and

THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GEN

of the

ARMED FORCES

and the

GENERAL COUNSEL

of the

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREAS

PURSUANT TO THE 

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUST

For the Period 

January l f 1956, to December 31,19

PROPERTY O F U. S. ARMY

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENE

LIBRARY

of the

SENATE AND OF THE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

and to the

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

and the

SECRETARIES OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF THE 

ARMY, NAVY, AIR FORCE, AND TREASURY

PURSUANT TO THE 

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

For the Period 

January 1,1956, to December 31,1956

Contents

JOINT REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY 

AND THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL OF THE ARMED 

AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT 

TREASURY

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY APPE

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE ARM

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAV

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE AIR 

REPORT OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT 

TREASURY (UNITED STATES COAST GUARD)

Joint Report

o f the

UNITED STATES COURT OF M ILITA R Y APPE

and

THE JUDGE AD VO C ATES GENERAL

OF THE AR M ED FORCES

and

THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

January 1,1956, to December 31/1956

States Court of Military Appeals, the Judge Advocates Gene

Armed Forces, and the General Counsel of the Departme

Treasury to meet annually to survey the operations of the 

prepare a report to the Committees on Armed Services of t

and the House of Representatives, to the Secretary of Defen

the Secretaries of the Departments, with regard to the statu

tary justice and to the manner and means by which it can be 

by legislative enactment.

The Judges of the United States Court of Military Ap

Judge Advocates General, and the General Counsel of th

ment of the Treasury, hereinafter referred to as the Code C

have met and conferred during the period of this report. 

Committee is submitting refinements of the previous recomm

submitted in the second annual report for the calendar year 

reaffirmed in the third and fourth annual reports for calen

1954 and 1955. These suggestions are set out in exhibit A 

fer in many respects with the companion bills advanced b

partment of Defense and identified as S. 2133 and H. R. 65

duced on June 2, 1955, and June 1, 1955, respectively. T

contained proposals which were either not considered or not a

by the members of the Code Committee because of lack of u

Hearings on H. R. 6583 were initiated in the spring of 19

House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee No. 1 but 

concluded before the adjournment of Congress.

In essence, the recommendations included in exhibit A are 

to eliminate some of the procedural difficulties and delays w

arisen under the Code since May 31, 1951, and to provide 

prompt and more efficient administration of military jus

from the standpoint of the individual and the Governmen

impairing any substantial right of an accused person. It is h

the Committees of Congress will continue with hearings and 

the present suggested amendments proposed by the Code C

to the end of enacting into law those changes it believes woul
H omer F erguson

E ugene M. C af f

The Judge Advocate Ge

United States 

C hester W ard

The Judge Advocate Ge

United State

R eginald C. H a

The Judge Advocate Ge

United States Air 

F red C. S cribne

General Co

Department of the Tr

4
EXHIBIT A

422791 57 2 — -----­

, , 

of Military Justice.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Repre

2 sentatives of the United States of America in Congress

3 assembled, That title 10, United States Code, is amen

4 as follows:

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

(1) Section 801 is amended by adding the

following new clause at the end thereof:

“ (13)‘Convening authority’ means the

person who convened the court, a com

officer commanding for the time being, a

successor in command, or any officer

exercising general court martial

jurisdiction.”

(2) Section 812 is amended to read as follows

“§ 812. Art. 12. Confinement with enem

prisoners prohibited

“No member of the armed forces of the

United States may be placed in confineme

in immediate association with enemy pr

or other foreign nationals not members of

the armed forces of the United States,

except a member of the armed forces of th

United States may be confined in United

-

-
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

8

in place thereof; and

(D) by adding the following new clau

end of subsection (a) (2 ):

“ (G) if imposed by an officer in the

grade of major or lieutenant comma

or above, forfeiture of not more than

one-half of one month’s pay; or

(H) if imposed by an officer in the

grade of major or lieutenant comma

or above, confinement for not more t

seven consecutive days.”

(4) Section 816 is amended by striking out th

word “ ; and” in clause (2) and inserting the

words “or only of a law officer who is certified
section (a), except the President of the

United States, is an accuser, the court

must be convened by a competent auth

not subordinate in command or grade t

accuser, and may in any case be conven

by a superior competent authority.”

(6) Section 825 (a) is amended by adding th

following new sentence at the end thereof:

“However, to be eligible for appointme

as a single officer special court-martial,

the officer must have the qualifications

specified for a law officer in section 826 

-
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10

an officer appointed as a single officer specia

court-martial.”

(9) Section 851 is amended

(A) by striking out in the second sen

of subsection (b) the words “a motion 

a finding of not guilty, or” ;

(B) by inserting in the third sentenc

subsection (b) after the word “trial” t

words “except a ruling on a motion fo

finding of not guilty which was gran

and 

(C) by adding the following new subs

“ (d) Subsections (a), (b), and (c

-

— 
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

separate record of the proceedings of th

trial of each case brought before it. A

record of the proceedings of a trial in

which the sentence adjudged includes a

bad-conduct discharge or is more than 

which could be adjudged by a special 

martial shall contain a complete verbat

account of the proceedings and testimon

before the court, and shall be authentic

in such manner as may be required by

regulations which the President may pre

All other records of trial shall contain
(11) Section 857 is amended by adding th

following new sentence at the end of sub

section (a) :

“A sentence to death includes forfeitur

of all pay and allowances and dishono

discharge. The forfeiture may apply 

all pay and allowances becoming due o

after the date the sentence is approved b

the convening authority.”

(12) Section 865 is amended

(A) by amending subsection (a) to re

as follows:

“ (a) When the convening authori

­

— 
13 words “to be reviewed by a board of 

14 wherever they appear therein; and

15 (C) by amending subsection (c) to re

16 follows:

17 “ (c) All other records of trial by

18 court-martial shall be reviewed by

19 (1) a judge advocate of the Arm

20 or Air Force;

21 (2) an officer of the Navy or

22 Marine Corps on active duty wh

23 is a member of the bar of a Fede

24 court or of the highest court of 

25 State; or

422791 67 

— 

- -
approved sentence

(1) extends to death;

(2) affects a general or flag

officer;

(3) extends to the dismissal of 

commissioned officer or a cadet

or midshipman; or

(4) includes a dishonorable or ba

conduct discharge, or confinemen

for one year or more, unless the

accused pleaded guilty to each

offense of which he was found

guilty and has stated in writing

after the convening authority

— 
action by the President, the Secreta

concerned, or the Court of Military

Appeals, instruct the convening

authority to take action in accorda

with the decision of the board of

review. If the board of review has

ordered a rehearing and the conven

authority finds a rehearing impract

cable, he may dismiss the charges.”

(14) Section 867 is amended by inserting th

following new sentence after the first

sentence of subsection ( f ) :

“The Judge Advocate General may dis
13

14

15

16

37

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

(), 

examined in the office of the Judge Advo

General. I f any part of the findings or

sentence is found unsupported in law, th

Judge Advocate General shall either ref

the record to a board of review for revie

under section 866 of this title (article 66

or take such action in the case as a board

of review may under section 866 (c) and 

of this title (article 66 (c) and (d)). I

the record is reviewed by a board of revi

there will be no further review by the Co

of Military Appeals except under sectio

867 (b) (2) of this title (article 67 (b) (
as follows:

“ (c) That portion of a sentence

extending to dishonorable or bad-co

discharge may not be executed until

approved by the Judge Advocate Ge

or affirmed by a board of review, as

the case may be, and, in cases review

by it, affirmed by the Court of Milit

Appeals.” ; and

(C) by inserting in subsection (d) after 

words “court-martial sentences” the wor

“and portions of sentences”.
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

18

section 866 or 867 of this title

(article 66 or 67), respectively.

Otherwise, the Judge Advocate Ge

may grant a new trial in whole o

part or may vacate or modify the

findings and sentence in whole or in

part.”

(18) Section 895 is amended by strikin

words “custody or confinement” and ins

words “physical restraint lawfully im

place thereof.

(19) Subchapter X of chapter 47 is a
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

() y pp

to deceive or defraud;

makes, draws, utters, or delivers a

check, draft, or order for the paym

of money upon any bank or other

depository, knowing at the time th

the maker or drawer has not or w

not have sufficient funds in, or cre

with, the bank or other depository 

the payment of that check, draft, 

order in full upon its presentment

shall be punished as a court marti

may direct. The making, drawing

-
receiving notice, orally or in writin

that the check, draft, or order was

not paid on presentment. The wo

‘credit’, as used herein, means

arrangement or understanding, exp

or implied, with the bank or other

depository for the payment of tha

check, draft, or order.” ; and

(B ) by inserting the following new

item in the analysis:
422791 57 4 — -------
Cases Wherein Findings Were 

Modified by Boards of Re

view. ........................... .. 3 2, 423 438 421 

Cases Docketed with USCMA. 8 6, 061 1, 881 1, 

Opinions Published by IJSCMA. 3 598 156 98 

Opinions Published Wherein 

Decisions of Boards of Re

view Were Modified by

USCMA ..... 3 298 59 54 

* As of December 31; all military personnel on extended or continuous active duty. Data 

categories of such personnel, as follows: Nurses, Navy and Marine Corps Reservists associated 

Activities and Officer Candidates. Retired personnel are excluded.

* Total court-martial cases for calendar years 1951 through 1964.

* Total court-martial cases from May 31,1961 (effective date of the Uniform Code of Milita

December 31,1954.

22

­

­
Report

o f the

UNITED STATES COURT O F M ILITARY A PPE

January 1,1956, to December 31,1956

volume and scope of the work of the Court during the 

including some general observations of the Judges.

In our last annual report we reported with deep regret 

of Associate Judge Paul W . Brosman on December 21, 1

Court functioned from that date until April 9, 1956, at w

Homer Ferguson was sworn in to take the place of the l

Brosman. Judge Ferguson, former United States Senator 

State of Michigan and thereafter Ambassador to the P

Islands, was nominated as a Judge of this Court on Januar

by President Dwight D. Eisenhower to fill the unexpired 5

of Judge Brosman, ending May 1,1956, and for a 15-year te

May 1,1971. The appointments were confirmed unanimou

United States Senate on February 17, 1956. Judge Ferg

given the oath of office in the West Conference Room of the 

Court Building by the Chief Justice of the United Sta

Warren, on April 9, 1956. He assumed the duties of his 

immediately.

During the period covered by this report the membership 

of the Court continued its steady growth with the additio

attorneys. As of December 31, 1956, 6,147 attorneys 

accepted as practitioners before the Court. Broken down p

wise, 58 percent are civilian attorneys and 42 percent are 

in the Armed Services. This membership includes attor

the 48 States, the territories of Alaska and Hawaii, and the 

wealth of Puerto Rico. With the normal duty rotation of u

personnel, military lawyers admitted to practice may now 

wherever United States troops are stationed throughout the 

Being cognizant of the value of having both civilian an

lawyers participate in the administration of military ju

Judges of the Court desire to commend again the various Se

their efforts during the year in providing facilities for at

reserve components from every section of the country to att

sessions for the purpose of being admitted to practice before 
admitted.

In line with their policy of acquainting the civilian populace 

operation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Jud

themselves available for lectures at the miltary service sc

Charlottesville, Va., and Newport, E. I. They also acce

vitations to address various reserve officers associations, leg

tutions, State Bar Associations, and other civic organizations

these appearances had to be worked into a heavy schedule, 

lieved that such efforts on the part of the Judges served a us

pose in informing the public of the Code and of the Court

roles they occupy in the civilian and military communities.

In the second annual report covering the period June 1, 

December 31,1953, and again in the third annual report cov

period January 1, 1954, to December 31, 1954, the Judge

Court joined with The Judge Advocates General of the r

Services and the General Counsel of the Department of the 

in submitting to Congress 17 recommendations for improve

the Uniform Code of Military Justice. ( These recommendati

embodied in a bill sponsored by the Department of Defense a

duced on June 1, 1955, as H. E. 6583, and in a companion b

Senate on June 2,1955, as S. 2133, 84th Congress, 1st Session

ings were held on H. E. 6583 before the House Armed Servi

mittee, Subcommittee No. 1, commencing on March 15,1956. 

time testimony was presented by various interested witnesse

ing The Judge Advocates General or their representatives

as the Judges of this Court. These hearings which have b

lished set forth in detail the original recommendations of 

Committee and the views of the Court in opposition to som

proposals included in the Department of Defense bill. In vie

fact that the Congress adjourned before the work of the subc

was completed, it is hoped that the Armed Services Committ

Senate and of the House will have an opportunity to con

amendments refined and presently submitted by the Code 

~ 
had been completed in 28 capital cases involving 33 memb

Armed Forces.

During the 5^ years’ period of operation of the Court, 

been steady improvement in abbreviating the time require

plete appellate review of cases with no diminution in the 

care given to the final disposition of a case.

There is attached a detailed analysis of the status of cases 

since the Court came into existence in 1951.

Respectfully submitted,

R obert E. Q u in n , Chief 

G eorge W . L a t im e r , Jud

H omer F erguson, Judge.

%

-
Total by Services Total as of

to Dec. SI,

to Dec. SI, 

Petitions (Art. 67 (h) (3)): D ec. SI, 195i 1955 956 D 

Army . . . . 3,980 1, 020 810 

N a v y . . . 1,047 449 248 

Air Force 890 392 453 

Coast G u a rd . 17 7 4 

Total 5,934 1, 868 1, 515 

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

A r m y 67 0 7 

Navy 95 15 13 

Air Force 13 3 7 

Coast Guard 5 0 0 

Total 180 18 27 

Mandatory (Art. 67 (b) (1)):

A r m y ., 23 6 0 

Navy 0 0 0 

Air Force 1 0 0 

Coast Guard 0 0 0 

Total 24 6 0 

Total cases docketed 6, 138

COURT ACTION

1, 892 1, 542 

Petitions (Art. 67 (b) (8)):

Granted 497 130 102 

Denied.. . . . . 5,191 1, 687 1, 390 

Dismissed 5 0 0 

Withdrawn . . 103 28 24 

Disposed of on motion to dismiss:

With op in ion . . . 7 0 0 

Without opinion 21

Disposed of by Order setting aside find

4 2 

ings and sentence 2 0 0 

Remanded to Board of Review 13 10 3 

19,465 cases actually assigned Docket numbers. Fifty-seven cases counted as both Petitions 

cates. Three cases certified twice. Forty-flve cases submitted as Petitions for the second 

Mandatory case filed twice. One Mandatory case filed as Petition after second Board of Revie

28

________ ______________ 

________ - ________ ____ 

____ ___________ _____ 

__ ____ ____________ 

________________ ____ __ 

-__ ___________ 

______ ___________ ________ 

____________________ -­

___________ _______ 

________________________ 

____________________ ____ 

__________ ___________ 

_____________ _________ 

___________ ______ __ 

__ ____________ _____ 

__________ _____ 

----- ----------------------­ — 

____________ _______ 

________ _____ - ----------­

___ ______________ 

_______ 

___ ____ __ ___ 

­

____ _____ ____ 

___ 
Opinions pending 2

Remanded to Board of Review.

Set for hearing 2

Ready for hearing 2

Awaiting briefs 2

0 3 

1 0 

1 0 

0 1 

1 0 

Opinions rendered:

Petitions 389 132 7

Motions to Dismiss 7 0 

Per Curiam grants 21 0 

Certificates 146 13 2

Certificates and Petitions 19 6 

Mandatory 21 4 

Remanded to Board of Review 1 1 

Petition for a New Trial 1 0 

Petition for Reconsideration of Petition 

for New Trial 1 0 

Total 606 156 10

Completed Cases:

Petitions denied 5, 191 1, 687 1, 39

Petitions dismissed 5 0 

Petitions withdrawn 103 28 2

Certificates withdrawn 4 0 

Opinions rendered 599 156 1

Disposed of on Motion to dismiss:

With opinion 7 0 

Without opinion . . 21 4 

Disposed of by Order setting aside findings and sentence 2 0 

Remanded to Board of Review 14 10 

Total 5,946 1, 885 1, 52

> As of December 31, 1954, 1955, and 1956.

• 866 eases were disposed of by 852 published opinions. 51 opinions were rendered In ca

Army officers, 8 Air Force officers, 7 Navy officers, and 1 Coast Guard officer. In addi

were rendered in cases involving civilians. The remainder concerned enlisted personnel.

____________ 

__ _____ ______ 

___________ 

______________ 

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

_____________ __ 

___________________ 

__________________________ 

_____ ______ 

__________________________ 

_____­

__________ 

__________ ___________ 

_____________ _____________ 

______________________ 

___________________ 

______ _______ 

_______________ 

______ _____________ 

__________________ 

_____________ 

_________ ______ 

_______ 

_____ _____________________ 

Report

o f

THE JUDGE A D V O C A TE GENERAL

of

THE A R M Y

January 1,1956, to December 31,1956

6583, 84th Congress, 1st Session), containing a number o

mended changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

ommended that the bill be speedily enacted upon its reint

into the 85th Congress.

In January 1956, a bill was introduced into the Senate 

84th Congress, 2d Session) to provide for the trial in the Fe

trict courts of persons not subject to military jurisdiction fo

offenses committed by them while subject to such jurisdictio

legislation, recommended in the Annual Report for the peri

ary 1,1955 to December 31,1955, was prompted by the decisi

United States Supreme Court in United States ex rel Toth v

350 U. S. 11 (1955), which held unconstitutional Articles 

the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Subject to certain 

ments proposed by the Department of Defense, it is recomme

this bill be enacted as soon as practicable.

A workable code for the administration of military jus

be readily adaptable to wartime conditions. Some admi

provisions of the present Code, while burdensome in peaceti

seriously impair the effective administration of military j

time of war. Present Code provisions result in an excessi

diture of time to process cases involving no substantial leg

In cases reviewed by the United States Court of Military A

1956, an average of approximately one year elapsed from t

sentence was adjudged by court-martial until it was ordered 

cution. A system requiring nearly a year to complete app

view is of doubtful utility in effecting prompt punishment i

war. While punishment is not a part of discipline for the 

it is recognized that, for a small group, punishment or th

punishment is the ingredient needed to give discipline meani

this small minority, punishment, to be effective, must be pr

certain. This is particularly true with respect to those fou

of military offenses such as desertion, willful disobedience

and aiding the enemy, as well as civil type felonies occurrin
overseas theaters of operations. Such decentralization would 

the need for forwarding records of trial in general court-mart

to Washington for board of review action before commanding g

can order sentences into execution. An amendment to the Co

mitting convening authorities to order into execution senten

proved by boards of review located in the field should redu

siderably the time expended in appellate review. Provision c

made that death sentences, approved by a board of review 

in the field, could be ordered into execution by a theater, A

expeditionary force commander. Included within such a plan 

of necessity, be a provision whereby The Judge Advocate 

would certify to the United States Court of Military Appe

decision cases in which the boards of review are in disagree

to points of law.

And now, as I conclude my service as The Judge Advocate 

and retire from the Army, I should like to pay tribute to the m

of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps. Their highest stand

competency, intellectual honesty, and professional devotion re

finest traditions of the military and legal professions. It 

privilege to have served with them, and I owe them a debt of gr

1 can never repay.

2. Operations:

a. During the calendar year 1956, The Judge Advocate 

School at Charlottesville, Va., provided residential instructi

558 military lawyers. The School conducted 2 cycles of the 3

course in basic military law, graduating 84 students. A thi

with 61 students was started. One advanced course of 32 we

completed for 23 selected officers of the Army and Navy. Thi

was lengthened to 35 weeks beginning with the Fifth Advance

which started in September 1956. This class consists of 25 m

lawyers including 5 Navy law specialists. Two 6 week cou

Court Reporting were held and 26 students graduated. Three 

-
out the world was held at The Judge Advocate General’s S

was attended by over 150 senior officers of the Corps who w

leged to hear outstanding authorities speak on subjects close

to the field of the military lawyer. The theme of the confe

“The Broad and Increasing Responsibilities of the Judge 

General’s Corps.” On 26 September, dedicatory ceremoni

new Judge Advocate Genejral’s School building were h

School building was constructed and designed by the Uni

Virginia especially for the use of the Army. The Honorab

M. Brucker, Secretary of the Army, accepted the building 

of the United States Army.

The School continued the publication of the Procurem

Service, a biweekly digest of significant decisions and opini

field of Government contracts.

The School planned and participated in “LO G EX 56,” a 

exercise in which students of the advanced class perform

advocate duties under assumed combat conditions. 

The nonresident training activities of the school provide

tion for over 2,000 Reserve officers. The school published 

tributed instructional guides and material for the 155 Judge 

TTSAR School courses being conducted in 101 USAR Sch

Advocate Branch Departments with a total enrollment of 

mately 1,400. Instructional material has been prepared for 

Associate Company Officer Course and for the first 4 yea

6-year Advanced Officer Course. Thirty-two extension cou

been prepared by the School and are presently available

October, an orientation course for USAR school instructors 

at the School. 

The school conducted continuous research and planning i

of military law, A “Chronicle Letter” setting forth recen

ments in military law was sent frequently to all judge advo

other interested persons and agencies. Selected materials 
“Investigation of a Claim Against the Government.”

b. The commissioning of 108 officers in The Judge Advoca

eral’s Corps during the fiscal year 1957 has been authorize

majority of those commissioned under this program have bee

officers recently graduated from law school without previous 

training. To prepare them properly for their duties as judg

cates, they are given an 8 week course of training at The I

School followed by a 3-month course in basic military law 

Judge Advocate General’s School.

c. Pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, A

(a), The Judge Advocate General and senior members of his 

supervision of the administration of military justice inspecte

headquarters and principal posts located within the continenta

States. Also inspected were all commands in Europe, Pana

Puerto Rico in which general court-martial jurisdiction i

exercised over Army personnel.

3. Statistics:

a. The number of records of trial x eceived in the off

Judge Advocate General for review pursuant to Article 66 du

period covered by this report follows:

Total 

1 This figure includes 3 cases for which both review pursuant to Article 66 

ination pursuant to Article 69 were required by the C ode; these cases are not r

the figures fo r Article 69, below.

In addition, the following table shows the number of records 

received in the Office of The Judge Advocate General for exam

pursuant to Article 69 during the same period:

T ota l „ 

-

-

________________________________________________________________ 

_____________ _________________________________________________ 
c. From 1 January 1956 through 31 December 1956,2,698 of 

accused whose cases were reviewed by boards of review pu

Article 66 (47.7 percent) requested representation by appellat

counsel before the boards of review.

d. The records in the cases of 809 accused were forwarde

this period to the United States Court of Military Appeals pu

the three subdivisions of the Uniform Code of Military Just

cle 67 (J ); this figure is 14.3 percent of 5,654, the number o

whose cases were reviewed by boards of review during the pe

E ugene M. C af fe y ,

Major General, USA,

The Judge Advocate G

Report

o f

THE JUDGE A D V O C A T E GENERAL

o f

THE N A V Y

January 1,1956, fo December 31,1956

y y gg

to make it more responsive to the expanded needs of the n

Substantial progress has also been made toward improv

incentive for Navy officer lawyers. The past organizati

Navy’s officer lawyers was adequate from a career incent

point when both the legal organization and the Navy were 

small and when the only naval officers in the Judge Advo

eral’s organization were general service line officers with le

ing. To those officers were open all of the great career opp

to serve the Navy in positions of command. They could 

and out of the legal organization in keeping with the opp

presented by their seagoing careers. The present situation 

different for the vast majority of Navy lawyers, since th

opportunities are limited to those presented within the legal 

tion of the Navy. Along with the organizational changes, 

there had to be changes which would improve career incentive

The appended organization chart reflects some of the in

toward the goal of improving career incentive. These inc

vision of increased opportunity for service in positions 

responsibility on a five man top-management team; appointm

Assistant Judge Advocate General (Personnel, Eeserve and 

ment) with duties embracing a wide variety of personnel-a

tion function; formation of a Career Planning Branch, w

Military Personnel Division, with the primary mission of 

career incentive; and elevation of Naval Eeserve affairs to 

status. Improved incentive is expected to generate new e

and new performance levels in the existing group of offic

and to improve the flow and caliber of recruits to the N

specialist group. We are confident that this general imp

will be evident, both immediately and at long range, in th

tration of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and in all o

of law under the cognizance of the Judge Advocate General.

In the reorganization of the Office of the Judge Advocate G

modern, functional lines, immediate responsibility for al

-

- - 

- 

-
with equally orderly proceedings. At the same time th

received in the Office of the Judge Advocate General, for r

the boards of review, 767 fewer cases than were received 

This represented a decrease of 13 percent in the more serio

The year thus found the state of discipline in the naval ser

stantially improved. The efficient administration of militar

is certainly entitled to partial credit for this improved state 

pline. The year’s improvement in the efficiency of administ

military justice is all the more remarkable because it was acco

with a demonstrable shortage of officer lawyers and with a 

increased demand upon the available lawyers for legal serv

side the military justice field.

It is agreed that there is a need for the refinement of 

judicial processes. These refinements can probably be accom

however, within the general framework of the present law. 

ence has shown no necessity for sweeping changes of major 

tions. In the second annual report, covering the period from 

1952, to December 31,1953, the Judges of the United States 

Military Appeals joined with the Judge Advocates Gener

Armed Services and the General Counsel of the Treasury De

in submitting to Congress 17 recommendations for improve

the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Amendments based u

recommendations should be enacted.

One of those recommendations, in particular additional 

for the commanding officer is of fundamental importanc

naval service. The present Judge Advocate General of t

expressed the following view of this problem in 1953 in a

published in the Vanderbilt Law Eeview:

Had there been a long story of abuse of mast powers in the Nav

any substantial evidence of such a thing, emasculation of such pow

have been warranted. None has been shown. There is, of course

possibility that individuals might abuse such power. But now 

statutory method of appeal provided to meet that possibility. In 

-

— 

— 
We are operating, however, under the Uniform Code as 

not as we would have it. During 1956, 5,260 records of 

received in the Office of the Judge Advocate General for re

suant to Article 66. Of this number, 1,832 were general cour

and 3,428 were special courts-martial. In addition, 365 

trial were received in the Office of the Judge Advocate G

examination pursuant to Articles 69 and 65 (c).

The following table shows the workload of the boards 

during 1956:

On hand January 1, 1956 

Referred for review during 1956 5

Total 

Reviewed during 1956 5,

Pending December 31,1956 

Total 

The two boards of review established by the Judge Advoca

on the west coast in December 1955, received for review 6

courts-martial and 1,248 special courts-martial. This tota

cases comprised 36 percent of the total number of cases recei

Judge Advocate General for review by boards of review d

reporting period.

During 1956, 61 percent of the accused whose cases were r

the Office of the Judge Advocate General for review pursua

cle 66 requested representation by appellate defense coun

boards of review. This constitutes a decrease of 2 percent 

in requests for representation by appellate defense counsel, 

flects a discontinuation of the trend toward consistent incre

had existed in this respect during each of the past reporti

since the Uniform Code of Military Justice came into eff

possible that the incidence of such requests has now reached 

* The number of accused requesting appellate representation, 

remains substantial.

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

__________________________________ 

___________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________ 

_______________________________________ 

___________________________________________________ 
Army and the Air Force. The Department of Justice, ho

view of the scope of the questions involved and in view of 

tional role played by the Navy in the scheme of military d

representation abroad through regular fleet visitations, requ

Navy to join in the effort to sustain the original decisions of 

as announced on June 11,1956 (351 U. S. 470,487).

Overseas commands viewed a loss of jurisdiction to try our 

and dependents as disruptive of morale and as a potential im

to overseas commands in the performance of their missions

evitable development from an adverse decision by the Court 

the trial of our civilians and dependents by the local courts o

nations. The political climate would certainly militate aga

trials. Furthermore, the Judge Advocate General has a dee

the Navy’s obligation and responsibility to its civilians and d

stationed overseas in the fulfillment of our military requ

With these considerations before him, the Judge Advocate 

assigned an officer to temporary duty with the Department 

to assist in the preparation of the Government’s case. He ha

quested the major overseas commands of the Navy to make 

a summary and analysis of their practical experience in this 

presentation to the Supreme Court. The reargument is te

scheduled for late in February 1957.

Increased emphasis has been placed on the training of inact

Reserve officer lawyers in military justice. The law progra

Naval Reserve is designed to provide adequate numbers of tr

specialists available for assignment in the event of mobili

other national emergency. There are 51 organized nonp

throughout the United States, with 882 attorneys participat

program. Throughout 1956, on-the-job training of Reserv

lawyers was conducted at major naval installations. In ad

week seminars were conducted at San Francisco and Great L

a 2 week course in military justice was held at Newport, R. I

of 453 officers attended these scheduled training courses.

-

-
ated 868 officers and 563 enlisted men from the several in

week courses conducted during the year on the provisions o

and the Manual for Courts-Martial. In addition, 192 in

serve officers were graduated from a 2-week active-duty 

course held at the School from August 25 to September 7

28-hour course for senior officers attending the Naval Wa

at Newport was attended by 64 officers, while the regu

Officers’ Short Course was attended by 192 officers. D

year, 266 enlisted men were graduated from the Closed-M

Court Reporting Course also conducted at the U. S. Nav

(Nrval Justice). At the request of the Commandant of t

Corps, a team of officer and enlisted instructors from t

conducted the regular 7 week courses for 158 officers an

men at Camp Pendleton, Calif., in May and June of 1

School also participated in west coast and east coast Law 

presented at San Francisco in July and at Great Lakes i

Each seminar closed with a moot general court-martial 

by personnel of the School.

(b) Motion-picture training film program,. The distr

16 motion-picture training films on the subject of milita

prepared in prior reporting periods, continued throughout 

establishment during calendar year 1956.

(c) Correspondence courses. Correspondence courses o

justice continued to attract the interest of naval pers

single-assignment course on the provisions of the Code 

pleted by 8,187 officers and enlisted men during the yea

are 905 persons currently enrolled in this course, and ap

for it are being received at an average rate of 498 per m

comprehensive 12 assignment course on military justice 

pleted by 20,089 officers and enlisted men during 1956. 

17,882 persons are currently enrolled in this course, and 

tions are being received at an average rate of 1,852 per mo

correspondence course entitled “The Law Officer” was 

-

— 

— 

- 
as “Manual for Courts-Martial Modification by the Cou

tary Appeals” ; “Impeachment” ; “The Staff Legal Of

“Eight to a Public Trial in the Military.” Points of law 

current decisions of the United States Court of Military A

digested as an additional feature appearing in each issue.

Additional projects included the publication and distri

ing 1956 of a guide for presidents and members of spe

martial, N AVEXO S P 1524. In December, kits conta

legal reference materials were assembled as an aid to Navy 

Corps Reserve officer lawyers who are assigned primary 

line but who have legal duties as a collateral matter. Th

tion of these kits has begun and will be carried out on a 

basis.

In September, the Judge Advocate General and three 

his staff attended the annual meeting of the American Bar 

in Dallas, Texas. Participation in this meeting and in r

local conferences of the civilian bar has afforded an exce

tunity for a constructive interchange of ideas with lea

civilian bar. The civilian bar has demonstrated an inten

tinuing interest in the effective administration of milit

and its cooperation has contributed greatly to the success 

ministration. Close liaison with the American Bar A

Standing Committee on Legal Assistance to Servicemen a

National Legal Aid Association has also improved the effe

the Navy’s program of legal assistance to service personn

dependents.

This report is submitted pursuant to Article 67 (g) of t

Code of Military Justice. The period it covers has se

developments, and trends which promise a continued impr

the administration of military law and military justice in 

C h ester W ard,

Rear Admiral, USN

The Judge Advocate 

— 

-

-
till. 1* (H M to 1M*

Mh Ctttnl

TitU *1 PmhI OHk*

OHte> •< tU IMm Ww**wy •» * H H

TltW «< OWk«

Mile* al *• M fi 

* " ' 
Report

of

THE JUDGE A D V O C A TE GENERAL

o f

THE A IR FORCE

January 1,1956, to December 31,1956
ing critical views expressed by other interested agencies, the 

the proposal was revised to reflect those views which would 

the administration of military justice. That draft is n

studied within the military departments and an early agre

it is expected. It is hoped that Congress, during its next se

take favorable action on this needed legislation.

2. A habeas corpus case of particular significance to the A

was the case of United States of America ex rel Clarice B. 

Curtis Reed. A petition for writ of habeas corpus was fil

case in the United States District Court for the District of 

on 17 November 1955. It was alleged that even if Mrs. C

been subject to court-martial jurisdiction under Article 2 (1

Uniform Code of Military Justice at the time of her origina

court-martial in May 1953, she was no longer subject to such 

tion because the Air Force had transported her back to th

States and she was no longer a person “accompanying” th

Forces without the territorial limits of the United States w

meaning of Article 2 (11). The second argument was tha

2 (11) was unconstitutional insofar as it purported to make 

amenable to court-martial jurisdiction in time of peace. O

ment was heard by the District Court on 22 November 19

conclusion of which the court ruled in favor of Mrs. Cove

basis of the Toth decision and ordered Mrs. Covert’s release. 

appeal to the Supreme Court under the provisions of 28 USC 

made in December 1955. The case was argued before the 

April 1956. On 11 June 1956, the Supreme Court handed 

opinion in this case and its companion case (Kinsella v. 

holding that there was no constitutional bar to the power of 

to enact Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 2(11). A 

for Rehearing was filed in both cases and was granted by 

in November 1956. Supplemental briefs are being filed by 

ernment and the petitioner and it is anticipated that the cas

reargued in February or March 1957.
military obligation and obtain legal experience, they volunt

turn to more lucrative and rewarding practices in civilian life

replacements are young lawyers recently graduated from law 

who, too, at the end of 2 or 3 years, will also return to civilian 

The Uniform Code of Military Justice cannot be administe

the high degree of professional competence intended by C

while this situation continues.

4. During the period of this report, Major General Reg

Harmon, The Judge Advocate General, his assistant, Major 

Albert M. Kuhfeld, and senior members of his staff visited n

Air Force installations in the United States and overseas, 

to the requirement of Article 6 (a) of the Uniform Code of 

Justice. In addition, they attended bar association meeti

erans’ conventions and various conferences where the Unifo

of Military Justice was a topic of discussion.

5. The Office of The Judge Advocate General supervised 

ranged for the publication of 3 bound volumes of Court-Ma

ports and 1 volume of Digest of Opinions containing legal 

of the United States Court of Military Appeals, Army, N

Force, and Coast Guard. In addition, it published four 

paperbound volumes of Digest of Opinions; drafted and e

1957 Annotation to the Manual for Courts-Martial, 1951 (A

Pocket Part), which has approximately 350 pages and contain

opinions and decisions rendered by the United States Suprem

and other Federal courts, the United States Court of Military 

Boards of Review of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and the Coa

Executive Orders of the President and publications of the 

Department; and published 35 issues of the JAG Index-Dige

provides a rapid competent vehicle for disseminating militar

information to judge advocates in the field.

6. Continued emphasis was placed on the training program

Judge Advocate General Flights, Air Reserve Squadrons, 
9

S I Dec

T otal 

b. The following table shows the workload of the Boards o

during the same period:

1 Jan

$1 Dec

On hand at beginning of period 112

Referred for review 3,423 

Reviewed 3,349

Pending at close of period 186 

c. From 1 January to 31 December 1956, 51 percent of the 

whose cases were received in the Office of The Judge Advocate 

for review pursuant to Article 66 requested representation b

late defense counsel before Boards of Review.

d. Based upon the number of cases reviewed by Boards o

during this period, 13.3 percent were forwarded to the Unite

Court of Military Appeals pursuant to the three subdivision

Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 67 (b). Of the to

forwarded, all except seven were based upon petitions of the 

for grant of review by the Court of Military Appeals. Sev

during the period were certified by The Judge Advocate 

Petitions were granted by the Court of Military Appeals du

period in 6.2 percent of the cases which were petitioned, or 0.8 

of the total number of cases reviewed by the Boards of Revie

8. At the close of the period, there were 100 commands in 

Force exercising general court-martial jurisdiction. Reciproc

martial jurisdiction has been granted by the Secretary of 

to four commands.

R eginald C. H a r m o n ,

Major General, USAF,

The Judge Advocate Ge

United States Air Forc

____________________________________________________________ 

________________________________ 

___________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________ 

____________________________________ 

Report

o f

THE G EN ERA L COUNSEL

o f

THE DEPARTMENT O F THE TREASURY

(UNITED STATES COAST GUARD)

January 1 ,1 9 5 6 /to December 31/1956

during the year 1956. Comparative figures for records o

ceived in the past 3 years show:

19SS 

 General courts martial 19 

Special courts martial 202 

Summary courts martial 585 

T o ta l 806 

2. (a) Sixty-one records of trial were received in the Off

General Counsel for review by the single Treasury Departm

of Review. Of these 17 were general court-martial cases a

mainder special courts-martial. Two additional genera

martial were examined in the Office of the General Counsel pu

the provisions of Article 69 of the Code. Two general cou

cases involved commissioned officers. The following table 

case action by the Board of Review:

On hand at beginning of period 

Received during year 

Reviewed by Board of Review 

Pending at end of year 

(b) Board of Review action resulted in modification o

of trial in 20 cases. Only 1 rehearing was ordered. In 9 

sentence was disapproved in part and in 3 cases the find

modified but not the sentence; in 7 cases both findings and 

were modified. The Board of Review set aside 10 punitive d

Thirty-eight cases were affirmed without modification. In si

General Counsel exercised residual clemency after the Board 

decision. In sum, action upon appellate review resulted in 

the findings or the sentence or both in 34 percent of the case

the Board of Review. On the basis of 58 cases acted upon

sidering the clemency actions by the General Counsel, the 

trial were modified in 45 percent of the cases.

3. The accused petitioned the Court of Military Appeals 

to Article 67 of the Code in six instances. Four petitions w

- ________________________________ 

- _________________________________ 

- _______________________________ 

__________________________________________________ 

________________________________

___________________________________________

__________________________________

_________________________________________
Army JAG Chronicle Letter, and the Navy JAG Journal 

tributed to Coast Guard legal offices.

F eed C. S cribn

General Counse

, Treaswry Depa

56 U S GOVERNMENT PRINTIN6 O FFIC 

. .