§ 869. Art. 69. Review by Judge Advocate General

Legislative history

Reconstructed from this section’s Code source credit and amendment notes, resolved against the local Statutes at Large. Editorial notes are evidence, not the law that made the change.

1. 1956

   Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 61 · 70A Stat. 61

   Enacted · 10 U.S.C. § 869

   Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 61

   Source evidence

   Code source credit
   Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 61

2. 1968

   Military Justice Act of 1968

   Pub. L. 90–632 § 2(30) · 82 Stat. 1335

   Changed · 10 U.S.C. § 869

   Pub. L. 90–632 authorized the Judge Advocate General to either vacate or modify the findings or sentence, or both, in whole or in part, in any court-martial case which has been finally reviewed, but which has not been reviewed by a Court of Military Review, because of newly discovered evidence, fraud on the court, lack of jurisdiction over the accused or the offense, or error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused

   Source evidence

   Code amendment note
   Pub. L. 90–632 authorized the Judge Advocate General to either vacate or modify the findings or sentence, or both, in whole or in part, in any court-martial case which has been finally reviewed, but which has not been reviewed by a Court of Military Review, because of newly discovered evidence, fraud on the court, lack of jurisdiction over the accused or the offense, or error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused.

   Enacted provision · exact public law section
   (30) Section 869 (article 69) is amended by adding the following new sentence at the end thereof: “Notwithstanding section 876 of this title (article 76), the findings or sentence, or both, in a court-martial case which has been finally reviewed, but has not been reviewed by a Court of Military Review may be vacated or modified, in whole or in part, by the Judge Advocate General on the ground of newly discovered evidence, fraud on the court, lack of jurisdiction over the accused or the offense, or error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused.”

3. 1981

   Pub. L. 97–81 § 6 · 95 Stat. 1085

   Inserted · 10 U.S.C. § 869

   Pub. L. 97–81 inserted provision that, when a case is considered upon application of the accused, the application must be filed in the Office of the Judge Advocate General by the accused before (1) October 1, 1983, or (2) the last day of the two-year period beginning on the date the sentence is approved by the convening authority or, in a special court-martial case which requires action under section 865(b) of this title (article 65(b)), the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction, whichever is later, unless the accused establishes good cause for failure to file within that time

   Source evidence

   Code amendment note
   Pub. L. 97–81 inserted provision that, when a case is considered upon application of the accused, the application must be filed in the Office of the Judge Advocate General by the accused before (1) October 1, 1983, or (2) the last day of the two-year period beginning on the date the sentence is approved by the convening authority or, in a special court-martial case which requires action under section 865(b) of this title (article 65(b)), the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction, whichever is later, unless the accused establishes good cause for failure to file within that time.

   Enacted provision · exact public law section
   Sec. 6. time limits on applications to judge advocates general Section 869 (article 69) is amended by adding at the end 10 USC 869. thereof the following new sentence: “When such a case is considered upon application of the accused, the application must be filed in the Office of the Judge Advocate General by the accused before— “(1) October 1, 1983; or “(2) the last day of the two-year period beginning on the date the sentence is approved by the convening authority or, in a special court-martial case which requires action under section 865(b) of this title (article 65(b)), the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction, whichever is later, unless the accused establishes good cause for failure to file within that time.”.

4. 1983

   Military Justice Act of 1983

   Pub. L. 98–209 § 7(e)(1) · 97 Stat. 1393

   Amended · 10 U.S.C. § 869

   Pub. L. 98–209 amended section generally. Prior to amendment section provided that every record of trial by general court-martial, in which there had been a finding of guilty and a sentence, the appellate review of which was not otherwise provided for by section 866 of this title, was to be examined in the office of the Judge Advocate General; that if any part of the findings or sentence was found unsupported in law, or if the Judge Advocate General so directed, the record was to be reviewed by a board of review in accordance with section 866 of this title, but in that event there could be no further review by the Court of Military Appeals except under section 867(b)(2) of this title, that notwithstanding section 876 of this title, the findings or sentence, or both, in a court-martial case which had been finally reviewed, but had not been reviewed by a Court of Military Review could be vacated or modified, in whole or in part, by the Judge Advocate General on the ground of newly discovered evidence, fraud on the court, lack of jurisdiction over the accused or the offense, or error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused; and that when such a case was considered upon application of the accused, the application had to be filed in the Office of the Judge Advocate General by the accused before: (1) October 1, 1983, or (2) the last day of the two-year period beginning on the date the sentence was approved by the convening authority or, in a special court-martial case which required action under section 865(b) of this title, the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction, whichever was later, unless the accused established good cause for failure to file within that time

   Source evidence

   Code amendment note
   Pub. L. 98–209 amended section generally. Prior to amendment section provided that every record of trial by general court-martial, in which there had been a finding of guilty and a sentence, the appellate review of which was not otherwise provided for by section 866 of this title, was to be examined in the office of the Judge Advocate General; that if any part of the findings or sentence was found unsupported in law, or if the Judge Advocate General so directed, the record was to be reviewed by a board of review in accordance with section 866 of this title, but in that event there could be no further review by the Court of Military Appeals except under section 867(b)(2) of this title, that notwithstanding section 876 of this title, the findings or sentence, or both, in a court-martial case which had been finally reviewed, but had not been reviewed by a Court of Military Review could be vacated or modified, in whole or in part, by the Judge Advocate General on the ground of newly discovered evidence, fraud on the court, lack of jurisdiction over the accused or the offense, or error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused; and that when such a case was considered upon application of the accused, the application had to be filed in the Office of the Judge Advocate General by the accused before: (1) October 1, 1983, or (2) the last day of the two-year period beginning on the date the sentence was approved by the convening authority or, in a special court-martial case which required action under section 865(b) of this title, the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction, whichever was later, unless the accused established good cause for failure to file within that time.

   Enacted provision · exact public law section
   (1) 10 USC 869. The text of section 869 (article 69) is amended to read as follows: “(a) The record of trial in each general court-martial that is not otherwise reviewed under section 866 of this title (article 66) shall be examined in the office of the Judge Advocate General if there is a finding of guilty and the accused does not waive or withdraw his right to appellate review under section 861 of this title (article 61). If any part of the findings or sentence is found to be unsupported in law or if reassessment of the sentence is appropriate, the Judge Advocate General may modify or set aside the findings or sentence or both. If the Judge Advocate General so directs, the record shall be reviewed by a Court of Military Review under section 866 of this title (article 66), but in that event there may be no further review by the Court of Military Appeals except under section 867(b)(2) of this title (article 67(b)(2)). “(b) The findings or sentence, or both, in a court-martial case not reviewed under subsection (a) or under section 866 of this title (article 66) may be modified or set aside, in whole or in part, by the Judge Advocate General on the ground of newly discovered evidence, fraud on the court, lack of jurisdiction over the accused or the offense, error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused, or the appropriateness of the sentence. If such a case is considered upon application of the accused, the application must be filed in the office of the Judge Advocate General by the accused on or before the last day of the two-year period beginning on the date the sentence is approved under section Ante. p. 1395. 860(c) of this title (article 60(c)), unless the accused establishes good cause for failure to file within that time. “(c) If the Judge Advocate General sets aside the findings Rehearing. or sentence, he may, except when the setting aside is based on lack of sufficient evidence in the record to support the findings, order a rehearing. If he sets aside the findings and sentence and does not order a rehearing, he shall order that the charges be dismissed. If the Judge Advocate General orders a rehearing but the convening authority finds a rehearing impractical, the convening authority shall dismiss the charges”.

5. 1989

   National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991

   Pub. L. 101–189 § 1304(b)(1) · 103 Stat. 1352

   Struck and inserted · 10 U.S.C. § 869(a)

   Pub. L. 101–189, § 1304(b)(1), which directed amendment of subsec. (a) by striking “section 867(b)(2) of this title (article 67(b)(2))” in the third sentence and inserting in lieu thereof “section 867(a)(2) of this title (article 67(a)(2))”, could not be executed because of the intervening amendment by Pub. L. 101–189, § 1302(a)(1), which struck out the third sentence, see below

   Source evidence

   Code amendment note
   Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 101–189, § 1304(b)(1), which directed amendment of subsec. (a) by striking “section 867(b)(2) of this title (article 67(b)(2))” in the third sentence and inserting in lieu thereof “section 867(a)(2) of this title (article 67(a)(2))”, could not be executed because of the intervening amendment by Pub. L. 101–189, § 1302(a)(1), which struck out the third sentence, see below.

   Enacted provision · exact public law section
   (1) Section 869(a) (article 69(a)) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking out “section 867(b)(2) of this title (article 67(b)(2))” in the third sentence and inserting in lieu thereof “section 867(a)(2) of this title (article 67(a)(2))”.

6. 1989

   National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991

   Pub. L. 101–189 § 1302(a)(1) · 103 Stat. 1352

   Struck · 10 U.S.C. § 869(a)

   Pub. L. 101–189, § 1302(a)(1), struck out the third sentence, which read as follows: “If the Judge Advocate General so directs, the record shall be reviewed by a Court of Military Review under section 866 of this title (article 66), but in that event there may be no further review by the Court of Military Appeals except under section 867(b)(2) of this title (article 67(b)(2)).”

   Target inherited from the preceding amendment note.

   Source evidence

   Code amendment note
   Pub. L. 101–189, § 1302(a)(1), struck out the third sentence, which read as follows: “If the Judge Advocate General so directs, the record shall be reviewed by a Court of Military Review under section 866 of this title (article 66), but in that event there may be no further review by the Court of Military Appeals except under section 867(b)(2) of this title (article 67(b)(2)).”

   Enacted provision · exact public law section
   (1) in subsection (a), by striking out the third sentence; and

7. 1989

   National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991

   Pub. L. 101–189 § 1302(a)(2) · 103 Stat. 1352

   Added · 10 U.S.C. § 869(d); 10 U.S.C. § 869(e)

   Pub. L. 101–189, § 1302(a)(2), added subsecs. (d) and (e)

   Source evidence

   Code amendment note
   Subsecs. (d), (e). Pub. L. 101–189, § 1302(a)(2), added subsecs. (d) and (e).

   Enacted provision · exact public law section
   (2) by adding at the end the following: “(d) A Court of Military Review may review, under section 866 of this title (article 66)— “(1) any court-martial case which (A) is subject to action by the Judge Advocate General under this section, and (B) is sent to the Court of Military Review by order of the Judge Advocate General; and “(2) any action taken by the Judge Advocate General under this section in such case. “(e) Notwithstanding section 866 of this title (article 66), in any case reviewed by a Court of Military Review under this section, the Court may take action only with respect to matters of law.”.

8. 1994

   National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995

   Pub. L. 103–337 div. A title IX § 924(c)(2) · 108 Stat. 2663

   Substituted · 10 U.S.C. § 869(d); 10 U.S.C. § 869(e)

   Pub. L. 103–337 substituted “Court of Criminal Appeals” for “Court of Military Review” wherever appearing

   Source evidence

   Code amendment note
   Subsecs. (d), (e). Pub. L. 103–337 substituted “Court of Criminal Appeals” for “Court of Military Review” wherever appearing.

   Enacted provision · exact public law section
   (2) The following sections are amended by striking out “Court of Military Review” each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof “Court of Criminal Appeals”: sections 707(a)(2), 862(b), 867, 868, 869, 870, 871, and 873.

9. 2016

   Military Justice Act of 2016

   Pub. L. 114–328 div. E title LIX § 5333 · 130 Stat. 2000

   Amended · 10 U.S.C. § 869

   Pub. L. 114–328 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section related to review in the office of the Judge Advocate General

   Source evidence

   Code amendment note
   Pub. L. 114–328 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section related to review in the office of the Judge Advocate General.

   Enacted provision · exact public law section
   SEC. 5333. REVIEW BY JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL.   Section 869 of title 10, United States Code (article 69 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), is amended to read as follows: “§ 869. Art. 69. Review by Judge Advocate General “(a) In General.— Upon application by the accused and subject to subsections (b), (c), and (d), the Judge Advocate General may modify or set aside, in whole or in part, the findings and sentence in a court-martial that is not reviewed under section 866 of this title (article 66). “(b) Timing.— To qualify for consideration, an application under subsection (a) must be submitted to the Judge Advocate General not later than one year after the date of completion of review under section 864 or 865 of this title (article 64 or 65), as the case may be. The Judge Advocate General may, for good cause shown, extend the period for submission of an application, but may not consider an application submitted more than three years after such completion date. “(c) Scope.— (1) (A) In a case reviewed under section 864 or 865(b) of this title (article 64 or 65(b)), the Judge Advocate General may set aside the findings or sentence, in whole or in part on the grounds of newly discovered evidence, fraud on the court, lack of jurisdiction over the accused or the offense, error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused, or the appropriateness of the sentence. “(B) In setting aside findings or sentence, the Judge Advocate General may order a rehearing, except that a rehearing may not be ordered in violation of section 844 of this title (article 44). “(C) If the Judge Advocate General sets aside findings and sentence and does not order a rehearing, the Judge Advocate General shall dismiss the charges. “(D) If the Judge Advocate General sets aside findings and orders a rehearing and the convening authority determines that a rehearing would be impractical, the convening authority shall dismiss the charges. “(2) In a case reviewed under section 865(b) of this title (article 65(b)), review under this section is limited to the issue of whether the waiver or withdrawal of an appeal was invalid under the law. If the Judge Advocate General determines that the waiver or withdrawal of an appeal was invalid, the Judge Advocate General shall order appropriate corrective action under rules prescribed by the President. “(d) Court of Criminal Appeals.— (1) A Court of Criminal Appeals may review the action taken by the Judge Advocate General under subsection (c)— “(A) in a case sent to the Court of Criminal Appeals by order of the Judge Advocate General; or “(B) in a case submitted to the Court of Criminal Appeals by the accused in an application for review. “(2) The Court of Criminal Appeals may grant an application under paragraph (1)(B) only if— “(A) the application demonstrates a substantial basis for concluding that the action on review under subsection (c) constituted prejudicial error; and “(B) the application is filed not later than the earlier of— “(i) 60 days after the date on which the accused is notified of the decision of the Judge Advocate General; or “(ii) 60 days after the date on which a copy of the decision of the Judge Advocate General is deposited in the United States mails for delivery by first-class certified mail to the accused at an address provided by the accused or, if no such address has been provided by the accused, at the latest address listed for the accused in his official service record. “(3) The submission of an application for review under this subsection does not constitute a proceeding before the Court of Criminal Appeals for purposes of section 870(c)(1) of this title (article 70(c)(1)). “(e) Action Only on Matters of Law.— Notwithstanding section 866 of this title (article 66), in any case reviewed by a Court of Criminal Appeals under subsection (d), the Court may take action only with respect to matters of law.” .

10. 2017

    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018

    Pub. L. 115–91 div. A title X § 1081(c)(1)(L) · 131 Stat. 1283

    Inserted · 10 U.S.C. § 869(c)(1)(A)

    Pub. L. 115–91 inserted comma after “in whole or in part”

    Source evidence

    Code amendment note
    Subsec. (c)(1)(A). Pub. L. 115–91 inserted comma after “in whole or in part”.

    Enacted provision · exact public law section
    (L) Section 869(c)(1)(A) (article 69(c)(1)(A)), as amended by section 5333 of the Military Justice Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 2935), is further amended by inserting a comma after “in part”.

11. 2021

    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022

    Pub. L. 117–81 div. A title V § 539A(d) · 135 Stat. 1541

    1. Amended · 10 U.S.C. § 869(c)(1)(D)

       Pub. L. 117–81 designated existing provisions as cl. (i)

    2. Substituted · 10 U.S.C. § 869(c)(1)(D)

       Pub. L. 117–81 substituted “Subject to clause (ii), if the Judge Advocate General” for “If the Judge Advocate General”

    3. Substituted · 10 U.S.C. § 869(c)(1)(D)

       Pub. L. 117–81 substituted “impracticable” for “impractical”

    4. Added · 10 U.S.C. § 869(c)(1)(D)

       Pub. L. 117–81 added cl. (ii)

    Source evidence

    Code amendment note
    Subsec. (c)(1)(D). Pub. L. 117–81 designated existing provisions as cl. (i), substituted “Subject to clause (ii), if the Judge Advocate General” for “If the Judge Advocate General” and “impracticable” for “impractical”, and added cl. (ii).

    Enacted provision · exact public law section
    (d) Review by Judge Advocate General.— Section 869(c)(1)(D) of title 10, Untied States Code (article 69(c)(1)(D) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), is amended— (1) by striking “If the Judge Advocate General” and inserting “(i) Subject to clause (ii), if the Judge Advocate General”; (2) by striking “impractical” and inserting “impracticable”; and (3) by adding at the end the following new clause: “(ii) If a case was referred to trial by a special trial counsel, a special trial counsel shall determine if a rehearing is impracticable and shall dismiss the charges if the special trial counsel so determines.” .

12. 2022

    James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023

    Pub. L. 117–263 § 544(c)(1) · 136 Stat. 2395

    Amended · 10 U.S.C. § 869(a)

    Pub. L. 117–263, § 544(c)(1), amended subsec. (a) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “Upon application by the accused and subject to subsections (b), (c), and (d), the Judge Advocate General may modify or set aside, in whole or in part, the findings and sentence in a court-martial that is not reviewed under section 866 of this title (article 66).”

    Source evidence

    Code amendment note
    Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 117–263, § 544(c)(1), amended subsec. (a) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “Upon application by the accused and subject to subsections (b), (c), and (d), the Judge Advocate General may modify or set aside, in whole or in part, the findings and sentence in a court-martial that is not reviewed under section 866 of this title (article 66).”

    Enacted provision · exact public law section
    (1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows: “(a) In General.— Upon application by the accused or receipt of the record pursuant to section 864(c)(3) of this title (article 64(c)(3)) and subject to subsections (b), (c), and (d), the Judge Advocate General may— “(1) with respect to a summary court-martial, modify or set aside, in whole or in part, the findings and sentence; or “(2) with respect to a general or special court-martial, order such court-martial to be reviewed under section 866 of this title (article 66).” ; and

    Effective date note
    Amendment by Pub. L. 117–263 not applicable to any matter that was submitted before Dec. 23, 2022, to a Judge Advocate General under this section, see section 544(d)(2) of Pub. L. 117–263, set out as a note under section 861 of this title.

13. 2022

    James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023

    Pub. L. 117–263 § 544(c)(2) · 136 Stat. 2395

    1. Amended · 10 U.S.C. § 869(b)

       Pub. L. 117–263, § 544(c)(2), designated existing provisions as par. (1)

    2. Substituted · 10 U.S.C. § 869(b)

       Pub. L. 117–263, § 544(c)(2), substituted “not later than—” and subpars. (A) and (B) for “not later than one year after the date of completion of review under section 864 or 865 of this title (article 64 or 65), as the case may be. The Judge Advocate General may, for good cause shown, extend the period for submission of an application, but may not consider an application submitted more than three years after such completion date.”

    3. Added · 10 U.S.C. § 869(b)

       Pub. L. 117–263, § 544(c)(2), added par. (2)

    Source evidence

    Code amendment note
    Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 117–263, § 544(c)(2), designated existing provisions as par. (1), substituted “not later than—” and subpars. (A) and (B) for “not later than one year after the date of completion of review under section 864 or 865 of this title (article 64 or 65), as the case may be. The Judge Advocate General may, for good cause shown, extend the period for submission of an application, but may not consider an application submitted more than three years after such completion date.” and added par. (2).

    Enacted provision · exact public law section
    (2) in subsection (b)— (A) by inserting “(1)” before “To qualify”; and (B) by striking “not later than one year after” and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting the following: “not later than— “(A) for a summary court-martial, one year after the date of completion of review under section 864 of this title (article 64); or “(B) for a general or special court-martial, one year after the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date the accused is provided notice of appellate rights under section 865(c) of this title (article 65(c)), unless the accused submitted a waiver or withdrawal of appellate review under section 861 of this title (article 61) before being provided notice of appellate rights, in which case the application must be submitted to the Judge Advocate General not later than one year after the entry of judgment under section 860c of this title (article 60c). “(2) The Judge Advocate General may, for good cause shown, extend the period for submission of an application, except that— “(A) in the case of an application for review of a summary court martial, the Judge Advocate may not consider an application submitted more than three years after the completion date referred to in paragraph (1)(A); and “(B) in case of an application for review of a general or special court-martial, the Judge Advocate may not consider an application submitted more than three years after the end of the applicable period under paragraph (1)(B).” ;

    Effective date note
    Amendment by Pub. L. 117–263 not applicable to any matter that was submitted before Dec. 23, 2022, to a Judge Advocate General under this section, see section 544(d)(2) of Pub. L. 117–263, set out as a note under section 861 of this title.

14. 2022

    James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023

    Pub. L. 117–263 § 544(c)(3)(A) · 136 Stat. 2395

    Substituted · 10 U.S.C. § 869(c)(1)(A)

    Pub. L. 117–263, § 544(c)(3)(A), substituted “section 864 of this title (article 64)” for “section 864 or 865(b) of this title (article 64 or 65(b))”

    Source evidence

    Code amendment note
    Subsec. (c)(1)(A). Pub. L. 117–263, § 544(c)(3)(A), substituted “section 864 of this title (article 64)” for “section 864 or 865(b) of this title (article 64 or 65(b))”.

    Enacted provision · exact public law section
    (A) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking “section 864 or 865(b) of this title (article 64 or 65(b))” and inserting “section 864 of this title (article 64)”; and

    Effective date note
    Amendment by Pub. L. 117–263 not applicable to any matter that was submitted before Dec. 23, 2022, to a Judge Advocate General under this section, see section 544(d)(2) of Pub. L. 117–263, set out as a note under section 861 of this title.

15. 2022

    James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023

    Pub. L. 117–263 § 544(c)(3)(B) · 136 Stat. 2395

    Substituted · 10 U.S.C. § 869(c)(2)

    Pub. L. 117–263, § 544(c)(3)(B), substituted “the Judge Advocate General shall send the case to the Court of Criminal Appeals” for “the Judge Advocate General shall order appropriate corrective action under rules prescribed by the President”

    Source evidence

    Code amendment note
    Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 117–263, § 544(c)(3)(B), substituted “the Judge Advocate General shall send the case to the Court of Criminal Appeals” for “the Judge Advocate General shall order appropriate corrective action under rules prescribed by the President”.

    Enacted provision · exact public law section
    (B) in paragraph (2), by striking “the Judge Advocate General shall order appropriate corrective action under rules prescribed by the President” and inserting “the Judge Advocate General shall send the case to the Court of Criminal Appeals”; and

    Effective date note
    Amendment by Pub. L. 117–263 not applicable to any matter that was submitted before Dec. 23, 2022, to a Judge Advocate General under this section, see section 544(d)(2) of Pub. L. 117–263, set out as a note under section 861 of this title.

16. 2022

    James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023

    Pub. L. 117–263 § 544(c)(4)(A) · 136 Stat. 2395

    Substituted · 10 U.S.C. § 869(d)(1)

    Pub. L. 117–263, § 544(c)(4)(A), substituted “under subsection (c)(1) in a case submitted” for “under subsection (c)—

    Source evidence

    Code amendment note
    Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 117–263, § 544(c)(4)(A), substituted “under subsection (c)(1) in a case submitted” for “under subsection (c)—

    “(A) in a case sent to the Court of Criminal Appeals by order of the Judge Advocate General; or “(B) in a case submitted”.

    Enacted provision · exact public law section
    (A) in paragraph (1), by striking “under subsection (c)—” and all that follows through “(B) in a case submitted” and inserting “under subsection (c)(1) in a case submitted”; and

    Effective date note
    Amendment by Pub. L. 117–263 not applicable to any matter that was submitted before Dec. 23, 2022, to a Judge Advocate General under this section, see section 544(d)(2) of Pub. L. 117–263, set out as a note under section 861 of this title.

17. 2022

    James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023

    Pub. L. 117–263 § 544(c)(4)(B) · 136 Stat. 2395

    Substituted · 10 U.S.C. § 869(d)(2)

    Pub. L. 117–263, § 544(c)(4)(B), substituted “paragraph (1)” for “paragraph (1)(B)” in introductory provisions

    Source evidence

    Code amendment note
    Subsec. (d)(2). Pub. L. 117–263, § 544(c)(4)(B), substituted “paragraph (1)” for “paragraph (1)(B)” in introductory provisions.

    Enacted provision · exact public law section
    (B) in paragraph (2), in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking “paragraph (1)(B)” and inserting “paragraph (1)”.

    Effective date note
    Amendment by Pub. L. 117–263 not applicable to any matter that was submitted before Dec. 23, 2022, to a Judge Advocate General under this section, see section 544(d)(2) of Pub. L. 117–263, set out as a note under section 861 of this title.

21 of 22 references resolved to an enrolled provision · 1 partial