Appeals docketed the case. After the case was submitted, it took over 654 days (approximately one year, nine months) to decide the case. 28 . Moreno, 63 M.J. at 136. 29 . Id. 30 . Appellate counsel was first assigned to Appellant’s case in June 1999. The first attorney assigned as appellate defense counsel requested a total of eighteen requests for enlargement of time. This attorney was transferred from the Appellate Defense Division. In August 2001 or thereabout, the next attorney took over Appellant’s case, and requested five enlargements of time. Thus, Appellant’s counsels requested a combined twenty-three enlargements of time pri- or to filing a brief. 31 . Id. at 137. 32 . See Article 70, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 870 (2000); United States v. Dearing, 63 M.J. 478, 486 (C.A.A.F.2006) (<HOLDING>); see Diaz v. Judge Advocate General of the
recognizing that in the context of the open fields doctrine ajlthough the decisions in this state may be somewhat more restrictive than those in other states or than federal decisions no compelling reason has been demonstrated in this case for modifying or overruling them recognizing that we may not substitute our judgment for that of the alj  holding that because the contract dispute between the parties in this case constitutes a justiciable matter that is cognizable in our trial courts our courts had subject matter jurisdiction holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider claims that have not been raised before the bia holding that cjonsistent with our decisions in diaz and moreno we decline to hold appellant responsible for the lack of institutional vigilance which should have been exercised in this case