CAAFlog » Military Justice Legislation » 2013 Changes to the UCMJ

Congress revised Article 32 in the FY14 NDAA, eliminating the longstanding practice of a thorough pretrial investigation of charges prior to referral to a general court-martial, and replacing it with a more limited preliminary hearing. I analyzed the new statute shortly after it was enacted, in this post. The statute was slightly modified in the FY15 NDAA, making it effective for all hearings conducted on or after December 26, 2014 (discussed here).

Even though the new statute is in effect, the Manual for Courts-Martial has not been revised (though the JSC has proposed revisions, discussed here and here). In particular, R.C.M. 405 details the procedure for an Article 32 pretrial investigation, and it has not been modified to reflect the new statutory framework of a preliminary hearing. The Manual is promulgated under the President’s rulemaking authority contained in Article 36, and it is controlling for all of the services.

Nevertheless, two service secretaries have issued implementation guidance for Article 32 preliminary hearings. The Navy was first, with ALNAV 086/14 (“New Article 32, UCMJ, Preliminary Hearing Procedures”), issued on December 22, 2104. The Army recently followed suit, with Army Directive 2015-09 (“Implementation of Section 1702 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014-Article 32, Uniform Code of Military Justice Preliminary Hearing”), issued on February 24, 2015. Update: A reader passed along the AFLOA/JAJM Article 32 Preliminary Hearing Officer’s Guide dated December 23, 2014, which contains similar guidance for the Air Force (though not from the Secretarial level).

These issuances generally conform to the new statutory language of Article 32, and they are in some ways inconsistent with the existing R.C.M. 405. For example, both of the issuances allow a Preliminary Hearing Officer to consider “other evidence, in addition to or in lieu of witness testimony. . . ” ¶ 3.(i)(3)(B), ALNAV 086/14; ¶ 10.c.(2), Encl. 1, ARMY DIR 2015-09. However, R.C.M. 405(g)(4) limits the ability to consider alternatives to testimony, and R.C.M. 405(g)(5) limits the ability to consider alternatives to evidence.

I think that the authority of a Service Secretary to issue substantive rules that are contrary to the Rules for Courts-Martial is dubious, and I note that “if an accused is deprived of a substantial pretrial right on timely objection, he is entitled to judicial enforcement of his right, without regard to whether such enforcement will benefit him at the trial.” United States v. Murray, 25 M.J. 445, 447 (C.M.A. 1988) (quoting United States v. Ragan, 33 C.M.R. 331, 336 (C.M.A. 1963) (quoting United States v. Mickel, 26 C.M.R. 104, 107 (C.M.A. 1958))). It will be interesting to see how the appellate courts address any objections to the ALNAV and the ARMY DIR.

Congress created Article 6b in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. My ongoing analysis of the military justice provisions in that legislation is available at this link.

Article 6b is a military version of the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771) (the CVRA), and many people (including myself) call it the Military Crime Victims’ Rights Act (the MCVRA) (I think the Joint Service Committee coined the term).

Article 6b(b) provides the following definition:

(b) Victim of an Offense Under This Chapter Defined- In this section, the term ‘victim of an offense under this chapter’ means a person who has suffered direct physical, emotional, or pecuniary harm as a result of the commission of an offense under this chapter (the Uniform Code of Military Justice).

The problem with the definition is that it doesn’t provide a clear point in time when the protections of Article 6b apply (i.e., at the time of commission of the alleged offense? At the time the report is made? Once a formal investigation begins? After charges are preferred? Etc., etc…).

The analogous CVRA may be a source of some guidance, except that it is also somewhat unclear. In this post at The Volokh Conspiracy, Paul Cassell discusses a paper he co-authored (available here) that argues that the CVRA applies before charges are filed, while the Justice Department took the position (in this memo) that the CVRA generally applies only after charges are filed.

Notably, the special victims counsel (SVC) component of the military’s legal assistance program (established in 10 U.S.C. § 1044e) states that SVC services (for sex-related offense victims) begins:

[U]pon report of an alleged sex-related offense or at the time the victim seeks assistance from a Sexual Assault Response Coordinator, a Sexual Assault Victim Advocate, a military criminal investigator, a victim/witness liaison, a trial counsel, a healthcare provider, or any other personnel designated by the Secretary concerned for purposes of this subsection.

10 U.S.C. § 1044e(f)(1).

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2014 (FY14) made numerous changes to the UCMJ (analysis available here). Among those changes was section 1702(b) of the NDAA, revising Article 60(c) to limit a convening authority’s ability to modify either the findings or the sentence of a court-martial. This section was the focus of my analysis published earlier this month by LexisNexis (available at 2014 Emerging Issues 7217).

The revised Article 60(c)(2)(B) states that “except as provided in paragraph (4), the convening authority or another person authorized to act under this section may approve, disapprove, commute, or suspend the sentence of the court-martial in whole or in part.” This allows a convening authority to modify the adjudged sentence, with certain limits. The limits are provided in Article 60(c)(4)(A), which states:

Except as provided in subparagraph (B) or (C), the convening authority or another person authorized to act under this section may not disapprove, commute, or suspend in whole or in part an adjudged sentence of confinement for more than six months or a sentence of dismissal, dishonorable discharge, or bad conduct discharge.

My Emerging Issues Analysis discusses why this language limits a convening authority’s power for only the adjudged punishments of (1) confinement for more than six months and (2) a punitive discharge, leaving a convening authority free to modify any other adjudged punishment in any case. So, for example, when an accused is sentenced to confinement for one year and a $5,000 fine, the statute permits suspension of the fine (because it is not “an adjudged sentence of confinement for more than six months or a sentence of [punitive discharge]” ).

But the Secretary of the Navy recently took the opposite position in ALNAV 051/14, promulgating guidance that I believe is both erroneous and unlawful.

Read more »

A brief recognition that today is 180 days after the President signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, enacting the various changes to the UCMJ that I analyzed in this series of posts.

The NDAA contained 38 sections that addressed military justice issues (I’ve excerpted all 38 of these sections into this Word document and this PDF). The implementation of many of those sections was delayed until today.

Among those 38 sections were eight sections that made ten changes to the Code. Of those ten changes, three were delayed until today:

Notably, the changes are effective only for offenses committed on or after today. For offenses committed before today, the old provisions still apply.

Some think that the provisions addressing victim participation in the post-trial process were also delayed until today. As discussed in this post, I think they’re wrong. But now that’s somewhat moot.

The last of the changes to the Code to take effect is the new Article 32 (analyzed in this post). That change is effective in December.

In part five of my six part series about the military justice reforms in the FY14 NDAA, I discussed sections 1702 and 1706 of the NDAA (complete NDAA text available in Word here and in PDF here). Both of these sections made changes to Article 60, which gives the convening authority the power to act on the findings and sentence of a court-martial. Section 1702(b) of the NDAA completely rewrote Article 60(c) of the UCMJ, implementing major changes that limit a convening authority’s previously-unlimited power to disapprove a finding of guilty or reduce a sentence. Section 1706 of the NDAA created a new Article 60(d) that gives “a victim” the opportunity to submit matters to the convening authority before the convening authority takes action on the results of the court-martial.

Within section 1702 is express language making it effective 180 after enactment. But section 1706 does not include such language. Because of this, I made the following statement in part five of my series:

The change to Article 60(c) won’t take effect for six months, but Congress also created a new Article 60(d) in Section 1706 of the NDAA. The new Article 60(d) is effective immediately, and it gives “a victim” the opportunity to submit matters to the convening authority before the convening authority takes action on the results of the court-martial.

I’ve since learned of an alternative interpretation that reads the NDAA to make both sections 1702 and 1706 effective 180 days after enactment. I suspect that this interpretation is based on the fact that at the beginning of section 1706 are the words “…as amended by section 1702…,” and that the alternative interpretation reads this language to incorporate the effective date from section 1702 into section 1706. But for the following reasons I respectfully disagree with this interpretation, and I maintain my belief that Congress intended a victim to have the right to submit matters immediately.

Read more »

I’ve combined my recent six-post series discussing the military justice reforms in the FY14 NDAA into a single PDF that you can download at this link. The six original posts are available here.

This is part six of a series of posts discussing the military justice reforms in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, signed into law by the President on December 26, 2013. The full series is available at this link.

After working through the military justice provisions in the NDAA and writing this series of posts, it’s clear that the first practice note is that it’s important for you to read the new provisions for yourself. It’s worth at least skimming all 38 military justice provisions from the NDAA in this bookmarked PDF. I also recommend using our Word version of the UCMJ, and reading in full:

  • Article 6b (“Rights of the victim…”). Also check out the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771).
  • The future Article 32 (discussed in this post).
  • The new Article 46 (discussed in this post).
  • The future Article 60(c) and the new Article 60(d) already in effect (discussed in this post).
  • The future Article 56 (sex offense mandatory minimums) and Article 18 (jurisdiction for the mandatory minimums).

I think that there are more potential pitfalls for prosecutors than for defense counsel in the new rules. For starters, prosecutors need to be more cautious when making charging decisions. Charging the most serious sex offenses will implicate the mandatory minimums and the restrictions on the convening authority’s ability to reduce a sentence, even when there is a PTA. They will also invoke the requirement for review if not referred to trial. A victim named in a specification will have the option to refuse to participate in the Article 32 preliminary hearing, and the VWAP process will likely get more attention now that victims shall have an opportunity to submit post-trial matters. The trial counsel must also affirmatively act to invoke the victim-interview provisions of Article 46(b).

But there’s plenty of danger for defense counsel, who will need to get more creative in presenting a case under the future Article 32. And the mandatory minimums are hard to avoid, even when the accused pleads guilty, unless the plea is to a lesser offense that doesn’t have a minimum. There’s also the issue of the recommendation from a trial counsel for sentence reduction in recognition of substantial assistance. Such a recommendation isn’t required in a case with a pretrial agreement and no mandatory minimum sentence, but it’s going to be a distinguishing feature of a deserving accused. Wherever the facts support such a recommendation, defense counsel should try to get it, perhaps as a term of the PTA. And the defense has to tread carefully around the victim-interview provisions of Article 46 (for now, at least).

Both sides will get much more familiar with the deposition rules once victims can refuse to participate in an Article 32. And both sides will have to watch out for pitfalls from the provisions that don’t take effect until the future and apply only to offenses committed on or after their effective date (Articles 32 and 60(c), and the mandatory minimums). The normal practice of combining all known offenses into a single court-martial will create situations where two separate versions of the Code to apply to a single case. For example, offenses committed in November, 2014, and in January, 2015, and destined for the same general court-martial, will require two separate Article 32 proceedings (one an “investigation” of the November offenses, and the other a “preliminary hearing” on the January offenses). Similar difficulties will arise late this summer, when convening authorities start acting on cases that both pre- and post-date the new Article 60(c).

Read more »

This is part five of a series of posts discussing the military justice reforms in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, signed into law by the President on December 26, 2013. The full series is available at this link.

In prior posts of this series I discussed aspects of military law, such as discovery rules and the pretrial investigation, that developed a century ago. Command discretion is another ancient part of our law. But the “Elimination of Unlimited Command Prerogative and Discretion” in Section 1702(b) of the FY14 NDAA isn’t the first time Congress has restricted a commander’s ability to modify the findings and sentence of a court-martial. Rather, it’s merely the first time Congress has done so to the possible detriment of an accused.

During congressional hearings in 1919, Major General Enoch H. Crowder, The Judge Advocate General of the Army, discussed regulations that actually permitted a commander to return a case for reconsideration of an acquittal or to increase a sentence (link to transcript). General Crowder presented Congress with a review of 1,000 cases, of which 56 were returned to the members for reconsideration of acquittals. Of these 56 cases, an acquittal was changed to a conviction in a whopping 18 (one third). This provoked popular outcry and press attention, and in 1920 Congress revised Article 40 of the Articles of War to expressly prohibit returning a record for reconsideration of an acquittal or increasing the severity of a sentence (old text) (new text) (and this prohibition still exists within Article 60).

Popular and press outrage is now focused on the exact opposite scenario: Lieutenant General Franklin’s action that changed a conviction into an acquittal in the Wilkerson case (our #5 story of 2013). And just as Congress removed the ability to change an acquittal into a conviction or increase a sentence in 1920, Congress now limits a commander’s ability to reverse a conviction or reduce a sentence.

In Section 1702(b) (that will not take effect until June 24, 2014 – 180 days after enactment) Congress rewrites Article 60(c) of the UCMJ to limit a convening authority’s ability to modify either the findings or the sentence of a court-martial. Current law permits a convening authority to set aside any finding of guilty, either entirely or by substituting a finding of guilty to a lesser included offense. It also gives the convening authority unlimited discretion to disapprove any part or all of a sentence. But the future law allows modification of the findings or sentence only in certain cases.

The full text of the future Article 60(c) follows:

Read more »

This is part four of a series of posts discussing the military justice reforms in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, signed into law by the President on December 26, 2013. The full series is available at this link.

Section 1702(a) of the NDAA rewrites Article 32 of the UCMJ. The changes aren’t effective until one year after enactment, but they eliminate the century-old requirement of a “thorough and impartial investigation” of charges before trial, and the similarly ancient guarantee that an accused can present to the investigator anything he wishes in his own defense.

Paragraph 76 of the 1918 version of the Manual for Courts-Martial (link) required an investigation for any charge forwarded past the summary court-martial level, and explicitly guaranteed “the accused an opportunity to make any statement, offer any evidence, or present any matter in extenuation that he may desire to have considered in connection with the accusation against him.” This guarantee was enacted into Article 70 of the Articles of War in 1920 (link), along with the specific requirement that the investigation be “thorough and impartial.” And this early requirement for a pretrial investigation was considered by the Supreme Court in Humphrey v. Smith, 336 U.S. 695 (1949), where a divided Court determined that it was “important,” but not jurisdictional.

When the UCMJ was enacted in 1950, Article 32 incorporated both the requirement of a “thorough and impartial investigation” and the right of an accused “to present anything he may desire in his own behalf,” along with making the process “binding” but not jurisdictional. The scope of the investigation included, but notably was not limited to, “inquiry as to the truth of the matter set forth in the charges, consideration of the form of charges, and a recommendation as to the disposition which should be made of the case in the interest of justice and discipline.”

This language was left untouched for more than 60 years, but the revision contained in Section 1702(a) of the FY14 NDAA will, when effective, eliminate it entirely. Beginning on December 27, 2014, there will be no more pretrial investigations.

Read more »

This is part three of a series of posts discussing the military justice reforms in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, signed into law by the President on December 26, 2013. The full series is available at this link.

Since signed into law by President Truman on May 5, 1950, Article 46 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice has provided that “the trial counsel, the defense counsel, and the court-martial shall have equal opportunity to obtain witnesses and other evidence in accordance with such regulations as the President may prescribe.”

Article 46 of the UCMJ was based on Article 22 of the Articles of War (1948) and Article 42(b) of the Articles for the Government of the Navy (1946), along with a 1947 proposal to modify the Navy rules. Those precursor rules (in their then-current and prior versions) addressed the procedural method to obtain witnesses to testify at trial, with the Article of War identifying the “Process to Obtain Witnesses,” and the Article for the Government of the Navy providing for “power to issue like process to compel witnesses to appear and testify.” During congressional hearings on the proposed Code, Assistant General Counsel for the Secretary of Defense Felix Larkin explained that Article 46 “go[es] a little further; but in essence it is the same as the provision now in effect” (link to testimony).

This history indicates that Article 46 was conceived more as a rule for process than a rule for discovery. But “military law has long been more liberal than its civilian counterpart in disclosing the government’s case to the accused and in granting discovery rights.” United States v. Killebrew, 9 M.J. 154, 159 (C.M.A. 1980). For instance, before enactment of the UCMJ, paragraph 45(b) of the 1949 Manual for Courts-Martial (link) provided:

Ample opportunity will be given the accused and his counsel to prepare the defense, including opportunities to interview each other and any other person.

Then, the 1951 Manual for Courts-Martial (prepared specifically to implement the UCMJ, according to its separate “Legal and Legislative Basis” pamphlet) included similar language in paragraph 42c (link):

Counsel may properly interview any witness or prospective witness for the opposing side in any case without the consent of opposing counsel or the accused.

The 1951 language remained in effect until the 1984 Manual, which was a major revision that created the modern Rules for Courts-Martial. Included in this revision was Rule for Courts-Martial 701, unequivocally stating procedures for “Discovery.” The 1984 version of Rule 701(e) (link) was:

(e) Access to witnesses and evidence. Each party shall have adequate opportunity to prepare its case and equal opportunity to interview witnesses and inspect evidence. No party may unreasonably impede the access of another party to a witness or evidence.

And this language is unchanged in the current (2012) version of the Manual. So, whatever the original intent of Article 46, the Manual has long guaranteed the right of the Defense to interview witnesses. In the decades since establishment of the Code, military courts have repeatedly used Article 46 and the Rules for Courts-Martial to strike down restrictions on Defense access to witnesses.

But Section 1704 of the NDAA changes Article 46, creating the first ever statutory limitation on the right of a military accused or his counsel to interview a particular type of witness.

Read more »

This is part two of a series of posts discussing the military justice reforms in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, signed into law by the President on December 26, 2013. The full series is available at this link.

Of the 15 NDAA provisions identified in the first part of this series, seven of them affect the earliest stages of a court-martial prosecution. They are:

  • § 1701, creating “Article 6b. Rights of the victim of an offense under this chapter.”
  • § 1716, codifying the special victims counsel program in 10 U.S.C. § 1044e, “Special Victims’ Counsel for victims of sex-related offenses.”
  • § 1703, amending Article 43 to eliminate the 5-year statute of limitations on sexual assault (Art. 120(b)) and sexual assault of a child (Art. 120b(b)). This section applies only to offenses committed on or after December 26, 2013.
  • § 1705(a), amending Article 56 to create a mandatory minimum of dismissal or dishonorable discharge for the offenses of rape (120(a)) or sexual assault (120(b)), rape of a child (120b(a)) or sexual assault of a child (120b(b)), forcible sodomy (125), or attempts to commit these offenses. This takes effect and applies only to offenses committed on and after June 24, 2014 (180 days from enactment).
  • § 1705(b), amending Article 18 to confer jurisdiction over the 1705(a) offenses to only general courts-martial. This also takes effect and applies only to offenses committed on and after June 24, 2014 (180 days from enactment).
  • § 1708, requiring the President to amend the non-binding discussion to R.C.M. 306.
  • § 1707, repealing the offense of consensual sodomy.

Discussion of each of these provisions follows.

Read more »

This is part one of a series of posts discussing the military justice reforms in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, signed into law by the President on December 26, 2013. The full series is available at this link.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 is a big piece of legislation. Contained within the 1,106 page bill are 38 sections addressing a variety of military justice issues. I’ve excerpted all 38 of these sections into a document with a table of contents (Word version available here) (PDF version available here).

From these 38 military justice sections I’ve identified the most important 15. They are: The eight sections that make ten changes to the UCMJ (two sections each make two changes), and five other sections that will significantly impact court-martial prosecutions.

The ten changes to the Code are:

§ 531. Modification of eligibility for appointment as Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
§ 1701. Extension of crime victims’ rights to victims of offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
§ 1702(a). Revision of Article 32 (Use of Preliminary Hearings).
§ 1702(b). Revision of Article 60(c) (Elimination of Unlimited Command Prerogative and Discretion).
§ 1703. Elimination of five-year statute of limitations on trial by court-martial for additional offenses involving sex-related crimes.
§ 1704. Defense counsel interview of victim of an alleged sex-related offense in presence of trial counsel, counsel for the victim, or a Sexual Assault Victim Advocate.
§ 1705(a). Discharge or dismissal for certain sex-related offenses.
§ 1705(b). Trial of such offenses by general courts-martial.
§ 1706. Participation by victim in clemency phase of courts-martial process.
§ 1707. Repeal of the offense of consensual sodomy under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Of these ten sections and subsections, four do not take effect until the future. These are:

  • The new Art. 32 (effective Dec. 27, 2014);
  • The new Art. 60(c) (effective Jun. 24, 2014);
  • The mandatory minimums for sex offenses (effective Jun. 24, 2014); and
  • The requirement for trial by general court-martial for the sex offenses with mandatory minimums (effective Jun. 24, 2014).

I’ve updated our Word document version of the UCMJ to include all of the new Code provisions (there are annotations for the provisions effective in the future). I’ve also significantly reformatted the document and added a linked table of contents.

The other five sections likely to have significant impact on court-martial prosecutions are:

§ 1708. Modification of Manual for Courts-Martial to eliminate factor relating to character and military service of the accused in rule on initial disposition of offenses.
§ 1716. Designation and availability of Special Victims’ Counsel for victims of sex-related offenses.
§ 1744. Review of decisions not to refer charges of certain sex-related offenses for trial by court-martial.
§ 1752. Sense of Congress on disposition of charges involving certain sexual misconduct offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice through courts-martial.
§ 1753. Sense of Congress on the discharge in lieu of court-martial of members of the Armed Forces who commit sex-related offenses.

Over the rest of this week I will discuss all 15 of these provisions in this series of posts, as follows:

  • Part 1: Overview (this post). CAAF eligibility change (§531).
  • Part 2: Preferral-stage changes. Victims rights (§1701), SVC statute (§1716), statute of limitations (§1703), mandatory minimums (§1705(a) and (b)), repeal of consensual sodomy (§1707), and initial disposition factors (§1708).
  • Part 3: Discovery. Changes to Art. 46 (§1704).
  • Part 4: Article 32. The new Art. 32 (§1702(a)), review of decisions not to refer sex-related offenses to trial (§1744), and sense of Congress provisions (§1752 and §1753).
  • Part 5: Post-trial matters. The new Art 60(c) (§1702(b)) and Article 60(d) ((§1706).
  • Part 6: Practice notes. Thoughts on how these new provisions will affect pretrial negotiations, trial practice, and post-trial actions.

Below is a discussion of the first change to the Code: The CAAF eligibility change.

Read more »

As discussed by No Man on Tuesday, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees (HASC & SASC) have reached a compromise National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY14. The compromise bill contains significant modifications to the military justice system. Considering the composition of Congress, I consider passage of this compromise legislation very likely.

The complete text of the 1105 page compromise bill is available here, and a 532 page joint explanatory statement is available here. From these I’ve pulled out just the military justice provisions into a 97 page document containing the legislative text, and a 24 page document containing the explanatory statements.

The compromise legislation contains 38 sections addressing military justice issues. The highlights include:

Section 531, removing the prohibition on officers who retire after 20 years of active service being appointed as judges at CAAF, and permitting their appointment after a 7-year cooling off period.

Section 1702(a), completely rewriting Article 32, changing the nature of the hearing from an investigation to a “preliminary hearing,” explicitly granting a victim the right to refuse to testify, and mandating that the hearing be recorded by “a suitable recording device.” These provisions will take effect one year after enactment.

Section 1702(b), significantly rewriting Article 60(c) to eliminate references to “command prerogative” and “sole discretion of the convening authority,” prohibiting a convening authority from disapproving findings of guilty to all but minor offenses, and significantly restricting a convening authority’s ability to grant sentence relief absent a pretrial agreement or recommendation from the trial counsel. These provisions will take effect 180 days after enactment.

Section 1703, eliminating the 5-year statute of limitations on the offenses of sexual assault (Art. 120(b)) and sexual assault of a child’ (Art. 120b(b)), effective on the date of enactment.

Section 1704, requiring, if requested by the alleged victim, the presence of “trial counsel, a counsel for the victim, or a Sexual Assault Victim Advocate” whenever “defense counsel” interviews an alleged victim of sexual assault. The section also states “defense counsel shall make any request to interview the victim through trial counsel.” There is no stated effective date for this provision (so, at enactment).

Section 1705, establishing a mandatory minimum sentence of dismissal or dishonorable discharge for the offenses of rape (120(a)) or sexual assault (120(b)), rape of a child (120b(a)) or sexual assault of a child (120b(b)), forcible sodomy (125), or attempts to commit these offenses. The section also limits jurisdiction over these offenses to general courts-martial. These provisions will take effect 180 days after enactment, and apply only to offenses committed on or after that date.

Section 1706, modifying Article 60 to allow the victim to submit matters for the convening authority’s consideration before action on the results of trial.

Section 1707, repealing the offense of consensual sodomy.

Section 1708, requiring deletion of the non-binding commentary in the discussion to R.C.M. 306 that suggests that a commander should consider an accused’s military service and character when making a decision on initial disposition of charges.

Section 1714, expanding the protections of The Military Whistleblower Protection Act (10 U.S.C. § 1034).

Section 1716, adding a new section to 10 U.S.C. § 1044 (the legal assistance statute) addressing special victims counsel.

Section 1744, requiring creation of Service-level policies for the “review of decisions not to refer charges for trial by court-martial in cases where a sex-related offense has been alleged by a victim of the alleged offense.” This section also requires forwarding of cases in two scenarios: Forwarding to the service secretary for review any case where a staff judge advocate acting under Art. 34 recommends referral of sexual assault offenses and the convening authority refers no charges to trial; and forwarding to the next superior GCMCA for review when the SJA recommends against referral and no charges are referred.

Sections 1751-1753, stating the sense of Congress regarding command climate, disposition of certain sexual offenses at forums lower than courts-martial, or by administrative separation in lieu of trial by court-martial.