- the initial review of appellant's general court-martial conviction by a judge advocate under Article 65(d), UCMJ, was proper where he was not eligible for direct appeal under Article 66(b), UCMJ, because he had not received a sentence of confinement exceeding six months a dismissal
- the Judge Advocate General had authority to review and act on appellant's case under Article 69(a) and (c)(1)(A), UCMJ, where Article 69(c)(1)(A), UCMJ, contained a simple scrivener's error, a mistake made by someone unfamiliar with the law's object and design; Article 69(c)(1)(A), UCMJ, should be read as if the references to "section 865(b)" and "article . . . 65(b)" are references to "section 865(d)" and "article . . . 65(d)"; accordingly, upon application by appellant, the Judge Advocate General had authority to review appellant's general court-martial conviction for wrongful use of a controlled substance where his conviction had been reviewed by a judge advocate because it was not eligible for direct review for not having a sentence of confinement exceeding six months or a dismissal
CAAF Opinion Digest · IV.G.12 · Appeals
Review by Judge Advocate General
1 digested opinion, 2023–2023 Terms
2023 (October Term)
Source and status
This is a verbatim mirror of the Opinion Digest and opinions tables published by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The headnotes are the court staff’s summaries of the opinions, reproduced as published; they are not the opinions themselves and not this site’s commentary. Nothing here is edited on this site.
Last updated by the court: Oct 13, 2026 · mirrored Oct 29, 2026 · digest page IVG12 · Always confirm a holding against the opinion itself (linked from each case name).