Source: https://www.ucmjdefense.com/resources/defenses-special-defenses-defenses/mental-responsibility-competency-stand-trial/sanity-board.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 15:12:46+00:00

Document:
According to R.C.M. 706(a), any commander, investigating officer, trial counsel, defense counsel, military judge, or member.
A sanity board should be granted if the request is not frivolous and is made in good faith. United States v. Nix, 36 C.M.R. 76, 80-81 (C.M.A. 1965); United States v. Kish, 20 M.J. 652 (A.C.M.R. 1985).
It may be prudent for trial counsel to join in the motion. See United States v. James, 47 M.J. 641 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 1997).
A failure to timely direct a sanity board can result in lengthy appellate review. United States v. Breese, 47 M.J. 5 (C.A.A.F. 1997).
In United States v. Pattin, 50 M.J. 637, 639 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 1999), the Court found that the military judge’s refusal to order a sanity board was not error as it appeared the motion for a sanity board was merely a frivolous attempt to get a trial delay.
The board must have one or more persons, a physician or clinical psychologist and at least one psychiatrist or clinical psychologist. A provisional license may be enough to qualify a psychologist as a clinical psychologist. United States v. Boasmond, 48 M.J. 912 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 1998).
In United States v. Best, 61 M.J. 376 (C.A.A.F. 2005). In a case where two members of the accused’s RCM 706 sanity board had a preexisting psychotherapist-patient relationship with the accused, the Court held there was no evidence suggesting that the two members’ participation would be materially limited by their prior relationship.
Article 31, UCMJ, not applicable.
Failure to cooperate in an examination can result in the exclusion of defense expert evidence.
The general rule: Anything the accused says (and any derivative evidence) to the sanity board is privileged and cannot be used against him.
This privilege may be claimed by the accused notwithstanding the fact that the accused may have been warned of the rights provided by MRE 305.
There is no privilege under this rule when the accused first introduces into evidence such statements or derivative evidence. Privilege applies only to examinations ordered under RCM 706. See United States v. Toledo, 25 M.J. 270 (C.M.A. 1987), aff’d on reconsid., 26 M.J. 104 (C.M.A. 1988).
But see United States v. Mackie, 65 M.J. 762 (A.F. Ct. Crim App. 2007), aff’d, 66 M.J. 198 (C.A.A.F. 2008) where the Court found that the mental health evaluation performed by a staff psychologist as a result of a pretrial suicide gesture was not an adequate substitute because of her inexperience in performing sanity boards). And United States v. James, 47 M.J. 641 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 1997), where the Court found that the that mental status evaluation done by a mental health counselor was not an adequate substitute.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.