include responses to extraordinary writs, motion responses, 

responses to Court Orders, and Petitions for 

Reconsideration. The number of oral arguments before NMCCA 

has increased over the past couple of years while the 

number of oral arguments before CAAF has decreased. 

Article 62 appeals by the United States of trial court 

decisions have steadily declined over the past few years: 8 

in FY 07; 11 in FY 08; 9 in FY 09; 3 in FY 10; and 2 in FY 

11. 

6 
 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 

NMCCA 

Briefs Filed 486 232 154 163 188 

Other Pleadings 528 340 313 373 144 

 Oral Arguments 8 6 14 15 19 

CAAF 

Briefs Filed 45 37 28 24 22 

Other Pleadings 158 146 60 102 70 

Oral Arguments 21 32 23 11 7 

 b. The Division’s practice at CAAF included 

certification of significant matters of military justice in 

Hayes, Nash, and McMurrin. 

 c. The Division continued its representation of the 

United States in one capital case: United States v. Parker. 

 d. During FY 11, the Division’s judge advocates 

participated in one oral argument as part of United States 

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces’ outreach program. 

ASSISTANT JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, CHIEF JUDGE, 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY (CODE 05) 

 The Chief Judge of the Department of the Navy (CJDON) 

is the senior supervisory jurist in the Department of the 

Navy, overseeing both the trial and appellate judiciaries. 

CJDON serves as Rules Counsel for the judiciary and as the 

community sponsor for the Navy JAG Corps’ Military Justice 

Litigation Career Track. During FY11, the CJDON also 

served as the acting Chief Judge of the United States Court 

of Military Commissions Review (USCMCR). 

 

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

(CODE 51) 

 The United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal 

Appeals (NMCCA) disposed of 571 cases in FY 2011. Despite 

a lower case load, the Court issued more opinions than in 

the preceding two years. In addition, the court granted 19 

oral arguments, including one for “Project Outreach” heard 

at the United States Naval Academy. At the end of the 

fiscal year, no case had exceeded 18 months from docketing 

to decision, no case was in panel longer than 12 months, 

and only one case was in panel longer than six months. 

7 
The size of the Court decreased from nine to eight 

active-duty military appellate judges, including four Navy 

and four Marine Corps judges. Two of the active-duty 

appellate military judges simultaneously served on the 

USCMCR. The active-duty judiciary is supported by seven 

Navy reserve and two Marine Corps reserve appellate judges. 

During FY11, the court also supported the Navy JAG 

Corps 2010 National Moot Court Competition at the Naval Air 

Station Jacksonville, Florida, and routinely provided 

former trial judges to preside over the Naval Justice 

School’s Basic Lawyer Course moot courts. The court hosted 

its first annual NMCCA Judicial Symposium in FY11. This 

focused appellate training brought distinguished jurists 

and law professors to the Court for three days to train 

active-duty, reserve and civilian Court personnel. 

NMCCA continues to maintain a website at 

http://www.jag.navy.mil/nmcca.htm. NMCCA’s published and 

unpublished opinions are posted to this website. In 

addition, the Court maintains a docket for upcoming oral 

arguments and audio files of completed oral arguments. 

Finally, applications for admission to the NMCCA bar and 

rules of the court are maintained on the website. 

The Court was supported by six junior judge advocates 

serving as law clerks and a field-grade officer as senior 

law clerk. The law clerks provided essential legal and 

administrative support to the appellate judiciary while 

gaining valuable experience in legal analysis and opinion 

writing that will inform their later appellate and trial 

practice. Law clerks serve from nine to 12 months and then 

typically rotate to one of two appellate counsel divisions, 

government or defense. 

 NAVY-MARINE CORPS TRIAL JUDICIARY (CODE 52) 

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

unified trial judiciary with the core mission of providing 

certified military judges for all Navy and Marine Corps 

general and special courts martial. The NMCTJ is organized 

into seven judicial circuits world-wide and is supported by 

Naval Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve Individual 

Mobilization Augmentees. During FY11, the NMCTJ consisted 

of 25 active-duty and 17 reserve judges. 

8 
During FY11, the NMCTJ provided comprehensive and 

timely judicial services to Fleet and Shore activities and 

to Marine Forces in the United States and around the world. 

The NMCTJ presided over 1,136 cases, including 311 general 

courts-martial and 815 special courts-martial. Cases were 

tried in both forward-deployed combat zones of Iraq and 

Afghanistan. In addition to presiding over regularly 

referred courts-martial, NMCTJ judges were appointed as 

Article 32 investigating officers in high visibility cases 

and presided over numerous high-profile cases, including 

one military commission at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Two trial 

judges remain available for any forthcoming military 

commission cases. NMCTJ judges also performed duties as 

Environmental Impact Statement Public Hearing Officers for 

proceedings conducted throughout the United States pursuant 

to the National Environmental Policy Act. 

During FY11, a military judge was reassigned to 

Naples, Italy, to preside over courts-martial and 

administer judicial services within an area of 

responsibility including Europe, Africa, and Southwest 

Asia. 

 

 NMCTJ judges attended various National Judicial 

College (NJC) courses throughout the year at various offsite locations. The NJC provides judge-specific training 

for military judges. Several NMCTJ judges were awarded the 

professional Certificate in Judicial Development, General 

Jurisdiction Trial Skills from the NJC. Most members of 

the trial judiciary also participated in the annual InterService Military Judges Training Symposium for all Services 

military trial judges, this year hosted by the U.S. Air 

Force at the Air Force JAG School in Montgomery, Alabama. 

 The NMCTJ judges provided training at various 

locations, including the Defense Institute of International 

Legal Studies, Navy-Marine Corps Senior Officers Courses, 

Legal Officer Courses, Naval Justice School Basic Lawyer 

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

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

courses. Throughout all judicial circuits, the NMCTJ 

performed an active role in routinely mentoring judge 

advocates by means of both formal and informal training 

sessions. 

9 
NAVAL LEGAL SERVICE COMMAND 

 Naval Legal Service Command (NAVLEGSVCCOM) is commanded 

by Commander, Naval Legal Service Command (CNLSC). 

NAVLEGSVCCOM consists of eight Naval Legal Service Offices 

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

Naval Justice School. NAVLEGSVCCOM provides counsel for 

courts-martial, administrative boards, physical evaluation 

boards, legal assistance, and local commanders. 

NAVLEGSVCCOM also provides training for Navy, Marine Corps 

and Coast Guard judge advocates, legalmen, and other DoD 

personnel. During Fiscal Year 2011, NAVLEGSVCCOM provided 

counsel for 125 General Courts-Martial, 163 Special CourtsMartial, 999 Administrative Boards, provided 111,951 

attorney legal assistance services, and 67,046 customer 

services. 

 NAVLEGSVCCOM includes 415 Judge Advocates, one Civil 

Engineer Corps Officer, five Limited Duty (Legal) Officers, 

224 Legalmen, and 270 civilians. NAVLEGSVCCOM provides 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 world-wide and is the primary source of personnel 

to meet the Navy Judge Advocate Corps annual Individual 

Augmentation (IA) requirements in support of Overseas 

Contingency Operations. Twelve percent of NAVLEGSCCOM 

judge advocates deployed during FY11 as IAs in direct 

support OCOs in Iraq, Afghanistan, Djibouti and Guantanamo 

Bay, Cuba. 

 Significant improvements were made in the area of posttrial processing. On 25 March 2011, regulations 

establishing minimum standards for post-trial processing 

were promulgated. These regulations included updated 

checklists to use during the court-martial review process, 

ensuring expeditious and efficient handling from sentencing 

date through final action. In case tracking and 

management, the continued updating and increased 

accessibility of content and standardized reports in the 

Navy’s Case Management Tracking and Information System 

(CMTIS) contributed to progress in post-trial processing 

times. The overall average processing times from Preferral 

to Convening Authority’s Action (CAA) within NAVLEGSVCCOM 

has declined over the past two fiscal years by 24 percent. 

10 
 On October 1, 2010, CNLSC established separate Chiefs 

of Staff (COS) for the RLSOs and NLSOs. Both billets are 

occupied by post-command officers and provide senior 

supervisory counsel for the prosecution and defense 

functions, ensuring greater oversight and accountability. 

The COS are assisted by the Directors of the Trial Counsel 

and Defense Counsel Assistance Programs, who have been 

working over the past year to provide greater 

standardization in the prosecution and defense functions 

and to provide for greater reach-back and support to trial 

and defense counsel in the field. In addition to case 

support, TCAP and DCAP have provided additional training 

opportunities for counsel. 

NAVAL JUSTICE SCHOOL 

 Organization. Naval Justice School (NJS) reports to 

Commander, CNLSC for administrative and operational 

control. Additionally, Commanding Officer, NJS consults 

with Commanding Officer, Center for Service Support on 

matters relating to the effectiveness of instruction and 

administration of training at NJS. The main NJS facility 

is located in Newport, Rhode Island. Teaching detachments 

are based in San Diego, California, and Norfolk, Virginia 

(areas of Fleet concentration). A three-person Branch 

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

Advocate General’s Legal Center and School in 

Charlottesville, Virginia. 

 Mission. To oversee formal training of naval judge 

advocates and legalmen to ensure their career-long 

professional development and readiness; to provide 

comprehensive formal training to all Sea Service judge 

advocates and other legal personnel in order to promote 

justice and ensure the delivery of quality legal advice and 

other services to the commander; and to train commanders and 

senior officers in the practical aspects of military law to 

enable them to perform their command and staff duties, and 

train other personnel to assist in the sound administration 

of military justice. 

 In fiscal year (FY) 2011, NJS provided instruction to 

more than 28,011 students worldwide (including 3,267 in 

resident courses ranging in length from three days to 

eleven weeks). 

11 
In addition to teaching at NJS courses, NJS instructors 

provide out-of-house teaching in military justice, 

administrative law, and operational law to other commands, 

including the Naval War College, Command Leadership School, 

Officer Development School, Senior Enlisted Academy, 

Surface Warfare Officers School Command, Officer Candidate 

School, Naval Academy Preparatory School, Limited 

Duty/Chief Warrant Officer Indoctrination School, Supply 

Officers School Command, and to submariner officers at the 

Submariners Officer Advanced Course. 

 Academic Programs. NJS has eight “core” courses that 

include training in military justice. These courses are: 

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

course, offered three times in FY 2011, 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 in both legal 

assistance skills and trial advocacy skills. Upon 

graduation, judge advocates are certified per Article 

27(b), UCMJ. FY 2011 graduates: 168. 

 

 2. Legalman Accession Course. This 11-week 

course, offered once annually, trains Navy enlisted 

personnel selected for conversion to the Legalman rating. 

The course provides 10 ABA-certified credits towards a 

paralegal degree or certificate in partnership with Roger 

Williams University. In addition to military specific 

training in military justice, court reporting, 

administrative investigations, and administrative 

separations, the course includes four college-level courses 

taught by NJS officer instructors: Ethics, Legal Research 

and Writing I, Introduction to Law, and Emerging Legal 

Technologies. FY 2011 graduates: 42.

 3. Basic Legal Services Specialist Course. This 

nine and a half-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. FY 2011 graduates: 57. 

12 
 4. Legal Services Court Reporter Course. This 

11- week course, offered twice annually, provides court 

reporter training to Legal Services Specialists, grades E-3 

to E-7, seeking the necessary Military Occupational 

Specialty of Marine Corps Legal Services Court Reporter. 

The curriculum consists of court reporter training in 

closed-mask capture of legal proceedings at 225 wpm, court 

reporting grammar and punctuation, speech recognition 

technology, digital recording software, and the production 

of verbatim and summarized courts-martial proceedings. FY 

2011 graduates: 41. 

 5. Senior Officer Course in Military Justice and 

Civil Law. This one-week course trains senior officers in 

the execution of the legal responsibilities of command with 

instruction in nonjudicial punishment, court-martial 

procedures, and administrative law. FY 2011 graduates: 

780. 

 6. Legal Officer Course. This three-week course 

prepares non-lawyer Legal Officers to perform a host of 

military law functions in commands not large enough to 

warrant assignment of a judge advocate. FY 2011 graduates: 

515. 

 7. Legal Clerk Course. 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. FY 2011 graduates: 378. 

 8. Senior Enlisted Leadership Course (SELC) in 

Military Justice and Civil Law. This three-day course 

provides senior enlisted leaders of all services training 

in a wide range of military law with primary focus on 

military justice matters. In Newport, portions of the SELC 

are incorporated into the core curriculum at the Navy's 

Senior Enlisted Academy. FY 2011 graduates: 397. 

13 
 Continuing Legal Education. In addition to the “core” 

courses, NJS provided 20 continuing legal education (CLE) 

courses, many of which are pre-approved for CLE credit from 

state bar associations. 

 

Most of these courses focus upon military justice (e.g., 

intermediate and advanced trial advocacy skills; computer 

crimes; national security cases; prosecuting and defending 

complex cases; reserve updates; and a number of paralegal 

courses). Training was provided to active duty and reserve 

judge advocates and enlisted legal professionals from the 

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

military justice, operational law, administrative law, 

legal assistance, and estate planning. In FY 2011, these 

resident courses reached 761 active duty and 82 reserve 

legal professionals. 

 Legalman Paralegal Education Program (LPEP). Begun in 

2010, LPEP is a government-funded full-time education 

program leading to an Associates of Arts degree in 

Paralegal Studies. The program is mandatory for all 

Legalmen in order to meet minimum occupational standards 

for the LN-paralegal rating. Following LN Accession, 

students participate in either the resident option, during 

which they study in-residence with Roger Williams 

University (RWU) for one semester, or the distance learning 

option, during which they study either online or with ABAaccredited schools local to their permanent duty stations. 

Fleet Legalmen are eligible to return to Newport for the 

in-resident semester with RWU, and also to participate in 

the distance learning option. In FY 2011, 69 students were 

registered in the resident option, and an additional 128 

students were registered in the distance learning option. 

 Coordination. Through the Interservice Legal Education 

Review Committee, Commanding Officer, NJS; the Dean of 

Students, The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and 

School; and the Commandant, Air Force Judge Advocate 

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

initiatives and opportunities for cross-training and to 

increase cooperation and efficiency in the training of 

legal personnel within the Department of Defense. 

14 
 Publications. NJS publishes the Naval Law Review, 

study guides, materials in support of academic programs, 

reference manuals designed to assist Sea Service commanders 

with implementation of the UCMJ, and any additional 

materials directed by higher authority. 

 Deployments. In FY 2011, four NJS instructors deployed 

to Iraq or Afghanistan in support of Task Force 134, MultiNational Force-Iraq, Multi-National Corps-Iraq, Joint Task 

Force 435, and the Afghan National Army Justice School. 

 MARINE CORPS ACTIVITIES 

In FY 11, the Marine Corps litigated 174 general 

courts-martial and 452 special courts-martial to 

completion, representing 70 percent of all courts-martial 

in the Department of the Navy. At any given time the 

Marine Corps averages approximately 600 cases being handled 

at Law Centers and LSSSs Marine Corps-wide. As of 30 

September 2011, the Marine Corps had 60 judge advocates 

assigned to defense counsel billets and 63 judge advocates 

assigned to trial counsel billets. Comparing this ratio of 

trial counsel and defense counsel to the number of Requests 

for Legal Services (RLSs) received during FY 11 indicates 

that the average trial counsel handled 44 cases and defense 

counsel handled 46 cases during FY 11. Although not an 

exact science, finding the right caseload per counsel 

requires a balance. Counsel must carry enough cases to 

gain a level of proficiency and establish an experience 

base, but not so many as to deteriorate their ability to 

provide competent representation in each individual case. 

Anecdotally, the number of Marine judge advocates currently 

assigned to military justice billets appears to be 

achieving this balance. 

Analysis of Departmental trends indicates that while 

the number of general courts-martial has remained 

relatively constant, the overall number of adjudicated 

special courts-martial continues to decrease. 

Although adjudicated special courts-martial have 

declined, there appears to be no corresponding reduction in 

the demand for military justice resources and expertise. 

15 
Marine Corps Law Centers and Legal Services Support 

Sections (LSSS) received 2770 Requests for Legal Services 

(RLSs) in FY 11 on military justice cases from commands 

within the Department of the Navy. Of those 2770 RLSs, 22 

percent resulted in adjudicated general or special courtsmartial. The other 78 percent were adjudicated using 

alternate forums or disposition methods. This data 

indicates that for borderline cases, Commanders continue to 

seek the advice and expertise of judge advocates at Law 

Centers and LSSSs, which results in a significant workload 

for these judge advocates (trial counsel and defense 

counsel) that is not captured in the raw numbers of 

adjudicated general or special courts-martial. 

INITIATIVES

The strategic goals established in the Marine Corps 

Legal Services Strategic Action Plan 2010-2015 (SAP) 

continued to anchor Marine Corps Legal Services initiatives 

undertaken in FY 11. 

1. Case Management System (CMS). The SJA to CMC’s 

February 2010 mandate that all Law Centers and LSSSs 

throughout the Marine Corps use CMS as the single common 

court-martial tracking system continued to pay dividends in 

FY 11. 

Through a series of initiatives and improvements to 

CMS, in FY 11 the Marine Corps has achieved total real-time 

visibility of all special and general courts-martial from 

receipt of RLS until completion of appellate review at the 

Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Review Activity (NAMARA). 

During FY 11 the Marine Corps also expanded CMS’s 

capabilities to track courts-martial beyond the completion 

of appellate review to the ultimate termination point of 

certain cases: execution of the punitive discharge 

following appellate review. In FY 11 the Marine Corps also 

brought the Navy and Marine Corps Appellate Leave Activity 

(NAMALA) in as a CMS user, providing tracking and oversight 

functions for punitive discharge cases through issuance of 

the DD-214. 

 

16 
The Marine Corps also improved the functional 

capability of CMS in three additional ways: by expanding 

capability for report generation; by capturing all summary 

courts-martial processed and reviewed throughout the Marine 

Corps; and by requiring supervisor certification and 

validation to ensure compliance with Marine Corps 

responsibilities under the Victim-Witness Assistance 

Program. 

2. Community Development, Strategy & Plans. Headquarters 

Marine Corps Judge Advocate Division (JAD) added a new 

Directorate for Community Development, Strategy and Plans 

(CDSP). The CDSP Directorate subsumed three branches and 

part of another branch under its purview: Information, 

Plans and Programs (JAI), Judge Advocate Support (JAS), the 

Reserve Support Section (JAS-R) and the Trial Counsel 

Assistance Program (TCAP), which had been part of the 

Military Justice Branch (JAM). This reorganization was 

tailored to facilitate implementation of the recently 

amended SECNAVINST 5430.27D, which expanded the role of the 

SJA to CMC to include regulatory responsibility for the 

military justice and legal assistance functions within the 

Marine Corps. Working in conjunction with Judge Advocate 

Division’s Military Justice (JAM) and Legal Assistance 

(JAL) branches, and the Chief Defense Counsel (CDC) of the 

Marine Corps, the CDSP Directorate enables the Marine Corps 

legal community to provide those services. In addition, 

the SJA to CMC serves as the occupational field sponsor 

for, and oversees the professional development, training, 

and education of, all Marine judge advocates, legal 

administrative officers, and legal service specialists. 

The CDSP Directorate, through JAS, serves as a liaison for 

manpower and assignments issues, and provides input to HQMC 

on manpower and assignment-related questions for the Judge 

Advocate Division. Finally the CDSP Directorate serves as 

a capability enabler within Judge Advocate Division, and is 

ultimately responsible for implementation of various SAP 

goals and strategic long-term development and planning for 

the Marine Corps legal community. 

3. Victim Witness Assistance Program (VWAP). The second 

annual VWAP training conference was held at Quantico, 

Virginia in March of 2011. 

17 
The conference provided baseline training to VWAP personnel 

by nationally recognized civilian experts, including 

specialized training on handling victims of sexual assault, 

and developed a series of objectives for each VWAP office 

to meet within certain set timelines. The students left 

with the ability to train unit level (Battalion and 

Squadron) Victim Witness Assistance Coordinators at their 

home stations. CDSP continued its coordination with the 

Department of Justice to ensure funding was available for 

at least three future training conferences. 

4. Building Communities of Practice. The collaboration 

and mentorship that come from a true community of practice 

ensure that Marine judge advocates are best positioned to 

succeed in delivering quality legal services. To that end, 

the Marine Corps has re-committed to establishing 

communities of practice, in both the prosecution and 

defense bars. 

A. Marine Corps Trial Counsel Assistance Program 

(TCAP). In FY 11, TCAP moved under the CSDP Directorate 

and became its own branch. It continued to invest in 

training Marine trial counsel and providing guidance in the 

prosecution of individual courts-martial. In FY 11, TCAP 

provided in-person training to approximately 118 Marine 

trial counsel during six different training courses. Three 

of these training courses were in collaboration with the 

Navy’s Trial Counsel Assistance Program. During FY 11, 

TCAP implemented an electronic discussion board in an 

effort to build a community of practice among trial 

counsel. This permits quick dissemination of lessons 

learned and uses technology to leverage experience in the 

trial counsel community. TCAP also provided guidance in 

the prosecution of more than 300 cases. TCAP continues to 

pursue coordination among local military justice offices 

and to foster relationships among individual counsel in an 

effort to build a solid community of practice. 

B. The Marine Defense Service Organization. Since 

1985, the Marine Corps has maintained an independent 

defense organization headed by the Chief Defense Counsel of 

the Marine Corps (CDC). 

18 
Although this model has proven effective at providing 

defense counsel with mentorship, supervision and resources 

to represent accused service members professionally and 

competently, the SJA to CMC, in conjunction with the CDC 

and a working group of senior judge advocates, recently 

completed an eighteen-month evaluation of Marine Corps 

trial defense services to address potentially outdated or 

outmoded policies and procedures. On 29 September 2011, 

the SJA to CMC published a complete revision to the Marine 

Corps service regulations for the provision of defense 

counsel services that also reorganized the Marine Corps 

defense counsel community into the Marine Corps Defense 

Services Organization (DSO) and clarified the duties, 

responsibilities, and authorities of supervisory defense 

counsel. In addition, this revision ensures compliance 

with appellate court decisions concerning the assignment of 

defense counsel and otherwise helps improve the provision 

of defense services overall. 

5. Manpower Initiatives Affecting Military Justice. The 

final report of the Independent Review Panel to Study the 

Judge Advocate Requirements of the Department of the Navy 

(506 Panel), published in February 2011, presented a 

thorough review of the manpower requirements associated 

with the Marine Corps’s military justice and other legal 

missions and concluded that there was a requirement for 

approximately 550 active-duty Marine judge advocates. The 

Marine Corps began to address the judge advocate shortage 

well in advance of receiving the final report of the 506 

Panel. Specifically, at the beginning of FY 11, there were 

473 judge advocates across the Marine Corps. By the end of 

FY 11, there were 530. The Marine Corps anticipates 

reaching the 550 judge advocate inventory recommended by 

the 506 Panel in FY 12. 

 To retain experience in the company grade ranks, the 

Marine Corps has continued to offer all judge advocates an 

opportunity to remain on active duty. By maintaining high 

career designation rates and reducing the cost to company 

grade judge advocates of staying on active duty through the 

continuation of the Law School Education Debt Subsidy 

(LSEDS) program, the Marine Corps has avoided sacrificing 

experience while increasing its manpower numbers. 

19 
6. Reserve Legal Services Support Section (JRS). The JRS 

enhances the ability of the SJA to CMC to coordinate the 

employment of over 310 Marine reserve judge advocates, 

including those whose focus is military justice. Three of 

the six JRS branches – the Defense Services Branch, the 

Trial Services Branch, and the Trial Judiciary Branch – 

perform functions specifically related to military justice. 

They are staffed by seasoned attorneys capable of 

responding to the requirements of the trial and defense 

communities as well as to serve as judges to support the 

judiciary. TCAP and the DSO have increased utilization of 

the JRS to capitalize on the litigation expertise of Marine 

reserve judge advocates. Reservists have assisted in case 

preparation and training in both prosecution and defense, 

and conducted Article 32 investigations in complex cases. 

POST-TRIAL CASE PROCESSING

 In FY 11, 1,919 general, special, and summary courtsmartial entered the post-trial process. For those special 

and general courts-martial required to be forwarded to 

NAMARA, post-trial processing times increased slightly; the 

average time it took to process a case from date of final 

adjudication to convening authority’s action increased by 4 

days in FY 11. United States v. Moreno sets forth time 

limits of 120 days from date of trial (sentencing) to 

Convening Authority’s Action (CAA) and 30 days from CAA to 

docketing of the case with the Court of Criminal Appeals, 

for a total of 150 days. The average time post-trial 

processing time for Marine Corps courts-martial remains 

well within the standards required by Moreno. 

On 24 February 2010, one week after the effective date 

of implementation of CMS, 41 of the 121 total cases in the 

post-trial process exceeded 120 days from the date of trial 

(sentencing) to CAA. As of 28 September 2010, after seven 

months of mandatory CMS use, only three of 138 total cases 

fell in this category. By the end of FY 11, no cases fell 

into this category. 

The decrease in post-trial cases over the 120 or 150 

day time limits is primarily due to increased vigilance by 

military justice supervisors at all levels, along with 

additional oversight by Judge Advocate Division through the 

use of CMS. 

20 
Cases that appear over 90 days are flagged yellow on 

CMS via an automatic alert system and reported to the SJA 

to CMC. Cases that exceed 120 days are flagged red and 

also reported to the SJA to CMC. Because CMS is a realtime case tracker, JAD is able to identify issues as they 

occur and to offer assistance as the need arises. The 

institutionalization of active monitoring at all 

supervisory levels through a single database real-time 

tracking system continues to ensure that every law center, 

LSSS, and SJA office consistently meets post-trial 

processing requirements. At the end of FY 11, every Law 

Center or LSSS in the Marine Corps met the requirements of 

Moreno for post-trial processing of a case from date of 

adjudication to completion of CAA and receipt at NAMARA. 

CONCLUSION

The Marine Corps continued to try the majority of the 

court-martial caseload for the Department of the Navy in FY 

11. While the number of special court-martial cases 

declined, there has not been a concurrent reduction in the 

demand for military justice resources and expertise. The 

number of general court-martial cases remained relatively 

constant, contested court-martial numbers are high, and 

alternate disposition numbers (e.g., administrative 

separations and summary courts-martial) remained high. 

Commanders’ decisions to dispose of offenses at lower 

forums still require advice and case-work on the trial 

counsel side, client representation on the defense side, 

and military justice expertise and advice from the 

cognizant Staff Judge Advocate. 

As discussed by the 506 Panel, the Marine Corps has 

been successful in its efforts to right-size the legal 

community in order to meet these constant demands for 

military justice services and resources. Ending FY 11 with 

530 active duty judge advocates, the Marine Corps judge 

advocate community is well-positioned to achieve the 506 

Panel goal of 550 active duty judge advocates by mid-FY 12. 

More importantly, Judge Advocate Division continues to look 

at ways to organize efficiently and effectively. Through 

training and development initiatives, the Marine Corps 

legal community continues to improve its level of expertise 

and sophistication at all ranks to ensure that Commanders 

are provided with maximum competence and flexibility in the 

provision of legal services. 

21 
Through a number of leadership and training 

initiatives, Judge Advocate Division is focused on 

developing communities of practice to ensure that our judge 

advocates are operating at their maximum potential. Thus 

far, the complete revision of the defense services 

regulations has been regarded as a great success. 

Meanwhile TCAP, completing its first full year as a 

separate branch, is providing a similar positive impact for 

prosecutors. The post-trial review process has notably 

improved in efficiency and effectiveness through total 

visibility of cases, while structural changes in the court 

reporter community have affected productivity, which has 

been addressed through revolutionized training programs. 

In FY 12, Judge Advocate Division will better be able to 

assess the impact of TCAP and the DSO on quality of the 

trial and defense bar within the Marine Corps legal 

community, and the effect of improvements in court-reporter 

training programs. 

As with other areas of practice, the Marine Corps 

legal community constantly strives to improve the delivery 

of military justice services. In FY 11, the Marine Corps 

legal community was able to capitalize on some major 

changes to regulation and policy in FY 10. The impact of 

many of the initiatives highlighted in this Report will be 

truly realized in FY 12 and onward. Trends in military 

justice, including increasing use of alternate disposition 

and a high load of contested courts-martial, will continue 

to require sophistication and expertise. Through a 

philosophy of introspectiveness, and with the Strategic 

Action Plan as its guide, the Marine Corps legal community 

promises to meet its mission in FY 12 and beyond, while it 

continues to aggressively experiment with new initiatives 

to elevate the practice of law in the Marine Corps. 

22 
FY USMC End 

Strength 

GCM SPCM SCM Total 

Courts 

NJP 

FY 11 201,157 174 452 1,289 1,915 9,798 

FY 10 202,729 197 649 1,695 2,485 11,774 

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

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

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

 The chart above reflects cases tried in the Marine 

Corps over the last five fiscal years. 

 JAMES W. HOUCK 

 Vice Admiral, JAGC, U.S. Navy 

 Judge Advocate General of the Navy 

23 
APPENDIX - U.S. NAVY/MARINE CORPS MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Report Period: FY 2011

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 120 174 105 154 15 20 -8.4% 

BCD SPECIAL 152 452 133 413 19 39 -24.8% 

NON-BCD 

SPECIAL 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

SUMMARY 133 1289 130 1261 3 28 -23% 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT -22% 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL ) 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 108 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 116 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL ) 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 333 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 211 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 312 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 43 

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

CRIMINAL APPEALS 

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 191 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 100 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 91 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 

578 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 247 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 331 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 529 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 234 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 295 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 226 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 104 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 122 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD -23% 

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

CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (CCA) 

NUMBER 578 

PERCENTAGE 100% 

24 
PART 6 - ACTIONS OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED

FORCES (CAAF) 

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF (81) 14% 

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

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED (36) 44% 

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

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CCA 6% 

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

+3% 

 

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 6 

RECEIVED 15 

DISPOSED OF 14 

 GRANTED 1 

 DENIED 12 

 NO JURISDICTION 1 

 WITHDRAWN 0 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 7 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 678 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 193 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 485 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 221 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 101 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 119 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 47 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 530,800 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 18,426 

RATE PER 1,000 35 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD -14.6% 

25 
SECTION 5 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

AIR FORCE 
REPORT OF 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 

OF THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 

OCTOBER 1, 2010 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 

THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

 The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) 

reviewed 214 cases in Fiscal Year 2011, along with three 

cases brought under Article 62, UCMJ, and a host of cases 

remanded to the Court due to two significant changes in 

legal precedent. In addition, the Court heard four oral 

arguments at civilian law schools and in the courtroom of 

the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada in Las Vegas, 

through its “Project Outreach” program, to include: Loyola 

University New Orleans College of Law, Seattle University 

School of Law, University of California at Los Angeles 

School of Law, and a Trial Advocacy Course at Nellis Air 

Force Base, Nevada. 

 In the spring of 2011, the Court moved from Joint Base 

Anacostia-Bolling, District of Columbia, to a brand new, 

state-of-the-art facility at Joint Base Andrews Naval Air 

Facility Washington, Maryland (Joint Base Andrews). As the 

first of its kind in the military, the new system enables 

counsel to project images from electronic or hardcopy media 

onto a multipart screen that can broadcast such 

demonstrative aids to the entire audience, as well as an 

off-site audience through video teleconferencing when 

travel to the Court is impractical. Additionally, the new 

courtroom is equipped with interactive media that enables 

appellate counsel to demonstrate a point by electronically 

drawing upon a projected diagram or image while it is 

posted on the screen. The Court has seen a significant 

increase in the frequency of oral arguments since the move 

to the new courtroom. 

 The size of the Court remained at five active-duty 

judges, but experienced substantial personnel turnover. 

1 
Such transitions resulted in a new Chief Judge, three new 

Associate Judges, a new Chief Commissioner, three new 

Honors Law Clerks, and a new Deputy Clerk of the Court, 

after the departure of personnel previously assigned in 

those positions. 

 In addition to performing their statutory 

responsibilities, members of the Court used their judicial 

experience to assist the Air Force and Department of 

Defense in other areas. In September of 2011, the Court 

hosted the William S. Fulton, Jr., Military Appellate 

Judges’ Conference, targeted at educating military 

appellate judges across all service branches on the issues 

that arise in appellate practice. Additionally, three of 

the appellate judges served on the United States Court of 

Military Commission Review (USCMCR), and, in accordance 

with the Military Commissions Act of 2009, heard oral 

arguments and participated in rendering the historic 

opinions of United States v. Hamdan, CMCR 09-002, 2011 WL 

2923945 (U.S.C.M.C.R. 24 June 2011), and United States v. 

Al Bahlul, CMCR 09-001, 2011 WL 4916373 (U.S.C.M.C.R. 

9 September 2011). One judge provided back-up support to 

the trial judiciary by serving as the trial judge at Joint 

Base Andrews. Finally, a Senior Appellate Judge presided 

over several Environmental Impact hearings, held in 

accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The 

hearings allowed for federal receipt of public comment on 

any potential change in base mission which could impact the 

environment. 

 In sum, the Court continues to participate in a number 

of training and Outreach programs for judge advocates and 

civilians, draws upon the strengths of the judges to fill 

additional judicial roles, and builds upon the use of 

technology to make its operations more accessible to the 

public. 

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. 

2 
The Directorate is staffed by nineteen 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 and includes the Deputy Chief 

Trial Judge, one noncommissioned officer, and a civilian 

Clerk of Trial Courts. The remaining JAT personnel, all 

trial judges, are postured in a variety of geographically 

advantageous locations around the globe, including Kadena 

AB, Japan; Travis AFB, California; Joint Base LewisMcChord, Washington; Nellis AFB, Nevada; the United States 

Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado; Offutt 

AFB, Nebraska; Randolph AFB, Texas; Sheppard AFB, Texas; 

Eglin AFB, Florida; Charleston AFB, South Carolina; 

Ramstein AB, Germany; and RAF Lakenheath, United Kingdom. 

 In Fiscal Year 2011, Air Force judges presided over 

661 general and special courts-martial. Judges have also 

served as investigating officers in numerous complex and 

high-profile Article 32 investigations, as legal advisors 

for officer discharge and other administrative boards, as 

hearing officers in parole violation hearings, and have 

presided at Environmental Impact hearings. 

 The Chief Regional Military Judge in Europe presided 

over four courts-martial at deployed locations within the 

United States Central Command area of responsibility. Two 

of those trials took place at Bagram AB, Afghanistan. 

Currently, five Air Force trial judges have been detailed 

to the military commissions in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 

 Air Force judges served as ambassadors for military 

justice in classrooms. Directorate personnel instructed 

new military judges at The Army Judge Advocate General’s 

Legal Center and School in Charlottesville, Virginia. 

Directorate personnel also lectured at a number of Judge 

Advocate Staff Officer Courses at the Air Force Judge 

Advocate General’s School (JAG School), Maxwell AFB, 

Alabama. Air Force judges also instructed at various trial 

advocacy courses, law school moot courts, and undergraduate 

mock trial competitions to enhance current and future 

practitioners’ litigation skills. 

 

3 
Two significant publications by trial judges debuted in 

Fiscal Year 2011. An Atlantic Region judge’s book titled, 

"Law in War, Law as War: Brigadier General Joseph Holt and 

the Judge Advocate General's Department in the Civil War 

and Early Reconstruction" was published by the Carolina 

Academic Press. The book details a history of the JAG 

Corps during the Civil War and all of the military 

tribunals. The book was also reviewed in the Journal of 

Military History. The Chief Regional Military Judge in the 

Central United States had his article “The Corroboration 

Quandary: A Historical Overview of the Interpretation of 

MRE 304(g)" published in the Air Force Law Review. 

 Air Force trial judges offered invaluable input on the 

future of Article 120 and the proposed revision of the 

Military Rules of Evidence. The outgoing Deputy Chief 

Trial Judge testified before the House Armed Services 

Committee to provide a former judge’s perspective on the 

current Article 120 to help members of Congress understand 

why the joint military justice community requested changes 

to Article 120. 

 The Air Force hosted a total of over 120 judges from 

all the services at the 37th Annual Interservice Military 

Judges’ Seminar. The Seminar was held at the Air Force JAG 

School. The weeklong seminar consisted of continuing legal 

education lectures, seminars on emerging issues, and a 

variety of collegium opportunities. 

 The Trial Judiciary began an Air Force JAG Corps-wide 

training initiative, A View from the Bench, in which 

military judges provide practical litigation and advocacy 

tips to counsel on a quarterly basis. The guidance is 

distributed electronically via The Judge Advocate General’s 

on-line news service. Where possible, the author 

participates in a live Webcast hosted by the JAG School 

shortly after the guidance is published. 

 Finally, one of our Western Region military judges 

donated his bone marrow for transplant to a leukemia 

patient. The patient is recovering nicely after this lifesaving procedure. 

4 
AIR FORCE JUDICIARY 

 The Air Force Judiciary Directorate (JAJ) is 

responsible for the administration of military justice 

across the Air Force. JAJ advises The Judge Advocate 

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

Secretary of the Air Force on military justice matters, 

works with the other uniformed services to propose 

legislation and modifications to executive orders 

pertaining to military justice, assists convening 

authorities and staff judge advocates in the field, and 

provides the highest quality defense services to Airmen 

worldwide. Through its Enlisted Court Reporter program, 

the directorate provides expeditionary court reporter 

support for all deployed courts, mishap and other 

investigations. The directorate also supervises the 

delivery of court reporter services worldwide for all ingarrison 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 

 The Government Trial and Appellate Counsel Division 

(JAJG) is comprised of two sub-divisions: Appellate 

Government Counsel and Senior Trial Counsel. 

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT COUNSEL 

 During this past year, appellate counsel 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 two cases for United States Court of Appeals for the 

Armed Forces (USCAAF) review, and filed government appeals 

in five cases under Article 62, UCMJ. 

5 
 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 five 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 Trial and Defense Advocacy Course, Numbered Air 

Force conferences, and the KEYSTONE Leadership Summit. The 

division also created and posted comprehensive trial and 

appellate materials on the JAJG Learning Center hosted on 

the JAG School’s 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. 

 The division continued to fulfill its obligation to 

support war-fighting commanders through the deployment of 

personnel. One of our experienced appellate government 

counsel completed a six-month deployment to the Combined 

Joint Interagency Task Force 435, bringing legal stability 

and progress to Afghanistan. 

 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, including the 

Court’s annual Appellate Advocacy Symposium, hosted in 

conjunction with the Judge Advocates Association. 

Appellate government counsel have actively built 

relationships with sister service counterparts through 

participation in quarterly meetings and regular 

consultation on matters of common interest to all the 

services. The division also hosted one summer intern, a 

law student who had completed her second year of law school 

and expressed an interest in service as a judge advocate. 

6 
This bright young professional significantly supported the 

division mission by conducting legal research and writing 

appellate briefs and motions, and was positively influenced 

by her experience in the internship program. JAJG’s intern 

recently applied for accession as a new Air Force judge 

advocate upon completion of law school and her bar 

examination, continuing a long-standing tradition of JAJG 

interns advancing to service as Air Force judge advocates. 

 The division receives crucial appellate counsel 

support from eleven assigned reserve judge advocates. They 

continue to provide superb support, greatly assisting the 

division in carrying out its mission. In addition to 

preparing written briefs, two reserve counsel presented 

oral arguments before USCAAF during the fiscal year. 

 A summary of Air Force Appellate Government practice 

follows: 

AFCCA FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

 Briefs Filed 267 188 156 123 144

 Cases Argued 20 19 16 9 14

 

USCAAF FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

 Briefs Filed 41 41 23 28 29

 Cases Argued 24 15 13 12 15

 

SUPREME 

COURT FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

Petition/Waivers 

Filed 

10 4 3 3 0

 Briefs Filed 0 0 0 0 0

7 
SENIOR TRIAL COUNSEL 

 Personnel authorizations for the fiscal year included 

seventeen Senior Trial Counsel (STC) at eleven locations 

worldwide: three counsel at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland; 

two counsel each at Ramstein AB, Germany; Joint Base LewisMcChord, Washington; Peterson AFB, Colorado; and Randolph 

AFB, Texas; and one counsel each at Travis AFB, California; 

Nellis AFB, Nevada; Offutt AFB, Nebraska; Scott AFB, 

Illinois; and Kadena AB, Japan. A new position was created 

where an individual serves as both an STC at Joint Base 

Andrews and as liaison to the Defense Computer Forensics 

Laboratory in Linthicum, Maryland. STCs are detailed to 

prosecute cases by the division headquarters at Joint Base 

Andrews, and their primary responsibility is to represent 

the government in the most complex, litigated general 

courts-martial. STCs routinely prosecute between 70 and 80 

percent of all Air Force general courts-martial. They are 

also available for special courts-martial, discharge boards 

and other proceedings, as resources allow. 

 In 2011, the STC program underwent minor structural 

changes to increase efficiencies. Some single STC sites 

were realigned to bases where existing STCs are currently 

assigned. Three STC positions were designated to be filled 

with O-4s with significant litigation experience to provide 

enhanced litigation capabilities, as well as a focal and 

mentor point for other STCs in those areas. 

 In the past year, STCs spent more than 2,145 days on 

temporary duty away from their home station, and 

represented the government in 267 courts-martial and 

ninety-two other proceedings. While STCs have primary 

areas of responsibility, they cross all geographical 

boundaries to try cases, regardless of their home station. 

 The past year saw a continued emphasis on providing 

our STCs with the training and tools required for them to 

thrive, with an emphasis on prosecuting sexual assaults. 

In August, the fifth annual Senior Trial Counsel Conference 

was held at Joint Base Andrews, bringing together the 

assigned STCs as well as those projected to join the 

program during the summer assignment season. 

8 
The attorneys met for a week of training and networking 

with trial and appellate counsel. STCs also attended 

training courses across the country including the 

Prosecuting Complex Cases Course at the Naval Justice 

School, the Computer Crimes Course at the Naval Justice 

School, and the Sexual Assault Investigation and 

Prosecution Course put on by the Navy. STCs also continued 

the tradition of spending a week performing appellate work 

in our appellate office, which broadened their trial and 

appellate perspective. 

APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISION 

 Promoting timely appellate review is a top priority 

for the Appellate Defense Division (JAJD), with an emphasis 

on seeking to obtain relief for clients when such relief 

(such as reduced confinement) would still be meaningful. 

The Appellate Defense Division began Fiscal Year 2011 with 

approximately 198 cases pending initial briefing to AFCCA 

and ended Fiscal Year 2011 with 195. 

 Significant JAJD victories during the fiscal year 

included United States v. Blazier, 69 M.J. 218 (C.A.A.F. 

2010), in which the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 

provided additional guidance regarding the Confrontation 

Clause’s requirements for the admission of drug testing 

evidence; United States v. Prather, 69 M.J. 338 (C.A.A.F. 

2010), in which the Court held that a portion of Article 

120 constitutes “an unconstitutional burden shift”; United 

States v. Beaty, 70 M.J. 39 (C.A.A.F. 2011), in which the 

Court held that the maximum sentence for possessing an 

image that “appears to be a minor engaging in sexually 

explicit conduct” is four months’ confinement and 

forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for two months; and 

United States v. Shook, __ M.J. __, No. ACM 37593 (A.F. Ct. 

Crim. App. July 14, 2011), in which the Air Force Court 

held that a hearing to establish misconduct to justify 

withdrawal from a pretrial agreement must be personally 

conducted by the Special Court-Martial Convening Authority. 

9 
The Air Force Appellate Defense Division also provided an 

amicus curiae brief to the Navy-Marine Corps Court of 

Criminal Appeals and participated in the oral argument in 

United States v. Lee, 70 M.J. 535 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 

2011), concerning conflicts of interest between a trial 

defense counsel and an accused. 

 The Appellate Defense Division continued to support 

trial defense counsel in the field through consultation, 

including in time-critical situations. 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 five different Trial Advocacy Courses. 

 Appellate defense counsel have contributed to Project 

Outreach, sponsored by USCAAF and AFCCA, by conducting oral 

arguments before audiences at Stanford University School of 

Law, Stanford, California; the Nevada Supreme Court, Las 

Vegas, Nevada; UCLA School of Law, Los Angeles, California; 

Loyola University, New Orleans, Louisiana; and Hofstra 

University School of Law, Long Island, New York. These 

arguments helped educate attendees on the fairness and 

professionalism of the military justice system. 

 The following figures reflect the division’s workload 

over the past five fiscal years: 

AFCCA FY 

07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

 Briefs Filed 541 352 285 290 299

 Cases Argued 20 14 16 4 9

 

USCAAF FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

Supplements to 

Petitions 261 293 336 204 160

 Grant Briefs 24 15 12 18 11

 Cases Argued 24 15 13 17 17

10
SUPREME 

COURT

FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

 Petitions 9 4 3 2 1

Briefs in 

Opposition 0 0 0 0 0

 

Briefs on the 

Merits 0 0 0 0 0

TRIAL DEFENSE DIVISION 

 The Trial Defense Division (JAJD) is responsible for 

providing all trial defense services within the Air Force 

through Area Defense Counsel (ADC), Defense Paralegals 

(DP), Senior Defense Counsel (SDC), Chief Senior Defense 

Counsel (CSDC), and Defense Paralegal Managers (DPM). 

These personnel report to the Chief, JAJD, who reports to 

the Director, United States Air Force Judiciary (JAJ). The 

Chief, JAJD, is assisted by the Deputy Chief, Policy and 

Training, and an Office Superintendent. In March 2011, 

AFLOA/JAJD relocated to Joint Base Andrews. 

 The Division is staffed with eighty-three ADCs 

stationed at sixty-eight bases worldwide. They are 

assisted by seventy-two DPs. The Division has nineteen 

SDCs and three CSDCs. Each CSDC supervises six or seven 

SDCs. A DPM is assigned to each of the three CSDCs. The 

SDCs are stationed at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland; Joint 

Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia; Joint Base Charleston, South 

Carolina; Hurlburt Field, Florida; Maxwell AFB, Alabama; 

Barksdale AFB, Louisiana; Randolph AFB, Texas; Sheppard 

AFB, Texas; Tinker AFB, Oklahoma; Peterson AFB, Colorado; 

Offutt AFB, Nebraska; Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington; 

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

AFB, Arizona; Yokota AB, Japan; Kadena AB, Japan; RAF 

Lakenheath, United Kingdom; and Ramstein AB, Germany. The 

Division gained one additional SDC position from our 

numbers in Fiscal Year 2010 due to the discontinuation of 

the Instructor Litigator program which became final during 

the summer rotation. Each SDC was co-located with the ADC 

office at their respective location. 

 

11 
In addition to traditional defense services, the 

Division also acquired oversight responsibility for the 

Office of Airman’s Counsel (OAC) at Lackland AFB, TX. The 

OAC provides legal assistance and counsel for Airmen going 

through the physical evaluation board process. The OAC 

office was manned by three attorneys, one paralegal 

overhire and one educational intern when it became part of 

JAJD on 1 April 2011. Between October and December 2011, 

three temporary attorneys and two temporary paralegals – 

Reservist and Air National Guard personnel – joined the 

staff. A plan to plus-up the size and capabilities of this 

office calls for adding eighteen active duty personnel – 

nine judge advocates and nine paralegals – by 31 July 2012, 

which will bring the total office manning to twenty-three 

personnel. As the current OAC office space will not 

support the planned manning increase, facility options are 

being aggressively pursued. 

 The continuing success of the Air Force’s ADC Program 

is largely attributable to its independence and its 

energized personnel. To ensure the best representation for 

Air Force clients, training remains a top priority for the 

division. On a continuing basis, each SDC provided on-thejob training and mentoring to the ADCs in their charge. 

Each CSDC, in turn, mentored the SDCs in their charge. 

Newly appointed ADCs and DPs received formal training at 

the combined ADC/DP Orientation course held at the JAG 

School. SDCs attended a JAJD-run Leadership Conference at 

Joint Base Andrews. Defense personnel also attended an 

annual Trial Advocacy Course (TAC) conducted by JAG School. 

In addition, the Division continues to send ADCs and SDCs 

to the Trial and Defense Advocacy Course and the Advanced 

Trial Advocacy Course as appropriate. 

 Upgrading of ADC facilities is also a continuing JAJD 

priority. The offices at Cannon AFB, McChord AFB, RAF 

Lakenheath, Seymour Johnson AFB, and Travis AFB offices 

into new or renovated facilities while the Kadena AB office 

made improvements to their existing facility. 

Additionally, a new ADC facility at Al Udeid is in its 

final stages of construction and the Randolph facility is 

in the early stages of finding a new location or planning 

renovations. 

12 
MILITARY JUSTICE DIVISION 

 The Military Justice Division (JAJM) 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 also provides representatives to all 

interservice activities involving military justice and 

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

JAJM serves as the action agency for the 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 116 formal 

opinions concerning AFBCMR applications; received fifty-two 

inquires in specific cases requiring formal written replies 

to senior officials, including the President and Members of 

Congress; and reviewed twenty-seven records of trial for 

review under Article 69a, UCMJ, and seven records under 

Article 69b, UCMJ. The Division presented the 14th annual 

Military Justice Administration Workshop at the JAG School, 

a “back to basics” one-week workshop attended by both judge 

advocates and paralegals. Division personnel also taught 

at the Staff Judge Advocate Course and GATEWAY, an 

intermediate judge advocate course for majors at Maxwell 

AFB, Alabama. Division personnel briefed Air Force JAG 

Corps leaders on the status of their military justice 

programs and new initiatives in the military justice arena 

and the importance of swift post-trial processing during 

the annual KEYSTONE Leadership Summit. 

 In Fiscal Year 2011, the JAG Corps implemented new 

processing time standards putting an even greater emphasis 

on the commander's sight picture – the view from discovery 

to disposition of the offense. The new standards provide 

enhanced visibility into the entire process leading to 

increased accountability and shorter total timelines. 

These new standards depend upon an integrated teaming 

approach among commanders, investigators and JAGs to 

rapidly investigate and act upon reports of misconduct, 

ensuring swift and fair justice. 

13 
Following implementation of these case processing standards 

in Fiscal Year 2011, division personnel rewrote the two 

major military justice instructions. 

 JAJM continued its direct involvement in the 

development and implementation of DoD and Air Force sexual 

assault prevention and response policies and procedures. 

The division secured funding from DoD and the Department of 

Justice (DoJ) to train 32 Air Force personnel in the Victim 

and Witness Assistance Program at the National Center for 

the Victims of Crimes (NCVC) 2011 National Conference. 

JAJM co-sponsored, with the U.S. Army, the Military 

Institute on the Prosecution of Sexual Violence. This 

interactive course, with both civilian and military 

facilitators, is designed to shape how military prosecutors 

view and analyze crimes of sexual violence, providing them 

with useful tools and varied approaches to the prosecution 

of these difficult cases. In addition, a division 

representative served as a principal trainer for judge 

advocates, sexual assault response coordinators, and victim 

advocates for both DoD and the Air Force. 

 JAJM supported the war effort during Fiscal Year 2011 

by deploying two judge advocates to Afghanistan and 

providing one paralegal to serve as the deployment manager 

for the Air Force Legal Operations Agency. 

 JAJM continued to coordinate military justice actions 

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

DoJ on testimonial immunity requests for non-military 

witnesses and with the Office of the Secretary of the Air 

Force on officer requests to resign rather than face trial 

by court-martial. Division representatives played a key 

role in establishing a new victim-victim advocate privilege 

and drafting legislative changes contained in the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, including a 

revised Article 120, UCMJ, to fix unconstitutional 

provisions related to sexual assault offenses, and Article 

47, to provide document subpoena authority for Article 32 

investigations. Finally, division representatives authored 

changes to the Military Rules of Evidence for a pending 

Executive Order. 

14 
CLEMENCY, CORRECTIONS AND OFFICER REVIEW DIVISION (JAJR) 

 At the end of Fiscal Year 2011, 432 Air Force 

personnel were in confinement. Of those, eighty-five 

inmates were in long-term confinement at the United States 

Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and sixty 

were serving their sentence in the Federal Bureau of 

Prisons system. Seven inmates were enrolled in the Air 

Force Return-to-Duty Rehabilitation Program during Fiscal 

Year 2011; five successfully completed the program and were 

returned to duty. The number of Air Force members and 

former members on parole or Mandatory Supervised Release at 

the end of Fiscal Year 2011 was seventy-nine. 

 During the reporting period, the Division completed 

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

As was recommended, the Secretary approved the dismissals 

in all cases. The Division also prepared one case for 

Secretarial clemency under Article 74, UCMJ. 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL’S SCHOOL 

 The JAG School is the educational arm of the JAG 

Corps. Located at Maxwell AFB, Alabama, the JAG School 

provided education and training in all aspects of military 

legal practice to attorneys and paralegals from all 

military services, other federal agencies, and many foreign 

countries. Military justice instruction included advocacy, 

administration, the rules of evidence, and the rules of 

procedure. JAG School faculty members also provided 

instruction on military justice for several schools and 

colleges throughout Air University, the Air Force’s center 

for education. During Fiscal Year 2011, the JAG School 

instructed just under 20,000 students at these military 

institutions. 

 Additionally, the JAG School 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. JAG School webcasts allow 

subject-matter experts to brief timely military justice 

topics to all base legal offices and defense offices. 

15 
Recorded webcasts are available on CAPSIL, a web-based 

collaborative learning and management system administered 

by the JAG School and accessible to all members of the JAG 

Corps. The JAG School has thirty-nine web-based training 

modules on military justice topics. 

 Nearly 2,900 students attended in-residence courses in 

Fiscal Year 2011. Of the fifty-three courses conducted, 

the following devoted substantial resources to military 

justice-related topics: 

 Advanced Trial Advocacy Course 

 Annual Survey of the Law (Reserve and Air National 

Guard) 

 Article 32 Investigations Course 

 Defense Orientation Course (for new ADCs and DPs) 

 Interservice Military Judge’s Seminar 

 Judge Advocate Staff Officer’s Course 

 Law Office Manager Course 

 Military Justice Administration Course 

 Paralegal Apprentice Course 

 Paralegal Craftsman Course 

 Staff Judge Advocate Course 

 Trial and Defense Advocacy Course 

 In addition to the above courses, the JAG School 

hosted trial advocacy courses at Joint Base Andrews, 

Maryland; Lackland AFB, Texas; Nellis AFB, Nevada; 

Yokota AB, Japan; and Kapaun AS, Germany. The courses for 

Fiscal Year 2011 focused on foundational advocacy. 

LEGAL INFORMATION SERVICES 

 During Fiscal Year 2011, the Legal Information 

Services Directorate (JAS) continued to develop new legal 

information technology (IT) tools and improve existing ones 

to better support military justice business processes 

throughout the Air Force. 

 JAS, in conjunction with JAJM, is leading JAG Corps 

efforts to redesign the Automated Military Justice Analysis 

and Management System (AMJAMS). Users at all levels have 

requested major additional capabilities to AMJAMS. 

16 
For a number of reasons, only a complete, ground-up 

redesign of AMJAMS can provide the requested enhancements. 

Chief among them are the significant technological advances 

in databases and delivery technologies that have occurred 

since AMJAMS’ initial release in 1972, the need for more 

logical data entry, and the lack of adaptability to 

changing needs inherent in the architecture of the current 

system. In short, AMJAMS is antiquated in technological 

terms. The deliverable is to create a new system that 

fully integrates the following four user group modules: 

installation-level, trial courts, appellate courts, and 

statistical data and reports analysis. The modules would 

have the following interactive capabilities: case 

management, case analysis and statistics record keeping, 

court calendar docket scheduling (replacing the Judiciary 

Docketing System), electronic record of trial production, 

electronic filing, court-member management, task management 

merging form capability, document management, and victim 

witness assistance management. JAS anticipates completing 

the IT design requirements in early 2012. 

PERSONNEL 

 As of 30 September 2011, the Air Force Judge Advocate 

General's Corps had 1,241 judge advocates on active duty. 

Company grade officers (lieutenants and captains) made up 

just over 50 percent of that number (628). Approximately 

24 percent were majors (298) and just over 16 percent were 

lieutenant colonels (201). Colonels (114) and above, 

including one lieutenant general, one major general, and 

four brigadier generals, comprised approximately 9 percent 

of the Corps. The Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps 

Reserve included 873 Air Force Reserve IMA, Air Force 

Reserve unit-assigned, and Air National Guard judge 

advocates, of which 16 percent (138) were company grade 

officers and 71 percent (625) were field grade officers 

(majors and lieutenant colonels). The remaining 13 percent 

consisted of 105 colonels, four brigadier generals, and one 

major general. 

RICHARD C. HARDING 

Lieutenant General, USAF 

The Judge Advocate General 

17 
Period: Fiscal Year 2011 APPENDIX -- U.S. AIR FORCE MILITARYJUSTICE STATS

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATUS (Persons)

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS

RATE OF 

INCREASE 

(+) / 

DECREASE 

(-) OVER 

LAST 

REPORT

GENERAL 262 233 29 -8.28% 

BCD SPECIAL 402 121 47 -6.8% 

NON-BCD 

SPECIAL [A] 234 

SUMMARY 144 143 1 -2.0% 

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

REPORT 

PART 2 - DISCHARGE APPROVED

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL (CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES [B] 65 

 NUMBER OF BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGES 124 

SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL (CA LEVEL) 

 NUMBER OF BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGES 120 

PART 3 - RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 - GENERAL 

COURTS-MARTIAL 183 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 - BCD SPECIAL 

COURTS-MARTIAL 118 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 - GENERAL 

COURTS-MARTIAL 42 

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

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF 

PERIOD 258 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 246 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 104 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 301 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 183 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 118 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 214 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 98 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 116 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF 

PERIOD 345 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 226 

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 104 
RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER NUMBER OF CASES 

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD (214/301) -1.08% 

PART 5 - APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE THE AIR FORCE COURT 

OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

NUMBER 279/301 

PERCENTAGE 92.69% 

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

PERCENTAGE OF AFCCA REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCAAF 

162/214 [C] 75.70% 

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

REPORTING PERIOD -1.11% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 19/162 8.52% 

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

REPORTING PERIOD -09% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 

BY AFCCA 19/301 8.87% 

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

REVIEWED 

DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD .94% 

PART 7 - APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF, ARTICLE 69

PENDING AT BEGINNING OF 

PERIOD 0 

RECEIVED 8 

DISPOSED OF 5 

 GRANTED 0 

 DENIED 5 

 NO JURISDICTION 0 

 WITHDRAWN 0 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF 

PERIOD 3 

PART 8 - ORGANIZATION OF COURT

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE 

ALONE 323 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 130 

 SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 193 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH 

MEMBERS 341 

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 132 

 SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 209 

PART 9 - COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 22 

PART 10 - STRENGTH

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY 

STRENGTH 333,321 
PART 11 - NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15)

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL 

PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 6,911 

RATE PER 1,000 20.86% 

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

PREVIOUS PERIOD 2.20% 

EXPLANATORY NOTES 

[A] The Air Force does not convene non-BCD SPCMs. Of the 402 SPCMs tried, 

there were 121 convictions with a BCD adjudged, 234 convictions without a BCD 

adjudged, and 47 acquittals. 

[B] Includes 16 officer dismissals. 
SECTION 6 

 REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

COAST GUARD 
REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

U. S. COAST GUARD 

October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2011 

PERSONNEL AND TRAINING 

 The Coast Guard has 195 officers designated as judge 

advocates serving on active duty, of whom 152 are serving 

in legal billets and 43 are serving in “out-of-specialty” 

billets. Those Coast Guard lawyers currently practicing 

law include officers assigned to NORTHCOM, AFRICOM, 

SOUTHCOM, JIATF South, and ISAF. Among the 43 military 

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

Seventh District Commander, the Director, Joint Interagency 

Task Force South, and other commanding and executive 

officers of Coast Guard cutters, sectors, training centers, 

and support commands. The Coast Guard also employs 95 

civilian attorneys ranging from GS-13 to SES. 

 The Coast Guard sent attorneys to 33 different 

courses of instruction during this fiscal year, primarily 

at the various service JAG schools. Twenty-one Coast Guard 

officers are currently undergoing postgraduate studies in 

law and will be certified as judge advocates at the 

successful completion of their studies. Additionally, two 

judge advocates are serving military fellowships at the 

Council on Foreign Relations and the Center for a New 

American Security respectively. 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. Twenty-five 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. 

1 
U. S. COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

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

Appeals during fiscal year 2011 were: 

Chief Judge Lane I. McClelland 

Judge Michael J. Lodge (Departed 15 August 2011) 

Judge Sandra K. Selman (Departed 18 April 2011) 

Judge Michael E. Tousley (Departed 14 January 2011) 

Judge Frederick J. Kenney (Departed 6 October 2010) 

Judge Patrick J. McGuire 

Judge Brian T. McTague 

Judge John F. Havranek (Sworn in 17 June 2011) 

Judge Charlie M. Johnson (Sworn in 17 June 2011) 

Judge Kathleen A. Duignan (Sworn in 15 July 2011) 

 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 

Fifteen staff judge advocates advise 17 officers 

exercising general court-martial jurisdiction and 

approximately 350 officers exercising special court-martial 

jurisdiction. Responsibility for detailing trial and 

defense counsel to general and special courts-martial rests 

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

staff office reporting to the 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, at least four Coast Guard attorneys are assigned to 

full time duty at one or more Navy Legal Service Offices or 

Regional Legal Service Offices. 

 

2 
 The Coast Guard has one general courts-martial judge 

and eight collateral-duty special courts-martial judges. 

The Chief Trial Judge details all military judges to Coast 

Guard courts-martial. In one instance this fiscal year, a 

judge was detailed from the Navy to a Coast Guard general 

court-martial because the Chief Trial Judge recused 

himself. 

 The Office of Military Justice at Coast Guard 

Headquarters is responsible for representing the United 

States in all courts-martial appeals and providing support 

to staff judge advocates and trial counsel throughout the 

Coast Guard. The office is also responsible for developing 

military justice policy for the Coast Guard, including 

participation on the Joint Service Committee (JSC) on 

Military Justice. Within the office, three officers are 

assigned primary duty as appellate government counsel. 

TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES WITH OTHER SERVICES 

To improve the trial advocacy skills and experience 

levels of Coast Guard Judge Advocates, the Judge Advocate 

General assigns Trial Counsel for limited periods of time 

(usually three months) to certain installations which have 

a robust military justice practice. Coast Guard Judge 

Advocates have been assigned to Marine Corps Base Quantico, 

Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, the Army's Trial Counsel 

Assistance Program in Arlington, Virginia, and the Staff 

Judge Advocate for the Military District of Washington. 

This is in addition to the existing Memorandum of 

Understanding with the Navy that provides for four Coast 

Guard Judge Advocates to be assigned full-time as trial 

counsel or defense counsel at Navy installations.

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

NOTE: All statistics are based on the number of courtsmartial records received and filed at Coast Guard 

Headquarters during fiscal year 2011 and, where indicated, 

records received during each of the four preceding fiscal 

years. The number of courts-martial varies widely from 

year to year; consequently, this is not a reliable 

indicator of the administration of military justice given 

the relatively small number of courts-martial overall. 

3 
Fiscal Year 11 10 09 08 07 

General Courts-Martial 06 12 12 13 16 

Special Courts-Martial 32 20 19 19 24 

Summary Courts-Martial 19 09 14 28 31 

Total 57 41 45 60 71 

ADDITIONAL MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

 Appendix A contains the Coast Guard, Fiscal Year 2011 

military justice statistics. 

 F. J. KENNEY 

 Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard 

 Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard 

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

Statistics for 

 October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2011 (FY 2011) 

APPENDIX: U.S. COAST GUARD MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

Report Period: 1 OCTOBER 2010- 30 SEPTEMBER 2011 

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES *02 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 00 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT 

DISCHARGES 

12 

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL 

COURTS-MARTIAL 

03 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL 

COURTS-MARTIAL 

12 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL 

COURTS-MARTIAL 

03 

PART 4 – WORKLOAD OF THE COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL 

APPEALS 

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF 

PERIOD 14 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 07 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 07 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 18 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 05 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

**13 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 14 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 7 

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

RATE OF INCREASE 

(+)/ DECREASE (-

) OVER LAST 

REPORT 

GENERAL 06 06 00 -50% 

BCD SPECIAL 12 12 00 

+33% 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 20 20 00 -40% 

SUMMARY 19 19 00 +52% 

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

REPORT 

+28% 
BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 7 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF 

PERIOD 

 18 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 5 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 13 

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

NUMBER OF CASESREVIEWED DURING LAST 

REPORTING PERIOD 

-6% 

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE U.S. COAST GUARD 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (CCA) 

NUMBER 14 

PERCENTAGE 100% 

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

ARMED FORCES(CAAF) 

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 

4/14 

35% 

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

REPORTING PERIOD 

 

+10% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 

1/4 

25% 

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

REPORTING PERIOD 

100% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES 

REVIEWED BY CGCCA 1/14 

1.4% 

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

CASES REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

100% 

*Includes1 Dismissal (Hayes) 

**Includes 2 Remands(Medina, Bernard) 

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

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ 

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF 

PERIOD 00 

RECEIVED 01 

DISPOSED OF 00 

 GRANTED 00 

 DENIED 00 

 NO JURISDICTION 00 

 WITHDRAWN 00 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF 

PERIOD 01 

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 30 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 03 
SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 27 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 08 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 03 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 05 

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 02 

PART 10 – STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 43,139 

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL 

PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 1239 

RATE PER 1,000 28.72 

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

PREVIOUS PERIOD -1%