Trial defense counsel had submitted a brief in support of the motion challenging jurisdiction on 2 November, prior to the effective date of the amendments. Appellant asserts in the brief that three recruiting problems existed prior to his enlistment, two of which were known by appellant and all by the recruiter: conviction of larceny in a civilian court, failing the ninth grade, and not meeting the recruiting service's own minimum "odds-for-effectiveness" (OFE) score. The defense maintained that the recruiter advised appellant to conceal the first two matters; admits that the conviction was waivable; argued that no valid waiver was obtained; that, due to his age, the OFE score was a nonwaivable defect; and that he was therefore ineligible to enlist. The military judge stated that he would consider the motion as having been raised prior to 9 November, even though he decided the issue after that date. Submission of the motion was apparently the reason the defense requested delay at an Article 39(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 839(b), session held 3 October. Trial counsel did not agree with the defense version of the facts surrounding the enlistment, although he generally agreed with the defense view of current case law. The judge denied the motion, ruling that the issue was foreclosed by the Article 2 amendments.

### Language ###
English

### Assessment ###
The text mentions a specific date when defense counsel submitted a brief, which could be a straightforward information query.

### Query ###
When was the legal brief submitted to challenge jurisdiction?
When was the legal brief submitted to challenge jurisdiction?