The word “shall” in the first sentence is omitted as surplusage. The words “for more than” are substituted for the words “in excess of”. The words “more than” are substituted for the words “a period exceeding”. The word “may” is substituted for the word “shall” in the last sentence.

2016—Pub. L. 114–328 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and inserted heading, struck out “A bad-conduct discharge, confinement for more than six months, or forfeiture of pay for more than six months may not be adjudged unless a complete record of the proceedings and testimony has been made, counsel having the qualifications prescribed under section 827(b) of this title (article 27(b)) was detailed to represent the accused, and a military judge was detailed to the trial, except in any case in which a military judge could not be detailed to the trial because of physical conditions or military exigencies. In any such case in which a military judge was not detailed to the trial, the convening authority shall make a detailed written statement, to be appended to the record, stating the reason or reasons a military judge could not be detailed.” after “one year.”, and added subsecs. (b) and (c).

2001—Pub. L. 107–107, § 1048(g)(4), amended directory language of Pub. L. 106–65, § 577(a)(2). See 1999 Amendment note below.

1999—Pub. L. 106–65, § 577(a)(2), as amended by Pub. L. 107–107, § 1048(g)(4), inserted “, confinement for more than six months, or forfeiture of pay for more than six months” after “A bad-conduct discharge” in third sentence.

Pub. L. 106–65, § 577(a)(1), substituted “one year” for “six months” in two places in second sentence.

1968—Pub. L. 90–632 provided that before a bad-conduct discharge may be adjudged by a special court-martial the accused must be detailed counsel who is legally qualified under the Code and a military judge must be detailed to the trial, with a detailed written statement appended to the record if a military judge was not detailed to the trial, because of physical conditions and military exigencies, stating the reasons that a military judge could not be so detailed.

Amendment by Pub. L. 114–328 effective on Jan. 1, 2019, as designated by the President, with implementing regulations and provisions relating to applicability to various situations, see section 5542 of Pub. L. 114–328 and Ex. Ord. No. 13825, set out as notes under section 801 of this title.

Pub. L. 107–107, div. A, title X, § 1048(g), Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1228, provided that the amendment made by section 1048(g)(4) is effective as of Oct. 5, 1999, and as if included in Pub. L. 106–65 as enacted.

Pub. L. 106–65, div. A, title V, § 577(b), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 625, provided that: “The amendments made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall take effect on the first day of the sixth month beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 5, 1999] and shall apply with respect to charges referred on or after that effective date to trial by special courts-martial.”

Amendment by Pub. L. 90–632 effective first day of tenth month following October 1968, see section 4 of Pub. L. 90–632, set out as a note under section 801 of this title.