Contention That Nonjudicial Punishment Was Improperly Imposed

B-194265: Apr 2, 1979

Additional Materials:


Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800

The plaintiff, a Navy enlisted man, alleged that he was improperly subjected to nonjudicial punishment. He was accused of possessing a narcotic substance and his punishment included a reduction in grade and forfeiture of one-half of his pay for a period of 2 months. The plaintiff contended that military authorities lacked jurisdiction over the offense, he was not allowed to inspect all of the evidence against him, and he was denied the assistance of legal counsel. However, an off-post offense committed in a foreign country by a service member is subject to trial by court-martial. Nonjudicial punishment actions and summary court-martials are administrative proceedings in which the accused has no constitutional right to counsel. In addition, there was little merit to the plaintiff's contention that military authorities may not lawfully dispose of drug-related offenses or offenses involving the disobedience of regulations through nonjudicial punishment.

Mar 19, 2018

  • Ampcus, Inc.
    We deny the protest.
  • AMAR Health IT, LLC
    We dismiss the protest because our Office does not have jurisdiction to entertain protests of task orders issued under civilian agency multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts that are valued at less than $10 million.
  • Centurum, Inc.--Costs
    We grant the request.

Mar 15, 2018

  • ORBIS Sibro, Inc.
    We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part.

Mar 14, 2018

Mar 13, 2018

Mar 12, 2018

Looking for more? Browse all our products here