The essence of institutional strategy lies in making hard choices...An effective institutional strategy has multiple components and purposes. It needs to convey a broad, easily understandable outline of the long-term goals of the organization, supported by a detailed plan for how to achieve those goals. It should simultaneously project an inspiring vision for the future that provides its people purpose with enough concrete specificity to be actionable and produce tangible results.

Few life events are more devastating than losing a spouse. For surviving military spouses, the days and weeks that follow are marked by profound grief, disorientation, and an overwhelming list of decisions. Some of those decisions can carry long-term impact, including financial impact—offering a path in the darkness toward stability, growth, and even financial legacy. One often overlooked opportunity is the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax (HEART) Act Conversion, which gives surviving military spouses the potential to fully fund their retirement accounts, invest for their children’s college, or both, overnight.

There is a common fallacy regarding the speedy-trial clock under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 707. Many believe that for a requested period of pre-referral delay to be excluded from the RCM 707 period, the delay must be both: (1) approved by the convening authority or preliminary hearing officer (PHO), and (2) classified as “excludable” by the convening authority or PHO.

Military lawyers, including judge advocates (JAs), must be ready to advise leaders at echelon on the relevant ethical authorities when engaging with non-Federal entities (NFEs) in both official and personal capacities, while also understanding permissible levels of official support. Military leaders will act and engage with the community.

If someone were asked to think of pressing national security issues, it is unlikely that real estate transactions would be the first thing to come to their mind. But recent transactions—primarily involving Chinese government-backed land purchases adjacent to or near domestic U.S. military installations—are just that. These acquisitions introduce homeland security concerns, such as espionage and sabotage against the U.S. military, and have been the topic of discussions in the national security space. Adversaries at or near installation gates pose security risks to both military missions and personnel.