MJRP Dead in the Water

Sources tell us that the Military Justice Review Panel is non-functioning. Despite having a report due in two months, members received a message today stating "We remain in a 'stand by' status for the MJRP and appointment of members.” The members were actually appointed in December of last year. It goes without saying that 2021 is bad year to have this panel dead in the water. 

The Secretary of Defense shall establish a panel to conduct independent periodic reviews and assessments of the operation of this chapter. The panel shall be known as the “Military Justice Review Panel” (int this section referred to as the “Panel”).

Aricle146, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 946(a). For all intents and purposes the MJRP is intended to replace the CAAF Code Committee.
​

​Code Committee
Article 146 of the UCMJ historically established a committee to meet annually for the purpose of making an annual survey of the operation of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice.) The Committee was composed of the judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the Judge Advocate General of the Army, the Judge Advocate General of the Navy, the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force, the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard, the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and two members of the public appointed by the Secretary of Defense. The meetings were open to the public. Notice of the meetings was published in the Federal Register and on this webpage. The Annual Reports of the Committee were published in West's Military Justice Reporter. The historic reports are available on the Court's website.
​
Article 146 was modified by the Military Justice Act of 2016,1 creating a new Military Justice Review Panel established by the Secretary of Defense. The Court's limited interface with the new panel, as found in the statute, is that the Secretary of Defense is to consider any recommendation made by the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces for the nonspecified remaining members of the panel. The Court's historic role on the former Code Committee and in compiling the annual report was replaced by a separate reporting requirement for the Court. See Article 146a(a) (prescribing an annual report from the Court