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


This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.