ood Ihe 

JUDGE ADVOCATES GENER

ollhe 

ARMED FORCES 

ondlhe 

GENERAL COUNSEL 

ollhe 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUST

For Ihe Period 


Jonuory 1,1967, to December 31, 19

J 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S S

LIBRARY 
SENATE AND OF THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE

and to the 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

AND SECRETARY OF TRANSPORT

and the 


SECRETARIES OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF 

ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORCE 


PURSUllNT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTIC

For the Period 


January I, 1967 to December 31, 1967 
JOINT REPORT OF THE U.S. COURT OF MILITARY AP

THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL OF THE ARM

AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPAR

TRANSPORTATION 

REPORT OF THE U.S. COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE A

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE N

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE A

REPORT OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPAR

TRANSPORTATION (U.S. COAST GUARD) 
and the 

JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL 


OF THE ARMED FORCES 


and the 

GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE 


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

January 1, 1967, to December 31, 19

The following is the 16th annual report of the Com

by article 67(g) of the Uniform Code of :Military Just

867(g). That article requires the judges of the U.S. Cou

Appeals, the Judge Advocates General of the Armed F

General Counsel of the Department of Transportation 

nually to survey the operations of the Code and to prepa

the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and of 

Representatives, to the Secretary of Defense and the 

Transportation, and to the Secretaries of the Depart

Army, Navy, and Air Force with regard to the status of 

tice and to the manner and means by which it can be impr

lative enactment. 

The chief judge and the judges of the U.S. Court of 

peals, the Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, a

and the General Counsel of the Department of Transport

after referred to as the Code Committee, have met and 

the call of the chief judge several times during the peri

port. These conferences included a full consideration 

amendments to the Uniform Code of Military Justice c

the policy and purpose of this Committee. 
responsibility for expressing the views of the Departm

on this bill. The report 'was completed and staffed throu

ment of Defense, but there have been no hearings on the 

H.R. 12705 was introduced into Congress on Augus

Representative Bennett. This bill combined two Depa

fense-sponsored proposals generally known as the "G" 

which were discussed and attached to our reports for 

Hearings on H.R. 12705 were conducted before the Hou

on Armed Services on September 14 and October 26,19

Kenneth J. Hodson, the Judge Advocate General of th

fied in favor of the bill on behalf of the Department of D

hearings. The Code Committee also submitted a letter 

the passage of H.R. 12705. ,Ve note that during the 196

ings, H.R. 12705 was endorsed by all witnesses who te

most of those who submitted written statements in beha

of civilian bar associations, veterans organizations, and 

The Code Committee continues to recommend legislati

the substance of those bills and feels there is now some 

gency in this regard. While the Uniform Code of Milita

pears to be working satisfactorily in Vietnam, operatio

reinforce our belief that enactment of the proposals con

12705, in particular, would have a salutary effect upon t

tion of military justice in that area of conflict as we

throughout the armed services. Judge Ferguson cont

reservations, as detailed in our report for the year 1962, 

desirability of some aspects of the proposed legislation. 

Representative Bennett also introduced H.R. 12910 

Congress. This bill will establish a Judge Advocate Gen

the Navy. The bill has been passed by both Houses of 

was approved by the President on December 8, 1967. 

On November 28, 1967, S. 2634 was passed by the Se

was introduced by Senator Pastore of Rhode Island and 

enhance the prestige of the U.S. Court of Military Appe

was introduced in the House of Representatives on Feb

2 
HOl\IER FERGUSON, 

Associa

PAUL J. KILDAY, 

Assoc

KENNETH J. HODSO

The Judge Advocate 

U

1VILFRED HEARN, 

The Judge Advocate 

U

ROBERT "'V. ~fANss, 

The Judge Advocate 

U.S. 

JOIIN E. ROBSON, 

General Oo

Department of Tram
______________________________________________________

ArDlY _____________________________________________________

~avy ______________________________________________________

Air Force__________________________________________________

Coast Guard________________________________________________

Total ________________________________________________

Oases Reviewed by Boards of Review ArDlY ---__________________________________________________

~avy 

Air Force__________________________________________________

Coast Guard________________________________________________

Total ________________________________________________

Oases Docketeill; With U.S. Oourt of Military Appe

ArDlY ______________________________________________________

~avy _____________________________________________________

Air Force__________________________________________________

Coast Guard________________________________________________

Total ________________________________________________

4 
jg

y pp

report on military justice matters to the Committees o

ices of the United States Senate and House of Repre

Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Transportation, 

taries of the Departments of the Army, Navy and Air 

During fiscal year 1967, 794 cases were docketed w

as compared to 796 cases during the previous fiscal year

ber, 30 were forwarded on certificates of the Judge Adv

of the Armed Services, an increase of 18 over fiscal yea

sixth consecutive year, no mandatory appeal invo

sentence or of a general or flag officer was filed. The co

petitions or 13.3 per cent, reversing in 67.6 per cent of 

A new reporting category entitled "Miscellaneous D

ning with January 1, 1967, will be reflected in the sta

This is being done in view of an increasing number of v

being filed with the court seeking relief in cases not f

within the provisions of Article 67 of the Uniform Co

Justice. For the period of January 1, 1967, to June 

were 10 cases placed in the Miscellaneous Docket numb

II 

Volume 16, containing the decisions of the Court for 

the 1965 October term and the beginning of the 1966 

through April 25, 1967, was released in the fall of the y

The official decisions of the Court are published by th

Operative Publishing Co., Rochester, N.Y. They serve 

judicial precedents within the field of military jurispr

cupy a prominent place in the great body of reported d

constitute a vital part of the American legal system. 

It is interesting to note that the Office of the Staff Ju

Air Force Accounting and Finance Center, Denver, C

the Department of Defense having prime responsibility 
which a researcher deems to be pertinent or to capture a c

search the entire text of the relevant body of material. H

having the word or words transcribed to data processing 

These cards are processed by a computer which finds a

the designated word and, if a combination of words is des

tions of the designated combination. The output or usabl

the form of a full text printout, or key word in context-

preceding and following words or merely a citation. A c

vided in all instances even though the user may also req

or K\VIC. 

The advantages of LITE, as well as a discussion of the 

developmental effort, appear beginning on page 627, He

a Subcommittee of Committee on Appropriations, House 

tatives, 89th Congress, second session, part 5, which pe

Department of Defense appropriations for 1967. In add

plete exposition of LITE appears in the U.S. Air For

Review, volume VIII, No.6, November-December 1966. 

In summary, LITE is a total text system; hence, the 

document is available to the researcher. He is not limite

indices, which in faot reflect the judgment of the index

ever expert, cannot foresee all the methods of searching f

that will be used. The LITE user needs no mdex in prepa

He can be sure that what he has requested will be the 

thorough search, unaffected by the fatigue he would 

perience if he were able-and patently he is not--to look 

masses of material within an acceptable time frame. The L

have research done for him by the computer with speed, 

and precision, of which humans are incapable. 

For an example of LITE's usefulness, the court posed 

research question, which could not be answered save b

full text of each decision of the court since its establish

Locate all decisions of the Court of Military Appeals wherein t

it would not reverse a decision as a mere, hollow gesture, or futil

The response was speedily received setting forth 14 diffe

6 
p

Hawaii, Federal Building, Honolulu, at 10 a.m. on A

Thirty-two a,ttorneys were admitted on that occasion, 

who are unable to travel to 'Vashington, D.C., an opp

come members of the Court's bar by taking the oath in op

a judge of the U.S. Court of Military Appeals. The Ru

do not provide for membership in absentia. 

During the year there were admitted to the member

of the Court 84:6 practitioners, for an overall total of 

as of December 31,1967. Included in the membership are 

women attorneys. In addition, honorary membership c

presented to two attorneys of allied nations, raising thi

from the following countries: Argentina (1) ; Austral

(3); Chile (1); China (5); Indonesia. (2) ; Iran (9)

Nicaragua (1) ; Pakistan (3) ; Philippines (13) ; Swe

lund (5) ; and Vietnam (10). 

IV 

On February 15, 1967, the Court was honored by the v

de Corbeta Conrado Osvaldo Vinas of the Argentine 

the year on October 17, 1967, Comodoro (Col.) Jorg

Oliviera, the Deputy Judge Advocate General of the 

Force, paid a call upon the judges and was given a t.ou

facilities. 

V 

Chief Judge Quinn addressed the Stanford Universi

at Palo Alto, Calif., on April 5, 1967. The following da

U.S. Air Force Academy at Colorado Springs, Colo., a

assembled cadets. 'Vith this visit at the Air Force Ac

now addressed cadets and midshipmen at each of the 

emies, the U.S. Military Academy, the U.S. Naval Aca

U.S. Coast Guard Academy, during his tenure of offi

28, 1967, he accepted another invitation to speak to th

288-787--68----2 
bar association of the State. Later in the month, on l\:fay 

spoke at the Fourth Annual New England Trial Judges 

dinner in Newport, R.I. 

During the period of JUly 17 to 28, 1967, Chief Judg

gether with some 30 judges from the U.S. Supreme Co

Court of Ap'peals, and the State Supreme Courts partici

Appellate Judges Seminar held at New York Universi

Law. Of vital interest to him were the discussions on app

in criminal cases involving such questions as guilty pleas

an adequate record, and consequences of improper in-c

terrogation. 

Associate Judge Homer Ferguson, together with Asso

Paul J. Kilday, attended the annual Military Law Comm

District of Columbia Bar Association, held at the Natio

Club on February 15, 1967. 

Associate Judge Ferguson attended the first annual c

Navy and Marine Corps staff legal officers which was held 

ington Navy Yard, September 12 to 15, 1967. 

On January 26, 1967, Associate Judge Homer Fergus

sioner Cabell F. Cobbs, and Commissioner Benjamin Feld 

facilities at the U.S. Marine Corps Schools, Quantico, Va

guson spoke on military justice subjects to a group of M

attorneys and participated in a subsequent discussion 

problems. 

Because of the increasing number of men entering the A

and the corresponding increase in interest in military m

Judge Quinn and Associate Judge Ferguson appeared 

programs to speak on the Court and the state of military 

armed services. 

Commissioner Feld was designated to represent the Cou

Annual Convention of the Federal Bar Association, and, i

to participate in the military law and justice discussions

Francisco, Calif., July 26 to 29, 1967. 

8 
6044 on February 23, 1967, a bill identical to R.ll. 3179, 

which had been passed by the U.S. House of Representat

1963. S. 1295, a companion bill to R.ll. 6044, was intr

U.S. Senate by Senator John Pastore of Rhode Island 

1967. The text of R.n. 6044 and S. 1295 reads as follows

A BILL 

To provide that judges of the United States Court of Military A

office during good behavior, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by tke Senate and House of Representatives of t

of America in Congress assembled, That section 867 (a) (article 67 

United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 

"(a) (1) There is a United States Court of Military Appeals, e

article I of the Constitution of the United States and located fo

purposes only in the Department of Defense. The court consists 

appointed from civil life by the President, by and with the advic

the Senate. Not more than two of the judges of that court may be 

the same political party, nor is any person eligible for appointm

who is not a member of the bar of a Federal court or the highest 

The President shall designate from time to time one of the judge

judge. Each judge shall hold office during good behavior, and i

I!lalary, allowances, perquisites, rights of resignation, and ret

provided for judges of the United States courts of appeals, inc

benefits for widow and dependent children, and shall be similarl

coverage under sections 2251-2267 of title 5, United States Code. 

of the court shall have precedence and preside at any session w

The other judges shall have precedence and preside according to 

their commissions. Judges whose commissions bear the same 

precedence according to seniority in age. The court may prescri

of procedure and determine the number of judges required to cons

A vacancy in the court does not impair the right of the rema

exercise the powers of the court. 

"(2) Judges of the Court of Military Appeals may he remov

dent, upon notice and hearing, for neglect of duty or malfeasan

for no other cause. 

"(3) If a judge of the Court of Military Appeals is temporari

form his duties because of illness or other disability, the Presid

a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District 

fill the office for the period of disability. 
of that office, be treated as junior in commission to the other judges 

SEC. 2. The United States Court of Military Appeals establish

Act is a continuation of the Court of Military Appeals as it existe

effective date of this Act, and no loss of rights or powers, interrup

diction, or prejudice to matters pending in the Court of Military A

the effective date of this Act shall result. A judge of the Court of Mi

so serving on the day before the effective date of this Act shall for 

including salary, allowances. perquisites, rights of resignation, a

benefits including survivor benefits for widow and dependent c

judge of the United States Court of Military Appeals under this A

serve until the expiration of the term of office for which he w

appointed: Provided, however, That the President, by and with t

tonsent of the Senate may at any time after the effective date of th

him to hold office during good behavior under section 1 of this Ac

benefits of a judge serving on the effective date of this Act shall ac

date of his original appointment, and he may make a written electi

survivor benefits, in the manner provided by section 376 of tit

States Code, within six months of the effective date of this Act. 

SEC. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no 

United States Court of Military Appeals shall upon resignation, 

for disability or length of service, be paid, on account of his ju

or any other Federal service, a salary or annuity or combinatio

total of which exceeds the salary of a judge of the United St

Military Appeals. 

Both bills were referred to the Senate and House Arm

Committees, respectively, ,,·here they are still pending. 

Later in the year, on November 7, 1967, Senator Pastor

S. 2634, stating the following on the floor of the Senate: 

Mr. President, I send to the desk, for reference to the appropri

the bill with the following explanation. ·Well over 17 years ago, 

and thorough analysis of the state of discipline and justice in our A

the Congress enacted the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Th

taken in response to the many complaints from all segments of our 

the injustices visited upon our servicemen in the name of military 

out retracing painful ground, I believe it is sufficient to observe tha

then conducted satisfied the Congress of the essential validity of tho

For the first time in our history, the Ulliform Code established 

martial system for all of the services and, at the apex of the tr

10 
restored at all levels of our society and, during their tenures 

man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and an Army Chief of Staff, h

under the code, the Army has achieved the highest state of d

order in its history. 

Despite the enviable record this judicial tribunal has e

shocked to learn that there yet remain pockets of resistance 

of the Uniform Code, and misconceptions of the status of the m

court. If these were mere academic matters, they would not w

passing notice. But the portents of expressed beliefs that the 

Appeals is merely an administrative agency are so fraught 

that such beliefs will inspire attempts to circumvent the cou

thus increase the difficulties of its already burdensome res

action is required. 

This legislation will curb all attempts to revert to a rejected 

and objectives of military justice, and will lay at rest any 

about the status of the court. 

The proposed legislation makes no change in the basic struc

of the Court of Military Appeals. Rather, it expressly conf

intent of the Congress to establish a legislative court unde

Constitution as a necessary and proper means of carrying in

constitutionally imposed duty 'To make rules for the Governme

of the land and naval forces! Implicit in this confirmation 

of the effectiveness of the court, and a declaration of our firm re

any obstacle to the continued success of its judicial endeavors. 

On November 27, 1967, the bill as amended by the 

Services Committee was reported out favorably and p

Senate on November 28, 1967. The bill as passed re

A BILL 

To amend section 867 (a) of title 10, United States Code, in o

the Court of Military Appeals as the United States Court of 

under article I of the Constitution of the United States, and fo

Be it enacted by the Senate and IIouse of Representatives of 

of America in Congress assembled, That section 867(a) (a

title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 

"(a) (1) There is a United States Court of Military Appeals 

article I of the Constitution of the United States and located f

purposes only in the Department of Defense. The court consis

appointed from civil life by the President, by and with the ad
session which he attends. The other judges shall have precede

according to the seniority of their commissions. Judges whose c

the same date shall have precedence according to seniority in 

may prescribe its own rules of procedure and determine the nu

required to constitute a quorum. A vacancy in the court does 

right of the remaining judges to exercise the powers of the court. 

"(2) Judges of the United States Court of Military Appeals m

by the President, upon notice and hearing, for neglect of duty 

in office, or for mental or physical disability, but for no other c

"(3) If a judge of the United States Court of Military Appeal

unable to perform his duties because of illness or other disabilit

may deSignate a judge of the United States Court of Appeals 

of Columbia to fill the office for the period of disability. 

"(4) Any judge of the United States Court of Military Appea

ing retired pay may become a senior judge, may occupy offic

building, may be provided with a staff assistant whose compen

exceed the rate prescribed for GS-9 in the General Schedule un

of title 5, and, with his consent, may be called upon by the chi

court to perform judicial duties with said court for any period o

fied by such chief judge. A senior judge who is performing jud

suant to this subsection shall be paid the same compensation (i

lJaY) and allowances for travel and other expenses as a judge. 

"SEC. 2. The United States Court of Military Appeals establi

Act is a continuation of the Court of Military Appeals as it exis

effective date of this Act, and no loss of rights or powers, interr

diction, or prejudice to matters pending in the Court of Military 

the effective date of this Act shall result A judge of the Co

Appeals so serving on the day before the effective date of thi

all purposes, be a judge of the United States Court of Military 

this Act." 

The accompanying Senate Report No. 806 submitte

Richard Russell, Chairman of the Committee, sets fort

and what the bill does: 

PURPOSE 

The Court of Military Appeals was established by Public L

Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Uniform Code of Militar

both the substantive and procedural law governing military 

administration in all the Armed Forces of the United States. 

designed to provide for uniformity in the administration of mili

12 
The phrase "for administrative purposes" was meant merely t

Department of Defense to furnish such things as telephone ser

tation facilities, and to purchase supplies. The court justifies 

and funds are appropriated for its operations with no control e

Department of Defense. 

The judges of the court are appointed for terms of 15 years 

moved by the President "for neglect of duty or malfeasance 

mental or physical disability but for no other cause." The jud

to participate in the Federal civil service retirement system. T

no change in either the term of office or the retirement benefit

Redesignation of the Court of Military Appeals as the U.S. C

Appeals and the declaration in law that the court is established 

of the Constitution are intended to reaffirm the congressional 

court be the civilian supervisor of the administration of mili

the final interpreter of the requirements of military law. 

WHAT THE BILL DOES 

The bill provides that the present Court of Military Appeals 

the U.S. Court of Military Appeals. It makes no change in the 

or functions of the court The change in name and the declaratio

is established under article I of the Constitution, which gives t

power to make rules for the government and regulation of the 

forces, are intended to counter contentions that the court is an 

of the executive branch or that it is an administrative agency 

partment of Defense. 

The salary and travel allowances of the judges of the U.S. C

Appeals would be assimilated to those of judges of the U.S. co

Since the establishment of the Court of Military Appeals in 

of the judges has been the same as the salary of judges of th

appeals but the basic law establishing the Court of Military Ap

specific salary and travel allowances for judges of the Court 

peals. To avoid a multiplicity of legislation when judicial salarie

are changed, the assimilation provision in the bill will perm

U.S. Court of Military Appeals to continue to receive the same 

of the U.S. courts of appeals. 

In the event of a temporary disability by one of the judges

permit the President to designate a judge of the District of 

of the U.S. Court of Appeals to fill the office during the period 

rary disability. Since judges of the District of Columbia may be 
District of Columbia to serve during a period of disability. 

S. 2634 was forwarded to the U.S. House of Repre

concurrence and was referred to the House Armed Servic

No action \vas taken prior to the adjournment of the 

the 90th Congress. 

VII 

There is attached hereto a detailed analysis of the 

cases which have been processed by the court since the c

of its operations in 1951 (exhibit A). 

Respectfully submitted, 

RoBERT E. 

O

HmiER FER

Asso

PAUL J. KI

Asso

14 
CASES DOCKETED 

Total as of July I, 1965 July I, 

Total by services JUlle 30, 1965 to to 

June 30, 1966 June 30, 

Petitions (art. 67(b)(3)): 

Army--------------------­ 10,096 402 

~avy--------------------- 4,213 229 

Air Force __________________ 4,225 150 

Coast Guard _______________ 46 3 

Tot~ ___________________ 18,580 784 7

Certificates (art. 67(b)(2)): 

Army--------------------­

~avy-------------------- Air Force __________________ 

142 

203 

75 

5 

5 

2 

Coast G uard _______________ 6 0 

TotaL __________________ 426 12 

Mandatory (art. 67(b) (1)): Army _____________________ 31 0 

~avy-------------------- 3 0 

Air Force __________________ 3 0 

Coast Guard. ______________ 0 0 

TotaL __ . _______________ 37 0 

Total cases docketed ______ 19,043 796 

1 Flag officer cases: 1 Army and 1 Navy. 


t 20,288 cases actually assigned docket numbers. Overage due to multiple actions on 

288-787--68----3 
p

dismiss: 

With opinion ___________ 8 0 

Without opinion ________ 40 0 

Disposed of by order setting 

aside findings and sentence_ 3 2 

Remanded to board of 

review__________________ 163 5 

Court action due (30 days) 1_ 

Awaiting replies 1___________ 

47 

20 

42 

18 

Certificates (art. 67(b)(2)): 

Opinions rendered __________ 413 14 

Opinions pending 

1__________ 2 2 

Withdrawn ________________ 7 0 

Remanded_________________ 2 0 

Disposed of by order ________ 1 0 

Set for hearing 1____________ 0 0 

Ready for hearing 1_________ 0 0 

Awaiting briefs 

1____________ 2 0 

:r.landatory (art 67(b) 0)):. 

Opinions rcndered __________ 37 0 

Opinions pending 

1__________ 0 0 

Remanded_________________ 1 0 

Awaiting briefs 

1____________ 0 0 

Opinions rendered: 

Petitions __________________ 1,670 98 

Motions to dismiss __________ 11 0 

Motions to stay proceedings__ 1 0 

Per curiam grants __________ 36 4 

Certificates________________ 364 11 

Certificates and petitions____ :r.landatory ________________ 

Remanded_________________ 

47 

37 

2 

2 

0 

0 

Petitions for a new triaL ____ 2 0 

Petitions for reconsideration 

of: 

Denial order___________ 

Opinion_______________ 3 

0 

2 

1 

Petition for new triaL ___ 1 0 

Motion to reopen___________ 1 0 

See footnotes at end of table. 

16 
-------- --------

-------- -------- 

-------- --------

p

Petitions denied ____________ 16, 199 672 

Petitions dismissed _________ 15 0 

Petitions withdrawn ________ 338 6 

Certificates wi thdrawn ______ 7 0 

Certificates disposed of by order____________________ 1 0 

Opinions rendered __________ 2, 167 119 

Disposed of on motion to 

dismiss: 

With opinion___________ 8 0 

Without opinion________ 40 0 

Disposed of by order setting 

aside findings and sen­ tence____________________ 3 2 

Writ of error coram nobis by order____________________ 2 0 

Motion for bail denied ______ 0 1 

Remanded to board of re­ view____________________ 164 5 

TotaL __________________ 18, 944 805 

Miscellaneous dockets January 

1967 to present: Pending___________________ -------- -------- 

Granted___________________ -------- -------- 

Denied____________________ 

Withdrawn________________ -------- -------- 

Dismiss __ • ________________ -------- -------- 

Opinion rendered___________ 

TotaL __________________ 

See footnotes at end of table, 
yg _____ 0 

TotaL __________________ 89 

I As of June 30, 1965, 1966, and 1967. 

22,417 cases were disposed of by 2,398 published opinions. 124 opinions were render

Army officers, 30 Air Force officers, 17 Navy officers, 5 Marine Corps officers, 2 Coa

West Point cadet. In addition, 19 opinions were rendered in cases involving 20 civilia

cerned enlisted personnel. 

18 
GeneraL _______________________ _ 1,805 (94%) 9

SpeciaL ________________________ _ 33,293 (96%) 1,44

Summary_______________________ _ 12,385 (93%) 92

TotaL ___________________ _ 47,483 (95%) 2,46

Records of trial by general court-martial received by 

vocate General during fiscal year 1067: 

For review under Article 66________________________________

For examination under Article 69____________________________

Total _______________________________________________

'Workload of the Army boards of review during the sa

On hand at the beginning of period___________________________

l1eferred for review ________________________________________

Total _______________________________________________

l1eviewed _________________________________________________

Pending at close of period___________________________________

Total _______________________________________________

1 This figure includes 26 cases which were referred to boards of review 

69, Uniform Code of Military Justice, and 61 cases on rehearing or recon

Actions taken during the period July 1, 1966, through 

by boards of review: 

Affirmed __________________________________________________

Sentence modified__________________________________________

Charges dismissed__________________________________________

Findings and sentence disapproved in p:lrL___________________

Findings disapproved in part_______________________________

Findings approved, sentence disallproved____________________

Findings and sentence disapproved in part, rehearing ordered__

Findings disapproved in part, rehearing ordered_______________

l1ehearing ordered as to sentence only________________________

Sentence commuted ________________________________________

Total _______________________________________________
Opinions on petitions: Afiinned _____________________________________________

lReversed _____________________________________________

Certification: Afiinned _____________________________________________

lReversed ______ ~--------------------------------------

Mandatory review: Afiinned _____________________________________________

lReversed _____________________________________________

Petitions denied___________________________________________

Petitions granted__________________________________________

In compliance with the mandate of article 6 (a), U

Military Justice, the Judge Advocate General and sen

his staff inspected numerous judge advocate ofllces in th

and overseas in the supervision of the administrat

justice. 

U.S. ARMY JUDICIARY ACTIVITIES 

In July 1967, the U.S. Army judiciary conducted a 

Judge Advocate General's School for mobilization de

as law officers and one officer assigned to the Examinat

addition to the nine mobilization designees, six Army 

officers and two active duty officers from the Navy 

attended the seminar. 

In October 1967, the U.S. Army judiciary condu

Judge Advocates Judicial Conference at Charlottsvil

five conferees, including law officers and members o

review, attended the conference. 

LEGISLATION AND MILITARY JUSTICE PRO

R.ll. 226, a bill proposing extensive changes to the 

of Military Justice, was introduced on January 10, 

sentative Charles Bennett of Florida. The Departme

was assigned the responsibility for expressing the view

ment of Defense on the bill. The report was comple

20 
Hearings on H.R. 12705 were conducted before the Hou

on Armed Services on September 14, and October 26,19

in favor of the bill on behalf of Department of De

hearings. 

My office continued to take action to improve the adm

military justice during 1967. A course for young officers i

one for prospective special courts-martial counsel has bee

inclusion in Army Subject Schedule 21-10 in order to fu

the administration of military justice in special courts-

PERSONNEL 

At the end of fiscal year 1967, after 390 appointment

J AGC, during the year, the total officer strength of t

1264-528 were Regular Army, 70 career-reservists, and 

tour" officers. The Regular Army authorized spaces r

Regular Army losses numbered 43; Regular Army gain

The excess leave program is still our largest source of R

input; 36 officers in excess leave status graduated fro

during 1967. It is anticipated that the program will co

a total of 105 Regular Army officers in law school, thus 

input into the Corps of 35 officers per year. 

EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

During calendar year 1967, the Judge Advocate Gen

U.S. Army, provided resident instruction for 1,100 s

instruction was presented in 18 courses. 

Two cycles of the ll-week basic course were conducte

during 1967. The 46th Basic Class of 124 students, inclu

officer from the Republic of Vietnam, was graduated 

47th Basic Class of 109 students, including one studen

and one from Iran, was graduated in December. A new 

cate Officer Orientation Course was inaugurated for ne
year 1961. These courses were: Law in Vietnam (tw

curement Law (three cycles), Civil Law, Military J

Affairs, Civil Affairs, International Law, the Judg

fresher Course, the Law Officer Seminar, and a Specia

gram for ,Var Crimes Detachments, USAR. Attend

over 100 students, including representatives from th

Corps, Air Force, Departments of Defense and Inte

Department, Veterans' Administration, General Ac

General Services Administration, Federal Aviation A

Highway Administration, Atomic Energy Commissi

tional Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

A new edition of the text on the law of claims, D

was published in 1961. Nine issues of the Procuremen

and the fourth bound compilation of that periodical

50-4, were also published. 

The annual Judge Advocate General's Conference 

school in October. Over 180 conferees were in attenda

tion of the Uniform Code of Military Justice at all lev

was discussed along with many other legal subjects. 

The school continued to oversee qualification of en

as legal clerks and court reporters through prepara

istration of standard qualifying tests requiring kn

Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

In the four issues of the Military Law Review p

1961, articles on military justice topics continued 

Volume 35 was a "UCMJ 15th Anniversary Issue." 

foreword by the Judge Advocate General, an article 

Robert E. Quinn of the Court of Military Appeals, an

controversy antedating the 1920 Articles of ,Var re

jury problem, the law officer's right and duty to com

dence, the then-current "mere evidence" rule, and il

evidence. 

22 
ture for television was titled "Soldiers at Law" and will 

on the Army's television series "The Big Picture." The 

trays the work of a typical judge advocate officer in the field

READJUSTMENTS TO MEET VIETNAM REQUIREME

The requrements for personnel in Vietnam continued to 

the year. There are now 104 officers "in-country," an incre

cers from the beginning of the year. Because of the troo

Vietnam, a new judicial area, the IXth, and a new judicia

Seventeenth, were established in Saigon to cover V

Okinawa. In October 1967 the law officer strength in V

increased from tvw to three. In addition, another board o

established, and the authorized strength of the judiciary w

by 14 military and nine civilian spaces. 

KENNETH J. HODSON, 

jJfajor General, USA

The Judqe Advoeate Ge

V

mittee Report reach the Armed Services Committees 

shortly after the convening of each new session, this repo

embracing calendar year 1967, contains, unless otherwis

statistical information covering fiscal year 1967. 

Courts-martial of all types--general, special, and sum

vened within the Navy and Marine Corps increased fro

fiscal year 1966 to 31,431 in fiscal year 1967. There was an 

each type of case, as indicated by the figures set forth below

Type case Fiscal year Fiscal year Incr

1967 1966 

General court-martiaL _________________ _ 553 355 

Special court-martial involving BCD_____ _ 2,890 2, 141 

Special court-martial not involving BCD__ 14,633 12,506 2, 

Summary court-martiaL _______________ _ 13,355 11,934 1,

During fiscal year 1967 Navy boards of review receive

383 general courts-martial and 2,890 special courts-mar

pared with 249 general courts-martial and 2,141 special co

during fiscal year 1966. Of the 3,273 cases received by boar

during fiscal year 1967, 1,628 accused requested counsel (

A more detailed statistical report is attached as exhibit A

Complying with the requirements of article 6(a), Unifo

Military Justice, the Judge Advocate General visited overs

tions in Europe, and the Judge Advocate General, Deputy 

vocate General, and senior members of the Office of the J

cate General visited numerous commands within the Un

in the supervision of the administration of military justic

The problems of administering military justice under co

tions have continued to be the object of study during 1967. 

ies indicate that many of the problems can be solved 

passage of legislation presently before the Congress w

amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 
pp g

Pursuant to the Secretary's approval of the concep

the first of such centers was established on a pilot bas

1966. Inasmuch as a total of 281,200 active duty nav

tired naval personnel, and dependents of each are loc

folk complex, this location was considered most appro

ing area for the untried organization, procedures, an

new law center. The test period for the Norfolk Law 

successful, and it has been established on a permanen

center has been recommended for San Diego, and fe

are currently in progress with respect to the establi"h

ters in other areas. 

As mentioned in my previous reports, an ad hoc com

of representatives of the Judge Advocates General of t

and Air Force has prepared an updated "Manual for 

with a view to having it published in loose-leaf form. T

for Courts-Martial, United States, 1968" has been a

three services and the Secretary of Defense, and is n

by the Bureau of the Budget and the Justice Dep

White House. 

The Congress enacted, and the President signed, 

1967, H.R. 12910 providing for a JAG Corps in the N

In an effort to consolidate ideas as to effective meth

tering the Uniform Code of Military Justice today, 

senior legal officers from all major Navy and Marine C

was held in September of 1007 in 'Vashington, D.C

was eminently successful and will prove of help in 

problems and in providing ideas for future study and 

The U.S. Naval Justice School continued to offer i

tion in the fundamental principles of military just

fiscal year, the school afforded instruction in milita

clerk duties, and court reporting for a grand total of 

enlisted personnel of all the Armed Forces. Six regula

were graduated at the Justice School in Newport, R

26 
Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Army, Air Force, and fo

were given instruction specifically designed to meet the ne

officers, and 267 officers of the Navy were given special i

military justice by officers of the Naval Justice School st

the course at the Naval Destroyer School. 

WJLFRED HEARN, 

Rear Admiral, USN

The Judge Advocate G
Special courts-martial: 

Received for review under article 66_____________________

Received for review under article 65c____________________

Reviewed in the field_________________________________

,Total ______________________________________________

Summary courts-martial: 

Received for review under article 65c___________________

Reviewed in the field___________________________________

Total ______________________________________________

Total all courts-martiaL____________________________

Board of Review actions: 

On hand for review, July 1, 1966_________________________

Received for review during fiscal year 1961-______________

Total on hand______________________________________

Reviewed during fiscal year 1961-_______________________

Pending review on June 30, 1961-________________________

Total _______________________________________________

Findings modified by boards or review during fiscal year 1967_

Requests for appellate counsel______________________________

Court of Military Appeals actions: 

Petitions forwarded to USCMA_________________________

Cases certified to USCMA by JAG_______________________

Total cases docketed with USMCA____________________

Petitions granted by USMCA___________________________

Petitions denied by USMCA_____________________________

Total petitions acted upon by USMCA_________________

28 
g y, j

Advocate General, and Brig. Gen. William H. Lumpkin, 

Judge Advocate General, made staff visits to legal offices 

States and overseas as required by article 6 (a), Unif

Military Justice. Generals Manss and Lumpkin also atte

bar association meetings and spoke before numerous 

sional, and military organizations. The Judge Advo

hosted a worldwide Major Command Staff Judge Advo

ence at Headquarters U.S. Air Force in November 1967

2. a. The number of records of trial received in the 

Judge Advocate General, for review pursuant to artic

examination pursuant to article 69, during fiscal year 1

in the following table: 

Total number records received________________________________

For review under article 66_______________________________

General court-martial records_________________________

Special court-martial records_________________________

Examined under article 69________________________________

The boards of review modified the findings andlor s

cases. 

b. 	The workload of the boards of review was as follow

Cases on hand, June 30, 1966 ______________________________

Cases referred for revievv_________________________________

Total for revievv ____________________________________

Cases reviewed and dispatched____________________________

Cases on hand, June 30, 1967______________________________

G. During the fiscal year 70 percent of the accused, who

referred for review under article 66, requested representa

late defense counsel before boards of review. 

d. The following table shows the number of cases forw
e. During the fiscal year the following numbers of 

were convened in the Air Force. 

General courts-martiaL_____________________________________

Special courts-murtiaL_____________________________________

Summary courts-murtiaL____________________________________

Total _______________________________________________

3. Reportable article 15 actions, fiscal year 1967 

Num

ca

Total cases 26

Ofiicers_______________________________________ _ 

Aumen_______________________________________ _ 26

Punishments imposed: Ofiicers _______________________________________ _ 

Airmen_______________________________________ _ 47

Restrictions (over 14 days): Ofiicers___________________________________ _ 

AJrmen ___________________________________ _ 5

Quarters arrest/correctional custody: Ofiicers___________________________________ _ 

Airmen___________________________________ _ 4

Extra duties (over 14 days): AJrmen_____________ _ 2

Reduction in grade: Airmen____________________ _ 17

Forfeiture of pay: Ofiicers___________________________________ _ 

Airmen___________________________________ _ 15

Detention of pay: Ofiicers___________________________________ _ 

Airmen___________________________________ _ 

Written reprimand: Ofiicers___________________________________ _ 

Airmen___________________________________ _ 1

30 
---

Airrnen ___________________________________ _ 1,0

Suspension of punishrnent ______________________ _ 10, 

Officers ___________________________________ _ 

Arrrnen___________________________________ _ 10,0

Other action __________________________________ _ 1,3

Officers ___________________________________ _ 

Airrnen ___________________________________ _ 1,3

I Of total cases (26,776). 


t Of appeals taken (1,197). 


4. On April 25, 1967, the Air Force received the decisio

Court of Military Appeals in United State8 v. Tempia

629, 37 CMR 249, an Air Force case which we had previo

to the Court to determine the effect of jJliranda v. Ariz

336, on military law and on the circumstances of that case. 

upon receipt of the decision, the Air Force transmitted 

message, advising of the effect of the decision and contin

the previous instructions directing investigators to comp

the Miranda rules in all interrogations. In August a le

sent to the field, Istressing the importance of proving 

pliance with Miranda at trial in laying the foundation f

sion of any statement made by the accused during custod

tion. Suitable amendments were also made in Air F

110-5, "Court-Martial Instructions Guide." 

5. Publication of the Air Force JAG Law Review, now 

year, was continued. It continues to serve as a potent me

semination of information dealing with important legisla

trative, and judicial developments in military and relat

During the current calendar year, several highly inform

on matters of contemporary interest in the military just

published. For example, "The Implications of Schme
ponents. It contains digests of all opinions of the C

Appeals, selected opinions of the boards of review a

State cases containing issues germane to military law

are put on 5- by 8-inch card stock, filed by subject 

readily accessible for research. The judge advocates, 

the latest source of legal thought at their fingertips p

tion of the cases in permanently bound volumes. 

also contains other opinions, notices, and directions 

the judge advocates. 

7. The Office of The Judge Advocate General acted 

the armed services in administering a contract with a 

publisher for publication of the Court-Martial Repor

the decisions of the U.S. Court of Military Appeals 

cisions of the boards of review of the services. The co

vided for a separate volume containing a digest of s

of the Judge Advocates General and miscellaneous o

agencies and tribunals. 

8. Recurring error letters and special subject letters 

judge advocates for their guidance in military justice 

9. On September 30, 1967, there were 1,239 judge ad

Of these, 654 were members of the Regular Air Force, 

Reserve officers (of this number, 75 entered active du

serve status and have a 4-year active duty service obli

were Reserve officers with established dates of separati

officer strength decreased by 21 between September 30

tember 30, 1967. 

10. At the close of the period of this report, there we

exercising general court-martial jurisdiotion. 

RoBERT W. MANSS

Major General, U

The Judge Advocate 

U

32 
ppp

the U.S. Coast Guard became a part of the Department of T

tion. This report is submitted in accordance with article 67 

Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 867(g), by t

Counsel of the Department of Transportation. 

During the fiscal year which ended June 30, 1967, the 

courts-martial in the Coast Guard continued the steady 

perienced since 1963. All records of trial in the Coast Guard 

mitted to Coast Guard Headquarters either for final review 

review has been accomplished in the field, for filing. The t

shows the number of cases received in each of the last 5 fi

1967 1966 1965 

General courts-martiaL ___________________ 2 3 1 

Special courts-martial _____________________ 68 95 95 

Summary courts-martiaL__________________ 211 2]2 231 

Total_____________________________ 281 310 327 

The Coast Guard Board of Review, which was reconstitu

General Counsel of the Department of Transportation wit

membership as theretofore existing, considered nine cases 

year, five less than the number reviewed in the previous 

result of the Board's action, the findings were modified but t

affirmed in three cases; the findings were affirmed but the se

reduced in two cases; both findings and sentence were modi

case; the findings and sentence as approved on review b

affirmed in two cases; and in one case the findings and senten

aside, necessitating a retrial. One motion for reconside

denied. 

In 45 of the 68 special court-martial records examined, t

was represented by a qualified lawyer. In all but one of th

Review's cases the accused had been defended by a lawyer a
Unauthorized absence or desertion, 29 cases; larceny 

propriation, 14 cases; simple or aggravated assault, 9 

use, or sale of marihuana, 9 cases. From the total of 

martial, only 11 bad conduct discharges emerged; onl

discharge survived the appellate process unsuspend

Of the 211 summary court-martial cases, 105 

offenses. 'Vhile these cases disposed mainly of mino

casionally more serious charges were referred for t

court-martial; for example, there were 26 cases of lar

appropriation tried by summary courts. One hundred 

mary courts were convened aboard ship and 11 othe

tions. That the review process benefited the accused 

a summary court is evidenced by the fact that the s

was reduced in 97 instances. Twelve of the cases res

quittal or dismissal of charges. 

JOHN E. RO

Gener

Department of T

II.S GO~ERNME:NT P

34