Should Commanders have UCMJ authority in a garrison environment or should this authority be given to JAG alone?

I don't know the particulars of your situation, nor do I need to. I can offer you this bit of advice though: Having served as a Bailiff during several Courts Martial actions, the LAST thing you need to be doing is trolling for comments on a social media site. If you don't have one already, hire a good attorney and listen to their advice. It will save you a lot of grief in the end.

The UCMJ gives you additional rights beyond Criminal Law in many cases. And, the military is unique, even in garrison. There are many good reasons for the current UCMJ structure, and it has developed and improved over the decades. Your own personal criminal case is very big to you (at least it should be), but it is a drop in the ocean to the UCMJ structure. You are tilting at very solid windmills here and should be concentrating on your own case, with your lawyer, and not on-line.

Oh boy. I'm staying out of this one.

I don't think this is a bad discussion to have but your elaboration is horrible. Commanders may lack legal training (as you stated) but they should have a legal team that doesn't.

Your question cannot be answered by the choices you give.
_Yes... Commanders should have UCMJ authority in a garrison environment or this authority should be given to JAG alone.
_No... Commanders should not have UCMJ authority in a garrison environment or this authority should not be given to JAG alone.

You are an officer and may not be tried at summary court martial. Therefore a military Judge, by definition a JAG officer, will preside over your proceedings.

"The commander may dispose of the offenses by court-martial. If the commander decides that the offense is serious enough to warrant trial by court-martial, the commander may exercise the fourth option, preferring and forwarding charges. The commander may chose from three potential levels of court-martial: summary, special, or general court-martial. These courts-martial differ in the procedures, rights, and possible punishment that can be adjudged. A summary court-martial is designed to dispose of minor offenses. Only enlisted soldiers may be tried by summary court-martial. A single officer presides over the hearing. The accused has no right to counsel but may hire an attorney to represent him. A special court-martial is an intermediate level composed of either a military judge alone, or at least three members and a judge. An enlisted service member may ask that at least one-third of the court members be enlisted. There is both a prosecutor, commonly referred to as the trial counsel, and a defense counsel. In addition, the accused may be represented by civilian counsel, at no expense to the government, or by an individually requested military counsel.

I would surmise the NOs come from like-minded people as the accused

Legal Authority for Art 15 is in the code, no jurisdiction for civilian prosecution/relief unless the alleged crime occurred off post. This discussion is way off scope for RP.

In garrison or deployed, you are subject to UCMJ. Therefore, commanders have the authority to recommend disciplinary actions, both punitive and non-punitive.
Even if this charge against you was off post by civilian authorities, often times, you will be referred to the MPs and then in turn to your chain of command and JAG.
To eliminate command authority under UCMJ simply because you are in Garrison would open Pandora's Box. Service members by the droves would be taking advantage of that loophole to justify all sorts of actions that are not befitting of the uniform they wear.
Good luck with your proceedings.

Well, sir, this is really besides the point but to use the phrase 'a [noun]' implies a singular subject, but the term 'courts martial' is actually a plural noun.

You're absolutely right, though: civilian criminal penal codes in the US do not operate under the same auspice as the UCMJ, but the disparity is largely semantic: service members have a right to due process, legal counsel, a right to face accusers, etc.

Additionally, the purpose of non-judicial punishment is precisely to not overload the JAG corps with petty cases that can--and usually should--be handled at the commander's level in the military. Not to mention, service members facing NJP or Captain's Mast have the ability to request a court martial if they so choose.

The most interesting point, I think from a legal theory perspective, is that if you were to eliminate the commander's prerogative to take a service member to NJP outside of a deployment zone, you would actually be depriving those within deployment zones of the equal protection of the law, in this case that law is the UCMJ, thus eliminating the purpose of leveling, so to speak, military and civilian law.

If you have charges pending I advise you to be extremely careful about what you say on social media. If trial defense services is representing you please set up an appointment with them and discuss social media with them. If you have a private attorney do the same. Anything you post here may be brought up in your courts martial

Now as to your question I agree with you. I do not think Commanders should have UCMJ authority in a garrison environment. I believe it is better for JAG officers to make the calls on when and where to prosecute for felony level offenses. Misdemeanors I would have shared commander and JAG discretion. Lastly with non judicial punishment I would rest authority with Commander.