Yes, an Article 32 preliminary hearing can be rescheduled when the defense is not ready, but a continuance is not automatic. It must be requested, and it will be granted only if there is good cause and only if the official deciding the request has been given the authority to do so. The preliminary hearing officer must balance the accused’s legitimate need for time to prepare against the military’s interest in the prompt disposition of charges. Knowing how that balance is struck helps the defense make a request that has a realistic chance of success.
The Article 32 framework and the source of continuance authority
Article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, found at 10 U.S.C. 832, requires a preliminary hearing before charges are referred to a general court-martial. The hearing is run by a preliminary hearing officer who assesses probable cause, jurisdiction, and disposition.
A threshold practical point is often overlooked: the preliminary hearing officer can grant a continuance only if that power has been delegated. The convening authority’s appointment of the hearing officer, or another written authorization, must give the officer the authority to continue the hearing. Where that authority has not been delegated, a request to reschedule may have to be directed to the convening authority instead. This is one of the first things competent defense counsel will check when preparing a continuance request.
The good cause standard
When the defense asks to reschedule because it is not ready, the request is evaluated under a good cause standard. The hearing officer must carefully and impartially balance the accused’s need for additional preparation time against the need for speedy disposition of the charges. Neither interest automatically wins. A vague assertion that the defense would simply like more time is unlikely to carry the day; a concrete, documented explanation of why the defense genuinely cannot proceed has a much stronger chance.
To make a sound decision, the hearing officer typically develops a record of the relevant timeline. That record commonly addresses when counsel first learned of the case, when counsel received the required disclosures, and the specific reasons counsel cannot proceed on the scheduled date. The more clearly the defense ties its request to identifiable preparation needs, the easier it is for the hearing officer to find good cause.
Common grounds for a defense continuance
Several recurring situations support rescheduling. Late or incomplete disclosure of the government’s materials is a frequent and strong ground, because the defense cannot meaningfully prepare without knowing the evidence. Recent detailing of counsel, the need to review voluminous records, the unavailability of a witness the defense intends to address, or the time needed to consult experts can all support a request. The defense may also seek time to secure civilian counsel of choice.
The request to obtain civilian counsel deserves special mention. Reasonable latitude is generally extended to allow an accused to retain counsel of choice, but this accommodation has limits. The rules direct that the preliminary hearing not be unduly delayed for the purpose of obtaining civilian counsel. A hearing officer is expected to avoid open-ended continuances, to require a reasonable estimate of the time needed, and to set a specific new date rather than leaving the hearing indefinitely postponed.
How the hearing officer should handle the request
A continuance request should be handled with care because the speed of the proceeding and the accused’s right to prepare are both at stake. The hearing officer should obtain enough information to understand the reason for the request, should weigh it against the interest in moving the case forward, and should set firm parameters rather than granting an indefinite delay. The hearing officer is also expected to document any delay in the proceeding and may attach the continuance request and a chronology of events to the report submitted to the convening authority. That documentation matters, because it explains the timeline and protects the integrity of the record.
Practical guidance for the defense
The lessons for the defense are concrete. Confirm whether the hearing officer has been delegated continuance authority, and if not, direct the request appropriately. Make the request in writing, well before the scheduled date when possible. State specific, factual reasons the defense cannot proceed, tied to disclosure dates, counsel detailing, witness availability, or similar concrete needs. Propose a reasonable new date rather than asking for open-ended delay. And recognize that requests grounded in genuine preparation needs are far more persuasive than general assertions.
The bottom line
An Article 32 hearing can be rescheduled when the defense is not ready, provided the request shows good cause and is decided by an official with the authority to grant it. The decision turns on a balance between the accused’s preparation needs and the military’s interest in prompt disposition, with the strongest requests resting on concrete reasons such as late disclosure or the recent detailing of counsel. Requests to obtain civilian counsel are accommodated within reason but cannot be used to delay the hearing indefinitely.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Any accused who needs more time to prepare for an Article 32 hearing should consult qualified military defense counsel, who can frame and support a continuance request under the current rules.
Disclaimer
This article is provided strictly for general educational and informational purposes. It is intended to explain how the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the Rules for Courts-Martial, the Military Rules of Evidence, and related military administrative processes work as a matter of public legal education. It does not constitute legal advice, a legal opinion, or a recommendation about any particular case, and it is not a substitute for advice from a qualified military defense attorney who can evaluate the specific facts and command, service, and jurisdictional circumstances involved.
Reading this article, or contacting any website on which it appears, does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any law firm, attorney, or author. Every court-martial, nonjudicial punishment action, administrative separation, and security-clearance matter turns on its own facts, the charged articles, the convening authority, the service branch, and the evidence, and outcomes vary widely from one case to another.
Military law also changes over time. The Military Justice Act of 2016 (effective January 1, 2019) and subsequent National Defense Authorization Acts renumbered and rewrote many punitive articles, revised the Article 32 preliminary hearing, and altered sentencing, clemency, and appellate procedures. Statutes, regulations, executive orders, the Manual for Courts-Martial, and decisions of the service Courts of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces may have been amended, superseded, or reinterpreted after this article was written, and article numbers or procedures cited here may have changed.
For these reasons, no reader should act or decline to act based on this content without first consulting a licensed attorney experienced in military justice about their own situation. The author and publisher make no warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or current applicability of the information provided, and disclaim any liability for any action taken or not taken in reliance on it. If you are facing investigation, charges, or an adverse administrative action, time limits may apply, and you should seek qualified counsel promptly.