PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Nov 5, 2013
Article 32 Reform Act - Revises requirements relating to an Article 32 investigative hearing under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to require a judge advocate to conduct a preliminary hearing prior to referring a charge or specification to a general court-martial for trial. Requires such judge advocate to have a grade equal to or higher than the grade of the trial counsel and any defense counsel who is representing the accused at the preliminary hearing. Limits the preliminary hearing to the purpose of determining whether there is probable cause to believe an offense has been committed and whether the accused committed it.
Requires the judge advocate conducting the preliminary hearing to prepare a report that includes: (1) a determination as to the court-martial jurisdiction over the offense and the accused, (2) a determination as to probable cause, (3) a consideration of the form of charges, and (4) a recommendation as to the disposition of the case.
Allows a victim of the alleged offense to decline to testify at the preliminary hearing. Requires the preliminary hearing to be recorded by a court reporter or by a suitable recording device.
People & committees
Sen. Boxer, Barbara [D-CA] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 14, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1644 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1644 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1644 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1644 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.