In its ruling in United States v. Tucker, CMA observed that “Congress expressly intended for the amended Article 62 of the Code to be construed to permit either party to appeal an adverse ruling from a Court of Military Review to this Court. S.Rep. No. 53, supra at 23.” United States v. Tucker, 20 M.J. 52, 53 (C.M.A. 1985). The cited language from the Senate Armed Services Committee’s report on the Military Justice Act of 1983 is, indeed, strong. The report expressly states, “Either party may appeal an adverse ruling from the Court of Military Review to the Court of Military Appeals.” S. Rep. No. 98-43 at 23. Here is a link to the Senate Report. The HASC Report, in turn, refers to the section-by-section analysis of the Senate Report. H.R. Rep. No. 98-549 at 21. (The House Report is available here.) This is powerful evidence that the bill’s drafters intended CAAF to have jurisdiction in scenarios like those presented by de Victoria and Michael.
I can’t find the Congressional Record from 1983 on-line, so I’ll have to hit a library to check whether similar language showed up in the floor debate.