AB 37 — Revises provisions governing punishment of certain members of the Nevada National Guard for minor misconduct. (BDR 36-340)

A.B.Assembly Bill No.

3737–Committee ASSEMBLYon BILLGovernment NOAffairs .CHAPTER..........

37–COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT A FFAIRS (O NB EHALF OF THE OFFICE OF THE M ILITARY ) PREFILED N OVEMBER 16, 2018 ____________ Referred to Committee on Government Affairs SUMMARY—Revises provisions governing punishment of certain members of the Nevada National Guard for minor misconduct.

(BDR 36-340) FISCAL NOTE:

Effect on Local Government:

No.

Effect on the State:

No.

~ EXPLANATION – Matter in bolded italics is new;

matter between brackets [omitted material] is material to be omitted.

(1) requires that a commanding officer considering imposing nonjudicial punishment consult with a judge advocate in determining whetherofficer nonjudicialto punishmentconsult with a superior officer in making that determination.mmanding EXPLANATION – Matter in bolded italics is appropriate;new;

andmatter (2)between authorizesbrackets the[omitted commandingmaterial] officeris material to consultbe withomitted. a superior officer in making that determination.

- *AB37* – 2 – THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

If authorized by Office regulations, a commanding officer - 80th Session (2019) – 2 – exercising general court-martial jurisdiction or an officer of general rank in command may delegate his or her powers under NRS 412.286 to 412.302, inclusive, to a principal assistant.

3.be increased, upon appeal or otherwise, unless the punishmentnot imposed was not provided for in the Code.

After4. nonjudicial punishment has been imposed, it may not be increased, upon appeal or otherwise, unless the punishment imposed was not provided for in the Code.

When a commanding officer determines that nonjudicial punishment is appropriate for a particular serviceman orcialor servicewoman, all known offenses determined to be appropriate for disposition by nonjudicial punishment and ready to be considered at that time, including, without limitation, all such offenses arising from a single incident or course of conduct, must ordinarily be considered together, rather than being made the basis for multiple punishment.

- *AB37* – 3 – 6.

Sec.

2.

NRS 412.2879 is hereby amended to read as follows:

- 80th Session (2019) – 3 – 2.

and (i)]3.)] TheIf rightthe ofcommanding officer determines that a formal proceeding is appropriate, the accused must be given a reasonable time to appeal.consult with counsel [,] and to gather matters in defense, extenuation and mitigation .

3.[and to decide whether to accept the nonjudicial punishment or demand a trial by court-martial.] This [decision] period of time must be at least 48 hours, depending on the availability of counsel, but such period of time may be extended at the request of the accused.

If the commanding officer determines that a formal proceeding is appropriate, the accused must be given a reasonable time to consult with counsel [,] and to gather matters in defense, extenuation and mitigation .

[and to decide whether to accept the nonjudicial punishment or demand a trial by court-martial.] This [decision] period of time must be at least 48 hours, depending on the - *AB37* – 4 – availability of counsel, but such period of time may be extended at the request of the accused.

The amendatory provisions of this act do not apply to any formal proceeding relating to nonjudicial punishment for which a serviceman or servicewoman has been issued written notice onpursuant Juneto 30,subsection 2019,2 beforeof JulyNRS 1,412.293, 2019.3, as that subsection existed Sec.on June 30, 2019, before July 1, 2019.

Sec.

H~~~~~ 19 - *AB37*80th Session (2019)