and Ihe 

JUDGE ADVOCATES GENER

of Ihe 


ARMED FORCES 


and Ihe 

GENERAL COUNSEL 

of the 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUST

For Ihe Period 


January I, 1969 10 December 31, 19

PROPERTY OF U.S. ARMY 

~HE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S S

LIBRARY 
SENATE AND OF THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

and 10 Ihe 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 


AND SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTA

and Ihe 


SECRETARIES OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF 

ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORCE 


PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 

For Ihe Period 


January I, 1969 10 December 31, 1969 
JOINT REPORT OF THE U.S. COURT OF MILITARY APPE

JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL OF THE ARMED FOR

GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRA

REPORT OF THE U.S. COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE A

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE N

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE A

REPORT OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMEN

PORTATION (U.S. COAST GUARD) 
u.s. COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS 

and the 

JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL 


OF THE ARMED FORCES 


and the 

GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE 


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

January 1, 1969 to December 31, 19

The following is the 18th annual report of the commit

article 67 (g) of the Uniform Code of Military Justic

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

Appeals, the Judge Advocates General of the Armed Fo

General Counsel of the Department of Transportation 

nually to survey the operations of the code and to prepa

the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and of 

Representatives, to the Secretary of Defense, and the 

Transportation, and to the Secretaries of the Army, N

Force with regard to the status of military justice and th

means by which it can be improved by legislative enactme

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

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

and the General Counsel of the Department of Transport

after referred to as the Code Committee, have met and 

the call of the chief judge during the period of this repo

ferences included a full consideration of legislative amen
y 

and to grant a new trial upon petition of the accused 

martial case. Consideration has been given to recomme

tion which would permit these actions to be accomplished 

Judge Advocate General or his flag, or general off

The volume of work generated by these amendments is 

the personal consideration of each Judge Advocate Gene

ing action by either the Judge Advocate General or his fl

officer designee would permit these applications for rel

sidered and resolved more rapidly. 

The committee noted that bills governing the issuance o

tive discharges have been reintroduced in both houses 

s. 1266 and lI.R. 943, 91st Congress. The Code Committe

recommend enactment of legislation that would establ

statutory standards for the issuance of administrative d

that would correct some of the abuses that have occurre

A majority of the court and the other members of the Co

oppose the review by the Court of Military Appeals of a

discharges under other than honorable conditions. Such a 

hardly be accomplished by the court ,vithout enlargin

staff and interfering with its efficient administration 

justice. 

The sectional reports of the court and of the indiv

outline the volume of court-martial cases subject to app

during the reporting period. Exhibit A is attached to re

number of court-martial cases of all types tried through

the number of such cases which are reviewed by Cour

2 
KENNETH J. HODSON, 

The Judge Advocate 

u

JOSEPH B. McDEVITT, 

The Judge Advocate 

U

JAMES S. CHENEY, 

The Judge Ad1)ocate 

U.S. 

JAMES A. WASHINGTON

Gene1'al, Oounsel, 

Department o/Trans
OourtMartial Oase.~ 

Army ______________________________________________________

Navy ______________________________________________________

Air Force ___________________________________________________

Coast Guard ________________________________________________

Total ________________________________________________

Oases Reviewed by the COllrt.~ of Military Review 

Army ______________________________________________________

Navy ______________________________________________________

Air Force ___________________________________________________

Coast Guard ________________________________________________

Total 

Cases Docketed with. U.s. Court of Military Appea

Army ______________________________________________________

Navy ______________________________________________________

Air Force___________________________________________________

Coast Guard________________________________________________

Total ________________________________________________

4 
In compliance with the provisions of the Uniform Co

Justice, Article 67 (g), 10 U.S.C. 867 (g), the chief judg

judges of the U.S. Court of Military Appeals herewit

report on military justice matters to the Committees on 

ices of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives

of Defense, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Se

Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. 

NOMINATION AND CONFIRMATION OF 

JUDGE WILLIAM H. DARDEN 


On January 9, 1969, President Lyndon B. Johnson fo

U.S. Senate the nomination of Judge 'Villi am H. Dard

to be a member of the U.S. Court of Military Appe

mainder of the term of the late Judge Paul J. Kilda

May 1, 1976. The Committee on Armed Services of th

unanimously reported approval of the nomination o

1969. Without objection, the nomination was confirme

Senate on the same date. Judge Darden had been serv

since November 13,1968, under a recess appointment. 

CASES DOCKETED 

During fiscal year 1969, there were docketed 1,010 cas

of 59 cases over fiscal year 1968. Certified cases forwarde

by the Judge Advocates General of the Armed Servic

compared with 18 in the previous fiscal year. For the e

tive year, no mandatory appeal involving a death se

general or flag officer was filed. The court granted 164 p

1,010 docketed, or 16.3 percent, and released 114 written 

in 47.3 percent of these cases, the court reversed the d

boards of review in whole or in part. 

The "miscellaneous docket" series, established for 

ing extraordinary relief outside of the regular appella
torneys: seven from the Republic of Vietnam; two fro

one from Israel; and one from Korea. 

ACTIVITIES OF JUDGES AND STAFF MEMBER

Chief Judge Quinn was invited and attended a Crim

Conference on January 17-18, 1969, sponsored by the 

Association in cooperation with the Sears Roebuck Fou

held in the Supreme Court of Rhode Island in Providen

ference, spearheaded by U.S. District Judge Raymond J

chairman, Federal Bar Association's Advisory Committee 

Law, and Chief Justice Thomas H. Roberts of the R

Supreme Court, brought together on common ground in 

crime the largest concentration of State Supreme Court Ju

judges, trial and appellate judges of the Federal judic

and military, attorneys general, chiefs of police, and me

bars of the New England States. 

Chief Judge Quinn was the keynote speaker on May 1

Ninth Annual celebration of Law Day at Fort Devens, w

and Northern Massachusetts law enforcement officials w

The chief judge told his audience that "we must dedic

to the rule of law today more than ever before." He added 

gangsters, and narcotic pushers are the scourge of our 

cited cases of riots and other disturbances in many citie

the country and the complete disrespect for authority. In 

he commented "We must either have a community of la

or we wiII have a community of chaos." 

Chief Judge Quinn's article entitled "Some OomparisO

Oourt8-Martial and Oivilian Practice," which appeared 

versity of California (UCLA) Law Review, volume 15

1968, was reproduced in the Military Law Review, 46 M

77-97 (1969) (DA Pam 27-100-46, 1 October 1969). 

In addition, the chief judge authored an article, "Mili

6 
On this occasion he was presented an honorary memb

Chapter by the Federal Bar Association President-e

Treusch. 

Judge Darden administered the (lath to the Chief 

George F. 'Westerman, JAGC, USA, and to the 11 ass

of the newly created U.S. Anny C(lurt of Military Revi

mony held in the courtroom of the U.S. Army Judiciary, 

1969, the effective date of the Military Justice Act of 1968. 

On that same date Judge Darden participated in the 

which Capt. Cecil R. Harrison, JAGC, USN, was swor

judge of the U.S. Navy Court of Military Review, a

associate judges, who thereupon assumed their respective 

highest members of the independent judiciary charg

solemn responsibility of administering justice among th

stitute the naval forces of our Nation. At the invitation of 

Harrison, Judge Darden made the following remarks: 

This is an auspicious date for those of us who are interested in 

responsibility for the administration of military justice. It mark

date of the Military Justice Act of 1968, another significant ste

tionary series of refinements and improvements in the system. 

Those of us who are proud of this system are distressed, of 

complimentary references to military justice in contempOrary dec

outside our system and by lingering doubts in the minds of som

the public that military justice has really changed. These doubts 

can't be dispelled by words alone, of course, but only throug

Those of us who know the extent of the protections available 

the armed forces today have reason to suspect that the contin

military justice and prejudice against it betray either 'a refusa

system as it exists today. instead of during an earlier period w

some abuses that are not tolerated now, or else a deep-seat

anything that is military in nature. None of us would contend 

exists, but we do have reason to ask that the critics take an up-

and make a current assessment of how we might do better. We 

disabuse the doubters of the impression that concepts of fairne

come as revealed truths only to those who have absolutely noth

378-095-70-2 
of you as you assume a new title. I know each of you will co

double his conscientious efforts to make military discipline ju

hope I can join you in contributing to such an objective. 

Chief Judge Quinn, Judge Ferguson, Judge D

Mr. Alfred C. Proulx, the clerk of the court, attended 

Military Law Committee dinner, District of Columbia 

tion, held at the Officer's Club, 'Walter Reed Army Me

'Vashington, D.C., on the evening of May 21,1969. 

At the invitation of the Judge Advocate General of the 

Judge Darden and Mr. Proulx were in attendance at th

Advocate General's Conference held at The Judge Ad

eral's School in Charlottesville, Va., during the period o

1969. The central theme of the conference was the Mil

Act of 1968, including the new Manual for Courts-Mar

which were effective August 1, 1969. 

Mr. Alfred C. Proulx, clerk of the court, as a represen

court, attended the annual meeting of the American Ba

held in Dallas, Tex., during the month of August 1969. In 

with the American Bar Association meeting, he participa

with the Judge Advocates General of the services, in the 

ing of the Judge Advocates Association, by reporting on 

the court's work. 

Mr. Proulx also attended the 1969 Navy Judge Advoc

Conference held in 'Vashington, D.C. during the pe

tober 14-17, 1969. The program covered many topics of g

est, with emphasis on the Military Justice Act of 1968, 

for Courts-Martial, 1969 (revised), the law centers, a

judges. 

Chief Commissioner Daniel F. Carney was invited to 

years past, regarding the operations and functions of the 

students of the 50th, 51st, 52d, 53d, and 54th Basic Classes 

Advocate General's School, Charlottesville, Va., on March 

8 
(1) Augenblick v. United States, 393 U.S. 348. Th

released on January 14, 1969 held that a court-martial 

final under the provisions of article 76, Uniform Code 

Justice (10 U.S.C. 876), may not be collaterally attacked 

courts except on a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The c

noted but did not decide that a defect of constitutional 

adversely affecting the accused may justify collateral att

(2) O'Oallahan v. Parker, 395 U.S. 258. This decis

down on June 2, 1969, declared that courts-martial have no 

of offenses cognizable by civil courts and having no mili

cance. It also bars trial of servicemen for crimes commi

civilians in the civil communities of the country by off-dut

(3) Noyd v. Bond, 395 U.S. 683. On June 16, 1969, th

nounced in the instant case that a U.S. Federal district co

have jurisdiction over the habeas corpus petition of a milit

who alleges unlawful confinement pending appeal, and w

petitioned the U.S. Court of Military Appeals for ha

relief. 

FOREIGN VISITORS 

Courtesy visits were made to the court by the follow

dignitaries : 

(1) On March 27, 1969, Judge Trevor George Rap

counsel, the Judge Advocate General for the Naval Forces 

monwealth of Australia, who has been serving in that po

1964. He is also a judge of the County Court of Victoria 

and Judge of the Court of Mines since 1958. In addition, 

ing Member of the Australian and New Zealand Society o

ogy, and actively interested in penal reform and the p

recidi vism. Judge Rapke visited the court on a previous ov

in 1965, at which time he was made an honorary member o

bar. 
Honorable Ilhan Arikan 


Justice, Supreme Court of Appeals 


Honorable Ali Arcak 


Justice, Supreme Court of Appeals 


Honorable Raif Tosyali 


Associate Judge, High Criminal Court 


Honorable Hasan F. Yurtsever 


Justice, Criminal Court of Peace 


Rear Admiral Fahri Coker, Turkish Navy 

Chief Prosecutor, Military Court of Appeals 

Mr. Selahattin Yertut 


Assistant Public Prosecutor of Ankara 


Mr. VehbiGenc 


Assistant Public Prosecutor of Ankara 


Mr. Ercument Beyhan 


Practicing Attorney 


Mr. Ziya Estas 


Practicing Attorney 


Miss Sayra Arasli 

Joint U.S. Military Mission for Aid to Turkey 

Mr. Ustafa Ovacik 


TUSLOG Attorney Advisor 


On that same date, Chief Judge Quinn attended a lun

West Conference Room of the U.S. Supreme Court bui

by Chief Justice Earl Warren, in honor of the delegatio

10 
Chief, Studies and Plans Branch, J1 


Joint General Staff 


Major Nguyen Dinh Tri 


Chief Prosecutor 


ThirdMobile Field Court 


Mr. Nguyen The Cuong 


Deputy Prosecutor 


Court of First Instance, Saigon 


Col. Van Due presented to the court a plaque as a mem

ciation for the welcome extended him and his group. 

(4) On October 2, 1969, two associate justices of the S

of Vietnam, the Honorable Nguyen Van Bien and t

Nguyen Mong Bich, accompanied by Col. George F

JAGC, USA, the chief judge of the U.S. Army Cou

Review. Justice Bicll had made a former visit to the co

which time he was a Colonel in the military and was 

director of Military Justice. 

(5) On October 27, 1969, Maj. Avraham Frish, a m

Judge Advocate Section, Israel Defense Force, visitin

States to study the military justice system of our armed 

JUDGE PAUL J. KILDAY 

The November-December 1968 issue of the Air For

Review was dedicated to the memory of the late Judge P

who died suddenly on October 12, 1968, with the follow

IN MEMORIAM 

AU members of the Judge Advocate General's Department s

of loss occasioned by the passing of Judge Paul J. Kilday of th

Military Appeals. Appointed to that Court in 1961, Judge Kild

outstanding career as lawyer, district attorney, and Congressm
1968, at the District of Columbia Bar Association mem

held in the Ceremonial Courtroom of the U.S. Courthous

1969. 

STATUS OF CASES 

There is attached hereto a detailed analysis of the statu

which have been processed by the court since the comm

its operations in 1951 (exhibit A). 

Respectfully submitted, 

ROBERT E. QU

O

HO:M:ER FERGUS

AS80c

'VILLIA:M: H. DA

Assoc

12 
Total by services Total as of July I, 1967 to July I, 19

June 30, 1967 June 30,1968 June 30, 

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

Arrny---------------------- 10,852 468 

~avy--------------------- 4, 730 354 

Air Force ___________________ 4,494 111 

Coast Guard ________________ 52 0 

TotaL ___________________ 20,128 933 1,0

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

Arrny---------------------­

~avy--------------------- Air Force ___________________ 

163 

215 

83 

6 

7 

4 

Coast Guard ________________ 7 1 

TotaL ___________________ 468 18 

Mandatory (art. 67(b)(I)): 

Arrny---------------------­

~avy--------------------- Air Force ___________________ 

31 

3 

3 

0 

0 

0 

Coast Guard ________________ 0 0 

TotaL ___________________ 37 0 

Total cases docketed _______ 20, 633 951 1, 

I 2 Flag officer cases; 1 Army and 1 Navy. 


222,202 cases actually assigned docket numbers. Overage due to multiple actions on 
Without opinion _________ 

I>isposed of by order setting 

aside findings and sentence__ 

Remanded to board of review_ 

Court action due (30 days) 1__ 

Awaiting replies 1____________ 

Certificates (art. 67(b)(2»: 

Opinions rendered ___________ 

Opinions pending 1___________ 

Withdrawn_____ ---- -------­ Remanded__________________ 

I>isposed of by order _________ 

Set for hearing 1_____________ 

Ready for hearing 1__________ 

Awaiting briefs 1_____________ 

Mandatory (art. 67(b)(1»: Opinions rendered ___________ 

Opinions pending ____________ Remanded__________________ 

Awaiting briefs 1_____________ 

8 

41 

5 

168 

80 

16 

442 

15 

7 

2 

1 

0 

0 

2 

37 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

9 

30 

24 

29 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

2 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Opinions rendered: 

Petitions_____________ -­- --­

Motions to dismiss ___________ 1,865 

11 

119 

0 

Motions to stay proceedings___ 1 0 

Per curiam grants ___________ 48 8 

Certificates____________ - ____ 389 26 

Certificates and petitions ___ Mandatory_________________ 50 

37 

3 

0 

Peititions remanded __________ 2 0 

Petitions for a new triaL _____ 2 0 

Petitions for reconsideration 

of: 

I>enial orders ___________ Opinion________________ 6 

I 

2 

0 

Petition for new triaL____ 1 0 

Motion to reopen ____________ 1 0 

Petitions in the nature of 

writ of error coram nobis ___ 2 0 

Miscellaneous I>ockets _______ 1 4 

TotaL ___________________ 2,417 162 

See footnotes at end of table. 

14 
With opinion ___________ _ 8 0 

Without opinion ________ _ 41 0 

Disposed of by order setting 

aside findings and sentence__ 5 1 

Writ of error coram nobis by order ____________________ _ 2 1 

:Motion for bail denied ______ _ 1 0 

H,emanded to board of review_ 169 11 

Total___________________ _ 20,499 1,018 

Miscellaneous dockets (January 

1967 to present): Pending 1__________________ _ 

Granted___________________ _ 

Denied ____________________ _ 

5 

0 

2 

3 

0 

14 

Denied in memorandum opinion __________________ _ 

Withdrawn________________ _ 0 

0 

0 

0 

Dismissed_________________ _ 2 6 

Opinion rendered ___________ _ 1 4 

Pending completion 

June 30, 1967 June 3

Opinions pending ____________________ 32 1 

Set for hearing ______________________ 0 0 

Ready for hearing ___________________ 0 6 

Petitions granted-awaiting briefs_____ 4 5 

Petitions-court action due 30 days____ 80 30 

Petitions-awaiting replies ____________ 16 24 

Certificates-awaiting briefs__________ 2 2 

Mandatory-awaiting briefs__________ 0 0 

TotaL _______________________ 134 68 

I As of June 30. 1967. 1968. Bnd 1969. 12.693 cases were disposed of by 2.659 published opinions. 134 opinions were rendered i

Army officers, 32 Air Force officers. 19 Navy officers. 6 Marine Corps officers. 2 Coast G

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

cerned enlisted personael. 

378-095--70----3 

The number of persons tried by courts-martial for fi

(average Army strength, 1,528,707) follo,vs: 

Convicted Acqu

General _________________________________ _ 2,323 

Special __________________________________ _ 56,805 2, 

Surnrnary________________________________ _ 13,115 1

Total_____________________________ _ 72,243 4, 

Records of trial by general court-martial received by 

vocate General during fiscal year 1969: 

For review under article 66__________________________________

For examination under article 69____________________________

Total ________________________________________________

'Yorkloads of the Army boards of review during the 

On hand at the beginning of period___________________________

Iteferred for review_________________________________________

Total ________________________________________________

Iteviewed _________________________________________________

Pending at close of periQd___________________________________

Total ________________________________________________

1 This figure includes 36 cases which were referred to boards of re

article 69, Uniform Code of MIl1tary Justice, and 43 cases on rehearing 

Actions taken during fiscal year 1969, by boards of r

Affirmed ___________________________________________________

Sentence Dlodified___________________________________________

Charges disrnissed__________________________________________

Findings and sentence disapproved in parL_____________________
quested representation by appellate defense counsel. The 

cases of 501 accused were forwarded to the U.S. Cou

Appeals pursuant to the three subdivisions of article 

comprised 23.3 percent of the number of these cases revie

of review during the period. Of the mentioned cases, 

warded on petition of accused and two were certified 

Advocate General. 

The actions taken by the Court of Military Appeals 

for fiscal year 1969 were as follows: 

Opinions on petitions Certification Mandatory review 

Petit

Affirmed Reversed Affirmed Reversed Affirmed Reversed den

15 19 0 0 0 0 4

Applications for relief under article 69, as amended b

Justice Act of 1968. 

25 October 1968 (effective date of amended article 69) to 30 J

Received _____________________________________________

Processing completed: 

Relief granted______________________________________

Relief denied______________________________________

Closed-no action required__________________________

Total ___________________________________________

Pending ______________________________________________

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

Military Justice, the Judge Advocate General and seni

his staff inspected numerous judge advocate offices 

States and overseas in the supervision of the administ

tary justice. 

18 
tary judge, when available, should preside over special c

the strength of the U.S. Army Field Judiciary was incr

1969 from 24 general court-martial judges to a total o

judges, of whom 28 were designated as general court-m

and 36 were designated as special court-martial judges. I

those 64 full-time military judges, I also certified 160 par

who preside over special courts-martial as an additional 

To insure that these military judges would be basicall

perform their judicial duties, particularly their new sent

each was required to complete successfully a 2-,Yeek m

course at the Judge Advocate General's School. The U.S

ciary worked closely with the Judge Advocate Genera

planning and conducting six military judge courses dur

Annual Judicial Conference was held in July at the Ju

General's School in connection with the Judge Advoc

Conference. The revision of the Military Judge's Guide w

and distributed during the year. 

LEGfSLATlON AND MILITARY JUSTICE PROJE

Under my direction, a triservice committee under the 

of Col. Dale R. Booth, USA, completed work on th

Courts-Maliial, United States, 1969 (revised edition

Manual, which implements the Military Justice Act 

promulgated as Executive Order 11476, dated 19 June 

came effective on 1 August 1969. Itsuperseded the Manu

Martial, United States, 1969, which had been in effe

months. New Army regulations, instructional pamphlets

justice forms were revised to implement the :Manual and 

There has been a generally favorable reaction to the a

of justice under the act and the revised Manual for C

The use of lawyer counsel has significantly improved tri

courts-martial, particularly when a military judge pre

proceedings. Because of an acute shortage of experienc
saving in appellate review time. 

The act brought needed modernization to the admi

justice in the Armed forces. Further experience with an

the operation of the military justice system will undou

the need for additional changes in the Uniform Code 

Justice. These changes will be necessary, not only to imp

ciency of the system, but to maintain the delicate balance 

evolving rights of today's soldier to due process and 

society to an effective Armed force. 

Several proposed changes in military justice proced

under active consideration in my office. One proposal i

sentencing power to the military judge in all noncapital 

the practice in the Federal courts and in the large majo

courts. It is the rule recommended, without reserva

American Bar Association in its Standards on Sentencing 

and Procedures. The reasons for this rule apply equally in 

as in civilian life. Imposition of a proper sentence is not 

amateur; it is a difficult task, even for an experienced jud

time court member has neither the time nor the motivati

knowledgeable about matters of criminology and penolo

because of the restrictions of article 37, Uniform Code 

Justice, little effective guidance can be given to him once 

as a member of a court-martial. Thus, sentences adjud

members run the gamut from being so severe as to hamp

tion to being too light to permit effective rehabilitation o

deterrent effect. The military judge, by study, application

ence, can develop the know-how to strike a reasonable bal

the frequently competing factors of deterrence and reha

the military judge is given sentencing power, the que

presented whether he should have the normal sentencing 

such as the power to suspend all or part of the sentence. 

In connection with any proposal to give the military ju

tially the same powers as his civilian counterpart, conside

be given to broadening his contempt powers so that he 

20 
only be reviewed collaterally in the Federal courts, and 

the petition of the accused; there is at present no method 

mediate recourse to the Supreme Court may be had; no

way for the Government to obtain a review of an adverse 

highest military court. The result of this situation is cl

implication of O'Oallahan v. Parker is considered. The Su

of course, decides only those issues actually before it 

Yet each of its decisions may have ramifications which w

great deal of collateral litigation. Litigation of a point of 

the Federal courts is a time-consuming procedure. 'Th

through the military system of courts is added to this, the 

lay may be untenable. The deterrent effect of sentences is 

aspect of the military justice system, and this effect is le

if the resolution of crucial points of law is long delayed. 

in the final disposition of criminal matters is harmful to 

system; in the military, undue delay not only breeds con

system, but may have an adverse impact on morale and d

this reason, I have directed a study of legislation which 

decisions of the U.S. Court of Military Appeals to be re

propriate cases by the U.S. Supreme Comt. 'Vhile there 

question concerning the constitutionality of such legi

lieve that the workload would not impose too great .a b

high court. 

A third proposal for change arose as a result of a con

the problems reflected in Bayhand, 6 USCMA 762, an

USCMA 177, in connection with the amendment of art

form Code of Military Justice, permitting deferment o

sentence to confinement pending completion of appellate r

present provisions of law, if there is no deferment, th

mains in confinement and receives credit for service of h

confinement. Yet, in a considerable number of cases, he 

service of his sentence to confinement before appellate 

case is complete; in such cases, the accused never become
by the code committee in the past (see, for example, the 

code committee report for 1964; see also p. 7 of the co

report for the period June 1, 1952, to Dec. 31, 1953). 

A fourth proposal presently being studied in my off

certain offenses of absence without leave and desertion sh

cuted in Federal courts. At present, Federal courts pros

draft-dodging and other offenses in violation of the Univ

Training and Service Act. One recurring and increa

within the Army is the disposition of numerous absence 

ticularly within the United States. Many of these soldier

selves for prolonged periods of time or repeatedly for sh

principally to avoid military service. Some never even com

of basic military training before their ultimate discha

our confinement facilities and cause innumerable legal, a

and fiscal problems. Rarely can such soldiers be motiva

worthwhile members of the military community. In ess

draft-dodgers in uniform. If Federal courts prosecute 

dodgers, why should they not prosecute "military" d

Consideration is being given to submitting a legislative 

would permit trial in Federal courts of all unauthoriz

excess of 30 days, wherever committed, if the initial 

menced within 2 years of a soldier's entry on active mili

exception might be made for absences in a combat theater

PERSONNEL 

The Military Justice Act of 19G8, which became effectiv

1969, precipitated an unprecedented increase in the 

Judge Advocate General's Corps during the past yea

Advocate General's School conducted five Basic Officer C

the year, and by 31 December 19G9, 1,850 judge advo

active duty. This figure represents an increase of near

over the previous year. 

22 
Oecebe969 te ouse oepesetatves p

to the Senate legislation introduced by Congressman P

York (H.R. 4296) providing for professional pay fo

cates. If enacted into law, this bill would provide sig

tives to JAGC officers to remain on active duty and wo

immeasurably to the solution of the retention problem

tance of retaining experienced legal officers was pointed

by a Department of Defense study group which con

detailed findings of this Group demonstrate that a f

the current outflow of experienced lawyers will, withi

drastically impair the ability of those remaining law

proper and complete legal services within the Arme

conclusion is apparent since, unless the trend is chan

whelming majority of lawyers in uniform will be o

officers recently out of law school who are in the ser

result of pressure from the draft." ·With the change in 

the pressure on civilian lawyers to seek commissions has 

materially. Under the new law and the new deferme

young lawyers will be exempt from the draft by the 

admitted to the bar. Thus, it is critically important tha

incentive be available to insure that the Judge Advo

Corps remains as a viable organization. 

EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

During calendar year 1969, the Judge Advocate Ge

U.S. Army, provided resident instruction for 1,342 

instruction was presented in 25 courses. 

Five cycles of the 10-week Basic Class were conducted 

during 1969. The 50th Basic Class of 113 students, inclu

officers, was graduated in April 1969. The 51st Basic 

dents) graduated in June 1969; the 52d Basic Class (8

August 1969; and the 53d Basic Class (107 students) in 
one officer from the U.S. Navy, two officers from the 

Corps, and one officer from Iran. 

In addition to these general courses, a number of sh

courses were conducted during calendar year 1969. 

were: Procurement Law (three cycles); Internation

Affairs Law; Military Justice Course; Labor Law; Ci

tary Affairs; Foreign Law; Law in Vietnam (two c

Officer Orientation Course; and the Judge Advoc

Course. 

In addition, a new 2 ..week course was developed for m

so that they could be certified as judges for courts-mar

provisions of the Military Justice Act of 1968. Com

course has been made a requirement for certification 

Judge. All members of the Advanced Class complete th

Blocks of instruction on the changes made by the 

pared and published in the Judge Advocate Legal Serv

to DA Circular 350-84, separate lesson plans were wr

grade officers, company grade officers, and enlisted m

the special responsibilities of each group. This orient

was filmed, and copies were distributed to each CONU

Judge Advocate. 

A substantial portion of the School's contribution 

mentation of the Military Justice Act of 1968 was the w

regulations and pamphlets and the revision of old public

tary justice. Publications which have been newly writ

to reflect the act's changes include: DA Pam 27-7, Guide 

Court-Martial Trial Procedure; DA Pam 27-10, The 

and the Defense Counsel; DA Pam 27-15, Trial Guid

Court-Martial; DA Pam 27-16, The Legal Clerk's Hand

Pam 27-9, Military Judges' Guide. 

In 1969, ROTC subject schedules S ..402 and S-502, 

24 
sdeabe ube

opacets otay justce atea, 

guides for military judges in special courts-martial, to ju

officers in the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. 

The allliual Judge Advocate General's Conference 

Charlottesville during the period 14-18 July 1969, just bef

tary Justice Act went into effect (1 August 1969). Two hun

three conferees attended. Principal speakers were Gen. 

'Vestmoreland, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., and Congress

der Pirnie. The principal subject of discussion was the Mi

Act and its implementation. 

In order to improve the quality of military justice in al

ice schools, a legal subjects instructors' conference was 

School on 17 and 18 March. Improved teaching techniques 

and discussed, in addition to the changes created by the 

Courts-Martial, 1969 (revised edition) and the Military 

of 1968. 

The School continued to oversee qualification of enlisted 

legal clerks and court reporters, through preparation and 

tion of standard qualifying tests requiring knowledge 

form Code of Military Justice. A special course for lega

de,-eloped. The course provides guidance in applying p

the military justice system, with emphasis at the special c

level. 

Four issues of the "Military Law Review" were publi

1969. Volume 45 included an article on the Military Justice 

by Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., one of the principal sponso

Volume 46 contains an article by the Honorable Robert Q

Judge, U.S. Court of Military Appeals, comparing the m

civilian systems of justice. 

During 1969, 32 issues of the Judge Advocate Legal S

published to insure rapid dissemination of recent militar

velopments to judge advocates in the field. This pamph

digests of all U.S. Court of Military Appeals opinions, a
bers of the staff, faculty, and Advanced Course parti

exercise. New features of LOGEX this year included 

courtsmartial and the use of computers in solving legal 

The collection of materials for the Military Legal Cen

last year, is continuing. During 1969, 11 individual d

center were received, including materials on British, F

and Turkish law, as well as U.S. civil and military legal 

Some $50,000 was spent during 1969 to complete the 

struction for reserve J AGC units, begun last year. The

the material presented at the School in the areas of m

military affairs, procurement, claims, and internation

packets and lesson plans have been prepared for use wi

KENNETH J. HODSON, 

Major General, USA, 

The Judge Advocate 

United S

26 
Following the practice in recent years of having the 

mittee Report reach the Armed Services Committees 

shortly after the convening of each new session, this rep

embracing calendar year 1969, contains, unless otherwi

statistical information covering fiscal year 1969. 

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

vened within the Navy and Marine Corps increased fr

fiscal year 1968 to 30,246 in fiscal year 1969. The fluctu

type of case is set forth below: 

Fiscal year Increase 

Type case ------ordecreas

1009 1968 

General court-martiaL _______________ 929 832 

Special court-martial involving BCD___ 2,808 3,055 -24

Special court-martial not involving BCD_____________________________ 13,431 12,885 5

Summary court-martiaL______________ 13,078 12, 190 8

TotaL _______________________ 30,246 28,962 1,2

During fiscal year 1969 Navy boards of review receive

715 general courts-martial and 2,808 special courts-m

3,523) as compared with 587 general courts-martial and 

courts-martial (total 3,642) during fiscal year 1968. Of th

received by boards of review during fiscal year 1969, 

requested counsel (46 percent). A more detailed statist

attached as exhibit A. 

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

of Military Justice, the Judge Advocate General visite

throughout the Far East, the Deputy Judge Advocate G

commands throughout Europe and the Judge Advocate G

uty Judge Advocate General and senior members of 

the Judge Advocate General visited numerous command
To further implement the provisions of the Milita

of 1968 regarding military judges, the Navy-Marine C

Activity was increased in size from 9 to 17 branch 

number of military judges for general courts-martial 

12 to 23. Approximately 500 Navy and Marine Corps j

have been certified as military judges to perform in 

martial. Effort is being made to insure that as many 

those judge advocates who are certified as military 

special training. Only those military judges assigned 

Marine Corps Judiciary Activity sit on general courts-

load permitting they are also available to sit on special 

The approximately 500 military judges referred to 

assigned to the Navy-Marine Corps Judiciary Activi

on special courts-martial. 

An increased workload in the office has resulted fro

vision of article 69, Uniform Code of Military Justice

the Judge Advocate General to vacate or modify, in w

the findings or sentence of certain courts-martial ca

been finally reviewed under article 76. In calendar 

applications for relief were received, and action was c

of the cases. 

The work of the ad hoc joint services committee to re

the Courts-Martial has been completed and the Man

Martial, 1969, revised, has been published and distribu

mands within the naval service. 

The regulations supplementing the Manual for 

contained in the Manual of the Judge Advocate Gen

pletely revised and distributed to the field prior to 1 A

effective date of the Military Justice Act of 1968. Th

made necessary by the Military Justice Act of 1968 and 

the Manual for Courts-Martial. 

A complete revision of the Manual of the Judge Ad

is now in the final stages of review and will be distrib

in the first quarter of 1970. 

28 
by the increased responsibilities of lawyer officers in spe

martial with a concomitant decrease in the use of nonlaw

in special courts-martial. Of benefit to both lawyer and non

dents is the new Administrative Law Department which 

lished at the Justice School to provide instruction on su

than courts-martial, such as investigations, administrative 

and claims. 

During the calendar year the School provided instructio

courses to a total of 2,313 officers and enlisted personne

Armed Forces. 

Six nonlawyer officer classes graduawd at the Justic

Newport and one class at Camp Pendleton, Calif. The 

classes consiswd of 585 officers of the Navy, Marine Corps

Guard. In addition thereto, 316 lawyers of the Navy, Ma

and Coast Guard completed the officer lawyer courses off

School. 

Five hundred and two officers completed the senior of

courses offered at Newport, R.I., and Quantico, Va. Thr

and one officers completed the Reserve seminars for lawye

Newport, R.I., and Corpus Christi, Tex., and 90 officers o

were given special instruction in military justice by off

Naval Justice School staff as part of a course at the Nava

School. 

Six hundred and ninewen enlisted members of the A

Marine Corps, and Coast Guard have graduated from six 5

clerk and court reporting courses. 

A conference was held in Washington, D.C. of staff judg

from all major Navy and Marine Corps commands. The 

which was held in October, was particularly timely in t

centers had been in operation for 2 months, and this meeti

the staff judge advocates with an opportunity to discuss an

which were being encountered in the field in regard to 

The major provisions of the Military Justice Act of 19
p p

y jp

for discussion of problems encountered in the field. 

being formulated to hold a similar conference in 1970

JOSEPH B. McDEVITI

Rear Admiral, USN, 

The Judge Advocate 

United 

30 
Special courts-martial: 

Received for review under article 66 _______________________

Received for review under article 65c______________________

Reviewed in the field ____________________________________

Total________________________________________________

Summary courts-martial: 

Received for review under article 65c______________________

Reviewed in the field_ _ _____ _____ ___ ___ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Total________________________________________________

Total all courts-martiaL _______________________________

Board of review actions: 

On hand for review 1 July 1968___________________________

Received for review during fiscal year 1969_________________

Total on hand________________________________________

Reviewed during fiscal year 1969 __________________________

Pending review on 30 June 1969__________________________

Total ________________________________________________

Findings modified or set aside by boards of review during fiscal year 

Requests for appellate counseL _______________________________

Court of Military Appeals actions: 

Petitions forwarded to U.S.C.M.A________________________

Cases certified to U.S.C.M.A. by JAG_____________________

Total cases docketed with U.S.C.M.A___________________

Petitions granted by U.S.C.M.A__________________________

Petitions denied by U.S.C.M.A___________________________

Total petitions acted upon by U.S.C.M.A___________ ~ ____

gyg

was named the Assistant Judge Advocate General on 31 Ja

vice Brig. Gen. "William H. Lumpkin, who retired from 

on the same date. :Maj. Gen. Robert 'V. Manss was relie

Judge Advocate General on 30 September 1969 and assigne

ant Deputy Chief of Staff/Personnel effective 1 Octobe

retired from active duty on 1 November 1969. Brig. Gen

Cheney was appointed to the regular grMle of :Major Gene

30 September 1969 and appointed as the Judge Advocate 

the same date. Generals :Manss and Cheney made staff vi

offices in the United States and overseas as required by a

Uniform Code of Military Justice. They also attended bar 

meetings, and addressed numerous civic, professional, a

organizations during the year. The Judge Advocate Gene

worldwide :Major Command and General Court-Martial 

Authority Staff Judge Advocates Conference at Headqu

Air Force in November 1969. The Directorate of Militar

the Office of the Judge Advocate General was reorganiz

2 January 1969 and redesignated as the Directorate of U

ciary. The Air Force Trial Judiciary was established a

within the USAF Judiciary. In accordance with the Mili

Act of 1968, the Air Force Court of Military Review was 

on 1 August 1969. 

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

Judge Advocate General, for review pursuant to article 66 

amination pursuant to article 69, during fiscal year 1969, 

the following table: 

Total number records received__________________________________

For review under article 66_________________________________

General court-martial records___________________________

Special court-martial records___________________________

Examined under article 69__________________________________
c. During the fiscal year 77.4 percent of the accuse

were referred for review under article 66, requested rep

appellate defense counsel before the Court of Milita

d. The following table shows the number of cases fo

U.S. Court of Military Appeals pursuant to the three 

article 67 (b) ; and the number of petitions granted dur

Cases revievved and dispatched by Court of Revievv__________

Number of cases forwarded to U.S.C.M.A.____________________

Cases petitioned________________________________________

Cases certified__________________________________________

Percent total forvvarded of total cases revievved______________

Petitions granted___________________________________________

Percent grants of total petitioned____________________________

Percent petitions granted of total cases revievved by Court of R

e. During the fiscal year, the following number of 

were convened in the Air Force: 

General courts-martiaL____________________________________

Special courts-martial______________________________________

Summary courts-martiaL___________________________________

Total _______________________________________________

3. Reportable article 15 actions, fiscal year 1969 : 

34 
(y) 

Officers______________________________________ 

AJrmen_____________________________________ _ 4, 8

Quarters arrest/correctional custody: Officers _____________________________________ _ 

AJrmen _____________________________________ _ 4,0

Extra duties (over 14 days): AJrmen ________________ _ 1,9

Reduction in grade: AJrmen _______________________ _ 18,4

Forfeiture of Pay: Officers_____________________________________ _ 1

AJrmen ______________________________________ 15,7

Detention of pay: Officers_ ___ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ 

AJrmen______________________________________ 

Written Reprimand: Officers_____ ____ ___ __ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1

AJrmen_______________________________________ 9

Mitigating actions: 

Appeals taken_____________________________________ 1,5

Officers____ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

AJrmen_______________________________________ 1,5

Appeals denied__ ___ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ 1, 2

Officers _____________________________________ -- 

AJrmen_______________________________________ 1,2

Suspension of punishmenL _________________________ 10,9

Officers____ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ ___ ___ ______ __ 

AJrmen _______________________________________ 1~97

Other action_ _ _ _ ____ ___ ___ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ 1, 5

Officers____ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ ___ ____ ____ __ 

AJrmen_______________________________________ 1, 5

1 Of total cases (29,112).

Of appeals taken (1,537). I 
mat with an increase in pages per issue and per volum

issues, two were sponsored by major commands: AF

AFSC, Fall. The Spring issue was a Military Justice s

voted to the changes brought about by the Military 

1968. Articles were written by leading JAG Military J

ties. Several other articles of interest in the Militar

were: "Article 105, Misconduct as a Prisoner," Fall, 1

and Military Justice," Spring, 1969; "Of Crimes, Cour

Punishment-A Short History of Military Justice," 

and "Collateral Attack on Court-Martial Conviction

The last article was written by Robinson O. Everett, Pro

Duke University, a noted authority in the Military Ju

a reservist assigned to the Special Activities Group, 

Judge Advocate General, HQ USAF. 

6. The Air Force JAG Reporter was published m

this year. This publication contains digests of the lat

the Court of Military Appeals and the Courts of M

(formerly boards of review). These digests are printed 

on 5- by 8-inch perforated card stock with descripti

lines to facilitate filing. Thus, they not only serve as an 

of the latest developments in the law, but also as a rese

interim between release of the opinion and its full-te

in permanently bound volumes. The Reporter also 

opinions, notices, and directions for guidance to the jud

7. The Office of the Judge Advocate General acted a

the Armed Services in administering a contract with 

book publisher for publication of the Court-Martial 

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

selected decisions of the Courts of Military Review o

Operational responsibility for LITE (Legal Info

Electronics) was transferred by the Assistant Secret

Force for Financial Management to the Judge Adv

USAF, effective 1 July 1969. LITE is a Departme

36 
ment), and 267 were Reserve officers with established date

tion. The Regular officer strength decreased by 16 and the 

strength decreased by 45 between 30 June 1968, and 30 Jun

9. At the close of the period of this report, there were 77 

exercising general court-martial jurisdiction. 

J A:M:ES S. CHENEY, 

jJfajor General, USAF, 

The Judge Advocate Gen

[Jnited States A 

So far as military justice is concerned, the year 1969 

by three especially noteworthy occurrences: 

1. The issuance of two new Manuals for Courts-Martial. 

2. The taking effect on August 1, 196D, of the provisions 

tary Justice Act of 1968 (Public Law 90--632). 

3. The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in O'Oallaha

3D5 U.S. 258. 

The Manual for Courts-Martial which became effect

uary 1, 1969, was the first revision since publication of 

Manual in 1951. The Military Justice Act of 1968 eff

changes in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and m

sary to issue a second revised 1969 Manual for Courts-Ma

Coast Guard supplementary regulations were issued a

tion of each of the new Manuals and, responding to t

changes, included directions for the detailing of certifie

represent the accused before special courts-martial and 

for the assignment of military judges to special courts-m

The General Counsel certified 44 officer-l a wyers of the 

as qualified for duty as military judges. A few of these offi

assigned and directly responsible to the General Coun

Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard as his designee, are elig

as military judges of general courts-martial. The General 

established the Coast Guard Court of Military Review to 

former board of review and named three civilian and fiv

yers as appellate judges. 

The Supreme Court's opinion in O'Oallahan v. Parker, 

"crimes to be under military jurisdiction must be service

upset previously held views concerning the jurisdictio

martial over civil-type offenses committed by servicemen 

impact of this case on military justice may be judged fr

that within 5 months after announcement of the Supreme 

cision on June 2, 1969, the U.S. Court of Military Appeal

cases involving consequential issues. The General Couns
received during the fiscal year ending June 30, 196V, 

figures for the 4 preceding years: 

1969 1968 19

General courts-martial _____________________ 2 0 

Special courts-martiaL _____________________ 92 91 

Summary courts-martiaL___________________ 207 216 2

Total ______________________________ 3()1 307 2

Eight of the 94 major cases in 1969, including one o

eral courts-martial, resulted in acquittals. Of the 86 con

were set aside upon review by the convening or supervi

In the remaining 79 cases, the sentence was either r

approved in 38 instances. Findings and sentences 

without modification in 37 cases. Fifty-one trials we

the accused having entered pleas of guilty. 

The courtroom trials of the 94 major cases engaged 

171 lawyers, including eight civilian defense counsel. I

year 138 lawyers, including nine civilians, participate

A qualified lawyer represented the accused in 72 of the 

94 trrals as compared with 63 defense lawyers in 91 trial

year. A full set of three lawyers-president, trial couns

counsel-functioned in 22 of the 92 special courts-mar

result of the newly effective instructions for the detaili

defense lawyers and military judges to special courts-m

pected that a higher percentage of such trials will utili

lawyers in 1970 and that a qualified lawyer wiII be pr

accused in a greater number of cases. 

A total of 264 offenses were disposed of by special or 

martial. AWOL or desertion and missing ship were ch

40 
and sentence were affirmed without modification in 10 ca

to the board of review; findings were modified in four oa

tence was modified in seven cases. Six bad conduct discharg

approved upon or following appellate review. Although t

trial in 10 BCD cases affirmatively indicated that the accus

bad conduct discharge, in four of such cases the punitive di

not approved. 

Action was taken on motion of the Government to accor

suant to article 69 in two summary court-martial cases whi

finally reviewed. The findings and sentence were vacated 

the sentence modified in the other. Oue application for 

article 69 was denied. 

JAMES A. ,VASHINGTON, Jr.

General Oo

Department of Transp

U.$. GOVERNMENT PRINTING O