The Article 32 preliminary hearing is the gateway to a general court-martial, and the person who runs it is the preliminary hearing officer, usually called the PHO. This officer hears the evidence, rules on questions that arise during the proceeding, and writes a report recommending how the charges should be handled. Because the PHO sits in such an important position, service members and families often ask what qualifies someone to fill that role and what training the law requires. The honest answer focuses less on a single mandatory training course and more on the legal qualifications the statute and rules impose, the structure that supports the PHO, and the safeguards that protect the integrity of the hearing.
The Statutory Preference for a Judge Advocate
The governing law expresses a clear preference for who should serve as a preliminary hearing officer. Whenever practicable, the PHO is to be a judge advocate, that is, a military attorney, who is certified as competent to perform such duties under the certification provision of the code. This preference reflects the recognition that the hearing involves legal judgments, including assessing probable cause, ruling on matters that come up during the proceeding, and producing a report that addresses jurisdiction and disposition. A trained military lawyer is presumptively the right person for those tasks.
The certification reference is significant. Judge advocates are certified as qualified to perform certain functions under the supervision of the Judge Advocate General of their service. That certification process, which underlies a judge advocate’s qualification to serve in roles such as counsel, is the foundation of the competence the statute looks to when it directs that the PHO should ordinarily be a certified judge advocate.
The Exception for Exceptional Circumstances
The law recognizes that it will not always be practicable to appoint a certified judge advocate. When exceptional circumstances make that impracticable, the convening authority may appoint an impartial commissioned officer who is not a judge advocate to serve as the preliminary hearing officer. This is the exception, not the rule, and it is reserved for situations where appointing a judge advocate genuinely cannot be accomplished.
When a non-lawyer officer serves as the PHO, the law does not leave that officer to navigate the legal questions alone. In that situation, a judge advocate who is certified must be available to provide legal advice to the hearing officer. This requirement ensures that even when the person presiding is not an attorney, the legal judgments at the heart of the hearing are informed by qualified legal counsel. The structure substitutes available legal advice for the lawyer-PHO that the statute prefers.
Grade and Seniority Considerations
Beyond the legal qualification, the rules address the grade of the officer who serves. Whenever practicable, the preliminary hearing officer should be equal in grade to, or senior to, the trial counsel and the defense counsel appearing at the hearing. The point of this guidance is to support the PHO’s independence and authority. An officer who is junior to the lawyers presenting the case might be, or might appear to be, less able to manage the proceeding and rule firmly on contested points. Aligning grade helps preserve the dignity and impartiality of the hearing.
Impartiality as a Core Qualification
Running through all of these provisions is the requirement that the preliminary hearing officer be impartial. Whether the PHO is a certified judge advocate or, in exceptional circumstances, another commissioned officer advised by a judge advocate, the officer must approach the hearing without bias and must not have a disqualifying connection to the case. Impartiality is not a training topic so much as a fundamental qualification, and it is essential to the legitimacy of the recommendation the PHO ultimately makes. An officer who has acted in another capacity in the same case, or who has a personal interest in the outcome, is not suited to serve.
Where Training Fits In
The statute and the Rules for Courts-Martial frame the PHO’s qualification primarily in terms of certification, impartiality, and grade rather than in terms of a single named course that every PHO must complete. In practice, the services support preliminary hearing officers with guidance and reference materials. Service legal communities have published detailed guides for preliminary hearing officers that walk through the procedures, the officer’s responsibilities, and the standards that govern the hearing. Judge advocates also receive instruction in military justice as part of their professional legal education and continuing training, which equips them for the duties a PHO performs. So while the law’s emphasis is on qualification by certification and impartiality, that qualification is reinforced by the professional training judge advocates receive and by the procedural guidance the services provide.
Why These Requirements Matter to the Accused
For a service member facing a general court-martial, the qualifications of the preliminary hearing officer are not a technicality. The PHO assesses whether the government has shown probable cause, rules on matters during the hearing, and recommends how the charges should proceed. An impartial, legally qualified officer is more likely to conduct a fair hearing and to produce a sound recommendation. The preference for a certified judge advocate, the backstop of available legal advice when a non-lawyer serves, the attention to grade, and the bedrock requirement of impartiality together work to ensure that the person running this important proceeding is competent and unbiased. Defense counsel will scrutinize whether the appointed PHO meets these requirements, because a properly qualified and impartial hearing officer is part of what makes the Article 32 process meaningful.
The Bottom Line
There is no single mandatory training course that the law identifies as the prerequisite to serving as a preliminary hearing officer. Instead, the requirements are framed in terms of qualification and impartiality. Whenever practicable, the PHO must be an impartial judge advocate certified as competent under the code. Only in exceptional circumstances, when appointing a judge advocate is impracticable, may an impartial commissioned officer serve, and even then a certified judge advocate must be available to advise that officer. The PHO should ordinarily be equal or senior in grade to counsel, and must always be impartial. These qualifications, supported in practice by the professional training judge advocates receive and by published guidance for hearing officers, are what equip a PHO to conduct a fair and competent Article 32 hearing.
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.