You are more right than those in this thread who say that the chain of command is pushing it forward.
The charges are initially laid by the chain of command within the unit. Legal advice from the regional legal advisor (AJAG or DJA or LegAd) and as some say, that legal advice is sometimes ignored.
If the charge is destined for a court martial (either because of the nature of the charge or because of an election) then the unit refers the charge up chain of command to a "Referal Authority" who reviews it and if the charge does require a trial by court martial refers it further for disposal to the Director of Military Prosecutions.
Upon receipt of a charge, DMP reviews it and IAW QR&O 110.04 either a) prefers the charge or an appropriate charge; b) refer it back to an appropriate summary trial authority where it is appropriate to try the charge that way; or c) not proceed with the charge.
The bottom line here is that this charge has been reviewed by prosecutors outside the chain of command and have determined that there is a "reasonable likelihood of conviction" and from here forward the decisions are the prosecutor's in consultation with DMP.
The issue of what happens at trial is another one entirely. It appears that here the prosecutor may have received more or new information or made a determination that the charge, even though preferred, ought not to be proceeded with because it was not in the interest of the service to do so and accordingly entered a "stay of proceedings".