Defense Advisory Committee

on Investigation, 

Prosecution, and Defense

of Sexual Assault

in the Armed Forces

March 2023

Fifth Annual Report

Defense Advisory Committee

CHAIR

The Honorable Karla N. Smith

MEMBERS

Major General Marcia M. Anderson, U.S. Army, Retired

Ms. Martha S. Bashford

Mr. William S. Cassara

Ms. Margaret A. Garvin

Ms. Suzanne B. Goldberg

The Honorable Paul W. Grimm

Mr. A. J. Kramer

Ms. Jennifer Gentile Long

Dr. Jenifer Markowitz

The Honorable Jennifer M. O’Connor

Brigadier General James R. Schwenk, U.S. Marine Corps, Retired

Dr. Cassia C. Spohn

Ms. Meghan A. Tokash

The Honorable Reggie B. Walton

STAFF DIRECTOR

Colonel Jeff A. Bovarnick, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, U.S. Army

DEPUTY STAFF DIRECTOR

Ms. Julie K. Carson

CHIEF OF STAFF

Mr. Dale L. Trexler

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER

Mr. Dwight H. Sullivan

Defense Advisory Committee on 

Investigation, Prosecution, and 

Defense of Sexual Assault 

in the Armed Forces

Fifth Annual Report

March 2023

5

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

THE DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON

INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, AND DEFENSE OF

SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

ONE LIBERTY CENTER • 875 NORTH RANDOLPH STREET • SUITE 150 • ARLINGTON • VIRGINIA 22203

March 30, 2023 

The Honorable Jack Reed The Honorable Roger Wicker 

Chairman Ranking Member 

Committee on Armed Services Committee on Armed Services 

United States Senate United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Mike Rogers The Honorable Adam Smith 

Chairman Ranking Member 

Committee on Armed Services Committee on Armed Services 

U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515 

 

The Honorable Lloyd J. Austin III 

Secretary of Defense 

1000 Defense Pentagon 

Washington, DC 20301 

Dear Chairs, Ranking Members, and Mr. Secretary: 

 We are pleased to provide you with the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, 

Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces [DAC-IPAD] March 2023 

Fifth Annual Report in accordance with section 546 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291), as amended, describing the Committee’s activities 

over the previous 12 months. 

 The report first sets forth the Committee’s two responses to the questions posed in the 

Joint Explanatory Statement (JES) accompanying section 535 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 and five recommendations to the Joint Service 

Committee on Military Justice (JSC) to amend Rule for Courts-Martial 1001(c). The 

Committee’s responses and recommendations are related to victim impact statements made 

during the pre-sentencing phase of a court-martial. The Committee also provided public 

comments to the JSC draft Executive Order revising the Rules for Courts-Martial for the new 

Office of the Special Trial Counsel. Most significantly the DAC-IPAD made two 

recommendations related to the Article 32 preliminary hearing, including that a finding of no 

probable cause is an absolute bar to prosecution and a process for reconsideration. These reforms 

align with federal district courts practice and contribute to the overall health of the military 

justice system. As the Committee continues its study of reforms to pre-trial processes and 

uniform prosecution standards, a future report will include the supporting documentation for the 

Article 32 recommendations and detail the Committee’s engagement with the Military Justice 

Review Panel in this process. 
6

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

2 

 The report also provides an update on the reconstitution of the Committee, the 

establishment and work of the three subcommittees, and a summary of the Committee’s work 

from April 2020 through January 2021. 

 

 Further, the report includes a summary of the Committee’s two recommendations related 

to the DAC-IPAD’s Report on Tour Lengths and Rating Chain Structure for Services’ Special 

Victims’ Counsel / Victims’ Legal Counsel (SVC/VLC) Programs, submitted to the Department 

of Defense General Counsel in August 2022 and is available at the DAC-IPAD website at 

https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/08-Reports/10-DAC-IPAD_SVC-VLC_Report_ 

20220815_Final_Complete.pdf. 

The members of the DAC-IPAD would like to express our sincere gratitude and appreciation 

for the opportunity to make use of our collective experience and expertise in this field to develop 

recommendations for improving the military’s response to sexual misconduct within its ranks. 

Respectfully submitted,

______________________________ 

Karla N. Smith, Chair

______________________________ ______________________________ 

Marcia M. Anderson Martha S. Bashford

______________________________ ______________________________ 

William S. Cassara Margaret A. Garvin 

______________________________ ______________________________ 

Suzanne B. Goldberg Paul W. Grimm

______________________________ ______________________________ 

A. J. Kramer Jennifer Gentile Long 

______________________________ ______________________________ 

Jenifer Markowitz Jennifer M. O’Connor

______________________________ ______________________________ 

James R. Schwenk Cassia C. Spohn

______________________________ ______________________________ 

Meghan A. Tokash Reggie B. Walton
v

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, OBSERVATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2

INTRODUCTION 5

I. Committee Establishment and Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

II. Zero-Based Review 6

III. Reconstitution of the Committee and Appointment of Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

IV. Establishment of Subcommittees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

V. Fifth Annual Report – March 2023 9

VI. Summary of the Committee’s Activities: April 2020 – January 2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

CHAPTER 1. SPECIAL PROJECTS SUBCOMMITTEE 12

I. Introduction 12

II. Subcommittee Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

III. The Way Ahead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

CHAPTER 2. CASE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE 15

I. Introduction 15

II. Subcommittee Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

III. The Way Ahead 17

CHAPTER 3. POLICY SUBCOMMITTEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

II. Subcommittee Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

III. The Way Ahead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

CHAPTER 4. REPORT ON TOUR LENGTHS AND RATING CHAIN STRUCTURE FOR SERVICES’ 

SPECIAL VICTIMS’ COUNSEL / VICTIMS’ LEGAL COUNSEL (SVC/VLC) PROGRAMS 22

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

II. Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

III. Findings and Recommendations 23

CHAPTER 5. MEMBER OBSERVATIONS OF COURTS-MARTIAL AND 

ADVANCED LITIGATION TRAINING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

I. Court-Martial Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

II. Advanced Litigation Courses 24

III. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
vi

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

APPENDIXES

A. Authorizing Statute and Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. Committee Charter and Terms of Reference B-1

C. Committee Members C-1

D. Subcommittee Terms of Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D-1

E. Committee Recommendations to Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

F. Committee Requests for Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F-1

G. Committee and Subcommittee Meetings and Presenters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .G-1

H. DAC-IPAD Professional Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .H-1

I. Acronyms and Abbreviations I-1

J. Sources Consulted J-1
1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In section 546 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, enacted on December 23, 2014, 

Congress directed the Secretary of Defense to establish the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, 

Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (DAC-IPAD or Committee). Its authorizing 

legislation, as amended in 2019, charges the Committee to execute three tasks over a 10-year term: 

1. To advise the Secretary of Defense on the investigation, prosecution, and defense of allegations of rape, 

forcible sodomy, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct involving members of the Armed Forces; 

2. To review, on an ongoing basis, cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct for purposes of providing 

advice to the Secretary of Defense; and 

3. To submit an annual report to the Secretary of Defense and to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives describing the results of its activities during the preceding year no 

later than March 30 of each year. 

This is the fifth annual report of the DAC-IPAD. It describes the Committee’s activities since January 30, 2022, 

when the Committee was reconstituted following a zero-based review of all Department of Defense advisory 

committees. Between April 2022 and March 2023, the Committee held six public meetings and numerous 

preparatory meetings, during which it received presentations from dozens of stakeholders, including the General 

Counsel of the Military Departments, the Judge Advocates General of the Military Departments, civilian 

prosecutors, and military justice experts and practitioners, including military trial and defense counsel, military 

appellate counsel, and special victims’ counsel and victims’ legal counsel (SVCs/VLCs). In addition, Committee 

members observed courts-martial involving charges of sexual offenses and attended litigation courses held by the 

Services.

Since its reconstitution in April 2022, the Committee has deliberated and voted on three stand-alone reports. 

On August 10, 2022, the Committee transmitted to the General Counsel of the Department of Defense its first 

stand-alone report on tour lengths and rating chain structures for SVC/VLC programs. Two stand-alone reports, 

one on recurring issues in military appellate litigation and the other on victim impact statements at court-martial 

presentencing proceedings, will be released concurrently with this fifth annual report. 

As the result of a zero-based review directed by the Secretary of Defense, the Committee’s operations were 

suspended in January 2021; the Committee therefore did not publish an annual report in March 2021 describing 

its activities during the prior year (April 2020–March 2021). To ensure continuity of its recommendations and 

reports issued to date, in addition to a description of its reports and activities since the Committee’s reconstitution 

in April 2022, this report also includes a summary of its reports and activities from April 2020 until its suspension 

in January 2021.
2

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, OBSERVATIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Responses to the questions posed in the Joint Explanatory Statement (JES) accompanying section 535 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (FY20 NDAA) and recommendations to the Joint Service 

Committee on Military Justice (JSC) to amend Rule for Courts-Martial 1001(c): 

JES Question 1: Are military judges interpreting R.C.M. 1001(c) too narrowly and limiting what victims may say 

during sentencing such that the courts are not fully informed of the impact of the crime on the victims?

DAC-IPAD Response: In the vast majority of cases, military judges do not limit a victim’s right to be heard at 

sentencing. Of the 173 FY21 sexual offense court-martial cases reviewed involving a victim impact statement, 

the military judge limited a victim’s statement in 20 cases (12%). In the 151 cases in which the military judge 

was the sentencing authority, the judge limited a victim impact statement in 13 cases (9%). In those cases in 

which the judge took such action, they generally did so in accordance with R.C.M. 1001(c).

The Committee notes, however, that the standard in victim impact cases—that the impact must directly 

relate to or arise from the crime for which the accused was convicted—is not clear and appears to be applied 

differently by different military judges. For example, some judges permit victims to address only their 

experience specific to the crime for which the accused was convicted and other judges allow a victim to address 

the impact of their interaction with the accused, which includes the crime and the surrounding circumstances.

The Committee has determined that this standard is too narrow and should be clarified. Adoption of the 

DAC-IPAD’s recommendations concerning Rule for Courts-Martial 1001(c) should clarify the standard, 

incorporate aspects of civilian practice, and allow crime victims to more fully inform the courts about how the 

accused’s crimes have impacted them.

JES Question 2: Are military judges appropriately permitting other witnesses to testify about the impact of the 

crime?

DAC-IPAD response: Military judges generally do permit individuals who have suffered harm as a result of 

the crimes for which the accused has been convicted—not just those who are named victims in the convicted 

offenses—to provide victim impact statements.

Since Congress posed this question almost three years ago in the FY20 NDAA Joint Explanatory Statement, 

the Service appellate courts have adopted an expansive view of who may be considered a crime victim. In 

addition, the Committee’s FY21 court-martial case review revealed that military judges generally apply a 

broad definition of crime victim in determining who may provide a victim impact statement at presentencing 

proceedings.
3

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, OBSERVATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS: 

Recommendation 41: An 18-month minimum assignment length for SVCs/VLCs serving in their first tour 

as a judge advocate, and a 24-month minimum for all other SVCs/VLCs, with appropriate exceptions for 

personal or operational reasons. 

Recommendation 42: The establishment of an independent supervisory rating structure for Army SVCs 

outside of the OSJA and local command.

Recommendation 43: The Joint Service Committee on Military Justice (JSC) draft an amendment to R.C.M. 

1001(c)(2)(B) adding the words “or indirectly” to the definition of victim impact, amending the section as follows: 

“For purposes of this subsection, victim impact includes any financial, social, psychological, or medical impact 

on the crime victim directly or indirectly relating to or arising from the offense of which the accused has been 

found guilty.”

Recommendation 44: The JSC draft an amendment to R.C.M. 1001(c)(3) by adding a sentence stating that a 

victim impact statement may include a recommendation of a specific sentence except in capital cases.

Recommendation 45: The JSC draft an amendment to R.C.M. 1001(c)(5)(A) allowing submission of the 

unsworn victim impact statement by audiotape, videotape, or other digital media, in addition to allowing the 

statement orally, in writing, or both.

Recommendation 46: The JSC draft an amendment to R.C.M. 1001(c)(5)(B) to remove the “upon good 

cause shown” clause, in order to be consistent with the JSC’s proposed change to R.C.M. 1001(c)(5)(A). 

Recommendation 47: The JSC draft an amendment to R.C.M. 1001(c)(5)(B) to remove the requirement that 

the victim provide a written proffer of the matters addressed in their unsworn statement to trial and defense 

counsel after the announcement of findings.

Recommendation 48a:* Amend Article 32 to provide that a preliminary hearing officer’s determination of 

no-probable cause is an absolute bar to referral of the affected specification(s) to court-martial, subject to 

reconsideration as described in Recommendation 48b.

Recommendation 48b:* Amend Article 32 and Rule for Courts-Martial 405 to permit reconsideration of 

a preliminary hearing officer’s no-probable cause determination upon the presentation of newly discovered 

evidence, or evidence that, in the exercise of due diligence, could not reasonably have been obtained before the 

original hearing, subject to the following:

1. Trial counsel, within 10 days of receiving the preliminary hearing officer’s report, petitions the preliminary

hearing officer to reopen the Article 32 preliminary hearing stating the nature of the newly discovered

evidence and the reason it was not previously presented.

2. The preliminary hearing officer shall reconsider their previous no-probable cause determination one time

upon re-opening the Article 32 preliminary hearing to receive the evidence as described above. After

reconsideration, the preliminary hearing officer’s determination as to whether probable cause exists is final.

*At the DAC-IPAD’s 27th Public Meeting, held on March 14, 2023, just prior to finalizing this 5th Annual Report,

the DAC-IPAD voted to approve Recommendations 48a and 48b. The DAC-IPAD will issue a separate report with 

the details and supporting documentation for these recommendations. See also Section II of Chapter 1 of this report.
4

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES
5

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

I. COMMITTEE ESTABLISHMENT AND MISSION 

The Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces 

(DAC-IPAD or Committee) was established by the Secretary of Defense in February 2016 pursuant to section 546 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (FY15 NDAA), as amended.1

 The statutory mission 

of the DAC-IPAD is to advise the Secretary of Defense on the investigation, prosecution, and defense of allegations 

of rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct involving members of the Armed Forces.2

 To 

provide that advice, the Committee is directed to review, on an ongoing basis, cases involving allegations of sexual 

misconduct.3

The DAC-IPAD is required by its authorizing legislation to submit an annual report to the Secretary of Defense 

and to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, no later than March 

30 of each year, describing the results of its activities.4

 This fifth annual report of the DAC-IPAD summarizes the 

Committee’s activities from April 2020 until their suspension in January 2021 and provides an update on the 

Committee’s current status and activities.

For the original appointments, the statute required the Secretary of Defense to select a maximum of 20 Committee 

members with experience in investigating, prosecuting, and defending against allegations of sexual offenses.5

 In 

January 2017, the Secretary of Defense appointed 16 members to the DAC-IPAD, representing a wide range of 

perspectives and experience related to sexual offenses both within and outside the military.6

In 2017, the DAC-IPAD established three subcommittees to support its mission: the Case Review Subcommittee, 

the Data Subcommittee, and the Policy Subcommittee. The subcommittees were each composed of three to five 

members of the Committee. 

The terms of all 15 DAC-IPAD members expired on January 18, 2021. 

1 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, Pub. L. No. 113-291 [FY15 NDAA], § 546, 128 Stat. 3292 (2014). Pursuant to the 

authorizing statute and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the Department of Defense filed the charter for the DAC-IPAD with 

the General Services Administration on February 18, 2016. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, Pub. L. No. 116-92 [FY20 

NDAA], § 535, 133 Stat. 1198 (2019), amended FY15 NDAA § 546 to extend the Committee’s term from 5 to 10 years. 

2 FY15 NDAA, supra note 1, at § 546(c)(1).

3 Id. at § 546(c)(2). 

4 Id. at § 546(d).

5 Id. at § 546(b).

6 Committee member Dean Keith M. Harrison, Associate Dean and Professor of Law, Savannah Law School, passed away unexpectedly in 2018. 
6

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

II. ZERO-BASED REVIEW

On January 30, 2021, the Secretary of Defense suspended all Department of Defense (DoD) advisory committee 

operations, including those of the DAC-IPAD, and directed a comprehensive “zero-based review” of each 

committee’s purpose, mission, and alignment with the Department’s strategic plan.7

 During the zero-based 

review, advisory committees were prohibited from undertaking any committee or subcommittee work until the 

reappointment of such committees, subcommittees, and members was approved and the members took their oath of 

office.

The Committee’s suspension prevented its completion of two statutorily required annual reports due by March 30, 

2021, and March 30, 2022. To notify Congress of the suspension of Committee activities, on March 26, 2021, the 

General Counsel of the Department of Defense (DoD GC) submitted interim report letters to the chairs of the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives (SASC and HASC),8

 explaining the 

suspension of the DAC-IPAD’s continued operations and the need to renew its members. 

On July 6, 2021, following the Zero-Based Review Board’s recommendations, the Secretary of Defense authorized 

the DAC-IPAD to resume operations once its new members were duly appointed, written terms of reference were 

approved, and the new members were sworn in.9

By the annual reporting date of March 30, 2022, the newly reappointed DAC-IPAD had not held its first meeting; 

therefore, on March 31, 2022, the DoD GC submitted a second interim report to Congress describing the 

Committee’s activities during the year prior to the zero-based review and providing an update on the status of the 

reconstituted DAC-IPAD.10

III. RECONSTITUTION OF THE COMMITTEE AND APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS 

In January 2022, the Secretary of Defense appointed 17 new members to the DAC-IPAD.11 The newly appointed 

Committee members represent a broad range of perspectives and experience related to sexual assault both within 

and outside the military.

The Committee members’ areas of expertise include civilian sexual assault forensics, civilian and military prosecution 

of sexual assault, civilian and military defense of sexual assault, the federal and state court system, military 

command, criminology, and academic disciplines and legal policy.

7 Memorandum from Secretary of Defense to Senior Pentagon Leadership Regarding Department of Defense Advisory Committees – Zero-Based Review 

(Jan. 30, 2021). The Secretary directed this review to align DoD advisory committee efforts with the Department’s most pressing strategic priorities. 

8 Letters from Acting General Counsel of the Department of Defense to the Honorable Adam Smith, Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services of 

the House of Representatives (Mar. 26, 2021) and to the Honorable Jack Reed, Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate (Mar. 26, 

2021).

9 Memorandum from Secretary of Defense to General Counsel of the Department of Defense Regarding Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, 

Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (July 6, 2021).

10 Letters from Acting General Counsel of the Department of Defense to the Honorable Adam Smith, Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services of 

the House of Representatives (Mar. 31, 2022) and to the Honorable Jack Reed, Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate (Mar. 31, 

2022); U.S. Dept. of Def., Report of the Department of Defense on the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of 

Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (Mar. 2022).

11 The Committee currently has 15 members. The Secretary of Defense appointed 17 members; however, one member declined the appointment. Sixteen 

members took the oath of office in April 2022. Due to health concerns, one member resigned in September 2022. 
7

INTRODUCTION

Ten original DAC-IPAD members were reappointed to a second four-year term, and seven distinguished new 

members were appointed for a first term. The members’ depth and breadth of experience will be extremely valuable 

in developing informed, authoritative assessments of the status of the military’s response to sexual offenses within its 

ranks and providing thoughtful, well-considered recommendations to the Secretary of Defense that consider civilian 

best practices and the unique nature of the military criminal justice system.

The Secretary of Defense selected Judge Karla Smith to serve as the Chair of the DAC-IPAD. The DAC-IPAD held 

its first public meeting on April 21, 2022, via videoconference.

IV. ESTABLISHMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEES

On September 22, 2022, the DoD GC established three subcommittees of the DAC-IPAD: 

1. The Case Review Subcommittee;

2. The Policy Subcommittee; and

3. The Special Projects Subcommittee.12

Each subcommittee comprises members of the full Committee, and each subcommittee has its own terms of 

reference (ToR) defining its mission, objectives, and scope.13

A. Case Review Subcommittee (CRSC)

The mission of the Case Review Subcommittee as defined in its ToR is to assess and provide independent advice to 

the DAC-IPAD related to the investigation, prosecution, and defense of allegations of sexual misconduct involving 

members of the Armed Forces based on its review of cases involving such allegations.

The objectives and scope of the CRSC, as set forth in its ToR, are the following: 

1. Assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, prosecution, and defense of allegations of sexual

misconduct involving members of the Armed Forces through the review of military justice cases from

investigation through final disposition, including appellate review, if applicable.

2. Assessing the differences among the Military Departments (MILDEPs) in the investigation, prosecution,

and defense of allegations of sexual misconduct.

3. Identifying best practices among the MILDEPs in the investigation, prosecution, and defense of allegations

of sexual misconduct.

4. Assessing other matters within the scope of the DAC-IPAD Charter and ToR as referred to the Case Review

Subcommittee in writing by the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, or the DoD GC.

Ms. Martha Bashford is the CRSC Chair, and the other CRSC members are Ms. Margaret Garvin, Ms. Jennifer 

Long, Dr. Jenifer Markowitz, and BGen James Schwenk, USMC (Ret.). 

12 Memorandum from DoD General Counsel to the Chair of the DAC-IPAD, DAC-IPAD Subcommittee Establishment, Sept. 24, 2022. 

13 See Appendix D for the CRSC, PSC, and SPSC Terms of Reference.
8

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

In a January 28, 2022, memorandum to the DAC-IPAD Staff Director, the DoD GC requested that the DACIPAD study appellate decisions in military sexual assault cases.14 The DAC-IPAD assigned this task to the CRSC at 

its September 2022 public meeting. 

B. Policy Subcommittee (PSC)

The mission of the Policy Subcommittee is to assess and provide independent advice to the DAC-IPAD related to 

the investigation, prosecution, and defense of sexual misconduct involving members of the Armed Forces based on 

its review of DoD policies, MILDEP policies, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 

The objectives and scope of the PSC, as set forth in its ToR, are the following:

1. Reviewing and assessing policies promulgated by DoD and the MILDEPS, and UCMJ provisions related to

the investigation, prosecution, and defense of allegations of sexual misconduct in the Armed Forces.

2. Assessing other matters within the scope of the DAC-IPAD Charter and ToR as referred to the PSC in

writing by the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, or the DoD GC.

Brigadier General James Schwenk, USMC (Ret.), is the PSC Chair, and the other PSC members are Major General 

Marcia Anderson, U.S. Army (Ret.), Ms. Jennifer O’Connor, Ms. Suzanne Goldberg, and DAC-IPAD Chair Judge 

Karla Smith.

C. Special Projects Subcommittee (SPSC)

The mission of the Special Projects Subcommittee is to assess and provide independent advice to the DAC-IPAD 

related to the investigation, prosecution, and defense of sexual misconduct involving members of the Armed Forces 

based on its review and analysis of existing, developing, and proposed statutory requirements, DoD and MILDEP 

plans and policies, and the UCMJ and Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) rules and provisions applicable to such 

requirements, plans, policies, and provisions. 

The objectives and scope of the SPSC, as set forth in its ToR, are the following:

1. Reviewing and assessing existing, developing, and proposed statutory requirements related to the

investigation, prosecution, and defense of allegations of sexual misconduct involving members of the Armed

Forces and the DoD and MILDEPs’ plans and policies related to those statutory requirements, including

changes to the MCM.

2. Identifying significant trends and variances among the MILDEPs in the investigation, prosecution, and

defense of allegations of sexual misconduct.

3. Identifying best practices and recommending standards and criteria for a uniform system of military justice

within DoD.

4. Assessing other matters within the scope of the DAC-IPAD Charter and ToR as referred to the Special Projects

Subcommittee in writing by the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, or the DoD GC.

14 Memorandum from Caroline Krass, DoD General Counsel, to Staff Director, DAC-IPAD, Request to Study Appellate Decisions in Military Sexual Assault 

Cases (Jan. 28, 2022) [Appellate Review Memo]. 

Ms. Meghan Tokash is the SPSC Chair, and the other SPSC members are Judge Paul Grimm, Mr. A.J. Kramer, 

Dr. Jenifer Markowitz, Dr. Cassia Spohn, and Judge Reggie Walton.
9

INTRODUCTION

V FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT – MARCH 2023

This is the fifth annual report of the DAC-IPAD. It describes the Committee’s activities since January 30, 2022, 

when the Committee was reconstituted following a zero-based review of all Department of Defense advisory 

committees. Between April 2022 and March 2023, the Committee held six public meetings and numerous 

preparatory meetings, during which it received presentations from dozens of stakeholders, including the General 

Counsel of the Military Departments, the Judge Advocates General of the Military Services, civilian prosecutors, 

and military justice experts and practitioners, including military trial and defense counsel, military appellate 

counsel, and special victims’ counsel and victims’ legal counsel (SVCs/VLCs). In addition, Committee members 

observed courts-martial involving charges of sexual offenses and attended litigation courses held by the Services.

Since its reconstitution in April 2022, the Committee has deliberated and voted on three stand-alone reports. 

On August 10, 2022, the Committee transmitted to the General Counsel of the Department of Defense its first 

stand-alone report on tour lengths and rating chain structures for SVC/VLC programs. Two stand-alone reports, 

one on recurring issues in military appellate litigation and the other on victim impact statements at court-martial 

presentencing proceedings, will be released concurrently with this fifth annual report. 

VI SUMMARY OF THE COMMITTEE’S ACTIVITIES: APRIL 2020 – JANUARY 2021

Although the DoD GC provided Congress an interim report describing the DAC-IPAD’s activities between April 

2020 and January 2021,15 to ensure continuity in its reporting the DAC-IPAD provides the following summaries in 

this statutorily required annual report.

Between April 2020 and January 2021 (when the Committee’s activities were suspended by the zero-based review), 

the Committee held five public meetings.16 It also deliberated on and released three stand-alone reports: one on the 

advisability of a guardian ad litem appointment process for child victims of an alleged sex-related offense in the 

military, the second on investigative case file reviews for military adult penetrative sexual offense cases closed in 

fiscal year 2017, and the third on racial and ethnic data relating to disparities in the investigation, prosecution, and 

conviction of sexual offenses in the military. These reports are summarized below.

A Guardian ad Litem Report (June 2020)

In June 2020, the DAC-IPAD submitted its Report on the Advisability and Feasibility of Establishing a Guardian 

ad Litem Appointment Process for Child Victims of an Alleged Sex-Related Offense in the Military.

17 This report was 

published in response to a request from the HASC that the DAC-IPAD evaluate the advisability and feasibility of 

establishing a process under which a guardian ad litem may be appointed in a court-martial to represent the 

interests of a child victim of an alleged sex-related offense.18

15 Letters from Caroline Krass, DoD General Counsel, to Chairman of Senate and House Armed Services Committees (Mar. 31, 2022). 

16 See Appendix E for a complete listing of DAC-IPAD meetings, preparatory sessions, and presenters since April 2020. 

17 Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces Report on the 

Advisability and Feasibility of Establishing a Guardian ad Litem Appointment Process for Child Victims of an Alleged Sex-Related 

Offense in the Military [DAC-IPAD GAL Report] (June 2020), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/08-Reports/06_DACIPAD_

GAL _Report_20200617_Final_Web.pdf. 

18 H.R. Rep. No. 116-120, at 124–25 (2019). While this provision from the House Report was not part of the final FY20 NDAA, the DAC-IPAD 

followed the DoD policy of responding to all requests made by Congress for reports. 
10

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

The Committee conducted comprehensive research on civilian and military court practices and rules regarding 

the appointment of guardians ad litem for child victims, including extensive interviews of experts in the area of 

child victims’ rights. The report sets forth the Committee’s 42 findings and eight recommendations resulting 

from this research.19 The Committee concluded that while some gaps exist in services available to child victims of 

sexual offenses, it is neither advisable nor necessary to implement a designated guardian ad litem program in the 

military, provided that the Committee’s recommendations or similar proposals to rectify these gaps are approved and 

implemented. The Committee determined that a trained child victim advocate working in collaboration with the 

SVC/VLC is the best option for ensuring that a child’s interests are protected in the courtroom.20

B.Report on Investigative Case File Reviews (October 2020)

In October 2020, the DAC-IPAD submitted its Report on Investigative Case File Reviews for Military Adult 

Penetrative Sexual Offense Cases Closed in Fiscal Year 2017, the culmination of a three-year project that entailed 

in-depth quantitative and qualitative reviews of 1,904 criminal investigative cases and related court-martial cases 

involving adult penetrative sexual offenses.21

In the comprehensive review, the DAC-IPAD (1) recorded numerous objective data points for each case; (2) 

subjectively assessed whether the victim’s statement(s), if any, contained sufficient evidence to establish probable 

cause to believe that the subject of the investigation had committed a penetrative sexual offense; (3) subjectively 

assessed whether the initial disposition authority’s decision to prefer a penetrative sexual offense charge or to take 

no action in the case was reasonable; and (4) for those cases resulting in preferred penetrative sexual offense charges, 

subjectively assessed the evidence provided for review with a focus both on whether it was sufficient to establish 

probable cause to believe that the accused had committed a penetrative sexual offense and on whether the materials 

reviewed contained sufficient admissible evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction.22

The October 2020 case review report sets out 47 findings, one recommendation, and nine directives for further 

study, including the following two key findings:

• There is not a systemic problem with an initial disposition authority’s decision either to prefer a penetrative

sexual offense charge or to take no action. In 94.0% (486 of 517) and 98.5% (1,316 of 1,336) of cases

examined, respectively, the reviewers found those decisions to be reasonable.

• There is a systemic problem with the referral of penetrative sexual offense charges to trial by general courtmartial when there is not sufficient admissible evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction. In 31.1% (73 of

235) of cases reviewed that were tried to verdict on a penetrative sexual offense charge, the evidence in the

materials reviewed did not meet that threshold.23

19 DAC-IPAD GAL Report, supra note 17, at 6–13. 

20 Id. at 4.

21 Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces Report on 

Investigative Case File Reviews for Military Adult Penetrative Sexual Offense Cases Closed in Fiscal Year 2017 (Oct. 2020), available at

https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/08-Reports/08_DACIPAD_CaseReview_Report_20201019_Final_Web.pdf.

22 Id. at 26–27.

23 Id. at 2–4.
11

INTRODUCTION

34, UCMJ, to require that the staff judge advocate advise the convening authority in writing that there is sufficient 

admissible evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction on the charged offenses before a convening authority may 

refer a charge and specification to trial by general court-martial.24

C.Report on Racial and Ethnic Data Disparity (December 2020)

In December 2020, as required by section 540I of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 

the Committee released its Report on Racial and Ethnic Data Relating to Disparities in the Investigation, Prosecution, 

and Conviction of Sexual Offenses in the Military.

25 This important report was undertaken at a time of heightened 

focus on racial discrimination in the United States, including within the military justice system. Pursuant to the 

congressional tasking, the Committee requested, and each Military Service reported, the race and ethnicity of (1) 

Service members accused of a penetrative or contact sexual offense, (2) Service members against whom such charges 

were preferred, and (3) Service members convicted of a penetrative or contact sexual offense for all cases completed 

in fiscal year 2019.26

The Committee found that the Military Services’ FY19 data responses raised more questions than they answered, 

owing to persistent inadequacies in race and ethnicity data collection in DoD and the Military Services. The 

Committee’s assessment of the FY19 data for this report was further hampered by inconsistencies across the Military 

Services in how they reported demographic data for Service members.27 Because the Military Services do not report 

race and ethnicity in standardized categories, the Committee was limited in its ability to undertake the type of 

comprehensive assessment that is essential to identifying possible areas of racial and ethnic discrimination in sexual 

offense cases. In addition, no Military Service consistently recorded the race and ethnicity of victims of a sexual 

offense. Civilian criminologists consider the victim’s demographic information to be a critical component of any 

assessment of racial disparities in a criminal justice system.28

The report’s five findings and eight recommendations for improvement focused on comprehensive data collection, 

consistent terminology, and holistic assessments of racial disparities.29 The report concluded that implementation 

of the Committee’s recommendations, along with the Article 140a, UCMJ, standards and criteria, will enhance the 

administration of justice in the military.

24 Id. at 16.

25 Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces Report on Racial and 

Ethnic Data Relating to Disparities in the Investigation, Prosecution, and Conviction of Sexual Offenses in the Military (Dec. 2020), 

available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/08-Reports/09_DACIPAD_RaceEthnicity_Report_20201215_Web_Final.pdf.

26 Id. at 18.

27 Id. at 1.

28 Id. at 8.

29 Id. at 5–6.

In the Committee’s view, the decision to refer charges to trial by general court-martial in the absence of sufficient 

admissible evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction has significant negative implications for the accused, the 

victim, and the military justice process. Accordingly, the Committee recommended that Congress amend Article 
12

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

CHAPTER 1. SPECIAL PROJECTS SUBCOMMITTEE

I.INTRODUCTION

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 brought momentous change to the practice of 

military justice30 when Congress transferred significant prosecutorial functions in sexual offense cases from military 

commanders to independent judge advocates,31 removing the supervision of these military lawyers from their 

traditional military chains of command and placing them under the supervision of the civilian Secretaries of the 

Military Departments.32 These changes create a bifurcated military justice system: If a Service member commits an 

offense under the jurisdiction of the new “special trial counsel,” the military prosecutor will decide—independent 

of the accused’s chain of command—whether to send charges to a court-martial. However, if a Service member 

commits an offense that is not within the special trial counsel’s jurisdiction, then the traditional, command-driven 

system for charging and referring cases to court-martial will be followed.33

The DAC-IPAD is studying this historic change to the military’s prosecution of sexual assault offenses. In a May 

10, 2022, memorandum, the DoD GC tasked the DAC-IPAD with advising the Secretary of Defense and herself 

on policy development, workforce structure, and implementation of best practices for the Military Departments’ 

Offices of Special Trial Counsel (OSTCs).34 The Committee is uniquely positioned to provide this advice regarding 

the OSTCs, which are intended to function much like independent district attorneys’ offices.35

The Special Projects Subcommittee (SPSC) will lead this effort and provide findings and recommendations for 

consideration by the full Committee. Initially, the SPSC identified topics foundational to the structure and 

independence of the OSTC. In November 2022, the SPSC reviewed and provided public comment on proposed 

Rules for Courts-Martial implementing the authorities of the OSTC. Finally, the SPSC met with members of an 

inter-Service working group coordinating the organization and business rules for their respective OSTCs. The 

discussion addressed the law and policies applicable to the special trial counsel’s exclusive authority to dispose of 

charges involving covered offenses, as well as their ability to maintain independence and objectivity in the exercise of 

prosecutorial discretion.

30 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, S. 1605 [FY22 NDAA], §§ 531–539C, Pub. L. No. 117-81, 135 Stat. 1541 (Dec. 27, 2021).

31 The OSTC will be responsible for the disposition of “covered offenses,” including 10 U.S.C. §§ 917a (article 117a), 918 (article 118), 919 (article 119), 

919a (article 119a), 920 (article 120), 920a (article 120a), 920b (article 120b), 920c (article 120c), 925 (article 125), 928b (article 128b), 930 (article 

130), 932 (article 132), or the stand-alone offense of child pornography punishable under § 934 (article 134). [add 3 more from FY32 NDAA here]. 

The OSTC exercises authority in cases in which all covered offenses occurred on or after December 27, 2023.

32 FY22 NDAA, supra note 30, §§ 531–32.

33 Military Criminal Justice: Practice and Procedure, § 8–1 (2022).

34 See Memorandum from Ms. Caroline Krass, General Counsel for the Department of Defense, to Judge Karla Smith, DAC-IPAD Chair, DAC-IPAD 

Advice on Policy Development, Workforce Structure, and Implementation of Best Practices for the Military Departments’ Offices of Special Trial Counsel (May 

10, 2022).

35 See Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 84 (April 21, 2022) (comment by Ms. Megan Tokash, Committee member) (all DAC-IPAD public meeting 

transcripts are available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/).
13

CHAPTER 1. SPECIAL PROJECTS SUBCOMMITTEE

II.SUBCOMMITTEE ACTIVITIES 

In furtherance of the SPSC’s specific focus on the new OSTC as described above, the full Committee has also 

received information on the establishment and development of the new offices, including the following:

A. Testimony from senior officials from the Military Departments on the establishment of their OSTC 

at the DAC-IPAD’s 23rd Public Meeting on June 22, 2022.36

B. Testimony from senior officials from the Military Departments on the status of their OSTC at the 

DAC-IPAD’s 25th Public Meeting on December 7, 2022.37

C. The DAC-IPAD requested and received numerous documents from the Military Departments 

regarding the policies for establishment of the OSTC and the competency and qualification 

standards for personnel serving in the OSTC

On March 14, 2023, the Special Projects Subcommittee presented to the DAC-IPAD its recommendations for 

reforms to pretrial procedures and prosecution standards:

Recommendation 1a (DAC-IPAD Recommendation 48a): Amend Article 32 to provide that a preliminary 

hearing officer’s determination of no-probable cause is an absolute bar to referral of the affected specification(s) 

to court-martial, subject to reconsideration as described in Recommendation 1b.

Recommendation 1b (DAC-IPAD Recommendation 48b): Amend Article 32 and Rule for Courts-Martial 

405 to permit reconsideration of a preliminary hearing officer’s no-probable cause determination upon 

the presentation of newly discovered evidence, or evidence that, in the exercise of due diligence, could not 

reasonably have been obtained before the original hearing, subject to the following:

1. Trial counsel, within 10 days of receiving the preliminary hearing officer’s report, petitions the 

preliminary hearing officer to reopen the Article 32 preliminary hearing stating the nature of the newly 

discovered evidence and the reason it was not previously presented.

2. The preliminary hearing officer shall reconsider their previous no-probable cause determination one time 

upon re-opening the Article 32 preliminary hearing to receive the evidence as described above. After 

reconsideration, the preliminary hearing officer’s determination as to whether probable cause exists is final.

Recommendation 2: Revise Appendix 2.1, Manual for Courts-Martial, as follows:

(1) Remove “Non-Binding” from the title of Appendix 2.1 to align with the title of Article 33, UCMJ, 

“Disposition Guidance”; and

(2) Revise the referral guidance in section 2.3 of Appendix 2.1 to provide that special trial counsel should 

only refer charges to a general court-martial, and judge advocates should only recommend that a 

convening authority refer charges to a general court-martial, if they believe that the Servicemember’s 

conduct constitutes an offense under the UCMJ, and that the admissible evidence will probably be 

sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction. See proposed revisions to Appendix 2.1, Manual for 

Courts-Martial, enclosed with this report.

(3) Update Appendix 2.1 to reflect the new authorities of the special trial counsel.

36 See Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 29-130 (June 22, 2022)

37 See Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 204-297 (December 6, 2022)
14

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Recommendation 3: Require training of all special trial counsel and judge advocates advising convening 

authorities on the disposition guidance in Appendix 2.1 of the Manual for Courts-Martial. The training 

shall emphasize the principle that referral is only appropriate if they believe that the servicemember’s conduct 

constitutes an offense under the UCMJ, and that the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain 

and sustain a conviction.

After deliberating on the subcommittee’s recommendations, the DAC-IPAD approved Recommendations 1a and 

1b (now adopted as DAC-IPAD Recommendations 46a and 46b). The DAC-IPAD asked the Special Projects 

Subcommittee to develop additional guidance for the proposed prosecution standards in Appendix 2.1 contained 

in Recommendation 2 and deferred deliberations and a vote on Recommendations 2 and 3 until a future meeting. 

The Special Projects Subcommittee will provide the DAC-IPAD with its proposed prosecution standards for the 

Committee’s future consideration. The DAC-IPAD will publish an independent, stand-alone report supporting its 

recommendations on pretrial procedures and prosecution standards in 2023.

III.THE WAY AHEAD

In 2023, the SPSC will report on the processes by which special trial counsel prefer and refer charges, with 

particular focus on cases in which an Article 32 preliminary hearing is held. The SPSC will assess the current 

disposition guidance and legal standards for referring cases to court-martial and recommend uniform policies for 

the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. The SPSC will incorporate the previous DAC-IPAD’s extensive review of 

penetrative sexual offense court-martial documents and observations from its investigative case file review.38 The 

SPSC intends to report its analysis and findings to the Committee in mid-2023. 

Future SPSC topics of study include developing metrics for evaluating the success of the special trial counsel 

program. Civilian criminal justice experts emphasize the importance of a holistic assessment of these new, 

independent prosecutors. An evaluation of the OSTC must account for a variety of perspectives about the fairness 

of the process as well as case outcomes; success cannot be gauged solely by the number of convictions obtained. 

Ultimately, the assessment will determine whether the goals of this historic change—including enhanced confidence 

in the military’s ability to deliver justice and maintain good order and discipline—have been achieved. 

Finally, the DAC-IPAD assigned the SPSC the task of developing information in support of the Committee’s 

statutory task to study the sharing of information contained in investigative and prosecution files with victim’s 

counsel. The DAC-IPAD received this task in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, and 

must provide its findings and recommendations by December 23, 2023.39 The DAC-IPAD will benefit from 

the SPSC’s ability to draw on its current focus on pretrial matters in connection with the special trial counsel to 

undertake the research and provide the needed context for evaluating potential legislative or administrative action 

considered by the DAC-IPAD.

38 DAC-IPAD reports can be found at https://dacipad.whs.mil/reports. 

39 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, Pub. L. No. 117–263, § 549B, 136 Stat. 2395 (2022).
15

CHAPTER 2. CASE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE 

CHAPTER 2 CASE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE

I INTRODUCTION

After the Case Review Subcommittee (CRSC) was formed, the DAC-IPAD assigned the Appellate Review Study 

to it.40 Over the course of several public meetings in 2022, the full Committee developed the parameters for 

the Appellate Review Study.

41 After reviewing appellate cases, analyzing the court decisions, and hearing public 

testimony, the CRSC drafted a stand-alone report for the full Committee’s consideration and approval to be issued 

concurrently with this report.42

In December, CRSC Chair Martha Bashford made a motion, approved by the DAC-IPAD, that the CRSC study 

court-martial panel selection information and collect data on how panels are constituted from the pool of eligible 

personal, so that the DAC-IPAD can recommend appropriate changes to the military system.43To that end, the 

CRSC developed a strategic plan to analyze the race, ethnicity, and gender of military panel members, victims, the 

accused, trial and military defense counsel, and judges at courts-martial for sexual assault offenses.

II SUBCOMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

As the CRSC Appellate Review Study progressed, the full Committee was briefed on court decisions challenging the 

convening authority’s composition of an accused’s court-martial panel,44 including the pending decision in United 

States v. Jeter.

45 The DAC-IPAD expressed a strong interest in studying the court-martial member selection process, 

including how race and gender factor into the selection of panel members.46

At its September 2022 public meeting, the DAC-IPAD heard testimony from a subject-matter expert on the 

military panel selection process, including the statutory authority set forth in Article 25(e)(2), UCMJ, that provides 

that the convening authority “shall detail as members thereof such members of the armed forces as, in his opinion, 

are best qualified for the duty by reason of age, education, training, experiences, length of service, and judicial 

temperament.”47 The expert stated that military panel selection criteria do not explicitly take into account race or 

gender, noting there is a human element in the convening authority’s selection of eligible panel members.48

40 See supra note 14. 

41 The DAC-IPAD discussed and deliberated on the Appellate Project in June, September, and December 2022. 

42 Appellate Review Study, available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/meetings/2-uncategorised/72-dac-ipad-reports. 

43 See Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 30–31 (Dec. 7, 2022) (comment of Ms. Martha Bashford, Committee member). 

44 See Appellate Review Study, supra note 42, for an in-depth review of these decisions. 

45 United States v. Jeter, 82 M.J. 355 (CAAF 2022) (considering whether a convening authority violated the appellant’s equal protection rights when, 

over defense objection, he convened an all-white panel using a racially nonneutral members selection process and provided no explanation for the 

monochromatic result beyond a naked affirmation of good faith).

46 See generally Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting (Sept. 21, 2022).

47 See also R.C.M. 503(a)(1)(A) (providing that the convening authority shall detail qualified persons as members for courts-martial); R.C.M. 502(a)(1) 

(requiring that the “members detailed to a court-martial shall be those persons who in the opinion of the convening authority are best qualified for the 

duty by reason of their age, education, training, experience, length of service, and judicial temperament”).

48 See Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 44 (Sept. 21, 2022) (Major Steven Dray, professor of sentencing, post-trial, and appeals at The Judge 

Advocate Legal Center and School in Charlottesville, VA). 
16

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

The testimony suggested it would be difficult to show that a convening authority’s selection of a panel was 

improper because of discrimination based on race or gender.49

At a later subcommittee meeting, the CRSC heard similar testimony on the human element in panel selection from 

a civilian defense attorney, who said that the convening authority “selects these individuals based on familiarity and 

trust rather than a specific reference to judicial temperament, which there is no way that a commanding general 

could know based on job position.”

50 In addition, during public comment sessions of the DAC-IPAD’s September 

and December 2022 meetings, the Committee heard from Black and Hispanic Service members convicted of sexual 

misconduct by all-white panels, or who chose trial by military judge alone because they were uncomfortable with 

the all-white panel detailed to their court-martial.51

After listening to the September 2022 testimony and testimony from staff judge advocates (SJAs) on the criteria 

used to select panel members, the Committee members raised questions about military panel demographics.52

The full Committee focused on military panel composition,53 and especially on how to change the composition 

procedurally and factually.

54 The Committee expressed concern about the public perception that women and 

minorities are underrepresented on court-martial panels, noting that this perception undermines the credibility of 

the military justice system.55 Committee members also asked whether women are disproportionately excluded from 

panels because of their experiences as victims of sexual assault or their additional duties as victim advocates.56

At a January 2023 CRSC meeting, two civilian defense counsel shared their perspectives on military panel selection 

practices,57 raising concerns about the lack of transparency within the nomination process, although both observed 

that panel members took their duties seriously.58 One of them compared the process to a tip of the iceberg: 

49 Id. at 69 (In response to an inquiry of how an accused could show that minorities were being purposefully excluded Major Dray stated that “you’d have 

to be privy to probably some kind of, some of the conversations between the SJA and the command if you could get that, if anybody would admit it or 

subordinate commanders, very difficult.”).

50 See Transcript of CRSC Meeting 39 (Jan. 26, 2023) (Margaret Kurz, Owens and Kurz LLC).

51 Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 346–83 (Sept. 21, 2022). See also Transcript of the DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 76–77 (Sept. 12, 2022) (comment 

of Mr. William E. Cassara, Committee member: “The very first court-martial I ever tried in 1990, it was an African American accused, and there was 

not a single African American on the panel. The last case I tried in 2018, ’16, the first one was an Army case, this last one was an Air Force case. I had 

an African American accused, and there was not a single African American on the panel. I would venture to say without a scientific analysis or any data, 

that in my empirical experience the overwhelming majority of my cases fell into that category.”).

52 See Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 27 (Dec. 7, 2022) (comment of the Honorable Reggie Walton, Committee member, on the racial makeup 

of military panels: “I think the change needs to occur a lot sooner [than gathering data] because I think we’re experiencing it now and I think it’s 

detrimental to morale to have people feeling that they’re being railroaded through a system that doesn’t accurately or appropriately reflect their racial 

makeup.”).

53 Transcript of the DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 58 (Sept. 21, 2022) (comment of Ms. Jennifer O’Connor, Committee member: “Could you just talk a little 

bit more about is there—is everybody, you know, put on a list and it’s randomly selected based on who’s available? I am curious about how the panels 

are composed.”)

54 Id. at 67 (comment of Judge Karla Smith, Committee Chair: “If it’s a scenario of an all white jury or panel, can an accused challenge that panel? And 

when the general is looking at the list, is there any consideration to having women, having minorities, et cetera?”). 

55 Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 63–64, 76–-78, 94 (Dec. 6, 2022). 

56 Id. at 94 (comment of Ms. Suzanne Goldberg, Committee member: “And so, to the extent it’s a common practice that it is assumed that someone who 

has been trained as a victims counsel cannot deliberate fairly as a panel member, that sort of amplifies or exacerbates the other issue, which is that more 

women will be excluded from panels because more women will report having experienced sexual assault.”).

57 Brian Pristera, Daniel and Conway Associates, and Margaret Kurz, Owens and Kurz LLC.

58 See Transcript of CRSC Meeting 51–53 (Jan. 26, 2023) 
17

CHAPTER 2. CASE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE 

“By the time you get to the venire and you are in the courtroom, it is that top part of the iceberg, but there is a 

whole selection process that occurred . . . invisibly.” He explained that any irregularities in the selection could 

never be discovered, because the conversations between the convening authority and the SJA regarding the 

selections are not put in writing.59 If counsel were privy to how the venire was selected, he said, they could raise any 

issues to the military judge before trial and preserve the issue for appeal, increasing overall efficiency.60 The counsel 

noted that there are often delays in receiving questionnaires or even knowing who the panel members are until the 

day of trial, resulting in delays.61

III THE WAY AHEAD

In 2023, the CRSC will study the issues of race, ethnicity, and gender in panel selection. On the basis of testimony 

already heard, the Committee believes that there is at least a public perception that military panels are not diverse 

and that a perception of conscious or unconscious bias may be introduced by the convening authority’s ability to 

handpick the panel. Further, the Committee recognizes that the nomination process is not transparent and that 

if discrepancies exist in how the Article 25 criteria are applied, such deviations would be nearly impossible to 

successfully challenge. 

Research has shown that diverse juries have broader deliberations.62 The CRSC will collect demographic 

characteristics of panel members in courts-martial as well as the demographics of both the victims and accused. The 

study will include any case in which a sexual offense under Articles 120, 120b, or 120c, UCMJ, was referred to a 

general court-martial and a panel was seated in fiscal years 2021 and 2022.63

For this initial study, the CRSC intends to review the race, ethnicity, grade, age, and gender of members selected to 

serve on courts-martial and those detailed by the convening authority. After compiling and analyzing these data, the 

Committee will be able to describe panel composition in a number of ways, such as 

• The proportion of panels that contain only white Service members;

• The proportion of panels that contain one, and only one, Hispanic Service member; and

• The proportion of panels that contain more than 50% Black Service members.

If feasible, the CRSC intends to collect demographic data on the victims and accused in these courts-martial to 

determine whether there are correlations between a panel’s composition and the demographic characteristics of the 

victims and accused. In addition, the study will collect demographic information on judges and on trial and military 

defense counsel in each court-martial reviewed. 

59 Id. at 40. 

60 Id. at 96 (testimony of Mr. Pristera: “And so, I circle that back around to my discovery ask, which I actually think is the most important change that we 

could make here. Regardless of what the Jeter court says for the decision on venire selection, and even regardless of a randomization, the imposition of a 

randomizer, this [the nomination process] has to be crystal clear and presented to the defense in a timely manner for the defense to be able to raise any 

issues it has or waive them before trial, and that would, in my opinion, increase the fairness to the accused and increase the efficiency of the process with 

panel selection issues[.]”). 

61 Id. at 97. 

62 Samuel R. Sommers, On Racial Diversity and Group Decision Making: Identifying Multiple Effects of Racial Composition on Jury Deliberations, 90 J. of 

Pers. and Soc. Psych. 597, 606 (2006) (“Racial composition also had clear effects on deliberation content, supporting the prediction that diversity 

would lead to broader information exchange.”). 

63 Depending on the number of cases found for FY21 and FY22, the CRSC may also review cases under Article 120c, UCMJ. 
18

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

The CRSC is not aware of any other study, government or otherwise, that has compiled data on the race and gender 

of military panels. Data on jury pools are also scarce for civilian juries.64 The initial phase of this study will focus 

on discovering the demographic makeup of courts-martial. These data will enable the Committee to determine 

whether perceptions that military panels are homogenous are accurate. The data results will also help inform policy 

recommendations on the nomination process. 

After completing the panel composition study, the CRSC will begin assessing case attrition as well as court-martial 

outcomes in sexual assault cases. By studying case outcomes, the CRSC will attempt to discover why conviction 

rates in sexual assault cases are so much lower than those for other offenses.65

64 Mary R. Rose, Raul S. Casarez, and Carmen M. Gutierrez, Jury Pool Underrepresentation in the Modern Era: Evidence from Federal Courts, 15 J. 

Empirical Legal Stud. 378, 379 (2018) (“Remarkably, in the current legal and social science literature, we lack quality answers to even the most basic 

social science questions about jury pools: How often do disparities exist and how large are they? Are disparities larger for some groups than for others? 

How often are disparities likely to be deemed ‘not fair and reasonable’ under any one of the available legal tests of underrepresentation?”).

65 The DAC-IPAD staff reviewed court-martial documents and found that in fiscal years 2018–2020, not a single Service had more than a 50% conviction 

rate in adult penetrative sexual assault cases. 
19

CHAPTER 3. POLICY SUBCOMMITTEE

CHAPTER 3.POLICY SUBCOMMITTEE

I.INTRODUCTION 

In the Joint Explanatory Statement (JES) accompanying section 535 of the FY20 NDAA, Congress requested that 

the DAC-IPAD study two issues: victim impact statements at presentencing proceedings and alternative justice 

programs.66

The DAC-IPAD received some initial information on these issues in November 2020;67 however, as noted earlier in 

this report, the DAC-IPAD was suspended in January 2021. After its reconstitution, the DAC-IPAD assigned the 

victim impact statement and alternative justice projects to the Policy Subcommittee (PSC) at its June 2022 public 

meeting.68 The PSC reported its findings and recommendations regarding victim impact statements to the DACIPAD at its December 2022 public meeting, and the DAC-IPAD adopted five proposed recommendations.69

II.SUBCOMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

The DAC-IPAD began studying the issue of victim impact statements in June 2022 and issued its Report on Victim 

Impact Statements at Courts-Martial Presentencing Proceedings (VIS Report) in March 2023.70 The VIS Report 

responded to the following questions posed by Congress in the FY20 JES:

• Are military judges interpreting R.C.M. 1001(c) too narrowly and limiting what victims may say during 

sentencing such that the courts are not fully informed of the impact of the crime on the victims?

• Are military judges appropriately permitting other witnesses to testify about the impact of the crime?71

To respond to these questions, the Committee reviewed records of trial from court-martial cases tried in FY21 

involving victim impact statements; spoke to Service victims’ counsel program managers, Service trial defense 

organization chiefs, an attorney who represents victims in military and civilian court proceedings, former military 

judges, and members of Survivors United—a victim advocacy group that initially brought these issues to the 

attention of Congress; and reviewed federal and state laws and rules regarding victim impact statements.72

The Committee noted that in the three years since Congress requested that the DAC-IPAD review this issue, 

the procedures for implementing victim impact statements have matured, the appellate courts further defined 

and clarified the rules governing these statements, and Congress enacted an important change to court-martial 

sentencing that requires military judges to serve as the sentencing authority in all special and general courts-martial, 

except in capital cases.73

66 The JES accompanies Sec. 535. Extension of Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed 

Forces of the FY20 NDAA, supra note 1. 

67 Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 163 (Nov. 6, 2020). 

68 Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 157 (June 22, 2022).

69 See Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting (Dec. 7, 2022).

70 The VIS Report can be found at https://dacipad.whs.mil/reports.

71 See supra note 70.

72 See Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 8 (Feb. 14, 2020); Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 94, 126 (Dec. 6, 2022).

73 This provision takes effect for cases in which the charged offenses are committed on or after Dec. 27, 2023. FY22 NDAA, supra note 1, § 539E.
20

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

At the conclusion of its review, the Committee determined that it is the R.C.M. 1001(c) standards, not the decisions 

of military judges, that inappropriately limit victim impact statements. The Committee further concluded that military 

judges generally do permit individuals who have suffered harm resulting from the crimes for which the accused has 

been convicted—not just those who are named victims in the convicted offenses—to provide victim impact statements.

In its report on victim impact statements, the Committee made five recommendations to amend R.C.M. 1001(c) 

to provide victims wider latitude in their impact statements. In December 2022, the Committee provided these 

recommendations in a public comment to the Joint Service Committee on Military Justice requesting the JSC seek 

to amend R.C.M. 1001(c).74 The Committee recommended amending the definition of victim impact to provide 

a broader standard; allowing the victim to make a specific sentence recommendation in noncapital cases; allowing 

submission of an unsworn victim impact statement by audiotape, videotape, or other electronic means; allowing 

the victims’ counsel to deliver the victim impact statement without having to show good cause; and removing the 

requirement that the victim provide a proffer of their impact statement prior to delivery.75

The Committee concluded that R.C.M. 1001(c) should be broadened to allow crime victims to exercise their right 

of allocution without unnecessary limitation. The Committee members determined that with military judges soon 

to be serving as the sentencing authority, there is no reason that military practice in this area should confine the 

victim’s right to be heard more strictly than does the practice in civilian jurisdictions.

III.THE WAY AHEAD

A. Restorative Justice Programs

In the FY20 NDAA JES, Congress requested that the DAC-IPAD review “whether other justice programs (e.g., 

restorative justice programs, mediation) could be employed or modified to assist the victim of an alleged sexual 

assault or the alleged offender, particularly in cases in which the evidence in the victim’s case has been determined 

not to be sufficient to take judicial, non-judicial, or administrative action against the perpetrator of the alleged 

offense.”76

On February 26, 2021—while the DAC-IPAD was suspended as part of the zero-based review—the Secretary 

of Defense established the Independent Review Commission on Sexual Assault in the Military (IRC) and 

directed the IRC to conduct a 90-day independent assessment of the military’s treatment of sexual assault and 

sexual harassment.77 The IRC made numerous recommendations for improvements to the systems used to treat 

and respond to reports of sexual assault, among them that the DAC-IPAD “study the methods our Allies have 

used to make amends to survivors, including restorative engagement to acknowledge harm and potential victim 

compensation.”78

74 See DAC-IPAD public comment to the Joint Service Committee on Military Justice, available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/meetings/materials (December 

6-7, 2022, Meeting).

75 See DAC-IPAD Recommendations 41–45 in the Summary of Findings, Observations, and Recommendations, above. 

76 See supra note 73.

77 This review began March 24, 2021 and concluded with the release of the IRC’s report in July 2021. See INDEPENDENT REVIEW COMMISSION 

ON SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY STUDY, Hard Truths and the Duty to Change: Recommendations from the Independent Review Commission 

on Sexual Assault in the Military (July 2021) [IRC Report], available at https://media.defense.gov/2021/Jul/02/2002755437/-1/-1/0/IRC-FULLREPORT-FINAL-1923-7-1-21.PDF/IRC-FULL-REPORT-FINAL-1923-7-1-21.PDF.

78 IRC Report, supra note 77, IRC Recommendation 4.3 e.
21

CHAPTER 3. POLICY SUBCOMMITTEE

In a September 2021 memo, the Secretary of Defense approved a road map for implementing the IRC’s 

recommendations, including IRC Recommendation 4.3 e on restorative engagement programs, with an estimated 

completion date of fiscal year 2027.79 The Secretary amended this recommendation to assign implementation 

responsibility to DoD, rather than the DAC-IPAD. 

The DAC-IPAD intends to study the restorative engagement programs offered by our allies, as noted in the IRC 

report, and issue a report in the coming year as a means of offering the Committee’s guidance to DoD as it develops 

a restorative engagement program.

B. Article 25, UCMJ, Panel Selection

In 2023, the PSC will conduct a comprehensive study to review and assess the criteria and processes used to 

nominate and select qualified members for detail to courts-martial, as well as to identify best practices for reforming 

the member selection system, including random selection.80 This study will be coordinated with the related CRSC 

study on the demographic characteristics of panel members.81 The results of both of these studies will inform DACIPAD recommendations for reforming the system for selecting court-martial members.

The PSC study will include issues identified by the DAC-IPAD concerning both the Article 25(e)(2), UCMJ, courtmartial member selection criteria and the processes used by the Services to facilitate that selection.82 Those issues 

include poorly defined selection criteria, subjective criteria, cognitive bias, lack of panel diversity, and the lack of 

transparency.83

The PSC study will also consider the implications of recent legislation on member selection criteria and processes. 

Beginning in December 2023, panel member duties in non-capital cases will no longer include determining an 

appropriate sentence; instead, their duties will be limited to determining findings.84 Beginning in December 2024, 

an amendment to Article 25(e), UCMJ, will require convening authorities to detail members using randomized 

selection processes prescribed by the President, rather than the current processes by which specific Service members 

are intentionally selected for duty.85

79 U.S. Dep’t. of Def., Memorandum from the Secretary of Defense on Commencing DoD Actions and Implementation to Address Sexual Assault and 

Sexual Harassment in the Military (Sept. 22, 2021). 

80 Transcript of DAC-IPAD Meeting 163-164 (February 22, 2023) (the DAC-IPAD assigned the PSC to study court-martial member selection criteria and 

processes).

81 See supra at pp. 19–20 (describing the CRSC study on panel member demographics).

82 Transcript of DAC-IPAD Meeting 12–94 (Dec. 21, 2022) (describing the criteria and processes used by the Services to select court-martial members 

and identifying issues); Article 25(e)(2), UCMJ (the convening authority “shall detail as members thereof such members of the armed forces as, in his 

opinion, are best qualified for the duty by reason of age, education, training, experiences, length of service, and judicial temperament.”). 

83 Transcript of DAC-IPAD Meeting 355–56, 368, 381 (Sept. 21, 2022) (noting the lack of panel diversity); Transcript of DAC-IPAD Meeting 12–94 (Dec. 

21, 2022) (describing the criteria and processes used by the Services to select court-martial members and identifying issues). See also supra at pp. 17–19 

(noting panel member selection issues identified by the Committee).

84 FY22 NDAA, supra note 30, § 539E. 

85 FY23 NDAA, supra note 39, § 543 (requiring randomized selection, to the maximum extent practicable, under regulations prescribed by the President); 

Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 41–51 (Dec. 21, 2022) (describing the current selection processes as generally intentional rather than random). 
22

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

CHAPTER 4. REPORT ON TOUR LENGTHS AND RATING 

CHAIN STRUCTURE FOR SERVICES’ SPECIAL VICTIMS’ 

COUNSEL / VICTIMS’ LEGAL COUNSEL (SVC/VLC) 

PROGRAMS

I. INTRODUCTION 

In October 2021, the DoD GC requested that the DAC-IPAD study and report on the issue of tour lengths of 

SVCs/VLCs, assess whether it is practical to adopt a minimum assignment length (with appropriate exceptions for 

operational concerns), and, if practical to adopt a minimum assignment length, recommend what the minimum 

should be.86

In November 2021, in conjunction with the minimum tour length tasking, the DoD GC asked the DAC-IPAD to 

study and report on the rating chains of Army SVCs, including

• An assessment of the rating chain for Army SVC officer evaluation reports.

• A comparison of that rating chain with those used in the other Military Services’ SVC/VLC programs.

• An evaluation of whether the rating chain for Army SVCs creates an actual or apparent limitation on those 

SVCs’ independence or ability to zealously represent their clients.

• Any recommendations for change based on the study’s findings.87

In response to the DoD GC’s request, during the period the DAC-IPAD was suspended due to the zero-based 

review the staff completed a draft report. The staff’s study and draft report was based on a comprehensive review 

of detailed information provided by the Military Services in addition to literature, statutes, regulations, agency 

guidance, and reports relevant to SVC/VLC programs, as well as extensive interviews of SVC/VLC program 

managers, current and former SVCs/VLCs, victims represented by SVCs/VLCs, and civilian victim advocates who 

represent military sexual assault victims and work with SVCs/VLCs. 

In April 2022, the DoD GC asked the DAC-IPAD to review the staff study and draft report on SVC/VLC tour 

lengths and Army SVC supervisory rating chains.88

86 See Memorandum from Caroline Krass, DoD General Counsel, to Staff Director, DAC-IPAD, Request to Study the Tour Lengths of Special Victims’ 

Counsel/Victims’ Legal Counsel (Oct. 5, 2021) [Tour Length Memo], available at Appendix A. See infra notes 7-10 and accompanying text for status of 

DAC-IPAD during this time period.

87 See Memorandum from Caroline Krass, DoD General Counsel, to Staff Director, DAC-IPAD, Request to Study Rating Chain of Army Special Victims’ 

Counsel (Nov. 2, 2021) [Rating Chain Memo], available at Appendix B.

88 See Memorandum from Caroline Krass, DoD General Counsel, to Chair, DAC-IPAD, Request to Review Report on Tour Lengths and Rating Chain 

Structure for Services’ Special Victims’ Counsel/Victims’ Legal Counsel (SVC/VLC) Programs (Apr. 21, 2022) [Request for Review Memo], available at

Appendix C.
23

CHAPTER 4. REPORT ON TOUR LENGTHS AND RATING CHAIN STRUCTURE FOR SERVICES’ 

SPECIAL VICTIMS’ COUNSEL / VICTIMS’ LEGAL COUNSEL (SVC/VLC) PROGRAMS

II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The DAC-IPAD submitted its Report on Tour Lengths and Rating Chain Structure for Services’ Special Victims’ Counsel 

/ Victims’ Legal Counsel (SVC/VLC) Programs in August 2022.89

SVC/VLC programs in the Military Services provide advice, critical protections, and advocacy for victims 

throughout the military justice process. The programs—and the dedicated judge advocates who implement them—

are at the forefront of the Department of Defense’s delivery of legal services to victims. Since the formal inception of 

the programs in 2013, SVCs/VLCs have represented more than 30,000 clients across all of the Military Services.

Over the past decade, the SVC/VLC programs have grown and expanded. While the Services have continually 

adapted and improved these programs to meet the needs of victims, two aspects of the programs have come under 

recent scrutiny: (1) the issue of SVC/VLC tour lengths, and whether it is practical to adopt a minimum assignment 

length, and (2) whether the Army should adopt an independent supervisory rating structure for Army SVCs outside 

of the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate (OSJA) and local command, thereby aligning Army practice with the SVC/

VLC rating structure in the other Military Services.

The SVC/VLC report includes the results of a comprehensive review of the Services’ SVC/VLC programs, 

authorities, agency guidance, and reports relevant to these programs. In addition, the study included 60 interviews 

with current and former SVCs/VLCs, victims represented by SVCs/VLCs, SVC/VLC program managers, and 

civilian victim advocates who represent military victims of sexual assault. 

III. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The SVC/VLC report finds that longer tours for SVCs/VLCs better serve victims, minimize delay and inefficiencies 

in the military justice process, and enable judge advocates to develop the skills and expertise necessary to effectively 

advocate for their clients. This report also finds that the current Army rating structure adversely affects the 

independence and zealous advocacy of Army SVCs. 

On the basis of those findings and the comprehensive review, the DAC-IPAD recommends: 

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 41: An 18-month minimum assignment length for SVCs/VLCs serving in 

their first tour as a judge advocate, and a 24-month minimum for all other SVCs/VLCs, with appropriate 

exceptions for personal or operational reasons; and 

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 42: The establishment of an independent supervisory rating structure for 

Army SVCs outside of the OSJA and local command.

89 The full report can be found at https://dacipad.whs.mil/reports.
24

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

CHAPTER 5 MEMBER OBSERVATIONS OF COURTSMARTIAL AND ADVANCED LITIGATION TRAINING

I COURT-MARTIAL OBSERVATIONS

At its June 2022 public meeting, the DAC-IPAD approved a program for its members to attend and observe courtsmartial involving charges of sexual offenses,90 with a threefold purpose of (1) educating members on current courtsmartial practice, (2) highlighting practice areas affected by recent or pending changes, and (3) identifying issues that 

may warrant further review.

Two former DAC-IPAD members and four current DAC-IPAD members attended a total of six courts-martial in 

their official DAC-IPAD capacity.

91 Members record their observations on topics including motion and objection 

practice, voir dire, expert and witness testimony, evidence, sentencing proceedings, and the performance of the trial 

counsel, defense counsel, SVC/VLC, and military judge.92 Members share their observations during DAC-IPAD 

public meetings for discussion by the full Committee. 

II ADVANCED LITIGATION COURSES

Following the June 2022 public meeting and testimony on the establishment of the Offices of Special Trial Counsel 

(OSTCs), the Air Force and the Army invited Committee members to attend advanced litigation training courses.93

DAC-IPAD members attended an Air Force litigation course in August 2022 and an Army litigation course in 

September 2022.94

The Air Force advanced sexual assault litigation course was a joint training event attended by prosecutors, defense 

counsel, and victims’ counsel. This training was developed for experienced litigators, and the trial counsel attending 

the course had been selected to be part of the OSTC. The training covered voir dire, preparation and presentation 

of expert and witness testimony, and argument in sexual assault and special victim cases. The instructors consisted of 

Air Force Judge Advocate General’s school staff and experienced counsel from the field.95

90 Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 202–4 (June 22, 2022).

91 Former members Ms. Kathleen Cannon attended a Marine Corps court-martial in January 2020, and Mr. James Markey attended a Marine Corps 

court-martial in November 2019 and an Army court-martial in January 2020. Dr. Cassia Spohn attended a Marine Corps court-martial in November 

2019. Ms. Martha Bashford, Mr. A. J. Kramer, and MG (R) Marcia Anderson attended courts-martial from June 2022 through January 2023. In 

addition, several DAC-IPAD members have significant exposure to recent courts-martial practice in their personal capacity.

92 Members record their observations on a form without attribution to any individual by name.

93 Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 7 (Sept. 21, 2022).

94 Id. at 71, 74. The Air Force training was attended by Ms. Bashford, Ms. Suzanne Goldberg, and Dr. Spohn. Ms. Bashford also attended the Army 

training program.

95 Id. at 71–73.
25

CHAPTER 5. MEMBER OBSERVATIONS OF COURTS-MARTIAL AND ADVANCED LITIGATION TRAINING 

The Army sexual assault trial advocacy course was limited to prosecutors, with approximately half projected to be 

assigned to the OSTC.96 The training consisted of lectures and small group practical exercises covering motion 

practice, corroborating evidence, voir dire, opening statements, closing and rebuttal arguments, expert testimony, 

and direct and cross-examinations. The lectures were presented by military and civilian experts, with the civilian 

forensic psychologist and forensic biologist remaining to participate in the practical exercises and to provide 

feedback to the students. The practical exercise evaluators consisted of both experienced field-grade litigators and 

civilian highly qualified sexual assault experts, the latter from the Trial Counsel Assistance Program.97

Members who attended the litigation courses reported their observations to the full Committee at the September 

2022 public meeting. Their observations covered the quality of the teaching and instructor feedback, the quality of 

the breakout sessions and group practical exercises, and the efficacy of joint training.

III CONCLUSION

Committee members will continue to attend sexual offense courts-martial across the Military Services and report 

their observations to the full Committee. Committee members will also continue to monitor training as they review

the OSTC implementation plans. 

96 Id. at 74–75. This course is being redesigned into a three-week Special Trial Counsel certification course with the first training scheduled for June 2023.

97 Id. at 75–76.
26

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

APPENDIXES

A. Authorizing Statute, Amendments, and Duties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. Committee Charter and Terms of Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

C. Committee Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

D. Subcommittee Terms of Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. Committee Recommendations to Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

F. Committee Requests for Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

G. Committee and Subcommittee Meetings and Presenters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1

H. DAC-IPAD Professional Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1

I. Acronyms and Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

J. Sources Consulted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J-1
A-1

APPENDIX A: AUTHORIZING STATUTE, AMENDMENTS, AND DUTIES

APPENDIX A AUTHORIZING STATUTE AND AMENDMENTS 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

SECTION 546. DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, AND DEFENSE 

OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES. (PUBLIC LAW 113–291; 128 STAT. 3374; 10 U.S.C. 1561 

NOTE)

(a) ESTABLISHMENT REQUIRED.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall establish and maintain within the Department of

Defense an advisory committee to be known as the “Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation,

Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces” (in this section referred to as the “Advisory

Committee”).

(2) DEADLINE FOR ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary shall establish the Advisory Committee not later

than 30 days before the termination date of the independent panel established by the Secretary under

section 576(a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239; 126

Stat. 1758), known as the “judicial proceedings panel”.

(b) MEMBERSHIP.—The Advisory Committee shall consist of not more than 20 members, to be appointed by

the Secretary of Defense, who have experience with the investigation, prosecution, and defense of allegations of

sexual assault offenses. Members of the Advisory Committee may include Federal and State prosecutors, judges,

law professors, and private attorneys. Members of the Armed Forces serving on active duty may not serve as a

member of the Advisory Committee.

(c) DUTIES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Advisory Committee shall advise the Secretary of Defense on the investigation,

prosecution, and defense of allegations of rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct

involving members of the Armed Forces.

(2) BASIS FOR PROVISION OF ADVICE.—For purposes of providing advice to the Secretary pursuant to

this subsection, the Advisory Committee shall review, on an ongoing basis, cases involving allegations of

sexual misconduct described in paragraph (1).

(d) ANNUAL REPORTS.—Not later than March 30 each year, the Advisory Committee shall submit to the

Secretary of Defense and the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives

a report describing the results of the activities of the Advisory Committee pursuant to this section during the

preceding year.

(e) TERMINATION.—

(1) IN GENERAL.— Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Advisory Committee shall terminate on the date

that is five years after the date of the establishment of the Advisory Committee pursuant to subsection (a).
A-2

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

(2) CONTINUATION.—The Secretary of Defense may continue the Advisory Committee after the

termination date applicable under paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines that continuation of the

Advisory Committee after that date is advisable and appropriate. If the Secretary determines to continue

the Advisory Committee after that date, the Secretary shall submit to the President and the congressional

committees specified in subsection (d) a report describing the reasons for that determination and specifying

the new termination date for the Advisory Committee.

(f) DUE DATE FOR ANNUAL REPORT OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL.—Section 576(c)(2)(B) of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239; 126 Stat. 1760) is amended 

by inserting “annually thereafter” after “reports”.

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

SECTION 537. MODIFICATION OF DEADLINE FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF DEFENSE ADVISORY 

COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE 

ARMED FORCES

Section 546(a)(2) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291; 128 Stat. 3374; 10 U.S.C. 1561 note) is amended by striking “not later than” 

and all that follows and inserting “not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.”.

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019

SEC. 533. AUTHORITIES OF DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, 

PROSECUTION, AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES.

Section 546 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2015 (10 U.S.C. 1561 note) is amended—

(1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections (e) and (f), respectively; and

(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new subsection (d):

“(d) AUTHORITIES.—

“(1) HEARINGS.—The Advisory Committee may hold such hearings, sit and act at such times and places, take 

such testimony, and receive such evidence as the committee considers appropriate to carry out its duties 

under this section.

“(2) INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES.—Upon request by the chair of the Advisory 

Committee, a department or agency of the Federal Government shall provide information that the Advisory 

Committee considers necessary to carry out its duties under this section. In carrying out this paragraph, 

the department or agency shall take steps to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of personally identifiable 

information.”.
A-3

APPENDIX A: AUTHORIZING STATUTE, AMENDMENTS, AND DUTIES

SEC. 547. REPORT ON VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN REPORTS OF MILITARY CRIMINAL 

INVESTIGATIVE ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) REPORT.—Not later than September 30, 2019, and not less frequently than once every two years thereafter,

the Secretary of Defense, acting through the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and

Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report

that includes, with respect to the period of two years preceding the date of the submittal of the report, the

following:

(1) The number of instances in which a covered individual was accused of misconduct or crimes considered

collateral to the investigation of a sexual assault committed against the individual.

(2) The number of instances in which adverse action was taken against a covered individual who was accused of

collateral misconduct or crimes as described in paragraph (1).

(3) The percentage of investigations of sexual assaults that involved an accusation or adverse action against a

covered individual as described in paragraphs (1) and (2).

(b) COVERED INDIVIDUAL DEFINED.—In this section, the term “covered individual” means an individual

who is identified as a victim of a sexual assault in the case files of a military criminal investigative organization.

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020

SEC. 535. EXTENSION OF DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Section 546(f)(1) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2015 (10 U.S.C. 1561 note) is amended by striking “five”’ and inserting “ten”.

Joint Explanatory Statement:

The conferees request the DAC-IPAD review, as appropriate, whether other justice programs (e.g., restorative justice 

programs, mediation) could be employed or modified to assist the victim of an alleged sexual assault or the alleged offender, 

particularly in cases in which the evidence in the victim’s case has been determined not to be sufficient to take judicial, 

non-judicial, or administrative action against the perpetrator of the alleged offense.

Further, the conferees recognize the importance of providing survivors of sexual assault an opportunity to provide a full and 

complete description of the impact of the assault on the survivor during court-martial sentencing hearings related to the 

offense. The conferees are concerned by reports that some military judges have interpreted Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 

1001(c) too narrowly, limiting what survivors are permitted to say during sentencing hearings in ways that do not fully 

inform the court of the impact of the crime on the survivor.

Therefore, the conferees request that, on a one-time basis, or more frequently, as appropriate, and adjunct to its review 

of court-martial cases completed in any particular year, the DAC-IPAD assess whether military judges are according 

appropriate deference to victims of crimes who exercise their right to be heard under RCM 1001(c) at sentencing hearings, 

and appropriately permitting other witnesses to testify about the impact of the crime under RCM 1001.
A-4

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

SEC. 540I. ASSESSMENT OF RACIAL, ETHNIC, AND GENDER DISPARITIES IN THE MILITARY 

JUSTICE SYSTEM.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall provide for the carrying out of the activities described in

subsections (b) and (c) in order to improve the ability of the Department of Defense to detect and address

racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in the military justice system.

(b) SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND RELATED ACTIVITIES.—The activities described in this subsection are

the following, to be commenced or carried out (as applicable) by not later than 180 days after the date of the

enactment of this Act:

(1) For each court-martial carried out by an Armed Force after the date of the enactment of this Act, the

Secretary of Defense shall require the head of the Armed Force concerned—

(A) to record the race, ethnicity, and gender of the victim and the accused, and such other demographic

information about the victim and the accused as the Secretary considers appropriate;

(B) to include data based on the information described in subparagraph (A) in the annual military justice

reports of the Armed Force.

(2) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretaries of the military departments and the Secretary

of Homeland Security, shall issue guidance that—

(A) establishes criteria to determine when data indicating possible racial, ethnic, or gender disparities in the

military justice process should be further reviewed; and

(B) describes how such a review should be conducted.

(3) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretaries of the military departments and the Secretary

of Homeland Security, shall—

(A) conduct an evaluation to identify the causes of any racial, ethnic, or gender disparities in the military

justice system;

(B) take steps to address the causes of such disparities, as appropriate.

(c) DAC-IPAD ACTIVITIES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The activities described in this subsection are the following, to be conducted by the

independent committee DAC-IPAD:

(A) A review and assessment, by fiscal year, of the race and ethnicity of members of the Armed Forces

accused of a penetrative sexual assault offense or contact sexual assault offense in an unrestricted report

made pursuant to Department of Defense Instruction 6495.02, including an unrestricted report

involving a spouse or intimate partner, in all cases completed in each fiscal year addressed.

(B) A review and assessment, by fiscal year, of the race and ethnicity of members of the Armed Forces

against whom charges were preferred pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial 307 for a penetrative sexual

assault offense or contact sexual assault offense in all cases completed in each fiscal year assessed.
A-5

APPENDIX A: AUTHORIZING STATUTE, AMENDMENTS, AND DUTIES

(C) A review and assessment, by fiscal year, of the race and ethnicity of members of the Armed Forces

who were convicted of a penetrative sexual assault offense or contact sexual assault offense in all cases

completed in each fiscal year assessed.

(2) INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Upon request by the chair of the committee, a department or agency of the Federal

Government shall provide information that the committee considers necessary to conduct reviews and

assessments required by paragraph (1), including military criminal investigative files, charge sheets,

records of trial, and personnel records.

(B) HANDLING, STORAGE, AND RETURN.—The committee shall handle and store all records

received and reviewed under this subsection in accordance with applicable privacy laws and Department

of Defense policy, and shall return all records so received in a timely manner.

(3) REPORT.—Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the committee shall submit

to the Secretary of Defense, and to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of

representatives, a report setting forth the results of the reviews and assessments required by paragraph (1).

The report shall include such recommendations for legislative or administrative action as the committee

considers appropriate in light of such results.

(4) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection:

(A) The term “independent committee DAC-IPAD” means the independent committee established by the

Secretary of Defense under section 546 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291; 128 Stat. 3374), commonly

known as the “DAC-IPAD”.

(B) The term “case” means an unrestricted report of any penetrative sexual assault offense or contact sexual

assault offense made against a member of the Armed Forces pursuant to Department of Defense

Instruction 6495.02, including any unrestricted report involving a spouse or intimate partner for which

an investigation has been opened by a criminal investigative organization.

(C) The term “completed”, with respect to a case, means that the case was tried to verdict, dismissed without

further action, or dismissed and then resolved by non-judicial or administrative proceedings.

(D)The term “contact sexual assault offense” means aggravated sexual contact, abusive sexual contact,

wrongful sexual contact, and attempts to commit such offenses under the Uniform Code of Military

Justice.

(E) The term “penetrative sexual assault offense” means rape, aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault,

forcible sodomy, and attempts to commit such offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
A-6

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

H.Rept. 116-120 on H.R. 2500

Title V—Military Personnel Policy Items of Special Interest

Appointment of Guardian ad Litem for Minor Victims

The committee is concerned for the welfare of minor, military dependents who are victims of an alleged sex-related offense. 

The committee acknowledges the Department of Defense’s continued efforts to implement services in support of service 

members who are victims of sexual assault and further, to expand some of these services to dependents who are victims. 

However, the committee remains concerned that there is not an adequate mechanism within the military court-martial 

process to represent the best interests of minor victims following an alleged sex-related offense.

Therefore, not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Defense Advisory Committee on 

Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces shall submit to the Committees on the 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report that evaluates the need for, and the feasibility of, 

establishing a process under which a guardian ad litem may be appointed to represent the interests of a victim of an alleged 

sex-related offense (as that term is defined in section 1044e(g) of title 10, United States Code) who has not attained the age 

of 18 years.
B-1

APPENDIX B: COMMITTEE CHARTER AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

APPENDIX B COMMITTEE CHARTER AND 

 TERMS OF REFERENCE

Appendix B. Committee Charter and Terms of Reference

B-1

Charter

Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, 

and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces

1. Committee’s Official Designation: The committee shall be known as the Defense Advisory Committee on

Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (DAC-IPAD).

2. Authority: The Secretary of Defense, pursuant to section 546 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck”

McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (“the FY 2015 NDAA”) (Public Law

113-291), as modified by section 537 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016

(Public Law 114-92), and in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act

(FACA) (5 U.S.C., App) and 41 C.F.R. § 102-3.50(a), established this non-discretionary Federal advisory

committee.

3. Objectives and Scope of Activities: Pursuant to section 546(c)(1) of the FY 2015 NDAA, the DAC-IPAD

shall provide independent advice and recommendations on the investigation, prosecution, and defense of

allegations of rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct involving members of

the Armed Forces, based on its ongoing review of cases.

4. Description of Duties: Pursuant to sections 546(c)(2) and (d) of the FY 2015 NDAA, the DAC-IPAD, not

later than March 30 of each year, will submit to the Secretary of Defense through the General Counsel of

the Department of Defense (GC DoD), and the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House

of Representatives, a report describing the results of the activities of the DAC-IPAD pursuant to section

546 of the FY 2015 NDAA, as amended, during the preceding year. The purpose of providing advice to

the Secretary of Defense pursuant to this section, the DAC-IPAD shall review, on an ongoing basis, cases

involving allegations of sexual misconduct described in section 546(c)(1) of the FY 2015 NDAA. The

DAC-IPAD will also focus on matters of special interest to the DoD, as determined by the Secretary of

Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, or the GC DoD, as the DAC-IPAD’s sponsor.

Pursuant to section 547 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-

232), as amended by section 536 of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law 116-283), not later than September 30, 2019 and once every two years

thereafter, the Secretary of Defense, acting through the DAC-IPAD, shall submit to the congressional

defense committees a report that includes, with respect to the period of two years preceding the date of the

submittal of the report, the following:

(1) The number of instances in which a covered individual was suspected of misconduct or crimes

considered collateral to the investigation of a sexual offense committed against the individual.

(2) The number of instances in which adverse action was taken against a covered individual who was

accused of collateral misconduct or crimes as described in paragraph (1).

(3) The percentage of investigations of sexual offenses that involved suspicion of or adverse action against

a covered individual as described in paragraphs (1) and (2).

The term “covered individual” means an individual who is identified in the case files of a military criminal 

investigative organization as a victim of a sexual offense that occurred while that individual was serving 

on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces. The term ‘suspected of,’ when used with respect to a 

covered individual suspected of collateral misconduct or crimes as described in subsection (a), means that 
B-2

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Appendix B. Committee Charter and Terms of Reference

B-2

an investigation by a military criminal investigative organization reveals facts and circumstances that 

would lead a reasonable person to believe that the individual committed an offense under chapter 47 of 

title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice). 

Pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (“the FY 2020 NDAA”) (Public 

Law 116-92) Joint Explanatory Statement, the conferees request the DAC-IPAD:

(1) Review, as appropriate, whether other justice programs (e.g., restorative justice programs, mediation)

could be employed or modified to assist the victim of an alleged sexual assault or the alleged offender,

particularly in cases when the evidence in the victim’s case has been determined not to be sufficient to

take judicial, non-judicial, or administrative action against the perpetrator of the alleged offense.

(2) On a one-time basis, or more frequently, as appropriate, and adjunct to its review of court-martial cases

completed in any particular year, assess whether military judges are according appropriate deference

to victims of crimes who exercise their right to be heard under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 1001(c)

at sentencing hearings, and appropriately permitting other witnesses to testify about the impact of the

crime under RCM 1001.

The Joint Explanatory Statement summarized the conferees’ concern as follows: [T]he conferees recognize 

the importance of providing survivors of sexual assault an opportunity to provide a full and complete 

description of the impact of the assault on the survivor during court-martial sentencing hearings related to 

the offense. The conferees are concerned by reports that some military judges have interpreted RCM 

1001(c) too narrowly, limiting what survivors are permitted to say during sentencing hearings in ways that 

do not fully inform the court of the impact of the crime on the survivor. 

5. Agency or Official to Whom the Committee Reports: The DAC-IPAD reports to the Secretary of Defense

and the Deputy Secretary of Defense, through the GC DoD, who may act upon the DAC-IPAD’s advice

and recommendations in accordance with DoD policy and procedures.

6. Support: The DoD, through the Office of the GC DoD, provides support for the Committee’s functions and

ensures compliance with the requirements of the FACA, the Government in the Sunshine Act (“the Sunshine

Act”) (5 U.S.C. § 552b), governing Federal statutes and regulations, and DoD policy and procedures.

7. Estimated Annual Operating Costs and Staff Years: The estimated annual operating costs for the DACIPAD, to include travel, meetings, and contract support, are approximately $2,600,000. The estimated

annual personnel cost to the DoD is 15.0 full-time equivalents.

8. Designated Federal Officer: The DAC-IPAD’s Designated Federal Officer (DFO) shall be a full-time or

permanent part-time DoD civilian officer or employee, or active duty member of the Armed Forces,

designated in accordance with established DoD policy and procedures.

The DAC-IPAD’s DFO is required to attend all DAC-IPAD and subcommittee meetings for the entire

duration of each meeting. However, in the absence of the DAC-IPAD’s DFO, a properly approved

Alternate DFO, duly designated to the DAC-IPAD in accordance with DoD policy and procedures, shall

attend the entire duration of all DAC-IPAD and subcommittee meetings.

The DFO, or Alternate DFO, calls all DAC-IPAD and subcommittee meetings; prepares and approves all

meeting agendas; and adjourns any meeting when the DFO, or Alternate DFO, determines adjournment to

be in the public’s interest or required by governing regulations or DoD policy and procedures.
B-3

APPENDIX B: COMMITTEE CHARTER AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

Appendix B. Committee Charter and Terms of Reference

B-3

9. Estimated Number and Frequency of Meetings: The DAC-IPAD shall meet at the call of the DFO, in

consultation with the DAC-IPAD’s Chair and the GC DoD. The estimated number of meetings is at least

one per year.

10. Duration: The need for this advisory committee is on a continuing basis through February 28, 2026; however,

the DAC-IPAD is subject to renewal every two years.

11. Termination: In accordance with sections 546(e)(1) and (2) of the FY 2015 NDAA, as modified by section

535 of the FY 2020 NDAA, the DAC-IPAD will terminate on February 28, 2026, ten years after the DACIPAD was established, unless the DoD renews the DAC-IPAD in accordance with DoD policy and

procedures.

12. Membership and Designation: Pursuant to section 546(b) of the FY 2015 NDAA, the DAC-IPAD will be

composed of no more than 20 members who must have extensive experience and subject matter expertise

in the investigation, prosecution, or defense of allegations of sexual offenses. DAC-IPAD members may

include Federal and State prosecutors, judges, law professors, and private attorneys. Members of the

Armed Forces serving on active duty may not serve as DAC-IPAD members.

Authority to invite or appoint individuals to serve on the DAC-IPAD restssolely with the Secretary of Defense

or the Deputy Secretary of Defense (“the DoD Appointing Authority”) for a term of service of one-to-four

years, with annual renewals, in accordance with DoD policy and procedures. No member, unless approved

by the DoD Appointing Authority, may serve more than two consecutive terms of service on the DAC-IPAD,

to include its subcommittees, or serve on more than two DoD Federal advisory committees at one time. DACIPAD members who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal civilian officers or employees, or active

duty members of the Uniformed Services, shall be appointed as experts or consultants pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §

3109 to serve as special government employee (SGE) members. DAC-IPAD members who are full-time or

permanent part-time Federal civilian officers or employees, or active duty members of the Uniformed

Services, shall be appointed pursuant to 41 C.F.R. § 102-3.130(a) to serve as regular government employee

(RGE) members. The DoD Appointing Authority shall appoint the DAC-IPAD’s leadership from among the

membership previously appointed to serve on the DAC-IPAD in accordance with DoD policy and procedures,

for a term of service of one-to-two-years, with annual renewal, which shall not exceed the member’s approved

appointment.

All members of the DAC-IPAD are expected to exercise their best judgment on behalf of the DoD, without

representing any particular point of view and to discuss and deliberate in a manner that is free from conflicts

of interest. Except for reimbursement of official DAC-IPAD related travel and per diem, DAC-IPAD

members serve without compensation.

13. Subcommittees: The DoD, when necessary and consistent with the DAC-IPAD’s mission and DoD policy

and procedures, may establish subcommittees, task forces, or working groups (“subcommittees”) to

support the DAC-IPAD. Establishment of subcommittees shall be based upon a written determination,

including terms of reference (ToR), by the DoD Appointing Authority or the GC DoD.

All subcommittees operate under the provisions of the FACA, the Sunshine Act, governing Federal statutes

and regulations, and DoD policy and procedures. If a subcommittee’s duration exceeds that of the DACIPAD, and the DoD does not renew the DAC-IPAD, then the subcommittee terminates when the DACIPAD does.
B-4

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Appendix B. Committee Charter and Terms of Reference 

B-4

Subcommittees shall not work independently of the DAC-IPAD and shall report all of their 

recommendations and advice solely to the DAC-IPAD for its thorough deliberation and discussion at a 

properly noticed and open meeting, subject to the Sunshine Act. Subcommittees have no authority to make 

decisions and recommendations, orally or in writing, on behalf of the DAC-IPAD. Neither the 

subcommittee nor any of its members may provide updates or report directly to the DoD or to any Federal 

officer or employee, whether orally or in writing, on behalf of the DAC-IPAD. If a majority of DAC-IPAD 

members are appointed to a particular subcommittee, then that subcommittee may be required to operate 

pursuant to the same FACA notice and openness requirements governing the DAC-IPAD’s operations. 

Individual appointments to serve on DAC-IPAD subcommittees, which may be no more than 15 members, 

shall be approved by the DoD Appointing Authority for a term of service of one-to-four years, with annual 

renewals, in accordance with DoD policy and procedures. No member shall serve more than two 

consecutive terms of service on a subcommittee without prior approval from the DoD Appointing 

Authority. Subcommittee members who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal civilian officers 

or employees, or active duty members of the Uniformed Services, shall be appointed as experts or 

consultants pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 3109 to serve as SGE members. Subcommittee members who are fulltime or permanent part-time Federal civilian officers or employees, or active duty members of the 

Uniformed Services, shall be appointed pursuant to 41 C.F.R. § 102-3.130(a) to serve as RGE members. 

The DoD Appointing Authority shall appoint subcommittee leadership from among the membership 

previously appointed to serve on a subcommittee in accordance with DoD policy and procedures, for a 

term of service of one-to-two-years, with annual renewal, not to exceed the member’s approved 

appointment.

All members of a subcommittee are appointed to exercise their own best judgment on behalf of the DoD, 

without representing any particular point of view, and to discuss and deliberate in a manner free from 

conflicts of interest. Except for reimbursement for official travel and per diem related to the DAC-IPAD 

or its subcommittees, subcommittee members shall serve without compensation.

14. Recordkeeping: The records of the DAC-IPAD and its subcommittees shall be managed in accordance

with General Records Schedule 6.2, Federal Advisory Committee Records, or other approved agency

records disposition schedule, and the appropriate DoD policy and procedures. These records will be

available for public inspection and copying, subject to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552).

15. Filing Date: February 16, 2022
B-5

Appendix B. Committee Charter and Terms of Reference APPENDIX B: COMMITTEE CHARTER AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

B-5
B-6

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

DAC-IPAD TERMS OF REFERENCE 

E. Input from Government Agencies, Experts, and Other Entities.

As appropriate, the Committee may seek input from other Federal agencies, non-Federal entities, 

and other sources with pertinent knowledge or experience. 

F. Input from Members the Public.

The Committee will consider all submissions by organizations or members of the public that are 

relevant to its mission and received either in writing or orally during public meetings in compliance 

with FACA. 

111. Statutory Deliverablesi

A. Annual Report.

Pursuant to section 546(d) of the FYI 5 NOAA, the DAC-IP AD, not later than March 30 of each 

year, will submit to the Secretary of Defense through the DoD GC, and to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, a report describing the results of the 

activities of the DAC-IPAD during the preceding year. 

B. Biennial Collateral Misconduct Report.

Pursuant to section 547 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2019 (Pub. L. No. 115-232), as amended by section 536 of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY 21 NOAA) (Pub. L. No. 116-283), 

not later than September 30, 2019, and once every two years thereafter, the Secretary of Defense, 

acting through the DAC-IPAD, shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report that 

includes, with respect to the period of two years preceding the date of the submittal of the report, the 

following: 

(1) The number of instances in which a covered individual was suspected of misconduct or

crimes considered collateral to the investigation of a sexual offense committed against the

individual.

(2) The number of instances in which adverse action was taken against a covered individual who

was suspected of collateral misconduct or crimes as described in paragraph (1 ).

(3) The percentage of investigations of sexual offenses that involved suspicion of or adverse

action against a covered individual as described in paragraphs (1) and (2).

The term "covered individual" means an individual who is identified in the case files of a military 

criminal investigative organization as a victim of a sexual offense that occurred while that individual 

was serving on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces. The term "suspected of," when used 

with respect to a covered individual suspected of collateral misconduct or crimes as described in 

subsection (a), means that an investigation by a military criminal investigative organization reveals 

2 

Appendix B. Committee Charter and Terms of Reference

B-6
B-7

APPENDIX B: COMMITTEE CHARTER AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

DAC-IPAD TERMS OF REFERENCE 

facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the individual committed 

an offense under chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice). 

C. DAC-IPAD Studies.

Pursuant to section 546(c)(2) of the FY15 NOAA, the DAC-IPAD shall study issues identified in its 

ongoing reviews of cases involving allegations of rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault, and other 

sexual misconduct involving members of the Armed Forces. 

IV. Deliverables Requested by Joint Explanatory Statement:

The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2020 (Pub. L. No. 116-92) requested two assessments by the DAC-IPAD: 

(1) Assessment of Alternative Justice Programs.

Review, as appropriate, whether other justice programs (e.g., restorative justice programs, 

mediation) could be employed or modified to assist the victim of an alleged sexual assault or the 

alleged offender, particularly in cases where the evidence in the victim's case has been determined 

not to be sufficient to take judicial, non-judicial, or administrative action against the perpetrator of 

the alleged offense. 

(2) Victim Impact Statement Assessment.

On a one-time basis, or more frequently, as appropriate, and adjunct to its review of court-martial 

cases completed in any particular year, assess whether military judges are according appropriate 

deference to victims of crimes who exercise their right to be heard under Rule for Courts-Martial 

(RCM) 1001 ( c) at sentencing hearings, and appropriately permitting other witnesses to testify about 

the impact of the crime under RCM 1001. The assessment should recognize: 

The importance of providing survivors of sexual assault an opportunity to provide a full 

and complete description of the impact of the assault on the survivor during court-martial 

sentencing hearings related to the offense. 

That Members of Congress have received complaints that some military judges have 

interpreted RCM 1001 ( c) too narrowly, limiting what survivors are permitted to say 

during sentencing hearings in ways that do not fully inform the court of the impact of the 

crime on the survivor. 

The DAC-IPAD will provide the DoD GC with a recommended date for completion of those two 

assessments. 

V. Deliverable Requested by DoD GC;

Pursuant to the DAC-IPAD Charter filed on February 16, 2022, the DAC-IPAD will address matters 

of special interest to DoD, as directed by the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, 

or the DoD GC, as the DAC-IPAD's sponsor, including: 

3 

Appendix B. Committee Charter and Terms of Reference

B-7
B-8

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

DAC-IPAD TERMS OF REFERENCE 

Appellate Case Review. 

In a January 28, 2022, memorandwn to the DAC-IPAD Staff Director, the DoD GC requested that 

the DAC-IPAD conduct a comprehensive study of appellate decisions in military sexual assault 

cases, focusing on recurring appellate issues that arise in such cases, and provide a report of the 

results of that study. The DAC-IPAD's report should include an analysis of the most commonly 

recurring issues and any recommendations for reforms and should: 

Consider the efficacy of the military appellate system's handling of those cases. 

Identify any recommended training and education improvements for military justice 

practitioners suggested by the study. 

The DAC-IPAD should determine the optimal study design to analyze the issues set out above. In 

developing a study design, the DAC-IPAD should note two recent changes to the law that affect the 

Courts of Criminal Appeals' reviews of findings and sentences: 

Section 542(b) of the FY 21 NOAA modified the factual sufficiency standard of review that 

the Courts of Criminal Appeals apply when reviewing findings of guilty entered on or after 

January I, 2021. 

In conjunction with the enactment of sentencing reform to move largely to parameter-based 

sentencing in special and non-capital general court-martial cases, section 539E of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 (Pub. L. No. 117-81) modified the 

Courts of Criminal Appeals' sentence appropriateness review standard to be applied in cases 

where all offenses resulting in a finding of guilty occur after December 27, 2023. 

The DAC-IPAD will provide the DoD GC with a recommended date for completion of that review. 

VI. Support;

The DoD, through the Office of the DoD GC, provides support for the Committee's functions 

and ensures compliance with the requirements of the F ACA, the Government in the Sunshine Act 

(5 U.S.C. § 552b), governing Federal statutes and regulations, and DoD policy and procedures. 

Date: 

Caroline Krass 

General Counsel 

4 

Appendix B. Committee Charter and Terms of Reference

B-8
C-1

APPENDIX C: COMMITTEE MEMBERS

APPENDIX C. COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Marcia Anderson was the Clerk of Court for the Bankruptcy Court–Western District of 

Wisconsin starting in 1998 until her retirement in 2019. In this role she was responsible for the 

management of the budget and administration of bankruptcy cases for 44 counties in western 

Wisconsin. Major General Anderson recently retired in 2016 from a distinguished career in the 

U.S. Army Reserve after 36 years of service, which included serving as the Deputy Commanding 

General of the Army’s Human Resources Command at Fort Knox, Kentucky. In 2011, she 

became the first African American woman in the history of the U.S. Army to achieve the rank of 

major general. Her service culminated with an assignment at the Pentagon as the Deputy Chief, Army Reserve 

(DCAR). As the DCAR, she represented the Chief, Army Reserve, and had oversight for the planning, 

programming, and resource management for the execution of an Army Reserve budget of $8 billion that supported 

more than 225,000 Army Reserve soldiers, civilians, and their families. She is a graduate of the Rutgers University 

School of Law, the U.S. Army War College, and Creighton University.

Martha Bashford served in the New York County District Attorney’s Office starting in 1979 

until her retirement in 2020. At the time of her retirement, she was the chief of the New York 

County District Attorney’s Office Sex Crimes Unit, which was the first of its kind in the country. 

She served in this role starting in 2011. Previously she was co-chief of the Forensic Sciences/Cold 

Case Unit, where she examined unsolved homicide cases that might now be solvable through 

DNA analysis. Ms. Bashford was also co-chief of the DNA Cold Case Project, which used DNA 

technology to investigate and prosecute unsolved sexual assault cases. She indicted assailants 

identified through the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) and obtained John Doe DNA profile 

indictments to stop the statute of limitations where no suspect had yet been identified. She is a Fellow in the 

American Academy of Forensic Sciences. Ms. Bashford graduated from Barnard College in 1976 (summa cum laude) 

and received her J.D. degree from Yale Law School in 1979. She is a Fellow in both the American College of Trial 

Lawyers and the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.

William E. Cassara is a former Army prosecutor, defense counsel and appellate counsel, with 

more than 30 years of military law experience. Mr. Cassara holds a law degree from University of 

Baltimore and an undergraduate degree in business administration from Florida State University. 

He is a former professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law and the University of 

South Carolina School of Law. Mr. Cassara has been in private military law practice since 1996 

focusing on court-martial appeals, discharge upgrades, security clearance and all other 

administrative military law matters.
C-2

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Margaret “Meg” Garvin, M.A., J.D., is the executive director of the National Crime Victim Law 

Institute (NCVLI), where she has worked since 2003. She is also a clinical professor of law at 

Lewis & Clark Law School, where NCVLI is located. In 2014, Ms. Garvin was appointed to the 

Victims Advisory Group of the United States Sentencing Commission, and during 2013–14, she 

served on the Victim Services Subcommittee of the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault 

Crimes Panel of the U.S. Department of Defense. She has served as co-chair of the American Bar 

Association’s Criminal Justice Section Victims Committee, as co-chair of the Oregon Attorney 

General’s Crime Victims’ Rights Task Force, and as a member of the Legislative & Public Policy Committee of the 

Oregon Attorney General’s Sexual Assault Task Force. Ms. Garvin received the John W. Gillis Leadership Award 

from National Parents of Murdered Children in August 2015. Prior to joining NCVLI, Ms. Garvin practiced law in 

Minneapolis, Minnesota, and clerked for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. She received her bachelor of arts 

degree from the University of Puget Sound, her master of arts degree in communication studies from the University 

of Iowa, and her J.D. from the University of Minnesota.

Suzanne Goldberg has served in the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights 

since day one of the Biden-Harris administration as Acting Assistant Secretary (January – 

October 2021) and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategic Operations and Outreach. Goldberg 

brings extensive experience in civil rights leadership, with expertise in gender and sexuality law, 

and many years as a university administrator and faculty member. Before joining the U.S. 

Department of Education, Goldberg was the inaugural Executive Vice President for University 

Life at Columbia University and on the faculty of Columbia Law School, where she is on a 

public service leave from her role as the Herbert and Doris Wechsler Clinical Professor of Law at Columbia Law 

School. She founded the Law School’s Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic, the first of its kind in the nation, and was 

co-founder and co-director of the Law School’s Center for Gender and Sexuality Law. Goldberg earlier served as a 

senior staff attorney with Lambda Legal, a national legal organization committed to the full recognition of the civil 

rights of LGBT people and people living with HIV. Goldberg holds a law degree with honors from Harvard 

University and a bachelor’s degree with honors from Brown University and was a Fulbright Fellow at the National 

University of Singapore.

Judge Paul W. Grimm is a Professor of the Practice and Director of the Bolch Judicial Institute 

at Duke Law School. Prior to joining Duke Law School, Judge Grimm served as a federal judge 

for 25 years. In 2012 he was appointed as a District Judge for the United States District Court 

for the District of Maryland. Previously, he was appointed to the Court as a Magistrate Judge in 

February 1997 and served as Chief Magistrate Judge from 2006 through 2012. In September, 

2009 he was appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States to serve as a member of the 

Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, Judge Grimm is an 

adjunct professor of law at the University of Maryland School of Law, where he teaches evidence, and also has 

taught trial evidence, pretrial civil procedure, and scientific evidence. He also has been an adjunct professor of law at 

the University of Baltimore School of Law, where he taught a course regarding the discovery of and pretrial practices 

associated with electronically stored evidence. 

Before joining the Court, Judge Grimm was in private practice in Baltimore for thirteen years, during which time 

he handled commercial litigation. He also served as an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Maryland, 

an Assistant State’s Attorney for Baltimore County, Maryland, and a Captain in the United States Army Judge 
C-3

APPENDIX C: COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Advocate General’s Corps. While on active duty in the Army, Judge Grimm served as a defense attorney and 

prosecutor while assigned to the JAG Office at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, and thereafter as an action 

officer in the Office of the Judge Advocate General of the Army (Administrative Law Division), The Pentagon. In 

2001, Judge Grimm retired as a Lieutenant Colonel from the United States Army Reserve. 

Judge Grimm received his undergraduate degree from the University of California Davis (summa cum laude), his 

J.D. from the University of New Mexico School of Law (magna cum laude, Order of the Coif) and his LLM from 

Duke Law School.

A. J. Kramer has been the Federal Public Defender for the District of Columbia since 1990. He 

was the Chief Assistant Federal Public Defender in Sacramento, California, from 1987 to 1990, 

and an Assistant Federal Public Defender in San Francisco, California, from 1980 to 1987. He 

was a law clerk for the Honorable Proctor Hug, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 

Reno, Nevada, from 1979 to 1980. He received a B.A. from Stanford University in 1975, and a 

J.D. from Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California at Berkeley in 1979. Mr. 

Kramer taught legal research and writing at Hastings Law School from 1983 to 1988. He is a 

permanent faculty member of the National Criminal Defense College in Macon, Georgia. He is a Fellow of the 

American College of Trial Lawyers. He is a member of the Judicial Conference of the United States’ Advisory 

Committee on Evidence Rules and the ABA Criminal Justice System Council. He was a member of the National 

Academy of Sciences Committee on Scientific Approaches to Understanding and Maximizing the Validity and 

Reliability of Eyewitness Identification in Law Enforcement and the Courts. In December 2013, he received the 

Annice M. Wagner Pioneer Award from the Bar Association of the District of Columbia.

Jennifer Gentile Long (M.G.A., J.D.) is CEO and co-founder of AEquitas and an adjunct 

professor at Georgetown University Law School. She served as an Assistant District Attorney in 

Philadelphia specializing in sexual violence, child abuse, and intimate partner violence. She was a 

senior attorney and then Director of the National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against 

Women at the American Prosecutors Research Institute. She publishes articles, delivers trainings, 

and provides expert case consultation on issues relevant to gender-based violence and human 

trafficking nationally and internationally. Ms. Long serves as an Advisory Committee member of 

the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code Revision to Sexual Assault and Related Laws and as an Editorial 

Board member of the Civic Research Institute for the Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence Reports. She graduated 

from Lehigh University and the University of Pennsylvania Law School and Fels School of Government.

Jenifer Markowitz is a forensic nursing consultant who specializes in issues related to sexual 

assault, domestic violence, and strangulation, including medical-forensic examinations and 

professional education and curriculum development. In addition to teaching at workshops and 

conferences around the world, she provides expert testimony, case consultation, and technical 

assistance and develops training materials, resources, and publications. A forensic nurse examiner 

since 1995, Dr. Markowitz regularly serves as faculty and as an expert consultant for the Judge 

Advocate General’s (JAG) Corps for the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast 

Guard. Past national activities include working with the Army Surgeon General’s office to develop a curriculum for 

sexual assault medical-forensic examiners working in military treatment facilities (subsequently adopted by the Navy 

and Air Force); with the U.S. Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) to develop a 
C-4

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

national protocol and training standards for sexual assault medical- forensic examinations; with the Peace Corps to 

assess the agency’s multidisciplinary response to sexual assault; with the U.S. Department of Defense to revise the 

military’s sexual assault evidence collection kit and corresponding documentation forms; and as an Advisory Board 

member for the National Sexual Violence Resource Center. In 2004, Dr. Markowitz was named a Distinguished 

Fellow of the International Association of Forensic Nurses (IAFN); in 2012, she served as IAFN’s President.

Jennifer O’Connor is Vice President and General Counsel of Northrop Grumman Corporation. 

Prior to joining Northrop Grumman, Ms. O’Connor served as the General Counsel for the 

Department of Defense. In that role, she was the chief legal officer of the Department and the 

principal legal advisor to the Secretary of Defense. Earlier in her career, she served in numerous 

positions and agencies throughout the federal government. Her past positions include service in 

the Obama administration as Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy White House 

Counsel responsible for the litigation, oversight and investigations portfolios; Senior Counsel at 

the Department of Health and Human Services; and as Counselor to the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue 

Service. Ms. O’Connor also worked in the Clinton Administration as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy at the 

Department of Labor, Special Assistant to the President in the Office of the White House Deputy Chief of Staff; 

Special Assistant to the President in the Office of Cabinet Affairs; and as Deputy Director of the White House 

Office of Management and Administration. Ms. O’Connor received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Harvard 

University, a Masters in Public Administration from Columbia University’s School of International Public Affairs, 

and a Juris Doctor degree from Georgetown University.

BGen James (Jim) Schwenk was commissioned as an infantry officer in the Marine Corps in 

1970. After serving as a platoon commander and company commander, he attended law school 

at the Washington College of Law, American University, and became a judge advocate. As a judge 

advocate he served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Office of the Secretary of the 

Navy, and Headquarters, Marine Corps; he served as Staff Judge Advocate for Marine Forces 

Atlantic, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Marine Corps Air Bases West, and several other 

commands; and he participated in several hundred courts-martial and administrative discharge 

boards. He represented the Department of Defense on the television show American Justice, and represented the 

Marine Corps in a Mike Wallace segment on 60 Minutes. He retired from the Marine Corps in 2000.

Upon retirement from the Marine Corps, BGen Schwenk joined the Office of the General Counsel of the 

Department of Defense as an associate deputy general counsel. He was a legal advisor in the Pentagon on 9/11, and 

he was the primary drafter from the Department of Defense of many of the emergency legal authorities used in 

Afghanistan, Iraq, the United States, and elsewhere since that date. He was the principal legal advisor for the repeal 

of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” for the provision of benefits to same-sex spouses of military personnel, in the review of the 

murders at Fort Hood in 2009, and on numerous DoD working groups in the area of military personnel policy. He 

worked extensively with the White House and Congress, and he retired in 2014 after 49 years of federal service.
C-5

APPENDIX C: COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Judge Karla N. Smith was appointed to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland 

in December 2014 by Governor Martin O’Malley. Judge Smith served on the District Court of 

Maryland from August 2012 until her appointment to the Circuit Court. In addition, Judge 

Smith serves as the Judiciary’s representative on the State Council on Child Abuse and Neglect; 

the Operations Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee on Equal Justice; and she represents 

the Circuit Court on the Montgomery County Domestic Violence Coordinating Council 

(DVCC).

Prior to her appointment, Judge Smith worked as a prosecutor for over 15 years. For five years, Judge Smith served 

as the Chief of the Family Violence Division of the Montgomery County State’s Attorney’s Office. Additionally, she 

sat on the Montgomery County Child Fatality Review Team; the Multidisciplinary Case Review Team for Child 

Abuse and Neglect; the Elder and Vulnerable Adult Abuse Task Force, which she chaired; the Interagency Sex 

Offender Management Team; Domestic Violence Case Review Team; and the Montgomery County Teen Dating 

Taskforce. It was during this time that Judge Smith was integral to the development of the Montgomery County 

Family Justice Center and the drafting and passage of a criminal child neglect statute that was signed into law in 

2011.

Judge Smith received her Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Maryland and her Juris Doctor from the 

University of Virginia. A life-long resident of Montgomery County and a product of Montgomery County Public 

Schools, Judge Smith currently lives in Bethesda with her husband and three sons.

Cassia Spohn is a Regents Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at 

Arizona State University and an Affiliate Professor of Law at ASU’s Sandra Day O’Connor 

College of Law. She is a Fellow of the American Society of Criminology, the Academy of 

Criminal Justice Sciences, and the Western Society of Criminology. She is the recipient of 

numerous academic awards, including the University of Nebraska Outstanding Research and 

Creative Activity Award, the W.E.B. DuBois Award for Contributions to Research on Crime and 

Race/Ethnicity, the Lifetime Achievement Award from the American Society of Criminology’s 

Division on Corrections and Sentencing, and Arizona State University’s Faculty Achievement Award for DefiningEdge Research in the Social Sciences. Dr. Spohn’s research interests include the correlates of federal and state 

sentencing outcomes, prosecutorial decision making, the intersections of race, ethnicity, gender, crime and justice, 

and sexual assault case processing decisions. She is the author of eight books, including How Do Judges Decide: The 

Search for Fairness and Justice in Punishment and Policing and Prosecuting Sexual Assault: Inside the Criminal Justice 

System. She is the author of more than 140 peer-reviewed publications. She currently is working on a National 

Science Foundation-funded project evaluating the impact of Arizona’s recent ban on peremptory challenges and a 

series of papers on the imposition of life sentences in the U.S. District Courts.
C-6

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Meghan Tokash is a trial attorney with the Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit, Criminal 

Section, Civil Rights Division at Department of Justice. Prior to her current position, she served 

as an Assistant United States Attorney at the Department of Justice. Previously, she served as a 

special victim prosecutor in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps for eight years, 

litigating cases related to homicide, rape, sexual assault, domestic violence and child abuse. She 

worked in the Army’s first Special Victim Unit at the Fort Hood Criminal Investigation Division 

Office. She deployed to Iraq as the senior trial counsel for U.S. Forces Iraq, and prosecuted 

special victim cases across U.S. Army Europe and U.S. Army Central Command. Ms. Tokash was an attorney 

advisor for the Judicial Proceedings Panel prior to her 2017 appointment by Secretary of Defense Ash Carter to 

serve on the Defense Advisory Committee on the Investigation, Prosecution and Defense of Sexual Assault in the 

Armed Forces. In 2021, Ms. Tokash served on the 90-day Independent Review Commission on Sexual Assault in 

the Military that was established by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin at the direction of President Biden.

Judge Walton was born in Donora, Pennsylvania. In 1971, he graduated from West Virginia 

State University, where he was a three-year letterman on the football team and played on the 

1968 nationally ranked conference championship team. Judge Walton received his law degree 

from the American University, Washington College of Law, in 1974.

Judge Walton assumed his current position as a U.S. District Judge for the District of 

Columbia in 2001. He was also appointed by President George W. Bush in 2004 as the Chair 

of the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, a commission created by Congress 

to identify methods to reduce prison rape. The U.S. Attorney General substantially adopted the Commission’s 

recommendations for implementation in federal prisons; other federal, state, and local officials throughout the 

country are considering adopting the recommendations. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist 

appointed Judge Walton in 2005 to the federal judiciary’s Criminal Law Committee, on which he served until 2011. 

In 2007, Chief Justice John Roberts appointed Judge Walton to a seven-year term as a Judge of the U.S. Foreign 

Intelligence Surveillance Court, and he was subsequently appointed Presiding Judge in 2013. He completed his 

term on that court on May 18, 2014. Upon completion of his appointment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 

Court, Judge Walton was appointed by Chief Justice Roberts to serve as a member of the Judicial Conference 

Committee on Court Administration and Case Management.

Judge Walton traveled to Russia in 1996 to instruct Russian judges on criminal law in a program funded by the 

U.S. Department of Justice and the American Bar Association’s Central and East European Law Initiative Reform 

Project. He is also an instructor in Harvard Law School’s Advocacy Workshop and a faculty member at the National 

Judicial College in Reno, Nevada.
D-1

APPENDIX D. SUBCOMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE

APPENDIX D. SUBCOMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE Case Review Subcommittee

of the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense 

of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces

TERMS OF REFERENCE

These terms of reference (ToR) establish the mission and objectives of the Case Review 

Subcommittee of the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense 

of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (DAC-IPAD). 

I. Mission Statement: The mission of the Case Review Subcommittee is to assess and provide

independent advice to the DAC-IPAD in order for it to make recommendations to the Secretary

of Defense and Deputy Secretary of Defense (“the DoD Appointing Authority”) through the

Department of Defense General Counsel (DoD GC), related to the investigation, prosecution,

and defense of allegations of rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct

involving members of the Armed Forces based on its review of cases involving such allegations.

II. Issue Statement: Section 546 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal

Year (FY) 2015, as amended by section 537 of the NDAA for FY 2016, provides that the DACIPAD will provide the Secretary of Defense independent advice and recommendations on the

investigation, prosecution, and defense of allegations of rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault,

and other sexual misconduct involving members of the Armed Forces, and that, as a basis for

such advice, the DAC-IPAD will review cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct on an

ongoing basis.

III. Objectives and Scope: The Case Review Subcommittee will address the following

specific objectives:

1. Assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, prosecution, and defense of

allegations of rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct involving

members of the Armed Forces through the review of military justice cases from

investigation through final disposition, including appellate review, if applicable.

2. Assessing differences among the Military Departments (MILDEP) in the investigation,

prosecution, and defense of allegations of sexual misconduct.

3. Identifying best practices among the MILDEPs in the investigation, prosecution, and

defense of allegations of sexual misconduct.

4. Assessing other matters within the scope of the DAC-IPAD Charter and ToR as referred to

the Case Review Subcommittee in writing by the DoD Appointing Authority or the DoD GC.

The Case Review Subcommittee will develop conclusions and recommendations on the matters 

above for consideration and use by the DAC-IPAD as it deems appropriate. 

Appendix D. Subcommittee Terms of Reference

D-1
D-2

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Case Review Subcommittee of the DAC-IPAD

TERMS OF REFERENCE

2 

IV. Methodology: The Case Review Subcommittee must comply with the DAC-IPAD Charter

and the DAC-IPAD ToR (May 23, 2022) in the undertaking and execution of all projects, tasks,

studies, and reports. Additionally, in support of the Case Review Subcommittee’s ToR and the

work conducted in response to it:

1. The Case Review Subcommittee is authorized to access all non-sealed, non-privileged,

unclassified case documents (including records of trial, investigation case files,

prosecutorial case files, and staff judge advocate advice), records, and personnel from the

DoD and MILDEPs it deems necessary to complete its task. Case Review Subcommittee

participants may be required to execute non-disclosure agreements where required by law.

All requests will be consistent with applicable laws; applicable security classifications;

DoDI 5105.04, “Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committee Management

Program”; and the Case Review Subcommittee’s ToR. As special government employee

members of a DoD Federal advisory committee, the Case Review Subcommittee members

will not be given any access to DoD networks, to include DoD email systems.

Once material is provided to the Case Review Subcommittee, it becomes a permanent part

of the DAC-IPAD’s records. All data/information provided to the Subcommittee is subject

to public inspection unless the originating Component or MILDEP office properly marks

the data/information with the appropriate classification and Freedom of Information Act

exemption categories before the data/information is released to the Case Review

Subcommittee.

2. The Case Review Subcommittee may conduct interviews and site visits, as appropriate, and

in accordance with the DAC-IPAD Charter.

3. The Case Review Subcommittee may seek input from other sources with pertinent

knowledge or experience, as appropriate.

V. Deliverables: The Case Review Subcommittee will complete all tasks, projects, studies,

and reports as assigned to it in writing by the DoD Appointing Authority or the DoD GC.

1. As a subcommittee of the DAC-IPAD, the Case Review Subcommittee will not work

independently of the DAC-IPAD’s charter and will report its recommendations, including

providing interim updates, to the full DAC-IPAD in a properly noticed and open public

meeting for full deliberation and discussion and committee approval, subject to the

Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. § 552b) (Sunshine Act) exemptions, as

appropriate. The Case Review Subcommittee and the DAC-IPAD will operate in

conformity with, and pursuant to, the DAC-IPAD’s charter, the Federal Advisory

Committee Act (FACA), the Sunshine Act, other applicable Federal statutes and

regulations, and DoD policies and procedures. The Case Review Subcommittee does not

have the authority to make decisions on behalf of the DAC-IPAD nor can it report directly

to any Federal representative. The members of the Case Review Subcommittee and the

DAC-IPAD are subject to certain Federal ethics laws, including Title 18, United States

Code, § 208, governing conflicts of interest, and the Standards of Ethical Conduct

regulations in 5 C.F.R, Part 2635.

Appendix D. Subcommittee Terms of Reference

D-2
D-3

APPENDIX D. SUBCOMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE

Case Review Subcommittee of the DAC-IPAD

TERMS OF REFERENCE

3 

2. The Case Review Subcommittee is tasked to complete the study requested in the DoD

GC’s January 28, 2022 memorandum, subject: Request to Study Appellate Decisions in

Military Sexual Assault Cases (attached). After an initial assessment, the Case Review

Subcommittee will provide the DAC-IPAD an appropriate timeframe in which it can

complete this study.

VI. Support: The DoD, through the Office of the DoD GC, provides support for the Case

Review Subcommittee’s functions and ensures compliance with the requirements of the

FACA, the Sunshine Act, governing Federal statutes and regulations, and DoD policy and

procedures.

Under the authority of the DoD GC, the DAC-IPAD Executive Director will support and 

coordinate all Case Review Subcommittee activities.

Attachment:

As stated

Appendix D. Subcommittee Terms of Reference

D-3
D-4

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Policy Subcommittee 

of the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense 

of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces 

TERMS OF REFERENCE 

These terms of reference (ToR) establish the mission and objectives of the Policy Subcommittee 

of the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual 

Assault in the Armed Forces (DAC-IPAD). 

I. Mission Statement: The mission of the Policy Subcommittee is to assess and provide

independent advice to the DAC-IPAD in order for it to make recommendations to the Secretary

of Defense and Deputy Secretary of Defense (“the DoD Appointing Authority”), through the

Department of Defense General Counsel (DoD GC), related to the investigation, prosecution,

and defense of allegations of rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault, and other sexual

misconduct involving members of the Armed Forces based on its review of DoD policies,

Military Department (MILDEP) policies, and Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

provisions applicable to such allegations.

II. Issue Statement: Section 546 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal

Year (FY) 2015, as amended by section 537 of the NDAA for FY 2016, provides that the DACIPAD will provide the Secretary of Defense independent advice and recommendations on the

investigation, prosecution, and defense of allegations of rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault,

and other sexual misconduct involving members of the Armed Forces, and that, as a basis for

such advice, the DAC-IPAD will review cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct on an

ongoing basis.

III. Objectives and Scope: The Policy Subcommittee will address the following specific

objectives:

1. Reviewing and assessing policies promulgated by the DoD and the MILDEPs, and UCMJ

provisions related to the investigation, prosecution, and defense of allegations of rape,

forcible sodomy, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct involving members of the

Armed Forces.

2. Assessing other matters within the scope of the DAC-IPAD Charter and ToR as referred to

the Policy Subcommittee in writing by the DoD Appointing Authority or the DoD GC.

The Policy Subcommittee will develop conclusions and recommendations on the matters above

for consideration and use by the DAC-IPAD as it deems appropriate. 

IV. Methodology: The Policy Subcommittee must comply with the DAC-IPAD Charter

and the DAC-IPAD ToR (May 23, 2022) in the undertaking and execution of all projects,

tasks, studies, and reports. Additionally, in support of the Policy Subcommittee’s ToR and the

work conducted in response to them:

1. The Policy Subcommittee is authorized to access all non-sealed, non-privileged,

unclassified case documents (including records of trial, investigation case files,

prosecutorial case files, and staff judge advocate advice), records, and personnel from the

DoD and MILDEPs it deems necessary to complete its task. Policy Subcommittee

participants may be required to execute non-disclosure agreements where required by law.

Appendix D. Subcommittee Terms of Reference

D-4
D-5

APPENDIX D. SUBCOMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE

Policy Subcommittee of the DAC-IPAD

TERMS OF REFERENCE

2 

All requests will be consistent with applicable laws; applicable security classifications; 

DoDI 5105.04, “Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committee Management 

Program”; and the Policy Subcommittee’s ToR. As special government employee 

members of a DoD Federal advisory committee, the Policy Subcommittee members will 

not be given any access to DoD networks, to include DoD email systems.

Once material is provided to the Policy Subcommittee, it becomes a permanent part of the 

DAC-IPAD’s records. All data/information provided to the Subcommittee is subject to 

public inspection unless the originating Component or MILDEP office properly marks the 

data/information with the appropriate classification and Freedom of Information Act 

exemption categories before the data/information is released to the Case Review 

Subcommittee. 

2. The Policy Subcommittee may conduct interviews and site visits, as appropriate, and in

accordance with the DAC-IPAD Charter.

3. The Policy Subcommittee may seek input from other sources with pertinent knowledge or

experience, as appropriate.

V. Deliverables: The Policy Subcommittee will complete all tasks, projects, studies, and

reports as assigned to it in writing by the DoD Appointing Authority or the DoD GC.

As a subcommittee of the DAC-IPAD, the Policy Subcommittee will not work

independently of the DAC-IPAD’s charter and will report its recommendations, including 

providing interim updates, to the full DAC-IPAD in a properly noticed and open public 

meeting for full deliberation and discussion and committee approval, subject to the 

Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. § 552b) (Sunshine Act) exemptions, as appropriate. 

The Policy Subcommittee and the DAC-IPAD will operate in conformity with, and pursuant to, 

the DAC-IPAD’s charter, the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the Sunshine Act, 

other applicable Federal statutes and regulations, and DoD policies and procedures. The 

Policy Subcommittee does not have the authority to make decisions on behalf of the DACIPAD nor can it report directly to any Federal representative. The members of the Policy

Subcommittee and the DAC-IPAD are subject to certain Federal ethics laws, including Title

18, United States Code, § 208, governing conflicts of interest, and the Standards of Ethical 

Conduct regulations in 5 C.F.R, Part 2635.

VI. Support: The DoD, through the Office of the DoD GC, provides support for the Policy

Subcommittee’s functions and ensures compliance with the requirements of the FACA, the

Sunshine Act, governing Federal statutes and regulations, and DoD policy and procedures.

Under the authority of the DoD GC, the DAC-IPAD Executive Director will support and

coordinate all Policy Subcommittee activities.

Appendix D. Subcommittee Terms of Reference

D-5
D-6

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Special Projects Subcommittee

of the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense 

of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces

TERMS OF REFERENCE

These terms of reference (ToR) establish the mission and objectives of the Special Projects

Subcommittee of the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense 

of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (DAC-IPAD). 

I. Mission Statement: The mission of the Special Projects Subcommittee is to assess and

provide independent advice to the DAC-IPAD in order for it to make recommendations to the

Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary of Defense (“the DoD Appointing Authority”),

through the Department of Defense General Counsel (DoD GC), related to the investigation,

prosecution, and defense of allegations of rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault, and other

sexual misconduct involving members of the Armed Forces based on its review and analysis of

existing, developing, and proposed statutory requirements and the DoD and Military

Department (MILDEP) plans and policies, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

and Manual for Courts-Martial rules and provisions, applicable to such requirements, plans,

policies, and provisions.

II. Issue Statement: Section 546 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal

Year (FY) 2015, as amended by section 537 of the NDAA for FY 2016, provides that the DACIPAD will provide the Secretary of Defense independent advice and recommendations on the

investigation, prosecution, and defense of allegations of rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault,

and other sexual misconduct involving members of the Armed Forces, and that, as a basis for

such advice, the DAC-IPAD will review cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct on an

ongoing basis.

III. Objectives and Scope: The Special Projects Subcommittee will address the following

specific objectives:

1. Reviewing and assessing existing, developing, and proposed statutory requirements related

to the investigation, prosecution, and defense of allegations of sexual misconduct involving

members of the Armed Forces and the DoD and MILDEPs’ plans and policies related to

those statutory requirements, including changes to the Manual for Courts-Martial.

2. Identifying significant trends and variances among the MILDEPs in the investigation,

prosecution, and defense of allegations of sexual misconduct.

3. Identifying best practices and recommending standards and criteria for a uniform system of

military justice within the DoD.

4. Assessing other matters within the scope of the DAC-IPAD Charter and ToR as referred to the

Special Projects Subcommittee in writing by the DoD Appointing Authority or the DoD GC.

The Special Projects Subcommittee will develop conclusions and recommendations on the 

matters above for consideration and use by the DAC-IPAD as it deems appropriate. 

Appendix D. Subcommittee Terms of Reference

D-6
D-7

APPENDIX D. SUBCOMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE

Special Projects Subcommittee of the DAC-IPAD

TERMS OF REFERENCE

2 

IV. Methodology: The Special Projects Subcommittee must comply with the DAC-IPAD Charter

and the DAC-IPAD ToR (May 23, 2022) in the undertaking and execution of all projects, tasks,

studies, and reports. Additionally, in support of the Special Projects Subcommittee’s ToR and the

work conducted in response to it:

1. The Special Projects Subcommittee is authorized to access all non-sealed, non-privileged,

unclassified case documents (including records of trial, investigation case files,

prosecutorial case files, and staff judge advocate advice), records, and personnel from the

DoD and MILDEPs as it deems necessary to complete its task. Special Projects

Subcommittee participants may be required to execute non-disclosure agreements where

required by law. All requests shall be consistent with applicable laws; applicable security

classifications; DoDI 5105.04, “Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committee

Management Program”; and the Special Projects Subcommittee’s ToR. As special

government employee members of a DoD Federal advisory committee, the Special Projects

Subcommittee members will not be given any access to DoD networks, to include DoD

email systems.

Once material is provided to the Special Projects Subcommittee, it becomes a permanent

part of the DAC-IPAD’s records. All data/information provided to the Subcommittee is

subject to public inspection unless the originating Component or MILDEP office properly

marks the data/information with the appropriate classification and Freedom of Information

Act exemption categories before the data/information is released to the Special Projects

Subcommittee.

2. The Special Projects Subcommittee may conduct interviews and site visits, as appropriate,

and in accordance with the DAC-IPAD Charter.

3. The Special Projects Subcommittee may seek input from other sources with pertinent

knowledge or experience, as appropriate.

V. Deliverables: The Special Projects Subcommittee will complete all tasks, projects, studies,

and reports as assigned to it in writing by the DoD Appointing Authority or the DoD GC.

1. As a subcommittee of the DAC-IPAD, the Special Projects Subcommittee will not work

independently of the DAC-IPAD’s charter and will report its recommendations, including

providing interim updates, to the full DAC-IPAD in a properly noticed and open public

meeting for full deliberation and discussion for committee approval, subject to the Government

in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. § 552b) (Sunshine Act) exemptions, as appropriate. The Special

Projects Subcommittee and the DAC-IPAD will operate in conformity with, and pursuant to,

the DAC-IPAD’s charter, the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the Sunshine Act,

other applicable Federal statutes and regulations, and DoD policies and procedures. The

Special Projects Subcommittee does not have the authority to make decisions on behalf of the

DAC-IPAD nor can it report directly to any Federal representative. The members of the

Special Projects Subcommittee and the DAC-IPAD are subject to certain Federal ethics laws,

including Title 18, United States Code, § 208, governing conflicts of interest, and the

Standards of Ethical Conduct regulations in 5 C.F.R, Part 2635.

Appendix D. Subcommittee Terms of Reference

D-7
D-8

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Special Projects Subcommittee of the DAC-IPAD

TERMS OF REFERENCE

3 

2. The Special Projects Subcommittee is tasked to complete the study requested in the DoD

GC’s May 10, 2022 memorandum, subject: DAC-IPAD Advice on Policy Development,

Workforce Structure, and Implementation of Best Practices for the Military Departments’

Offices of Special Trial Counsel (attached).

VI. Support: The DoD, through the Office of the DoD GC, provides support for the Special

Projects Subcommittee’s functions and ensures compliance with the requirements of the

FACA, the Sunshine Act, governing Federal statutes and regulations, and DoD policy and

procedures.

Under the authority of the DoD GC, the DAC-IPAD Executive Director will support and 

coordinate all Special Projects Subcommittee activities.

Attachment:

As stated

Appendix D. Subcommittee Terms of Reference

D-8
E-1

APPENDIX E: COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO DATE

APPENDIX E. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO DATE

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 1 – (March 2018) The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, 

and the Services take action to dispel the misperception of widespread abuse of the expedited transfer policy, 

including addressing the issue in the training of all military personnel.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 2 – (March 2018) The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security 

identify and track appropriate metrics to monitor the expedited transfer policy and any abuses of it.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 3 – (March 2018) The DoD-level and Coast Guard equivalent Family Advocacy 

Program (FAP) policy include provisions for expedited transfer of active duty Service members who are victims 

of sexual assault similar to the expedited transfer provisions in the DoD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 

(SAPR) policy and consistent with 10 U.S.C. § 673.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 4 – (March 2018) The DoD-level military personnel assignments policy (DoD 

Instruction 1315.18) and Coast Guard equivalent include a requirement that assignments personnel or commanders 

coordinate with and keep SAPR and FAP personnel informed throughout the expedited transfer, safety transfer, and 

humanitarian/compassionate transfer assignment process when the transfer involves an allegation of sexual assault.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 5 – (March 2019) In developing a uniform command action form in accordance 

with section 535 of the FY19 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Secretary of Defense (and the 

Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when not operating as a service in the Navy) 

should establish a standard set of options for documenting command disposition decisions and require the rationale 

for those decisions, including declinations to take action.

The Secretary of Defense (and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when not 

operating as a service in the Navy) should ensure that the standard set of options for documenting command 

disposition decisions is based on recognized legal and investigatory terminology and standards that are uniformly 

defined across the Services and accurately reflect command action source documents.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 6 – (March 2019) The Secretary of Defense (and the Secretary of Homeland 

Security with respect to the Coast Guard when not operating as a service in the Navy) should require that judge 

advocates or civilian attorneys employed by the Services in a similar capacity provide advice to commanders in 

completing command disposition/action reports in order to make certain that the documentation of that decision is 

accurate and complete.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 7 – (March 2019) The Secretary of Defense (and the Secretary of Homeland 

Security with respect to the Coast Guard when not operating as a service in the Navy) should provide uniform 

guidance to the Services regarding the submission of final disposition information to federal databases for sexual 

assault cases in which, after fingerprints have been submitted, the command took no action, or took action only for 

an offense other than sexual assault.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 8 – (March 2019) The uniform standards and criteria developed to implement 

Article 140a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), should reflect the following best practices for case data 

collection:
E-2

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

a. Collect all case data only from standardized source documents (legal and investigative documents) that are 

produced in the normal course of the military justice process, such as the initial report of investigation, the 

commander’s report of disciplinary or administrative action, the charge sheet, the Article 32 report, and the 

Report of Result of Trial.

b. Centralize document collection by mandating that all jurisdictions provide the same procedural documents 

to one military justice data office/organization within DoD.

c. Develop one electronic database for the storage and analysis of standardized source documents, and locate 

that database in the centralized military justice data office/organization within DoD.

d. Collect and analyze data quarterly to ensure that both historical data and analyses are as up-to-date as 

possible.

e. Have data entered from source documents into the electronic database by one independent team of trained 

professionals whose full-time occupation is document analysis and data entry. This team should have 

expertise in the military justice process and in social science research methods, and should ensure that the 

data are audited at regular intervals.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 9 – (March 2019) The source documents referenced in DAC-IPAD 

Recommendation 8 should contain uniformly defined content covering all data elements that DoD decides to 

collect to meet the requirements of Articles 140a and 146, UCMJ.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 10 – (March 2019) The data produced pursuant to Article 140a, UCMJ, should 

serve as the primary source for the Military Justice Review Panel’s periodic assessments of the military justice system, 

which are required by Article 146, UCMJ, and as the sole source of military justice data for all other organizations 

in DoD and for external entities.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 11 – (March 2019) Article 140a, UCMJ, should be implemented so as to require 

collection of the following information with respect to allegations of both adult-victim and child-victim sexual 

offenses, within the meaning of Articles 120, 120b, and 125, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. §§ 920, 920b, and 925 (2016)): 

a. A summary of the initial complaint giving rise to a criminal investigation by a military criminal investigative 

organization (MCIO) concerning a military member who is subject to the UCMJ, and how the complaint 

became known to law enforcement;

b. Whether an unrestricted report of sexual assault originated as a restricted report;

c. Demographic data pertaining to each victim and accused, including race and sex;

d. The nature of any relationship between the accused and the victim(s);

e. The initial disposition decision under Rule for Court-Martial 306, including the decision to take no action, 

and the outcome of any administrative action, any disciplinary action, or any case in which one or more 

charges of sexual assault were preferred, through the completion of court-martial and appellate review;

f. Whether a victim requested an expedited transfer or a transfer of the accused, and the result of that request;

g. Whether a victim declined to participate at any point in the military justice process;
E-3

APPENDIX E: COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO DATE

h. Whether a defense counsel requested expert assistance on behalf of a military accused, whether those 

requests were approved by a convening authority or military judge, and whether the government availed 

itself of expert assistance; and

i. The duration of each completed military criminal investigation, and any additional time taken to complete 

administrative or disciplinary action against the accused.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 12 – (March 2019) The Services may retain their respective electronic case 

management systems for purposes of managing their military justice organizations, provided that:

a. The Services use the same uniform standards and definitions to refer to common procedures and substantive 

offenses in the Manual for Courts-Martial, as required by Article 140a; and

b. The Services develop a plan to transition toward operating one uniform case management system across 

all of the Services, similar to the federal judiciary’s Case Management/ Electronic Court Filing (CM/ECF) 

system.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 13 – (March 2019) The Secretary of Defense (and the Secretary of Homeland 

Security with respect to the Coast Guard when not operating as a service in the Navy) expand the expedited transfer 

policy to include victims who file restricted reports of sexual assault. The victim’s report would remain restricted and 

there would be no resulting investigation. The DAC-IPAD further recommends the following requirements:

a. The decision authority in such cases should be an O-6 or flag officer at the Service headquarters 

organization in charge of military assignments, rather than the victim’s commander.

b. The victim’s commander and senior enlisted leader, at both the gaining and losing installations, should be 

informed of the sexual assault and the fact that the victim has requested an expedited transfer—without 

being given the subject’s identity or other facts of the case—thereby enabling them to appropriately 

advise the victim on career impacts of an expedited transfer request and ensure that the victim is receiving 

appropriate medical or mental health care.

c. A sexual assault response coordinator, victim advocate, or special victims’ counsel (SVC) / victims’ legal 

counsel (VLC) must advise the victim of the potential consequences of filing a restricted report and 

requesting an expedited transfer, such as the subject not being held accountable for his or her actions and 

the absence of evidence should the victim later decide to unrestrict his or her report.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 14 – (March 2019) The Secretary of Defense (in consultation with the Secretary 

of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when not operating as a service in the Navy) establish a 

working group to review whether victims should have the option to request that further disclosure or investigation 

of a sexual assault report be restricted in situations in which the member has lost the ability to file a restricted report, 

whether because a third party has reported the sexual assault or because the member has disclosed the assault to 

a member of the chain of command or to military law enforcement. The working group’s goal should be to find 

a feasible solution that would, in appropriate circumstances, allow the victim to request that the investigation 

be terminated. The working group should consider under what circumstances, such as in the interests of justice 

and safety, a case may merit further investigation regardless of the victim’s wishes; it should also consider whether 

existing safeguards are sufficient to ensure that victims are not improperly pressured by the subject, or by others, to 

request that the investigation be terminated. This working group should consider developing such a policy with the 

following requirements:
E-4

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

a. The victim be required to meet with an SVC or VLC before signing a statement requesting that the 

investigation be discontinued, so that the SVC or VLC can advise the victim of the potential consequences 

of closing the investigation.

b. The investigative agent be required to obtain supervisory or MCIO headquarters-level approval to close a 

case in these circumstances.

c. The MCIOs be aware of and take steps to mitigate a potential perception by third-party reporters that 

allegations are being ignored when they see that no investigation is taking place; such steps could include 

notifying the third-party reporter of the MCIO’s decision to honor the victim’s request.

d. Cases in which the subject is in a position of authority over the victim be excluded from such a policy.

e. If the MCIO terminates the investigation at the request of the victim, no adverse administrative or 

disciplinary action may be taken against the subject based solely on the reporting witness’s allegation of 

sexual assault.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 15 – (March 2019) The Secretary of Defense (and the Secretary of Homeland 

Security with respect to the Coast Guard when not operating as a service in the Navy) revise the DoD expedited 

transfer policy (and the policy governing the Coast Guard with respect to expedited transfers) to include the 

following points:

a. The primary goal of the DoD expedited transfer policy is to act in the best interests of the victim. 

Commanders should focus on that goal when they make decisions regarding such requests.

b. The single, overriding purpose of the expedited transfer policy is to assist in the victim’s mental, physical, 

and emotional recovery from the trauma of sexual assault. This purpose statement should be followed by 

examples of reasons why a victim might request an expedited transfer and how such a transfer would assist 

in a victim’s recovery (e.g., proximity to the subject or to the site of the assault at the current location, 

ostracism or retaliation at the current location, proximity to a support network of family or friends at the 

requested location, and the victim’s desire for a fresh start following the assault).

c. The requirement that a commander determine that a report be credible is not aligned with the core 

purpose of the expedited transfer policy. It should be eliminated, and instead an addition should be made 

to the criteria that commanders must consider in making a decision on an expedited transfer request: “any 

evidence that the victim’s report is not credible.”

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 16 – (March 2019) Congress increase the amount of time allotted to a commander 

to process an expedited transfer request from 72 hours to no more than five workdays.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 17 – (March 2019) The Services track and report the following data in order to best 

evaluate the expedited transfer program:

a. Data on the number of expedited transfer requests by victims; the grade and job title of the requester; the 

sex and race of the requester; the origin installation; whether the requester was represented by an SVC/

VLC; the requested transfer locations; the actual transfer locations; whether the transfer was permanent 

or temporary; the grade and title of the decision maker and appeal authority, if applicable; the dates of the 

sexual assault report, transfer request, approval or disapproval decision and appeal decision, and transfer; 

and the disposition of the sexual assault case, if final.
E-5

APPENDIX E: COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO DATE

b. Data on the number of accused transferred; the grade and job title of the accused; the sex and race of the 

accused; the origin installation; the transfer installation; the grade and title of the decision maker; the 

dates of the sexual assault report and transfer; whether the transfer was permanent or temporary; and the 

disposition of the sexual assault case, if final.

c. Data on victim participation in investigation/prosecution before and after an expedited transfer.

d. Data on the marital status (and/or number of dependents) of victims of sexual assault who request expedited 

transfers and accused Service members who are transferred under this program.

e. Data on the type of sexual assault offense (penetrative or contact) reported by victims requesting expedited 

transfers.

f. Data on Service retention rates for sexual assault victims who receive expedited transfers compared with 

sexual assault victims who do not receive expedited transfers and with other Service members of similar rank 

and years of service.

g. Data on the career progression for sexual assault victims who receive expedited transfers compared with 

sexual assault victims who do not receive expedited transfers and with other Service members of similar rank 

and years of service.

h. Data on victim satisfaction with the expedited transfer program.

i. Data on the expedited transfer request rate of Service members who make unrestricted reports of sexual 

assault.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 18 – (March 2019) The Secretaries of the Military Departments (and the Secretary 

of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when not operating as a service in the Navy) incorporate 

into policy, for those sexual assault victims who request it, an option to attend a transitional care program at a 

military medical facility, Wounded Warrior center, or other facility in order to allow those victims sufficient time 

and resources to heal from the trauma of sexual assault.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 19 – (March 2020) The Department of Defense should publish a memorandum 

outlining sufficiently specific data collection requirements to ensure that the Military Services use uniform methods, 

definitions, and timelines when reporting data on collateral misconduct (or, where appropriate, the Department 

should submit a legislative proposal to Congress to amend section 547 [of the FY19 NDAA] by clarifying certain 

methods, definitions, and timelines). The methodology and definitions should incorporate the following principles:

a.Definition of “sexual offense”:

• The definition of “sexual offense” for purposes of reporting collateral misconduct should include

– Both penetrative and non-penetrative violations of Article 120, UCMJ (either the current or a prior 

version, whichever is applicable at the time of the offense);

– Violations of Article 125, UCMJ, for allegations of sodomy occurring prior to the 2019 version of 

the UCMJ; and

– Attempts, conspiracies, and solicitations of all of the above.
E-6

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

·The definition of sexual offense should not include violations of Article 120b, UCMJ (Rape and sexual assault of a 

child); Article 120c, UCMJ (Other sexual misconduct); Article 130, UCMJ (Stalking); or previous versions of those 

statutory provisions.

b.Definition of “collateral misconduct”:

• Current DoD policy defines “collateral misconduct” as “[v]ictim misconduct that might be in time, 

place, or circumstance associated with the victim’s sexual offense incident.”1

• However, a more specific definition of collateral misconduct is necessary for purposes of the section 547 

reporting requirement. That recommended definition should read as follows: “Any misconduct by the 

victim that is potentially punishable under the UCMJ, committed close in time to or during the sexual 

offense, and directly related to the incident that formed the basis of the sexual offense allegation. The 

collateral misconduct must have been discovered as a direct result of the report of the sexual offense 

and/or the ensuing investigation into the sexual offense.”

• Collateral misconduct includes (but is not limited to) the following situations:

– The victim was in an unprofessional or adulterous relationship with the accused at the time of the 

assault.2

– The victim was drinking underage or using illicit substances at the time of the assault.

– The victim was out past curfew, was at an off-limits establishment, or was violating barracks/

dormitory/berthing policy at the time of the assault.

• To ensure consistency across the Military Services, collateral misconduct, for purposes of this report, 

should not include the following situations (the list is not exhaustive):

– The victim is under investigation or receiving disciplinary action for misconduct and subsequently 

makes a report of a sexual offense.

– The victim used illicit substances at some time after the assault, even if the use may be attributed to 

coping with trauma.

– The victim engaged in misconduct after reporting the sexual offense.

– The victim had previously engaged in an unprofessional or adulterous relationship with the subject, 

but had terminated the relationship prior to the assault.

– The victim engaged in misconduct that is not close in time to the sexual offense, even if it was 

reasonably foreseeable that such misconduct would be discovered during the course of the 

investigation (such as the victim engaging in an adulterous relationship with an individual other 

than the subject).

– The victim is suspected of making a false allegation of a sexual offense.

1 Dep’t of Def. Instr. 6495.02, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program Procedures, Glossary (March 28, 2013, Incorporating 

Change 3, May 24, 2017), 117. 

2 For purposes of this report, an “unprofessional relationship” is a relationship between the victim and accused that violated law, regulation, or policy in 

place at the time of the assault.
E-7

APPENDIX E: COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO DATE

– The victim engaged in misconduct during the reporting or investigation of the sexual offense (such 

as making false official statements during the course of the investigation).

c. Methodology for identifying sexual offense cases and victims:

• To identify sexual offense cases and victims, all closed cases from the relevant time frame that list at least 

one of the above included sexual offenses as a crime that was investigated should be collected from the 

MCIOs.

• A case is labeled “closed” after a completed MCIO investigation has been submitted to a commander 

to make an initial disposition decision, any action taken by the commander has been completed, and 

documentation of the outcome has been provided to the MCIO.3

• Each Military Service should identify all of its Service member victims from all closed cases from the 

relevant time frame, even if the case was investigated by another Military Service’s MCIO.

d. Time frame for collection of data:

• The Military Services should report collateral misconduct data for the two most recent fiscal years 

preceding the report due date for which data are available. The data should be provided separately for 

each fiscal year and should include only closed cases as defined above. For example, the Department’s 

report due September 30, 2021, should include data for closed cases from fiscal years 2019 and 2020.

e. Definition of “covered individual”:

• Section 547 of the FY19 NDAA defines “covered individual” as “an individual who is identified as 

a victim of a sexual offense in the case files of a military criminal investigative organization.” This 

definition should be clarified as follows: “an individual identified in the case files of an MCIO as a 

victim of a sexual offense while in title 10 status.”

• For the purposes of this study, victims are those identified in cases closed during the applicable time 

frame.

f. Replacement of the term “accused”:

• Section 547 of the FY19 NDAA uses the phrase “accused of collateral misconduct.” To more accurately 

capture the frequency with which collateral misconduct is occurring, the term “accused of” should be 

replaced with the term “suspected of,” defined as follows: instances in which the MCIO’s investigation 

reveals facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the victim committed 

an offense under the UCMJ.4

· Examples of a victim suspected of collateral misconduct include (but are not limited to) the following 

situations:

3 This definition of “closed case” mirrors the definition used by the DAC-IPAD’s Case Review Working Group. 

4 Cf. United States v. Cohen, 63 M.J. 45, 50 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (stating that determining whether a person is a “suspect” entitled to warnings under Article 

31(b) prior to interrogation “is an objective question that is answered by considering all the facts and circumstances at the time of the interview to 

determine whether the military questioner believed or reasonably should have believed that the servicemember committed an offense”) (internal 

citations omitted).
E-8

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

– The victim disclosed engaging in conduct that could be a violation of the UCMJ (and was collateral 

to the offense).

– Another witness in the investigation stated that the victim engaged in conduct that could be a 

violation of the UCMJ (and was collateral to the offense).

– The subject of the investigation stated that the victim engaged in conduct that could be a violation 

of the UCMJ (and was collateral to the offense). 

– In the course of the sexual offense investigation, an analysis of the victim’s phone, urine, or blood 

reveals evidence that the victim engaged in conduct that could be a violation of the UCMJ (and was 

collateral to the offense).

• This definition of “suspected of” does not require preferral of charges, a formal investigation, or 

disciplinary action against the victim for the collateral misconduct. However, if any of those actions has 

occurred regarding collateral misconduct, or if there is evidence of collateral misconduct from other 

sources available, such victims should also be categorized as suspected of collateral misconduct even if 

the MCIO case file does not contain the evidence of such misconduct.

– For example, if in pretrial interviews the victim disclosed collateral misconduct, such a victim would 

be counted as suspected of collateral misconduct.

g. Definition of “adverse action”: 

• The term “adverse action” applies to an officially documented command action that has been initiated 

against the victim in response to the collateral misconduct.

• Adverse actions required to be documented in collateral misconduct reports are limited to the following:

– Letter of reprimand (or Military Service equivalent) or written record of individual counseling in 

official personnel file;

– Imposition of nonjudicial punishment;

– Preferral of charges; or

– Initiation of an involuntary administrative separation proceeding.

• The Committee recommends limiting the definition of adverse action to the above list for purposes of 

this reporting requirement to ensure consistency and accuracy across the Military Services in reporting 

and to avoid excessive infringement on victim privacy. The Committee recognizes the existence of 

other adverse administrative proceedings or actions that could lead to loss of special or incentive pay, 

administrative reduction of grade, loss of security clearance, bar to reenlistment, adverse performance 

evaluation (or Military Service equivalent), or reclassification. 

h. Methodology for counting “number of instances”:

• Cases in which a victim is suspected of more than one type of collateral misconduct should be counted 

only once; where collateral misconduct is reported by type, it should be counted under the most serious 

type of potential misconduct (determined by UCMJ maximum punishment) or, if the victim received 

adverse action, under the most serious collateral misconduct identified in the adverse action.
E-9

APPENDIX E: COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO DATE

·For cases in which a victim received more than one type of adverse action identified above, such as nonjudicial 

punishment and administrative separation, reporting should include both types of adverse action.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 20 – (March 2020) Victims suspected of making false allegations of a sexual offense 

should not be counted as suspected of collateral misconduct. 

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 21 – (March 2020) For purposes of the third statistical data element required by 

section 547, the Department of Defense should report not only the percentage of all Service member victims who 

are suspected of collateral misconduct but also the percentage of the Service member victims who are suspected of 

collateral misconduct and then receive an adverse action for the misconduct. These two sets of statistics would better 

inform policymakers about the frequency with which collateral misconduct is occurring and the likelihood of a 

victim’s receiving an adverse action for collateral misconduct once they are suspected of such misconduct. 

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 22 – (March 2020) The Department of Defense should include in its report data on 

the number of collateral offenses that victims were suspected of by type of offense (using the methodology specified 

in section h of Recommendation 19) and the number and type of adverse actions taken for each of the offenses, if 

any. This additional information would aid policymakers in fully understanding and analyzing the issue of collateral 

misconduct and in preparing training and prevention programs.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 23 – (March 2020) To facilitate production of the future collateral misconduct 

reports required by section 547, the Military Services should employ standardized internal documentation of 

sexual offense cases involving Service member victims suspected of engaging in collateral misconduct as defined for 

purposes of this reporting requirement.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 24 – (June 2020) Secretaries of the Military Departments (and the Secretary of 

Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when not operating as a service in the Navy) enhance funding 

and training for SVCs/VLCs appointed to represent child victims, including authorization to hire civilian highly 

qualified experts (HQEs) with experience and expertise in representing child victims, including expertise in child 

development, within the SVC/VLC Programs. 

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 25 – (June 2020) In conjunction with Recommendation 24, the Judge Advocates 

General of the Military Services including the Coast Guard and the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the 

Marine Corps develop a cadre of identifiable SVCs/VLCs who have specialized training, experience, and expertise in 

representing child victims of sex-related offenses by utilizing military personnel mechanisms such as Additional Skill 

Identifiers.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 26 – (June 2020) The Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General and 

the Secretaries of the Military Departments (and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast 

Guard when not operating as a service in the Navy) assess whether the MCIOs and FAPs currently are providing 

accurate and timely notification to child victims of their right to request SVC/VLC representation as soon as an 

allegation of a sexual offense is reported, and if necessary take corrective action.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 27 – (June 2020) Congress amend 10 U.S.C. § 1044e to expand SVC/VLC 

eligibility to any child victim of a sex-related offense committed by an individual subject to the UCMJ.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 28 – (June 2020) Congress amend the UCMJ to authorize the military judge to 

direct the appointment of an SVC/VLC for a child victim of a sex-related offense and/or of an independent best 
E-10

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

interest advocate to advise the military judge when they find that the child’s interests are not otherwise adequately 

protected.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 29 – (June 2020) The Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the Military 

Departments (and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when not operating as a 

service in the Navy) develop a child victim advocate capability within each of the Services to support certain child 

victims of sexual offenses. The child victim advocate should reside within the SVC/VLC Programs and work as part 

of the SVC/VLC team in order to ensure that the child’s legal interests are fully represented and protected. The child 

victim advocate should have expertise in social work, child development, and family dynamics.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 30 – (June 2020) Congress amend Article 6b, UCMJ, to require that any 

representative who assumes the rights of the victim shall act to protect the victim’s interests; any such representative 

should be appointed as early as possible in the military justice process.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 31 – (June 2020) Provided that the Department of Defense adopts and implements 

DAC-IPAD Recommendations 24–30, it is not advisable or necessary to establish a military guardian ad litem 

program within the Department of Defense for child victims of alleged sex-related offenses in courts-martial.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 32 – (October 2020) Congress amend Article 34, UCMJ, to require the staff judge 

advocate to advise the convening authority in writing that there is sufficient admissible evidence to obtain and 

sustain a conviction on the charged offenses before a convening authority may refer a charge and specification to 

trial by general court-martial.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 33 – (December 2020) The Secretary of Defense designate the military personnel 

system as the primary data system in the DoD for the collection of demographic information such as race and 

ethnicity. All other DoD systems that collect demographic data regarding military personnel, such as the military 

criminal investigative system and the military justice system, should obtain demographic information on military 

personnel from the military personnel system. 

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 34 – (December 2020) The Secretary of Defense direct each Military Department 

to record race and ethnicity in military criminal investigative organization databases, military justice databases, and 

military personnel databases using the same racial and ethnic categories. The Secretary of Defense should direct each 

Military Department to report race using the following six categories: American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, 

Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, More Than One Race/Other, and White, and to 

report ethnicity using the following two categories: Hispanic or Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 35 – (December 2020) Congress authorize and appropriate funds for the Secretary 

of Defense to establish a pilot program operating one uniform, document-based data system for collecting and 

reporting contact and penetrative sexual offenses across all of the Military Services. The pilot program, which 

should cover every sexual offense allegation made against a Service member under the military’s jurisdiction that 

is investigated by a military criminal investigative organization (MCIO), will record case data from standardized 

source documents provided to the pilot program by the Military Services and will include demographic data 

pertaining to each victim and accused—including race and ethnicity.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 36 – (December 2020) The Secretary of Defense direct the Military Departments 

to record and track the race, ethnicity, sex, gender, age, and grade of the victim(s) and the accused for every 
E-11

APPENDIX E: COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO DATE

investigation initiated by military law enforcement in which a Service member is identified as a subject through the 

final disposition within the military justice system.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 37 – (December 2020) The Secretary of Defense direct the Military Departments 

to record, beginning in fiscal year 2022, the race and ethnicity of military police and criminal investigators, 

trial counsel, defense counsel, victims’ counsel, staff judge advocates, special and general convening authorities, 

preliminary hearing officers, military court-martial panels, military magistrates, and military trial and appellate 

court judges involved in every case investigated by military law enforcement in which a Service member is the 

subject of an allegation of a contact or penetrative sexual offense. The source information for these data should be 

collected from the military personnel databases and maintained for future studies by the DAC-IPAD on racial and 

ethnic disparities in cases involving contact and penetrative sexual offenses.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 38 – (December 2020) The Secretary of Defense direct the newly established 

Military Justice Review Panel to determine whether to review and assess, by functional roles and/or on an individual 

case basis, the race and ethnicity demographics of the various participants in the military justice process, including 

military police and criminal investigators, trial counsel, defense counsel, victims’ counsel, staff judge advocates, 

special and general convening authorities, preliminary hearing officers, military court-martial panels, military 

magistrates, and military trial and appellate court judges. 

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 39 – (December 2020) Once the Department of Defense has implemented new 

data collection processes as recommended in this report and as required pursuant to Article 140a, UCMJ, the 

Secretary of Defense direct the newly established Military Justice Review Panel to determine whether to review and 

assess racial and ethnic disparities in every aspect of the military justice system as part of its charter for periodic 

and comprehensive reviews. This review and assessment of racial and ethnic disparities should include, but not be 

limited to, cases involving sexual offenses.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 40 – (December 2020) The Secretary of Defense direct the Military Justice Review 

Panel to assess whether a uniform training system on explicit and implicit bias should be developed for all military 

personnel who perform duties in the military justice system, including military police and criminal investigators, 

trial counsel, defense counsel, victims’ counsel, staff judge advocates, special and general convening authorities, 

preliminary hearing officers, military court-martial panels, military magistrates, and military trial and appellate 

judges.
F-1

APPENDIX F: COMMITTEE REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

APPENDIX F. COMMITTEE REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

THE DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON

INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, AND DEFENSE OF

SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

13 June 2022 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL 

THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE TO THE COMMANDANT 

SUBJECT: Request for Information for Appellate Decisions in Military Sexual Assault Cases 

 The DoD General Counsel directed the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation,

Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (DAC-IPAD) to conduct a

comprehensive study of appellate decisions in military sexual assault cases, focusing on recurring

appellate issues that arise in such cases, and provide a report of the results of that study. (Encl 1)

 I respectfully ask your staffs to provide our staff with the responses specified in the Request for

Information by the date requested (Encl 2).

 Thank you for your support of this important project. My POC is Mr. Chuck Mason, Data Lead, 

at (571) 296-5303 or robert.c.mason2.civ@mail.mil.

 JEFF A. BOVARNICK 

 Colonel, U.S. Army 

 Staff Director 

2 Encls 

As stated 

cc: 

Mr. Dwight Sullivan (DoD OGC) 

Service Representatives 

Appendix F. Committee Requests for Information
F-2

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and 

Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (DAC-IPAD)

Request for Information from The Army Service Judge Advocate General 13 June 2022 

Appellate Decisions in Military Sexual Assault Cases: Documents

1

I. Purpose

1. In a memorandum dated 28 January 2022 (attached), the Department of Defense (DoD)

General Counsel (GC) directed the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution,

and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (DAC-IPAD) to conduct a comprehensive

study of appellate decisions in military sexual assault cases, focusing on recurring appellate

issues that arise in such cases, and provide a report of the results of that study.

II. Authority

1. The DoD GC is the Chief Legal Officer of the DoD (10 U.S.C. § 140); this position is

appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.

2. The DAC-IPAD is a federal advisory committee established by the Secretary of Defense

pursuant to section 546 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public

Law 113-291), as amended.

3. The mission of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Defense on the investigation,

prosecution, and defense of allegations of rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault, and other sexual

misconduct involving members of the Armed Forces.

4. The DAC-IPAD requests the assistance of the Military Services to provide the requested

information by the suspense date indicated below.

III. Suspense

Suspense RFI Proponent – Military Services

13 July 2022 Documents Service TJAG provide documents, as provided in Section IV 

below, for all cases identified in Attachment 1. 

IV. Information Requested:

Case Documents 

Provide electronic copies (PDFs) of the following documents, as applicable. (If your Service 

does not use the specified DD form, please provide Service-equivalent documents.): 

1. DD Form 458, Charge Sheet

2. DD Form 2707-1, Report of Result of Trial

3. Statement of Trial Results

4. Convening Authority Action

5. Entry of Judgment

Appendix F. Committee Requests for Information
F-3

APPENDIX F: COMMITTEE REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

DAC-IPAD Request for Information 

Appellate Decisions in Military Sexual Assault Cases: Documents

2

ATTACHMENT 1 – Army cases resulting in appellate decision in FY21 

Please provide the requested documents for each of the following cases: 

Name:

ACCA Docket #

(unless otherwise 

noted):

United States v. First Lieutenant Samuel B. BADDERS 20200735

United States v. Staff Sergeant Michael J. GUINN 20170500

United States v. Sergeant Frank K. HERTEL 20200348

United States v. Staff Sergeant Jerry D. CLEVELAND 20170496

United States v. Private First Class Isaac MCLEOD 20200330

United States v. PrivateE2 Jacob G. GRIEGO 20160487

United States v. First Lieutenant Joel R. LESTER 20190593

United States v. Master Sergeant John T. LONG 20150160

United States v. Specialist Robert HUNT 20200158

United States v. Private First Class Kemen CROSS 20200029

United States v. Private First Class Arturo J. RUIZ 20200243

United States v. Specialist Brandon HOELLE 20200519

United States v. Private E2 Tucker A. WRIGHT 20200496

United States v. Staff Sergeant Michael J. HALE 20200468

United States v. Staff Sergeant Zachary CLONCS 20200547

United States v. Private E1 Devon S. ROSS 20200286

United States v. Private First Class Wendell W CARPENTER IV 20200397

United States v. Corporal James K. MORPHEW 20200338

United States v. Private First Class Tyler D. MORGAN 20200247

United States v. Specialist Stephen M. HOLTSCLAW 20200141

United States v. Specialist Jaquez DAVIS 20200463

United States v. Specialist Shane M. KRIETE 20200500

United States v. Specialist Jacob A. STRICKLAND 20200167

United States v. Payton CORK 20200418

United States v. Sergeant David T. BURGIN 20200204

United States v. Kevin K. MCGUIRE 20200349

United States v. Specialist Lewron C. LACEY 20200284

United States v. Staff Sergeant Brian R. MILLISER 20200484

United States v. Staff Sergeant Jason A. LOPEZ 20170386

United States v. Staff Sergeant Aaron G. HEARD (II) 20200021

United States v. Staff Sergeant Joshua MB. TOBIAS 20200169

United States v. Private First Class Nicholas D. HAYES 20190834

United States v. Sergeant Gary A. HEMMINGSEN 20180611

United States v. Sergeant Jesus MENDOZA 20200254

United States v. Staff Sergeant Alejandro M. FIGUEROA 20200143

United States v. Specialist Nihan G. JOHNNIE 20200490

Appendix F. Committee Requests for Information
F-4

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

DAC-IPAD Request for Information 

Appellate Decisions in Military Sexual Assault Cases: Documents

3

United States v. Staff Sergeant Christopher D. BROWN 20200488

United States v. Sergeant Andre B. REDDING-WILLIAMS 20200444

United States v. Specialist Marquise J. MILLER 20200268

United States v. Sergeant Albert YEBOAH 20200529

United States v. Private E2 Fred L. BURGESS 20200055

United States v. Sergeant Joshua PRUETT 20180368

United States v. Specialist Jesse E. SPYKER 20200483

United States v. Private E1 Davione GERMANY 20200564

United States v. Captain Luis L. BALLESTEROS 20200319

United States v. Private First Class Lavon C. BLAYLOCK 20200395

United States v. Sergeant First Class Jose RAMOS 20200291

United States v. Private E2 Shaquan DOBSON 20200531

United States v. Specialist Noah J. KREBS 20200511

United States v. Private E1 Zachary TILLMAN 20200305

United States v. Sergeant Nathaniel J. ASHCROFT 20200317

United States v. Sergeant Glenn S. SMITH, JR. 20200229

United States v. Private E2 Maurice D. PIERCE 20200231

United States v. Specialist Kelvin SANTOS 20200223

United States v. Private First Class Noah M. RANES 20200301

United States v. Private E1 Ikeem K. SINGLETON 20200292

United States v. Specialist Deshawn E. STURKEY 20200351

United States v. Specialist Thomas M. WALKER 20200210

United States v. Private E1 Isaiah R. HIGHSMITH 20200527

United States v. Specialist Rasheed A. WALKER 20200212

United States v. Sergeant Eric J. BROOKS 20200258

United States v. Private First Class Isaiah M. HACKWORTH 20200026

United States v. Sergeant James E. BOWMAN 20190396

United States v. Private First Class Rodney GREEN 20200285

United States v. Sergeant Raymundo SOLORZANO 20200089

United States v. Private E1 Gabriel O. INABOYA 20200222

United States v. Specialist Christopher S. CROTTY 20200072

United States v. First Lieutenant Jonathan MELGARROCA 20200022

United States v. Specialist Hubert STEPTOE 20200208

United States v. Sergeant Elijahawon HENDERSON 20190744

United States v. Private First Class Logan P. SMITH 20200253

United States v. Specialist Ryan D. HARVEY 20200192

United States v. Private E2 Kurtis J. GILBERT 20200198

United States v. Sergeant Christopher R. SALCIDO 20200172

United States v. Specialist Jon A. CHILDS 20190845

United States v. Private First Class Andre J. FELTON 20190214

United States v. Staff Sergeant Danny L. MCPHERSON 20180214

United States v. Specialist Jeremy N. NAVARETTE 20160786

United States v. Sergeant Clovis H. CASTRO 20190408

Appendix F. Committee Requests for Information
F-5

APPENDIX F: COMMITTEE REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

DAC-IPAD Request for Information 

Appellate Decisions in Military Sexual Assault Cases: Documents

4

United States v. Second Lieutenant Kevin M. FURTH 20180191

United States v. Sergeant First Class Dashaun K. HENRY 20190688

United States v. Major Jason A. SCOTT 20170242

United States v. Fernando QUINONES-COLON, JR. 20200092

United State v. Leshan JONES 20190254

United States v. Glenn S. SMITH 20200229

In re Ramon M. MARRERO 20210358, 20200495

United States v. Erik D. JENKINS 20110673

United States v. Carlos MUNIZ, JR. 20200092

United States v. Montana J. MILLER 20190597

United States v. Stephen S. LEE 20180001

United States v. Sergeant Anthony R. HALE 20180407

United States v. Nidal M. HASAN 20130781

United States v. Master Sergeant Theodore NALEZYNSKI 20200038

United States v. Private E1 Cristian FIGUEROA 20200059

United States v. Staff Sergeant Robert C. MCKEE 20190680

United States v. Private First Class Nathaniel A. MEADOWS 20190260

United States v. Staff Sergeant Mark MENESES 20190636

United States v. Private First Class Jerrica DANIELS 20190696

United States v. Specialist Robert BARNETT 20190709

United States v. Sergeant Terry J. SINGLETON 20200279

United States v. Sergeant Vanessa L. LANCASTER 20190852

United States v. Lieutenant Colonel Mark W. CHRISTENSEN 20190197

United States v. Staff Sergeant David C. TATE 20180477

United States v. Chief Warrant Officer Two Abdul M. SHUFORD 20190594

United States v. Private First Class Eddie R. HOLLAND 20200311

United States v. Sergeant Clifford PARKER 20180672

United States v. Specialist Terron CLEMMONS 20180581

United States v. Sergeant Robert B. BERGDAHL 20200588

United States v. Private E2 Brian C. HOTALING 20190360

United States v. Sergeant Jared D. CRAIN 20190265

United States v. Sergeant Matthew D. LEMIRE 20190129

United States v. Private E2 Andre FOWLER, JR. 20190751

United States v. Sergeant First Class Ianclaire E. MALLARI 20200508

United States v. Private E2 Romon L. HAMMOND 20200168

United States v. Private E2 Joshua A. FINDLAYTER 20200030

United States v. Private First Class Demetrius J. SLAUGHTER 20200110

United States v. Specialist Matthew LEWANDOWSKI 20190714

United States v. Specialist- Logan T. KYLE 20190372

United States v. Specialist Rashad S. RICKARDS 20190229

United States v. Warrant Officer One Hashim M. MILLER 20200170

United States v. Private First Class Kevin SMITH 20190832

United States v. Private First Class Conner B. HISER 20190325

Appendix F. Committee Requests for Information
F-6

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

DAC-IPAD Request for Information 

Appellate Decisions in Military Sexual Assault Cases: Documents

5

United States v. Private First Class Justin C. GAINES 20190153

United States v. Private First Class Julian PAYNE 20200165

United States v. Staff Sergeant Adrian INGRAM 20190610

United States v. Specialist Alan I. CESPEDES-MARINO 20190728

United States v. Private First Class Pablo PADILLA 20200213

United States v. Specialist Matthew K. SNYDER 20200123

United States v. Major Jason M. SARTORI 20190052

United States v. Sergeant Brian M. WINTERS 20200174

United States v. Private E1 Louis F. ESPINOSA III 20190539

United States v. Colonel Robert J. RICE 20160695

United States v. Specialist Ronald C. GIVENS 20190132

Appendix F. Committee Requests for Information
F-7

APPENDIX F: COMMITTEE REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

THE DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON

INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, AND DEFENSE OF

SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

One Liberty Center • 875 North Randolph Street • Suite 150 • Arlington • Virginia 22203

26 July 2022

MEMORANDUM FOR THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL 

THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE TO THE COMMANDANT 

SUBJECT: Requests for Information Regarding Military Justice Issues

1. On June 22, 2022, at the23rd Public Meeting of theDefenseAdvisory Committee on

Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (DAC-IPAD),

theCommitteereceived testimony on the status of creation of theOffices of Special Trial

Counsel, appointment of Lead Special Trial Counsel, precept language utilized in officer

promotions, and diversity within the Judge AdvocateGenerals’ Corps.

2. I respectfully ask your staffs to provide our staff with the responses specified in the

Requests for Information by the date requested (Encls 1 and 2).

3. Thank you for your support of this important project. My POC is Mr. Chuck Mason,

DataLead, at (571) 296-5303 or robert.c.mason2.civ@mail.mil.

JEFF A. BOVARNICK 

 Colonel, U.S. Army

Staff Director 

2 Encls 

As stated 

cc: 

Mr. Dwight Sullivan (DoD OGC) 

Service Representatives

Appendix F. Committee Requests for Information

F-7
F-8

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and

Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (DAC-IPAD)

Request for Information from Service Judge Advocates General

26 July 2022 

Creation of Offices of Special Trial Counsel and Related Issues

1

I. Purpose

1. In a memorandum dated 11 March 2022 (attached), the Secretary of Defense established

policies governing Offices of Special Trial Counsel (OSTC) for the Military Departments and

required such policies “be incorporated in issuances promulgated by the Secretary of each

Military Department to be issued within 180 days of the date of the memorandum.” Further the

memorandum provided that Services identify recommended nominees for Lead Special Trial

Counsel (LSTC) no later than September 30, 2022.

2. On June 22, 2022, at the 23rd Public Meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on

Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (DAC-IPAD),

the Committee received testimony on the status of the creation of the OSTC and appointments of

the LSTC.

3. With the understanding that some of the covered offenses subject to disposition by the OSTC

include sexual assault crimes, the DAC-IPAD has expressed an interest in further understanding

the role of the OSTC and LSTC and potential impacts to investigation, prosecution and defense

of these offenses.

4. Additionally, the DAC-IPAD is interested if judge advocates serving in specialized military

justice billets, such as special victim prosecutors or Service-specific military justice tracks, have

specific or additional precept language for promotion boards that differentiates such billets from

operational or administrative law billets during the promotion process.

II. Authority

1. The DAC-IPAD is a federal advisory committee established by the Secretary of Defense

pursuant to section 546 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015

(Public Law 113-291), as amended.

2. The mission of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Defense on the investigation,

prosecution, and defense of allegations of rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault, and other sexual

misconduct involving members of the Armed Forces.

3. The DAC-IPAD requests the assistance of the Military Departments to provide the requested

information by the suspense date indicated below.

Appendix F. Committee Requests for Information
F-9

APPENDIX F: COMMITTEE REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

DAC-IPAD Request for Information

Creation of Offices of Special Trial Counsel and Related Issues

2

III. Suspense

Suspense RFI Proponent – Military Services

9 Sep 2022 Documents Service TJAG provide precept language, as provided in 

Section IV, Request 1.

9 Sep 2022 Documents Service TJAG provide materials related to creation of the 

OSTC, as provided in Section IV, Request 2.

9 Sep 2022 Documents Service TJAG provide competency/qualification criteria, as 

provided in Section IV, Request 3.

IV. Information Requested

1. The precept language provided to board members for Fiscal Years 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022

promotion boards for judge advocates to pay grades, O-4, O-5, and O-6.

2. All issuances and/or guidance by Secretaries of the Military Departments, as required by the

Secretary of Defense memorandum (above), establishing and incorporating policies pertaining to

the creation of Offices of Special Trial Counsel.

3. The competency and/or qualification standards or policies used in the process of identifying

qualified nominees for the Lead Special Trial Counsel position.

Appendix F. Committee Requests for Information
F-10

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

1000 DEFENSE PENTAGON 

WASHINGTON, DC 20301-1000 

MEMORANDUM FOR SECRET ARIES OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS 

SUBJECT: Policies Governing Offices of Special Trial Counsel 

MAR 11 2022 

In accordance with title 10, U.S. Code, section 1044f, as enacted by section 532 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022, effective immediately, I establish 

the following policies for the Military Departments' Offices of Special Trial CoW1sel and their 

personnel. These policies will be incorporated in issuances promulgated by the Secretary of each 

Military Department to be issued within 180 days of the date of this memorandum. 

I. Mission

The mission of the Offices of Special Trial Counsel is to provide expert, specialized, 

independent, and ethical representation of the United States, under the direct civilian control of 

the Secretary of the applicable Military Department, in the investigation and trial-level litigation 

of covered offenses as prescribed by article 1 ( 17) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 

U.S.C. § 801(17), and other offenses over which the offices exercise authority. 

II. Offices' Establishment

A. Not later than December 27, 2023, the Secretaries of the Military Departments will

ensure that an Office of Special Trial Counsel with respect to each Military Service

within their respective Military Department is at full operational capability,

recognizing that those offices cannot exercise the authorities newly enacted by the

National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2022 with respect to offenses that occur

before December 28, 2023. In preparation for full operational capability, the

Secretaries of the Military Departments will take the following actions, completion of

which will be reported to the General Counsel of the Department of Defense:

1. Not later than July 15, 2022, establish the Offices of Special Trial Counsel.

For purposes of initial operational capability, the Department of the Air Force

may establish a single Office of Special Trial Counsel for both the Air Force

and the Space Force.

2. Not later than September 30, 2022, identify recommended nominees for Lead

Special Trial Counsel.

3. Not later than October 15, 2022, identify Special Trial Counsel.

4. Not later than December 31, 2022, develop and issue initial training and

education policies for the Offices of Special Trial Counsel.

11111111111111111111111 lllillllllll 

0SO001504-22ICMD001846-22 

Appendix F. Committee Requests for Information

F-10
F-11

APPENDIX F: COMMITTEE REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

5. Not later than January 1. 2023, or such later date on which each Lead Special

Trial Counsel is confirmed and appointed as a general or flag officer, assign.

and where applicable ensure the permanent change of station of, Lead Special

Trial Counsel to that permanent general/flag officer position.

6. Not later than August 31, 2023, assign or detail, and where applicable ensure

the permanent change of station of, judge advocates to fill the Special Trial

Counsel positions. Until December 27, 2023, either (a) the Lead Special Trial

Counsel, or (b) if the Lead Special Trial Counsel has not yet been appointed,

the Secretary of the Military Department concerned may make Special Trial

Counsel available to perform duties outside of the Office of Special Trial

Counsel, provided that the primary duty of the Special Trial Counsel is within

the Office of Special Trial Counsel. This authority of the Lead Special Trial

Counsel or the Secretary of the Military Department concerned may not be

delegated. Beginning on December 27, 2023, the provisions of para. IV.B.4

will apply.

7. Not later than July 1, 2023, establish standard operating procedures for the

Offices of Special Trial Counsel, including the reciprocal agreements required

by para. III.B.2.

B. Pursuant to section 958(b)(l) of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2020,

Public Law No. I 16•92 (2019), the Secretary of the Air Force may designate a single

Space Force judge advocate to be the Lead Special Trial Counsel for both the Air

Force and the Space Force.

III. Offices, Functions

A. All Lead Special Trial Counsel, Special Trial Counsel, and other support personnel

deemed appropriate by the Secretary of the Military Department concerned will be

assigned to an Office of Special Trial Counsel, which will supervise and oversee the

United States' legal representation in the investigation and trial-level litigation of

covered offenses as defined by article l (17) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice,

10 U.S.C. § 801(17), and other offenses over which the office exercises authority.

B. Independence

1. The Offices of Special Trial Counsel will operate independently of the

military chains of command of both the victims of alleged covered offenses

and those accused of covered offenses as defined by article 1 (I 7) of the

Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 801(17), and any other

offenses over which the offices exercise authority.

2. The Military Departments will enter into reciprocal agreements to provide for

the legal representation of the United State$ in the investigation and trial-level

litigation by another Military Service's Office of Special Trial Counsel of any

2 

Appendix F. Committee Requests for Information

F-11
F-12

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

offense over which an Office of Special Trial Counsel is precluded from 

exercising authority because either the alleged offender or victim is a member 

of the relevant Office of Special Trial Counsel (see para. III.B. I). 

3. Special Trial Counsel will conduct their assigned activities free from unlawful

or otherwise unauthorized influence or coercion.

IV. Personnel

A, Office Head 

1. Each Office of Special Trial Counsel will be headed by a general or flag

officer with significant military justice experience with the title, "Lead Special

Trial Counsel."

2. To promote both the appearance and the actuality of independence to the

maximum extent possible, each Lead Special Trial Counsel will serve for a

specified fixed term of not less than three years, with an option for that tenn to

be renewed for a subsequent fixed term or terms of any length. A Lead

Special Trial Counsel may be relieved of duty prior to the end or his or her

term only for cause, unless he or she leaves active duty or is promoted. The

Secretaries of the Military Departments will promulgate issuances governing

the grollilds and procedures for relieving a Lead Special Trial Counsel for

cause, Only the Secretary of the Military Department concerned or the

Secretary's superior may relieve a Lead Special Trial Counsel for cause.

3. Each Lead Special Trial Counsel will report directly to the Secretary of the

Military Department concerned with no intervening authority.

4. No Lead Special Trial Counsel may be assigned any additional duties with the

following exception. If favorably endorsed by a Lead Special Trial Counsel, a

request for that Lead Special Trial Counsel to serve on an officer promotion

selection board may, at the discretion of the Secretary of the Military

Department, be granted.

5. No Lead Special Trial Counsel may be supervised or rated by anyone other

than the Secretary of the applicable Military Department.

6. In cases over which an Office of Special Trial Counsel exercises authority, the

Lead Special Trial Counsel of the applicable Military Service will have

exclusive authority to determine whether to file an appeal under Article 62 of

the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. § 862), in consultation with

appellate government counsel in the office of the Judge Advocate General of

the applicable Military Department. Appellate government counsel will

litigate those appeals on behaJf of the United States and are responsible for the

substance and content of submissions to the appellate courts.

3 

Appendix F. Committee Requests for Information

F-12
F-13

APPENDIX F: COMMITTEE REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

B. Special Trial Counsel

I. Special Trial Counsel will be assigned to the Office of Special Trial Counsel

for a fixed term of not less than three years. Those assignments may, with the

permission of the applicable Judge Advocate General or, in the case of Marine

Corps judge advocates, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, be renewed for

subsequent fixed terms of any length. Each Military Department's issuance

governing its Office or Offices of Special Trial Counsel will provide that a

Special Ttial Counsel may be released before the end of the fixed term only if

the Special Trial Counsel leaves active duty or at the direction or with the

permission of the Lead Special Trial Counsel with notice to the applicable

Judge Advocate General or, in the case of Marine Corps judge advocates, the

Commandant of the Marine Corps.

2. Special Trial Counsel will be higWy skilled, experienced, well-trained, and

competent in handling the investigation and trial-level litigation of covered

offenses.

3. Special Trial Counsel will be supervised and rated only by personnel assigned

to the applicable Office of Special Trial Counsel.

4. The Military Services will instruct promotion boards to value litigation

expenence.

5. A request may be made to a Lead Special Trial Counsel to detail a Special

Trial Counsel to a case that does not fall under the authority of an Office of

Special Trial Counsel. The Lead Special Trial Counsel will have exclusive

and unreviewable authority to grant or deny such a request. If a Special Trial

Counsel is detailed to a case that does not fall under the authority of an Office

of Special Trial Counsel, no one other than a member of an Office of Special

Trial Counsel will prepare a performance evaluation for the Special Trial

Counsel for the period during which the Special Trial Counsel performs those

duties.

V. Command Input

The commander of any victim of an alleged covered offense and the commander of any 

accused in a case involving a covered offense will be given a reasonable opportunity to provide 

input to the Special Trial Counsel regarding case disposition, but that input is not binding on the 

Special Trial Counsel. 

VL Training 

The Lead Special Trial Counsel will establish appropriate traini

ng programs for 

personnel assigned to their respective offices. Joint training among the Military Services' 

Offices of Special Trial Counsel is encouraged. Lead Special Trial Counsel are encouraged to 

4 

Appendix F. Committee Requests for Information

F-13
F-14

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

have personnel assigned to their respective offices participate in training with judge advocates 

outside of the Offices of Special Trial Counsel in addition to appropriate specialized training 

within the Office of Special Trial Counsel concerned. Lead Special Trial Counsel are 

encouraged to send their respective personnel to training programs outside the Department of 

Defense, including those offered by the Department of Justice. 

VII. Exceptions to Policy

Exceptions to these policies may be granted only by the Secretary of Defense or the 

Deputy Secretary of Defense. That authority may not be delegated. 

5 

Appendix F. Committee Requests for Information
F-15

APPENDIX F: COMMITTEE REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and 

Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (DAC-IPAD)

Request for Information from Service Judge Advocates General

26 July 2022 

Diversity Statistics for Service Judge Advocate General’sCorps

1

I. Purpose

1. In 2020, the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of

Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (DAC-IPAD) published its Report on Racial and Ethnic

Data Relating to Disparities in the Investigation, Prosecution, and Conviction of Sexual Offenses

in the Military.

2. On June 22, 2022, at the 23rd Public Meeting of the DAC-IPAD the Committee received

testimony on diversity within the Judge Advocate General’s Corps.

3. The DAC-IPAD remains interested in potential diversity disparities in military justice with

respect to offenders and victims of sexual offenses, and of the practitioners as well.

II. Authority

1. The DAC-IPAD is a federal advisory committee established by the Secretary of Defense

pursuant to section 546 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015

(Public Law 113-291), as amended.

2. The mission of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Defense on the investigation,

prosecution, and defense of allegations of rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault, and other sexual

misconduct involving members of the Armed Forces.

3. The DAC-IPAD requests the assistance of theMilitary Departments to provide the requested

information by the suspense date indicated below.

III. Suspense

Suspense RFI Proponent – Military Services

22 Aug 2022 Data ServiceTJAG provide data, in Excel, as provided in Section 

IV below.

Appendix F. Committee Requests for Information
F-16

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

DAC-IPAD Request for Information

Diversity Statistics for Service Judge Advocate General’sCorps

2

IV. Information Requested

1. Please provide the numbers of the total force for your Service as well as the Judge Advocate

General’s Corps (JAG) as of the following dates: June 1, 2022; June 1, 2021, and June 1, 2020.

Additionally, for the same dates, please break out the following demographic data for Members

of the Service and Members of the JAG Corps.

As of June 1, 2022: 

• Service – Total number of Members (Enlisted and Officers)

• JAG Corps – Total number of Members (Enlisted and Officers)

Serviceby Member JAG Corps by Member

Sex (by category) # of each Sex (by category) # of each

Race (by category) # of each Race (by category) # of each

Ethnicity (by category) # of each Ethnicity (by category) # of each

Pay Grade (by category) # of each Pay Grade (by category) # of each

Service by Pay Grade JAG Corps by Pay Grade

Sex (by category) # of each Sex (by category) # of each

Race (by category) # of each Race (by category) # of each

Ethnicity (by category) # of each Ethnicity (by category) # of each

Repeat above information as of June 1, 2021, and June 1, 2020. 

Appendix F. Committee Requests for Information
F-17

APPENDIX F: COMMITTEE REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

THE DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON

INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, AND DEFENSE OF

SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

One Liberty Center • 875 North Randolph Street • Suite 150 • Arlington • Virginia 22203

26 July 2022

MEMORANDUM FOR THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE AIR FORCE

SUBJECT: Victim Impact Statements under Rule for Courts-Martial 1001(c)

1. At the June 22, 2022 DAC-IPAD public meeting, the Committee voted to review the topic of

whether military judges are giving appropriate deference to crime victims who provide victim

impact statements in presentencing proceedings under RCM 1001(c), as requested by Congress

in the Joint Explanatory Statement to the FY20 National Defense Authorization Act.

2. I respectfully ask your staff to provide our staff with the responses specified in the Request for

Information by the date requested (Encl 1).

3. Thank you for your support of this important project. My POC is Mr. Chuck Mason,

Data Lead, at (571) 296-5303 or robert.c.mason2.civ@mail.mil.

JEFF A. BOVARNICK 

 Colonel, U.S. Army

Staff Director 

Encl 

As stated 

cc: 

Mr. Dwight Sullivan (DoD OGC) 

Service Representative

Appendix F. Committee Requests for Information

F-17
F-18

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and 

Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (DAC-IPAD)

Request for Information from The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force

26 July 2022 

Victim Impact Statements under Rule for Courts-Martial 1001(c)

1

I. Purpose

1. At the June 22, 2022 DAC-IPAD public meeting, the Committee voted to review the topic of

whether military judges are giving appropriate deference to crime victims who provide victim

impact statements in presentencing proceedings under RCM 1001(c), as requested by Congress

in the Joint Explanatory Statement to the FY20 National Defense Authorization Act.

2. As part of the DAC-IPAD’s review of victim impact statements and to support other

statutory requirements, the Committee must review FY21 courts-martial documents.

II. Authority

1. The DAC-IPAD is a federal advisory committee established by the Secretary of Defense

pursuant to section 546 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015

(Public Law 113-291), as amended.

2. The mission of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Defense on the investigation,

prosecution, and defense of allegations of rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault, and other sexual

misconduct involving members of the Armed Forces.

III. Suspense

Suspense RFI Proponent – Military Services

12 Aug 2022 Documents Service TJAG provide documents requested in Section IV 

for courts-martial listed in attachment.

IV. Documents Requested

The DAC-IPAD requests the electronic record of trial (eROT) for only those 51 FY21 cases 

listed below which involve a victim impact statement under RCM 1001(c). If the eROT is not 

available for any of the 51 cases listed below, the DAC-IPAD requests the following documents 

for only those cases listed below which involve a victim impact statement under RCM 1001(c): 

a. The transcript of the sentencing portion of the trial;

b. The transcript of any portions of the trial in which victim impact statements under

RCM 1001(c) are discussed, such as motion hearings;

c. Written victim impact statements;

d. Motions and responses pertaining to victim impact statements;

e. Judicial orders or findings related to victim impact statements;

f. Any other materials that would ordinarily be contained within a record of trial pertaining

to victim impact statements.

Appendix F. Committee Requests for Information
F-19

APPENDIX F: COMMITTEE REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

DAC-IPAD Request for Information

Victim Impact Statements under Rule for Courts-Martial 1001(c)

2

Air Force FY21 Convictions

Accused’s Name Victim Impact 

Statement? 

(Yes/No)

Accused’s Name Victim Impact 

Statement? 

(Yes/No)

1 Ashmore, Donovan 27 Massie, Zane

2 Baker, Dakota 28 McCoy, Ervin

3 Berry, Nigel 29 McCrory, Julian

4 Boren, Douglas 30 Payan, Christian

5 Borneman, David 31 Pearson, Brandon

6 Brown, Allan 32 Pearson Jr., Roderick

7 Cabuhat, Domingo 33 Raver, Michael

8 Cadavona, Ian 34 Renzi, Paul

9 Cannon, Corey 35 Rivera-Moyet, Jorgediego

10 Carlile, Joseph 36 Roberts, Deryk

11 Cochran, Stacy 37 Rodriguez, Christian

12 Cole, Kristopher 38 Ross, Jaden

13 Daley, Sean 39 Sayers, Cody

14 Dixon, Alexander 40 Souders, Garret

15 Dyer, Brandon 41 Stafford, John

16 Emas, Nicholas 42 Stewart, Roderick

17 Garron, Charles 43 Taylor, Terry

18 Gonzales, Giovanni 44 Torello, Dante

19 Guihama, Jonel 45 Valentin-Andino, Michael

20 Heppermann, Nathaniel 46 Velasquez, Nicholas

21 Jackson, Nathaniel 47 Vieth, Adamg

22 Jones, Alexander 48 Wells, Deshaun

23 Kilcrease, Spencer 49 West, Demorris

24 Kim, Won-Jun 50 Williamson, Tyler

25 Knodel, Philip 51 Zapata, John

26 Lopez, George

(2nd C-M – 12 Jun 21)

Appendix F. Committee Requests for Information
F-20

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and

Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (DAC-IPAD)

Request for Information from Air Force Judge Advocate General 19 October 2022 

Special Trial Counsel Qualification Course

I. Purpose

1. On 11 March 2022, the Secretary of Defense established policies for the Military

Departments’ Offices of Special Trial Counsel (OSTC) and their personnel (Encl 1).

2. On 10 May 2022, the DoD General Counsel tasked the DAC-IPAD with advising on policy

development, workforce structure, and implementation of best practices for the Military

Department’s OSTC (Encl 2).

3. With the understanding that some of the covered offenses, subject to disposition by the OSTC,

include sexual assault crimes, the DAC-IPAD has expressed an interest in further understanding

the role of the OSTC and the potential impact to the investigation, prosecution and defense of

these offenses involving member of the Armed Forces.

II. Authority

1. The DAC-IPAD is a federal advisory committee established by the Secretary of Defense

pursuant to section 546 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015,

as amended by section 533 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019.

This request for information is pursuant to section 546(d)(2).

2. The mission of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Defense on the investigation,

prosecution, and defense of allegations of rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault, and other sexual

misconduct involving members of the Armed Forces.

3. The DAC-IPAD requests the assistance of the Department of the Air Force to provide the

requested information by the suspense date indicated below.

III. Suspense

Suspense RFI Proponent – Military Services

14 Nov 2022 Documents Service TJAG provide documents, as provided in Section IV 

below. 

IV. Information Requested

Any reports and/or after action reports (AARs) from the Department of the Air Force’s 

Judge Advocate Special Trial Counsel Qualification Course held May 2-6, 2022 at

Joint Base Andrews, MD. Reports and/or AARs include, but are not limited to, summary of 

critiques from program level down to instructors/students and any revised curricula or POI 

developed or implemented as a result of reports or evaluations of the May 2022 course. 

Appendix F. Committee Requests for Information
F-21

APPENDIX F: COMMITTEE REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

1000 DEFENSE PENTAGON 

WASHINGTON, DC 20301-1000 

MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARIES OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS 

SUBJECT: Policies Governing Offices of Special Trial Counsel 

MAR 11 2022 

In accordance with title 10, U.S. Code, section 1044f, as enacted by section 532 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022, effective immediately, I establish 

the following policies for the Military Departments' Offices of Special Trial Counsel and their 

personnel. These policies will be incorporated in issuances promulgated by the Secretary of each 

Military Department to be issued within 180 days of the date of this memorandum. 

I. Mission

The mission of the Offices of Special Trial Counsel is to provide expert, specialized, 

independent, and ethical representation of the United States, under the direct civilian control of 

the Secretary of the applicable Military Department, in the investigation and trial-level litigation 

of covered offenses as prescribed by article 1(17) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, l 0 

U.S.C. § 801(17), and other offenses over which the offices exercise authority. 

II. Offices' Establishment

A. Not later than December 27, 2023, the Secretaries of the Military Departments will

ensure that an Office of Special Trial Counsel with respect to each Military Service

within their respective Military Department is at full operational capability,

recognizing that those offices cannot exercise the authorities newly enacted by the

National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2022 with respect to offenses that occur

before December 28, 2023. In preparation for full operational capability, the

Secretaries of the Military Departments will take the following actions, completion of

which will be reported to the General Counsel of the Department of Defense:

1. Not later than July 15, 2022, establish the Offices of Special Trial Counsel.

For purposes of initial operational capability, the Department of the Air Force

may establish a single Office of Special Trial Counsel for both the Air Force

and the Space Force.

2. Not later than September 30, 2022, identify recommended nominees for Lead

Special Trial Counsel.

3. Not later than October 15, 2022, identify Special Trial Counsel.

4. Not later than December 31, 2022, develop and issue initial training and

education policies for the Offices of Special Trial Counsel.

IIIIII Ill 1111111111111! I lllillllllll 

0SO001504-221CMD001846-22 

Appendix F. Committee Requests for Information

F-21
F-22

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

5. Not later than January 1, 2023, or such later date on which each Lead Special

Trial Counsel is confirmed and appointed as a general or flag officer, assign,

and where applicable ensure the permanent change of station of, Lead Special

Trial Counsel to that permanent general/flag officer position.

6. Not later than August 31, 2023, assign or detail, and where applicable ensure

the permanent change of station of, judge advocates to fill the Special Trial

Counsel positions. Until December 27, 2023, either (a) the Lead Special Trial

Counsel, or (b) if the Lead Special Trial Counsel has not yet been appointed,

the Secretary of the Military Department concerned may make Special Trial

Counsel available to perform duties outside of the Office of Special Trial

Counsel, provided that the primary duty of the Special Trial Counsel is within

the Office of Special Trial Counsel. This authority of the Lead Special Trial

Counsel or the Secretary of the Military Department concerned may not be

delegated. Beginning on December 27, 2023, the provisions of para. IV.B.4

will apply.

7. Not later than July 1, 2023, establish standard operating procedures for the

Offices of Special Trial Counsel, including the reciprocal agreements required

by para. 111.B.2.

B. Pursuant to section 958(b)(l) of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2020,

Public Law No. 116-92 (2019), the Secretary of the Air Force may designate a single

Space Force judge advocate to be the Lead Special Trial Counsel for both the Air

Force and the Space Force.

III. Offices' Functions

A. All Lead Special Trial Counsel, Special Trial Counsel, and other support personnel

deemed appropriate by the Secretary of the Military Department concerned will be

assigned to an Office of Special Trial Counsel, which will supervise and oversee the

United States' legal representation in the investigation and trial-level litigation of

covered offenses as defined by article 1 (17) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice,

10 U.S.C. § 801(17), and other offenses over which the office exercises authority.

B. Independence

1. The Offices of Special Trial Counsel will operate independently of the

military chains of command of both the victims of alleged covered offenses

and those accused of covered offenses as defined by article 1 (17) of the

Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 801(17), and any other

offenses over which the offices exercise authority.

2. The Military Departments will enter into reciprocal agreements to provide for

the legal representation of the United States in the investigation and trial-level

litigation by another Military Service's Office of Special Trial Counsel of any

2 

Appendix F. Committee Requests for Information

F-22
F-23

APPENDIX F: COMMITTEE REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

offense over which an Office of Special Trial Counsel is precluded from 

exercising authority because either the alleged offender or victim is a member 

of the relevant Office of Special Trial Counsel (see para. 111.B.1). 

3. Special Trial Counsel will conduct their assigned activities free from unlawful

or otherwise unauthorized influence or coercion.

IV. Personnel

A. Office Head

1. Each Office of Special Trial Counsel will be headed by a general or flag

officer with significant military justice experience with the title, "Lead Special

Trial Counsel."

2. To promote both the appearance and the actuality of independence to the

maximum extent possible, each Lead Special Trial Counsel will serve for a

specified fixed term of not less than three years, with an option for that term to

be renewed for a subsequent fixed term or terms of any length. A Lead

Special Trial Counsel may be relieved of duty prior to the end or his or her

term only for cause, unless he or she leaves active duty or is promoted. The

Secretaries of the Military Departments will promulgate issuances governing

the grounds and procedures for relieving a Lead Special Trial Counsel for

cause. Only the Secretary of the Military Department concerned or the

Secretary's superior may relieve a Lead Special Trial Counsel for cause.

3. Each Lead Special Trial Counsel will report directly to the Secretary of the

Military Department concerned with no intervening authority.

4. No Lead Special Trial Counsel may be assigned any additional duties with the

following exception. If favorably endorsed by a Lead Special Trial Counsel, a

request for that Lead Special Trial Counsel to serve on an officer promotion

selection board may, at the discretion of the Secretary of the Military

Department, be granted.

5. No Lead Special Trial Counsel may be supervised or rated by anyone other

than the Secretary of the applicable Military Department.

6. In cases over which an Office of Special Trial Counsel exercises authority, the

Lead Special Trial Counsel of the applicable Military Service will have

exclusive authority to determine whether to file an appeal under Article 62 of

the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. § 862), in consultation with

appellate government counsel in the office of the Judge Advocate General of

the applicable Military Department. Appellate government counsel will

litigate those appeals on behalf of the United States and are responsible for the

substance and content of submissions to the appellate courts.

3 

Appendix F. Committee Requests for Information

F-23
F-24

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

B. Special Trial Counsel

1. Special Trial Counsel will be assigned to the Office of Special Trial Counsel

for a fixed term of not less than three years. Those assignments may, with the

permission of the applicable Judge Advocate General or, in the case of Marine

Corps judge advocates, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, be renewed for

subsequent fixed terms of any length. Each Military Department's issuance

governing its Office or Offices of Special Trial Counsel will provide that a

Special Trial Counsel may be released before the end of the fixed term only if

the Special Trial Counsel leaves active duty or at the direction or with the

permission of the Lead Special Trial Counsel with notice to the applicable

Judge Advocate General or, in the case of Marine Corps judge advocates, the

Commandant of the Marine Corps.

2. Special Trial Counsel will be highly skilled, experienced, well-trained, and

competent in handling the investigation and trial-level litigation of covered

offenses.

3. Special Trial Counsel will be supervised and rated only by personnel assigned

to the applicable Office of Special Trial Counsel.

4. The Military Services will instruct promotion boards to value litigation

expenence.

5. A request may be made to a Lead Special Trial Counsel to detail a Special

Trial Counsel to a case that does not fall under the authority of an Office of

Special Trial Counsel. The Lead Special Trial Counsel will have exclusive

and unreviewable authority to grant or deny such a request. If a Special Trial

Counsel is detailed to a case that does not fall under the authority of an Office

of Special Trial Counsel, no one other than a member of an Office of Special

Trial Counsel will prepare a performance evaluation for the Special Trial

Counsel for the period during which the Special Trial Counsel performs those

duties.

V. Command Input

The commander of any victim of an alleged covered offense and the commander of any 

accused in a case involving a covered offense will be given a reasonable opportunity to provide 

input to the Special Trial Counsel regarding case disposition, but that input is not binding on the 

Special Trial Counsel. 

VI. Training

The Lead Special Trial Counsel will establish appropriate training programs for 

personnel assigned to their respective offices. Joint training among the Military Services' 

Offices of Special Trial Counsel is encouraged. Lead Special Trial Counsel are encouraged to 

4 

Appendix F. Committee Requests for Information

F-24
F-25

APPENDIX F: COMMITTEE REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

have personnel assigned to their respective offices participate in training with judge advocates 

outside of the Offices of Special Trial Counsel in addition to appropriate specialized training 

within the Office of Special Trial Counsel concerned. Lead �cial Trial Counsel are 

encouraged to send their respective personnel to training programs outside the Department of 

Defense, including those offered by the Department of Justice. 

VII. Exceptions to Policy

Exceptions to these policies may be granted only by the Secretary of Defense or the 

Deputy Secretary of Defense. That authority may not be delegated. 

5 

Appendix F. Committee Requests for Information

F-25
F-26

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

GENERAL COUNSEL 

GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

1 600 DEFENSE PENTAGON 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301-1600 

MAY 1 0 2022 

MEMORANDUM FOR CHAIR, DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON 

INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, AND DEFENSE OF 

SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES (DAC-IPAD) 

SUBJECT: DAC-IPAD Advice on Policy Development, Workforce Structure, and 

Implementation of Best Practices for the Military Departments' Offices of Special 

Trial Counsel 

As requested in your letter of April 27, 2022, I task the DAC-IPAD with advising the 

Secretary of Defense and me on policy development, workforce structure, and implementation of 

best practices for the Military Departments' Offices of Special Trial Counsel. The Department of 

Defense would benefit greatly from the advice of the DAC-IPAD, whose members possess 

extraordinary expertise regarding the organization and operation of offices devoted to complex 

prosecutions, concerning the Offices of Special Trial Counsel. Advising the Department 

regarding the Offices of Special Trial Counsel is a core function of the DAC-IPAD. Please 

provide such advice on an ongoing basis. 

Consistent with your request, I have asked the Secretaries of the Military Departments to 

provide the appropriate civilian officials, supported by uniformed subject matter experts, to 

appear at the DAC-IPAD's next public meeting. 

I reiterate my thanks to you and to all of the DAC-IPAD's members for assisting the 

Department of Defense in improving our sexual assault response systems. 

Caroline Krass 

General Counsel 

0 

Appendix F. Committee Requests for Information
F-27

APPENDIX F: COMMITTEE REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and 

Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces

Request for Information from Service Judge Advocates General

12 December 2022 

Diversity Statistics for Service Judge Advocate General’sCorps

I. Purpose

1. In 2020, the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual

Assault in the Armed Forces (DAC-IPAD) published its Report on Racial and Ethnic Data Relating

to Disparities in the Investigation, Prosecution, and Conviction of Sexual Offenses in the Military.

2. On June 22, 2022, the DAC-IPAD received testimony on diversity within the Judge Advocate

General’s (JAG) Corps at its 23rd Public Meeting. The DAC-IPAD remains interested in potential

diversity disparities in military justice with respect to offenders and victims of sexual offenses, and

of the practitioners as well.

3. Due to variations in responses to a previous RFI requesting JAG Corps diversity statistics, the

DAC-IPAD requests the Services provide the information in a standardized format.

II. Authority

1. The DAC-IPAD is a federal advisory committee established by the Secretary of Defense

pursuant to section 546 of the FY 2015 National Defense Authorization Act, as amended.

2. The DAC-IPAD advises the Secretary of Defense on the investigation, prosecution, and defense

of allegations of rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct involving

members of the Armed Forces.

3. The DAC-IPAD requests the assistance of the Military Departments to provide the requested

information by the suspense date indicated below.

III. Suspense

Suspense RFI Proponent – Military Services

13 Jan 2023 Data&

Narrative

ServiceTJAG provide data, in Excel spreadsheet and 

narrative, as requested in Section IV below. 

IV. Information Requested

1. Using the attached Excel spreadsheet template, please provide you Service and JAG Corps

total force numbers as of the following dates: June 1, 2022, June 1, 2021, and June 1, 2020.

2. Please provide a narrative of the process employed to provide the above data, including:

a. Names of the databases accessed

b. Custodial organization of the databases accessed

c. Specific query/steps required to achieve the provided results.

d. Statement describing the amount of time/resources (burden) necessary to answer the RFI.

Appendix F. Committee Requests for Information
G-1

APPENDIX G. COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS AND PRESENTERS

APPENDIX G. COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITTEE 

 MEETINGS AND PRESENTERS

DAC-IPAD PUBLIC MEETINGS

MEETING DATE 

AND LOCATION TOPICS AND PRESENTERS

DAC-IPAD 

PUBLIC MEETING 

22

April 21, 2022

Virtual

Committee briefing of Charter and Bylaws for the reconstituted DAC-IPAD.

Professional staff presentation on summary of events since last meeting that 

occurred while the Committee was suspended, including Fort Hood Report; 

IRC report and DoD implementation; FY22 NDAA provisions update; and 

the March 2022 DAC-IPAD report.

Committee deliberations to formulate a strategic plan and a timeline for 

implementation of current statutory tasks, assigned tasks, and additional tasks 

for consideration.
G-2

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

DAC-IPAD PUBLIC MEETINGS

MEETING DATE 

AND LOCATION TOPICS AND PRESENTERS

DAC-IPAD 

PUBLIC MEETING 

23

June 21-22, 2022

Arlington, VA

Committee deliberations for establishing their terms of reference, and 

subcommittees. 

Committee review of the current statutory and assigned tasks.

Professional staff presentations on Appellate Decisions in Military Sexual 

Assault Cases; Data Review; FY20 NDAA Joint Explanatory Statement; Office 

of Special Trial Counsel Update; and SVC/VLC Report Overview.

Panel presentation from civilian prosecutors who provided their perspectives 

on best practices for establishing an independent prosecutorial office. Panel 

members included:

Ms. Sherry Boston, District Attorney, Office of the DeKalb County District 

Attorney, Decatur, Georgia

Ms. Parisa Dehghani-Tafti, Commonwealth’s Attorney for Arlington County and 

the City of Falls Church, Virginia

Ms. Fara Gold, Senior Counsel on Sexual Misconduct to the Assistant Attorney 

General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice

Ms. Sharon Marcus-Kurn, Chief, Sex Offense and Domestic Violence Section, 

United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia

Mr. Eric Rosenbaum, Chief, Special Victims Bureau, Major Crimes Division, 

Queens County District Attorney’s Office

Briefing from Colonel Elizabeth Hernandez, U.S. Air Force, Chair, Joint Service 

Committee on the R.C.M. amendment process to implement FY22 NDAA 

Military Justice Reforms.

Offices of Special Trial Counsel panel presentation from:

Honorable John P. “Sean” Coffey, General Counsel, Department of the Navy

Vice Admiral Darse E. “Del” Crandall, Jr., Judge Advocate General, U.S. Navy

Major General David J. Bligh, Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, U.S. 

Marine Corps

Honorable Peter J. Beshar, General Counsel, Department of the Air Force

Lieutenant General Charles L. Plummer, The Judge Advocate General, U.S. Air 

Force

Major General Rebecca Vernon, The Deputy Judge Advocate General, U.S. Air 

Force

Honorable Carrie F. Ricci, General Counsel, Department of the Army

Lieutenant General Stuart W. Risch, The Judge Advocate General, U.S. Army
G-3

APPENDIX G. COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS AND PRESENTERS

DAC-IPAD PUBLIC MEETINGS

MEETING DATE 

AND LOCATION TOPICS AND PRESENTERS

DAC-IPAD 

PUBLIC MEETING 

24

September 21, 2022

Pentagon City, VA

Professional staff briefings on recent court-martial observation; professional 

training course observation; UCMJ appellate process; and FY2021 appellate 

case data.

Panel presentation and discussion on the UCMJ appellate process with panel 

member Major Steven Dray, Associate Professor, Criminal Law, U.S. Army.

Panel presentations on the current practice of military appellate process from 

the Government and Defense Appellate Divisions. Panel members included:

Government Appellate Division Panel:

MAJ Dustin Morgan, (former) Government Appellate Division, U.S. Army 

Maj Brittany Speirs, Government Appellate Division, U.S. Air Force

Mr. Brian Keller, Deputy Director, Appellate Government Division, U.S. Navy

CAPT Anita Scott, Chief, Military Justice, U.S. Coast Guard

Defense Appellate Division Panel:

MAJ Rachel Gordienko, Branch Chief (II), Defense Appellate Division, U.S. Army

Maj Jenna Arroyo, Defense Appellate Division, U.S. Air Force

Ms. Rebecca Snyder, Deputy Director, Appellate Defense Division, U.S. Navy

Mr. Thomas Cook, Chief, Legal Assistance & Defense Services, U.S. Coast Guard
G-4

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

DAC-IPAD PUBLIC MEETINGS

MEETING DATE 

AND LOCATION TOPICS AND PRESENTERS

DAC-IPAD 

PUBLIC MEETING 

25

December 6-7, 2022

Pentagon City, VA

Panel presentation and discussion on the UCMJ courts-martial panel selection 

process. Panel members included:

Colonel Christopher Kennebeck, Chief, Criminal Law, OTJAG, U.S. Army

Captain Andrew House, SJA, U.S. Naval Academy, U.S. Navy

Colonel Shannon Sherwin, SJA, Air Education & Training Command, U.S. Air 

Force

Colonel Christopher G. Tolar, Deputy SJA to the Commandant of the Marine 

Corps, U.S. Marine Corps

Commander Kismet Wunder, Legal Services Command, U.S. Coast Guard

Panel presentation and discussion on victim’s impact statements at sentencing. 

Panel members included:

Ms. Adrian Perry, Victim Advocate, Survivors United

Dr. Breck Perry, Victim Advocate, Survivors United

Mr. Ryan Guilds, Special Victims’ Counsel, Arnold & Porter LLP

Panel presentation and discussion on victim impact statements at sentencing 

with Special Victims’ Counsel/Victims’ Legal Counsel. Panel members 

included:

Colonel Carol A. Brewer, Chief, SVC Program, U.S. Army

Captain Daniel Cimmino, Chief, VLC Program, U.S. Navy

Colonel Tracy Park, Chief, VC Program, U.S. Air Force

Lieutenant Colonel Iain D. Pedden, Chief, VLC Program, U.S. Marine Corps

Ms. Elizabeth Marotta, Chief, Office of Member Advocacy, U.S. Coast Guard

Panel presentation and discussion on the Offices of Special Trial Counsel 

update. Panel members included:

Honorable Carrie F. Ricci, General Counsel, Department of the Army

Lieutenant General Stuart W. Risch, The Judge Advocate General, U.S. Army

Honorable John P. “Sean” Coffey, General Counsel, Department of the Navy

Vice Admiral Darse E. “Del” Crandall, Jr., Judge Advocate General, U.S. Navy

Major General David J. Bligh, Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, U.S. 

Marine Corps

Honorable Peter J. Beshar, General Counsel, Department of the Air Force

Lieutenant General Charles L. Plummer, The Judge Advocate General, U.S. Air 

Force

Professional staff briefings on the DAC-IPAD and GAO Racial Disparity 

Reports; and Case Review, Special Projects and Policy Subcommittee updates.

Committee deliberations on the DAC-IPAD March 2023 annual report.
G-5

APPENDIX G. COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS AND PRESENTERS

DAC-IPAD PUBLIC MEETINGS

MEETING DATE 

AND LOCATION TOPICS AND PRESENTERS

DAC-IPAD 

PUBLIC MEETING 

26

February 21-22, 2023

Arlington, VA

Briefing from Captain Anita Scott, U.S. Coast Guard, Joint Service Committee 

Member, on the FY23 NDAA Military Justice provisions.

Panel presentation on Article 25 criteria and court-martial panel selection 

process. Panel members from the trial defense organizations included:

COL Sean McGarry, U.S. Army

CAPT Mark Holley, U.S. Navy

Col Valerie Danyluk, U.S. Marine Corps

Col Brett Landry, U.S. Air Force

LCDR Jennifer Saviano, U.S. Coast Guard

Panel discussion with Colonel Tyesha Lowery Smith, U.S. Army on the current 

status of military sentencing guidelines development and implementation.

Panel presentation and discussion with former military judges on Article 25 

and victim impact statements at sentencing. Panel members included:

LTC(R) Stefan Wolfe, U.S. Army

CAPT(R) Marcus Fulton, U.S. Navy

CDR(R) Will Weiland, U.S. Navy

LtCol(R) Michael Libretto, U.S. Marine Corps

COL(R) W. Shane Cohen, U.S. Air Force

Professional staff briefings on subcommittee updates and the 5th annual report 

development.

Committee deliberations on the 5th annual report.

DAC-IPAD 

PUBLIC MEETING 

27

March 14, 2023

Virtual

Discussion, Deliberations, and Voting:

5th Annual Report

Report on Victim Impact Statements 

Study on Appellate Review

DAC-IPAD Subcommittee: Special Projects Update
G-6

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

CASE REVIEW PREPARATORY SESSIONS 

MEETING DATE 

AND LOCATION TOPICS AND PRESENTERS

Case Review 

Subcommittee 

Preparatory Session

1

December 7, 2022

Virtual

Case Review Subcommittee discussion of administrative matters; courtsmartial data; post-conviction appellate process; and, testimony and Service 

policies, along with accurate data that reflects the race, ethnicity, and gender 

makeup throughout the entire process. 

Case Review Preparatory 

Session 2

January 26, 2023

Arlington, VA/Virtual

Case Review Subcommittee discussed an overview of the DAC-IPAD Meeting 

transcript from December, 2022; received presentations from civilian defense 

counsel, discussed appellate victims’ counsel; received a presentation on the 

study of race and gender in military panel selection; and, discussed conviction 

data from FY18-20.

Case Review Preparatory 

Session 3

February 21, 2023

Arlington, VA

Case Review Subcommittee received an update from the professional staff on 

the Appellate Review Study and panel demographics.
G-7

APPENDIX G. COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS AND PRESENTERS

POLICY WORKING GROUP PREPARATORY SESSIONS 

SESSION DATE 

AND LOCATION TOPICS AND PRESENTERS

Policy Subcommittee 

Preparatory Session 1

November 9, 2022

Virtual

Policy Subcommittee discussion of administrative matters; victim impact 

statement study; FY20 NDAA Joint Explanatory Statement request to review 

Alternative Justice; and strategic planning for the PSC. 

Policy Subcommittee 

Preparatory Session 2

December 1, 2022

Virtual

Policy Subcommittee discussion on the topic of victim impact statements at 

presentencing proceedings.

Policy Subcommittee 

Preparatory Session 3

December 7, 2022

Pentagon City, VA

Policy Subcommittee discussion on the topic of victim impact statements at 

presentencing proceedings; FY20 NDAA Joint Explanatory Statement request 

to review Alternative Justice in the military justice system; uniform policy for 

providing information to victims’ counsel; and additional policy issues for the 

PSC to consider.

Policy Subcommittee 

Preparatory Session 4

January 24, 2023

Virtual

Policy Subcommittee discussion on the victim impact statements at 

presentencing proceedings report; the FY20 NDAA Joint Explanatory 

Statement request to review Alternative Justice in the military justice system; 

and Article 25, court-martial panel selection criteria.

Policy Subcommittee 

Preparatory Session 5

February 1, 2023

Virtual

Policy Subcommittee discussion on the FY20 NDAA Joint Explanatory 

Statement request to review Alternative Justice in the military justice system.

Policy Subcommittee 

Preparatory Session 6

February 21, 2023

Arlington, VA

Policy Subcommittee discussion on the Victim Impact Statement report; 

Alternative Justice; and the proposed Article 25 study.

Panel presentation and discussion on Article 25 criteria and randomized panel 

selection. Panel members included:

Colonel Brett Landry, U.S. Air Force, Chief, Trial Defense Division

Colonel Sean McGarry, U.S. Army, Chief, Trial Defense Service

Captain Mark Holley, U.S. Navy, Director, Defense Service Office Operations

Colonel Valerie Danyluk, U.S. Marine Corps, Chief Defense Counsel

Lieutenant Commander Jennifer Saviano, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief of Defense 

Services
G-8

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

SPECIAL PROJECTS PREPARATORY SESSIONS

SESSION DATE 

AND LOCATION TOPICS AND PRESENTERS

Special Projects 

Subcommittee 

Preparatory Session 1

December 7, 2022

Virtual

Special Projects Subcommittee discussion of the Services Office of Special 

Trial Counsel (OSTC); received a presentation from the Services Acting 

Lead Special Trial Counsel (LSTC); received a presentation from JAG Corps 

personnel managers; and, developed the strategic plan of the subcommittee. 

Special Projects 

Preparatory Session 2

December 13, 2022

Virtual

Special Projects Subcommittee discussion of the Article 32/34 Report, OSTC 

evaluation of draft Rules for Courts-Martial for Executive Order; and, voted 

on whether to add an additional project on SVC/VLC Evidence and Access 

Question.

Special Projects 

Preparatory Session 3

February 21, 2023

Virtual

Special Projects Subcommittee discussed their report on pretrial procedures 

and prosecution standards.

Special Projects 

Preparatory Session 4

March 9, 2023

Virtual

Special Projects Subcommittee discussed the completion of their report on 

Military Pretrial Processes and Prosecution Standards
H-1

APPENDIX H. DAC-IPAD PROFESSIONAL STAFF

APPENDIX H DAC-IPAD PROFESSIONAL STAFF

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

Colonel Jeff A. Bovarnick, USA, JAG Corps, Director

Ms. Julie K. Carson, Deputy Director

Mr. Dale L. Trexler, Chief of Staff

Ms. Stacy Boggess, Senior Paralegal

Ms. Theresa Gallagher, Attorney-Advisor 

Ms. Nalini Gupta, Attorney-Advisor

Ms. Amanda Hagy, Senior Paralegal 

Mr. R. Chuck Mason, Attorney-Advisor 

Ms. Marguerite McKinney, Analyst 

Ms. Meghan Peters, Attorney-Advisor 

Ms. Stayce Rozell, Senior Paralegal 

Ms. Terri Saunders, Attorney-Advisor 

Ms. Kate Tagert, Attorney-Advisor

Ms. Eleanor Magers Vuono, Attorney-Advisor 

COMMITTEE CONSULTANTS

Dr. Alice Falk, Editor

Ms. Laurel Prucha Moran, Graphic Designer 

Dr. William “Bill” Wells, Criminologist
I-1

APPENDIX I: ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

APPENDIX I. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

C.A.A.F.

C.M.R.

CRSC

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 

Court-Martial Reports 

Case Review Subcommittee

DAC-IPAD

DFO

DoD

DoDI

FACA

FY

GAL

GC DoD 

GCM

GCMCA

HASC

HQE

IO

IRC

JAG

JES 

Designated Federal Officer

Department of Defense

Department of Defense Instruction

Federal Advisory Committee Act

fiscal year

Guardian ad Litem

General Counsel for the Department of Defense 

general court-martial 

general court-martial convening authority 

House Armed Services Committee

highly qualified expert 

investigating officer 

Independent Review Commission

judge advocate general

Joint Explanatory Statement 

Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of 

Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces
I-2

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

JPP

JSC 

MCIO

MCM

Judicial Proceedings Panel (Judicial Proceedings Since 2012 Amendments Panel) 

Joint Service Committee

military criminal investigative organization 

Manual for Courts-Martial

MILDEPs

MRE

MJ

MJRG

N/n

NDAA

NJP

OJTAG

OSTC

PHO

PSC

R.C.M.

RFI

RGE 

ROI

RSP

SA

SAPR

Military Departments

Military Rules of Evidence 

military judge

Military Justice Review Group

number 

National Defense Authorization Act

nonjudicial punishment 

Office of the Judge Advocate General

Office of Special Trial Counsel

preliminary hearing officer

Policy Subcommittee

Rule or Rules for Courts-Martial

request for information

regular government employee 

Report of Investigation

Response Systems Panel (Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel) 

sexual assault

Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 
I-3

APPENDIX I: ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

SAPRO

SASC

SGE 

SJA 

Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office 

Senate Armed Services Committee

special government employee 

staff judge advocate

SPCMCA

SPCM 

SPSC 

SVC

ToR 

UCMJ

USA

USAF

U.S.C.

USCG

USMC

USN

VIS

VLC

special court-martial convening authority 

special court-martial

Special Projects Subcommittee

special victims’ counsel

Terms of Reference

Uniform Code of Military Justice

United States Army

United States Air Force

United States Code 

United States Coast Guard

United States Marine Corps

United States Navy

victim impact statement 

victims’ legal counsel
J-1

APPENDIX J: SOURCES CONSULTED

APPENDIX J SOURCES CONSULTED

1. Legislative Sources

a. Enacted Statutes

5 U.S.C. App. §§ 1–16 (Federal Advisory Committee Act)

10 U.S.C. § 832 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) (2012) 

10 U.S.C. § 832 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) (2014) 

10 U.S.C. §§ 830, 832, 834 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) (2016) 

10 U.S.C. §§ 823, 830, 832–834 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) (2019) 

Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, 

Pub. L. No. 113-291, 128 Stat. 3292, 3374 (2014) 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, Pub. L. No. 114-328, 130 Stat. 2000 (2016) 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-91, 131 Stat. 1283 (2017) 

John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, Pub. L. No. 115-232, 

132 Stat. 1636 (2018) 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, Pub. L. No. 116-92, 133 Stat. 1198 (2019). 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-81, 135 Stat. 1541 (2021). 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, Pub. L. No. 117–263, 36 Stat. 2395 (2022). 

2. Judicial Decisions

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

United States v. Jeter, 82 M.J. 355 (C.A.A.F. 2022) 
J-2

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

3. Rules and Regulations

a. Executive Orders

Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2012 edition) 

Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2016 edition) 

Executive Order 13825, 83 Federal Register 9889 (March 18, 2018) 

Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 edition) 

b. Department of Defense

Department of Defense Instruction 5105.4, Federal Advisory Management Program (Aug. 6, 2007) 

4. Meetings and Hearings

a. Public Meetings of the DAC-IPAD

Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting (February 14, 2020) 

Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting (November 6, 2020) 

Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting (April 21, 2022)

Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting (June 22, 2022) 

Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting (September 21, 2022) 

Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting (December 6, 2022) 

Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting (December 7, 2022) 

Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting (February 22, 2023) 

b. Preparatory Sessions of the DAC-IPAD Subcommittees

DAC-IPAD Case Review Subcommittee Preparatory Session (January 26, 2023) 
J-3

APPENDIX J: SOURCES CONSULTED

5. DoD Memoranda and Reports

U.S. Dep’t. of Def., Memorandum from the Secretary of Defense on Commencing DoD Actions 

and Implementation to Address Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment in the Military

(Sept. 22, 2021).

Independent Review Commission on Sexual Assault in the Military, Hard Truths and the Duty to 

Change: Recommendations from the Independent Review Commission on Sexual Assault in 

the Military (July 2021) 

6. DAC-IPAD Reports

Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in 

the Armed Forces, Initial Report (March 2017) 

Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in 

the Armed Forces, Annual Report (March 2018) 

Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in 

the Armed Forces, Third Annual Report (March 2019) 

Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in 

the Armed Forces, Fourth Annual Report (March 2020) 

Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in 

the Armed Forces, Report on the Advisability and Feasibility of Establishing a Guardian ad 

Litem Appointment Process for Child Victims of an Alleged Sex-Related Offense in the 

Military (June 2020) 

Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in 

the Armed Forces, Report on Investigative Case File Reviews for Military Adult Penetrative 

Sexual Offense Cases Closed in Fiscal Year 2017 (October 2020) 

Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the 

Armed Forces, Report on Racial and Ethnic Data Relating to Disparities in the Investigation, 

Prosecution, and Conviction of Sexual Offenses in the Military (December 2020) 

7. DAC-IPAD Requests for Information and Responses

See Appendix F 
J-4

8. Articles

Samuel R. Sommers, On Racial Diversity and Group Decision Making: Identifying Multiple Effects 

of Racial Composition on Jury Deliberations, 90 J. OF PERS. AND SOC. PSYCH. 597 (2006) 

Mary R. Rose, Raul S. Casarez, and Carmen M. Gutierrez, Jury Pool Underrepresentation in the 

Modern Era: Evidence from Federal Courts, 15 J. EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUD. 378 (2018) 

9. DoD and DAC-IPAD Correspondence

Memorandum from Secretary of Defense to Senior Pentagon Leadership Regarding Department

of Defense Advisory Committees – Zero-Based Review (Jan. 30, 2021) 

Letters from Acting General Counsel of the Department of Defense to the Honorable Adam 

Smith, Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives 

(Mar. 26, 2021) and to the Honorable Jack Reed, Chairman of the Committee on Armed 

Services of the Senate (Mar. 26, 2021) 

Memorandum from Secretary of Defense to General Counsel of the Department of Defense 

Regarding Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of 

Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (July 6, 2021)

Letters from Acting General Counsel of the Department of Defense to the Honorable Adam 

Smith, Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives 

(Mar. 31, 2022) and to the Honorable Jack Reed, Chairman of the Committee on Armed 

Services of the Senate (Mar. 31, 2022) 

Memorandum from DoD General Counsel to the Chair of the DAC-IPAD, DAC-IPAD 

Subcommittee Establishment, Sept. 24, 2022 

Memorandum from Caroline Krass, DoD General Counsel, to Staff Director, DAC-IPAD, 

Request to Study Appellate Decisions in Military Sexual Assault Cases (Jan. 28, 2022) 

Memorandum from Ms. Caroline Krass, General Counsel for the Department of Defense, to 

Judge Karla Smith, DAC-IPAD Chair, DAC-IPAD Advice on Policy Development, 

Workforce Structure, and Implementation of Best Practices for the Military Departments’ 

Offices of Special Trial Counsel (May 10, 2022)