ond 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GEN

ollhe 


ARMED FORCES 


ond Ihe 

GENERAL COUNSEL 


ollhe 


DEPARTMENT OF THE TREAS

PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUST

For Ihe.Period 

Jonuory 1.I95?, to December 31, 19

PROPE:R I Y OF u.S. ARMY 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S SC

LIBRARY 

WM, S. fULTON 

01 the 


SENATE AND OF THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 


and 10 Ihe 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 


and the 


SECRETABIES OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF TH

ABJlY,NAVY,BIR FOBCE,AND TREASURY 


PURSUANT TO THE 

UIIFOBM CODE OF rmrrABY JUSTICE 

For the Period 


January I, 1957, 10 December 31, 1957 


REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY APPE

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENEitAL OF THE ARM

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAV

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE AIR F

REPORT OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT 

TREASURY (UNITED STATES COAST GUARD) 

p

. of the 

UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS 

and 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL 


OF THE ARMED FORCES 


and 

THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE 


DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 


January 1, 1957 to December 31, 1957 

the Armed Forces, and the General Counsel of the Depa

the Treasury to meet annually to survey the operations of 

and prepare a report to the Committees on Armed Servi

Senate and the House of Representatives, to the Secretary o

and to the Secretaries of the Departments, with regard to 

of military justice and to the manner and means by which 

improved by legislative enactment. 

The Judges of the United States Court of Military Ap

.Judge Advocates General, and the General Counsel of the D

of the Treasury, hereinafter referred to as the Code Comm

met and conferred during the period of this report. 

Committee is submitting refinements of the previous rec

tions contained in the second annual report for the cale

1953 and reaffirmed in subsequent annual reports to dat

recommended changes are set out in exhibit A with an acco

statement of purpose, their principal features, and sectiona

To supplement the above recommendations, there was 

a continuing work subcommittee, composed of a represe

each branch of the Armed Services and the Court. The p

this subcommittee is to conduct a critical examination of 

in the light of the experience gained during the past 7 years 

tion thereunder. Detailed interim reports will in turn be 

to the parent Code Committee for further consideration a

sion. This co-ordinated study should result in further 

changes for consideration by the Congress to the end of i

the workings of the Code. 

The sectional reports of the Court and of the individua

outline the volume of court-martial cases subject to appella

during this reporting period. Exhibit B is attached to re

the number of court-martial cases of all types tried throu
GEORGE 'W. IIiCKMA

The Judge Advocate G

United Sta

CHESTER WARD, 

The Judge Advocate G

United Sta

REGINALD C.HARMON, 

The Judge Advocate G

United States A

JOHN K. CARLOCK, 

Acting General O

Department of the 

2 
EXHIBIT A 

461891S-1S8-2 

nate some of the procedural difficulties and delays which hav

under the Uniform Code of Military Justice since May 31, 1

to provide for more prompt and more efficient administr

military justice, both from the standpoint of the individual 

Government. 

PRINCIPAL FEATURES 

1. Single-officer courts. The proposed legislation, which 

upon Rule 23 of the :Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

permit an accused to request and, if the convening authority 

thereto, be tried before a single qualified officer, instead of a m

member special court-martial. The adoption of such a p

will result in a reduction of both time and manpower norm

pended in trials by special courts-martial. The rights of the 

in such cases are protected by the requirement that the offic

as a special court-martial have the basic qualifications of a la

under article 26 (a) and that he be certified as qualified for t

by The Judge Advocate General. 

2. Records of trial. At the present time, the use of a sum

record of trial is permitted in trials by special courts-mart

the accused is acquitted of all charges and specifications or w

sentence does not extend to a bad-conduct discharge. On t

hand, all records of trial by general courts-martial are 

verbatim accounts of the proceedings thereof, even though 

tence is one which, if adjudged by a special court-martial, 

summarized. The proposed bill would correct this situation 

viding for a complete verbatim record in only those cases i

sentence adjudged includes a bad-conduct discharge or is m

that which could be adjudged by a special court-martial. A

records of trial would contain such matter as may be required 

lations prescribed by the President. 

3. Review of records of trial. The present law requires al

court-martial cases to be forwarded to The Judge Advocate 

even though the sentence of the court is such that, if adjudg
a punitive discharge or confinement for 1 year or more 

ined in the office of The Judge Advocate General in ac

article 69, rather than by a board of review, if the ac

guilty and if he stated in writing that he does not de

a board of review. The enactment of this provision wo

lessen the number of cases which need to be reviewed 

review and will thereby diminish the overall time requ

court-martial· cases. As this procedure upon review 

ployed only in those cases where the accused has plead

believed that his substantial rights will not be prejudi

The present law requires The Judge Advocate Ge

article 69 cases to a board of review for corrective action 

all or part of the findings or sentence incorrect in law 

great many cases, the irregularities concerned involve 

settled in the law, and in those cases the board of r

amounts to no more than the application of those we

ciples~ This situation results in an unnecessary burden 

of review and unduly increases the time required to 

martial cases. To eliminate this unnecessary referen

of review, the proposed legislation authorizes The Ju

General to correct the irregularity or injustice, vesting i

powers and authority with respect to those cases that a b

has. It will be noted that The Judge Advocate Gener

thorized to refer any article 69 case to a board of rev

cretion, and it is required that any finding or sentenc

law or in fact be corrected either by a board of revi

Judge Advocate General. 

4. Powers of The Judge Advocate General. The pro

tion authorizes The Judge Advocate General to dismi

when the Court of Military Appeals or the board of r

rehearing which The Judge Advocate General finds 

It is believed that The Judge Advocate General is, in 

the best position to dismiss the charges himself or to dete

or not a rehearing is impracticable. Further, the 

6 
thority may order executed all portions of a sentence ex

portion involving dismissal, dishonorable or bad-conduct 

or affecting a general or flag officer, thus eliminating the d

between sentenced and unsentenced prisoners. No sentenc

ing to death may be executed until approved by the Pres

though the proposed legislation will remove an anomalous re

the present code by providing that an accused sentenced 

forfeits all pay and allowances, and that the forfeiture may 

effective on the date the sentence is approved by the c

authority. 

6. New trial. To better protect the rights of an accused

posed legislation extends the time within which an accused 

tion for a new trial to 2 years from the date the convening 

approves the sentence. Further, the board of review, th

States Court of Military Appeals, and The Judge Advocat

would be permitted to grant more comprehensive relief tha

possible. 

7. Votings and rulings. The proposed bill provides th

officer shall rule with finality upon a motion for a finding of n

It is anomalous to allow the lay members of a court-martia

rule the law officer on a question which is purely an issue o

S. Punitive articles. The present code does not provid

statutory authority for the prosecution of bad-check offen

proposed legislation adds an additional punitive article w

tains provisions similar to the bad-check statutes of the D

Columbia and the State of Missouri, including a provisi

failure to pay the holder of a bad check the amount due with

shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to defraud. O

difficulties arising under existing law is the necessity to 

bad-check offenses under one of three separate articles (12

134), none of which may be considered as a bad-clleck stat

cause of technical difficulties that arise as a result of the un

pleading of the wrong article, an obviously guilty person s
offenses, such as traffic violations, by imposition of fo

they are thereafter not handicapped professionally by a t

martial. However, in order to achieve an effective mon

ment for enlisted members in similar cases, it is necessar

a trial by court-martial, resulting in a permanent black 

enlisted member's record in the form of a conviction by 

The change contemplated by the proposed legislation 

prompt and effective disposition of such minor offenses. 

a commanding officer exercising general court-martia

may impose on an officer or warrant officer of his comma

of one-half of his pay for 2 months, instead of 1 month as 

in the code. The I-month limitation has proved uns

commanders in the field and is not cured by the fact that 

be tried by a special court-martial. An officer's prese

value within his command is seriously and permanently 

the publicity attendant to trial by court-martial. ·When 

occurs, prompt transfer of the officer after trial is imper

less of the outcome. Such a procedure is costly in time

manpower. It is believed to be essential that comma

retain their present power to try officers by special co

exceptional circumstances warrant. However, it is con

able to increase the punitive powers of article 15 so tha

punishment can be imposed upon an officer for a rel

offense. 

10. Miscellaneous. To facilitate administration of co

cilities under the United Nations or other allied comm

posed legislation authorizes the confinement, in United S

ment facilities, of members of the armed forces of the 

with the members of the armed forces of friendly foreig

In addition, the proposed legislation makes other c

present code of a technical nature, designed generally t

administration of military justice within the framework o

code . 

.8 
3 as8embled, That title 10, United States Code, is amended 

4 as follows: 

5 (1) Section 801 is amended by adding the 

6 following new clause at the end thereof: 

7 "(13) 'Convening authority' includes, in addition 

8 to the person who convened the court, a 

9 commissioned officer commanding for the time 

10 being, a successor in command, or any officer 

11 exercising general court-martial 

12 jurisdiction." 

13 (2) Section 812 is amended to read as follows: 

14 "§ 812. Art. 1'2 Oonfinementwith enemy 

15 prisoner8 prohibited 

16 "No member of the armed forces of the 

17 United States may be placed in confinement 

18 in immediate association with enemy prisoners 

19 or other foreign nationals not members of 

20 the armed forces of the United States, except 

21 that a member of the armed forces of the 

22 United States may be confined in United 
14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

p

(D) by adding the following new clauses at the 

end of subsection (a) (2) : 


"(G) if imposed by an officer in the 


grade of major or lieutenant commander 


or above, forfeiture of not more than 


one-half of one month's pay; or 


(II) if imposed by an officer in the 

grade of major or lieutenant commander 

or above, confinement for not more than 

seven consecutive days." 

(4) Section 816 is amended by striking out the 

word" ; and" in cla use (2) and inserting the 

words "or only of a law officer who is certified 

10 
13 section (a), except the President of the 

14 United States, is an accuser, the court 

15 must be convened by a competent authority 

16 not subordinate in command or grade to the 

17 accuser, and may in any case be convened 

18 by a superior competent authority." 

19 (6) Section 825 (a) is amended by adding the 

20 following new sentence at the end thereof: 

21 "However, to be eligible for appointment 

22 as a single-officer special court-martial, 

23 the officer must have the qualifications 

24 specified for a law officer in section 826 (a) 

461391S-~ 
14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

ppgp

court-martial". 

(9) Section 851 is amended­

(A) by striking out in the second sentence 


of subsection (b) the words "a motion for 


a finding of not guilty, or"; 


(B) by inserting in the third sentence of 


subsection (b) after the word "trial" the 


words "except a ruling on a motion for a 


finding of not guilty that was granted" ; 


and 


(C) 	by adding the following new subsection: 

"(d) Subsections (a), (b), and (c) of 

12 
13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

separate record of the proceedings of the 

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 that 

which could be adjudged by a special courtmartial shall contain a complete verbatim 

account of the proceedings and testimony 

before the court, and shall be authenticated in such manner as the President 

may, by regulation, prescrilw. 

All other records of trial shall contain 
13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

following new sentence at the end ofsubsection (a) : 

"A sentence to death includes forfeiture 

of all pay and allowances and dishonorable 

discharge. The forfeiture may apply to 

all pay and allowances becoming due on or 

after the date on which the sentence is approved 

by the convening authority." 

(12) Section 865 is amended­

(A) by ameq,ding subsection (a) to read 

as follows: 

"(a) Whentheconveningauthorityhas 
13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

words "to be reviewed by a board of review" 

wherever they appear therein; and 

(C) by amending subsection (c) to read as 

follows: 

" (c) All other records oftrial by 


court-martial shall be reviewed by­


(1) a judge advocate of the Army 

or Air Force; 

(2) an officer of the Navy or 

Marine Corps on active duty who 

is a member of the bar of a Federal 

court or of the highest court of a 

Statejor 
13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

(1) extends to death; 

(2) affects a general or flag 

officer; 

(3) extends to the dismissal of a 

commissioned officer or a cadet 

or midshipman; or 

(4) includes a dishonorable or badconduct discharge, or confinement 

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 

16 
13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

concerned, or the Court of Military 

Appeals, instruct the convening 

authority to take action in accordance 

with the decision of the board of 

review. Ifthe board of review has 

ordered a rehearing and the convening 

authority finds a rehearing impracticable, he may dismiss the charges." 

(14) Section 867 is amended by inserting the 

following new sentence after the first 

sentenceofsubsection (f) : 

"The Judge Advocate General may dismiss 
13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

examined in the office of the Judge Advocate 

General. If any part of the findings or 

sentence is found unsupported in law, the 

Judge Advocate General shall either refer 

the record to a board of review for review 

under section 866 of this title (article 66) 

or take such action in the case as a board 

of review may take under section 866 (c) and (d) 

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

the record is reviewed by a board of review, 

they may be no further review by the Court 

of Military Appeals, except under section 

867 (b) (2) ofthis title (article 67 (b) (2»." 
14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

"(c) That part of a sentence 

extending to dishonorable or bad-conduct 

discharge may not be executed until 

approved by the Judge Advocate General 

or affimed by a board of review, as 

the case may be, and, in cases reviewed 

by it, affirmed by the Court of Military 

Appeals."; and 

(C) by inserting in subsection (d) after the 

words "court-martial sentences" the words 

"and parts 8f sentences". 

461393-~8---4 
13 section 866 or 867 of this title 

14 (article 66 or 67), respectively. 

15 Otherwise, the Judge Advocate General 

16 may grant a new trial in whole or in 

17 part or may vacate or modify the 

18 findings and sentence in whole or in 

19 part." 

20 (18) Section 895 is amended by striking out the 

21 words "custody or confinement" and inserting the 

22 words "physical restraint lawfully imposed" in 

23 place thereof. . 

24 (19) Subchapter X of chapter 47 is amended20 
13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

(3) for any purpose with intent 

to deceive or defraud; 


makes, draws, utters, or delivers any 


check, draft, or order for the payment 


of money upon any bank or other 


depository, knowing at the time that 


the maker or drawer has not or will 


not have sufficient funds in, or credit 


with, the bank or other depository for 


the payment of that check, draft, or 


order in full upon its presentment, 


shall be punished as a court-martial' 


may direct. The making, drawing, 

confinement facilities with members of the armed forces 

foreign nations. 

Section 1 (3) amends article 15 to authorize a comman

exercising general court-martial jurisdiction to impose upo

of his command forfeiture of one-half of his pay per m

period of 2 months. It also authorizes a commanding 

grade of major or lieutenant commander or above to impo

enlisted man of his command forfeiture of not more than 

1 month's payor confinement for not more than 7 consec

Section 1 (4) amends article 16 to provide that a sp

martial shall consist of only a law officer if the accused, 

court is convened, so requests in writing and the convenin

consents thereto. However, before he makes such a r

accused is entitled to know the identity of the law officer a

the ad vice of counsel. 

Section 1 (5) amends articles 22 (b) and 23 (b) to pr

except for the president, a convening authority not sub

command or grade to the accuser shall be "compet~nt 

within the meaning thereof, and that a court may, in a

convened by superior competent authority when considere

by him. 

Section 1 (6) amends article 25 (a) to provide that 

acting as a special court-martial must have the qualifica

fied for alaw officer in article 26 (a) and, in addition, must 

to be qualified for duty as a single-officer special court-ma

Judge Advocate General. 

Section 1 (7) extends the pl'o,-isiollS of article 37 to i

officers serving conyening authorities and commanding 

Section 1 (8) amends article 41 (b) to provide that a s

special court-martial may be challenged only for cause. 

Secti.on 1 (.9) amends artiele 51 to provide that the law 

rule with finality on a motion for a finding of not guilt

a motion is granted, however, he mny not luter change 

It also prm'ides that. nn oflicer acting as a spedal court-m
sentenced to death forfeits all pay and allowances and th

feiture may apply to all pay and allowances becoming due 

the date the sentence is approved by the convening autho

Section 1 (12) amends article 65 to require the convening 

when he has taken final action, to send to the appropr

Advocate General each record of trial in which the s

approved by him, includes a bad-conduct discharge or is 

that which could have been adjudged by a special court-m

also deletes language implying that all records of trial 

court-martial forwarded to The Judge Advocate General 

section must be reviewed by a board of review. It also p

the review and disposition of all records of trial not othe

vided for in article 65 (a)· nnd (b). 

Section 1 (13) amends article 66 to provide that a reco

which would otherwise be reviewed by a board of review 

sentence includes a dishonorable or bad-conduct dischar

finement for 1 year or more, need not be reviewed by a boar

if the accused pleaded guilty to each offense of which he 

guilty and if he stated in writing after the convening auth

in his case that he does not desire review by a board of 

also authorizes The Judge Advocate General to dismiss t

whenever he finds that a rehearing ordered by a board o

impracticable. 

Section 1 (14) amends article 67 (f) to authorize The 

vocate General to dismiss the charges whenever he finds th

ing ordered by the Court of Military Appeals is impractic

Section 1 (15) amends article 69 to provide that every 

warded to The Judge Advocate General under article 65, th

review for which is not otherwise provided by article 65 or 

examined in the office of The Judge Advocate General. H

such a record to a board of review or he may take such action 

as a board of review may under article 66 (c) and (d). 1£ 

is reviewed by a board of review, there will be no further re
enthetical phrase "other than a general or flag officer" is 

surplusage in view of the express provision of article 71 (a

Section 1 (17) amends article 73 to extend the time w

the accused may petition for a new trial to 2 years from t

convening authority approves the sentence, and to provi

Court of Military Appeals and the board of review may, 

to determining whether a new trial in whole or in par

granted, take appropriate action under article 66 or article 

tively. Further, The Judge Advocate General is authoriz

a new trial in whole or in part, or to vacate or modify the f

the sentence in whole or in part. 

Section 1 (18) amends article 95 to remove all distinct

confinement and custody. 

Section 1 (19) inserts an additional punitive article sim

bad-check statutes of the District of Columbia (title 22, 

sec. 1410) and the State of Missouri (Revised Statutes 

561.460,561.470,561.480) • 

Section 2 provides that these amendments become effec

first day of the tenth month following the mo~th in which 

26 
EXHIBIT B 


461396-118-11 

884,245 13,920 12, 193 

Cases Wherein Findings were 

Modified by Boards of 

Review________________ _ 3 2, ~61 421 469 

Cases Docketed with 

USCMA_______________ _ 37,942 1,523 1, 616 

Opinions Published by 

USCMA_______________ _ 3754 98 209 

Opinions Published Wherein 

Decisions of Boards of 

Review were Modified by USCMA_______________ _ 8357 54 142 

I As of December 31; !Ill military personnel on extended or continuous active duty. Dat

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

Reserve Activities and Officer Candidates. Retired personnel are excluded. 

, Tot!ll Court-Martial cases for c!IIeudar years 1951 through 1955_ 

I Tot!ll Court-Marti!ll cases from May 31, 11151 (effective date of the Uniform Code of M

to December 31, 1905. 

Report 

of the 

UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY APPEA

January 1, 1957 to December 31, 1957 

ppjp

cases processed during the last year, the status of the doc

as additional pertinent information on the activities and 

ments 

The 

of 

total 

the 

number 

Court. 

of cases filed in the 

-

United States Co

tary Appeals in calendar year 1957 was 1,636, an increase 

over calendar year 1956. Pending cqmpletion as of D

1957, there were 338 cases as compared with 206 for th

terminal date. This latter increase is attributed to the int

load of the Court, which has sharply risen during th

period. By way of illustration, there ,were written and pu

opinions in 1957, doubling the output of 104: opinions in 19

total number of 209 written and published opinions, 14:

versed or modified the decisions of the boards of review. T

trend reflects the Court's demand for, stricter compliance 

sions of the Code at the court-martial bd intermediate re

It is believed that this trend will result in bringing each br

Armed Services in closer harmony with the sound prac

obtain in our civilian system. 

The Court admitted 769 practioners to the membership 

which now totals 6,916. Civilian attorneys admitted to 

dicating an interest in the field of military law, outnumber 

wise the attorneys in the Armed Services and represent 

in the American Union as well as the Territories of Alaska 

and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.; 

In view of the substantial workload of the Court, it was 

for the Judges to accept all of the many invitations exten

to address various Reserve Officers Associations, State an

Bar Associations, and other civic organizations. However

conferred with many officers of supervisory rank from eac

the Armed Services during the course of the year in order 

themselves with the problems encountered at the operati

the Code in the field. The Court, since its creation in 195
To summarize the work product of the Court since its esta

the Court has docketed by way of petition, certificate, or 

review 11,081 cases. Completed action can be reported in 

these. Opinions numbering 1,061 have been published wi

120 in the process of completion. Of the 1,061 published 

40 involved Army officers; 8 Naval officers; 11 Air Force 

Coast Guard officers, and 17 civilians. The remaining op

volved enlisted personnel. As of December 31,1957, review 

completed in 29 capital cases involving 34 members of t

Services. 

Attached is a detailed analysis of the status of cases proc

the Court came into existence in 1951. 

Respectfully submitted, 

ROBERT E. QUINN

Ohie

GEORGE W. LATIM

HOMER FERGUSO

34 
24 

4 

TotaL _______________________ _ 7,802 1,515 1,60

Certificates (A rt. 67(b)(2» : Arnly __________________________ _ 

Navy __________________________ _ 67 

110 

7 

13 

Air Force_______________________ _ 16 7 

Coast Guard____________________ _ 5 0 

TotaL _______________________ _ 198 27 

Mandatory (Art. 6l(b) (1»: Army __________________________ _ 

Navy __________________________ _ 

Air Force_______________________ _ 

29 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

Coast Guard____________________ _ 0 0 

Total ________________________ _ 30 0 

Total cases docketed___________ _ 8,030 1,542 1,63

I 11,081 cases actually assigned docket numbers. Sixty-three caReS counted as both Pe

cates. Three cases certified twice. Fifty-seven cases submitted as Petitions twice

case flied twice. Three Mandatory cases flied as Petitions after second Board of Rev

COURT ACTION 

Total a8 Of Jan. I, 1966 Jan. 1,

Dec. 91, to Dec. $1, to Dec. 

Petitions (Art. 67 (b) (3»: 1955 1956 1967 

Granted________________________ _ 627 102 2

I>enied_________________________ _ 6,878 1,390 1,22

I>ismissed ______________________ _ 500 

witdrawn_____________________ _ 131 24 

I>isposed of on motion to dismiss: 

With opinioll________________ _ 7 0 

Without opinion_____________ _ 25 2 

I>isposed of by Order setting aside 

findings and sentence __________ _ 2 0 

Remanded to Board of Review ____ _ 23 3 

Court action due (30 days)2_______ _ 75 91 1

Awaiting briefs 2_________________ _ 52 35 

• As of December 31, 1955, 1956, and 1957. 
g , __________________ 0 0 1 

Opinions rendered: 

Petitions_________________________ 521 75 185 

Motions to Dismiss_______________ 8 1 0 

Per Curiam Grants _______________ 21 0 1 

Certificates______________________ 159 22 21 

Certificates and Petitions__________ 25 1 1 

Mandatory ____ ~ _________________ 25 5 1 

Remanded to Board of Review _____ 1 0 0 

Petition for a New TriaL__________ 1 0 0 

Petition for Reconsideration of Petition for New TriaL _____________ 1 0 0 

TotaL _________________________ 762 104 209 

Completed Cases: 

Petitions denied __________________ 6,878 1,390 1,229 

Petitions dismissed ________________ 5 0 0 

Petitions withdrawn_______________ 131 24 56 

Certificates withdrawn ____________ 4 0 0 

Opinions rendered ________________ 755 104 209 

Disposed of on Motion to dismiss: 

With opinion _________________ 7 0 0 

Without opinion______________ 25 2 4 

Disposed of by Order setting aside 

findings and sentence____________ 2 0 0 

Remanded to Board of Review_____ 24 3 12 

TotaL_________________________ 7,831 1, 523 1,510 

• As of December 31, 1955, 1956, and 1957. 


11075 cases were disposed of by 1061 published opinions. 61 opinions were rendered in ca

Army officers, 11 Air Force officers, 8 Navy officers, and 2 Coast Guard officers. In addit

were rendered in cases involving 17 civilians. The remainder concerned enlisted personnel

36 


Report 

of 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 

of 

THE ARMY 

January 1, 1957 to December 31, 1957 

substantially embodies the joint position of The Judge 

General of the Armed Forces and the United States Court 

Appeals taken in the annual report for the period 1 June 

December 1953. The bill appearing as exhibit A in the an

for the period 1 January 1956 to 31 December 1956, is su

similar to the present draft legislation. It is believed tha

of the legislation would effect an improvement in the adm

of military justice and at the same time add to those 

protections already accorded accused persons. 

The Supreme Court decision in the case of Reid Y. Oove

1 (1957), did not provide a definite ruling as to the const

of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 2 (11). T

of the case was limited to the declaration that court-mart

tion could not constitutionally extend to the trial of civil

ents overseas for capital offenses in peacetime, thus leaving 

the question of jurisdiction as to noncapital offenses and a

employees overseas. However, one United States Dis

(United States em rel Sn?Jith l;elat01' v. Kinsella, S. D. lV. V

12 August 1957) and one Army board of review (CM 39

decided 11 October 1957) have extended the holding to pr

of dependents for noncapital offenses. Other habeas c

raising these issues are now pending. In the event the Sup

decision is broadly applied by judicial interpretation so a

court-martial trial of any civilians overseas in time of 

of such persons, at this time, can be only in a foreign trib

objectionable situation could be alleviated by remedial Co

legislation. Accordingly, this office is considering the re

tion of appropriate legislative proposals. 

A study ,vas instituted of the methods now in use to 

officers for general courts-martial. A resulting plan is be

ered to create a judiciary division in the Office of The Judg

General, staffed by selected qualified senior judge advocat

divide the world into judicial areas and the areas into judi

and to give one or more members of the division duty stat
these changes place an increased burden and responsibi

service lawyer, and render it imperative that the impo

position in the military be accorded appropriate recogni

During the past year, the recommendation was made 

that electrocution supplant hanging as the means of e

death penalty imposed by courts-martial in time of peace 

States. This recommendation was guided by the princip

ods and procedures of law enforcement utilized in the mi

conform, insofar as practicable, to methods and proced

civilian jurisdictions. A study revealed that the majo

having capital punishment utilize the electric chair as 

executing the death penalty and resulted in the above reco

In lieu of approval of the recommendation, the Secretary 

expressed the desire that the means of execution of the d

be discretionary with proper authority so that electroc

selected as an additional alternative to those means now 

The determination of when individuals whose conduct 

wise be criminal ought to be exculpated on the ground th

suffering from mental disease or defect when they acted 

has always been a major problem in the criminal law, and 

been receiving increased public attention. The present 

in paragraph 1200, Manual for Oourt8-Martial, United 

has been subjected to the criticism that it uses language 

fusing as a matter of law and antiquated in the light o

psychiatric knowledge. An extensive study has been con

office, which study currently recommends that section 

American Law Institute Model Penal Code be adopted a

test of criminal responsibility by means of an appropr

of the Manual for Oourt8-Martial, United States, 1951. 

During the past year the civilian bar has indicated 

interest in military law. Several state and local bar asso

or are organizing Military Law Committees. Such co

42 
of Korea Army, were graduated. 

The Fifth Advanced Course of 35 weeks was comple

and the Sixth Advanced Course was begun in September 

25 officers of the sixth class include five from the Nav

the Marine Corps, one from the Coast Guard, and one from 

Forces of the Philippines. In the revised program of ins

the course, increased emphasis has been placed on probl

struction, progressively presenting more difficult and br

lems, and on seminar of committee-type discussions of the

The presentation of a graduate-level thesis relating to 

problem area in the field of military law continues to be 

part of the advanced course. During the year, several o

published in legal periodicals, and all of the unclassified 

sented by members of the Fifth Advanced Course were 

in order to stimulate further study and to facilitnte res

field of military law. . 

In the field of procurement law, the School conduct

course in contract termination, a seminar on the utilizat

position of government property, and two cycles of the 

curement Law Course. Approximately 200 military and 

torneys of the Government, representing all of the Ar

und many other governmental agencies, attended these c

In June, 50 judge advocates of the Army National Gu

National Guard attended a 2-week refresher course. The 

ducted for the first time in 1956, has now been establish

tinuing basis. In July, the first Law Officer Course was c

the School. Twenty-one officers attended the 3-week c

course is designed to educate and train law officers of gen

martial in their judicial duties and responsibilities. A c

branch service school instructors in military law was 

September and was attended by representatives of va

service schools. Emphasis was placed on the applicatio

ship techniques in order to avoid the necessity for puniti
Company Officer Course and the 6-year Advanced Offi

Because of budgetary limitations, the lHlmber of stude

USAR school program for the current school year is consi

than the number who participated during the previous s

In the judge advocate Extension Course Program, the Sch

isters 46 branch material subcourses, including 23 new a

subcourses, for approximately 800 officers. Selected tra

terials were also furnished to other l'esene judge advocat

ing units and in mobilization designation positions. 

Various Department of the Army puhl!('ations, inclu

Special Court-Martial Convening Authority", which is 

guide to assist inferior court-martial conyening authori

performance of their duties in connection with the admin

military justice; a reyision of "The Law Officer," which is 

the law officer of a general court-martial and the president 

court-martial; and a revision of the "United States ~\..rmy

mulative Pocket Part" to the "Manual for Courts-Mart

States, 1951" were also prepared. The School continued 

the "Procurement Legal Service," n, biweekly digest of 

decisions and opinions in the field of government contrac

curement law, and the periodical command letter of The 

vocate General which disseminates recent developments 

law of importance to judge advocates in the field. ,Vith t

the USAR school year, this latter publication has been dis

all Reserve judge advocates in the Ready Reserve as pa

training media. In addition, adion was initiated to obtai

for the publication of a military law quarterly in which a

advanced class theses will be published for distribution to t

serviCes. 

The school again participated in the planning and con

interservice logistical exercise invoh-ing combined action b

officer course students from 17 Army service schools. "LO

tested the feasibility of separating judge advocate staff-adv

44 
followed by a 3-month course in basic military law at Th

vocate General's School. 

Pursuant to the Uniform Code of :Military Justice, A

The Judge Advocate General and senior members of his sta

with the supervision of the achninistration of military just

Army headquarters and principal posts located within the 

United States and major oversea commands. 

The number of records of trial received in the office o

Advocate General for review pursuant to Article 66 durin

covered by this report follows: 

Total ________________________________________________________

1 This figure includes 2 caseR for which both review pursuant to Article 

tion pursuant to Article 69 were required by the Code; these caRes are no

figures for Article 69, below. 

In addition, the following table shows the number of rec

received in the Office of The Judge Advocate General for 

pusuant to Article 69 during the same period: 

Total ________________________________________________________

• One court of inquiry case Included. 

The following table shows the workload of records of 

Boards of Review during the same period. 

On hand at beginning of period_________________________________

lteferred for revievv ________ ~ __________________________________

TotaI ________________________________________________________

ltevievved ____________________________________________________

Pending at close of period_____________________________________

Total ________________________________________________________

• This figure Includes 19 cases which were received for review pursua

and referred to Boards of Review. 
g

46 
Report 

of 


THE JUDGE AD,VOCATE GENERAL 


of 


THE NAVY 


January 1, 1957 to December 31, 1957 

work. As a result, there has been some criticism of the adm

of military justice in the Navy, both by the United State

Military Appeals and by Navy commanders. 

Landmark decisions of the United States Court of Milita

within the last year have redefined the proof necessary 

desertion (Cothern); denied the use of the Manual to co

members (Rinehart); dettlrmined that the offense of un

absence is a necessarily lesser included offense of missing 

through neglect (Posnik); and asserted the right of an 

have a qualified lawyer appointed to represent him at an 

investigation (Tomaszewski). While undoubtedly these de

a necessary implementation and interpretation of the la

"line" of the Navy on whom falls the initial responsibility 

taining discipline, they represent drastic departures fro

thinking-and doing. 

More and more it is becoming evident that the prepara

and review of courts-martial is a full-time assignment for t

lawyer. This means that we need more rather than few

lawyers if we are to carry out the will of Congress and the d

the United States Court of Military Appeals. In the fa

increasing demands, it is important to note that today, as ne

young lawyers completing their obligated military service 

ing to civilian life. To meet this ever-present problem, a 

curement program for Reserve law specialists has been in

The program is designed to reach into the accredited law 

our country for topflight talent. Those selected are com

Lt. (jg.) , granted 3 years constructive credit, and assigned a 

law specialist designator. This insures their assignmen

duty in law billets. This approach will, it is hoped, make 

Law Program more attractive. The fad remains, however

young lawyers, fresh out of law school, need training and 

By the time they have attained a modicum of either, thei

service has been completed. A replacement must be provid
has been completed yet the punitive discharge, which is an in

of the sentence, cannot be executed pending final outcome o

review procedures. A completed enlistment-an element 

in civil life-adds to complication. Some means must b

accommodate this type of case. The problem is not witho

and should be made an agenda item at an early meeting of 

Advocates General and the United States Court of :Milita

As an interim measure, every effort should be made to spee

reviews. 

On the positive side of the ledger, giant steps have bee

improve the administration of justice in the Navy. 

SECNAVINST 5811.1 of 11 September 1957 advised 

authorities of general courts-martial of their authority to 

trial agreements to reduce charges and/or to mitigate pun

cases where the accused pleads guilty. A major command r

the use of this instruction has cut courtroom hours by 

66% in each case. The conservation of manpower resource

in prisoners and guards; the savings of time and the re

paper work in the trial and review of cases; the reduction i

trial and post-trial delays; the consequent reduction in br

offenders not properly classified as criminals; and the po

ings of millions of dollars in naval appropriations are o

SECNAVINST 5811.2 of 17 December 1957 extends t

pretrial agreements to include special courts-martial. S

courts-martial constitute a much larger proportion of the N

work than do general courts-martial (approximately 10 

instruction will afford even greater opportunities to reduc

population, conserve manpower and money, and improve 

istration of military justice in the Navy. 

These pretrial agreements must be handled with prudenc

if used judiciously will they accomplish their purpose. De

sel must continue to represent the accused with vigor notw

the agreements. He must never abdicate his client's cause. 

50 
yy

pellate processing time and final disposition of court-ma

An all-out effort is being made to improve the quality a

of the presentation of cases before boards of review and 

States Court of Military Appeals. Wherever consiste

overall needs of the service, the more experienced and seaso

in the field of criminal law are being assigned to appellat

Increasing brig populations and congested board of rev

as hereinbefore referred to, gave rise to special studies of 

lems. In most instances lack of sufficient personnel to 

disciplinary case load was found to be the underlying 

December 1957, in an effort to alleviate the situation, t

Naval Personnel, on the recommendation of The Judg

General, created two Task Forces--each consisting of 

law specialists and court reporters. It will take some few 

organize the two groups, nevertheless the potential valu

two mobile teams available to move into areas overloade

ciplinary cases is readily apparent. Of special import is t

these Task Forces, when not on the move, will be engaged i

the appellate review dockets. Since resort to the task fo

is but a temporary measure, The Judge Advocate Genera

mended that the legal staffs of receiving stations and sim

ties be reviewed with the view of providing a sufficient num

fied personnel to handle the work loads. 

In December 1957, The Judge Advocate General formal

OPERATION TAPECUT-a program designed for im

speeding the administration of justice and promoting disC

Navy and Marine Corps. The program has four specif

(1) To decrease the tie-up of manpower resources in ou

To conserve the manpower resources of personnel respons

administration of justice and discipline-particularly c

officers and executive officers afloat; (3) To improve the 

effectiveness of justice in the Navy and Marine Corps by 
, 

of an intent to desert. Article 10, UCMJ, applies to 

tion and if this additional evidence of an intent to d

reasonably and speedily available, the accused should 

unauthorIzed absence only * * *." 

The following figures on desertion and unauthorized ab

mitments in Navy retraining commands during the p

through December 1957 indicate the effect of the Oothern d

ALNAV28: 

Deserters 

1[cclian Sellte

Month Number sentence committed in months 

Hig

July_________________________________ _ 45 15.5 

AugusL______________________________ _ 33 18.3 

September____________________________ _ 35 12.8 

October______________________________ _ 28 12.4 

November__________________________0 __ _ 13 (1) 

December_______0____0 _________________ _ 11 (1) 

First Half 1957 (Monthly Average) ______ _ 49 18.0 

Unauthorized Absentees 

Month Number 

Median 

sentence Sente

committed in months 

Hig

July__________________________________ 

August_____ ____ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

September______ __ __ ____ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

Octobec____ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ 

November_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ ___ __ ____ _ 

December____ __ _ _ ___ _____ ___ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ 

First Half 1957 (Monthly Average)_______ 

503 

564 

534 

603 

527 

489 

486 

6.0 

5.8 

5. 9 

5.6 

5.6 

5. 3 

6.3 

I Not available. 

52 
TotaL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 

Reviewed during 1957____ ~________________________________ 5

Pending December 31,1957________________________________ 

TotaL _ _ _ __ __ ____ _ _ ____ ______ __ ___ ___ _______ ______ ____

The two boards of review established on the 'Vest Co

Judge Advocate General received for review 655 gene

martial and 1,479 special courts-martial. This total of 

comprised 37.7% of the total number of cases received by 

Advocate General for review by boards of review during 

ingperiod. 

During 1957, 59.6% of the accused whose cases were 

the Office of The Judge Advocate General for review p

Article 66 requested representation by appellate defense 

fore boards of review. This constitutes a decrease of alm

cent from 1956, which in turn showed a decrease of 2 pe

1955. Thus for the second year, the trend toward consiste

in this respect prior to 1955 has been reversed. The 

accused requesting appellate representation remains 

amounting to 3,374. 

Of cases reviewed by boards of review during 1957, 

forwarded to the United States Court of Military Appeal

to Article 67 (b) (2) and (3) oHhe Code. 

TRAINING 

(a) Oourses of Study at the U. S. Naval School (Nava

The U. S. Naval School (Naval Justice), staffed by law spe

under the technical supervision of The Judge Advocate Ge

tinues to rank as one of the best service schools in the N

again emphasized that the course of instruction is aimed 

officers of the line (nonlawyers) in the working requirem

Uniform Code of Military Justice. The school also offe
Each summer, sandwiched between regular courses, a sp

course of instruction is provided for inactive Reserve offi

ing active duty training. As in the past, this year's atten

the facilities of the school. 

(b) Oourses of Study Oonducted by the Staff of the N 

School Away Fr01n Newport. Again as in the past, at th

the Commandant of the Marine Corps, a team of officer 

instructors from the school conducted the regular 7-week 

both officers and enlisted men at Camp Pendleton, Californ

The school staff continued its participation in the Sa

and New Orleans Law Seminars by sending teams to co

courses of instruction in military law. " 

Considering the small staff of instructors (14 officers and 

the total student output as shown by the following tab

phenomenal: 

Regular 7-week Course _____________________________ _ °f

Court Reporting Course ____________________________ _ 

Senior Officer's Short Course ________________________ _ 

Special Course Naval War College ___________________ _ 

Reserve Training Course ___________________________ _ 

Special 7-week Course at Camp Pendleton ____________ _ 

Limited Duty Officers_____________________________ _ 

Aviation Ground Officers ___________________________ _ 

Total __________________________________________ _ 1

(c) Oourses of Study at the P. G. Line School, Mon

proximately 700 naval officers attending the P. G. Lin

Monterey, received, as part of their education, a course o

in Military Justice. Two Law Specialists are assigned to 

staff for this purpose. The course of instruction is pat

the one developed at Naval Justice School. 

Operating under a training quota allocated to The Jud

General, five law specialists attend the P. G. Line School 

54 
(e) Oorre8pondence Oour8e8. The correspondence co

cussed in the last Annual Report were again offered durin

year. Based upon the number of persons participating in 

gram, these courses continue to attract widespread interest o

personnel. 

(f) P08t Gmduate Training in Military Law. The Jud

cate General considers that post graduate training in milita

law specialists is necessary for the improvement of the i

officer, for thereby, the quality of legal service rendered is 

The Army Judge Advocate General's School at Charlottes

ginia, provides the perfect vehicles. In the words of David 

well, Esquire, former President of the American Bar As

"The school provides training for senior judge advocates of 

and law specialists of the Navy to equip them for leadersh

military law practice." The Judge Advocate General co

make full use of his quota of five officers per year for this c

Distribution of kits containing basic legal reference ma

use by Navy and Marine Corps Reserve officer-lawyers wh

signed primary duty in the line but who have legal duties 

lateral matter was continued during 1957. ApproxilIk'tte

these kits have been distributed during the year. 

Emphasis on the training of inactive Naval Reserve office

in military justice has continued during 1957. At the pre

there are 50 organized Reserve Law Companies in the ten N

tricts located in the continental United States, with appr

900 lawyers actively participating in the program. In ad

scheduled drills throughout the year, many of these officers u

active-duty training at naval installations and in the Offic

Judge Advocate General. Specialized training was conduc

Naval Justice School, and seminars in military justice were 

by The Judge Advocate General at New Orleans (17-27 Ma
Bar Association meeting held in London in the summer of 

ticipation with the civilian bar continues to afford an exce

tunity for a constructive interchange of ideas between milit

and civilian practitioners and, additionally, it fosters the 

continuing interest in the effective administration of mili

which has been demonstrated by the civilian members o

profession. 

Committee hearings on the recommendation for the im

of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as commented u

year's report, are still in the offing. 'Vhether or not the A

ices Committee of the House of Representatives will ho

during 1958 is still problematical. 

During the past year, the JAG Journal continued efforts 

legal forehandedness among personnel charged with the 

tion of Naval justice, and to bring to notice recent deve

this field. Articles published included topics emphasizin

law under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, decis

United States Court of Military Appeals, and trends in

the Court's decisions. Also, wide dissemination of digests o

United States Court of Military Appeals decisions was ac

by means of the Court-Martial Reports Digest section. 

research of material contained in past issues of the .Journa

cumulative index was published. 

An item of major significance was the December 1957-J

issue of the Journal. This issue, published as a symposiu

voted to the Navy's program for improving the speedin

administration of justice and promoting discipline in th

Marine Corps. It included articles by the Secretary of th

Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Personnel and Reser

the Chief of Naval Operations, the Commandant of the Ma

and the Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, and 

In addition, the issue contained articles discussing a Doc

procedure designed to improve and speed up the trial an

56 


Report 

of 


THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 


of 


THE AIR FORCE 


January 1, 1957 to December 31, 195

of the Army, the Department of the Navy, the Departm

Treasury, and the Court of Military Appeals, and were 

to Congress on 2 November 1957. The proposed legisla

result in a substantial improvement of the administration 

justice. Its early enactment is urged. 

2. On 10 June 1957, the Supreme Comt handed down 

after rehearing in the habeas corpus cases of Reid v. Oove

sella v. Krueger, 354: U. S. 1. The latest opinion of the 

turned its previous decision in these cases which had be

down on 11 June 195G. This prior decision was referre

annual report for 195G. 

In its 1957 decision, four of the justices held in effect th

constitutional for Congress to provide for the trial of c

time of peace by courts-martial (although the opinion ind

there might be a class'of civilians so closely connected with 

forces that they would be subject to its jurisdiction, this 

not defined). Two of the justices concurred with the 

limited their decision to the narrow question of whether or 

dependents overseas could be tried for capital offenses 

martial in time of peace. Using Powell Y. Alabama as a gu

distinguishing trials involving capital offenses from those 

noncapital offenses, they held that such jurisdiction was 

tional and left open the question of whether or not it wo

stitutional to court-martial civilian dependents for noncapi

or to court-martial civilian employees for either capital or 

offenses. Two of the justices dissented and held that Art

was a necessary and proper exercise of the power granted t

to make rules for the government and regulation of the 

naval forces. One justice did not palticipate in the cases. 

On 2 December 1957 a petition for a writ of habeas corpu

in the United States District Court for the District of C

behalf of a Department of the Air Force civilian employe

of a noncapital offense by an Air Force comt-martial c
Department is composed of inexperienced young lawyer

of law school. As these young military lawyers comple

tary obligation and obtain legal experience, they volun

to more lucrative and rewarding practices in civilian lif

placements are young lawyers recently graduated from 

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

The Uniform Code of Military Justice cannot be admi

the high degree of professional competence intended 

while this situation continues. Incentives beyond thos

able are essential if the Air- Force is to retain com

advocates. 

4. During the period of this report, Major General 

Harmon, The Judge Advocate General, his assistant, M

Albert M. Kuhfeld, and senior members of his staff visi

Air Force installations in the United States and overseas

the requirement of Article 6 (a) of the Uniform Cod

Justice. In addition, they attended bar association me

ans' conventions and various conferences where the Uni

Military Justice was a topic of discussion. 

5. The Office of The Judge Adyocate General super

ranged for the publication of three bound volumes of C

Reports and one volume of Digest of Opinions containin

ions of the United States Court of Military Appeals, 

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

paperbound volumes of Digest of Opinions; drafted

published slip sheet annotations to the Manual for Co

1951, of cases decided by the United States Supreme C

United States Court of Military Appeals, which overru

fied portions of the Manual and the Uniform Code of 

tice; analyzed, indexed and digested 335 decisions by 

States Court of Military Appeals and Air Force Boar

and 107 grants of review by the United States Court of 

peals; drafted and edited a complete revision of the c

62 
The overall strength of the Reserve department expand

participating and trained judge advocate Reserve. Profi

insured by staff visits from Headquarters, United State"! 

Headqualters, Continental Air Command and its numbered 

headquarters. The Judge Advocate General's program 

orientation visits to ·Washington continued, though som

tailed by reduced Air Force Reserve training flights. Bri

conduct~d in the Office of The Judge Advocate General, 

agencies of the Government, and admissions to the vario

courts were arranged for eligible visiting reservists. 

1. a. The number of records of trial received in the Of

Judge Advocate General for review pursuant to Article 

the period of this report follows: 

1 

31 D

Total ____________________________________________________

*1,026 general courts-martial; 1,830 special courts-martial. 

The Board of Review modified findings of guilty in 

cases. 

In addition, the following table shows the number of 

trial received in the Office of The Judge Advocate Gene

amination pursuant to Article 69 during the same period: 

1 J

Total 31 D___________________________________________________

b. The following table shows the workload of the Boa

view during the same period: 

t J

$1 

On hand at beginning of period ____________________________ _ 

Referred for review ______________________________________ _ 2

Reviewed______________________________________________ -­ 2

Pending at close of period ________________________________ _ 
ppp

number of cases reviewed by the Boards of Review. 

e. During the period of this report there 'were 37,311 co

convened in the Air Force. 

S. At the close of the period, there were 93 command

Force exercising general courts-martial jursidiction. 

REGINALD C. HARl\ION

lIfajorGeneral, USA

The Judge Advocat

UnitedState8 Air Fo

64 
Report 

01 

THE GENERAL COUNSEL 

01 

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

(UNITED STATES COAST GUARD) 

January 1, 1957 to December 31, 195

ypy 

higher figures. There was some increase in special cour

were fewer Board of Review cases and less general co

For the past 5 years, courts-martial in the Coast Guard 

follows: 

1967 1966 1955 

General courts-martial ________________ 14 19 23 

Special courts-martiaL ________________ 233 202 159 

Summary courts-martiaL______________ 751 585 480 

TotaL ____________________________ 998 806 662 

During the year eight petitions for review were forw

Court of Military Appeals, all pursuant to Article 67 (c) 

Petitions were denied in five of the cases; the remainin

granted and subsequently argued before the Court. In 

United States v. Gmy and United States v. Turner, no 

been rendered at the end of the year. In the third case, U

v. Rinehart, 8 USGMA 402, 24 CMR 212, the Court direc

ing on the sentence because of a reference by the Gov

policy statement in the Manual for Courts-Martial duri

ment on the sentence. Upon another point, however, th

destined to be a landmark in military law. The majority 

the vehicle for a direction to the Armed, Forces forbiddin

courts from consulting the Manual while deliberating on 

or sentence. The Court thereby placed a long-indulge

(',()urts-martial beyond the pale. 

Another Coast Guard case of some interest was the re

necessary bringing to trial of an inactive reservist in ord

his enlistment obligations incurred pursuant to the Re

Act of 1955. The case is believed to be the first successfu

of a. member of the Ready Reserve arising out of a fail

prescribed drills under the 1955 Act. 

An ALDIST, memoranda from the Chief Counsel, a

Guard Law Bulletin were utilized to keep legal officer
mander \V. L. Morrison, formerly legal officer in New Yo

Board was reconstituted with Mr. Arthur Rosenwasser;

Commander Morrison and Commander A. J. Caliendo. D

year the Board reviewed 42 cases, one of which involved 

sioned officer. Board action modified the results of trial 

amounting to 35 percent of those reviewed. In one case t

and sentence were wholly disapproved; in five others bo

and sentence were partially disapproved; in four cases th

alolle was reduced, and in five cases the findings alone wer

Board action resulted in setting aside five punitive disch

five instances the General Counsel exercised residual clem

the action of the Board of Review. 

.JOHN K. CARLOCK, 

Acting General Oou

Department of the T

68 U. S. GOVERNMENT PR(NTlfI~ OP
...WM. S. fULTON