The Corps assigns different judicial responsibilities to different offices, and students should learn the ordinary path before worrying about unusual exceptions. At the trial level, a Military Judge handles the proceeding and exercises judicial authority over matters lawfully assigned to that judge.
Ordinary service appellate review is handled by the appropriate Assistant Judge Advocate General once appellate jurisdiction properly arises. Final discretionary review is handled by the Judge Advocate General under the procedures governing certiorari.
The Deputy Judge Advocate General does not automatically function as another appellate court between the Assistant Judge Advocate General and the Judge Advocate General. The Deputy Judge Advocate General may exercise judicial authority belonging to the Judge Advocate General only when properly designated to act for the Judge Advocate General within the scope of that designation.
A simple way to remember the ordinary structure is trial, service appeal, then possible final discretionary review. Rank and administrative access do not create extra appellate levels because somebody thinks another box would look nice on the chart.
Section 32 · The clerk
The Clerk performs important ministerial and administrative functions such as docketing, filing administration, record management, and notices. Ministerial authority is different from judicial authority.
A Clerk may determine whether a filing can be processed correctly without deciding whether the legal argument inside the filing should win. Controlling the PDF does not secretly make the Clerk the judge.
Section 33 · Access is not jurisdiction
Technical access and legal authority are separate concepts throughout the Corps. The Judge Advocate General may possess Corps-wide administrative access without every trial case becoming personally pending before the Judge Advocate General.
An Assistant Judge Advocate General may have supervisory access to service-level cases without possessing trial-level authority to decide them. A system administrator may be able to inspect a case without possessing any judicial authority at all. The rule is straightforward: the system may determine what someone can technically access, but law and lawful assignment determine what the person may legally decide.
