Manual for Courts-Martial; Proposed Amendments, 30147-30149 [2018-13783]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices
III. Requirements and Limitations for
Participation
Applicants who would like to
participate in the pilot project must be
aware of both the following
requirements to be met by applicants
and the following limitations set by the
IP5 Offices.
A. Requirements To Be Met by
Applicants
The following requirements must be
met by applicants wishing to participate
in the pilot project:
(a) The request for participation in the
pilot must be submitted on the standard
participation form and filed together
with the international application.
(b) The participation form and the
international application must be filed
at the receiving Office of one of the IP5
Offices or at the International Bureau as
receiving Office, and the applicant must
select one of the IP5 Offices as the main
International Searching Authority under
PCT Rule 35. For example, U.S.
applicants filing with the USPTO or the
International Bureau as receiving Office
may select the USPTO, the EPO, the
KIPO, or the JPO as International
Searching Authority, subject to certain
limitations as described in the PCT
Applicant’s Guide, Annex C/US.
(c) Where the participation form and
the international application are filed
with the USPTO, they must be filed in
electronic form via the USPTO’s EFSWeb system. The participation form
must be loaded into EFS-Web as a
separate document using document
description ‘‘Request to Participate in
PCT CS&E Pilot.’’ This is true even
where the participation form is prepared
using WIPO’s ePCT system since EFSWeb only extracts the PCT Request form
and Fee Calculation sheet from ePCT or
PCT Safe zip files.
(d) The participation form and the
international application must be filed
in English when they are filed with the
USPTO. As noted above, the other IP5
Offices will initially only accept
applications filed in English and will
announce when they are prepared to
accept applications in languages other
than English.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
B. Limitations Set by the IP5 Offices
16:58 Jun 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
IV. Duration
The pilot project is divided into two
phases, a preparatory phase and an
operational phase. The preparatory
phase started on June 2, 2016, and was
dedicated to the administrative and
practical preparations required for a
smooth functioning of the pilot. The
operational phase will start on July 1,
2018, and will be dedicated to the
processing of applications under the
collaborative scheme, the monitoring of
applications for evaluation purposes,
and the assessment of the outcome of
the pilot. The operational phase will last
for a period of three years ending on
July 1, 2021, and will include an
evaluation of the impact of the pilot on
examination during the subsequent
national/regional stages. Requests for
participation in the pilot will be
accepted only during the first two years
of the operational phase, i.e., from July
1, 2018, to June 30, 2020.
Dated: June 21, 2018.
Andrei Iancu,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual
Property and Director of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2018–13800 Filed 6–26–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–16–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
The following limitations related to
organizational aspects of the pilot must
be complied with for the main
International Searching Authority to
accept a request for participation in the
pilot:
(a) The applicant must not have had
ten international applications accepted
in the pilot by the same main
International Searching Authority.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
(b) The main International Searching
Authority must not have accepted 100
international applications into the pilot.
The USPTO, in its capacity as the main
International Searching Authority, will
accept 50 applications during the first
year of the pilot, that is from July 1,
2018, to June 30, 2019, and 50
applications during the second year of
the pilot, that is from July 1, 2019, to
June 30, 2020.
(c) The main International Searching
Authority must not determine that there
is a defect in the application (e.g., the
application does not contain a sequence
listing portion of the description and/or
a copy of a sequence listing in computer
readable form as provided for in the
Administrative Instructions under the
PCT) impeding the processing of the
application according to the timeline for
the collaborative process.
Office of the Secretary
[Docket ID DOD–2018–OS–0039]
Manual for Courts-Martial; Proposed
Amendments
Joint Service Committee on
Military Justice (JSC), Department of
Defense.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30147
Notice of proposed amendments
to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United
States (2016 ed.) and notice of public
meeting.
ACTION:
The Department of Defense
requests comments on proposed
changes to the Manual for CourtsMartial, United States (2016 ed.) (MCM).
The proposed changes concern the rules
of procedure and evidence applicable in
trials by courts-martial as well as
amendments to portions of the MCM
discussing the punitive articles of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. The
approval authority for these changes is
the President. These proposed changes
have not been coordinated within the
Department of Defense under DoD
Directive 5500.01, ‘‘Preparing,
Processing and Coordinating
Legislation, Executive Orders,
Proclamations, Views Letters, and
Testimony,’’ June 15, 2007, and do not
constitute the official position of the
Department of Defense, the Military
Departments, or any other Government
agency.
DATES: Comments on the proposed
changes must be received no later than
August 27, 2018. A public meeting for
comments will be held on July 11, 2018,
at 1:30 p.m. in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Armed Forces
building, 450 E Street NW, Washington
DC 20442–0001.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by docket number and title,
by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Department of Defense, Office
of the Deputy Chief Management
Officer, Directorate for Oversight and
Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive,
Mailbox #24, Suite 08D09, Alexandria,
VA 22350–1700.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number for this Federal Register
document. The general policy for
comments and other submissions from
members of the public is to make these
submissions available for public
viewing on the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov as they are
received without change, including any
personal identifiers or contact
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant Alexandra Nica, JAGC, USN,
Executive Secretary, JSC, (202) 685–
7058, alexandra.nica@navy.mil. The JSC
website is located at https://
jsc.defense.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
notice is provided in accordance with
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\27JNN1.SGM
27JNN1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
30148
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices
DoD Instruction 5500.17, ‘‘Role and
Responsibilities of the Joint Service
Committee (JSC) on Military Justice,’’
February 21, 2018.
The JSC invites members of the public
to comment on the proposed changes;
such comments should address specific
recommended changes and provide
supporting rationale.
This notice also sets forth the date,
time, and location for a public meeting
of the JSC to discuss the proposed
changes.
This notice is intended only to
improve the internal management of the
Federal Government. It is not intended
to create any right or benefit,
substantive or procedural, enforceable at
law by any party against the United
States, its agencies, its officers, or any
person.
The proposed amendments to the
MCM are as follows:
Section 1. Part II of the Manual for
Courts-Martial, United States as
amended by E.O. 13825 is further
amended as follows:
(a) R.C.M. 705(d)(1) is amended and
reads as follows:
‘‘(1) In general. Subject to such
limitations as the Secretary concerned
may prescribe pursuant to R.C.M.
705(a), a plea agreement that limits the
sentence that can be imposed by the
court-martial for one or more charges
and specifications may contain:
(A) A limitation on the maximum
punishment that can be imposed by the
court-martial;
(B) a limitation on the minimum
punishment that can be imposed by the
court-martial;
(C) limitations on the maximum and
minimum punishments that can be
imposed by the court-martial; or,
(D) a specified sentence or portion of
a sentence that shall be imposed by the
court-martial.’’
(b) R.C.M. 916(e) is amended and
reads as follows:
‘‘(e) Self-defense.
(1) Homicide or assault cases
involving deadly force. It is a defense to
a homicide, assault involving deadly
force, or battery involving deadly force
that the accused:
(A) Apprehended, on reasonable
grounds, that death or grievous bodily
harm was about to be inflicted
wrongfully on the accused; and
(B) Believed that the force the accused
used was necessary for protection
against death or grievous bodily harm.
(2) Certain aggravated assault cases. It
is a defense to assault with a dangerous
weapon or assault in which substantial
or grievous bodily harm is inflicted that
the accused:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:58 Jun 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
(A) Apprehended, on reasonable
grounds, that bodily harm was about to
be inflicted wrongfully on the accused;
and
(B) In order to deter the assailant,
offered but did not actually inflict or
attempt to inflict substantial or grievous
bodily harm.
(3) Other assaults. It is a defense to
any assault punishable under Article 89,
91, or 128 and not listed in paragraphs
(e)(1) or (2) of this rule that the accused:
(A) Apprehended, upon reasonable
grounds, that bodily harm was about to
be inflicted wrongfully on the accused;
and
(B) Believed that the force that the
accused used was necessary for
protection against bodily harm,
provided that the force used by the
accused was less than the force
inflicting substantial or grievous bodily
harm.’’
(c) R.C.M. 920(g) is new and reads as
follows:
‘‘(g) Waiver. Instructions on a lesser
included offense shall not be given
when both parties waive such an
instruction. After receiving applicable
notification of those lesser included
offenses of which an accused may be
convicted, the parties may waive the
reading of a lesser included offense
instruction. A written waiver is not
required. The accused must
affirmatively acknowledge that he or she
understands the rights involved and
affirmatively waives the instruction on
the record. The accused’s waiver must
be made freely, knowingly, and
intelligently. In the case of a joint or
common trial, instructions on a lesser
included offense shall not be given as to
an individual accused when that
accused and the government agree to
waive such an instruction.’’
(d) R.C.M. 1208(c) is new and reads as
follows:
‘‘(c) Effective date of sentences. The
effective date of portions of a sentence
adjudged at a new trial, other trial, or
rehearing shall be calculated without
regard to any previous adjudged
sentence. The effective dates shall not
relate back to any previously adjudged
sentence.’’
Section 2. Part III of the Manual for
Courts-Martial, United States as
amended by E.O. 13825 is further
amended as follows:
(a) Mil. R. Evid. 315(b)(3) is new and
reads as follows:
‘‘(3) ‘‘Warrant for Wire or Electronic
Communications’’ means a warrant
issued by a military judge pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 2703(a), (b)(1)(A), or (c)(1)(A)
in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 846(d)(3)
and R.C.M. 309(b)(2) and R.C.M. 703A.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(b) Mil. R. Evid. 315(d) is amended
and reads as follows:
‘‘(d) Who May Authorize. A search
authorization under this rule is valid
only if issued by an impartial individual
in one of the categories set forth in
subdivisions (d)(1), (d)(2), and (d)(3).
Only a military judge may issue a
warrant for wire or electronic
communications under this rule. An
otherwise impartial authorizing official
does not lose impartiality merely
because he or she is present at the scene
of a search or is otherwise readily
available to persons who may seek the
issuance of a search authorization; nor
does such an official lose impartiality
merely because the official previously
and impartially authorized investigative
activities when such previous
authorization is similar in intent or
function to a pretrial authorization
made by the United States district
courts.
(1) Commander. A commander or
other person serving in a position
designated by the Secretary concerned
as either a position analogous to an
officer in charge or a position of
command, who has control over the
place where the property or person to be
searched is situated or found, or, if that
place is not under military control,
having control over persons subject to
military law or the law of war;
(2) Military Judge or Magistrate. A
military judge or magistrate if
authorized under regulations prescribed
by the Secretary of Defense or the
Secretary concerned; or
(3) Other competent search authority.
A competent, impartial official as
designated under regulations by the
Secretary of Defense or the Secretary
concerned as an individual authorized
to issue search authorizations under this
rule.’’
Section 3. Part IV of the Manual for
Courts-Martial, United States as
amended by E.O. 13825 is further
amended as follows:
(a) Paragraph 20.c is amended as
follows:
‘‘c. Explanation.
(1) In general. The prevention of
inappropriate sexual activity by trainers,
recruiters, and drill instructors with
recruits, trainees, students attending
service academies, and other potentially
vulnerable persons in the initial training
environment is crucial to the
maintenance of good order and military
discipline. Military law, regulation, and
custom invest officers, noncommissioned officers, drill instructors,
recruiters, cadre, and others with the
right and obligation to exercise control
over those they supervise. In this
context, inappropriate sexual activity
E:\FR\FM\27JNN1.SGM
27JNN1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices
between recruits/trainees and their
respective recruiters/trainers is
inherently destructive to good order and
discipline.
(2) Prohibited activity. The
responsibility for identifying
relationships subject to this offense and
those outside the scope of this offense
is entrusted to the individual Services to
determine and specify by appropriate
regulations. This offense is intended to
cover those situations which involve the
improper use of authority by virtue of
an individual’s position in either a
training or recruiting environment. Not
all contact or associations are prohibited
by this article. Service regulations must
consider circumstances where preexisting relationships (for example,
marriage relationships) exist.
Additionally, this offense only
criminalizes activity occurring when
there is a training or recruiting
relationship between the accused and
the alleged victim of this offense.
(3) Knowledge. The accused must
have actual or constructive knowledge
that a person was a ‘‘specially protected
junior member of the armed forces’’ or
an ‘‘applicant for military service’’ (as
those terms are defined in this offense).
Knowledge may be proved by
circumstantial evidence.
(4) Consent. Consent is not a defense
to this offense.’’
(d) Paragraph 69.c.(1) is amended and
reads as follows:
‘‘(1) ‘‘Access’’ means to gain entry to,
instruct, cause input to, cause output
from, cause data processing with, or
communicate with, the logical,
arithmetical, or memory function
resources of a computer, computer
system, or computer network.’’
(e) Paragraph 89.c.(2) is amended and
reads as follows:
‘‘(2) Personnel action. For purposes of
this offense, ‘‘personnel action’’
means—
(a) any action taken against a
Servicemember that affects, or has the
potential to affect, that Servicemember’s
current position or career, including
promotion, disciplinary or other
corrective action, transfer or
reassignment, performance evaluations,
decisions concerning pay, benefits,
awards, or training, relief or removal,
separation, discharge, referral for mental
health evaluations, and any other
personnel actions as defined by law or
regulation, such as DoD Directive
7050.06 (17 April 2015); or,
(b) any action taken against a civilian
employee that affects, or has the
potential to affect, that person’s current
position or career, including promotion,
disciplinary or other corrective action,
transfer or reassignment, performance
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:58 Jun 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
evaluations, decisions concerning pay,
benefits, awards, or training, relief and
removal, discharge, and any other
personnel actions as defined by law or
regulation such as 5 U.S.C. 2302.’’
Dated: June 21, 2018.
Aaron T. Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2018–13783 Filed 6–26–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[Docket ID: DOD–2018–OS–0037]
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request
Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Sustainment, DoD.
ACTION: Information collection notice.
AGENCY:
In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
Defense Logistics Agency announces a
proposed public information collection
and seeks public comment on the
provisions thereof. Comments are
invited on: Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways
to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and ways to minimize the
burden of the information collection on
respondents, including through the use
of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
DATES: Consideration will be given to all
comments received by August 27, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by docket number and title,
by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Department of Defense, Office of
the Chief Management Officer,
Directorate for Oversight and
Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive,
Mailbox #24 Suite 08D09, Alexandria,
VA 22350–1700.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name, docket
number and title for this Federal
Register document. The general policy
for comments and other submissions
from members of the public is to make
these submissions available for public
viewing on the internet at https://
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30149
www.regulations.gov as they are
received without change, including any
personal identifiers or contact
information.
To
request more information on this
proposed information collection or to
obtain a copy of the proposal and
associated collection instruments,
please write to ODASD (Supply Chain
Integration), 3500 Defense Pentagon RM
1E518, Washington DC 20301–3500,
Anthony VanBuren,
anthony.d.vanburen.ctr@mail.mil or
(571) 372–5259.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Associated Form; and OMB
Number: Defense Materiel Disposition
Procedures for the Sale of DoD Materiel;
DRMS 1645, DRMS 2006, SF 114–A;
OMB Control Number 0704–0534.
Needs and Uses: This collection
allows the Department of Defense (DoD)
and its representatives to assess the
ability of prospective purchasers to
comply with applicable laws and
regulations before the sale of materiel.
Defense Reutilization and Marketing
Service (DRMS) Form 1645, ‘‘Statement
of Intent,’’ and Standard Form (SF) 114–
A, ‘‘Sale of Government Property—Item
Bid Page—Sealed Bid,’’ are used to
identify the nature of the purchaser’s
business, where the materials will be
stored, and what the buyer’s intentions
are with the materiel (i.e., use the
materiel as intended, re-sell to others,
scrap the materiel for recovery of
contents, or re-refine or re-process the
materiel). These forms are used to
determine if DRMS Form 2006, ‘‘PreAward/Post-Award On-Site Review,’’
will also be needed; DRMS Form 2006
allows DoD components to determine if
the purchaser is capable of meeting
environmental and hazardous material
handling responsibilities, in compliance
with CFR part 102 of Title 41.
Compliance with this regulation must
be ascertained before DoD components
may make an award of hazardous and
dangerous property.
Affected Public: Business or other forprofit.
Annual Burden Hours: 232.
Number of Respondents: 72.
Responses per Respondent: 2.63.
Annual Responses: 189.
Average Burden per Response: 1.23
hours.
Frequency: On occasion.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dated: June 21, 2018.
Shelly E. Finke,
Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2018–13838 Filed 6–26–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
E:\FR\FM\27JNN1.SGM
27JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30147-30149]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13783]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[Docket ID DOD-2018-OS-0039]
Manual for Courts-Martial; Proposed Amendments
AGENCY: Joint Service Committee on Military Justice (JSC), Department
of Defense.
ACTION: Notice of proposed amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial,
United States (2016 ed.) and notice of public meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Defense requests comments on proposed
changes to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2016 ed.)
(MCM). The proposed changes concern the rules of procedure and evidence
applicable in trials by courts-martial as well as amendments to
portions of the MCM discussing the punitive articles of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice. The approval authority for these changes is
the President. These proposed changes have not been coordinated within
the Department of Defense under DoD Directive 5500.01, ``Preparing,
Processing and Coordinating Legislation, Executive Orders,
Proclamations, Views Letters, and Testimony,'' June 15, 2007, and do
not constitute the official position of the Department of Defense, the
Military Departments, or any other Government agency.
DATES: Comments on the proposed changes must be received no later than
August 27, 2018. A public meeting for comments will be held on July 11,
2018, at 1:30 p.m. in the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces building, 450 E Street NW, Washington DC 20442-0001.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and
title, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief
Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark
Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Suite 08D09, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general
policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is
to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change,
including any personal identifiers or contact information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Alexandra Nica, JAGC, USN,
Executive Secretary, JSC, (202) 685-7058, [email protected]. The
JSC website is located at https://jsc.defense.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is provided in accordance with
[[Page 30148]]
DoD Instruction 5500.17, ``Role and Responsibilities of the Joint
Service Committee (JSC) on Military Justice,'' February 21, 2018.
The JSC invites members of the public to comment on the proposed
changes; such comments should address specific recommended changes and
provide supporting rationale.
This notice also sets forth the date, time, and location for a
public meeting of the JSC to discuss the proposed changes.
This notice is intended only to improve the internal management of
the Federal Government. It is not intended to create any right or
benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party
against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person.
The proposed amendments to the MCM are as follows:
Section 1. Part II of the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States
as amended by E.O. 13825 is further amended as follows:
(a) R.C.M. 705(d)(1) is amended and reads as follows:
``(1) In general. Subject to such limitations as the Secretary
concerned may prescribe pursuant to R.C.M. 705(a), a plea agreement
that limits the sentence that can be imposed by the court-martial for
one or more charges and specifications may contain:
(A) A limitation on the maximum punishment that can be imposed by
the court-martial;
(B) a limitation on the minimum punishment that can be imposed by
the court-martial;
(C) limitations on the maximum and minimum punishments that can be
imposed by the court-martial; or,
(D) a specified sentence or portion of a sentence that shall be
imposed by the court-martial.''
(b) R.C.M. 916(e) is amended and reads as follows:
``(e) Self-defense.
(1) Homicide or assault cases involving deadly force. It is a
defense to a homicide, assault involving deadly force, or battery
involving deadly force that the accused:
(A) Apprehended, on reasonable grounds, that death or grievous
bodily harm was about to be inflicted wrongfully on the accused; and
(B) Believed that the force the accused used was necessary for
protection against death or grievous bodily harm.
(2) Certain aggravated assault cases. It is a defense to assault
with a dangerous weapon or assault in which substantial or grievous
bodily harm is inflicted that the accused:
(A) Apprehended, on reasonable grounds, that bodily harm was about
to be inflicted wrongfully on the accused; and
(B) In order to deter the assailant, offered but did not actually
inflict or attempt to inflict substantial or grievous bodily harm.
(3) Other assaults. It is a defense to any assault punishable under
Article 89, 91, or 128 and not listed in paragraphs (e)(1) or (2) of
this rule that the accused:
(A) Apprehended, upon reasonable grounds, that bodily harm was
about to be inflicted wrongfully on the accused; and
(B) Believed that the force that the accused used was necessary for
protection against bodily harm, provided that the force used by the
accused was less than the force inflicting substantial or grievous
bodily harm.''
(c) R.C.M. 920(g) is new and reads as follows:
``(g) Waiver. Instructions on a lesser included offense shall not
be given when both parties waive such an instruction. After receiving
applicable notification of those lesser included offenses of which an
accused may be convicted, the parties may waive the reading of a lesser
included offense instruction. A written waiver is not required. The
accused must affirmatively acknowledge that he or she understands the
rights involved and affirmatively waives the instruction on the record.
The accused's waiver must be made freely, knowingly, and intelligently.
In the case of a joint or common trial, instructions on a lesser
included offense shall not be given as to an individual accused when
that accused and the government agree to waive such an instruction.''
(d) R.C.M. 1208(c) is new and reads as follows:
``(c) Effective date of sentences. The effective date of portions
of a sentence adjudged at a new trial, other trial, or rehearing shall
be calculated without regard to any previous adjudged sentence. The
effective dates shall not relate back to any previously adjudged
sentence.''
Section 2. Part III of the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States
as amended by E.O. 13825 is further amended as follows:
(a) Mil. R. Evid. 315(b)(3) is new and reads as follows:
``(3) ``Warrant for Wire or Electronic Communications'' means a
warrant issued by a military judge pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2703(a),
(b)(1)(A), or (c)(1)(A) in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 846(d)(3) and
R.C.M. 309(b)(2) and R.C.M. 703A.''
(b) Mil. R. Evid. 315(d) is amended and reads as follows:
``(d) Who May Authorize. A search authorization under this rule is
valid only if issued by an impartial individual in one of the
categories set forth in subdivisions (d)(1), (d)(2), and (d)(3). Only a
military judge may issue a warrant for wire or electronic
communications under this rule. An otherwise impartial authorizing
official does not lose impartiality merely because he or she is present
at the scene of a search or is otherwise readily available to persons
who may seek the issuance of a search authorization; nor does such an
official lose impartiality merely because the official previously and
impartially authorized investigative activities when such previous
authorization is similar in intent or function to a pretrial
authorization made by the United States district courts.
(1) Commander. A commander or other person serving in a position
designated by the Secretary concerned as either a position analogous to
an officer in charge or a position of command, who has control over the
place where the property or person to be searched is situated or found,
or, if that place is not under military control, having control over
persons subject to military law or the law of war;
(2) Military Judge or Magistrate. A military judge or magistrate if
authorized under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense or
the Secretary concerned; or
(3) Other competent search authority. A competent, impartial
official as designated under regulations by the Secretary of Defense or
the Secretary concerned as an individual authorized to issue search
authorizations under this rule.''
Section 3. Part IV of the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States
as amended by E.O. 13825 is further amended as follows:
(a) Paragraph 20.c is amended as follows:
``c. Explanation.
(1) In general. The prevention of inappropriate sexual activity by
trainers, recruiters, and drill instructors with recruits, trainees,
students attending service academies, and other potentially vulnerable
persons in the initial training environment is crucial to the
maintenance of good order and military discipline. Military law,
regulation, and custom invest officers, non-commissioned officers,
drill instructors, recruiters, cadre, and others with the right and
obligation to exercise control over those they supervise. In this
context, inappropriate sexual activity
[[Page 30149]]
between recruits/trainees and their respective recruiters/trainers is
inherently destructive to good order and discipline.
(2) Prohibited activity. The responsibility for identifying
relationships subject to this offense and those outside the scope of
this offense is entrusted to the individual Services to determine and
specify by appropriate regulations. This offense is intended to cover
those situations which involve the improper use of authority by virtue
of an individual's position in either a training or recruiting
environment. Not all contact or associations are prohibited by this
article. Service regulations must consider circumstances where pre-
existing relationships (for example, marriage relationships) exist.
Additionally, this offense only criminalizes activity occurring when
there is a training or recruiting relationship between the accused and
the alleged victim of this offense.
(3) Knowledge. The accused must have actual or constructive
knowledge that a person was a ``specially protected junior member of
the armed forces'' or an ``applicant for military service'' (as those
terms are defined in this offense). Knowledge may be proved by
circumstantial evidence.
(4) Consent. Consent is not a defense to this offense.''
(d) Paragraph 69.c.(1) is amended and reads as follows:
``(1) ``Access'' means to gain entry to, instruct, cause input to,
cause output from, cause data processing with, or communicate with, the
logical, arithmetical, or memory function resources of a computer,
computer system, or computer network.''
(e) Paragraph 89.c.(2) is amended and reads as follows:
``(2) Personnel action. For purposes of this offense, ``personnel
action'' means--
(a) any action taken against a Servicemember that affects, or has
the potential to affect, that Servicemember's current position or
career, including promotion, disciplinary or other corrective action,
transfer or reassignment, performance evaluations, decisions concerning
pay, benefits, awards, or training, relief or removal, separation,
discharge, referral for mental health evaluations, and any other
personnel actions as defined by law or regulation, such as DoD
Directive 7050.06 (17 April 2015); or,
(b) any action taken against a civilian employee that affects, or
has the potential to affect, that person's current position or career,
including promotion, disciplinary or other corrective action, transfer
or reassignment, performance evaluations, decisions concerning pay,
benefits, awards, or training, relief and removal, discharge, and any
other personnel actions as defined by law or regulation such as 5
U.S.C. 2302.''
Dated: June 21, 2018.
Aaron T. Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2018-13783 Filed 6-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P