Fee petition mechanics · Updated June 2026
Military law attorney fee petition mechanics: MJCMS court-martial investigation and Article 32 preliminary hearing advisory on the Military Justice Case Management System non-PACER calendar, BCMR/AFBCMR board review and 38 U.S.C. § 5904 VA accredited attorney claims advisory on the administrative board calendar, and federal court habeas/mandamus and EAJA 28 U.S.C. § 2412 fee petition advisory
Military law solos billing hourly on UCMJ court-martial defense, Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR/AFBCMR/BCNR) proceedings, and VA-accredited attorney representation under 38 U.S.C. § 5904 — whose fee documentation must cover advisory calls triggered by the Military Justice Case Management System non-PACER DoD criminal justice calendar (MJCMS records court-martial case numbers, Article 32 PHO appointments, and court-martial referral dates entirely outside PACER), the BCMR/AFBCMR/BCNR administrative board hearing calendar (10 U.S.C. § 1552 board proceedings in DoD internal case tracking systems outside PACER), and the post-board federal court habeas/mandamus and EAJA 28 U.S.C. § 2412 "shall award" mandatory fee petition calendar — generate three billing gaps: MJCMS court-martial investigation and Article 32 PHO appointment advisory calls arriving when the commanding officer refers charges to the convening authority and the Article 32 hearing is scheduled on DoD's non-PACER MJCMS calendar (7 clients × 2 calls × 44 min × 55% untracked ≈ 5.65 hrs = $1,695–$2,825/year at $300–$500/hr), ABCMR/AFBCMR board review hearing and 38 U.S.C. § 5904 VA BVA briefing advisory calls arriving when the 10 U.S.C. § 1552 board sets its hearing schedule and the BVA sets briefing deadlines in the VACOLS non-PACER VA case management system (6 clients × 3 calls × 44 min × 55% untracked ≈ 7.26 hrs = $2,178–$3,630/year), and federal court § 2241 habeas/APA mandamus and EAJA § 2412 "shall award" mandatory fee petition advisory calls arriving when the government loses in Article III federal court and the Scarborough v. Principi 30-day EAJA application window opens (5 clients × 2 calls × 44 min × 55% untracked ≈ 4.03 hrs = $1,210–$2,017/year). For a solo military law practice, the annual billing gap is $5,083–$8,472.
TL;DR
ClaimHour captures every MJCMS court-martial investigation and Article 32 advisory call that arrives when the DoD internal criminal justice calendar schedules the hearing before any PACER entry exists, every BCMR/AFBCMR board review and § 5904 VA BVA briefing advisory call that arrives when the administrative board and VACOLS non-PACER VA calendar set hearing deadlines, and every federal court habeas/mandamus and EAJA § 2412 mandatory fee petition advisory call that arrives when the government loses in federal court — passively, no timer, no audio, no call contents. $29–$59/mo. No PMS required.
MJCMS court-martial investigation and Article 32 preliminary hearing advisory: calls on the Military Justice Case Management System non-PACER calendar
The Military Justice Case Management System (MJCMS) — the Department of Defense's internal case management database for military justice proceedings — is the primary Welch temporal anchor for military law billing documentation. MJCMS records court-martial investigation case numbers, commanding officer referral dates, Article 32 Preliminary Hearing Officer (PHO) appointments, and court-martial scheduling orders in a DoD internal system entirely outside PACER, CM/ECF, and any Article III court docketing system. The MJCMS case number and court-martial referral date precede any federal court filing by months to years — with the entire military justice proceeding (investigation, Article 32 hearing, court-martial, Court of Criminal Appeals, and CAAF review) potentially occurring entirely outside PACER until a § 2241 habeas petition is filed. UCMJ Article 32 (10 U.S.C. § 832) requires a preliminary hearing before a general court-martial referral, and the Article 32 PHO is appointed by the convening authority on MJCMS's internal scheduling calendar, generating advisory calls on a DoD administrative calendar that has no civilian court equivalent.
Two MJCMS court-martial advisory call types: (1) MJCMS court-martial investigation and UCMJ Article 32 PHO appointment advisory — arrives when the commanding officer initiates formal charges or the Article 32 PHO is appointed (requiring UCMJ Art. 32 preliminary hearing scope: PHO determines probable cause, reviews charges, considers lesser included offenses, and makes recommendations to convening authority; R.C.M. 405 hearing procedures — limited cross-examination, hearsay admissible; R.C.M. 906(b)(12) 120-day speedy trial clock from date of restraint or preferral under UCMJ Art. 10; UCMJ Art. 27 right to counsel — service member may retain civilian counsel at own expense; UCMJ Art. 31(b) rights advisement broader than Fifth Amendment Miranda — applies to all questioning by military personnel; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) IAC analysis applicable to military court-martial defense counsel; and UCMJ Art. 60 convening authority action on court-martial findings and sentence — 44–52 min); (2) General court-martial arraignment, pre-trial motions, and Military Rules of Evidence advisory — arrives when the case is referred to a general court-martial and the MJCMS scheduling order sets the arraignment and pre-trial motion hearing dates (requiring R.C.M. 801–811 arraignment procedures; R.C.M. 907 motions to dismiss; Military Rule of Evidence 304 confession admissibility — involuntary confession exclusion broader than federal Miranda under UCMJ Art. 31; Military Rule of Evidence 412 rape shield — applies in sexual offense court-martials; R.C.M. 917 directed verdict motions; and UCMJ Art. 66 automatic Court of Criminal Appeals review — CCA review includes both legal and factual sufficiency, unlike Article III courts — 44–52 min). At 55% untracked: 7 clients × 2 calls × 44 min × 55% = 338.8 min / 60 = 5.65 hours = $1,695–$2,825/year at $300–$500/hr.
BCMR/AFBCMR board review and 38 U.S.C. § 5904 VA accredited attorney claims advisory: calls on the administrative board calendar
The Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), and Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) process applications under 10 U.S.C. § 1552 to correct errors or injustices in military records — including discharge upgrades, removal of Letters of Reprimand, correction of Officer Evaluation Reports, and reinstatement to grade. These boards operate on administrative schedules maintained in DoD internal tracking systems (ABCMR's internal tracking, AFBCMR's PCAS, BCNR's administrative calendar) that are entirely outside PACER, generating advisory calls on military administrative calendars with no civilian court docketing counterpart. Concurrent 38 U.S.C. § 5904 VA-accredited attorney representation before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) creates a parallel billing track whose deadlines are driven by the VACOLS case management system (VA's non-PACER internal case tracking database for BVA proceedings) — making military law the only practice area in the fee-petition-mechanics series where the practitioner simultaneously manages three distinct non-PACER billing calendars: MJCMS (criminal), BCMR/AFBCMR (administrative record correction), and VACOLS (VA benefits).
Three BCMR/AFBCMR and § 5904 advisory call types: (1) ABCMR/AFBCMR/BCNR § 1552 board application and record correction advisory — arrives when the client's board application is filed and the board's administrative review begins (requiring 10 U.S.C. § 1552 error-or-injustice standard: board must find "material error" or "injustice" — presumption of regularity applies; 3-year SOL from discovery of error, rebuttable in justice; DoD Directive 1332.28 discharge review vs. BCMR election; APA 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) arbitrary-and-capricious standard for federal court review of BCMR decisions; Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296 (1983) civilian courts have jurisdiction to review BCMR decisions; and Strickland IAC analysis if BCMR application includes ineffective assistance claim against prior military counsel — 44–52 min); (2) 38 U.S.C. § 5904 VA-accredited attorney fee agreement and BVA briefing advisory — arrives when the client's VA claim reaches BVA and the VACOLS briefing schedule is set (requiring § 5904(c)(1) VA-accredited attorney fee agreement: contingent fee, not to exceed 20% of past-due benefits; § 5904(c)(2) reasonableness; 38 C.F.R. § 14.636 accreditation and fee agreement requirements; VACOLS BVA briefing calendar — BVA schedules briefings in VACOLS, a non-PACER VA internal case management system entirely outside civilian court docketing; 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1) BVA decision timing — 12 months from hearing or waiver; and Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396 (2009) harmless error in VA benefits appeals — 44–52 min); (3) Disability Evaluation System and Physical Evaluation Board advisory — arrives when the client's medical condition triggers IDES/DES mandatory referral (requiring DoD Instruction 1332.18 DES/IDES procedures; IDES integrated rating: PEB formal and informal proceedings; VA rating under 38 C.F.R. Part 4 VASRD; separation pay vs. disability retirement analysis under 10 U.S.C. § 1203 vs. § 1204; CRDP (Concurrent Retirement and Disability Pay) coordination for retirees under 10 U.S.C. § 1414; and CRSC (Combat-Related Special Compensation) under 10 U.S.C. § 1413a for combat-related disabilities — 44–52 min). At 55% untracked: 6 clients × 3 calls × 44 min × 55% = 435.6 min / 60 = 7.26 hours = $2,178–$3,630/year at $300–$500/hr.
Federal court habeas/mandamus and EAJA 28 U.S.C. § 2412 fee petition advisory: calls on the post-board federal court calendar
28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) — the Equal Access to Justice Act — provides that a court "shall award" fees and expenses to a prevailing party in any civil action brought by or against the United States unless the government demonstrates its position was "substantially justified" under the Pierce v. Underwood standard or special circumstances make an award unjust. When a military law client prevails on APA mandamus review of a BCMR/AFBCMR decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (arbitrary and capricious, § 706(2)(A)), or prevails on habeas corpus under § 2241 challenging a court-martial conviction, the government must meet the substantial-justification burden — which it frequently fails when BCMR decisions are held arbitrary and capricious for ignoring relevant evidence or applying an incorrect legal standard. 38 U.S.C. § 5904 independently creates a VA-accredited attorney fee recovery pathway in CAVC review proceedings through § 5904(c)(1)'s contingent fee structure and through EAJA fees when the Secretary of Veterans Affairs' CAVC position was not substantially justified.
Two post-board federal court advisory call types: (1) EAJA § 2412(d)(1)(A) "shall award" fee petition advisory — arrives when the government loses in Article III federal court on § 2241 habeas, APA mandamus, or CAVC review (requiring § 2412(d)(1)(A) mandatory fee award unless government's "position" was substantially justified: Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (1988) "substantially justified" means reasonable in law and fact evaluated at each stage of the litigation; Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U.S. 401 (2004) EAJA 30-day application window from final judgment finality — window may be extended by Scarborough's supplementation rule; Pirus v. Bowen, 869 F.2d 536 (9th Cir. 1989) EAJA expertise rate enhancement above COLA-adjusted statutory rate (~$244.62/hr for 2026) for military law counsel's distinctive expertise; Commissioner, INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154 (1990) fees-on-fees recoverable under EAJA for EAJA petition preparation hours; and Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) lodestar from MJCMS case referral date through federal court judgment — all court-martial defense, BCMR application, and appellate hours from the MJCMS anchor through federal court judgment are recoverable — 44–52 min); (2) 38 U.S.C. § 5904 VA-accredited attorney CAVC fee petition and EAJA advisory — arrives when the CAVC issues a decision on BVA review and § 5904 fees and/or CAVC EAJA fees must be calculated (requiring § 5904(c)(1) contingent fee on past-due benefits: 20% maximum, directly payable by VA; CAVC Rule 39 attorney fee petition procedures; EAJA § 2412(d) fee award when Secretary of Veterans Affairs' CAVC litigation position was not substantially justified; CAVC Miscellaneous Fee Schedule; Carpenter v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 64 (2001) reasonable attorney fees in CAVC review; and § 7107(b) CAVC submission of the record — 44–52 min). At 55% untracked: 5 clients × 2 calls × 44 min × 55% = 242 min / 60 = 4.03 hours = $1,210–$2,017/year at $300–$500/hr.
How ClaimHour fits military law practice
If you handle UCMJ court-martial defense, ABCMR/AFBCMR/BCNR board correction proceedings, and VA-accredited attorney representation — with MJCMS court-martial investigation and Article 32 PHO advisory calls arriving when the DoD internal criminal justice calendar schedules the hearing before any PACER entry exists, BCMR board review and § 5904 BVA briefing advisory calls arriving when the administrative board and VACOLS non-PACER VA case management calendar set hearing deadlines, and EAJA § 2412 "shall award" mandatory fee petition advisory calls arriving when the government loses in federal court — and if your fee documentation must satisfy Hensley lodestar specificity from the MJCMS case referral date, the BCMR/VACOLS board hearing date, and the § 2241 habeas or APA mandamus federal court judgment date across three billing calendars (all non-PACER until federal court), ClaimHour was built for that gap.
Related questions
How do MJCMS court-martial investigation and Article 32 advisory calls generate billing gaps on the Military Justice Case Management System non-PACER calendar?
The Military Justice Case Management System (MJCMS — DoD internal case management system for military justice, entirely outside PACER) is the primary Welch temporal anchor for military law billing. The MJCMS court-martial referral date precedes any Article III court filing by months to years — the entire court-martial, CCA review, and CAAF review may proceed entirely outside PACER. Two call types: MJCMS court-martial investigation and Article 32 PHO appointment advisory (44–52 min, arriving when charges are preferred — requires R.C.M. 405 hearing procedures, R.C.M. 906(b)(12) 120-day speedy trial, UCMJ Art. 31(b) rights advisement, Strickland IAC, Art. 66 CCA automatic review) and general court-martial arraignment and Military Rules of Evidence advisory (44–52 min, arriving at arraignment — requires R.C.M. 801–811, MRE 304 confessions, MRE 412 rape shield, R.C.M. 917 directed verdict, Art. 66 legal and factual sufficiency CCA review). At 55% untracked: 7 clients × 2 calls × 44 min × 55% ≈ 5.65 hours = $1,695–$2,825/year at $300–$500/hr.
How do BCMR/AFBCMR board review and § 5904 VA claims advisory calls generate billing gaps on the administrative board calendar?
The ABCMR/AFBCMR/BCNR boards operate on administrative schedules maintained in DoD internal tracking systems (ABCMR internal, AFBCMR PCAS, BCNR administrative calendar) outside PACER. Concurrent 38 U.S.C. § 5904 VA representation is tracked in VACOLS (VA's non-PACER BVA case management system). Military law is the only practice area in the fee-petition-mechanics series managing three distinct non-PACER billing calendars simultaneously (MJCMS + BCMR/AFBCMR + VACOLS). Three call types: ABCMR/AFBCMR § 1552 board application and record correction advisory (44–52 min, arriving at application filing — requires § 1552 error-or-injustice standard, 3-year SOL, APA arbitrary-capricious review, Chappell v. Wallace jurisdiction), § 5904 VA attorney fee agreement and BVA VACOLS briefing advisory (44–52 min, arriving at BVA briefing schedule — requires § 5904(c)(1) 20% contingent fee cap, VACOLS non-PACER BVA calendar, Shinseki v. Sanders harmless error), and DES/IDES Physical Evaluation Board advisory (44–52 min, arriving at PEB referral — requires DoD Instruction 1332.18, IDES dual-rating, VASRD, CRDP/CRSC coordination). At 55% untracked: 6 clients × 3 calls × 44 min × 55% ≈ 7.26 hours = $2,178–$3,630/year.
How does the MJCMS referral date / BCMR board hearing date / federal court filing date Welch three-anchor framework apply to military law billing?
Three Welch temporal anchors — all first two outside PACER: (1) MJCMS court-martial referral date or BCMR application receipt date (DoD internal administrative systems — MJCMS, ABCMR internal, AFBCMR PCAS, BCNR administrative — entirely outside PACER, CM/ECF, and all Article III courts) — primary anchor; the MJCMS referral or BCMR application receipt precedes any PACER entry by months to years; entire court-martial and administrative review may occur entirely outside PACER; (2) BCMR/VACOLS board hearing or BVA briefing calendar date (also non-PACER — BCMR administrative tracking and VA VACOLS case management system) — secondary anchor; also outside PACER — three distinct non-PACER billing calendars running simultaneously; (3) Federal court § 2241 habeas petition or CAVC petition for review filing date (PACER/CAVC ECF) — closing anchor; first PACER entry; EAJA § 2412(d)(1)(A) "shall award" mandatory fee triggered when government loses; Pirus expertise enhancement; Scarborough 30-day window; Hensley lodestar from MJCMS referral date through federal court judgment.
How does the federal court habeas/mandamus and EAJA § 2412 mandatory fee petition advisory generate billing gaps on the post-board federal court calendar?
EAJA § 2412(d)(1)(A) "shall award" fees unless government's position was "substantially justified" — mandatory fee provision when the government loses in Article III federal court review of military justice or BCMR decisions. § 5904(c)(1) independently provides 20% contingent fee on VA past-due benefits for VA-accredited attorneys. Two call types: EAJA § 2412(d)(1)(A) "shall award" fee petition advisory (44–52 min, arriving when government loses in federal court — requires Pierce v. Underwood substantial justification analysis, Scarborough 30-day application window and supplementation rule, Pirus expertise enhancement above ~$244.62/hr COLA-adjusted rate, Jean fees-on-fees, Hensley lodestar from MJCMS referral date) and § 5904 VA-accredited attorney CAVC fee petition and EAJA advisory (44–52 min, arriving at CAVC decision — requires § 5904(c)(1) 20% contingent fee on past-due benefits, CAVC Rule 39 fee petition, EAJA for CAVC proceedings when Secretary's position not substantially justified, Carpenter v. Principi CAVC reasonable fees). At 55% untracked: 5 clients × 2 calls × 44 min × 55% ≈ 4.03 hours = $1,210–$2,017/year. Total annual gap: $5,083–$8,472.