and the 

JUDGE ADVOCATES GENER

of the 

ARMED FORCES 

and the 

GENERAL COUNSEL 

of the 

DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION 

PURSUANT TO THE 

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUST

For the Period 

October 1, 1982-September 30, 198

PROPERTY OF U.S. ARMY 

THE JUDGEADVOCATE SCH

LIBRARY 

SERVICES 


of the 

SENATE AND OF THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATI

and to the 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 


AND SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTA

and the 

SECRETARIES OF THE DEPARTMEN

THE ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORC

PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTIC

For the Period 


October 1, 1982-September 30, 1983 
REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS 

REPORTOFTHEJUDGEADVOCATEGENERALOFTHEARMY 

REPORTOFTHEJUDGEADVOCATEGENERALOFTHENAVY 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE AIR FORC

REPORT OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

TION (UNITED STATES COAST GUARD) 
and the 

JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL 


OF THE ARMED FORCES 


and the 

GENERAL COUNSEL 


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 


October 1, 1982 to September 30, 1983 

The Judges of the United States Court of Military Appea

Advocates General of the Armed Forces, and the General C

Department of Transportation submit their Annual Report 

tion of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, pursuant 

§867(g). 

The Code Committee, composed of the Judges of the U

Court of Military Appeals, the Judge Advocates General a

Counsel of the Coast Guard representing the General Coun

partment of Transportation, met on several occasions durin

1983 to consider various proposals for the improvement of 

justice system. Included in the agenda were proposals for 

amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Code Com

bers also reviewed a proposed draft of the revised Manua

Martial and made various recommendations for modific

draft as submitted to them. Additionally, the members co

discussed proposals for continuing legal education which w

available to the uniformed lawyer. 

Separate reports of the U.S. Court of Military Appeals an
, 

Associate Judge 

HUGH J. CLAUSEN 

The Judge Advocate General, U.S. Army 

JAMESJ. McHUGH 

The Judge Advocate General, U.S. Navy 

THOMAS B. BRUTON 

The Judge Advocate General, U.S. AirForce 

RoSCHIEL A. KREPPS 

General Counsel, Department of Transportation 

2 
The Judges of the United States Court of Military Ap

their fiscal year 1983 report on the administration of the C

tary justice to the Committees on Armed Services of the U

Senate and House of Representatives and the Secretarie

Transportation, Army, Navy, and Air Force in accordance 

67(g), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §867(g). 

THE BUSINESS OF THE COURT 

The increase in the number of cases which were filed w

during the most recent previous years has continued into t

1983 term. During this reporting period 3165 petitions fo

view, mandatory appeals, certificates for review, cross-pe

ed reconsideration petitions, and petitions for new trial w

the Court. This was the highest total number of such fili

creation of the Court by Congress and represents an incre

cent over the filings for fiscal year 1982, which itself also 

record for such filings. Since fiscal year 1980, such total a

have increased approximately 80 percent. 

In addition to record numbers of filings, the Court review

on 2798 petitions for grant of review during fiscal year 19

an increase in such review actions of 9 percent over fiscal y

an increase of 65 percent over such review actions taken 

year 1980. The Court granted further review in 285 of the 

cent of the cases considered). On the master docket of m

peals, certificates for review, and granted petitions, the C

of 197 cases. Approximately 40 percent of the Court's act

master docket cases affirmed the decisions of the Courts o

view. These cases were decided in 80 signed opinions, 2

opinions, and 93 summary disposition orders. 

The number of petitions for extraordinary relief and wri

tions filed during fiscal year 1983 also increased as 72 s

were filed during fiscal year 1983, while only 52 such p
Reports from the Courts of Military Review reflect th

Court of Military Review experienced an increase of appr

percent in the number of court-martial cases submitted for 

view in fiscal year 1983 over the number of cases filed in th

ing the prior fiscal year. Similarly, the Navy-Marine Corps 

tary Review had an increase of 12 percent in case filings du

comparative fiscal year periods. The Air Force Court of Mi

likewise experienced a 4 percent increase in case filings du

periods. Such increasing numbers of filings with the interm

late courts in each Armed Service indicate that a similar in

subsequently experienced by this Court. Thus, although bot

1982 and 1983 established record highs for the number 

with the Court, it is anticipated that another record numbe

be filed with the Court during fiscal year 1984. 

In addition to its case review workload, the Court admitt

neys to practice before its Bar during the fiscal year 1983 te

the cumulative total of admissions before the Bar of the Co

JUDICIAL VISITATIONS 

The Judges of the Court continue to visit military installa

itate a better understanding of the Court's role in the mi

system. Additionally, the Judges have been requested to ad

ous military and civilian organizations to inform the milit

ian communities of the Court's responsibility to supervise 

justice system. 

In fulfillment of this responsibility, Chief Judge Eve

meetings of the American Bar Association's Standing C

Military Law and delivered addresses to the Pentagon C

Federal Bar Association; the Military Justice Committee 

the City of New York; the mid-year meeting of the Americ

ciation, New Orleans, Louisiana; the Ninth Interservice Mi

Seminar, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama; the Annual 

manders' Legal Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii; the Military 

of the Texas State Bar, Fort Worth, Texas; the United State

4 
lina; the Annual Meeting of the Judge Advocates Associat

Georgia; and the U.S. Army Europe Trial and Defense Cou

ence and Trial Judges Conference, Garmish, Germany. 

Everett also participated in the Appellate Judges Semina

University School of Law, and accepted an invitation to vi

Submarine Base, Groton, Connecticut. 

Judge Cook visited and met with senior military com

judge advocates at the United States Coast Guard Academ

don, Connecticut; the U.S. Army JAG School, Charlottesvi

Lowry Air Force Base, Colorado, and the U.S. Navy Sixth 

quarters, Naples, Italy. In addition, Judge Cook attended an

ed in meetings of the American Bar Association's Standin

on Military Law. 

Judge Fletcher delivered the Twelfth Annual Kenneth J. 

ture at the United States Army JAG School, Charlottesvi

and addressed the Annual Law Day Banquet, Fort Mead

Judge Fletcher also attended meetings of the American 

tion's Standing Committee on Military Law and visited 

States Coast Guard Academy, New London, Connecticut. 

The visits and speeches of the Judges continue to benefit 

they provide the Judges an opportunity to ascertain the im

decisions on the administration of military justice and to 

commanders and servicemembers of the Court's role. 

HOMER FERGUSON CONFERENCE 

The Court and the Military Law Institute continue the j

ship of the Homer Ferguson Conference which was first h

However, in fiscal year 1983 the conference name was chan

Homer Ferguson Conference on Appellate Advocacy to the 

guson Conference to emphasize that it was designed to prov

ing legal educational benefits to both appellate and trial a

May 18-19, 1983, the Eighth Annual Conference was he

Washington University. This year's conference was desig

both military and civilian practitioners an opportunity to 
W. Matthews, Executive Secretary, United States Army 

rection of Military Records; Mr. John Quigley, Execut

Navy Clemency and Parole Board; James B. Craven, III

Morris Harrell, President, American Bar Association; Pro

F. Causey, American University School of Law; Honorab

darburg, Chief Judge, United States Navy-Marine Corps 

tary Review; Professor Stephen A. Saltzburg, Universi

Law School; Mr. David Schlueter, Legal Officer, United S

Court; Rear Admiral James J. McHugh, The Judge Adv

United States Navy; Major Alan Hahn, Instructor, the U.S

Advocate General's School; Lieutenant Commander Paul 

JAGC, United States Navy; Mr. Andrew S. Effron, Ass

Counsel, Department of Defense; Major General Hugh R. 

sistant Judge Advocate General, United States Army; Ja

ski, Esquire; Mark Waple, Esquire; David Addlestone, Es

ble John Tower, United States Senate; Professor A. Kenn

tor, Center for International Studies, Duke University; 

Edwin H. Daniels, Chief Counsel, United States Coast Gu

miral Albert J. Baciocco, Jr., United States Navy; Major G

as M. Sadler, United States Air Force; Brigadier General 

United States Army; Dean Walter D. Reed, South Dak

School of Law; Honorable Loren A. Smith, Chairman of th

tive Conference of the United States; Admiral James D. W

of Naval Operations; and the Judges and staff of the Cou

tion was offered by Reverend Dr. James D. Ford, Ch

States House of Representatives. Numerous uniformed an

yers involved in practicing before military courts, as well 

of the Courts of Military Review and other scholars and 

in the field of military justice, were in attendance at the co

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 

During the fiscal year 1983 term the first case to reac

many years involving an approved death sentence was d

Court. United States v. Matthews, Docket Number 43,53

6 
SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS AFFECTING THE ADMINISTRAT

MILITARY JUSTICE WITHIN THE ARMED FORCES 

Court·Martial Jurisdiction Over Persons and Offenses 

During the fiscal year 1983 term the Court examined 

whether a servicemember who stole a military identifica

base was subject to trial by court-martial for a forgery and 

mitted off base where the stolen identification card was u

tate the latter crimes. Noting that the off-base crimes w

course of conduct which began on base, the Court held in U

v. Lockwood, 15 M.J. 1 (C.M.A. 1983), that a court-martia

the offenses because the accused's off-base conduct had an 

pact on the morale, reputation and integrity of the military 

Article 31 and the Right to Remain Silent 

In United States v. Schneider, 14 M.J. 189 (C.M.A. 198

held that an accused had been taken into custody within th

Article 7, Uniform Code of Military Justice, under the parti

stances of that case. The Court further noted, relying on 

the Code, that any pretrial statements resulting from an 

by government agents were admissible only if such custo

predicated on probable cause. After setting forth the relev

of record, the Court also held that probable cause had bee

and that the statements were therefore admissible. The 

whether a subsequent confession could be accepted as ev

that confession was preceded by an improperly obtaine

1 Although United States v. Matthews, 16 M.J. 354 (C.M.A. 1983), was r

expiration of the fiscal year term, in view of the filing of this case during 

and its importance in the military community, the Court concluded th

should be informed at the earliest opportunity. 

'This section of the Court's Annual Report is prepared solely as an infor

the staff of the Court. It is included for the convenience of the reader to a

cating cases of particular interest during the term. The case summaries are 

tial value and should not be cited in briefs filed with the Court. 
States Constitution. Rather, the Court held that the extract

sample was a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Am

that, under the facts and the circumstances of the extractio

the seizure was reasonable. 

Search and Seizure 

An issue involving the use of personnel of the Armed 

United States to assist foreign officials in customs inspec

dressed by the Court in United States v. McCullough, 

(C.M.A. 1983). The Court observed that, pursuant to intern

ments, a military policeman assisted customs officials of th

public of Germany by conducting the customs inspection of 

the Armed Forces of the United States. The Court noted th

ments in question were intended to facilitate the flow of A

tary personnel in and out of Germany by reducing the delay

derstandings that sometimes result from language differen

agreements benefit the American military personnel who a

such inspections; and that the undertaking of the United S

in these inspections was reasonable. The Court therefore he

toms inspection conducted pursuant to the agreements wa

consistent with the Fourth Amendment. 

Treaties, International Agreements and Individual Rights 

Examining the language of paragraph 8 of Article VII o

ment Between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty R

Status of Their Forces (NATO SOFA), 4 U.S.T. 1792, T.I.A

(effective date August 23, 1953), the Court observed in Un

Green, 14 M.J. 461 (C.M.A. 1983), that the emphasis on th

"no double jeopardy" evidenced an intent by the drafters 

ment to protect individual rights. Thus, the Court held tha

accused in this case had standing to assert a violation of th

However, after examining the evidence of record, the Co

the accused's conviction by a British Criminal Court did no

8 
tion was predicated on the basis that martial law had be

throughout the Republic of Korea between the date of trial a

of appellate review by the Seoul High Court. The Korean app

relied on a provision of the international agreement between 

States and Korea which granted the military authorities of 

States exclusive jurisdiction during the effective dates of m

The Court of Military Appeals held in its review of the recor

sequent court-martial of the same accused by American milit

ties that dismissal of charges by the Korean appellate cour

entire proceeding in the Korean judicial system and that, for 

of the "no double jeopardy" provision of the international 

there was no trial and no judgment or service of sentence to 

ardyattached. 

Pretrial and Post·trial Delay 

During fiscal year 1983 the Court continued to emphasize 

sions that a military accused must be accorded a speedy trial 

Thus, in United States v. Rowsey, 14 M.J. 151 (C.M.A. 1982

noted that almost 130 days elapsed from the preferral of 

charges to the date of trial; that the appellant was held in p

finement for 85 days; and that defense counsel had urged 

ment on two separate occasions to move forward to try 

against the accused with dispatch. The Court further observ

Court of Military Review found that the accused in this ca

denied a speedy trial. However, the Court disagreed with t

Military Review's holding that since the presumption of deni

trial as defined in United States v. Burton, 21 USCMA 112, 4

(1971), was inapplicable under the facts of this case, reassess

sentence was more appropriate than outright dismissal of 

Rather, the Court held that only a dismissal of the charge

quately compensate an accused and deter future governme

ence where a proper appellate court has found a denial of th

speedy trial. 

As to the issue of post-trial delay, the Court held in Unit
In United States v. Newman, 14 M.J. 474 (C.M.A. 1983), 

ter noting that Rule 607, Military Rules of Evidence, exp

ated the doctrine that a party who calls a witness vouche

ibility, held that a convening authority was not disquali

viewing the record of a court-martial merely because he 

monial immunity to a witness who testified at that court

ruling constituted a departure from previous decisions 

which held that such a grant of immunity mandated dis

The holding in Newman was subsequently applied in Un

Andreas, 14 M.J. 483 (C.M.A. 1983), when the Court ruled 

al court-martial convening authority was not disqualifie

cause a subordinate commander's staff judge advocate suc

suaded the Department of Justice to grant testimonial im

civilian witness who testified during the general court-mar

by the superior commander. The Court also held in Un

Decker, 15 M.J. 416 (C.M.A. 1983), that a staff judge adv

disqualified from writing a post-trial review because he h

ommended clemency for a prosecution witness. 

Relying on a general court-martial convening authority

powers over special and summary courts-martial, the C

United States v. Blaylock, 15 M.J. 190 (C.M.A. 1983), t

court-martial convening authority properly referred a cas

court-martial empowered to adjudge a bad-conduct discha

case had previously been referred by a subordinate comma

cial court-martial which was not so empowered. The Cou

Blaylock that a contrary result would be inconsistent with 

command structure whereunder a superior commander is 

the actions of a subordinate. 

The question of whether a convening authority could ign

the military judge because he believed the ruling was erro

swered by the Court in United States v. Suzuki, 14 M.J

1983). Therein the Court held not only that the military 

was proper but that a convening authority has no power to 

ing by a military judge and unilaterally act on his own in di

judge's ruling. Rather, the Court held that if a convening a

10 
retroactively to an offense where the accused's military s

tuted one of the essential elements of the charged offense. A

the Court held in Marsh that since military status was an el

charged offense, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doub

Observing in United States v. Elliott, 15 M.J. 347 (C.M.A

Article 66(a) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice req

panel of a Court of Military Review be composed of not les

members, the Court held that this requirement was not sa

an officer assigned to such a panel was on leave and did not t

of office until after the accused's case was heard by that pa

the Court ruled that Congress, by redesignating Boards o

Courts of Military Review, intended to enhance the status 

military judges and indicated that it would not tolerate a

which would tend to detract from their status. 

The applicability of the rape shield law as applied to cour

Rule 412(b), Military Rules of Evidence, was addressed by 

United States v. Dorsey, 16 M.J. 1 (C.M.A. 1983); Unit

Elvine, 16 M.J. 14 (C.M.A. 1983); United States v. Colon-A

M.J. 20 (C.M.A. 1983); and United States v. Hollimon, 

(C.M.A. 1983). Rejecting a per se rule in each of these case

held that evidence relating to the alleged victim must be adm

relevant, material, and favorable to the defense. Thus, aft

the facts and circumstances of each case, the Court held th

evidence pertaining to the victims was properly rejected in 

Hollimon, but that such evidence had been improperly ex

the court-martial in both Dorsey and Colon-Angueira. 

Reversing its earlier decision in United States v. Nathan, 

398, 30 CMR 398 (1961), the Court held in United States v

M.J. 52 (C.M.A. 1983), that the acquittal of co-conspirator

quire the acquittal of the remaining conspirator in the abse

compelling reason. The Court rejected the earlier "bilatera

"rule of consistency" of the British common law which had r

rejected by many courts and by the drafters of the applicab

of the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code. 
y 

Subsequently, in Murray v. Haldeman, 16 M.J. 74 (C.M

Court similarly held that it could properly decide the me

tion for extraordinary relief submitted by an accused aw

court-martial on a charge involving the use of marijuana. 

in Murray argued that the court-martial which had been c

him for the off-base use of marijuana was without jurisdic

military order directing him to produce a urine samp

rights under both the United States Constitution and the 

of Military Justice. As in Shepardson, the Court noted th

currence of the issues raised by the petitioner and the 

cases pending a resolution of the petition. However, after 

compulsory urinalysis to which the petitioner was subjec

a seizure which was reasonable within the meaning 

Amendment, the Court examined the facts and circum

case and denied extraordinary relief. 

Finally, the Court dismissed a petition for extraord

Dobzynski v. Green, 16 M.J. 84 (C.M.A. 1983), where the 

gued that he was being subjected to a nonjudicial punish

ing under Article 15 of the Uniform Code for conduct wh

ously been referred to a special court-martial but which h

drawn after the military judge granted a defense motion t

tain evidence. The Court concluded that the charges were 

drawn from the special court-martial and that the Arti

ment was properly imposed. 

ROBINSON O. EVERETT 

Chief Judge 

WILLIAM H. COOK 

Judge 

ALBERT B. FLETCHER, JR. 

Judge 

12 
CUMULATIVE FILINGS 

Master Docket 

Appeals filed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 

Certificates filed ........................ 14 

Reconsiderations granted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 

Petition Docket 

Petitions for grant filed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3135 

Cross-petitions for grant filed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 

Petitions for new trial filed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

Miscellaneous Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 

TOTAL ................................... 3237 

CUMULATIVE TERMINATIONS 

Master Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 

Petition Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2798 

Miscellaneous Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 

TOTAL....... ......................... ... 3076 

CUMULATIVE END PENDING 

Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 

Petition Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 916 

Miscellaneous Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

TOTAL....... ............................ 1171 

OPINION SUMMARY 

CATEGORY SIGNED PER CURIAM MEM/ORDER 

Master Docket ................ 80 24 93 

Petition Docket ................ 0 0 2798 

Miscellaneous Docket ........... 3 2 76 

TOTAL ...................... 83 26 2967 
PENDING (MASTER DOCKET) 

Assigned Opinions pending. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Judges' conference pending. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Oral argument pending. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Preargument conference pending . . . . . . . . . 

Calendar committee pending. . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Final briefs pending. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

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


FILINGS (PETITION DOCKET) 

Petitions for grant of review filed. . . . . . . .. 

Petitions for grant/new trial filed. . . . . . . . . 

Cross· petitions for grant filed. . . . . . . . . . . . 

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


TERMINATIONS (PETITION DOCKET) 


Petitions for grant dismissed ............ . 


Petitions for grant denied .............. . 


Petitions for grant granted ............. . 


Petitions for grant remanded ........... . 


Petitions for grant withdrawn ........... . 


Other .............................. . 


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


PENDING (pETITION DOCKET) 

Petition briefs pending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Staff attorney action pending. . . . . . . . . . . . 

Court action pending. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

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

112 


5 


40 


54 


28 


15 


254 


3135 


3 


7 


3145 


46 


2421 


285 


25 


16 


5 


2798 


386 


109 


421 


916 


Signed

Per curi

Mem/ord

TOTAL

J In 54 percent of these cases, the Court specified issues which were not raised by the appellant

14 
Petitions denied ...................... . 52 


Petitions dismissed ................... . 24 


TOTAL ............................ . 81 


PENDING (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET) 


Briefs pending. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 


Action by Writs Counsel pending . . . . . . . . . 0 


Show cause action by Court pending. . . . . . . 0 


Show cause response pending . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 


Other final action pending. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 


TOTAL............................. 1 


Per curiam 

Mem/order 

TOTAL...

RECONSIDERATIONS &REHEARINGS 

CATEGORY FILINGS PENDING 

Master Docket ................ 


Petition Docket ................ 


Miscellaneous Docket ........... 


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


BEGIN 

CATEGORY PENDING 

All motions ........ . 100 


11 


13 


0 


24 


3 


2 


0 


5 


MOTIONS ACTIVITY 

END 

FILINGS PENDING 

1201 42 


DISPOSI

Granted Rejec

2 6 

2 15 

0 0 

4 21 

DISPOS

Granted Reje

951 30

During fiscal year 1983 the Office of The Judge Advocate G

tinued to monitor the proceedings of courts-martial, to rev

prepare military justice publications and regulations, and to 

draft changes to the Manual for Courts-Martial and the Unif

Military Justice. 

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 


AND U.S. ARMY JUDICIARY ACTIVITIES 


During fiscal year 1983, the court-martial rates show an Ar

crease in the number of courts-martial. The total number 

tried by all types of courts-martial in fiscal year 1983 is 2

than the year before. This overall decrease reflects primarily 

crease in special courts-martial not empowered to adjudge a b

discharge and a 31.1% decrease in summary courts-martial. 

ous years, there was a slight increase in the number of gen

martiai, but the number of special courts-martial empowered 

a bad-conduct discharge decreased by 18.8%. The overall con

for fiscal year 1983 was 93.2% which is a slight rise from th

viction rate for the previous fiscal year. 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY, FISCAL YEAR 1983 

(See table insert attached.) 

THE U.S. ARMY JUDICIARY 

The U.s. Army Judiciary is an element of the U.S. Army 

ices Agency. It consists of the U.s. Army Court of Military 

Clerk of Court, the Examinations and New Trials Division, a

Judiciary. 

The U.S. Army Legal Services Agency also includes the G

Appellate Division, the Defense Appellate Division, the Tr

Service, the Contract Appeals Division, the Regulatory Law 

the Professional Recruiting Office. The latter three sectio
ued to develop its deployment capability. Trial Defense 

deployed to the Sinai in support of the Multi-National Fo

ers, to U.S. Army, Europe, in support of REFORGER, t

port of GALLANT SPIRIT, and to Honduras in supp

TARA I!. 

TRIAL COUNSEl ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

During fiscal year 1983, the Trial Counsel Assist

operating under the aegis of the Government Appellate 

Army Legal Services Agency, provided advice and tra

counsel. In its first year of operation the program an

questions from trial counsel and conducted trial counsel t

teen locations in the United States and overseas. The pr

nished monthly updates designed to keep trial counsel c

inallaw and to address specific problem areas. The progr

ceived and a decision was made to continue the program. 

SIGNIFICANT MILITARY JUSTICE ACTIONS 

Actions involving military justice handled by the Crim

sion, Office of The Judge Advocate General, included 

drafting legislation, Executive Orders, pamphlets, and 

pacting on the operation of the Army and the Departm

monitoring the administration of military justice, includ

of on-going major projects; rendering opinions for the A

reviewing various aspects of criminal cases for action by 

retariat and Staff. 

REVISION OF MILITARY JUSTICE REGULATION 

Army Regulation 27-10, Military Justice, is being rev

jected effective date of August 1, 1984. The revision will 

Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1984, the pro

18 
or low intensity conflicts. Through detailed research, analy

veys of the views of senior commanders and judge advocate

identified opportunities where the military justice system co

more effective in wartime while at the same time preserving 

of the system. The published study produced a package co

tailed legislative and regulatory proposals ready for implem

the event of war. 

JOINT·SERVICE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY JUSTICE 

The Judge Advocates General and the General Counsel of 

ment of Transportation established the Joint-Service Co

Military Justice on August 17, 1972. The Army, Navy, 

Marine Corps, and Department of Transportation (Coast Gu

representatives and a nonvoting representative is provided 

Court of Military Appeals. The Joint-Service Committee 

Justice primarily prepares and evaluates proposed amen

changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the 

Courts-Martial. The Committee also serves as a forum for th

of ideas relating to military justice matters among the servic

The Joint-Service Committee completed a draft compreh

sion of the Manual for Courts-Martial. This draft was appr

Code Committee in March. The draft was made available for 

ment on May 26, 1983. The comment period closed on S

1983 and the Joint-Service Committee was completing re

comments at the end of September 1983. 

On April 28, 1983 the Senate passed S.974, the Military Ju

1983. S.974 contained several provisions previously prep

Joint·Service Committee. As of the end of the fiscal year, t

Representatives had not yet acted on S.974. (This legislation 

quently enacted as P.L. 98-209.) 

The Joint-Service Committee also prepared and approved 

ment to the Uniform Code of Military Justice affecting dru

The proposal would make it an offense to operate a vehicle w
these offenses, 86,528 were charged against military per

number, 61,684 of the charges against military personn

to exclusive foreign jurisdiction. Nonetheless, foreign 

leased 20,754 of the exclusive foreign jurisdiction offens

tary authorities for administrative or other appropriate d

The rest of the military offenses subject to foreign jur

ing 24,844 offenses, were concurrent jurisdiction offens

leged violations of both U.S. military law and foreign l

the foreign country had the primary right to exercise ju

eign authorities waived their primary foreign jurisdictio

tary authorities in 20,754 of these incidents, for a wor

rate of 83.5%. 

Thus, during the reporting period, foreign authoritie

their disposition a total of 65,198 offenses allegedly com

tary personnel. Of these offenses, 64,773 were relatively 

not punishable under U.s. military law, but subject to 

jurisdiction of foreign authorities. It is significant to note 

63,564 of the military offenses reserved for disposition 

thorities involved traffic violations. 

A total of 7,354 civilian employees and dependents wer

offenses subject to foreign jurisdiction. As civilians can

court-martial in normal, peacetime conditions, the Unite

jurisdiction over these offenses. Nonetheless, foreign 

leased 415 of these offenses, or 5.6% of the total, to U

thorities for administrative or other appropriate dispositi

During the current reporting period, there were 67,75

tals or final convictions. Of this number, 705, or about 1.

results, were acquittals. The majority of convicted 

nel-66,729 or 98.5%-received only a sentence to fine 

The remaining final results included 218 suspended sen

finement and 102 un suspended sentences to confinement. 

20 
EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

During fiscal year 1983, The Judge Advocate General's S

in Charlottesville, Virginia, provided legal education to l

military services and other federal agencies. Forty-th

courses were conducted with 2,628 students in attendance. 

attended by 1,820 Army, 66 Navy, 76 Marine, 141 Air Fo

Guard, 47 Army National Guard, 428 civilian, and 14 forei

During fiscal year 1983, three Basic Classes, the 99th

101st, were conducted. A total of 237 Army officers gradua

The 31st Graduate Course, with an enrollment of 87 st

uated on 20 May 1983. In addition to 78 Army judge advoc

had five Marines, one Navy, and three foreign officers i

The 32nd Graduate Course began on 1 August 1983. This 

69 Army, five Marines, one Navy, and two foreign officers. 

During fiscal year 1983, the School continued to provid

ers with a legal orientation prior to their assumption of com

ty general officers attended General Officer Legal Orienta

and 247 battalion and brigade command designess atten

dent Senior Officer Legal Orientation Courses. Additionall

from the school participated in ten Pre-Command Courses 

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, for battalion and brigade com

nees. 

The Administrative and Civil Law Division expanded its 

the field in several areas. The Division presented seven co

education courses including the Federal Labor Relations 

presentations of the Legal Assistance Course, the Claim

Law Office Management Course, and two presentations of 

Administrative Law for Military Installations Course. In ad

al instructors made presentations to attorneys in Europ

Army Europe Administrative Law Conference and the U

rope Legal Assistance Course. Two instructors also presen

instruction to the Noncommissioned Officer Advanced C

Benjamin Harrison, Indiana. 

The new Legal Assistance Branch of the Administrative a
, y 

three times. The advocacy courses combine instruction on 

ments in criminal trial practice, seminars, and videotaped 

improve and polish experienced trial attorneys' advocacy 

jor portion of these offerings is devoted to student-partic

shops and exercises to refine the attorneys' courtroom s

techniques of persuasion. Additionally, the Division pr

nonresident criminal law courses-two in Germany for co

in that theater and an island-hopping swing through the P

the latest legal developments to Army, Navy, and Marine 

ingthere. 

The Contract Law Division sponsored seven legal edu

covering areas from fiscal law to government contract l

niques. The 1983 Government Contract Law Symposium

uary 1983, featured recent and proposed changes affectin

contract law, particularly in the area of disputes, commer

and source selection. The Division presented the Fiscal Law 

from the School, traveling to: Seoul, Republic of South Ko

Houston, Texas; Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana; and 

Force Base, Virgina. 

The International Law Division sponsored three one-we

the Law of Armed Conflict, one Advanced Law of War Sem

2-% day course on the Legal Aspects of Terrorism. Add

Division provided instructor support for a one-week course 

Armed Conflict sponsored by U.S. Army, Europe. All cou

signed for and attended by both judge advocates and ope

officers. In keeping with the "operationalization of inter

the major focus of the courses was on practical, hands-on t

er than didactic instruction. Using practical exercises, s

war gaming techniques, the students were presented with 

tions that they had to resolve with the materials availabl

Similar materials and exercises were presented to both 

serve forces to ensure that they were prepared to provide 

rate legal advice on military operations. 

During the period 20 June-1 July 1983, the School pres

22 
281 from the active and reserve components of other servi

civilian attorneys. 

MAJOR PROJECTS 

On 18 March 1983, the twelfth Kenneth J. Hodson Lectu

inal Law was presented by Professor Edward J. Imwinkelrie

ington University School of Law. His address, "The Standard 

ting Scientific Evidence," is published in the Spring 1983 i

Military Law Review. 

The Waldemar A. Solf Chair of International Law was est

October 1982. Mr. Solf's many contributions to the Army, 

and the international law community are legendary. 

The School hosted the 1982 Worldwide Judge Advocat

Conference during 5-8 October 1982. Over 100 senior judg

from posts throughout the world conferred on areas of inter

cussed recent developments in all areas of military law. 

A new edition of DA Pam 27-153, Procurement Law, fo

School is responsible, was issued during fiscal year 1983. C

DA Pam 27-10, Military Justice Handbook-The Trial Coun

Defense Counsel, was also completed. Revision of several ot

tions is ongoing. Six instructional deskbooks were made ava

torneys in the field through the Defense Technical Informat

Articles of military legal interest continued to be distributed 

through the DA Pam 27 -100 series, Military Law Review, 

Pam 27-50 series, The Army Lawyer. 

The Combat Developments Office continued to provide J

cate General's Corps planning for the entire range of "Army 

with emphasis on the role of Judge Advocate General's Corp

in the next generation of the Army. "Army 86" includes Hea

86, Air Assault/Airborne Division 86, High Technology Lig

Corps Operations, and Operations in Echelons Above Corps. S

tinued on the concept of AirLand Battle 2000. New studie

staff judge advocate staffing centered on the concept of a 10

division. The revision of Judge Advocate Manpower Requir
the year 1990 rather than the present system wherein a su

tion of the budget is dependent on unfinanced requirem

availability of excess funds. 

The single most significant, non-legal event at the Schoo

1983 was the acquisition and installation of a Harris 100 m

The computer certainly introduces a new era to the Schoo

the entire Army Law Library Service has been automat

several additional departments are being automated, a

School will be completed to function as both a data base m

word processing system. 

To anticipate the needs of the entire School, the Comma

ed an automatic data processing steering committee, chair

uty Commandant, to lead the School into the automation 

soned, positive fashion that has already begun to pay div

concerned. 

The Reserve Component strength of the Judge Advo

Corps averaged approximately 2400 in fiscal year 1983. T

Mobilization Augmentee Program (formerly called Mob

ignee or MOB DES) continued to be administered by th

serve Affairs Department. 

The number of positions available in this program incre

to 790 during fiscal year 1983, and positions continued t

judge advocates released from active duty, new accession

transferring from Troop Program Units. 

PERSONNEL, PLANS, AND POLICIES 

With the inclusion of law students participating in the 

Education Program, the strength of the Judge Advocate G

at the end of fiscal year 1982 was 1821. Representing mi

were 73 Blacks, 18 Hispanics, 18 Asian and Native Ameri

women. The fiscal year 1983 end strength compares 

strength of 1815 in fiscal year 1982, 1781 in fiscal year 19

in fiscal year 1980. The grade distribution of the Corps at 

fiscal year was: 6 general officers, 107 colonels, 184 lieute

24 
u.s. Army War College. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

National War College. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

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

U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

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

The Judge Advocate Officers Graduate Course. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

As a result of the Defense Officer Personnel Mana

(DOPMA), which became effective on 15 September 198

pointed judge advoca te officers accessed for the fiscal year w

sioned as first lieutenants. The Judge Advocate General's C

separate, competitive category, selects and promotes its of

on Judge Advocate General's Corps grade vacancies as they o

HUGH J. CLAUSE

Major General, U

The Judge Advoc
REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

PART 5· APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE ARMY COUR

NUMB E A 

REVIEW §322 I.:::.:'::.':.:. . '.' 

:.:.:.:-:.:-:.: .:.:.:. ................ ...-:.:.:.... ..........: .... .... :::::::: ...:::::-:.... . '.' .......:. ==-'-----l-~~-"-':-::------j. :::::::::::::::: :::}: ::::...:.:.:-:.;.: :::::::::::;:: :.:.:::

PE ACE NT AG E 6 . 9 % .:.;.:.:-:.:.:::/~i:-:.:.::)/:::::::::".:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::::.':: ;.:::.:::.:::-:::-:::::::::::::: .:.:.:.

PART 6· U S COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS ACTIONS 

PERCENTAGE OF COMA REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO useMA (l?hnl 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)!OECAEASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PEAIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTEO (1?? nf' 1 ?hn) 

PEACENTAGE OF INCREASE (+IIOECREASE (-lOVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWEO ev COMA 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/OECREASE (-) OVER THE NUMBER OF CASES REVIEWED DURING 

LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

PAGE/OF2 

26 
20 

PART 8· ORGANIZATIQN~()U'rr 

-TR-'A-L!!S:!BY~M~'!:..!L'~TA'.':!.R~Y~J~UO~G~E:!!W~'T'-"-M-EM-B-ER-S--------j---.i~lL--__1 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 0; 1 () 

SPECIAL COUI 'L 

PART 9· COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 (Received at OTJAC) 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 57 

PART 10· STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STAENGTH 783 389 

PART 11 . NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15) 

PA.GE20F2 

pursuant to 

THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 

for 

FISCAL YEAR 1983 

Supervision of the Administration ofMilitary Justice. 

Complying with the requirement of article 6(a), Uniform 

tary Justice, the Judge Advocate General and the Deput

cate General continued to visit commands within the U

Europe and the Far East in the supervision of the adminis

tary Justice. 

Courts-Martial Workload. 

There has been a substantial increase in the total num

martial during fiscal year 1983. (See Exhibit A, attached 

During fiscal year 1983, the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Co

Review received for review 5807 new courts-martial cases

717 general courts-martial and 5090 special courts-martia

with 5169 courts-martial, consisting of 552 general cour

4617 special courts-martial during fiscal year 1982. Of 

cases received by the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of M

in fiscal year 1983, 5439 accused requested appellate co

cent). 

U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review and 

Corps Appellate Review Activity. 

During this period the Secretary of the Navy presented 

ous Unit Commendation to these organizations for meritor

support of U.S. Navy and Marine Corps operations. 6250 c

statutory review under the Uniform Code of Military Jus

gated at the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military R
pg y

cases from fiscal year 1982. In fiscal year 1983, 89% (8,265 

the special courts-martial were tried by military judge alone

sents the same percentage rate of special courts-martial tried 

judge alone as the fiscal year 1982 rate. 

Military judges attended the following continuing lega

courses and seminars during fiscal year 1983: 

National Judicial College, Reno, Nevada: 

Criminal Evidence - Graduate Course (10-15 October 1

taryjudge; 

General Jurisdiction Judge (24 April-13 May 1983)

judges; 

Criminal Evidence (8-13 May 1983), 7 military judges. 

9th Interservice Military Trial Judges Seminar: 


Maxwell AFB, Alabama (7-11 February 1983), 8 militar

The U.s. Army JAG School, Charlottesville, Virginia: 

Military Judges Course (16 May-3 June 1983), 10 milita

Naval Justice School, Newport, Rhode Island: 

Military Judges Course (18 July-5 August 1983), 

judges. 

Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island: 

Law of War (28 February-4 March 1983), 1 military jud

U.s. 	Army Litigation Course, Berchestegarden, Germany

available), 1 military judge. 

The Chief Judge, Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary, pre

ries of lectures at the special course for Naval Reserve Milita

the National Judicial College, Reno, Nevada, on 23-25 Feb

He discussed the Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary, the M

of Evidence, sentencing, and other subjects. Every member 

Reserve Military Judges unit is a judge in civilian life, two a

Court judges. The Chief Judge again addressed the Na

Judges at their Training Session in Washington, DC, on 12-1

30 
return on the relieved men of war. The same procedure is b

on a trial basis at Subic Bay for at-sea trials in the Indian 

trial teams in the Indian Ocean deploy aboard ships for se

and have generally met with praise from the commanders r

support. 

Naval Legal Service Command. 

Mission Statement 

"To administer the legal services program and provide com

tion for all naval legal service activities and resources a

signed; and to perform such other functions or tasks as may 

the naval legal service as directed by the Chief of Naval Ope

In fiscal year 1983, the Naval Legal Service Command co

Naval Legal Service Offices, 18 Naval Legal Service O

ments, a Naval Legal Service Trial Defense Activity, two 

Service Trial Defense Activity Detachments, and an Off

Counsel, located in areas of major naval concentration thr

world. The current onboard strength for the Naval Legal 

mand includes 474 judge advocates, 9 WarrantlLDO office

men, and 218 civilian employees (including 31 direct-hire fo

als and 7 indirect-hire foreign nationals). Navy judge adv

Naval Legal Service Command comprise approximately 

Navy's total judge advocate strength. 

The Naval Legal Service Command has undergone t

changes during the past fiscal year: 

a. The Naval Legal Service Trial Defense Activity, 

South Carolina, and the Naval Legal Service Trial Defe

Detachments at Jacksonville and Orlando, Florida, wer

and became fully operational on 1 June 1983. 

b. The Naval Legal Service Office Detachment, Bruns

was established and became fully operational on 1 Augu

c. The Naval Legal Service Office of Detachment, Ann

land, was disestablished and concurrently established 
56.17 days were processed each month by Naval Legal 

and Detachments. The monthly average for fiscal year 

general courts-martial/special courts-martial with an ave

time of 33.09 days per case. Periodic command inspection

ation of each of the various Naval Legal Service Offic

ments have shown that commanders who depend upon t

Service Command for legal support continue to be sat

quality and timeliness of services received. Particularly n

been their enthusiastic and positive response to afloa

formed by Naval Legal Service Command personnel in 

nean and Indian Ocean areas. 

Naval Justice School. 

The Naval Justice School, in Newport, Rhode Island, w

staff of fifteen officers and five enlisted personnel, presen

ing courses of instruction in military law and related adm

civil law matters to a total of 2,334 students during fiscal 

Lawyer Course. Five eight-week lawyer classes were pr

the year. This course, designed to provide basic training 

tice and military administrative and civil law matters to 

and Marine Corps lawyers, includes 163 hours of classro

and 41 hours of practical exercises, including two moot c

ous trial advocacy practical exercises. Training was pr

Navy lawyers, 57 Marine Corps lawyers, and one foreign n

from Indonesia. 

Legal Officer Course. Seven five-week classes were pr

the year. This course is designed for the nonlawyer, junio

to assume duties as a legal officer for a ship, station or 

unit with no military lawyer assigned. Included in the cou

are 125 classroom hours and 75 hours of practical exerc

nars. Training was provided to 229 Navy officers, 74 M

ficers, and three Coast Guard officers. 

Court Reporter Reserve Course. This two-week course o

offered once each summer for enlisted personnel in the i

who are in an in-training status for the legalman rate. T

32 
Camp Pendleton, California; Rota, Spain; Pearl Harbor

Subic Bay, Republic of the Philippines; Yokosuka, Japan; 

South Carolina; Cherry Point, North Carolina; Amphib

School, and Command and Staff College, Quantico, Virgi

London, Connecticut (2). This course is designed primarily 

ing officers and executive officers, and is intended to pre

ficers to handle the legal problems normally faced by com

executive officers in the areas of military justice and admi

civil law. Training was provided to officers as follows: 

NAVY: 982 

USMC: 366 

USCG: 95 

USAF: 12 

USA: 1 

Others: 2 

Legal Clerk Course. Five three and one-half week clas

ducted during the year. This course is designed to train en

nel to serve as legal yeomen or legal clerks at their respectiv

Graduation from this course, and from the following Co

Course, is required for conversion to legalman in the Navy. 

provided to 206 Navy personnel and three Coast Guard per

Court Reporter Course. Four five and one-half week clas

sented during fiscal year 1983. The purpose of this COUIse 

listed personnel in the field of closed-mask court reporting. 

provided to 83 Navy personnel, 18 Army personnel, an

Guard personnel. 

Military Judge Course. This three-week course of instruct

once each summer to train active duty judge advocates of 

Marine Corps to perform duties as special and general cour

itary judges. It provides intensive training in areas of mili

procedure, rules of evidence, and military criminal law, 

hours of practical exercises and seminars wherein the stu

as a military judge in the various stages of moot courts-mar

was provided to nine Navy officers and one Marine Corps of
mand relations with civil authorities to 2,742 students a

Warfare Officers School, Chaplains School, Officer In

School, Senior Enlisted Academy, Naval War College, and 

emy preparatory School in Newport, Rhode Island, and 

Submarine School in New London, Connecticut. 

Marine Corps Activities. 

a. During fiscal year 1983, the Marine Corps reorgani

Marine Force legal assets by removing counsel, support p

equipment from all three active Marine Divisions and all 

Aircraft Wings and pooling these assets in the three Force 

port Groups. This reorganization will improve the efficiency 

port to the Fleet Marine Force. Although there have been no 

command influence, it is noted that this reorganization furt

defense counsel from possible recriminations by Division 

Wing convening authorities. 

b. During the fall of 1983, the Judge Advocate Divisio

ters, U.S. Marine Corps, prepared an 80-minute videotape 

nalysis Laboratory Procedures." The videotape was distr

Marine staff judge advocates as an educational tool to b

Marine judge advocates in the prosecution and defense 

cases. The videotape presents an overview of the entire u

gram, an examination of the sample submission procedur

tailed explanation of the radioimmunoassay, gas liquid chr

and gas chromatography/mass spectometry analytical tech

ies of the videotape were provided to the Juge Advocates G

Navy, Army, and Air Force. 

c. During the second week of April 1983, the Judge A

sion, Headquarters, U.s. Marine Corps, sponsored a conf

lington, Virginia. All Marine Corps staff judge advocates 

number of senior judge advocates, including the Director, L

Support Office (Okinawa), and a representative from the 

Judge Advocate General attended. The attendees formed e

groups and discussed officer performance and discipline, m

tance to civilian law enforcement, utilization of reserve jud

34 
in continuing professional education. Three Marines attend

schools (two at the Naval War College, one at the Army W

One hundred and twenty-four Marine judge advocates atten

and military schools for courses that lasted from three d

weeks. This figure includes 29 Marine military judges (11 w

the basic military judge's course and 18 who attended advanc

Article 69, UCMJ, Applications. 

a. The number of applications filed pursuant to article 

Code of Military Justice, under which the Judge Advocate G

vacate or modify the findings or sentence of courts-martial 

become final in the sense of article 76, but have not been rev

U.s. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review, decrease

cal year 1983. 

b. In fiscal year 1983, 58 applications were received by th

vocate General. Eight applications were pending from pri

these 66 cases, 61 were reviewed during fiscal year 1983. Of 

cations revIewed, 59 were denied, while relief was granted, 

in part, in two cases. Two cases were returned for complian

Manual of the Judge Advocate General. Five cases were pen

at the close of fiscal year 1983. 

c. In addition, 126 general courts-martial cases, which we

torily eligible for automatic review by the U.s. Navy-M

Court of Military Review, were reviewed by the Judge Advo

in fiscal year 1983. 

Article 73, UCMJ, Petitions. 

In fiscal year 1983, five petitions for new trials were subm

view pursuant to article 73, Uniform Code of Military Justi

tions were pending from fiscal year 1982. Two petitions we

the Judge Advocate General, and three petitions were forw

U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review for app

VIew. 

Article 74(b), UCMJ, Petitions. 

Eight new petitions were submitted in fiscal year 1983 req
um was conducted. Panel discussions included the follow

Five Year Plan 1982/1983 Overview 

Courts-Martial Processing Management 1 Court-

Backlog Reduction 

Management Information System 

LN Rating Administration Improvements 

Role and Future of the Naval Justice School 

Utilization and Training of Reserves 

Update on Drug Abuse Initiatives I Navy Assistance 

Enforcement 

JAMES J. MC

Rear Admira

The Judge Ad

36 
OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)(OECAEA.SE (-) OVER LAST REPORT 

PART 2· DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS·MARTIAL (eA LEVEL) 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL (SA LEVEL) 

PART 5· APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE C

REVIEW 

PART 6· U. S. COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS ACTIONS 

PERCENTAGE OF COMR REVIEWED CASES FORWARDEO TO USCMA 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/OECAEASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTEe 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/OECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPOATING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY COMA 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)!DECREASE (-) OVER THE NUMBER OF CASES REVIEWED DURING 

LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

PAGE10F2 

NOTE: 	 Parts 1, 2, 8 and 11 contain manual figures for 4th qu

30 Sep 83) 
TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

PART 9· COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS I 128 

PART 10· STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 

PAGE20F2 

38 
In compliance with the requirements of Article 6(a), Un

Military Justice (U.C.M.J.), Major General Thomas B

Judge Advocate General, and Major General James Tayl

Judge Advocate General, made official staff visits to lega

United States and overseas. They also attended and partic

ous bar association meetings and addressed many civil, pr

military organizations. 

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS AND 


US AIR FORCE JUDICIARY ACTIVITIES 


During fiscal year (FY) 1983, the Judiciary Directorate o

The Judge Advocate General processed over 3434 actions 

tary justice. The Directorate has the overall responsibility 

the administration of military justice throughout the Un

Force, from the trial level through the appellate review pr

tion, the Directorate has the staff responsibility for The 

Judge Advocate General in all Air Force military justice 

arise in connection with programs, special projects, studie

generated by the Air Staff; Headquarters USAF; the S

partments of Defense, Army, Navy, and Air Force; membe

and other interested federal, state and civil agencies. Som

torate's activities are discussed below. 

a. The Judiciary Directorate serves as the action agen

view of military justice issues in applications submitted to 

Board for Correction of Military Records. Formal opinion

were provided to the Secretary of the Air Force concerni

cations. 

b. The Directorate received 2,075 inquiries in specific c

either formal written replies or telephonic replies to senio

ficials, including the President, or to members of Congres

these were format petitions concerning a single highly pub

volving drugs and homosexual acts by a commissioned offi
ports on a monthly and quarterly basis. The system was also 

swer many individual requests for particular statistical i

These special requests were received from such activities a

Armed Services Committee, Air Force Security Police and t

Military Personnel Center. 

Trial Judiciary 

The Air Force Trial Judiciary had an average of 30 m

judges assigned to 10 locations worldwide. One authorizatio

tary judge was added to the Fifth Circuit at Travis Air Forc

fornia, during the year. This was done to alleviate an increas

within the circuit. 

In a development related to the workload of the Trial Jud

Reserve officers were selected to serve as special court-marti

a pilot program conducted during the fiscal year. The test re

evaluated early in 1984. From preliminary indications, the 

pears to have been a success. 

Circuit Trial Counsel Program 

The 20 circuit trial counsel stationed at nine locations wo

responsible for prosecuting major cases and for training you

vocates at base level in the skills of trial advocacy. Added em

placed on the training mission in FY 1983. Because the num

remained very high, and many cases took longer to try, incre

nation and travel between circuits was necessary and result

use of manpower. Nevertheless, the percentage of courts-m

by circuit trial counsel was down for the fifth consecutive ye

lustrated by the following table: 

40 
The Air Force's independent defense counsel program 

function with 119 area defense counsel (ADC's) located at 1

Force installations worldwide. However, greater flexibility 

the seven circuit defense offices in the management of 

workload which resulted from increased activity in the ad

discharge area. Ten additional circuit defense counsel (CD

were created, supplementing the single CDC previously ass

circuit. These experienced trial advocates provide a more ti

pable response to the need for representation in the more 

plex cases, increase our circuit training and assistance capab

spect to newly assigned ADC's and materially reduce the 

ADC's away from their base of primary responsibility to co

trial activity elsewhere in the circuit. The additional circuit 

been located in areas of significant trial activity or at milit

tation hubs where maximum use and flexibility can be achie

A major training initiative began in July 1983, to introd

signed or projected ADC's to the challenges and responsibi

ating within an independent defense structure. This traini

tation effort is divided between the areas of ADC office m

professional responsibility and advocacy within the military

conducted at the USAF Judiciary Headquarters in Wash

These three and one-half day orientation classes will be c

proximately four times annually, and are designed to incre

and managerial proficiency in the early stages of an ADC's a

At the close of the year, approval was given to test reserv

tion of the Area Defense Counsel Program. Category B Res

assigned to the Air Reserve Personnel Center would be att

ious ADC offices for both inactive and active duty training

Reserve judge advocates is based upon program interest, p

reserve participation and active duty advocacy experience. 

ticipants will be supervised by chief circuit defense counse

training and guidance will be provided by the ADC office of 

Implementation of the pilot program is expected in early 19
court-martial convening authority having jurisdiction over 

and then to the Commander, Lowry Technical Training C

not already the convening authority over the prisoner. Bot

may extend clemency, if appropriate. If the prisoner is el

role, the case file is forwarded with appropriate recommen

Air Force Clemency and Parole Board, Washington, D.C., f

tion as any other parole case. 

Use of Fort Riley, Kansas, was discontinued entirely as 

confinement facility during the fiscal year. In its place, 

Washington, began accepting increasing numbers of Ai

oners. Since the total population at the USDB remains at ca

stantial number of prisoners who would normally have b

there were shifted to Fort Lewis. 

The rehabilitation proi;I"am at the 3320th Correction an

tion Squadron, Lowry Air Force Base, continues to operate 

However, prisoner population in the program declined to 1

of the fiscal year. Use of this program for convicted airm

good promise for restoration continues to be Air Force polic

At the end of the fiscal year, a total of 716 Air Force pers

confinement, 50 pretrial and 666 post-trial. Air Force pri

role totaled 107. This latter figure is expected to rise as a re

cent instructions for processing parole eligible prisoner

USDB. 

PREVENTIVE LAW AND LEGAL ASSISTANCE PROGRA

The Air Force Legal Assistance Program was active in sol

sonal legal problems of Air Force members and their fam

the last yearly reporting period, over 450,000 clients soug

with over 1 million separate cases. In addition to actively as

solution of legal problems once they occur, legal offices a

conducted Preventive Law programs designed to educate 

ents in problem avoidance. These programs were improved 

addition of a microfiche library of useful preventive law 

complete set of of all materials was furnished to each legal 

42 
The Air Force Judge Advocate General School Resident Courses 

The Air Force Judge Advocate General School, Leadersh

agement Development Center, Maxwell Air Force Base, A

vided instruction in basic and continuing legal education (C

duty, Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard judge adv

commissioned officers, and civilians during FY 1983. Th

courses were conducted at the school: 

a. Judge Advocate Staff Officer Course-The course pr

advocates with a foundation in the principles and concept

law while preparing them for certification as trial and defe

Four seven-week classes were conducted in FY 1983, with 2

vocates, six Reservists, three Air National Guardsmen, and 

officer completing the course. 

b. Staff Judge Advocate Course-This course was offered 

1983 for officers in the rank of captain through colonel serv

ed to serve as staff judge advocates. Forty-four judge advoc

servists, and four Air National Guardsmen attended the cou

c. Reserve Forces Judge Advocate Course-Two two-w

were held during FY 1983 to provide Reservist and Air Nat

judge avocates with information on recent developments in m

One hundred twenty-eight Reservists and 29 Air National 

completed the course. 

d. Interservice Military Judges' Seminar-This five-day 

conducted once during FY 1983. Twenty-eight Air Force ju

military judges from the other Services attended. 

e. Claims and Tort Litigation Course-This course held 

in FY 1983. Fifty-four officers in the rank of first lieuten

major and 13 civilians in grades GS-ll and GS-12 attende

course. The paralegallexaminers course had 45 NCO and 

paralegal graduates. 

f. Legal Service Advance Course-This course was con

during FY 1983. A total of 53 NCO's attended the class-4

two Army, and two Navy. Four Reservists and one Air Natio

man also attended the course. Air Force enlisted personnel 
Staff College, and two attended the Air War College a

Force Base, Alabama. Two officers attended the Armed Fo

lege, and one attended the National War College. 

Short Courses at Civilian Universities 

a. Prosecuting Attorney's Course at Northwestern 

Twenty-five judge advocates attended this five-day course 

b. Defense Attorney's Course at Northwestern Unive

five judge advocates attended this five-day course in FY 19

c. National Judicial College at the University of Ne

judge advocates attended courses at the college during FY 

Masters in Law Program 

During FY 1983, four judge advocates received their M

labor law, seven in government procurement law, two in 

law, and two in environmental law. 

Procurement Law and Military Judge Courses: U.S. Army JAG School 

Sixty-eight judge advocates attended the basic pro

course, and twenty-nine judge advocates attended the adv

ment law course. Fifteen judge advocates attended the 

course during FY 1983. 

VIDEOTAPE AND SEMINAR PROGRAMS 

The videotape and seminar CLE programs provide non

advocates the opportunity to fulfill their mandatory stat

ments. During FY 1983, the faculty revised and updat

courses. Six new courses, Impeachment Under the Militar

dence (M.R.E.), Character Evidence, Advanced Advoca

Trial Techniques, Sentencing, and Search and Seizure

44 
Impeachment Under the M.R.E ................................ 

Character Evidence ......................................... 

Advanced Advocacy ........................................ 

Advanced Trial Techniques ................................... 

Sentencing................................................ 

Search and Seizure ......................................... 

'New courses with credit awards pending. 

THE REPORTER, AFRP 110-2 

The Reporter continues to provide timely information on 

ety of legal issues. Topics given in-depth analysis in 1983 in

fessional Ethics and Criminal Justice, Medical Law, Revie

United States Supreme Court Cases, Space Law and En

Law. The Reporter is praised by government lawyers, both 

civilian, as an extremely valuable communications forum th

crossfeed and a better prepared Department. In FY 1983

publications conducted by DOD resulted in The Reporter b

from a bi-monthly to a quarterly publication. However, ne

mat nor editorial quality was compromised. 

FEDERAL lEGAL INFORMATION THROUGH 

ElECTRONICS (FlITE) 

The Office of The Judge Advocate General continued to 

expand one of the world's largest automated legal research s

ing 522,000,000 characters to its full text legal data bases

1983, FLITE processed 6761 research requests from DOD a

DOD users. FLITE was recognized by the United States Su

for its contribution in compilation of the new two volume In

ions Of Justices Of The Supreme Court From 1789 To 19

By Justice. 

In a significant development for automated data proce

The Judge Advocate General's Blue Ribbon Panel on Aut

mitted its recommendations. The FLITE office was assigned 

ity as the ADP single manager. Uniform word processing eq
Major Genera

The Judge Ad

46 
REVIEWED DURING LAST REPOATING PERIOD 

PART 5· APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE AIR FORCE C

REVIEW 

PART 6· U. S. COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS ACTIONS 

PERCENTAGE OF COMR REVIEWEO CASES FORWARDED TO USCV.A 416/68 7 

P~RCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-lOVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 36/416 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/OECAEASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY COMA 36/687 

RATE OF INCREAse (+)/OECREASE (-lOVER THE NUMBEA OF CASES REVIEwEO DURING 

LAST REPOATING PERtOD 

PAGE 1 OF 2 
TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 

AY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 

RTlAl 

PART 9 . COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS I 34 

PART 10· STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTVSTRENGTH 576644 

PART 11 . NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15) 

PAGE20F2 

48 
(U.S. COAST GUARD) 


October 1, 1982 to September 30, 1983 

The table below shows the number of court-martial recor

and filed at Coast Guard Headquarters during FY-83 and t

ceding years. 

Fiscal Year 83 82 81 80 

General Courts-Martial ............ 10 9 2 3 

Special Courts·Martial. ............ 68 79 58 67 

Summary Courts·Martial. .......... 128 151 192 169 

Total ....................... 206 239 252 239 

.COU RTS·MARTIAL 

Attorney counsel and military judges are detailed to all spe

martial. For most cases, the presiding judge was the full-ti

courts-martial judge. When he was unavailable, military j

other primary duties were utilized for special courts-martial

the detail of judges is centrally exercised, and all require

been met in a timely fashion. 

General Courts-Martial 

Charges referred to the ten general courts-martial conven

included 67 specifications alleging violations of Articles 92, 1

(only three of these courts involved marijuana or other contro

Five accuseds were tried by military judge alone at their requ

received a sentence which included a bad conduct discharge. 

accuseds tried by courts with members, one received a sent

included a bad conduct discharge. 
supervisory authorities. Thirty-three of the accused whose 

referred to special courts-martial were nonrated (pay grad

3), thirty-one were petty officers (pay grades E-4 thru E

were chief petty officers (pay grade E-7). In one special cou

supervisory authority set aside the findings and sentence 

the charges against the accused. Four accuseds tried by 

martial were represented by individual military counsel an

were represented by civilian counsel. 

The following table shows the distribution of the 307 spe

ferred to special courts-martial. 

Violation of the UCMJ, Article 

85 and 86 (desertion and UA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

87 (missing movement) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

89 (disrespect toward superior commissioned officer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

91 (willful disobedience or disrespect) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

92 (violation of order or regulation). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

107 (false official statement) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

108 (offenses against USCG property). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

121 (larceny and wrongful appropriation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

128 (assault). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

134 (General) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

134 or 92 (marijuana offenses). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

134 or 92 (other contolled drug offenses). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

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

The following is a breakdown of sentences awarded by 

judge alone in special courts-martial (17 convictions). 

Sentence 

bad conduct discharge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

confinement at hard labor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

50 
The following is a breakdown of sentences awarded in sp

martial with members (45 convictions). 

Sentence 

bad conduct discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

confinement at hard labor (3 maximum) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

hard labor without confinement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

reduction in rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

restriction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

forfeiture of pay ($23,999 total). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

fine ($481.39 total). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

others. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

In 16 of these 45 convictions, the accused pled guilty to all 

specifications. 

The following indicates the. three sentences imposed mo

courts-martial in the past three fiscal years. 

Number of Reduction 

FY Convictions Forfeitures Confinement in grade 

83 62 35(56%) 35(56%) 49(79%) 

82 74 48(65%) 41(55%) 46(62%) 

81 55 41(75%) 34 (62%) 38 (€.9%) 

average % for 3 years 

Summation 

Six of the ten general courts-martial, one with members a

military judge alone, adjudged a sentence which included a 

discharge. Thirty-eight percent of the accused tried by speci

tial were tried by military judge alone, and thirty-five per

pled guilty to all charges and specifications. Thirty-six perc
y 

ing appellate review. Five actions were taken as a resu

views, as follows: 

Action of the Officer Exercising General Court-Martial 

Jurisdiction set aside, record of trial forwarded 

to another officer exercising GCM jurisdiction for 

review pursuant to Article 65(c), UCMJ. . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Findings of guilty and sentence set aside, charges could be 

referred to another court-martial convened by proper 

authority or could be dismissed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Findings of guilty to one charge and its specification set 

aside and charge dismissed. The sentence was reassessed 

on the basis of offenses the accused was properly 

convicted, sentence found to be nonetheless 

appropriate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

PERSONNEL AND TRAINING 

The Coast Guard has 159 law specialists serving on act

hundred and seventeen are serving a legal capacity and 

serving in general duty billets. The junior law specialists 

trict offices perform most trial and defense counsel servic

specialists, most serving as district legal officers, are use

judges in special courts-martial when required. 

The Eighth Coast Guard Basic Law Specialist Course w

Coast Guard Reserve Training Center, Yorktown, Virginia

tember 1983 through 4 November 1983. The seven week c

ly introduces both the direct commissioned lawyers and t

ficers, just completing law school, to the many duties the

perform as Coast Guard law specialists. One-half of the c

voted to military justice. Nonjudicial punishment, jurisd

sional responsibility and ethics, court procedures, trial/de

duties, and the Articles of the Code most frequently litigat

of the areas covered. Each student was given an opportun

52 
RoSCHIEL A KREPP

General Counsel 

Department of Tra
OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/OECREASE (-I OVER LAST REPORT 

* 

GENE 

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

* PART 5 - APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE COAST GUARD CO

REVIEW 

PART 6 - U. S. COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS ACTIONS 

PERCENTAGE OF COMR REVIEWED CASES FORWAROED TO USCMA 4/7 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/OECAEASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 1/4 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/OECAEASE C-I OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY COMR 1/7 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-, OVER THE NUMBER OF CASES REVIEWED DURING 

LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

PAGE 1 OF 2 

* 	 Extraordinary Hri ts in which. Show Cause Orders were issued by 

Extraordinary Writs in which Show Cause Orders were issued by 

54 
!"ART 8· ORGANIZATION OF COURT 

'LONE 

GENERA .L 

SPECIAL COURTS·MARTIAl 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 

GENERAL COURTS-MAATIAL 

SPECIAL COU"TS·MARTIAl 

05 

19 

05 

49 

02 

PART g. COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS I 

PART 10· STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STAENGTH 1»:;,:::::::::::::::::<':«<:::::::::::::::

PAGE2QF2 

lMilitary judges are assigned to all cases referred to special 

The Coast Guard, therefore, considers all special courts-marti

BCD cases. 

* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFI