The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ, 64 Stat. 109, 10 U.S.C. §§ 801–946) is the foundation of military law in the United States. It was established by the United States Congress in accordance with the authority given by the United States Constitution in Article I, Section 8, which provides that "The Congress shall have Power....To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces".
Effective upon its ratification in 1788, Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution provided that Congress has the power to regulate the land and naval forces. On 10 April 1806, the United States Congress enacted 101 Articles of War, which were not significantly revised until over a century later. Discipline in the sea services was provided under the Articles for the Government of the United States Navy (commonly referred to as Rocks and Shoals). While the Articles of War evolved during the first half of the twentieth century, being amended in 1916, 1920, and culminating with the substantial reforms in the 1948 version pursuant to the Selective Service Act of 1948 (a/k/a the Elston Act) (Pub.L. 80-759, 62 Stat. 604), its naval counterpart remained little changed by comparison. The military justice system continued to operate under the Articles of War and Articles for the Government of the Navy until 31 May 1951, when the Uniform Code of Military Justice went into effect.
The UCMJ was passed by Congress on 5 May 1950, and signed into law by President Harry S. Truman the next day. It took effect on 31 May 1951. The word uniform in the Code's title refers to its consistent application to all the armed services in place of the earlier Articles of War, Articles of Government, and Disciplinary Laws of the individual services.
The UCMJ, the Rules for Courts-Martial (the military analogue to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure), and the Military Rules of Evidence (the analogue to the Federal Rules of Evidence) have evolved since their implementation, often paralleling the development of the federal civilian criminal justice system. In some ways, the UCMJ has been ahead of changes in the civilian criminal justice system. For example, a rights-warning statement similar to the Miranda warnings (and required in more contexts than in the civilian world where it is applicable only to custodial interrogation) was required by Art. 31 (10 U.S.C. § 831) a decade and a half before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona; Article 38(b) (10 U.S.C. § 838(b)) continued the 1948 Articles of War guarantee that qualified defense counsel be provided to all accused without regard to indigence (and at earlier stages than required in civilian jurisdictions), whereas the U.S. Supreme Court only guaranteed the provision of counsel to indigents in Gideon v. Wainwright. Additionally, the role of what was originally a court-martial's non-voting "law member" developed into the present office of military judge whose capacity is little different from that of an Article III judge in a U.S. district court. At the same time, the "court-martial" itself (the panel of officers hearing the case and weighing the evidence) has converted from being essentially a board of inquiry/review presiding over the trial, into a jury of military service-members. The current version of the UCMJ is printed in latest edition of the Manual for Courts-Martial (2012), incorporating changes made by the President (executive orders) and National Defense Authorization Acts of 2006 and 2007.
Courts-martial are conducted under the UCMJ and the Manual for Courts-Martial United States. If the trial results in a conviction, the case is reviewed by the convening authority – the commanding officer who referred the case for trial by court-martial. The convening authority has discretion to mitigate the findings and sentence, set aside convictions, and/or to remand convictions and/or sentences back to a court-martial for re-hearing.
If the sentence, as approved by the convening authority, includes death, a bad conduct discharge, a dishonorable discharge, dismissal of an officer, or confinement for one year or more, the case is reviewed by an intermediate court. There are four such courts – the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, and the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals.
After review by any of these intermediate courts, the next level of appeal is the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF). The Supreme Court of the United States has discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1259 to review cases under the UCMJ on direct appeal where the CAAF has conducted a mandatory review (death penalty and certified cases), granted discretionary review of a petition, or otherwise granted relief. If the CAAF denies a petition for review or a writ appeal, consideration by the Supreme Court may be obtained only through collateral review (e.g., a writ of habeas corpus). Since 2007, several bills have been introduced into Congress to expand the accessibility of service members to the Supreme Court. See also Equal Justice for United States Military Personnel legislation.
Within the exceptions below, as codified in Article 2 of the UCMJ, personal jurisdiction attaches, regardless of the physical global location of the servicemember, over all members of the uniformed services of the United States: the Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, Navy, NOAA Commissioned Officer Corps, and Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. While the Coast Guard is administered under Title 14 of the United States Code when not operating as part of the U.S. Navy, individuals commissioned or enlisted in the Coast Guard are subject to the UCMJ as an Armed Force. However, commissioned members of the NOAA and PHS, as Uniformed Services, are only subject to the UCMJ when attached or detailed to a military unit or militarized by Presidential executive order during a national emergency or declaration of war.
Members of the military Reserve Components under Title 10 of the United States Code (Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Marine Forces Reserve, and Air Force Reserve), or Title 14 of the United States Code, Coast Guard Reserve when not operating as part of the U.S. Navy, are subject to the UCMJ if they are:
Soldiers and airmen in the National Guard of the United States are subject to the UCMJ only if activated (mobilized or recalled to active duty) in a Federal capacity under Title 10 by an executive order issued by the President, or during their Annual Training periods, which are orders issued under Title 10, during which periods of duty they are federalized into the National Guard of the United States. Otherwise, members of the National Guard are usually exempt from the UCMJ. However, under Title 32 orders, individual members of the Army National Guard and Air Force National Guard are still subject to their respective State codes of Military Justice, which often resemble the UCMJ very closely, and/or their State civil and criminal laws.
Several States also authorize either naval or military organized militia forces. These are collectively known as the State Guard. State Guard organizations are organized, trained, equipped, armed, disciplined, and administered under each State's own sovereign authority, and are not subject to a Federal recall to active duty, nor are the individual members subject to the UCMJ in their capacities as members of the State Guard. State Guard organizations typically are organized similarly to a military force, and usually report to the senior National Guard officer in each State, known as the Adjutant General. In this sense, the State Guard are auxiliaries to each State's Constitutionally authorized organized militia forces, the Army and Air Force National Guard. The State Guard is often specialized, based on each State's requirements, for missions such as wilderness search and rescue, light aviation, forest firefighting, law enforcement, or general emergency management roles. Under each State's own authorities, State Guard members may be ordered to State Active Duty (SAD), in a status similar to National Guard members in a Title 32 status but solely under State authority and discipline, and also may be provided with the training, equipment, and authority to act as law enforcement officers with powers of arrest. Each State sets the requirements to join, remain, be promoted or rewarded, and conditions of employment such as a minimum amount of duty performed in a year, and whether any duty is paid or nonpaid, and whether the individuals are covered by various civil service or retirement pension plans. Most State Guard duty is performed without pay, in a volunteer status. While the State Guard organizations are subject to recall to SAD, or other workforce requirements as imposed by their State, they are not subject to either partial or full mobilization authorities under Title 10. However, the individual State Guard members often have dual-status as both State Guard and a Federally recognized uniformed services member, such as a Texas State Guard officer who is also a retired US military officer. Such an individual could be recalled to active duty under both SAD as a State Guard member, or under one of the various authorities to recall retired or reserve military members to active duty (10 USC 688, various 10 USC 123XX authorities, and others)...but not both because a Federal status trumps a State status. State Guard members could thus be subject to the UCMJ at all times under their Federal status, and under specific State military and civil/criminal codes under their State status.
Cadets and midshipmen at the United States Military Academy, United States Naval Academy, United States Air Force Academy, United States Merchant Marine Academy, and United States Coast Guard Academy are subject to the UCMJ at all times because they are in an active duty status while at a Military Service Academy. Also, Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) cadets and midshipmen, as members of the reserve components, are subject to the UCMJ while on inactive or active duty training.
Members of military auxiliaries such as the Civil Air Patrol and the Coast Guard Auxiliary are not subject to the UCMJ, even when participating in missions assigned by the military or other branches of government. However, members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary can be called by the Commandant of the Coast Guard into the Temporary Reserve, in which case they become subject to the UCMJ.
Additionally, the following categories of servicemembers are subject to the UCMJ as indicated:
Under Article 15 of the Code (Subchapter III), military commanders have the authority to exercise non-judicial punishment (NJP) over their subordinates for minor breaches of discipline. These punishments are carried out after a hearing before the commander, but without a judge or jury. Punishments are limited to reduction in rank, loss of pay, restrictions of privileges, extra-duty, reprimands, and, aboard ships, confinement. Guidelines for the imposition of NJP are contained in Part V of the Manual for Courts-Martial United States and the various service regulations.
Article 138 of the UCMJ provides that any service member may bring a complaint of wrongs against their commanding officer to the officer exercising general court-martial authority over the commander. That officer will investigate the complaint of wrongs and then report the findings of the investigation to the service Secretary (e.g., Secretary of the Army, Navy, Air Force) concerned.
Article 139 (10 U.S.C. § 939) provides for the convening of an investigation board of from one to three commissioned officers to investigate and adjudicate claims of willful damage, destruction, or theft of personal property, only if both parties are subject to the Code.
The UCMJ is found in Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 47 of the United States Code.
|I||General Provisions||§ 801||1–6|
|II||Apprehension and Restraint||§ 807||7–14|
|III||Non-Judicial Punishment||§ 815||15|
|IV||Court-Martial Jurisdiction||§ 816||16–21|
|V||Composition of Courts-Martial||§ 822||22–29|
|VI||Pre-Trial Procedure||§ 830||30–35|
|VII||Trial Procedure||§ 836||36–54|
|IX||Post-Trial Procedure and Review of Courts-Martial||§ 859||59–76|
|X||Punitive Articles||§ 877||77–134|
|XI||Miscellaneous Provisions||§ 935||135–140|
|XII||Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces||§ 941||141–146|
Subchapter I, "General Provisions" has six sections (articles):
|§ 802||2||Persons subject to this chapter|
|§ 803||3||Jurisdiction to try certain personnel|
|§ 804||4||Dismissed officer's right to trial by court-martial|
|§ 805||5||Territorial applicability of this chapter|
|§ 806||6||Judge advocates and legal officers|
|§ 806a||6a||Investigation and disposition of matters pertaining to the fitness of military judges|
Article 1 (Definitions), defines the following terms used in the rest of the UCMJ: Judge Advocate General, the Navy, officer in charge, superior commissioned officer, cadet, midshipman, military, accuser, military judge, law specialist, legal officer, judge advocate, record, classified information, and national security. This article also provides that "The Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard when it is operating as a service in the Navy, shall be considered as one armed force" for the purposes of the UCMJ.
|§ 830||30||Charges and specifications|
|§ 831||31||Compulsory self-incrimination prohibited|
|§ 833||33||Forwarding of charges|
|§ 834||34||Advice of staff judge advocate and reference for trial|
|§ 835||35||Service of charges|
Under Article 31, coercive self-incrimination is prohibited as a right under the Fifth Amendment. Arresting officers utilize the Article 31 warning and waiver as a means to prevent this self-incrimination, much like the Miranda warning. Article 31 was already well-established before Miranda.
Article 32 refers to the pre-trial investigation and hearing conducted before charges are referred to trial for court-martial. It may be conducted by a Judge Advocate General (JAG) officer or non-JAG officer.
Subchapter X, "Punitive Articles", is the subchapter that details offenses under the uniform code:
|§ 878||78||Accessory after the fact|
|§ 879||79||Conviction of lesser included offense|
|§ 883||83||Fraudulent enlistment, appointment, or separation|
|§ 884||84||Unlawful enlistment, appointment, or separation|
|§ 886||86||Absence without leave (Army)/Unauthorized Absence (Navy and USMC)|
|§ 887||87||Missing movement|
|§ 888||88||Contempt toward officials|
|§ 889||89||Disrespect toward superior commissioned officer|
|§ 890||90||Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer|
|§ 891||91||Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer|
|§ 892||92||Failure to obey order or regulation|
|§ 893||93||Cruelty and maltreatment|
|§ 894||94||Mutiny or sedition|
|§ 895||95||Resistance, flight, breach of arrest, and escape|
|§ 896||96||Releasing prisoner without proper authority|
|§ 897||97||Unlawful detention|
|§ 898||98||Noncompliance with procedural rules|
|§ 899||99||Misbehavior before the enemy|
|§ 900||100||Subordinate compelling surrender|
|§ 901||101||Improper use of countersign|
|§ 902||102||Forcing a safeguard|
|§ 903||103||Captured or abandoned property|
|§ 904||104||Aiding the enemy|
|§ 905||105||Misconduct as prisoner|
|§ 907||107||False official statements|
|§ 908||108||Military property of United States – Loss, damage, destruction, or wrongful disposition|
|§ 909||109||Property other than military property of United States – waste, spoilage, or destruction|
|§ 910||110||Improper hazarding of vessel|
|§ 911||111||Drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or vessel|
|§ 912||112||Drunk on duty|
|§ 912a||112a||Wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substances|
|§ 913||113||Misbehavior of sentinel|
|§ 916||116||Riot or breach of peace|
|§ 917||117||Provoking speeches or gestures|
|§ 919a||119a||Death or injury of an unborn child|
|§ 920||120||Rape and carnal knowledge|
|§ 921||121||Larceny and wrongful appropriation|
|§ 923a||123a||Making, drawing, or uttering check, draft, or order without sufficient funds|
|§ 932||132||Frauds against the United States|
|§ 933||133||Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman|
|§ 934||134||General article|
The general article (Article 134) authorizes the prosecution of offenses not specifically detailed by any other article: "all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty". Clause 1 of the article involves disorders and neglect "to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces". Clause 2 involves "conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces". Clause 3 deals with non-capital offenses violating other federal law; under this clause, any such offense created by federal statute may be prosecuted under Article 134. United States v. Perkins, 47 C.M.R. 259 (Air Force Ct. of Military Review 1973).
An officer and a gentleman is a concept and phrase widely used in and about the British armed services from at least the early nineteenth century. The phrase was codified in Article 133 of the US Uniform Code of Military Justice which allows "Conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman" to be punished by a court martial.Article 32 hearing
An Article 32 hearing is a proceeding under the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice, similar to that of a preliminary hearing in civilian law. Its name is derived from UCMJ section VII ("Trial Procedure") Article 32 (10 U.S.C. § 832), which mandates the hearing.
The UCMJ specifies several different levels of formality with which infractions can be dealt. The most serious is a general court-martial. An article 32 hearing is required before a defendant can be referred to a general court-martial, in order to determine whether there is enough evidence to merit a general court-martial. Offenders in the US military may face non-judicial punishment, a summary court-martial, special court-martial, general court-martial, or administrative separation. A commanding officer, in the role as court-martial convening authority, will consult with the command judge advocate for advice on case disposition; factors to be considered include, inter alia, the relevant statutory and case law, the seriousness of the offenses, the strength or weakness of each element of the case, the promotion of good order and discipline, and the commander's desire for case disposition.
An investigation is normally directed when it appears the charges are of such a serious nature that trial by general court-martial may be warranted. The commander directing an investigation under Article 32 details a commissioned officer as investigating officer who will conduct the investigation and make a report of conclusions and recommendations. This officer is never the accuser, trial counsel (judge advocate prosecutor), nor in the accused's chain of command. This officer may or may not have any legal training, although the use of military attorneys (judge advocates) is recommended and common within service practice. If the investigating officer is not a lawyer, he or she may seek legal advice from an impartial source, but may not obtain such advice from counsel for any party.
An investigative hearing is scheduled as soon as reasonably possible after the investigating officer's appointment. The hearing is normally attended by the investigating officer, the accused and the defense counsel. The commander will ordinarily detail counsel to represent the United States, and in some cases a court reporter and an interpreter; these appointments are, in practical reality, duty assignments made by the criminal law branch of the command judge advocate's office. Ordinarily, this investigative hearing is open to the public and the media.
The investigating officer will, generally, review all non-testimonial evidence and then proceed to examination of witnesses. Except for a limited set of rules on privileges, interrogation, and the rape-shield rule (MRE 412), the military rules of evidence do not apply at this investigative hearing. This does not mean, however, that the investigating officer ignores evidentiary issues. The investigating officer will comment on all evidentiary issues that are critical to a case's disposition. All testimony is taken under oath or affirmation, except that an accused may make an unsworn statement.
The defense is given wide latitude in cross-examining witnesses. As of 2013 in cases where sexual assault is alleged some critics allege an extremely intrusive and aggressive cross examination of the victim is permitted, a practice which has been cited by critics of the military's handling of sexual assault in the United States military. In one case, a midshipman at the Navy Academy was interrogated for 30 hours over several days about their past sexual behavior. If the commander details an attorney to represent the United States, this government representative will normally conduct a direct examination of the government witnesses. This is followed by cross-examination by the defense and examination by the investigating officer upon completion of questioning by both counsel. Likewise, if a defense witness is called, the defense counsel will normally conduct a direct examination followed by a government cross-examination. After redirect examination by the defense counsel, or completion of questioning by both counsel, the investigating officer may conduct additional examination. The exact procedures to be followed in the hearing are not specified in either the Uniform Code of Military Justice or the Manual for Court-Martial.Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals
The Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals (CGCCA) is the intermediate appellate court for criminal convictions in the U.S. Coast Guard. It is located in Washington, DC.
The Court was established under Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), by the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard. The Court is normally composed of five appellate military judges, organized in panels of three for consideration of referred cases. All but the Chief Judge have other primary duties, so that their service on the Court constitutes a collateral duty.Convening authority (court-martial)
The term convening authority is used in United States military law to refer to an individual with certain legal powers granted under either the Uniform Code of Military Justice (i.e. the regular military justice system) or the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (for the Guantanamo military commissions).General Counsel of the Navy
The General Counsel of the Department of the Navy is the senior civilian lawyer in the U.S. Department of the Navy and is the senior legal adviser to the Secretary of the Navy. The Office of the General Counsel of the Navy provides legal advice to the Secretary, the Under Secretary of the Navy and the various Assistant Secretaries of the Navy and their staffs. The General Counsel of the Navy is the third highest-ranking civilian office in the Department of the Navy, behind the Secretary and Under Secretary of the Navy.
The General Counsel maintains a close working relationship with the Judge Advocate General of the Navy, the senior uniformed lawyer in the Department of the Navy who performs statutory duties under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The General Counsel manages nearly 650 attorneys worldwide, helps to oversee the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, and advises senior Navy and Marine Corps officials on litigation, acquisition, contractual, fiscal, environmental, property, personnel, legislative, ethics, and intelligence law issues.Guam Police Department
The Guam Police Department (Chamorro: Dipåttamenton Polisian Guåhan) is the law enforcement agency in the United States territory of Guam. The department has jurisdiction across the entire territory, except for areas covered by the port, airport and military bases; the Guam Police Department has authority over military dependents on base, as civilians cannot be charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The police department is headquartered in the Guam Police Department Building in the Tiyan area of Barrigada, and operates four precincts.Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949." Specifically, the ruling says that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was violated.
The case considers whether the United States Congress may pass legislation preventing the Supreme Court from hearing the case of an accused combatant before his military commission takes place, whether the special military commissions which had been set up violated federal law (including the Uniform Code of Military Justice and treaty obligations), and whether courts can enforce the articles of the Geneva Conventions.An unusual aspect of the case was an amicus brief filed by Senators Jon Kyl and Lindsey Graham, which presented an "extensive colloquy" added to the Congressional record as evidence that "Congress was aware" that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 would strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear cases brought by the Guantanamo detainees. Because these statements were not included in the December 21 debate at the time, Emily Bazelon of Slate magazine has argued that their brief was an attempt to mislead the court.On June 29, 2006, the Court issued a 5–3 decision holding that it had jurisdiction, and that the administration did not have authority to set up these particular military commissions without congressional authorization, because they did not comply with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions (which the court found to be incorporated into the Uniform Code of Military Justice).Judge Advocate General's Corps
The Judge Advocate General's Corps (JAG Corps) is the branch or specialty of a military concerned with military justice and military law. Officers serving in a JAG Corps are typically called judge advocates. Only the chief attorney within each branch is referred to as the Judge Advocate General; however, individual JAG Corps officers are colloquially known as JAGs.
Judge Advocates serve primarily as legal advisors to the command to which they are assigned. In this function, they can also serve as the personal legal advisor to their commander. Their advice may cover a wide range of issues dealing with administrative law, government contracting, civilian and military personnel law, law of war and international relations, environmental law, etc. They also serve as prosecutors for the military when conducting courts-martial. In the United States military, they are charged with both the defense and prosecution of military law as provided in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Highly experienced officers of the JAG Corps often serve as military judges in courts-martial and courts of inquiry.Judge Advocate General of the Navy
The Judge Advocate General of the Navy (JAG) is the highest-ranking uniformed lawyer in the United States Department of the Navy. The Judge Advocate General is the principal advisor to the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations on legal matters pertaining to the Navy. The Judge Advocate General also performs other duties prescribed to them under 10 U.S.C. § 5148 and those prescribed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.Manual for Courts-Martial
The Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) is the official guide to the conduct of courts-martial in the United States military. An Executive Order of the President of the United States, the MCM details and expands on the military law in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The MCM contains five parts plus 27 appendices.
Part I is the Preamble, which gives background and jurisdictional information
Part II explains the Rules for Courts-martial (Rules 101 through 1306)
Part III lays out the Military Rules of Evidence (Rules 101 through 1103)
Part IV sets forth the elements and punishments of offenses (Punitive Articles, paragraphs 101 through 113)
Part V provides guidelines for the imposition of non-judicial punishment (NJP)
Appendices provide the Constitution of the United States, the UCMJ itself, analysis of the Parts, historical Executive Orders, forms, etc.On 8 December 2016, the Federal Register published the 2016 Manual for Courts-Martial with all recent changes.Military rule
Military rule may mean:
Military law, the legal system applying to members of the armed forces
Martial law, where military authority takes over normal administration of law
Militarism or militarist ideology - the ideology of government as best served when under military control
Military occupation, when a country or area is occupied after invasion.
List of military occupations
Police state, where people's lives are subject to constant and often covert police surveillance
Military dictatorship, a form of government where political power resides with the military
Military junta ("junta," from Spanish meaning "together")
khakistocracy, where the military regime colludes with the elite and industrial classes for perpetuating their rule
StratocracyMilitary rule may also be:
When a military applies a court-martial and non-judicial punishment
When specific laws are applied in a military context as in the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice by the Judge Advocate General's Corps (JAG)Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals
The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (NMCCA) is the intermediate appellate court for criminal convictions in the United States Navy and the Marine Corps.
Court-martials are conducted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Title 10 of the United States Code §§ 801-946), and the Manual for Courts-Martial. If the trial results in a conviction, the case is reviewed by the convening authority (the person who referred the case for trial by court-martial). The convening authority has discretion to mitigate the findings and sentence.Preferred charge
A preferred charge is an interim step in the United States' military justice system.According to Jonathon Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee, the US military justice system equivalent of a formal charge is only leveled following the recommendation of an article 32 hearing -- a hearing held under the authority of article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.Section 839(a) of title 10 United States Code § 925 - Article 125.
Section 839(a) of title 10 United States Code § 925 - Article 125. is a punitive article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.Title 10 of the United States Code
Title 10 of the United States Code outlines the role of armed forces in the United States Code.
It provides the legal basis for the roles, missions and organization of each of the services as well as the United States Department of Defense. Each of the five subtitles deals with a separate aspect or component of the armed services.
Subtitle A—General Military Law, including Uniform Code of Military Justice
Subtitle C—Navy and Marine Corps
Subtitle D—Air Force
Subtitle E—Reserve ComponentsThe current Title 10 was the result of an overhaul and renumbering of the former Title 10 and Title 34 into one title by an act of Congress on August 10, 1956.
Title 32 outlines the related but different legal basis for the roles, missions and organization of the United States National Guard in the United States Code.Title 50 of the United States Code
Title 50 of the United States Code outlines the role of War and National Defense in the United States Code.
Chapter 1: Council of National Defense
Chapter 2: Board of Ordnance and Fortification
Chapter 3: Alien Enemies
Chapter 4: Espionage
Chapter 4a: Photographing, Sketching, Mapping, Etc., Defensive Installations
Chapter 4b: Disclosure of Classified Information
Chapter 4c: Atomic Weapons and Special Nuclear Materials Information Rewards
Chapter 5: Arsenals, Armories, Arms, And War Material Generally
Chapter 6: Willful Destruction, Etc., Of War Or National-Defense Material
Chapter 7: Interference With Homing Pigeons Owned by United States
Chapter 8: Explosives; Manufacture, Distribution, Storage, Use, And Possession Regulated
Chapter 9: Aircraft
Chapter 10: Helium Gas
Chapter 11: Acquisition Of And Expenditures On Land For National-Defense Purposes
Chapter 12: Vessels In Territorial Waters of United States
Chapter 13: Insurrection
Chapter 14: Wartime Voting by Land and Naval Forces
Chapter 15: National Security
Chapter 16: Defense Industrial Reserves
Chapter 17: Arming American Vessels
Chapter 18: Air-Warning Screen
Chapter 19: Guided Missiles
Chapter 20: Wind Tunnels
Chapter 21: Abaca Production
Chapter 22: Uniform Code of Military Justice Repealed – see Title 10 of the United States Code
Chapter 22a: Representation Of Armed Forces Personnel Before Foreign Judicial Tribunals
Chapter 23: Internal Security
Chapter 24: National Defense Facilities
Chapter 25: Armed Forces Reserve
Chapter 26: Gifts for Defense Purposes
Chapter 27: Reserve Officer Personnel Program
Chapter 28: Status of Armed Forces Personnel Appointed to Service Academies
Chapter 29: National Defense Contracts
Chapter 30: Federal Absentee Voting Assistance
Chapter 31: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations
Chapter 32: Chemical and Biological Warfare Program
Chapter 33: War Powers Resolution
Chapter 34: National Emergencies
Chapter 35: International Emergency Economic Powers
Chapter 36: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Chapter 37: National Security Scholarships, Fellowships, and Grants
Chapter 38: Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability
Chapter 39: Spoils of War
Chapter 40: Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction
Chapter 41: National Nuclear Security Administration
Chapter 42: Atomic Energy Defense Provisions
Chapter 43: Preventing Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and TerrorismUnited States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (in case citations, C.A.A.F. or USCAAF) is an Article I court that exercises worldwide appellate jurisdiction over members of the United States Armed Forces on active duty and other persons subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The court is composed of five civilian judges appointed for 15-year terms by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. The court reviews decisions from the intermediate appellate courts of the services: the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals, and the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.United States Marine Corps Judge Advocate Division
The United States Marine Corps' Judge Advocate Division serves both to advise the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) and other officials in Headquarters, Marine Corps on legal matters, and to oversee the Marine Corps legal community. The head of the Judge Advocate Division (JAD) is the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant (SJA to CMC).
Judge Advocates (JAs) in the Marine Corps work under the supervision of the SJA to the CMC to advise Marine commanders regarding legal issues including the laws of war, and handling of criminal cases under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Marine Corps lawyers are line officers, unlike their counterparts in the United States Navy and Army, which means they can fill any officer billet in the Fleet Marine Force.United States Parole Commission
The United States Parole Commission is the parole board responsible to grant or deny parole and to supervise those released on parole to incarcerated individuals who come under its jurisdiction. It is part of the United States Department of Justice.
The commission has jurisdiction over:
Persons who committed a federal offense before November 1, 1987
Persons who committed a D.C. Code offense before August 5, 2000
Persons who committed a Uniform Code of Military Justice offense and are parole-eligible
Persons who are serving prison terms imposed by foreign countries and have been transferred to the United States to serve their sentenceAdditionally, the Commission has the responsibility to supervise two additional groups for whom they do not have parole jurisdiction:
Persons who committed a D.C. Code offense after August 4, 2000
Persons who have been placed on probation or paroled by a state that have also been placed in the United States Federal Witness Protection Program.
United States Military Judicial Authority
|Judge Advocate General's Corps (JAG)|
|Operations and history|