Here is a link to the current NDAA proposals affecting military justice.
Random selection of court members.
Remaining prosecutorial for covered offenses removed from CA.
Expand the number of covered offenses.
A review of Titling actions.
What I can’t tell from this is whether the intent is to resolve some of the remaining tension between the commander and prosecutor with regard to covered offenses. A notable one is PTC. My understanding is that as currently constituted the command will retain PTC authority — which theoretically serves as a forcing function with regard to preferral and referral and could bind the hands of prosecutors (this is more than theoretical when it comes to Marine commanders). This isn’t really an issue, generally speaking, with the Army as PTC decisions are usually made at the GCMCA level with SJA concurrence. But in the more decentralized services there is at least the possibility of an O-5 commander mucking with a covered offense prosecution by placing the service member in PTC.
I'm interested in Section 548, precluding the Army from using $$ to move its CIDSAC course from Ft. Leonard Wood, MO.
There are those of us who remember when BRAC was a big deal. At the time it was proposed that the NJS and AF school be consolidated at TJAGSA. Lot's of cost savings and better efficiency.
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply.
Disclaimer: Posts are the authors' personal opinions and do not reflect the position of any organization or government agency.
-Current Term Opinions
Joint R. App. Pro.
Army Crim. L. Deskbook