This edition of The Army Lawyer is devoted to the Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) Corps Civilian. There are nearly 1,500 Civilians, attorneys and paraprofessionals, across all components of our Corps. Many JAG Corps Civilians have spent time in uniform, but many have not. I have served in both capacities and experienced the culture from what can sometimes be two very different perspectives. The challenge for all of us, both Soldier and Civilian, is to figure out how to bridge the gap between the two cultures, leverage all that we have in common, and form successful teams ready to meet the future needs of the Army.

In June 2018, lawyers who served in Vietnam with the 101st Airborne Division (Airmobile) reunited in Dallas. There had been previous reunions, but this was the largest gathering of those who served from 1969–1971, despite the increasing number of deceased comrades from that era.

Since 2002, The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School (TJAGLCS) librarian has worked with the Library of Congress (LOC) Federal Research Division (FRD) in creating a special website devoted to military legal resources. For many years, this was an ad hoc project. Last year, however, Brigadier General R. Patrick Huston signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that established a more formal relationship with the LOC. The intent of the MOA is for the Regiment to provide historically important law-related documents, photographs, and printed materials to the LOC that are scanned, uploaded, and hosted permanently on the free and publicly-accessible LOC FRD website.

While African Americans have fought in every major American conflict except the Mexican-American War, widespread racial prejudice in U.S. society meant that African Americans served in segregated units in the Army until the Korean War.¹ Given this history, it comes as no surprise that opportunities for African Americans to serve as officers in The Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) Corps were very limited in the past.

Secretary of Defense Dr. Mark T. Esper and the Chief of Staff of the Army General James C. McConville recently emphasized their prioritization of stabilizing the Army Family. One of the initiatives discussed to achieve stabilization of the Army Family was quickening the pace for hiring spouses to Army civilian jobs.

Melissa J. Halsey, who was recently named Chief of the Office of The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Assistance Policy Division, a civilian role, first joined the Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) Corps as a direct commissioned officer after earning her law degree at The University of California’s Hastings College of the Law. She served for seven years—all of them in legal assistance, an unusual path but one she requested after her first taste of it serving in Germany.

The Army Claims Personal Property Program Is Not Working Anyone who has spent any time in the military realizes that personal property tends to get damaged or go missing with frequent Permanent Change of Station (PCS) moves. Lately, Soldiers and Family members have become increasingly frustrated—and many are not afraid to speak up, even to Army senior leadership. In October 2018, then-Secretary of the Army Mark Esper, then-Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley, and then-Sergeant Major of the Army Daniel Dailey were peppered with complaints about the gross negligence of moving companies.¹

“Head north.”
“Torpedo ready.”
“STOP!”
“Torpedo launched. Impact in H-2.”
“Direct hit, two damaged.”
Cheers arise from one side of the conference table.

If there were ever an Army program keeping company commanders awake at night, the Command Supply Discipline Program (CSDP) is a contender. The primary goal of the CSDP is efficient management of property¹—the vehicles, weapons, equipment, parts, and other items commands use and for which they are responsible.² The CSDP is a rather rigorous program with enforcement at several echelons of command, numerous interested parties, and, importantly for us—legal applications that depend heavily on subjective analysis.

Few acquisitions are perfect. When a bid protest is filed that challenges the agency’s conclusions or decisions, there is typically a need to explain the agency’s conclusions or decisions to defend against the protest. While additional documentation to explain the agency’s conclusions or decisions may be appropriate, that documentation should be consistent with the contemporaneous record and should not alter or revise the contemporaneous record. This article details that distinction for judge advocates practicing in this field of law.