Referral is the formal step that sends charges to a court-martial for trial. It is the order by which a convening authority directs that specified charges against an accused be tried by a particular court-martial. Because referral is a discretionary command function that the Uniform Code of Military Justice assigns to identified officials, the question of whether that function can be handed off to someone else is more than a technicality. An improper delegation of referral authority can be challenged, and in the right circumstances it can lead to dismissal of the affected charges.
Who May Convene and Refer
The Uniform Code of Military Justice identifies who may convene each level of court-martial. Article 22 lists the authorities who may convene general courts-martial, Article 23 lists those who may convene special courts-martial, and Article 24 covers summary courts-martial. Rule for Courts-Martial 504 implements these provisions, and Rule for Courts-Martial 601 governs referral, defining it as the order that charges will be tried by a specified court-martial. The power to convene and the power to refer are tied together: in the ordinary case, the same authority who convenes the court refers the charges to it.
Recent Changes to Referral Authority
The framework changed significantly with reforms arising from the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 and reflected in the 2023 and 2024 amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial. For a defined set of covered offenses, an independent Office of Special Trial Counsel now exercises prosecutorial decisions, including referral, removing that decision from the traditional chain of command. The Manual addresses this by clarifying, through amendments to Article 22 and Article 23 mechanics, that a commander does not become an accuser merely because charges referred by a special trial counsel are tried by a court the commander convenes. Any analysis of referral authority today must begin by identifying whether the offense falls within the special trial counsel’s jurisdiction or remains a commander-referred case, because that determines who holds the referral power in the first place.
The Nature of the Referral Decision
Referral is treated as a personal, discretionary act of the convening authority. The authority must consider whether the charges state offenses, whether they are warranted by the evidence in the available materials, and what disposition is appropriate. Before referral to a general court-martial, the case ordinarily requires a completed Article 32 preliminary hearing and the advice of the staff judge advocate under Article 34. These are deliberate judgments the law entrusts to specific officials. The discretionary and personal character of the decision is the reason courts scrutinize attempts to pass it to subordinates or to make it mechanically.
When Delegation Is Unlawful
Delegation is unlawful when the person who actually makes the referral decision is not someone the statute and rules permit to make it, or when the named convening authority abdicates the decision rather than exercising it. A staff judge advocate, for example, advises on referral but does not refer; if the staff officer in substance makes the decision and the convening authority merely signs, the referral may be invalid because the deciding official lacked the authority. Likewise, an attempt to delegate referral to a subordinate commander who does not hold convening authority over that court would be improper. The defect is not the involvement of advisors, which the system requires, but the transfer of the actual decision to a person who cannot lawfully make it.
How the Defect Is Raised
An accused challenges a defective referral through a motion to dismiss or, more precisely, a motion attacking the referral, raised before the military judge. Rule for Courts-Martial 905 governs pretrial motions, and defects in the referral are the kind of issue ordinarily raised before trial. The defense bears the burden of showing the defect. The military judge then determines whether the referral was made by a proper authority exercising independent discretion. Because referral questions are often raised and resolved early, preserving the issue by motion rather than waiting is important.
Dismissal Versus Cure
A finding that referral authority was unlawfully delegated does not always end the case. Many referral defects are treated as curable. If the proper convening authority can validly re-refer the charges, the usual remedy is dismissal without prejudice, allowing a correct referral to follow, rather than a permanent bar to prosecution. Whether dismissal is with or without prejudice depends on the nature of the defect and any resulting prejudice to the accused, including effects on speedy-trial timing or the loss of evidence. A purely procedural defect that can be corrected typically yields a curable dismissal, while a defect entangled with other violations may support a stronger remedy.
The Role of Unlawful Command Influence
Improper delegation cases sometimes overlap with unlawful command influence, which Article 37 prohibits. If a convening authority surrenders the referral decision because a superior directed a particular outcome, or if the decision is dictated rather than independently made, the problem is not only who signed the order but whether the discretion the law requires was exercised at all. Unlawful command influence is treated as a serious threat to the fairness of the military justice system, and a referral tainted by it can be set aside. This overlap is one reason a delegation challenge should examine not just the paperwork but the actual decision-making process behind the referral.
Practical Considerations for the Accused
An accused who suspects improper delegation should obtain the referral document and the convening order, identify the official who actually made the decision, and determine whether that official held convening and referral authority over the charges as classified under the current special trial counsel rules. Counsel should examine whether the staff judge advocate’s advice was given and whether the convening authority personally exercised discretion. The motion should state the specific statutory or rule-based authority that was violated and explain any prejudice. As with most procedural challenges, a precise, preserved record is far more persuasive than a general assertion that something was irregular.
Conclusion
Charges can be dismissed when referral authority is unlawfully delegated, because referral is a discretionary decision the Uniform Code of Military Justice reserves to identified convening authorities, now sharing that space with the Office of Special Trial Counsel for covered offenses. The remedy is often dismissal without prejudice, permitting a proper re-referral, unless the defect carries prejudice or is intertwined with unlawful command influence that justifies stronger relief. The decisive questions are who actually made the referral decision, whether that person was authorized, and whether independent discretion was genuinely exercised.
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.