A jurisdictional disconnect?

This post will primarily interest our Navy and Marine Corps readers. So Army Lurker (our one token Army reader), please feel free to enjoy this web site while the rest of us explore the finer points of Marine Corps and Navy authority to exercise general court-martial jurisdiction.

Okay, now that it's just we few, we happy few, please pull out or surf to the UCMJ and the JAGMAN. First let's look at Article 22(a)(8). In this provision, Congress authorizes "any other commanding officer designated by the Secretary concerned" to convene a general court-martial. Do we all agree that for our purposes, this establishes two necessary conditions for authority to convene a GCM under this provision: (1) commanding officer status; and (2) SECNAV designation?

Now look at JAGMAN section 0120.a. The section begins by stating, "The Secretary of the Navy, acting under Article 22 (a) (8), UCMJ, has authorized the following officers, when in an active duty or inactive duty training status, to convene general courts-martial." So there's no question that this provision is an exercise of the same authority we looked at above. And everyone on the list meets the second criterion, since this is the SECNAV designation. But look at section 0120.a(2)(c), (d), (e), and (aa). These provisions specify that the Vice Chief of Naval Operations; the Deputy Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Europe; the Deputy Chief of Naval Personnel; and the Deputy Commander, U.S. Marine Forces Central Command are authorized to convene general courts-martial.

Now I welcome anyone correcting me if I'm wrong about this, but it doesn't appear than any of those four officials is a commanding officer. And even if one or more of those officers is dual hatted, it appears that the JAGMAN gives the convening power to the wrong hat.

If, in fact, any of these officers is not a commanding officer, then any action that official took as a general court-martial convening authority would appear to have been without jurisdiction and therefore void. Perhaps the appellate defense checklist should add a block asking if one of these officials was the CA.

Am I overlooking some obvious point that brings these individuals within Article 22(a)(8)? (I may be -- I have been known to overlook obvious points on occasion.)