ond the 

JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERA

of the 

ARMED FORCES 


ond the 

GENERAL COUNSEL 


of the 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA

PURSUANT TO THE 

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUST

For the Period 

Jonuory I, 1976-December 31, 197

PROPERTY OF U.S. ARMY 

T~E JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S SC

LIBRARY 

and to the 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 


AND SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATI

and the 


SECRETARIES OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF TH

ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORCE 


PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 


For the Period 


January I, 1976-December 31, 1976 


Contents 

JOINT REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY 

AND THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL OF THE ARME

AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT O

PORTATION 

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OFMILITARY APP

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE AR

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NA

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE AIR 

REPORT OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT 

PORTATION (UNITED STATES COAST GUARD) 

JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL 


OF THE ARMED FORCES 


and the 

GENERAL COUNSEL 


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 


January 1, 1976 to December 31,1976 

As required by Article 67(g), Uniform Code of Military Ju

Judges of the United States Court of Military Appeals, T

Advocates General of the military departments, and the 

Counsel of the Department of Transportation, submit the

report on the operation of the Uniform Code of Military 

the Committees on Armed Services of the United States S

House of Representatives and to the Secretaries of Defen

portation, Army, Navy, and Air Force. 

The Judges, The Judge Advocates General, and the 

Counsel, constituting the Code Committee, met seve

throughout the year. These conferences have resulted in 

change of information and continued consideration ofpossib

ments to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

The Joint Service Committee on Military Justice, a 

Committee composed of representatives of each of the ser

recently completed a legislative package proposing chang

Uniform Code of Military Justice. This package has been co

upon by the Judge Advocates General and it is presen

staffed within the Department of Defense. The proposal pr

discretionary appeals from courts-martial convictions, exp

the power of The Judge Advocate General under Article 

nates the present requirement for a detailed pretrial advice 

trial review by the Staff Judge Advocate, eliminates revi

findings of a court-martial by the convening authority, e
g ypg 

Review and Court of Military Appeals opinions. 

The separate reports of the Court of Military Appeal

individual services show the number of courts-martial 

late review category during the reporting period. Exhi

report recapitulates the number of courts-martial of al

throughout the world, the number of these cases revi

Courts of Military Review and the number ultimately 

the Court of Military Appeals. 

ALBERT B. FLETCHER, Jr., 

Chief Judge. 

WILLIAM H. COOK, 

Associate Judge. 

MATTHEW J. PERRY, 

Associate Judge. 

HAROLD R. VAGliE, 

The Judge Advocate General, U.S. A

WILTON B. PERSONS, Jr., 

The Judge Advocate General, U.S. A

WILLIAM O. MILLER, 

The Judge Advocate General, U.S. N

LINDA KAMM, 

General Counsel, Department of Tra

2 
y fy 

Army .................................................................................... 


Navy .................................................................................... . 


Air Force ........................................................................... .. 


Coast Guard ....................................................................... . 


TOTAL .................................................................... . 


Cases Docketed with U.S. Court ofMilitary Appeals 

Army .................................................................................... 


Navy .................................................................................... . 


Air Force ............................................................................ . 


Coast Guard ....................................................................... . 


Fiscal Year 1976 

2,185 

3,008 

347 

21 

5,561 

Fiscal Year 1976 

1,248 

725 

229 

7 

Fis

Fis

TOTAL .................................................................... . 2,209 
 
gy p

their report on the administration of the Court and mi

to the Committees on Armed Services of the United S

and House of Representatives and the Secretaries of De

portation, Army, Navy, and Air Force, in accordan

Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 67(g), 10 U.S

Judge Matthew J. Perry, nominated by President G

on December 10, 1975, and confirmed by the Senate on 

1975, took his oath of office on February 18, 1976, as a 

remainder of the term expiring May 1, 1981. 

Judge William H. Cook was reappointed as a Judge 

Ford on February 10, 1976, confirmed by the Senate 

expiring May 1, 1991, and took the oath of office on Ap

Senior Judge Ferguson retired again from active ser

Court on May 21, 1976. 

Under the sponsorship of the United States Cour

Appeals in conjunction with the Military Law Institut

Ferguson Conference on Appellate Advocacy was held a

town University Law Center on May 20-21,1976. The co

attended by uniformed and civilian appellate lawye

before the Courts of Military Review and this Court. T

the Courts of Military Review and the Judge Advocat

the various services were also in attendance. The prin

was delivered by Justice William H. Rehnquist. The oc

conference was used to publish and to discuss newly pr

of Practice and Procedure for the United States Cou

Appeals. Written comments on the proposed Rules w

from members of the bar and bar groups. Comments w

by the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard, as 

American Bar Association, The Association of the Bar 

New York, several members of the bar, and other inter

zations. At this writing, the Court has the propos

comments thereto under advisement. 

4 
y p

in this Court on principal cases. During the 1976 term, 659 

were admitted to the Bar of our Court. 

Several significant opinions affecting the administratio

tary justice were promulgated during the 1975 term. In Un

v. Blakey, 24 U.s.C.M.A. 63, 51 C.M.R. 192 (1976), the Cou

clear that in a criminal case the usual situation should b

accused to be represented by his own individual defense 

and only in exceptional cases will deviation from this 

countenanced. The Court suggested that the services wou

advised to avoid future problems by initially appointin

counsel for each accused. In United States v. Dunks, 24 U

71, 51 C.M.R. 200 (1976), a military judge's failure t

continuance during an administrative appeal under U

Supp. 1 to AR 27-10 was held to deprive the accused of th

judicial review of such an administrative decision concern

trial rights. In the case of Courtney v. Williams, 24 U.S.C.M

C.M.R. 260 (1976), the Court made applicable to the 

services the requirements of Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 

that a neutral and detached magistrate must pass upon the 

for pretrial confinement. The authority granted by para

Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (Rev.), to 

ing authority to direct a military judge to accede on questi

upon reconsideration was held to be inconsistent with th

sional mandate of Article 62(a), Uniform Code of Milita

United States v. Ware, 24 U.S.C.M.A. 102,51 C.M.R. 275 (

On reconsideration of its earlier decision in United 

Jordan, 23 U.S.C.M.A. 525, 50 C.M.R. 664 (1976), the Court 

from its position that the federal exclusionary rule shoul

all actions of foreign police, and held that only when 

officials are present at the scene of a foreign search or, ev

not present, provide any information or assistance, di

request, setting in motion, aiding or otherwise furthering 

tives of the foreign search, must the search satisfy t

242-954 0 - 77 - 2 
defense to submit its requests for witnesses to a partisan 

determination, noting an apparent inconsistency with 

Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 846. 

Supplementing last year's decision in United States 

U.S.C.M.A. 367, 51 C.M.R. 1 (1975), which required se

post-trial review upon defense counsel prior to the conve

ity's action, in United States v. Cruz-Rijos, 24 U.S.C.M

C.M.R. 723 (1976), the Court held that Article 54, UC

that a copy of the record of trial must be given to the acc

as it is authenticated. The Court evoked the equal prote

principle in United States v. Courtney, 24 U.S.C.M.A. .28

796 (1976), to limit the maximum sentence for an offen

Article 134, UCMJ, when a similar offense is prohibite

tion under Article 92 and carries a lesser penalty ther

States v. Green, 24 U.S.C.M.A. 299, 52 C.M.R. 10 (1976

ruled that the trial judge must ascertain whether a 

exists, and whether the accused understands the meani

of each condition as well as the sentence limitations in 

inquiry into the actual sentence should be delayed 

announcement of the sentence w1;len the accused elec

tenced by the judge alone. In another extremely imp

McPhail v. United States, 24 U.S.C.M.A. 304, 52 C.M.R. 

Court held that its authority to issue appropriate writs 

jurisdiction under the All Writs Act is not limited to t

jurisdiction found in Article 67, UCMJ, but also extend

relief to a person subject to the Uniform Code of Mil

from the burdens of a judgment by an inferior court th

contrary to constitutional commands and the decisions 

As a superior judicial tribunal, the exercise of superviso

includes jurisdiction to require compliance with applica

all courts and persons purporting to act under the aut

Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Court ordered a 

6 
qy pp

investigation requires striking a balance between the sig

a witness' testimony and the relative difficulty and 

obtaining the witness' presence. In United States v. W

U.S.C.M.A. 176, 54 C.M.R. 284 (1976), the Court held the 

duty use of hashish by a serviceman standing alone was 

connected. 

During this past term, the Court also recommended sp

lative action and/or review by the Congress in a number 

United States v. McCarthy, 25 U.S.C.M.A. 30, 35 n. 3, 54 C

n. 3 (1976), the Court recommended that Congress ree

military jury selection process. Tenure for all judges in t

justice system was suggested to the Congress as a means 

ing judicial tampering in United States v. Ledbetter, 25 

51, 59 n. 12, 54 C.M.R. 51, 59 n. 12 (1976). Also in Ledbette

commented on the absence of an availability definition fo

participating in an Article 32, UCMJ, investigation. In U

v. Carpenter, 24 U.S.C.M.A. 210, 51 C.M.R. 507 (1976), the 

that the military judge should be specifically empowe

Uniform Code of Military Justice to order the appea

witness at all stages during the proceedings. 

In Courtney v. Williams, 24 U.S.C.M.A. 87, 89, 51 C.M

(1976), the Court noted the absence of a statutorily-presc

dure for reviewing the probable cause determination 

ordering a serviceman into arrest or confinement. In Uni

Courtney, 24 U.S.C.M.A. 280, 51 C.M.R. 796 (1976), the C

the existence of multiple statutes within the Unifor

Military Justice with varying penalties for the same c

fense, a situation which does not exist elsewhere i~ the U

Code, and held that the lesser penalty controlled. Finally

States v. Occhi, 25 U.S.C.M.A. 93, 54 C.M.R. 93 (1976)

commented on the absence of authority in military judges 

sentences which they impose in court-martial proceeding
Chief Judge. 

WILLIAM H. COOK, 

Judge. 

MATTHEW J. PERRY

Judge. 

8 
Total by Service Sept. 30, 1974 to to S

Sept. 30, 1975 Sept. 30, 1975 

Petitions (Art. 

67(bX3»: 

Army ................... 15,404 1,290 1,093 

Navy .................... 7,942 582 746 

Air Force ........... 5,427 301 203 

Coast Guard ....... 64 3 7 

Total ............... 28,837 2,176 2,049 

Certificates (Art. 

67(bX2»: 

Army................... 233 14 12 

Navy .................... 250 0 6 

Air Force ........... 103 3 4 

Coast Guard ....... 12 0 2 

Total ............... 598 17 24 

Mandatory (Art. 

67bXl): 

Army ................... 31 0 0 

Navy .................... 3 0 0 

Air Force ........... 3 0 0 

Coast Guard ....... 0 0 0 

Total ............... 37 0 0 

Total cases 

docketed ...... 29,472 2,193 2,073 

1 Flag officer cases; 1 Army and 1 Navy . 

• 33,089 cases actually assigned docket numbers. Overage due to multiple actions on the sam
miss: 

With Opinion ................... 8 0 

Without Opinion .............. 58 14 

Disposed of by Order setting 

aside findings and sentence ....................................... 6 2 

Remanded ................................. 211 19 

Court action due (30 days) 3 .. 112 147 

Awaiting replies 3 .................... 39 115 

Decision affirmed by Order ... 1 1 

Proceedings abated ................. 0 1 

Certificates (Art. 67(bX2)): 

Opinions rendered .................. 575 13 

Opinions pending 3 .................. 0 4 

Withdrawn ................................ 8 0 

Remanded ................................. 4 1 

Disposed of by Order............... 1 1 

Set for Hearing 3 ...................... 1 0 

Ready for hearing 3 ................. 3 0 

A waiting briefs 3 ...................... 8 7 

Leave to file denied ................. 2 0 

Motion to dismiss granted ..... 1 0 

Mandatory (Art. 67(bXl)): 

Opinions rendered .................. 37 0 

Opinions pending ..................... 0 0 

Remanded ................................. 1 0 

Awaiting briefs 3 ...................... 0 0 

Opinions rendered: 

Petitions .................................... 2,843 111 

Motions to dismiss ................... 11 0 

Motions to stay proceedings .. 1 0 

Per Curiam grants .................. 58 0 

Certificates ................................ 502 13 

Certificates and Petitions ...... 70 0 

Mandatory ................................ 37 0 

Petitions remanded ................ 2 0 

See footnotes at end of table. 

10 
Petition for writ of habeas 

corpus .................................... . 

Motion for appropriate relief 

Petition (motion to strike) ..... 

Miscellaneous Dockets (1 Pet. 

Recon.) .................................. . 

Order on Misc. Docket ........... . 

90 

1 

0 

0 

0 

7 

0 

0 

0 

0 

6 

0 

Total ..................................... . 3,639 131 112 

• As of Sept. 30, 1974, 1975 and 1976. 

'3,639 cases were dispoeed of by 3,559 published Opinions. 176 Opinions were rendered in c

Army officers, 38 Air Force officers, 32 Navy officers, 9 Marine Corps officers, 2 Coast Guard o

Point cadet. In addition 19 Opinions were re~dered in cases involving 20 civilians. The rem

enlisted personnel. 
Disposed of on motion to dis

miss: 

With Opinion .................. . 

Without Opinion ............. . 

Disposed of by Order setting 

aside findings and sentence ...................................... . 

Writ of error coram nobis by 

Order ..................................... . 

Motion for bail denied .......... . 

Remanded ................................ . 

Decision affirmed by Order ... 

Proceedings abated ................ . 

8 


59 


6 


3 


1 


214 


1 


o 

o 

14 


2 


o 

o 

18 


1 


1 


3

Total ..................................... . 29,266 1,978 2,1

Miscellaneous Docket Nos. Assigned (1967 to Present): ........... . 

Pending s .................................. . 

Granted .................................... . 

Denied ....................................... . 

Withdrawn ............................... . 

Dismissed ................................. . 

Issue moot ............................... . 

Remanded ................................ . 

Opinions rendered ................. . 

Pet for Reconsideration pending s ....................................... . 

Pet for Reconsideration denied ........................................ . 

Pet for Reconsideration 

granted ................................. . 

Opinion rendered (Pet Recon). 

Pet for new trial remanded .. 

See footnotes at end of table. 

446 


o 

6 


118 


4 


218 


4 


1 


89 


o 

17 


1 


1 


1 


64 


o 

o 

24 


3 


23 


o 

o 

8 


o 

2 


o 

o 

o 

1

1

12 
Opinions pending ................................. . 


Set for hearing ..................................... . 


Ready for hearing ................................ . 


Petitions ~anted-awaiting briefs ... 


Petitions-Court action due (30 


days) ........................................................ . 


Petitions-awaiting replies ................ . 


Certificates-awaiting briefs ............. . 


Mandatory-awaiting briefs .............. . 


1 


10 


16 


'7 


112 


39 


1 


o 

5 


89 


22 


2 

27 


147 


115 


7 

Total ........................................... . 186 409 

, As of Sept. 30, 1976. 

60verage due to multiple actions on the same cases. 

242-954 0 - 77 - 3 
military justice publications and regulations, and to par

developing draft amendments to the Uniform Code o

Justice (UCMJ). 

Military Magistrate Program 

The evolution of the Military Magistrate Program 

during 1976. The program, initiated in 1974, was exte

January 1976 to include judge advocate magistrates' 

pretrial confinement of all Army personnel in military co

facilities. Other key features of the extended program we

Authority in military magistrates to order release 

trial confinement or permit continued confinemen

provision for appeal. 

Presumption by military magistrates in each cas

officer directing pretrial confinement did so on th

substantial evidence that the person confined had com

offense under the UCMJ. 

Assignment of military magistrates to the U.S. A

Services Agency (USALSA), with limited use of part-

ly assigned magistrates in geographically remote are

average pretrial confinement population. Magistrate

to USALSA were given responsibility for reviewing 

confinement in CONUS, Europe, and Korea. 

Placement of military magistrates under the super

trol of full-time military judges. The Chief Trial J

Army Judiciary, was given the responsibility for gene

istration of the program. 

Authority in military magistrates to issue search 

under certain conditions. 

14 
empowered to perform magisterial duties when so authorize

Chief, U.S. Army Judiciary, or his designee. In the future, 

judges will gradually take over virtually all pretrial conf

reviews. 

Courts-Martial and Nonjudicial Punishment 

During 1976 a decline in the number of courts-martial Ar

continued. The number of persons tried by all types of courts

in fiscal year 1976 was 36.09% less than in fiscal year 19

reason was continued reduction in the size of the Army. 

Other reasons include: 

Increased use of administrative procedures to separat

members in trouble or likely to come into conflict with 

law. Procedures under Chapter 10, AR 635-200, are 

separate soldiers facing court-martial charges punish

punitive discharge. The Expeditious Discharge and 

Discharge Programs are aimed at identifying and se

members who cannot adjust to Army life. These progr

having great impact upon the numbers of judicial action

the Army. 

Quality of recruits. Statistically, service members 

non-high school graduates or fall into lower mental ca

represent the majority of offenders in the Army. The 

these individuals who are permitted to enlist, the lo

offense rates. 

During fiscal year 1976 there were 159,918 nonjudicial 

ments, or approximately 15 times the total number of courts

(general, special, and summary). During the transitional peri

year 7T (July through Septe'mber 1976), there were 45,432 

cial punishments. In fiscal year 1975, 175,217 nonjudicial 

ments were recorded. 
the Judge Advocates General, the General Counsel 

ment of Transportation, and the judges of the United 

Military Appeals. It meets regularly to review a

legislative changes concerning the operation of the U

in this work, the Judge Advocates General created in 

Joint Service Committee on Military Justice. The co

working group meet regularly to discuss proposals 

Manual for Courts-Martial, 1969 (Revised edition) 

Until 1 October 1976 Colonel Wayne E. Alley, JA

chairman. 

The Judge Advocates General had agreed in July 

tive concepts consisting of a system of discretionary a

martial cases; modifications in records of trial; a li

number of defense counsel and provision for more pr

of "reasonable availability" of individual military d

and changes in convening authority functions, prim

tion of his action approving or disapproving findin

viewable by a Court of Military Review. 

In January 1976 the Air Force, which had legi

responsibility, submitted a legislative package enco

concepts. The Army made two proposals to amend th

would eliminate the, preferential appellate rights a

and general officers. The other would eliminate the r

trial by court-martial when nonjudicial punishme

certain areas of operations designated by the Presid

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS AND 

ARMY JUDICIARY ACTIVITIES 

a. A statistical summary of court-martial activitie

1976 and fiscal year 197T follows. Figures for 197T a

ses. 

Number of persons tried by courts-martial 

strength,790,741) 

16 
TOTAL ....................................................................................................... 

Workload of the U.S. Army Court of Military Review: 

On hand at the beginning of period .... ..... ..... ..... .......... ................. ........ 

General Courts-Martial ............................................. ...... ............. .... 

Special Courts-Martial (BCD) ............................................................ 

Referred for review .............................................................................. 

General Courts-Martial .................................................................... 1

Special Courts-Martial {BCD) ............................................................ 

Revie!e~:.~~.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

General Courts-Martial .................................................................... 

Special Courts-Martial (BCD) ............................................................ 

Pending at close of period .... .......... ..... ...... ..... ..... ............... .................. 

General Courts-Martial .................................................................... 

Special Courts-Martial (BCD) ............................................................ 

Note: Figures in this section are based on records of trial and not the number of accused. 


Actions taken by U.S. Army Court of Military Review: 

Findings and sentence affirmed ............................................................ 

Findings affirmed, sentence modified .................................................... 

Findings affirmed, sentence commuted ................................................. 

Findings affirmed, no sentence affirmed ............................................... 

Findings affirmed, sentence reassessment or rehearing as to sentence only 


ordered .............................................................................................................. . 

Findings partially disapproved, sentence affirmed ................................. 

Findings partially disapproved, rehearing ordered ........................................ . 

Findings and sentence affirmed in part, disapproved in part ..............•.... 

Findings and sentence disapproved, rehearing ordered ........................... 

Findings and sentence disapproved, charges dismissed ........................... 

Case returned to field for new review and action ................................... 

Proceedings abated, death of accused .................................................... 

Case returned to field for lack ofjurisdiction in ACMR........................... 

Order for psychiatric examination ........................................................ 

Returned to TJAG for a limited hearing before a different Military 


Judge ..................................................................................................•.................. 

Remanded to TJAG, findings-sentence dismissed by USCMA ..............•.... 

Miscellaneous decision disposing of the case .......................................... 

TOTAL ..................................................................................... 
Pending 1 July 1975 (1 July 1976) ...............................................

Forwarded ................................................................................

Granted ...................................................................................

Denied......................................................................................

Pending 1 July 1976 (1 October 1976) .....................................................

OPINIONS ON PETITIONS GRANTED 

Pending 1 July 1975 (1 July 1976)............................................................

Granted ..... ;...................................................................................................

Rendered .......................................................................................................

Affirmed........................................................................................................

Reversed ........................................................................................................

Pending 1 July 1976 (1 October 1976) .....................................................

CERTIFIED CASES 

Pending 1 July 1975 (1 July 1976) ...........................................................

Forwarded ....................................................................................................

Decided ..........................................................................................................

Affirmed ........................................................................................................

Reversed ........................................................................................................

Pending 1 July 1976 (1 October 1976) .....................................................

Applications for relief, Article 69: 


Pending 1 July 1975 (Pending 1 JUly 1976) ...........................................

Received .......................................................................................................

Disposed of....................................................................................................

Petitions granted .........................................................................................

Petitions denied ...........................................................................................

Returned to field for action ......................................................................

No jurisdiction ............................................................................................

Withdrawn ...................................................................................................

Pending 1 October 1976 .............................................................................

16 petitions dismissed, 3 petitions withdrawn and 1 motion for leave to file untimely peti

'I petition dismissed. 

3 1 petition denied, reconsidered by USCMA and granted, 6 grants vacated and denied, 

granted, and 2 reconsiderations of denials granted and petitions granted. 

"I reconsideration of denial granted and petition granted. 

'I case remanded to ACMR. 

18 
c. The U.S. Army Judiciary is an element of the U.S. 

Services Agency. It consists of the U.S. Army Court 

Review, the Clerk of Court, the Examination and 

Division, and the Trial Judiciary. 

d. The Agency also includes the Government Appell

the Defense Appellate Division, and Contract Appeals D

Contract Appeals Division has no function related to th

Judiciary and its court-martial mission, but represents 

contractual disputes.) 

e. Trials by military judges alone continued to represe

tial savings of manpower of line officers, as refle

following: 

Fiscal year 

1971 1972 1973 1974 19

GCM trials by judge alone ........................ 95% 66% 67% 81% 6

SPCM (BCD) trials by judge alone........... 95% 93% 88% 91 % 87

f. As executive agent for DOD, DA (through OTJAG

and collates information concerning the exercise of fore

jurisdiction over U.S. servicemen. During the period 

1975 to 30 November 1976, out of 13,850 cases (world-wid

primary foreign concurrent jurisdiction of U.S. Army 

foreign authorities waived their jurisdiction in 13,467 

waiver rate of 97.2 percent. This compares with a waive

percent in the previous reporting period. 

LITIGATION 

Litigation affecting the Army during 1976 and 197T 

have impact upon the form and direction of military jus
tribunals. Middendorfv. Henry, 425 U.S. 25 (1976), held th

no right to counsel in a summary court-martial. 

In April 1976 the first allegations of extensive violati

cadet honor code at the U.S. Military Academy (USMA) 

The Cadet Honor Committee investigated charges that 

hundred members of the class of 1977 had cheated on an 

Engineering "take-home" examination. On 1 June 197

action was filed by Cadet Timothy Ringgold (Ringgold v. U

420 F. Supp. 698 (S.D.N.Y. 1976)), seeking to enjoin expu

ceedings and to reinstate cadets who had resigned. The cou

the Government's motion for summary judgment, holdin

cadet honor code was not unconstitutionally vague or d

torily enforced, and that the absence of an alternative to th

of expulsion did not infringe the Eighth Amendment pr

against cruel and unusual punishment. On 30 June 1

Kenneth Harms filed an action (Harms v. U.S., et al., 

76-1276, D.N.J., July 12, 1976) alleging that, notwiths

finding of not guilty by the Cadet Honor Committee, his 

referred to a board of officers which recommended his exp

also claimed the right to be tried by court-martial. The 

that a Cadet Honor Committee proceeding is of no bin

consequence and that, expulsion from USMA being adm

and nonpenal in nature, one is not entitled to crimin

protections. On 30 July 1976 Cadet Paul Williamson bro

(Williamson v. U.S., et al., Civ. No. 76-0300, D.R.I., Marc

alleging that the Secretary of the Army unlawfully supp

Cadet Honor Committee with a different system (Intern

Panels) and that, although Cadet Williamson had been fo

of collabqration on the examination, his alleged co-collab

been found not guilty. The court dismissed the case with

dice for lack of exhaustion of administrative remedies. T

then took several issues to the U.s. Court of Military 

(USCMA) in petitions for extraordinary relief (Allen v. B

20 
pgg, g

separated cadets and their alternative service commitm

court denied plaintiffs requests for preliminary relief. The 

arising out of the USMA cases promises to remain activ

time to Come. 

In Berlin Democratic Club v. Rumsfeld, 410 F. Supp. 1

1976), the court held that allegations by U.s. citizens ove

Army officials illegally wiretapped, opened mail, infiltrat

zations, and committed other acts of harrassment and in

against them stated justiciable claims; that a warrant wa

for U.S. wiretaps on U.S. citizens overseas; that damage

recovered for violation of First and Sixth Amendment r

that a nonresident alien lacked standing to sue in a Federa

actions overseas against him by U.S. officials which 

violated the U.S. Constitution. The judge also denied t

motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. In answ

complaint it was necessary for the Secretary of the Army 

formal claim of privilege to protect certain military 

secrets. In May 1976, because of potential conflict of in

Department of Justice authorized the U.S. Attorney to 

representation of the six individual Army defendants 

retained private counsel at Government expense. In anot

gence case, Socialist Workers Party v. Attorney General

73-3160, S.D.N.Y., July 18, 1973, court orders required a w

search of Army documents. The Secretary of the Arm

military and state secrets privileges to protect document

U.S. relationship with foreign governments. 

EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

On 4 July 1976 Col. Barney L. Brannen, Jr. succeeded Co

S. Fulton, Jr. as Commandant of the Judge Advocate 

School, U.S. Army. 

242-954 0 - 77 - 4 
in attendance: 36 U.s. Army, 1 U.S. Navy, 5 U.S. Marin

foreign officers. The class was graduated on 28 May 1

Advanced Class which began 23 August 1976 will gr

students on 27 May 1977. There are 45 U.S. Army, 1 U.S

U.S. Marine Corps officers in the class. 

The school conducted six Senior Officer Legal Orien

courses for installation and brigade commanders. Th

also presented to the students of the Army War Colle

Barracks. 

The educational development of legal paraprofess

Army was furthered by the presentation of two courses 

in fiscal year 1976. These courses are designed to in

assistants in the functions and administration ofthe m

and administrative law sections of installation ju

offices. 

In May 1976 the Administrative and Civil Law D

school conducted the First Civil Rights Course. The 

military and federal civil agency attorneys a general b

individual civil rights with specific emphasis on their a

the military community. Guest speakers included M

Julius W. Becton, Jr., Commander, 1st Cavalry Divisio

and Ms. Barbara Greene Kilberg, Associate Counsel 

Ford on Women's Rights. 

As a result of recent fiscal problems within the Army

lawyers and comptrollers stressing the Anti-Defici

U.S.C. 665), the Army budget, and associated fiscal law 

devised. The First Fiscal Law Course was conducted 9

1976. The course is now offered twice yearly by the Proc

Division. 

Annual lectures commemorating honorary academic 

school were delivered by eminent lawyers. Mr. Emer

Dean of the University of Virginia School of Law, 

Edward H. Young Lecture on 26 August 1976. On 4 M

Kenneth J. Hodson Lecture was presented by Mr. Rob

Chairman, ABA Criminal Justice Section. 

22 
The average strength of the Judge Advocate General's 

fiscal year 1976 and 197T was 1,588. This compares with 

of 1,590 in 1975, 1,571 in 1974, and 1,554 in 1973. Th

strength of the Corps has stabilized and should remain 

constant for the foreseeable future. This included 56 

Mexican-Americans, 7 Puerto Ricans, 9 Oriental-America

women. The Corps was distributed in the following grades

officers, 76 colonels, 125 lieutenant colonels, 144 majors, 

captains. There were also 61 warrant officers. There wer

142 officers participating in either the excess leave or fu

education programs. 

In order to insure that the best qualified candidates we

formal boards were convened under The Judge Advocate 

written instructions to select candidates for initial comm

Judge Advocate General's School Advanced Class attend

career status. 

In February 1976 a selection board was convened to sele

duty commissioned officers to commence law school 

Funded Legal Education Program. 

Notwithstanding the recent trends toward a larger per

career judge advocates, the shortage of field grade officer

a critical problem. On 9 February 1976 the Secretary of 

approved, for purposes of temporary promotion, sepa

advocate promotion lists through the grade of colonel, and 

zones of consideration than on the Army Promotion List. T

help to alleviate field grade shortages in the future. 

Fifty-eight officers completed the following schools: 

U.S. Army War College ............................................................... _....................

Industrial College of the Armed Forces .........................................................

Command and General Staff College .............................................................

Armed Forces Staff College ..............................................................................

Armed Forces Institute of Pathology .............................................................

Defense Language Institute .................................... -..........................................

The Judge Advocate General's School (Advanced Class) ............................
Advocate General's School prepared the 1st Defense Tr

Course, which was presented in October 1976. These co

offered to active duty defense counsel with 6-12 months 

ence. In addition, he activated an ethics committee to 

lems and complaints involving ethical issues. Opin

committee are published periodically in the Army Law

continuing education of the Corps on such matters. 

WILTON B. PERSO

Major General, U

The Judge Advoc

United States Arm

24 
THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 

for the period 

Fiscal Year 1976 and Fiscal Year 1971 

In accordance with the Code Committee decision annou

Chief Judge Fletcher at the Code Committee meeting of 25 

1977, this report contains statistical information covering fis

1976 and 197T, with textual material covering the first nine 

of calendar year 1976. The period covering 1 October 197

December 1976 will be included in the next annual report. 

SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF MIL

JUSTICE. Complying with the requirements of article 6(a), U

Code of Military Justice, the Judge Advocate General 

Deputy Judge Advocate General continued to visit command

the United States, Europe, and the Far East in the supervisio

administration of military justice. 

COURT-MARTIAL WORKLOAD. a. There has been a dec

the total number of courts-martial during fiscal year 1976 a

year 197T. (See Exhibit A attached to this report.) 

b. During fiscal year 1976, the Navy Court of Military 

received for review 503 general courts-martial and 2,427 

courts-martial, as compared with 597 general courts-mar

2,919 special courts-martial during fiscal year 1975. Of 2,9

received by the Navy Court of Military Review, 2,081 

requested counsel (71 percent). During fiscal year 197T, th

Court of Military Review received for review 129 general 

martial and 527 special courts-martial. Of 656 cases receive

Navy Court of Military Review during fiscal year 197T, 466 

requested counsel (71 percent). 
were unavailable. In fiscal year 1976, 91 percent of the 

martial were tried by courts constituted with military 

fiscal year 197T, 83 percent of the special courts-mar

by military judge alone. 

The present manning level of the Navy-Marine Co

ciary is 19 general court-martial military judges, an 

from the manning level at the close of calendar year 

special court-martial military judges are assigned 

Marine Corps Trial Judiciary, the same manning leve

of calendar year 1975. 

Military judges and legalmen of the Navy-Mari

Judiciary attended a variety of professional meeting

during calendar year 1976. Two special court-martial 

attended a special court judge seminar at the Nationa

State Judiciary, Reno, Nevada, 18-25 September 1976

ed that many military judges will attend the Annual J

General's Conference to be held in Washington, D.C.

1976. One chief legalman attended a three-day work

by the National Association of Legal Assistants at 

another attended a one-week Law Office Managemen

Judge Advocate General's School, Charlottesville, V

third attended a four-day Bureau of Naval Person

Command seminar at Newport, Rhode Island. One 

class attended a two-week Leadership and Managem

the Fleet Training Center, Mayport, Florida. 

NAVAL LEGAL SERVICE. This past July mark

anniversary of the establishment, in a fully operation

eighteen Naval Legal Service Offices which, toget

branch offices, comprise the Naval Legal Service. 

Under the Naval Legal Service concept, legal resou

consolidated at Naval Legal Service Offices at va

throughout the world. These offices, ranging in size 

Naval Legal Service Office with 33 judge advocates a

26 
pg

vice Offices are accomplishing their mission in a resp

satisfactory manner. 

While the transition from Law Center status, under t

and command control of various commands, to that of 

activities under the command of the Judge Advocate G

not without its difficulties, primarily due to initial pauc

able funding and personnel limitations, the concept has 

work well. In addition to providing a badly needed 

capability within the Office of the Judge Advocate 

allocation of financial and personnel support in the prov

services to the Navy, the placing of all court-martial def

in Naval Legal Service Offices under the direction o

Advocate General, in implementation of one of the recom

of the Department of Defense Task Force on the Admi

Military Justice in the Armed Forces, has removed a

even a perception of command control over defense c

tions, yet permitted the Judge Advocate General to ex

professional supervision over counsel performance and t

With the flexibility gained as a major manpower cl

judge advocate billets assigned to the Naval Legal Servic

Advocate General is able more readily to redistribute p

necessary, on either a temporary or permanent basis, 

legal needs of Navy commands throughout the world. 

The Naval Legal Service is meeting or exceeding th

expectations which were set for it at its founding, and wi

emphasis on the standardization of organization and serv

be even more responsive and efficient in meeting the N

needs in the future. 

ARTICLE 69, UCMJ, PETITIONS. The number of p

relief submitted pursuant to Article 69, Uniform Code 

Justice, a provision which permits the Judge Advocate 

act in court-martial cases that have not been reviewed b

Court of Military Review, has remained relatively const
pending review at the conclusion of fiscal year 1976. Of t

ing, one petition was forwarded to the U.S. Court of Milita

and one petition was forwarded to the Navy Court o

Review. During fiscal year 197T, three petitions for new 

submitted pursuant to article 73, Uniform Code of Milita

One petition, received in fiscal year 1976, was granted 

Office of the Judge Advocate General in fiscal year 

petitions, including one from fiscal year 1976, were pend

at the conclusion of fiscal year 197T. 

ANNUAL JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S CONFE

conference ofjudge advocates from all major Navy and Ma

commands will be held 18-22 October 1976. This annual 

will afford judge advocates from all over the world an opp

participate in seminars concerning areas of mutual con

have arisen during the past year. 

NA VAL JUSTICE SCHOOL. Courses of instruction i

law and related administrative matters were presented by 

Justice School during fiscal year 1976 to 2,379 officers a

personnel of the Armed Forces, and during fiscal year 19

A total of 1,521 Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Gua

received instruction designed for commanding/executive 

fiscal year 1976 and 17 in fiscal year 197T. As in prior 

command-level instruction was presented both at the sch

locations of fleet concentration. Three hundred forty

Marine Corps, and Coast Guard nonlawyer junior office

training for duty as unit legal officers in fiscal year 1976 

flScal year 197T. Two hundred thirty-seven Navy and Ma

lawyers were trained for service as judge advocates in 

1976 and 87 in fiscal year 197T. Seventy-eight lawyer reser

Navy and Marine Corps were provided basic or refresher 

military law in fiscal year 1976, and 107 in fiscal year 197T

Navy and Marine Corps judge advocates newly assigned 

the Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary attended a course 

28 
Military Appeals pursuant to Article 67(b), Uniform Cod

Justice. 

ARTICLE 138, UCMJ, COMPLAINTS OF WRONGS. 

1976, 111 complaints of wrongs were received in the 

Judge Advocate General. One hundred six complaint

including eight pending from calendar year 1975, w

during fiscal year 1976. During fiscal year 197T, 26 c

wrongs were received in the Office of the Judge Advoc

Twenty complaints of wrongs, including ten from fisc

were reviewed during fiscal year 197T, leaving 19 pend

JOINT-SERVICE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY JU

primary function of the Joint-Service Committee on Mi

is the preparation and .evaluation of proposed amen

changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and th

Courts-Martial, 1969 (Rev.). It also serves as a forum 

change of ideas relating to military justice matters 

services. In the past, the committee has mainly conside

and ideas generated within the services. In 1976 i

responsibility for commenting on matters that came from 

services as well. 

Proposed legislation designed to improve the efficienc

tary-justice system was presented by the Joint-Servic

working group and approved by the service Judge Advoc

in 1975. In 1976 the Joint-Service Committee's draft in 

submitted to the services for staffing. The working g

committee monitored this staffing during 1976. Seve

changes and some substantive additions proposed during 

will be incorporated into the proposed bill before it is 

the Department of Defense for review. It is expected tha

will be completed early in 1977. 

At the request of the Assistant Secretary of Defense 

and Reserve Affairs), the committee commented on the 

Defense Review Committee for the Code of Conduct in

report related to military-justice matters. The Office of 
g

qpp

courts could be given. The committee anticipates furth

"continuing jurisdiction" in 1977. 

MILITARY MAGISTRATE PROGRAM In response 

v. Williams, 24 USCMA 87,51 CMR 260 (1976), the Secr

Navy, on 13 April 1976, established a Navy-Marine Cor

Magistrate Program to monitor pretrial confinement 

naval service. Ultimately, the program will be promulg

form of a secretarial instruction. 

CABINET COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL N

CONTROL. During 1976, the Judge Advocate General 

Navy representative to the working group of the Preside

Committee on International Narcotics Control. This 

composed of representatives of the Postal Service, Custo

Department of Defense, the three military departmen

State Department, has been engaged in an examination 

methods for interdicting the flow of dangerous drugs into 

States. Most recently, the committee has intensively ex

problem of contraband contained in first-class mail flo

military postal system, concentrating upon the lacuna i

to search that mail under current statutes and regulation

to the problem are presently under study by specializ

mittees appointed by the chairman. Search of mail and 

contraband found therein impacts directly upon co

proceedings . 

. ETHICS. Action was taken to maintain high ethical st

conduct of counsel and judges who participate in cou

Incoming judge advocates received instruction at the Na

School on the ABA Code of Professional Responsibility a

Standards for the Administration of Criminal Justice

Ethics Committee was established to consider questions o

malpractice; serve as a liaison for ethics matters; and m

mendations, as appropriate, to the Judge Advocate Ge

comprised of the Assistant Judge Advocate General (Civ

Assistant Judge Advocate General (Military Law); th

30 
cases having potential impact on the military

justice system

ance was provided to the Department and to various U.S. at

including preparation of legal memorandums and litigation 

preparation of briefs and motions in conjunction with a U.S

ney; preparation of U.S. attorneys for oral arguments be

Federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court; and assign

judge advocates to make oral arguments in U.S. district cou

courts of appeal. A few of the more significant cases an

involved are set forth below: 

a. Middendorf v. Henry. The issue presented in this c

whether a summary court-martial could adjudge sentences in

confinement if the accused were not represented by couns

issue had produced a split of authority in the circuits follow

Supreme Court's decision in Argersinger v. Hamlin. On 24 

1976, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in an opinion by 

Rehnquist, that the Constitution does not require the appoint

counsel to represent persons tried by summary courts-marti

b. Allison v. Saxbe. This case considered the proper s

review for court-martial convictions in Federal habeas corp

ceedings. The petitioner was a Navy seaman convicted b

martial of arson in a $7.5 million fire aboard U .8.S. Forresta

his escape from Portsmouth Naval Disciplinary Command, t

tioner was at large for 6 months before he surrendered to 

authorities in October 1974 at San Francisco. Promptly there

filed a petition for habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court 

Northern District of California. The District Court denied A

petition in a memorandum opinion of 5 September 1975. Hi

of the District Court's action is currently pending before t

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

McDonald v. United States; Sanders v. United States. Th

solidated cases challenged the constitutionality of the Unifo

of Military Justice provisions assigning multiple (prosecuto

judicial) roles to convening authorities. On 18 February 1
Government's motion for summary judgement. The 

filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

Columbia. 

F

1976 

General courts-martial: 

Received for review under Article 66 ......................... . 503 

Received for review under Article 69 and acquittals .. 138 

Total .............................................................................. . 641 

Special courts-martial: 

Received for review under Article 66 .......................... 2,427 

Received for review under 65c ...................................... 0 

Reviewed in the field ...................................................... 8,278 

Total .............................................................................. . 10,705 

Summary courts-martial: 

Received for review under Article 65c ........................ 0 

Reviewed in the field ...................................................... 7,595 

Total .............................................................................. . 7,595 

Total all courts-martial .............................................. 18,941 

'Estimated 197T fIgUres. 

32 
Requests for appellate counsel before NCMR .................... 2,081 46

U.S. Court of Military Appeals Actions: 

Petitions forwarded to USCMA .................................... 711 19

Cases certified to USCMA by JAG ............................... 5 

Total cases docketed with USCMA .......................... 716 1

Petitions granted by USCMA ............................................... 99 

Petitions denied by USCMA ................................................. 552 20

Total petitions acted upon by USCMA .................... 651 2
al Harold R. Vague, and the Assistant Judge Advo

Brigadier General Walter D. Reed, made staff visits to 

the United States and overseas. During May, General 

the Major Command Staff Judge Advocate Executive 

the Forrestal Building, Washington, D.C. In addition

the annual American Bar Association/Judge Advoca

Conference in Atlanta, Georgia, where he presente

report to the Judge Advocate Association. During the 

Vague attended and participated in various other me

professional and military organizations. 

2. During 1976, the Judiciary Directorate of the 

Judge Advocate General processed in excess of 1,493 a

ing Military Justice. The Directorate has the overall re

supervising the administration of military justice th

United States Air Force from the trial level through 

review process pursuant to the provisions of the Manu

Martial (MCM, 1969 (Rev.» and the UCMJ. In addition

ate has the staff responsibility for the Office of The Ju

General in all matters pertaining to military justice w

Force which arise in connection with programs, sp

studies and inquiries generated by the Air Staff, 

USAF, the Secretaries, Department of Defense, Arm

Force, members of Congress and other interested fede

civil agencies. Some of the Directorate's activities 

below: 

a. Two Air Force Court of Military Review decisions 

by The Judge Advocate General to the Court of Mil

during Calendar Year 1976. Opinions were requested o

important subjects including material which must be i

Staff Judge Advocate's Post Trial Review, the extent o

Judge's active participation in a trial before he becom

and the extent of the convening authority's participati

disqualified from participating in the review of the ca

34 
qp

requiring either formal written replies or telephonic replie

executive officials, including the President or to membe

gress. 

3. Analysis of the operation of the Automated Milita

Analysis and Management System (AMJAMS), implem

Force-wide on 1 July 1974, reveals that it continues to 

objectives for which it was designed; i.e. more detailed a

collection of data pertaining to court-martial and Article 

ties, together with the increased analysis capability avai

automated processing. The management and analytic uses 

mation contained in the systems data base continued to 

Over 131 special reports have been produced and utilized t

to various questions regarding military justice activitie

from over 19 different agencies and offices both within an

the Department of Defense. These special reports include a 

disciplinary rates by sex to be used by the Brookings 

studies to support various surveys by the General Account

(GAO) on military justice, a study on various aspects o

judge sentencing in contrast to court member sentenci

detailed analysis of Article 15 processing time which was p

all major command and general courts-martial jurisdic

Judge Advocates. 

4. The Air Force Trial Judiciary began its year with 37 tr

located at 22 different locations throughout the world. D

year the McGuire Air Force Base District was closed and c

ed with the 1st Circuit at Bolling Air Force Base. The She

Force Base, Texas, District, was consolidated with the Ca

Force Base, Texas, District. The McDill Air Force Base, Fl

the Bangkok, Thailand, offices were closed. By the end of 

the number of trial judges were reduced to 32 at 18 

locations. 

5. a. The number of records of trial received in the Off

Judge Advocate General, for review pursuant to Article 6
p, g , 

following table: 

Total number of records received ..............................................................

For review under Article 66 .......................................................................

General Court-Martial records ...........................................................

Special Court-Martial records ............................................................

Examined under Article 69 ........................................................................

Acquittals under Article 61 ........................................................................

The Court of Military Review modified the finding

tence in 21 cases. 

6. The workload of the Court of Military Review for 

was as follows: 

Cases on hand 30 June 1975 .......................................................................

Cases referred for review ............................................................................

Total for review .................................................................................

Cases reviewed and dispatched...................................................................

Cases on hand 30 June 1976 .......................................................................

Cases referred for review .............................................................................

Total for review .................................................................................

Cases reviewed and dispatched ..................................................................

Cases on hand 30 September 1976 ............................................................

• This represents a decrease of 33 percent from the number of cases reviewed during 

compared to FY 76. 

7. During the 1976 fiscal year 93.3 percent of the ac

cases were referred for review under Article 66, reques

tation by Appellate Review. During the 7T Fiscal Yea

of the accused, whose cases were referred for review 

66, requested representation by Appellate Defense C

the Court of Military Review. 

8. a. The following table shows the number of cases 

the United States Court of Military Appeals pursuan

subdivisions of Article 67(b); and the number of peti

during the fiscal year 1976 period. 

36 
during the fiscal year 7T period: 

Cases reviewed and dispatched by Court of Review ..........................................

Number of cases forwarded to USCMA ...............................................................

Cases petitioned ...............................................................................................

. Cases certified ..................................................................................................

Percent forwarded of total cases reviewed..........................................................

(Increase of 3.3 percent over fiscal year 76) 

Petitions granted......................................................................................................

Percent grants of total petitioned.........................................................................

(Decrease of 2.1 percent over fiscal year 1976) 

Percent petitions granted of total cases reviewed by Court of Review.........

(Decrease of 0.3 percent over fiscal year 76) 

9. a. During Fiscal Year 1976, the following numbers of 

were tried by courts-martial convened in the Air Force: 

General Courts-Martial ..........................................................................................

Special Courts-Martial............................................................................................

Summary Courts-Martial .......................................................................................

Total ...............................................................................................................

The overall court-martial rate per 1,000 assigned personne

as compared to 2.9 in fiscal year 75, a rate decrease of 17.2 

b. During fiscal year 7T, the following numbers of perso

tried by courts-martial convened in the Air Force: 

General Courts-Martial ..........................................................................................

Special Courts-Martial............................................................................................

Summary Courts-Martial .......................................................................................

Total ...............................................................................................................

The overall court-martial rate per 1,000 assigned personnel 

which will compute to 1.88 if projected to period coverin

months. This projected annual figure would represent a de

21.7 percent as compared to the rate of 2.4 for fiscal year 76
Officers ................................................................................... . 

Airmen ................................................................................... . 

Extra Duties: Airmen .................................................................. . 

Reduction in Grade: Airmen ...................................................... . 

Forfeiture of Pay: 

Officers ................................................................................... . 


Airmen ................................................................................... . 


Detention of Pay: 

Officers ................................................................................... . 

Airmen ................................................................................... . 

Written Reprimand: 

Officers ................................................................................... . 

Airmen ................................................................................... . 

Mitigating actions: 

Appeals Taken: 

Officers ............................................................................ . 

Airmen ............................................................................ . 

Appeals Granted: 

Officers ............................................................................ . 

Airmen ............................................................................ . 

Suspension of Punishment: 

Officers ............................................................................ . 

Airmen ............................................................................ . 

Other Action: • 

Officers ............................................................................ . 

Airmen ............................................................................ . 

4,

20,

19,

2,

15,

, The number of punishments imposed will not equal the number of cases 88 som

combination of punishments. 

• Of the reduction in grade, 73.5% were suspended at the time the punishment Was impo

• Of appeals taken. 

• Includes mitigation, remission and set aside actions. 

38 
Airmen ............................................................................ . 

Extra Duties: Airmen .......................................................... . 

Reduction in Grade: Airmen ............................................. . 

Forfeiture of Pay: 

Officers ............................................................................ . 


Airmen ............................................................................ . 


Detention of Pay: 

Officers ............................................................................ . 

Airmen ............................................................................ . 

Written Reprimand: 

Officers ............................................................................ . 

Airmen ............................................................................ . 

Mitigating actions: 

Appeals Taken: 

Officers ............................................................................ . 

Airmen ............................................................................ . 

Appeals Granted: 

Officers ............................................................................ . 

Airmen ............................................................................ . 

Suspension of Punishment: 

Officers ............................................................................ . 

Airmen ............................................................................ . 

Other Action: 10 

Officers ............................................................................ . 

Airmen ............................................................................ . 

122 

837 

84,345 

27 

4,104 

o 

5 

28 

80 

10 

587 

o 

101 

2 

3,386 

o 

251 

1 The number of punishments imposed will not equal the number of cases as some offen

combination of punishments. 


SOfthe reduction in grade, 74.6% were suspended at the time the punishment was imposed. 


9 Of appeals taken. 


10 Includes mitigation, remission and set aside actions. 


11. During Calendar Year 1976, one United States Suprem

Decision had potential impact on the military justice system

a. In Barry v. Owen, decided sub nom Kelly v. Johnson, t

upheld the uniform standards promulgated by a metropolita

department. The court found that plaintiffs had not m

burden of showing no rational basis underlying the promulg

the standards at issue. The court noted the presumptive ra
presented once during 1976 and 40 judge advocates 

course. 

c. THE MILITARY JUDGES SEMINAR-This sem

ducted once during 1976 and 24 judge advocates who 

military judges participated. 

d. THE RESERVE AND AIR NATIONAL GUARD 

COURSE-160 Reserve and Air National Guard ju

graduated from this course. 

e. THE LEGAL SERVICES ADVANCED COURS

was presented once during 1976 and 40 senior NCO leg

attended this course. NOTE: The Department's enlis

receive their basic legal training at a special legal tech

at Keesler AFB, Mississippi. Eight courses were held 

students were graduated. 

14. Professional Military Training: 

During 1976, five judge advocates attended the Air 

Staff College and three the Air War College at M

Alabama. Two officers attended the Armed Forces Sta

one attended the National War College. Nine Air 

attended the Squadron Officers Course at Maxwell AF

15. Short Courses at Civilian Universities: 

a. PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS COURSE AT N

ERN UNIVERSITY-25 Judge Advocates attended 

course in 1976. 

b. DEFENSE ATTORNEYS COURSE AT NOR

UNIVERSITY-25 Judge Advocates attended this 5 

1976. 

c. TRIAL ADVOCACY COURSE AT CREIGHTON 

TY-40 Judge Advocates attended two five day course

first course was for Prosecutors (20 attended) and the 

Defense attorneys. (20 Area Defense Counsel attended

d. NATIONAL COLLEGE OF STATE TRIAL JUD

UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA-Four General Courts-M

40 
g

basic procurement law course and 5 judge advocates att

advanced procurement law course. 

c. PROCUREMENT LAW INTERN PROGRAM-Du

five newly assigned judge advocates spent their first year 

advocate at Air Material areas developing a detailed kn

Air Force procurement procedures and policies. 

18. Patents Officers Course: 

Twenty judge advocates a~d Air Force civilian attor

perform duty in the patent law area attended this course. 

19. Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Seminars using 

presentations as a teaching aid-During 1976, The Judge 

General's Department developed several new films and 

which were made available to the field. Seminar courses 

current course of study on subjects of special interest to th

ment. More than 430 Air Force Judge Advocates particip

seminars conducted at Air Force bases around the world

Air Force Judge Advocates, and Judge Advocates of the 

Navy have also participated in several of the seminars. 

presently in the inventory are as follows: 

a. THE LAW OF FEDERAL LABOR-MANAGEMEN

TIONS-a sixty-five hour course (50 hours of independen

and 15 seminar hours including a one and a half hour v

overview of the law of Federal Labor-Management Relati

Executive Order 11491, as amended). Written material

examination accompany the program. 

b. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND THE G

MENT ATTORNEY-a thirty-eight hour course (30 hour

pendent reading and 8 seminar hours). The video tape pr

includes a two hour video tape interview of Professor Sam

Georgetown University Law Center, and Chief Judge Alb

er, U.S. Court of Military Appeals. Written materials and 

nation accompany the program. 
This is a joint production with The Judge Advocate G

Navy. 

e. LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT AND AERIAL WA

hour course (8 seminar hours including the video tape s

hours of preparatory reading). The course covers the co

law of Armed Conflict (with emphasis on Air Warfare) a

from international law principles, agreements and cust

f. FEDERAL INCOME TAX-a one hour color vid

gram. This program discusses federal tax problems affe

men and spotlights the changes caused by the Tax R

1976. 

g. ENVIRONMENTAL LAW-a 7 hour course with 

video tape and a minimum 20 hours of preparatory r

course highlights the major Federal laws, Executive 

agency directives bearing on a judge advocate's "en

practice" . 

20. In 1976 selected Air Force officers participated in 

Legal Education Program (FLEP) and the Excess Le

with 29 completing their law school requirements and 

nated as judge advocates. During the summer vacation 

FLEP and Excess Leave Program students perform acti

Air Force legal office as "Legal Interns". Selected in

given the opportunity to perform their summer trainin

divisions in the Office of The Judge Advocate Genera

ters, USAF. 

21. A new program which permits the training of Air 

graduates (commissioned officers on educational delay 

school) was approved in 1976. This program requires 89 

during a summer vacation at an active duty Air Fo

officers desiring a JAG commission. A test program w

three officers in 1975 and five officers in 1976 proved su

both the students and the base Staff Judge Advocates

officer students will participate in the 1977 summer pr

42 

the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Unless otherw

figures given are for the fiscal year beginning July 

ending June 30, 1976, and for the transition quarter (J

September 30, 1976). 

The table below shows the number of court-marti

ceived and filed at Coast Guard Headquarters during 

quarter, the fiscal year, and the four preceding years. 

1976A 1976 1975 1974 

General courts-martial 0 4 4 7 

Special courts-martial 25 181 189 192 

Summary courts-martial 47 221 267 212 

Total 72 406 460 411 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

All special courts-martial had lawyers for defense a

sel. A military judge was assigned in all of the trials

noted in previous reports, a full-time judiciary for s

martial has not been established in the Coast Guard. M

are provided for special courts-martial by use of the 

general court-martial judges when available, and b

military judges assigned to other primary duties. Co

detail of judges is centrally exercised, and all requi

been filled in a timely fashion. 

In 101 of the special courts-martial, trial was by m

with members, one of which included enlisted mem

remaining 105 cases, the defendant elected to be trie

judge alone. In 28 of the cases, the sentence included 

discharge. Fifteen of these were adjudged by military 

and the remaining 13 were adjudged by a court with me

28, 9 were remitted or commuted by the convening 

officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction, 

reach the Court of Military Review. Four of these wer

44 
20 of these involved guilty pleas to all charges and specif

The following table shows the distribution of the 892 spe

tried by the 206 special courts-martial: 

AWOL or desertion..............................................................................................

Missing ship movement ......................................................................................

Marihuana offenses ......................... ....................................................................

Offenses involving controlled drugs .................................................................

Willful disobedience or disrespect ....................................................................

Assault...................................................................................................................

Violation of order or regulation .......................................................................

Larceny or wrongful appropriation .................................................................

Breaking restriction ............................................................................................

Offenses against Coast Guard property ..........................................................

Neglect of duty .....................................................................................................

Housebreaking or unlawful entry ...................................................................

Bad checks.............................................................................................................

False claims .........................................................................................................

Communicating a threat ...................................................................................

Escape from custody or resisting apprehension ...........................................

Other offenses ........................................................................................... ..........

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

In two of the general courts-martial, trial was by a 

members. In the other two the defendant elected to b

military judge alone. 

Two dishonorab'le discharges were adjudged, one by mil

alone and one by members. In two cases the sentence inclu

conduct discharge, one by military judge alone and one by 

Of the four, none were remitted or commuted by the 

authority; all reached the Court of Military Review. Non

were disapproved by the Court. Thus all punitive discharge

the review process. 

Of the four cases in which there was a conviction, two 

were affirmed on review without modification. Two were 
Unlawful entry ............................................................................................

Attempted aggravated arson .....................................................................

Conspiracy to commit murder ..................................................................

COURT OF MILITARY REVIEW AND COURT OF 

APPEALS 

The Coast Guard Court of Military Review had 18 c

with it during the period. Of the 25 cases that were d

the year, 15 cases were affirmed without modifica

findings or sentence were modified in 10 cases. Eight p

submitted to the Court of Military Appeals for a gra

three petitions were granted and one was abated by th

peitioner. Two cases were certified to the Court of Mil

and have not yet been decided. 

ITEMS OF INTEREST 

Last year's report noted that on 20 February 19

Guard authorized the use of video tape records of tria

save substantial resources and to expedite the review 

trial. Ten records of trial were received by the Chief C

the year where video tape was used as the transcript. 

cases were general courts-martial. The Coast Guard 

tary Review held that "... the video tapes without a 

writing do not satisfy the current requirements of law 

a record of triaL" United States v. Simpson, CGCM 994

787 (1 March 1976), and United States v. Barton, CGCM 

No. 790 (1 March 1976). Both of these cases were ce

Court of Military Appeals and oral arguments were he

1976. Pending a decision by the Court, use of video t

transcript is being held in abeyance. 

During the period of this report convening authorit

prohibited from entering into negotiations with a v

pretrial agreement (negotiated plea) unless first autho

46 
LINDA HELLE

u.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1977