and the 

JUDGEADVO£ATESGENERA

of the 

ARMED FORCES 


and the 

GENERAL COUNSEL 


of the 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUS

For the Period 


January I, 1973 10 December 31, 

PROPERlY OF U.S. AAJlf 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAl$ S

LIBRARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ond to the 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 


AND SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTA

ond the 


SECRETARIES OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF 

ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORCE 


PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MUllARY JUSTICE 

For the Period 


Jonuory I, 1973 to December 31, 1973 


Contents 

JOINT REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILIT

AND THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL OF THE A

AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT O

TATION 

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY AP

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE A

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NA

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE AI

REPORT OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMEN

PORTATION (UNITED STATES COAST GUARD) 

and the 

JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL 


OF THE ARMED FORCES 


and the 

GENERAL COUNSEL 


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 


January 1, 1973 to December 31, 1973 

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

the Judges of the United States Court of Military A

Judge Advocates General of the military departmen

General Counsel of the Department of Transportat

their annual report on the operation of the Unifor

Military Justice to the Committees on Armed Serv

United States Senate and House of Representatives 

Secretaries of Defense, Transportation, Army, Nav

Force. 

The Judges, The Judge Advocates General, and t

Counsel, constituting the Code Committee, continue to 

consideration of legislation that would (1) specify th

which the U. S. Court of Military Appeals, the Courts 

Review, and military judges may entertain petitions 

ordinary relief; (2) permit the execution of a sentenc

ment at the time the convening authority approves th

to eliminate the pointless and costly segregation of var

of prisoners, and to permit unsentenced prisoners to b

rehabilitative training; and (3) relieve the convenin

of the responsibility for making a posttrial review of 

of a court-martial but retain his power to mitigate th
lines. The Army revised its military justice regulatio

greatly the procedural rights afforded persons unde

Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Navy is i

programs which will place trial and defense cou

military judges under the authority of the Jud

General of the Navy. 

Now imminent is the decision of the U. S. Supre

the constitutionality of Article 134, Uniform Code 

Justice, which arose in the cases of Avrech v. Sec

Navy, 477 F. 2d 1237 (D. C. Cir. 1973); and Lev

478 F. 2d 772 (3rd Cir. 1973). The U. S. Cour

Appeals has held that Article 134 is constitution

Committee continues to monitor this litigation 

towards alternative solutions in the event the U. 

Court declares Article 134 unconstitutional. 

The Joint-Service Committee on Military Justice

committee composed of representatives of the servic

to study subjects related to the administration of m

under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and to 

mendations to the Code Committee regarding propos

action. The Military Justice Committee is currentl

a number of proposals for legislative action that th

mittee may adopt as future recommendations, to in

tion to replace Article 134 with separate, punitiv

grant extraordinary writ powers to military judg

the execution of sentences to confinement at the time 

is approved; to eliminate the need for post-trial rev

transfer sentencing authority to military judges 

cases. 

The U. S. Supreme Court in Gosa v. Mayden, 4

(1973), handed down during the reporting period 

decision in the area of military justice. In that case, 

Court decided that its decision in O'Callahan v. Park

258 (1969), would not be applied retroactively. Th

2 
Military Justice, violation exists when pretrial c

exceeds three months and that this presumption plac

burden on the Government to show diligence, in the 

which a dismissal of the charges will result. In Unite

Marshall, 22 USCMA 431, 47 CMR 409 (1973), the 

that, when a Burton violation has been raised by the d

Government must demonstrate that extraordinary cir

-beyond such normal problems as mistakes in draftin

manpower shortages, illnesses, injuries, and leaves-c

to the delay. Operational demands, a combat enviro

convoluted offenses were examples given by the Court 

justify a departure from the norm. In a number of 

the Marshall decision, charges have been dismissed agai

who were confined in excess of three months. The Judge 

General and the General Counsel continue to addres

blem in their various services. 

The Code committee remains concerned over the s

experienced military lawyers, on whose shoulders t

of maintaining our military justice system ultimately 

1972 Report noted several factors which caused a stead

in applications for career positions as judge advocates

due to the increased enrollment in, and graduation 

schools, there has been a marked decrease in the job 

for attorneys. This is true in both the private and pub

Consequently, applications for the Judge Advocate 

Corps have increased, and the outlook for retention is 

optimistic. However, the gap now existing in caree

cannot be cured for many years even though retent

beginning to improve. Therefore, the Committee co

recommend that Congress consider further incentives 

sional pay to attract and retain military lawyers for a 

The separate reports of the Court of Military App

the individual services show the number of courts-ma

appellate review category during the reporting perio
GEORGE S. PRUG

The Judge Advo

United States A

MERLIN H. STAR

The Judge Advo

United States N

HAROLD R. VAGU

The Judge Advo

United States A

RODNEY E. EYST

General Counsel

Department of 

4 
___________________________________________________

CourtMartial Cases 

Army __________________________________________________

~avy 

Air Force ______________________________________________

Coast Guard ____________________________________________

Total 

Cases Reviewed by Courts of Military Review 

Army __________________________________________________

~avy ___________________________________________________

Air Force _______________________________________________

Coast Guard ____________________________________________

Total 

Cases Docketed with U.S. Court of Military Appea

Army __________________________________________________

~avy ___________________________________________________

Air Force _______________________________________________

Coast Guard ____________________________________________

Total _____________________________________________
In accordance with the provisions of the Unifo

Military Justice, Article 67 (g), 10 USC § 867 (g), the

and Associate Judges of the United States Court 

Appeals submit their report on the administration 

and military justice to the Committees on Armed Se

United States Senate and the House of Representati

Secretaries of Defense, Transportation, Army, N

Force. 

The court's workload continued at a high rate 

year 1973. During this period, 1,452 Petitions, 27 

and 54 Petitions for Extraordinary Relief, a total o

were docketed. Despite this increase of 46 cases ove

for the preceding fiscal period, the Court's docket rem

without backlog. 

A total of 163 opinions were rendered by the Co

Petitions for Review granted, 19 Certificates filed b

Advocates General, 6 combined Certificate and Pe

1 Motion to Strike, and 11 Extraordinary Relief P

by the accused. 

Since United States v. Burton, 21 USCMA 112, 

(1971) and United States v. Marshall, 22 USCMA 

409 (1973), a rebuttable presumption arises, when 

finement exceeds 90 days, that an accused has been de

to speedy trial in violation of the Uniform Code. Yet 

appellate delays in the processing of serious c

continue to create business for the Court. 54 P

Extraordinary Relief were filed in the Court thi

by accused. A prima facie case for relief was estab

allegations in 16 instances. Orders to Show Cause wer

to respective respondents. In one-half of these P

relief sought was from inordinate delays. Hopef

administrative measures designed to protect the a

these abuses will be taken by the services. 

6 
The Court adheres to the belief that problems rel

trial review should be eliminated by removal of th

authority from the appellate process, except for cle

tions. 

During the year 920 attorneys were admitted to th

Court, Honorary Certificates of Membership were 

additional 8 attorneys from India, Pakistan, Canada, 

and the Philippines. Special sessions of the Court, a

reserve officers to membership in our bar, were held in 

R. I. on August 31, 1973, and in Anaheim, Calif. o

11,1973. 

Chief Judge Darden's resignation from the Court w

by President Nixon on December 29, 1973. 

A detailed analysis of the cases processed by the 

May 1951 is attached (Exhibit A). 

Respectful

WILLIAM H

Chief Judg

ROBERT E. 

Associate J

ROBERT M. 

Associate J
--------------------

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

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

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

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

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

------

CASES DOCKETED 

July 1, 1971 July 1,1

Total as of to to 

Total by Services June 30, 1971 June 30, 1972 June 30, 

Petitions (Art. 67(b) (3»: 

Army 12,727 804 95

Navy 6,497 519 37

Air Force 4,957 96 11

Coast Guard 55 0 

Total 24,236 1,419 1,45

Certificates (Art. 67(b)(2»: 

Army -------------------­ 188 15 1

Navy -------------------­ 228 11 

Air Foce ---------------­ 96 1 

Coast Guard ______________ 11 0 

Total 523 27 2

Mandatory (Art. 67(b) (1»: 

Army -------------------­ 31 0 

Navy --------------------­ 3 0 

Air force ---------------­ 3 0 

Coast Guard ------------­ 0 0 

Total 37 0 

Total cases docketed 24,796 1,446 1,47

1 2 Flag officer cases; 1 Army and 1 Navy • 27,203 cases actually assigned docket numbers. Overage due to mu

the same cases. 

8 
Withdrawn _______________ 

Disposed of on Motion to 

Dismiss: 

With Opinion ________ 

Without Opinion ______ 

Disposed of by Order setting 

aside findings and sentence 

Remanded ________________ 

Court action due (30 days) • Awaiting replies· ________ _ 

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

Opinions rendered ________ _ 

Opinions pending· ________ 

Withdrawn _______________ 

Remanded _________________ 

Disposed of by Order _____ _ 

Set for hearing· _________ _ 

Ready for hearing· _______ 

Awaiting for briefs' ______ 

Leave to file denied ______ _ 

Mandatory (Art. 67(b) (1»: 

Opinions rendered ________ _ 

Opinions pending ________ _ 

Remanded ________________ 

Awaiting briefs' _________ _ 

415 

8 

44 

6 

188 

90 

24 

503 

7 

8 

4 

1 

o 

o 

o 

o 

37 

o 

1 

o 

9 

o 

1 

o 

11 

80 

48 

25 

6 

o 

o 

o 

o 

1 

1 

2 

o 

o 

o 

o 

1

97 

6

2

Opinions rendered: 

Petitions _________________ 

Motions to dismiss ________ 

Motions to Stay Proceedings 

Per Curiam Grants ______ _ 

Certificates ______________ _ 

Certificates and Petitions __ Mandatory _______________ 

Petitions Remanded _______ 

Petitions for a New TriaL_ 

Petitions for Reconsideration 

of: 

Denial Order _______ _ 

Opinion ______________ 

See footnotes at end of table. 

2,531 

11 

1 

57 

441 

59 

37 

2 

2 

10 

4 

90 

o 

o 

o 

24 

1 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

12

1
Motion for Appropriate Relief __________________ 1 o 

Petitions (Motion to Strike) o o 

Miscellaneous Dockets ____ 55 14 

Total __________________ 3,217 129 1

Completed cases: 

Petitions denied 

Petitions dismissed ________ 

Charges dismissed by Order 

Petitions withdrawn ______ 

Certificates withdrawn ____ 

Certificates disposed of by Order __________________ 

Opinions rendered ________ _ 

Disposed of on Motion to 

Dismiss: 

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 _______________ _ 

20,793 

19 

2 

415 

8 

1 

3,154 

8 

44 

6 

3 

1 

191 

1,286 

2 

o 

9 

o 

o 

115 

o 

1 

o 

o 

o 

11 

1,2

1

Total _________________ _ 24,645 1,424 1,4

Miscellaneous Docket Nos. 

Assigned: ______________ 216 51 

(1967 to Present) Pending' _________________ o o 

Granted _________________ 3 o 

Denied ___________________ 95 3 

Withdrawn _______________ 2 2 

Dismissed ________________ 64 30 

Issue moot ______________ _ 2 o 

Remanded ________________ o 1 

Opinions rendered ________ 54 14 

See footnotes at end of table. 

10 
Total 229 5

------------------ 53 

Pending completion 

June 30, 1971 June 30, 

Opinions pending ________________ _ 

Set for hearing ___________________ _ 

Ready for hearing _________________ _ 

Petitions granted-awaiting briefs__ 

Petitions-Court action due (30 days) ___________________.. _____ _ 

Petitions-awaiting replies ________ _ 

Certificates-awaiting briefs ______ _ 

Mandatory-awaiting briefs ________ 

Total _____________________ _ 

17 

0 

4 

11 

90 

24 

1 

0 

2

8

4

147 16

• As of June 30, 1971, 1972, and 1973 . • 3,509 cases were disposed of by 3,436 published Opinions. 173 Opinion

In cases Involving 101 Army officers, 37 Air Force officers, 24 Navy o

Corps officers, 2 Coast Guard officers, and 1 West Point cadet. In addi

were rendered In cases Involving 20 civilians. The remainder concern

sonnel. 

• As of June 30, 1973. • Overage due to multiple actions on the same cases. 
LEGISLATION AND MILITARY JUSTICE PRO

During 1973, the Office of The Judge Advocate 

tinued to monitor the processing of courts-martial

improved procedures, and to revise military justice 

and regulations. Emphasis was placed upon seekin

th~ military justice system by regulatory amendmen

programs. 

MAJOR PROJECTS 

Some major projects were stimulated by the De

Defense Task Force on the Administration of Mil

in the Armed Forces, while others were the produ

years of formulation and refinement. These projec

that a strong, viable military justice system can be 

and enhanced by internal efforts, without the need fo

a. A plan was formulated to conduct a test of lim

selection of court members, without derogation of t

responsibility of the convening authority. The plan 

need for legislative change in the UCMJ, yet acco

desired goal. Under the plan, currently being tes

Riley, Kansas, a master juror list is compiled from 

files. Individuals on the master list are administered 

naire, based upon criteria established by the convenin

to determine whether they possess basic qualificatio

is then randomly selected from those found to be so q

convening authority retains veto power over the pane

and when this power is exercised, another rando

panel must be chosen. The results of the test should 

during the summer of 1974. Some problems that ma

addressed are defining what standards the conveni

should use in ascertaining the qualifications of po

members and whether such program can quell the a

12 
developed; however, immediate implementation of t

precluded by an acute shortage of Army lawyers. A

measure, the Chief of Staff directed the improvem

and support facilities for defense counsel, and the phy

tion of their offices from those of staff judge ad

prosecutors. Also under consideration is a plan to 

counsel before courts-martial acquire courtroom exp

a desirable trial advocacy skill level before they try c

own. The plan also identifies Army lawyers who a

skilled in criminal trial practice. Attorney-client gu

the use of judge advocates were developed. Defense c

also given a well-defined channel through which 

complaints and to seek advice. The Assistant Judg

General for Civil Law was designated as the individu

ble for supervising the operation of this advice an

channel, which should prove to be of great benefi

counsel in the field. 

c. Tests of the Military Magistrate Program were 

three CONUS sites, Forts Bragg, Dix, and Hood

program, earlier implemented with favorable result

the records of individuals in pretrial confinement a

by an experienced judge advocate to determine the n

continued confinement. Consideration is given such fa

seriousness of the offense, number of dependents

pertinent information. If continued pretrial confine

found necessary, the accused may be released by the 

The magistrate's review also insures that no priso

overlooked in the assignment of counsel. Prelimi

indicate that the program is progressing well. In 1974

of this testing will be evaluated with a view toward 

implementation. 

d. Tests of the legal center pilot projects, earlier 

in United States Army, Europe, were concluded at F

and Carson. The concept of this program envisio
e. Plans were developed and implemented to incre

tiveness of nonjudicial punishment by procedu

designed to assure that the rights of accused are ful

to streamline the procedures, and to formalize the 

process. In addition, a greater degree of uniformity 

ceedings was considered essential. An upcoming ch

Army military justice regulation, AR 27-10, wi

suggested guide for conduct of nonjudicial punishm

ings, and a new Department of the Army form 

recording proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ. Th

guide, or scenario, is intended to provide a simple, 

dural format and will contain a complete "script", w

ate instructional comments, for use by the command

DA Form 2627 will replace the three present forms 

2627, 2627-1, 2627-2). The new one-page form, capa

printed in a manifold containing several copies with 

carbons, simplifies and expedites administrative p

f. A study was initiated in 1973 to evaluate the 

of the Uniform Code of Military Justice during t

Recognizing the lengthy study that would be necessar

fully the questions of whether the military justice s

be able to dispense justice effectively in time of war 

what alternatives exist to assure proper functioning

Advocate General's School was tasked to perform 

research on the project. Upon completion of the ini

the study, the matter will be submitted to the 

Committee on Military Justice, to formulate a unif

on the need to change the system to assure responsive

scale hostilities. 

g. A study was undertaken to determine the fe

effectiveness of empowering military judges to ajudge 

sentences in all cases not capital. It was determin

measure, requiring legislative action, would be ap

a long range project, and that several preconditio

14 
Two decisions of the United States Circuit Court

Avrech v. Secretary of the Navy, 477 F. 2d 1237 (D.C

and Levy v. Parker, 478 F. 2d 772 (3rd Cir. 19

combined effect of holding Articles 133 and 134 unc

for vagueness. The Army is appealing Levy and 

A vrech. Shortly after the A vrech decision, subordina

were advised that, pending final outcome of the ca

should, when possible, be charged under the thi

Article 134 or some other Article." One month lat

the Levy case held that Article 134 failed to satisfy 

of precision required by the due process cla.use and

entire article was void for vagueness. No qualificat

third clause of that article, an assimilative provisi

all crimes and offenses not capital, was made by the c

utilization of even that clause questionable. The inte

these decisions was the obvious uncertainty of ch

viduals under the affected articles, even in cases wh

punitive article proved appropriate. This problem wa

acute in the handling of drug offenses. The decisio

intensive study as to the charging alternatives availab

Consideration is being given to several courses of 

the voids which may be created by A vrech and Levy

would be to amend Article 134 along the lines of the 

Crimes Act so that the U. S. Code, to include releva

(under 18 U. S. C. Section 13), would be availabl

charging certain crimes, and so that the D. C. Co

applicable where the U. S. Code is not. The other 

require amending existing articles of the Code a

new ones, to incorporate the offenses presently tried u

134 into specific, punitive provisions. The promulgat

hibited practices regulation incorporating many of 

tried under Article 134, thereby making those offe

to being charged under Article 92 of the Code, is bein

as an interim measure pending legislation. However, t
Councilman v. Laird, 481 F.2d 613 (10th Cir. 

granted sub nom. Schlesinger v. Councilman, 38 

(1973). The Third and Fourth Circuits, in similar 

volving off post drug offenses, have found "servic

Sedivy v. Richardson, 485 F.2d 1115 (3rd Cir. 197

Ploger, _F.2d_ (4th Cir. 1974). The Councilman 

ently before the Supreme Court. Two courts of app

that O'Callahan did not have extraterritorial appli

berly v. Richardson, Secretary of Defense, et al., 4

(7th Cir. 1973), cert. denied 413 U.S. 921 (1973)

Williams v. Froehlke, 356 F.Supp. 591 (S.D.N.Y. 1

SIGNIFICANT ACTIONS 

During 1973, 1,267 recorded actions and nume

laneous actions, involving military justice, were ha

Office of The Judge Advocate General. These acti

evaluating and drafting legislation, Executive order

and regulations impacting upon the operation of the A

Department of Defense; monitoring the administra

tary justice; rendering opinions for the Army staff; a

various aspects of criminal cases for action by the 

tariat and staff. Some of the more significant actions 

below: 

a. On 25 May 1973, Colonel Theodore W. Guy, US

prisoner of war, preferred charges against eight P

including five Army enlisted men. The charges were 

the same against each soldier, alleging a failure to o

not to collaborate with the enemy, aiding the en

authorized communication, conspiracy to promote dis

disloyalty in the prison camp, and attempting to 

disaffection and disloyalty of a prisoner. These cha

extensive investigation and analysis of the evidence 

the validity of the allegations. The evidence was fo

large part vague and contradictory. Much of it was 

16 
inquiry into the basis for Major Leonard's charges 

material evidence not previously considered. Th

charges were dismissed on 5 October 1973. 

b. On 21 December 1973, the United States Cou

Appeals affirmed the conviction of First Lieutenan

Calley, Jr., for premeditated murder of twenty-tw

nationals and assault with intent to murder a Viet

His approved sentence was dismissal, forfeiture of 

allowances, and confinement at hard labor for t

Pursuant to Article 71 (b) of the Code, the case wa

to the Secretary of the Army for his action. 

c. Several Department of the Army pamphlets 

law were prepared under the supervision of the 

Judge Advocate General in 1973. DA Pamphlet 27-14

for the Soldier (March 1973), illustrates the entir

military law to the serviceman and shows him that m

broader than military justice. DA Pamphlet 27-

Justice-Trial Procedure (October 1973), revises th

procedure handbook, to reflect the changes in tr

since 1964. DA Pamphlet 27-22, Military Crim

Evidence (November 1973), a joint Army and 

pamphlet, updates the development in the law of crim

since the earlier edition of the handbook on evidenc

Pamphlet 27-174, Military Justice-Jurisdiction of 

(November 1973), is designed as a ready referen

lawyers in the area of Jurisdiction and updates the 

version. Finally, a Department of the Army pamp

What's It All About?-The Special Court-Martial, w

This pamphlet, being published in comic book form

to attract a wider range of personnel and to illustra

court-martial process in a manner easily unders

serviceman. 

d. Army Regulation 27-10, the military justice re

revised during 1973 to increase greatly the proc
imposed in a fashion to require the accused to w

either in his unit, or in the Correctional Custody Fa

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS AND U.S

JUDICIARY ACTIVITIES. 


a. A statistical summary of court-martial activiti

follows: 

The number of persons tried by courts-martial f

1973 (average Army strength, 852,098) follows: 

Convicted Acquitt

General __________________________ 1,493 128 

Special (W/BCD's) ______________ _ 900 42 

Special (W/0 BCD's) _____________ 11,902 1,007 

Summary ________________________ _ 6,627 699 

TOTAL ___________________ _ 20,922 1,876 

Records of trial by general and special (BCD) c

received by The Judge Advocate General during fisca

For review under Articles 66 (General) ___________________

For review under Article 66 (Specials W /BCD's) __________

For examination under Article 69 ________________________

TOTAL ___________________________ ..,_____________

, Workloads of the Army Court of Military Revie

same period: 

On hand at the beginning of period ______________________ 

General Courts-MartiaL_____________________________ 

Special Courts-Martial (BCD) ______________________ 

Referred for review _____________________________________ 

General Courts-Martial _____________________________ 

Special Courts-Martial (BCD) ______________________ 

TOTAL _________________________________________ 

18 
accused involved. Because of cases in which more than one indiv

figures in this section will be less than those in the other sections. 2 This figure includes 24 cases which were referred to the Army 

Review pursuant to Article 69, Uniform Code of Military Justice

after rehearing; and 67 cases referred for reconsideration. 

Actions taken during 1 July 72 thru 30 June 73 b

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 & sentence affirmed in part, disapproved in part _

Findings & sentence disapproved, rehearing ordered ______

Findings & sentence disapproved, charges dismissed ______

Returned to field for New SJA & C/A action ______________

Proceedings abated, death of accused _____________________

TOTAL _________________________________________

Of 2,594 accused whose cases were reviewed by 

Military Review pursuant to Article 66 during th

2,006 (77.3 %) requested representation by app

counsel. 

The records in the cases of 975 accused were for

United States Court of Military Appeals pursuan

subdivisions of Article 67 (b) during FY 73. Th

37.6% of the number of these cases reviewed by 

Military Review during the period. Of the mention

957 were forwarded on petition of accused and 18 

by TJAG. 
Applications for relief, Article 69: Pending 1 July 72 ________________________________________

Received ____________________________________________

Disposed of __________________________________________

Granted _________________________________________

Denied __________________________________________

Field (action by SJA) ____________________________

No Jurisdiction __________________________________

Withdrawn ______________________________________

Pending 1 July 73 ________________________________________

b. A review of the statistics discloses a decrease 

of courts-martial during fiscal year 1973. When com

fiscal year 72, general courts-martial were down 2

courts-martial were down 17 ro, and summary co

down 44%. Overall, the decrease amounted to 28%

strength of the Army only decreased 14ro. 

c. During fiscal year 73, there were 190,272 nonjud

ments, or approximately eight times the total numb

martial (general, special, and summary). In fiscal 

there were 217,245 nonjudicial punishments recorded

total represented a reduction of 12 % from 1972. 

d. The U.S. Army Judiciary was reorganized as a 

U.S. Army Legal Services Agency in March 1973. It

military personnel strength was increased to 175 off

rant officer, and 4 enlisted personnel; however, 2

enlisted personnel, and 12 of the 62 civilians that wer

in fiscal year 73 are assigned to the Contract Appe

of the Agency, and have no functions related to the 

Judiciary and its courts-martial mission. 

THE EXPANDED LEGAL ASSISTANCE PROGRA

The outstanding accomplishments of the Pilot Leg

Program have led to its incorporation into the tradi

Assistance Program, and to its continuation on a perm

20 
the Armed Forces that most commanders felt there 

for Army lawyers to go into civil courts to represe

of their commands. 

The availability of legal representation in civilia

aid servicemen in their financial and legal difficulties s

as an effective preventive law device and reduce c

activity. 

COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UNIFORM 

MILITARY JUSTICE (10 USC 938) 

Procedures. 

Article 138, Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 

as implemented by Army regulations, provides that a

of the Army who feels that he has been wronged by his 

may complain of that wrong to the commander conce

commander declines to provide redress, the complaina

submit a formal complaint to the general court-martia

authority over the commander who denied redress. 

Upon receipt of the complaint, the general court-m

vening authority must investigate the complaint or 

informal inquiry into the complaint. Following the i

or inquiry, he must act on the complaint by (a) granti

ing the redress requested; (b) returning the compl

it is a complaint which is not cognizable under the p

Article 138; (c) forward the complaint to an autho

of granting redress, if he cannot grant the requested r

advise the complainant of more proper means to seek th

redress, if there are other channels for such actions; o

complaint is already under consideration in other chan

the complainant of this. 

Following his action on the complaint, the general c

convening authority must forward the complaint to 

Advocate General for his personal review on behalf o

tary of the Army. 
The complaint was returned for procedural reasons with leave to resubmit _______________________________ 1

The complaint was moot when received _________________ 

The foregoing statistics do not take into account th

which the member withdrew his complaint prior to a

officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction

do not account for the unknown number of inst

soldiers have requested (formally or informally) r

their commanders and the commanders, being app

situation, have granted relief. In such instances, 

would have no basis or reason for submitting an Arti

plaint. Most legitimate complaints are resolved in thi

EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

The Judge Advocate General's School, US Army, 

expand its educational activities on behalf of militar

calendar year 1973, providing resident instruction 

2,000 students and conferees. 

Courses of Instruction. 

In June 1973, the Judge Advocate Officer Advan

approved by the American Bar Association, graduate

class to date (42 officers, including 34 Army, 1 Navy, 

judge advocates, and allied officers from Pakistan, I

Philippines). A Marine Corps graduate was permane

to the School's faculty as an intructor and United S

Corps Representative. Forty-one of the Advanced C

presented by the students were accepted by the facu

nine are being published in various legal journals. 

curriculum, consisting of 22 semester hours of core 

6 semester hours of electives (from a total of 16 ho

proved successful and was continued for the 22d Jud

Officer Advanced Course which began in August 19

Some 290 newly-commissioned Army judge advoc

one of the four 8-week Judge Advocate Officer Basic 

22 
and reserve forces judge advocates included a qualific

for military judges and courses in criminal trial advo

nal law administration, procurement law, interna

overseas judge advocate operations, claims, militar

law, legal assistance, command legal problems, lit

environmental law, civilian employee law, and a semin

ing the judge advocate role in Army race relations. 

courses were attended by 289 active Army judge adv

Army Reserve and Army National Guard judge ad

judge advocates in other services, and 158 Governm

attorneys (approximately one-third of whom represent

other than the Department of Defense). In addition, 

was the site of the annual world-wide Judge Advoca

Conference, the Second Annual National Guard Judg

Conference, the Fourth Annual USAR Judge Advoc

ence, and a conference of instructors teaching law 

other service schools. 

Annual training of the USAR general court-martial 

Judge Advocate General Service Organization brough

and 117 enlisted men to the School in June 1973. 

At the year's end, 1,753 students were enrolled in 

7 separate correspondence courses, and 18,320 copie

pondence course lessons had been provided to other A

schools for use in their own courses. The School also 

structor and student material in support of active du

phases for education of judge advocate reserves enroll

Schools and (with support of U.S. Army Command a

Staff College) for officers attending the Judge Advoc

Component Command and Staff Course. 

In 1973, The Judge Advocate General's School co

9th through 13th Senior Officer Legal Orientations for 

and brigade commanders. One of the courses was 

especially for reserve component commanders and an

elective for US Army War College students headed fo
Major Projects. 

Incident to reorganization of the Army in 1973

Advocate General's School was assigned major ne

Principal among these was that of enhancing the 

readiness of reserve component units and personnel 

technical training and assistance to judge advocates a

stations (Army Reserve centers and National Guar

during the inactive duty phase of their training pro

October through December 1973, the School's facu

collectively presented instruction on 67 occasions to 

component judge advocates in 53 cities. Following u

grams of instruction-related where practicable to 

training of the host unit-this "on-site" training in c

claims, legal assistance, procurement law, and inter

has improved the capability of unit and nonunit r

advocates for immediate delivery of legal services 

upon mobilization. Equally, it is enhancing their 

expanding legal services in the Army during peace

viding practical assistance to Army judge advocate o

forming on-the-job reserve training in those office

of the program has expanded, for the JAGC reserv

officer strength increased from 1,843 on 1 January 

on 31 December 1973. 

In October 1973, the faculty began teaching mil

courses at the Defense Race Relations Institute at 

Force Base, Florida. The School also provided mil

struction at certain Army service schools to which 

judge advocate instructor is assigned. 

Faculty members continued their participation 

Section on Legal Education and Admissions to t

Association of American Law Schools, and the A

Continuing Legal Education Administrators. Also, 

bers-as well as other judge advocates-attended 

24 
provides rapid dissemination of digests of recent cases 

to judge advocates). Besides school texts produced pri

resident and nonresident instruction, the School autho

texts for Army-wide use, including the following: a 

for Special Court-Martial Convening Authorities, a L

for Commanders, legal professional texts on military a

tive law and claims, a training circular entitled "Your 

Combat under the Law of War," and an ROTC Manu

"Fundamentals of Military Law." 

During 1973, faculty members provided technical 

for three training films prepared for distribution throu

Armed Forces. They included the following: Uniform 

Military Justice, Part I (Pretrial, Trial, and Post-

cedures); The Civilian and the Geneva Convention; 

judicial Punishment under Article 15. 

On 12 April 1973, while the School's Board of Visit

session, ground was broken for a new JAG Schoo

being constructed by the University of Virginia adja

new law school building (also under construction). C

is expected during academic year 1974-1975. Prope

and funded, the new building can provide a military leg

center, improved resident legal education through the 

use of seminar rooms, moot courtrooms, and educational 

ties. The new building will also reduce the cost of tempo

through increased availability of Government bill

messing facilities for students. 

PERSONNEL 

The average strength of the Judge Advocate Gene

was 1,554 officers, compared with an average of 1,63

and 1,740 officers in 1971. It is anticipated that the 

strength of the Corps will now stabilize for the foreseea

at approximately 1,545 officer-lawyers. The certificati
The retention of experienced officers still remain

ous problem. On 31 December 1973, the Corps w

52% of authorized field grade officers. The Corps wa

of authorized majors and 50% of authorized lieute

However, in this area again, the picture is bright

tion rate of newly commissioned officers has increa

the new acquisitions are prior service personnel wh

ing to active duty after completion of law schoo

officers bring with them a wealth of experience in 

an appreciation of military life. Most of these office

ing for a career in The Judge Advocate General's 

tionally, Congress has approved legislation to perm

to attend law school at Government expense each y

ing with the 1974-1975 school year. This program, 

the excess.leave program, will provide The Judge A

eral's Corps with career officers who have extensiv

ence. 

A program has been approved to train a limit

enlisted personnel at civilian institutions in steno

porting. The training will consist of a one year cou

tion beginning in fiscal year 1975. Tuition wil

Department of the Army and students will receive 

allowances during the course of instruction. 

GEORGE S. PRUGH 

Major General, 

The Judge Advoc

United States Ar

26 
Following the practice in recent years of having 

Committee Report reach the Armed Services Commit

gress shortly after the convening of each new session, 

although embracing calendar year 1973, contains, un

wise indicated, statistical information covering fiscal 

SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF M

JUSTICE. Complying with the requirements of ar

Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Judge Advoca

the Deputy Judge Advocate General, and the Assis

Advocate General (Military Law) continued to visit 

within the United States, Europe and the Far East in 

vision of the administration of military justice. 

COURT-MARTIAL WORKLOAD. a. There has b

crease in the total court-martial workload, as reflected 

A attached to this report. 

b. During fiscal year 1973, the Navy Court of Milit

received for review 674 general courts-martial and 2,

courts-martial (total 2,678) as compared with 718 gen

martial and 1,993 special courts-martial (total 2,711) d

year 1972. Of the 2,678 cases received by the Nav

Military Review, 1,615 accused requested counsel (60 

U. S. NAVY-MARINE CORPS JUDICIARY ACT

The U. S. Navy-Marine Corps Judiciary Activity suppli

judges for 726 general courts-martial during calendar 

a decrease of 213 cases from the 939 general courts-m

during calendar year 1972. In 1973, 63 percent wer

courts constituted with military judge alone. In cal

1972, 66 percent of the general courts-martial were trie

constituted with military judge alone. 

b. The present manning level of the U. S. Navy-Ma

Judiciary Activity stands at 18 general courts-marti

judges, a decrease of one from the manning level at t

calendar year 1972. 
percent by military judge alone tried by the special 

military judges attached to the Judiciary Activit

year 1972. 

e. The general court-martial judges of the Navy-

Judiciary Activity tried 989 special courts-martial 

dar year 1973. Thus, in 1973, 1,853 Navy and 

special courts-martial were tried by full-time m

assigned to the Navy-Marine Corps Judiciary Activ

f. The proposed revision of SECNAVINST 58

was designed to expand the Navy-Marine Corps Jud

to include special court-martial military judges, rec

currence of the Chief of Naval Operations and the C

Personnel during the course of review in calendar y

Commandant of the Marine Corps, however, has no

the concept and the matter is now awaiting reso

Secretary of the Navy. 

g. Military judges of the Navy-Marine Corps Ju

ity attended a variety of professional meetings 

during calendar year 1973. Eight general court-m

special court-martial military judges attended 

Judicial Conference and Sentencing Seminar spo

Army at Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, Texas, 9

One general court-martial military judge attende

Meeting of the American Bar Association at Wash

in August 1973. Four general court-martial m

attended the Navy JAG Conference at Washington

September 1973. Two general court-martial milita

tended the Conference for District Court Judges a

Judicial Center, Washington, D. C. 1-4 October 19

ties for contact with their civilian counterparts h

give military judges increased incentive for profess

ment and an increased appreciation of the impor

function in the military community. The Judge Adv

of the Navy will continue to encourage efforts de

28 
a decrease in the number of petitions for relief subm

suant to Article 69, Uniform Code of Military Justic

sion which permits the Judge Advocate General to ac

cases that have been finally reviewed under Article 7

dar year 1973, 69 petitions for relief were received by 

Advocate General, as opposed to 80 petitions received 

year 1972. Of these 69 petitions, 5 were granted in wh

NEW TRIAL PETITIONS. In calendar year 1973, 

tions for new trial were submitted pursuant to Article 7

Code of Military Justice. Of these eight petitions, fou

cases which were before either the U. S. Court of Milita

or the Navy Court of Military Review for review. I

stances, the petitions for new trial were forwarded to 

priate appellate court for action. The remaining pet

denied. 

PRISONERS OF WAR. During the past calenda

Office of the Judge Advocate General was called upon 

legal advice to the Secretary of the Navy concerni

brought against former prisoners of war for alleged 

while in captivity. 

NAVAL JUSTICE SCHOOL. a. The Naval Just

continued to offer intensive instruction in the principles 

justice and related administrative matters. During 1973

Justice School presented formal courses of instruction o

ciples of military law and related administrative matte

officers and enlisted personnel of the Armed Forces

Navy personnel ranging in grade from seaman appren

admiral. Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard officers 

1,264 received instruction designed for officers serving 

of command. This instruction was presented at eleve

Navy and Marine Corps bases throughout the contine

States, as well as at the Naval Justice School. Thre

twenty-one Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard jun

were trained to perform the duties of nonlawyer uni
law as search and seizure, right to counsel, and 

proceedings to 4,926 officers at other Navy school

Rhode Island, and New London, Connecticut. 

ANNUAL JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL

ENCE. a. A conference of judge advocates from a

and Marine Corps commands was held in Washing

23-28 September 1973. The conference heard add

Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval Operati

mandant of the Marine Corps, the Judge Advocat

Director, Judge Advocate Division, Headquarters, 

and the Director, Naval Reserve Law Companies. T

also included presentations regarding trends in lit

Navy, the expanding role of women in the Navy, 

JAG Manual provisions dealing with Article 138, 

of Military Justice, complaints, legal assistance ma

ments in military law, and the practice and procedu

Physical Evaluation Board. In addition to these 

seminars were held on military justice matters, 

law matters, administrative discharge procedures, 

law developments, career planning and personnel 

the challenges facing trial counsel, defense counsel

judges, to mention just a few. 

b. This annual conference of judge advocates h

demonstrated the tremendous benefit which can be 

.judge advocates from all over the world have the 

meet and discuss new developments in military jus

the opportunity to participate in seminars concernin

areas which have arisen during the past year. The 

ence, in keeping with its theme, the "Changing Ro

in the Navy and Marine Corps in the Mid-1970s,

efforts on informing judge advocates in the field of 

place in the way of change in the military-justice 

present time and of what can be expected in futur

are now underway for a similar conference in 1974

30 
peals for review in calendar year 1973. 

CIVIL LITIGATION. During calendar year 1973, 

Advocate General provided assistance to the Justice D

in several civil litigation cases that had potential imp

military-justice system. Some of the cases and issues in

set forth below: 

a. Warner v. Flemings-issue involved the question 

troactive application of the decision in O'Callahan v. P

25 June 1973, the Supreme Court held that O'Callaha

to be afforded retroactive application. 

b. Avrech v. Secretary of the Navy-issue involve

stitutionality of Article 134, Uniform Code of Milita

The United States Court of Appeals for the District o

Circuit held Article 134 to be unconstitutionally vague i

of the fifth amendment. The case is currently on app

United States Supreme Court. 

c. Daigle and Crosby v. Warner-issue involved th

of whether the Supreme Court decision in Argersinger 

applied to the military summary court-martial. The Un

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, on 24 October 

that Argersinger and its interpretation of the right 

under the sixth amendment was inapplicable to the 

justice system. However, the court held that there 

process right to assistance of counsel at a summary co

where confinement was awarded pursuant to the rule 

in Gagnon v. Scarpelli. The Navy is currently urging t

ment of Justice to petition the United States Supreme 

certiorari. 

d. Henry et al v. Warner-issue involved (1) the ap

of Argersinger to the summary court-martial; and (2) t

ity of a Federal district court to extend relief in the 

mandamus and of habeas corpus beyond its geograp

fines. The case is currently awaiting presentation of 
smaller than battalion size authority to convene 

martial. On 28 September 1973, the United States 

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted 

ment's motion for summary judgment and held t

was not to be afforded retroactive application b

civil courts. Plaintiff's counsel is currently appe

cision to the United States Court of Appeals f

Circuit. 

g. Stahl v. Warner presented the issue whether 

tary defense counsel at trial by court-martial mus

mitted to represent the accused in Federal distri

collateral attack of court-martial proceedings. On 8 

the United States District Court for the Northern D

nois denied plaintiff's motion for preliminary i

declaratory relief. 

h. Jones v. Domina presented the issue of the co

of Article 134, where it is used to proscribe trans

The case is currently pending before the United S

Court for the District of Maine. 

i. McCahill v. Eason presented the issues conce

constitutionality of Article 134 and (2) the habea

diction of District Court in a situation where the a

has court-martial charges pending against him, bu

form of pretrial restraint. On 12 June 1973, the 

District Court for the Northern District of Florid

possessed habeas jurisdiction under such circumsta

that Article 134 was unconstitutionally vague. Th

rently awaiting decision on appeal to the United S

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. 

j. Priest v. Secretary of the Navy presented th

constitutionality of Article 134, Uniform Code of M

The case is currently pending before United States 

for the Ditrict of Columbia and has been stayed pe

come of Secretary of the Navy v. Avrech at the Su

32 
District of Columbia denied plaintiffs motion for p

injunction and dismissed the action for failure to exh

military remedies. The case is presently pending app

the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 

Circuit. 

m. Holder et al v. Richardson presented the same is

in Mascavage. On 21 June 1973, the United States Dis

for the District of Columbia granted plaintiff's motion 

tive relief and held that his offenses were not service 

within the meaning of O'Callahan. The Government ha

that ruling, and the case is presently pending before th

of Columbia Circuit where it has been joined with Ma

Richardson and Rainville v. Lee. 

n. Rainville v. Lee presented the same issue as tha

cavage and Holder. On 27 June 1973, the United Stat

Court for the District of Columbia denied plaintiff's m

injunctive relief and dismissed the case for failure 

intramilitary remedies. Plaintiff has appealed that rul

District of Columbia Circuit, and the case has been co

with the Mascavage and Holder cases. 

o. Herrin v. Richardson presented the issue of wheth

off-duty use and possession of marijuana was service 

within the meaning of O'Callahan v. Parker. On 17 Oct

the United States District Court for the Eastern Distr

ginia denied plaintiff's motion for injunctive and d

relief and held that his offenses were triable by court-

p. Gnip v. Kizer presented the issue of whether of

duty, out-of-uniform possession and sale of marijuana 

ice connected, where sale was to fellow serviceman 

undercover agent for CID. After hearings at both t

States District Court for the Eastern District of Virgi

the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circ

tiff's action was dismissed for failure to exhaust int

remedies. Plaintiff then sought extraordinary relief at t
constitutionality of Article 134 where it is used to 

offense of aggravated assault; and (2) whether the 

of the convening authority in the military-justice 

tutes denial of due process. The case is currently p

the United States Court of Claims. 

In addition to the above-mentioned cases, there are 

six other cases pending before the United States C

and various other United States District Courts 

issues that are virtually identical to those enum

The Judge Advocate General is also providing as

Justice Department in the litigation of those cases

THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE TASK FOR

ADMINISTRATION OF MILITARY JUSTICE IN 

FORCES. As a result of the recommendations of th

of Defense Task Force on the Administration of M

in the Armed Forces, the Secretary of Defense, o

1973, directed, among other things, that the Secr

various military departments submit plans for revi

ture of their judge advocate organizations to place 

sel under the authority of the respective Judge A

eral, and in the case of the Marine Corps under 

Judge Advocate Division, as well as the impl

revised procedures for nonjudicial punishment. 

In response to this directive, the Secretary of t

mulgated ALNAV 41 on 4 May 1973 which set fo

·lines promulgated by the Secretary of Defense 

randum of 11 January 1973, with the exception of 

relating to automatic staying of nonjudicial punish

appeals. With respect to this provision, the Secretar

submitted a reclama pointing out that such provi

contrary to law and the manifest congressional in

Two significant changes are noted: 

(1) 	The proceeding will be open to the public 

wise requested by the accused or woul

34 
Present Navy law centers will be established as sep

ponent field activities of this new command, responsib

to the Judge Advocate General and retitled Naval Le

Offices. Under this reorganization, trial counsel as well 

counsel will come under the authority of the Judge 

General and, thus, be independent of the convening 

MERLIN H. STARING 

Rear Admiral, USN 

The Judge Advocate 

United States Navy 
------------------------

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

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

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

Total 10,239 

Summary courts-martial 

Rec'd for review under Art 65c _______ 0 

Reviewed in the field ______________ 11,322 

Total 11,322 

Total all courts-martial ____________ 22,349 

Navy Court of Military Review actions 

On hand for review end last FY ____ 187 

Rec'd for review during FY ________ 2,678 

Total on hand ________________ 2,865 

Reviewed during FY ______________ 2,615 

Pending review and current FY ___ 250 

Total 2,865 

Findings modified or set aside by Navy 

Court of Military Review during FY 115 

Requests for appellate 

counsel before NCMR _____________ 1,615 

U. S. Court of Military Appeals actions 

Petitions forwarded to USCMA ____ 376 

Cases certified to USCMA by JAG __ 6 

Total cases docketed 

with USCMA 382 

Petitions granted by USCMA ______ 51 

Petitions denied by USCMA ________ 311 

Total petitions acted 

upon by USCMA ____________ 362 

36 
1. Major General Harold R. Vague, Assistant Judge 

General, was named The Judge Advocate General on 

1973, vice Major General James S. Cheney, who retired. 

General Walter D. Reed, Director of Civil Law, was n

Assistant Judge Advocate General. Generals Cheney a

made staff visits to legal offices in the United States and 

as required by the Uniform Code of Military Justic

6(a). They also attended and participated in various 

ciation meetings, and addressed numerous civic, profess

military organizations. Major General Cheney participa

Annual Code Committee Meeting held in Washington

February 22, 1973, per Article 67 (g), Uniform Code o

Justice. The Judge Advocate General hosted a world-w

command and general court-martial convening autho

Judge Advocates' Conference at Andrews AFB, MD, i

1973. General Vague, Lt. Colonel Teagarden, TJAG 

and CMSgt Miller, Airman Advisor to TJAG, att

USAFE Judge Advocate Conference from 30 Octo

November 1973. 

A further expansion of the Air Force Trial JUdicia

mentioned in the 1972 Report in the form of a program 

for a complete defense counsel service at base level has 

pared and submitted to the Department of Defense. 

envisions an office and administrative support for the ba

counsel separate and apart from the office of the Base S

Advocate, both from a physical and supervisory s

Overall supervision and management of the program wo

responsibility of the Chief, Appellate Defense Division

Project of the program will be initiated within the Fir

USAF Trial Judiciary (northeastern part of the Unite

on January 1, 1974, and it is presently anticipated that 

implemented world-wide by July 1, 1974. 

On Ap~il 25, 1973 the Director of Data Automatio
Report will automatically be prepared from the co

base, eliminating the need for the present manua

Court-Martial and Article 15 Activities Report. Ea

list of cases in progress containing information on 

each court-martial jurisdiction will be automatica

and furnished to the jurisdiction concerned. The de~

ing, which is being accomplished by the Air Force D

Design Center, is scheduled to be completed in time t

system for world-wide implementation in July of 19

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

Judge Advocate General, for review pursuant to Artic

examination pursuant to Article 69, during fiscal y

shown in the following table: 

Total number records received _____________________________

For review under Article 66 _______________________________

General Court-Martial records ________________________

Special Court-Martial records _________________________

Examined under Article 69 ________________________________

Acquittals under Article 61 ______________________________

The Court of Military Review modified the find

sentence in 42 cases. 

b. The workload of the Court of Military Review wa

Cases on hand 30 June 1972 _______________________________

Cases referred for review ________________________________

Total for review _____________________________________

Cases reviewed and dispatched ____________________________

Cases on hand 30 June 1973 _______________________________

c. During the fiscal year 77.9% of the accused, 

were referred for review under Article 66, requested 

tion by Appellate Defense Counsel before the Cour

Review. 

d. The following table shows the number of case

to the United States Court of Military Appeals pur

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

granted during the period: 

38 
Special Courts-Martial ____________________________________

Summary Courts-Martial ___________________________________

Total ______________________________________________

3. Reportable Article 15 Actions, FY 1973: 

PERCENTAGE 

NUMBER O

TOTAL CASES 35,845 O£6cers _________________________________ _ 167 

Airmen _________________________________ _ 35,678 

PUNISHMENTS IMPOSED 

O£6cers ___________________________________ 270 


Airmen __________________________________ 55,532 


Restrictions (over 14 days)
 O£6cers _______________________ .__________ _ 11 

Airmen _________________________________ _ 2,985 

Quarters Arrest/Correctional Custody O£6cers __________________________________ _ 1 

Airmen _________________________________ _ 2,288 

Extra Duties (over 14 days) Airmen _________________________________ _ 1,511 

Reduction in Grade Airmen __________________________________ _ 23,238 

Forfeiture of Pay O£6cers _________________________________ _ 146 

Airmen _________________________________ _ 25,135 

Detention of Pay O£6cers _________________________________ _ o 

Airmen _________________________________ _ 51 

Written Reprimand O£6cers _________________________________ _ 112 

Airmen __________________________________ 324 

MITIGATING ACTIONS Appeals Taken _____________________________ _ 2,317 Officers __________________________________ 25 Airmen _________________________________ _ 2,292 Appeals Denied ____________________________ _ 1,832 Officers __________________________________ 21 Airmen' _________________________________ _ 1,811 
regulations and manuals related to military justi

current, new and revised editions of AFM 111-1, M

Guide and AFM 111-3, Court-Martial and Article 

Report were published and distributed to the field d

addition, a complete revision of AFR 111-9, Nonju

ment Under Article 15, UCMJ, incorporating seve

procedural changes has been drafted for publication 

5. The Air Force Judge Advocate General's Depa

as agent for all the Armed Services, contracted with 

law book publisher to publish, beginning 1 July 197

Opinions of the United States Court of Military Ap

United States Courts of Military Review. Prior to 

Advance Opinions had been published only for the 

Court of Military Appeals. In view of the fact 

Opinions for the Courts of Military Review are n

digests of such opinions are no longer printed in 

porter, a monthly publication by this Departmen

cumulative index to the Advance Opinions of the Co

Appeals and all the Courts of Military Review is n

the Reporter. The AFJAG Law Review printed, in 

year, four articles dealing with various aspects of t

tion of military justice, including searches conduc

individuals and the procedural safeguards in milit

ing effective assistance by defense counsel. In Sep

. special issue 	of the Law Review was published in 

25th anniversary of the Air Force Judge Advo

Department. 

6. During calendar year 1973 The Judge Advo

Department provided continuing legal and gene

opportunities to 688 of its personnel. The basic c

judge advocates is the Judge Advocate Staff Offic

at the Air University, Maxwell AFB, Alabama. 

course was conducted five times during 1973 and 19

cates completed it. During the year 19 judge advoc

40 
completed this course during 1973 in the two courses 

Force judge advocate officers also attended the Bas

Course for logistic officers conducted by the Army JA

Charlottesville, Virginia. In 1973, ten officers attended 

and 15 additional officers attended the Army Advanc

ment Law Course. In 1973, 25 officers attended th

course for prosecuting attorneys and 25 additional 

tended the equal length course for defense attorneys he

western University. One of our senior military 

enrolled in the course for judges sponsored by the Nati

of State Trial Judges. This is a six-week course held 

versity of Nevada in Reno, Nevada. Judge advocates 

attendance at the various short courses offered by th

in fields such as labor management relations. 

During the year five judge advocates attended th

and Staff College and three the Air War College. 

attended the Armed Forces Staff College and one s

advocate attended the Industrial College of the Arm

Next year one student is scheduled to attend the N

College. Air Force lawyers attend the Squadron Of

but this assignment is by command selection and 

Judge Advocate General. Attendance at this course is 

by the Department. The course for newly appointed 

Advocates which was established in 1971 trained 37 o

in 1973 prior to their assignment as a base Staff Judg

Two classes were conducted for Reserve and Air Nat

judge advocates during the year. This two-week refr

graduated 62 students in 1973. A 13-week forens

course is conducted as required at Malcolm Grow H

drews AFB, Maryland. Graduates of this course are 

forensic medicine consultants to area hospital comm

lawyers completed this course of instruction. In 1973, 

ous years, selected Air Force officers participate in 

Leave Program to obtain their legal education. A 
various other short courses pertaining to law and 

ducted by civilian universities and the armed force

7. On 30 June 1973, there were 1214 judge advoc

Of these 600 were Regular Air Force. The Depa

grade manning continued to decline in 1973. As of 

318 of the Department's field grade authorizations 

by captains. The Department is authorized 126 colo

tenant colonels, 350 majors, and 481 captains. Th

has assigned 103 colonels (23 short), 119 lieutenant 

short), 187 majors (163 short), and 797 captain

These figures reveal a 43 percent shortage of exp

grade judge advocates. 

8. At the close of the period of this report, there 

mands exercising general court-martial jurisdiction

HAROLD R. VAGU

Major General, U

The Judge Advoc

United States Ai

42 
The following is the annual r~port of the General 

the Department of Transportation submitted pursuan

67 (g) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Unless 

noted, the figures given are for the fiscal year beginn

1972, and ending June 30, 1973. 

The table below shows the number of court-mart

received and filed at Coast Guard Headquarters durin

year and the four preceding years. 

1973 1972 1971 

General courts-martial ____________ 5 6 2 

Special courts-martial -.----------­ 206 167 129 

Summary courts-martial __________ 307 338 287 

Total --------------------- 518 511 418 

Even though the total number of courts-martial are o

ly higher than in the previous year, special courts-mart

a marked increase. Nearly all of the increase in spec

martial can be attributed to the increased availability 

In spite of the increase, all special courts-martial h

for defense counsel and non-lawyer trial counsel were 

three times. A military judge was assigned in all of the 

was noted in the last report submitted, a full-time ju

special courts-martial has not been established in the Co

The needs for military judges necessary for special cou

are met by use of the two full-time general court-mar

when available and by the use of military lawyers a

other full-time duties. Control over the detail of judges 

exercised, and nearly all requirements have been filled 

fashion. In 164 of the special courts-martial, trial was b

judge with members, none of which included enlisted 

In the remaining 42 cases, the defendant elected to b

military judge alone. 
_________________________________________

mum confinement of six months was imposed as a 

only 14 times, three when trial was by military judg

Of the 193 cases with approved sentences, 121 se

affirmed on review without modification. Seventy-tw

gated in some form. In 116 cases, there were guilty 

of the charges and specifications. Fifty-five of these 

trial agreements. 

The following table shows the distribution of the 

tions tried in 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 __________________________

False representation or official statement __________________

Larceny or wrongful appropriations _______________________

Breaking restriction _____________________________________

Offenses against Coast Guard property __ __________________

Provoking words or threats ______________________________

~eglect of duty 

Sleeping on post ________________________________________

Cheating on advancement examination _____________________

Mutiny _________________________________________________

Other Offenses __________________________________________

The Coast Guard Court of Military Review h

docketed with it during the fiscal year. Of the 14 ca

decided during the fiscal year, 7 were affirmed with

tion and the findings or sentence were modified in 

petitions were submitted to the Court of Military A

grant of review, one petition was granted. 

44 
-{:( u.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 197. 0-111