PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Armed Services. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 113-320.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 16, 2013
Military Justice Improvement Act of 2013 - Amends the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), with respect to charges that allege an offense triable by court-martial (with certain exclusions) for which the maximum punishment includes confinement for more than one year, to direct the Secretary of Defense (DOD) to require the Secretaries of the military departments to provide for the determination of whether to try such charges by general or special court-martial to be made by a commissioned officer of grade O-6 or higher with significant experience in such trials and who is outside the chain of command of the accused. Provides that a determination not to proceed to trial shall not preclude a commanding officer from either referring such charges for trial by summary court-martial or imposing non-judicial punishment.
Requires Rule 306 (relating to policy on initial disposition of offenses) of the Manual for Courts-Martial to be amended to strike the character and military service of the accused from factors to be considered by the disposition authority.
Revises the list of officers authorized to convene general and special courts-martial to include those in grade O-6 or higher assigned such responsibility by their department chief of staff (with the same prohibition against an officer in the same chain of command as the accused). Requires each chief of staff to establish an office which shall convene general and special courts-martial and detail judges and members.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires a military judge to call a general or special court-martial trial into session within 90 days of the determination of its necessity.
Requires a convening authority (the official acting on the sentence of a court-martial), when taking any action other than approving a sentence, to prepare a written justification of such action which shall be made part of the record of the court-martial. Prohibits a convening authority from: (1) dismissing or setting aside a finding of guilty, or (2) reducing a finding of guilty to a finding of guilty to a lesser included offense.
Requires a commanding officer who receives a report of a sexual-related offense involving a member in such officer's chain of command to act immediately upon such report by way of referral to the appropriate criminal investigative office or service.
Amends the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 to require an independent panel established by the DOD Secretary to monitor and assess the implementation and efficacy of this Act and its amendments.
People & committees
Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Armed Services. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 113-320.
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 13, 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.967 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.967 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.967 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.967 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.