Understanding how to navigate the military justice system can help protect yourself and your rights. For assistance defending against a military crime, the Orange County military lawyer William W. Bruzzo can provide guidance and support.

The Role of the Commanding Officer in the Military Justice System

Commanding officers serve a unique role in the military justice system. The commanding officer usually decides whether the service member will be prosecuted. Commanders generally turn crimes over to criminal investigative agencies like the Navy’s NCIS or Army’s CID for serious offenses. Investigative agencies automatically handle sexual assault and rape cases. The commander of the relevant military installation or commander usually takes less serious crimes.

What Is the UCMJ?

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is a set of federal laws that define the military justice system. The UCMJ sets forth criminal offenses and violations. It also contains rules for court-martialing service members and conducting military trials. Finally, the UCMJ sets out military court procedures and lists the maximum punishment for each offense. 

Courts in the Military Justice System

If you’re a service member and you’ve been court-martialed, you will appear before the courts-martial court. Military courts are necessary because some criminal offenses are unique to service members, including insubordination, desertion, and being absent without leave. If you are found guilty, there are three appellate courts through which you can appeal:

• The court of criminal appeals
• United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
• United States Supreme Court

What Options Does the Commander Have Regarding My Case?

The commander may decide that the accused service member is innocent and take no further accidents. They may take administrative action, which includes:

• Mandatory counseling
• A formal reprimand
• Involuntary separation from the military

The commander may implement a non-judicial punishment (NJP). In this case, the commander holds a hearing in which rules of evidence don’t apply. You have the right to speak or call witnesses on your behalf. If the commander rules against you, you can appeal to a more senior commander.

Finally, the commander may decide to send the case to court-martial. There are three types of court-martial: summary, special, or general. Only senior commanders have the authority to send a case for a general court-martial. Cases are heard by individual justices or panels, depending on the seriousness of the offense. Each branch has a Judge Advocate General Corps (JAG) of military officers who are also lawyers. A JAG officer will prosecute you. As a service member, you have the right to be appointed a JAG officer who will defend you if your case involves a serious offense.

Discuss Your Case with a Skilled Military Defense Attorney

If you’re facing charges as a service member, it’s crucial that you work with an attorney who understands the UCMJ and the military justice system. Contact the California military criminal defense attorney at the Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo today to learn more about how you can defend your rights. 

If you are being separated from any of the military branches for positive urinalysis, a pattern of misconduct or commission of a serious offense you are not entitled to an Administrative Separation Board UNLESS you have been in the military for at least 6 years.

As such, the Command can decline to prosecute in a court-martial and decline to give you a hearing at a Board and still separate you without ever having to prove the case against you or show any proof you committed an offense. In practice, many Commands give the service member a board even if they have less than 6 years of service but that puts the service member at the whim of the Command or subject to demands on the unit’s resources.

Most E-1 through E-4 have not been in the military for 6 years so they are particularly vulnerable to this rule. However, in order for the Command to remove someone without a court-martial or a Board they must advise the service member of their intention and give him/her 5 days to submit written statements for consideration by the Command. By separating the individual in this matter without any sort of hearing the worst discharge the individual can get is a General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions. Unfortunately, the service member will lose the GI Bill Education Benefits with this discharge.

The advisement given to the service member must state the following or something similar in writing:

“(Date): I have been informed by my separation authority that I may receive a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service upon release from active duty based on (Act of Misconduct) This behavior is a significant departure from the conduct expected of a (Service member) and could be the basis for involuntary separation in accordance with (Pertinent Sections of Separation Manual of the particular branch) I was advised of my right to seek legal advice and to submit matters for separation authority’s consideration and that such matters may be submitted within 5 working days after acknowledgement of this notification. I wish (to) (not to) submit matters for consideration. (MCO 1900.16, Section 1004.)

If the Command fails to give this advisement and separates the individual without a court-martial or board hearing with less than an honorable discharge they have failed to follow procedure and the discharged individual should apply to have his discharge upgraded or request a correction of the military record.

Attorney Will Bruzzo, a sworn and certified military lawyer, recently had a case where the client refused Non-Judicial Punishment (Article 15) and demanded court-martial on a positive urinalysis; the Command withdrew the court-martial request (probably because of costs and time that would be spent by the unit putting together a court-martial) and told the service member he would be administratively separated. However, the Command never got around to putting a board together and tried to separate the individual without a board by giving the advisement above. However, there was some question whether the service member had actually knowingly ingested a controlled substance as the positive urinalysis came back for a non-traditional substance. As such,
Mr. Bruzzo submitted matters in consideration which included a sworn letter from him and a toxicologist challenging the reliability of the urinalysis result. As a result the Command gave the individual an honorable discharge preserving his benefits to include the GI Bill.

Mr. Will Bruzzo has more than 20 years of experience in military law matters and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in addition to being sworn and certified as a military lawyer. Please contact him with any military law question at (714) 547-4636.