Solely in answer to your question regarding discovery by defendants under the UCMJ.

1. The UCMJ has liberal (pro-defendant) discovery provisions which are comparable to those under the Federal or Michigan Criminal Rules.

2. That being said, the defense lawyer has to ask in the correct way under the applicable law.

A good outline of UCMJ discovery and production starts at p.J-1 (p.255 pdf) of the 2010 Crim-Law-Deskbook_V-1.pdf (download link):

DISCOVERY AND PRODUCTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. REFERENCES - 1

II. INTRODUCTION - 1

III. GENERAL - 2

IV. GOVERNMENT DISCOVERY RESPONSIBILITIES AND REQUESTS - 3

V. DEFENSE DISCOVERY RESPONSIBILITIES AND REQUESTS - 15

VI. REGULATION OF DISCOVERY - 18

VII. PRODUCTION - 23

VIII. CONCLUSION AND PRACTICE TIPS - 32

IX. APPENDIX - 34
The Appendix outlines the several dozen rules applicable.

All that being true, the USG is an octapus, whose multiple hands do not necessarily communicate. The largest discovery and production problems in the DC District and Circuit Gitmo cases (whose Federal judges have more practical clout than military judges with USG agencies) came about because consolidated databases did not exist for each detainee. The first octapus hand did not know what the eighth hand held.

So, the defense attorney may just be blowing smoke; or, he screwed up (asked the wrong question); or, the FBI and DoD are not communicating well. An intentional failure to disclose (in violation of the UCMJ) is unlikely; though, of course, "possible".

Regards

Mike