and 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GEN

of Ihe 

ARMED FORCES 


and Ihe 


GENERAL COUNSEL 


of Ihe 


DEPARTMENT OF THE 


TREASURY 


PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUST

For Ihe Period 


, -1v~~!~A ~mber 31, 19

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S SC

LIBRARY 

JIM. • FULTON 

ollhe 


SENATE AND OF THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 


and 10 Ihe 


SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 


and 


SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY 


and Ihe 


SECRETARIES OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF TH

ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORCE 


PURSUANT TO THE 

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 


For Ihe Period 


January I, 1959, 10 December 31, 1959 


Contents 

JOINT REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITAR

AND THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL OF THE ARM

AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMEN

TREASURY 

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY APP

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE ARM

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE AIR 

REPORT OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMEN

TREASURY (UNITED STATES COAST GUARD) 

Joint Report 

of the 

UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY APPE

and 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL 


OF THE ARMED FORCES 


and 

THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE 


DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 


January 1,1959, to December 31, 1959 

Forces, and the General Counsel of the Department of th

to meet annually to survey the operations of the Code and 

a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

of the House of Representatives, to the Secretary of D

Secretary of the Treasury, and to the Secretaries of the D

of the Army, Navy, and Air Force with regard to th

military justice and to the manner and means by which i

proved by legislative enactment. 

The Judges of the United States Court of Military A

Judge Advocates General, and the General Counsel of t

ment of the Treasury, hereinafter referred to as the Code 

have met and conferred during the period of this report. 

ferences included, among other items, a full consideration 

of a subcommittee appointed by the Code Committee to 

critical review of operations under the Code. The stu

subcommittee were conducted over a 2-year period and h

all phases of military discipline and military justice. Th

present an integrated series of closely related recommen

signed to improve operations under the Uniform Code. 

conclusions submitted have been accepted in large mea

Code Committee, they have not been made the basis for 

proposals for amendments to the Uniform Code. Rathe

Committee has adhered to its consistent practice of subm

those proposals which are unanimously agreed upon, 

Service members and the Court free to express their vie

dividual recommendations in their separate annual reports

Upon this basis, the Code Committee is not urging the 

tion of any recommendations other than those set out in 

reports of 1957 and 1958. The proposals therein suggeste

ments of those made in the 1953 annual report and reaff

subsequent annual reports in the interim. For purposes 

bility, these recommended changes are set out in Exhibit 

accompanying statement of purpose, their principal fe

sectional analysis. 
outline the volume of court

martial cases subject to app

during this reporting period. Exhibit B is attached to 

the number of court-martial cases of all types tried thr

world, the number of such cases which are reviewed by t

review and the number ultimately reviewed by the U

Court of Military Appeals. 

Respectfully submitted, 

ROBERT E. QUINN, 

Oh

GEORGE tV. LATI~IER, 

HOMER FERGUSON, 

GEORGE w. HICK~IAN

The Judge Advocate 

United Sta

CHESTER WARD, 

The Judge Advocate 

United Sta

REGINALD C. HARMON

The Judge Advocate 

United State8 

DAVID A. LINDSAY, 

General 

Department of the 

3 
EXHIBIT A 

544593-60-2 

gqy 

(g) 

States Code. In essence, this proposal is designed to elim

of the procedural difficulties and delays which have arisen 

Uniform Code of Military Justice since May 31, 1951, and 

for more prompt and more efficient administration of milit

both from the standpoint of the individual and the Gov

PRINCIPAL FEATURES 

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

upon rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 

mit an accused to request and, if the convening authori

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

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

result in a reduction of both time and manpower normall

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

cases are protected by the requirement that the officer a

special court-martial have the basic qualifications of a 

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

by the Judge Advocate General. 

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

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

the accused is acquitted of all charges and specifications o

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

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

batim accounts of the proceedings thereof, even though th

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

marized. The proposed bill would correct this situation by 

for a complete verbatim record in only those cases in whi

adjudged includes a bad-conduct discharge or is more than 

could be adjudged by a special court-martial. All other 

trial would contain such matter as may be required by 

prescribed by the President. 

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

court-martial cases to be forwarded to the Judge Advoca
a punitive discharge or confinement for 1 year or m

examined in the office of the Judge Advocate General in 

with article 69, rather than by a board of review, if 

pleaded guilty and if he stated in writing that he doe

review by a board of review. The enactment of this prov

materially lessen the number of cases which need to be 

boards of review and will thereby diminish the overall t

to process court-martial cases. As this procedure upon r

be employed only in those cases where the accused has ple

it is believed that his substantial rights will not be prejudi

The present law requires the Judge Advocate Gene

article 69 cases to a board of review for corrective act

finds all or part of the findings or sentence incorrect in 

In a great many cases, the irregularities concerned inv

well settled in the law, and in those cases the board of rev

amounts to no more than the application of those well-

ciples. This situation results in an unnecessary burden o

of review and unduly increases the time required to pr

martial cases. To eliminate this unnecessary reference t

review, the proposed legislation authorizes the Judge Ad

eral to correct the irregularity or injustice, vesting in h

powers and authority with respect to those cases that 

review has. It will be noted that the Judge Advocate 

mains authorized to refer any article 69 case to a board 

his discretion, and it is required that any finding or 

correct in law or in fact be corrected either by a board 

by the Judge Advocate General. 

4. Powers of the Judge Advocate General. The prop

tion authorizes the Judge Advocate General to dismiss 

when the Court of Military Appeals or the board of re

a rehearing which the Judge Advocate General finds im

It is believed that the Judge Advocate General is, in m

the best position to dismiss the charges himself or t

whether or not a rehearing is impracticable. Further, 

6 
qyppgp

a convening authority may order executed all portions of 

except that portion involving dismissal, dishonorable or b

discharge, or affecting a general or flag officer, thus elim

differences between sentenced and unsentenced prisoners

tence extending to death may be executed until appro

President, although the proposed legislation will remove 

lous result under the present code by providing that 

sentenced to death forfeits all pay and allowances, an

forfeiture may be made effective on the date the sentence 

by the convening authority. 

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

posed legislation extends the time within which an ac

petition for a new trial to 2 years from the date the con

thority approves the sentence. Furtl}er, the board of 

United States Court of Military Appeals, and the Judg

General would be permitted to grant more comprehensive 

is now possible. 

7. Votings and rulings. The proposed bill provides 

officer shall rule with finality upon a motion for a find

guilty. It is anomalous to allow the lay members of a co

to overrule the law officer on a question which is purely 

law. 

S. Punitive articles. The present code does not prov

statutory authority for the prosecution of bad-check off

proposed legislation adds an additional punitive article 

tains provisions similar to the bad-check statutes of the 

Columbia and the State of Missouri, including a provi

failure to pay the holder of a bad check the amount du

days shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to defraud 

One of the difficulties arising under existing law is the n

prosecute bad-check offenses under one of three separ

(121, 133, or 134), none of which may be considered as a 

statute.. Because of technical difficulties that arise as a re

unfortunate pleading of the wrong article, an obviously 
minor offenses, such as traffic violations, by imposition o

and they are thereafter not handicapped professionally 

court-martial. However, in order to achieve an effect

punishment for enlisted members in similar cases, it is 

resort to a trial by court-martial, reSUlting in a perm

mark on the enlisted member's record in the form of 

by court-martial. The change contemplated by the pro

tion would permit prompt and effective disposition o

offenses. In addition, a commanding officer exercising g

martial jurisdiction may impose on an officer or warr

his command forfeiture of one-half of his pay for 2 mo

of 1 month as now provided in the code. The 1-month l

proved unsatisfactory to commanders in the field and 

by the fact that an officer may be tried by a special c

An officer's present and future value within his comman

and permanently impaired by the publicity attendant to t

martial. 'When such an event occurs, prompt transfer 

after trial is imperative, regardless of the outcome. 

cedure is costly in time, money, and manpower. It is b

essential that commanding officers retain their present 

officers by special court-martial as exceptional circumsta

However, it is considered desirable to increase the punit

article 15 so that an adequate punishment can be imp

officer for a relatively minor offense. 

10. Miscellaneous. To facilitate administration of 

facilities 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 forei

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 gress assembled, That title 10, United Stat

4 amended as follows: 

5 (1) Section 801 is amended by adding 

6 following new clause at the end thereo

7 "(13) 'Convening authority' includes

8 tion to the person who convened th

9 commissioned officer commanding for 

10 being, a successor in command, or an

11 exercising general court-martial juris

12 diction. " 

13 (2) Section 812 is amended to read as 

14 "§ 812. A.rt. 12. Confinement with en

15 prisoners prohibite

16 "No member of the armed forces 

17 Un~ted States may be placed in conf

18 in immediate association with enemy 

19 or other foreign nationals not membe

20 the armed forces of the United State

21 that a member of the armed forces o

22 United States may be confined in Un
10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

(a) (2) (E) the word "or"; 

(0) by striking out the period at the 

subsection (a) (2) (F) and inserting a 

in place thereof; and 

(D) by adding the following new clau

end 	of subsection (a) (2) : 


" (G) if imposed by an officer in th

grade of major or lieutenant comm

or above, forfeiture of not more th

one-half of one month's pay; or 


(H) if imposed by an officer in th

grade of major or lieutenant comm

above, confinement for not more th

consecutive days." 

(4) 	Section 816 is amended by striking 

word "; and" in clause (2) and ins

words "or only of a law officer who i

10 
10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

(5) Sections 822(b) and 823(b) are ea

amended to read as follows: 

" (b) If any person described in s

section (a), except the President of t

United States, is an accuser, the cou

must be convened by a competent aut

not subordinate in command or grade 

accuser, and may in any case be conv

by a superior competent authority." 

(6) Section 825 (a) is amended by addi

following new sentence a,t the end there

"However, to be eligible for appointm

. 	 as a single-officer special court-martia

the officer must have the qualification

specified for a law officer in section 8

.544593-60-3 	 
10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

serving on the staffs thereof" in place 

(8) Section 841(b) is amended by inse

after the words "law officer" the words 

an officer appointed as a single-officer s

court-martial". 

(9) Section 851 is amended­

(A) by striking out in the second se

of subsection (b) the words "a motio

a finding of not guilty, or"; 

(B) by inserting in the third sentenc

subsection (b) after the word "trial" 

words "except a ruling on a motion 

finding of not guilty that was grante

and 


(C) by adding the following new sub

"(d) Subsections (a), (b), and (c) o
10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

(10) 	Section 854 is amended to read as fo

"§ 854. Art. 54. Record of trial 

"(a) Each court-martial shall make a 

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 t

which could be adjudged by a special co

martial shall contain a complete verbati

account of the proceedings and testimon

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

may, by regulation, prescribe. 

All other records of trial shall contain 
qy (), 

10 may buy such a record under such 

11 as the President may prescribe." 

12 (11) Section 857 is amended by addi

13 following new sentence at the end of 

14 section (a): 

15 "A sentence to death includes forfe

16 of all pay and allowances and disho

17 discharge. The forfeiture may app

18 - all pay and allowances becoming du

19 after the date on which the sentenc

approved 

20 by the convening authority." 

21 (12) Section 865 is amended22 (A) by amending subsection (a) to 

23 as follows: 

24 "(a) When the convening author
10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

to the appropriate Judge Advocate 


General. " ; 


(B) by striking out in subsection (b) the 

words "to be reviewed by a board of revi

wherever they appear therein; and 

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

follows: 

" ( c ) All other records of trial 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 

State; or 
10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

refer to a board of review each r

of trial by court-martial in which 

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 ,

conduct discharge, or confineme

for one year or more, unless th

accused pleaded guilty to each 

offense of which he was found 

guilty and has stated in writing

after the convening authority 

16 
10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

Otherwise, the Judge Advocate Gen

shall, unless there is to be further 

action by the President, the Secret

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 ha

ordered a rehearing and the conven

authority finds a rehearing impract

cable, he may dismiss the charges." 

(14) Section 867 is amended by inserti

following new sentence after the :first 

. 	 . sentence of subsection (f): 

·"The Judge Advocate General may d
10 

15 

20 

25 

the appellate review of which is not o

11 wise provided for by section 865 or 8

12 this title (article 65 or 66), shall be 

13 examined in the office of the Judge A

14 General. If any part of the findings 

sentence is found unsupported in law, 

16 Judge Advocate General shall either r

17 the record to a board of review for r

18 under section 866 of this title (article 

19 or take such action in the case as a b

of review may take under section 866 

(d) 

21 of this title (article 66 (c) and (d». 

22 the record is reviewed by a board of 

23 . there may be no further review by th

24 	 of Military Appeals, except under sec

867(b) (2) of this title (article 67(b) (

18 
10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

Secretary or Assistant Secretary as 

may be designated by him."; 

(B) by amending subsection (c) to r

as follows: 


"(c) That part of a sentence 

extending to dishonorable or bad-co

discharge may not be executed unti

approved by the Judge Advocate G

or affirmed by a board of review, a

the case may be, and, in cases revie

by it, affirmed by the Court of Mil

Appeals."; and 

(C) by inserting in subsection (d) af

words "court-martial sentences" the w

"and parts of sentences". 
10 shall determine whether a new trial

11 in whole or in part, should be gran

12 or shall take appropriate action un

13 section 866 or 867 of this title 

14 (article 66 or 67), respectively. 

15 Otherwise, the Judge Advocate Gen

16 may grant a new trial in whole or 

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 strikin

21 words "custody or con£nement" and ins

22 words "physical restraint lawfully impo

23 place thereof. 

24(19) Subchapter X of chapter 47 is am

20 
10 or thing of value, with intent to d

or 

11 (2) for the payment of any past d

obligation, 

12 or for any other purpose, with int

de13 ceive; makes, draws, utters, or deli

any 

14 check, draft, or order for the payme

money 

15 upon any bank or other depository, k

at the 

16 time that the maker or drawer has n

will not 

17 have sufficient funds in, or credit wi

18 bank or other depository for the pay

of that 

19 check, draft, or order in full upon it

presentment, 

20 shall be punished as a court-martial 

direct. 

21 The making, drawing, uttering, or de

by a 

22 maker or drawer of a check, draft, o

order, 
py, 

or 


8 drawer pays the holder the amou

within 


9 :£lve days after receiving notice, o

10 writing, that the check, draft, or 

11 not paid on presentment. In this 

the 

12 word 'credit' means an arrangeme

under13 standing, express or implied, with 

14 or other depository for the payme

15 check, draft, or order."; and 

16 . (B) by inserting the following new 

17 item in the analysis: 

18 "923a. 123a. ~iaking, drawing, or 

19 uttering check, dra

20 or order without 

21 sufficient funds." 

22 SEC. 2. This Act becomes effective on 

23 day of the tenth month following the m

which it is 

24 enacted. 
Section 1 (~) amends article 12 to provide that a mem

armed force of the United States may be confined in Uni

confinement facilities with members of the armed forces o

foreign nations. 

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

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 officer 

of major or lieutenant commander or above to impose upon 

man of his command forfeiture of not more than one-half of 

payor confinement for not more than 7 consecutive days. 

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

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

court is convened, so requests in writing and the convening 

consents thereto. However, before he makes such a reque

cused is entitled to know the identity of the law officer an

the advice of counsel. 

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

cept for the president, a convening authority not subordina

mand or grade to the accuser shall be "competent authori

the meaning thereof, and that a court may, in any case, be 

by superior competent authority when considered desirab

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

as a special court-martial must have the qualifications spec

law officer in article 26(a) and, in addition, must be cert

qualified for duty as a single-officer special court-martial by 

Advocate General. 

Section 1 (7) extends the provisions of article 37 to in

officers serving convening authorities and commanding offi

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

special court-martial may be challenged only for cause. 

Section 1 (9) amends article 51 to provide that the law o

rule with finality on a motion for a finding of not guilty. 
record. 

Section 1(11) amends article 57(a) to provide that a

tenced to death forfeits all pay and allowances and that 

may apply to all pay and allowances becoming due on 

date the sentence is approved by the convening authori

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

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

vocate General each record of trial in which the sentence

by him, includes a bad-conduct discharge or is more th

could have been adjudged by a special court-martial. 

language implying that all records of trial by special 

forwarded to the Judge Advocate General under that s

reviewed by a board of review. It also provides for th

disposition of all records of trial not otherwise provided 

65 (a) and (b). 

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

which would otherwise be reviewed by a board of revie

sentence includes a dishonorable or bad-conduct dischar

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

the accused pleaded guilty to each offense of which 

guilty and if he stated in writing after the convening a

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

authorizes the Judge Advocate General to dismiss the c

ever he finds that a rehearing ordered by a board 

impracticable. . 

Section 1 (14-) amends article 67 (f) to authorize the Ju

General to dismiss the charges whenever he finds tha

ordered by the Court of Military Appeals is impracticab

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

warded to the .Judge Advocate General under article 65

review for which is not otherwise provided by article 

be examined in the office of the Judge Advocate Gene

refer such a record to a board of review or he may tak

in the case as a board of review may under article 66 (c

24 
which must approve a sentence before it may be execute

enthetical phrase "other than a general or flag officer" 

·surplusage in view of the express provision of article 71 

Seotion 1 (17) amends article 73 to extend the time 

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

.convening authority approves the sentence, and to pro

Court of Military Appeals and the board of review may

to determining whether a new trial in whole or in pa

granted, take appropriate action under article 66 or a

'spectively. Further, the Judge Advocate General is a

grant a new trial in whole or in part, or to vacate or mo

ings and the sentence in whole or in part. 

Seotion 1 (18) amends article 95 to remove all distinc

confinement and custody. 

Seotion 1 (19) inserts an additional punitive article s

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

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

.561.460, 561.470, 561.480). 

Seotion 13 provides that these amendments become effec

.day of the 10th month following the month in which e

EXHIBIT B 

1544593-60-5 

~tal__________________________________________________

Oases Reviewed, by Boards of Review 

llrrny _______________________________________________________

~avy _______________________________________________________

ll!r Force ____________________________________________________

Coast Guard_________________________________________________

Total__________________________________________________

Oa.ses Docketed, u;ith. U.S. Oourt of Military Appe

llrrny _______________________________________________________

~avy _______________________________________________________

AlrForce____________________________________________________

Coast Guard_________________________________________________

Total__________________________________________________

For the Period 


July 1, 1958, to June 30, 1959 


Report 

of the 

UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY APPE

January 1, 1959, to December 31, 1959 

of the period have heretofore been covered in the 1958 

pointed out in the Joint Report, this changeover permits 

sion of all reports closer to the date each new session of t

convenes. 

During the period, the Chief Judge and the Associate 

peared before numerous bar associations, civic organi

Judge Advocate Schools of the various Services, Reserve 

sociations, Reserve Officers Groups, and similar organiz

these appearances large segments of the civilian bar h

acquainted with the judicial advances made possible with

tary services under the Uniform Code. As a result, some 

of mystery in which the proceedings of courts-martia

shrouded has been removed. The Court's efforts in this d

have been aided in large measure by the ever increasing 

articles on the subject of military justice appearing in 

reviews, law journals, and other legal periodicals publish

tributed regularly throughout the United States. 

A thorough inspection of the operations of the Code at a

made by the individual Judges in visits to military instal

and throughout the Pacific area. These inspections inclu

conferences with military commanders, staff judge adv

legal officers respecting their experience in the disposition 

and disciplinary problems, the impact of the Code and of t

of the Court upon their operations and numerous relat

While the opinions expressed by those consulted were not 

. favorable to the Code, an examination of the complaints di

were almost invariably founded on misconceptions of the re

of the Code. Other areas of disa.greement represented di

approach thoroughly considered by Congress when adop

Code was under consideration. From all of the informa

and -critical analyses which we have obtained from all s

significant conclusion may be drawn. The trial and app

cedures established by the Code for the conduct of gen

martial assure a greater measure of due process of 
gpy 

p

A, concerning which Judge Homer Ferguson has certain 

the Court believes that the following four changes w

discipline and enhance the stature of courts-martial as tr

forums. They are : 

1. The summary court-martial should be eliminated 

ciplinary powers transferred to the officer now authorized 

such courts. This authority should be exercised in the m

ently prescribed by article 15. The right of the individua

trial by special court-martial should be preserved. Suc

will eliminate time-consumin.g procedures rarely understO

who are charged with their administration, while it will 

tive disciplinary sanctions for infractions of the rules. 

constitute a previous conviction for any purpose nor tim

permanent blot on the individual's military record which 

him into civilian life. 

2. The jurisdiction of a special court-martial under arti

Code should be modified to eliminate bad conduct disc

part of the permissive punishments of such tribunals. 

posal was advanced in the Court's first annual report, an

supported by the actions of the Army and the Air Fo

as by the findings of a study group appointed by the Co

tee. The gravity ofa punitive discharge is such that i

be imposed except upon conviction by a judicial tribunal 

offender is afforded all of the safeguards of true due pro

The Army has eliminated them at the special. court-m

entirely. They are imposed by special courts-martial conv

the Air Force only if qualified legal personnel are availab

sent both the prosecution and the defense; . No sound rea

tinuing this power has been advanced to support the con

a. punishment found unsupportable by the Court, two maj

and a committee consisting of representatives of the Co

ServiceS. 
independence,and the limitation of their duties will inev

in the necessary judicial acumen for performance in the 

Federal Judge. 

(b) 1£ the law officers are placed in this independ

then, and only then, other responsibilities more consisten

reposed upon Federal Judges may wisely be vested in t

shQuld include: 

(1) Authority to preside over the trial of an accu

eral court-martial in a "jury-waived" session, provided 

upon the advice of counsel requests it; 

(2) Authority to pass on, with finality, all challen

41 (a» and all interlocutory questions including motions 

of not guilty and those pertaining to the accused's sa

51 (b». 

(3) The sentencing power and the power to pun

tempts (articles 51(a) and 48, respectively) now vested 

bers, should be transferred to the law officer. 

4. The boards of review, now established in the o

Judge Advocates General of each of the Armed Forces (ar

should be consolidated under the Secretary of Defense 

"Military Courts of Review." The members, officers 

should be appointed for a fixed term by the Secretary 

They should sit in panels of three, no two of whom sha

appointed from anyone service. Their authority (ar

and (d» should remain unchanged. This modification 

greater independence and accomplish more substantial u

the application of the Code throughout the Services, as 

formity in the sentences finally approved. (Judge L

certain reservations with respect to this latter proposal

Attention is invited to the status of the Court and its 

personnel relative to the Civil Service Commission. In 

the Judges have earnestly endeavored to make the U

Court of Military Appeals a court in every sense of the w

have tried to discharge their obligations with fairness, fi
Respectfully submitted, 

ROBERT E. QU

Oh

GEORGE W. LAT

HOMER FERGUS

36 
Petitions (Art. 67 (b)(3»: Arrny _____________________ 6,273 889 59

Navy _____________________ 1,842 304 28

Air Force __________________ 1,961 446 45

Coast Guard_______________ 34 0 

TotaL __________________ 10,110 - 1,639 1,34

Certificates (Art. 67 (b)(2» : Arrny _____________________ 

Navy _________________-____ 77 

129 

9 

11 

1

1

Air Force__________________ 

Coast Guard_______________ 26 

5 

6 

0 

TotaL __________________ 237 26 3

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

Navy _____________________ 

Air Force __________________ 

Coast Guard_______________ 

30 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

TotaL _________ ­_________ 31 2 

Total cases docketed______ 10,378 1,667 1,383 

I Two flag officer cases; one Army and one Navy. 

- 113,229 cases actually 8SSlgned docket numbers. Eighty-two cases counted as both P

tificates. Three cases Certified twice. lOS cases submitted as Petitions twIce. One man

twice. Four mandatory cases Illed as PetitIons after second Board of Review opinion. On

as Petition for the third tlme_ 
Disposed of on motion to dismiss: 

with opinion ___________ _ 7 o 

Without opinion_______ _ 30 2 

Disposed of by Order setting 

aside findings and sentence_ 2 o 

Remanded to Board of Re­ view___________________ _ 30 24 

Court action due (30 days) ' __ 64 153 

Awaiting briefs 3___________ _ 59 66 

Certificates (Art. 67(b)(2»: 

Opinions rendered _________ _ 219 32 

Opinions pending 3_________ _ 12 6 

Withdrawn _______________ _ 4 1 

Set for hearing 3___________ _ o o 

Ready for hearing • ________ _ o 1 

Awaiting briefs 8___________ _ 3 1 

Mandatory (Art. 67(b) (1»: 

Opinions rendered_________ _ 31 o 

Opinions pending • _________ _ o 2 

Remanded________________ _ 1 o 

Awaiting briefs 1___________ _ o o 

Opinions rendered: Petitions_________________ _ 669 289 1

Motions to Dismiss________ _ 9 o 

Motion to Stay Proceedings__ o o 

Per Curiam grants_________ _ 21 1 

Certificates_______________ _ 192 28 2

Certificates and Petitions___ _ 26 4 

Mandatory _______________ _ 31 o 

Remanded________________ _ 1 o 4

Petition for a New TriaL_~__ 1 o 

Petition for Reconsideration 

of Petition for New TriaL_ 1 o 

Motion to Reopen_________ _ o 1 

Total__________________ _ 951 323 23

I As of June 30, 1957, 1958, and 1959• 

• 1,513 cases were dlsposed of by 1,452 published oplnlons. Elghty·two oplnlons were 

Involving 51 Army ollicers, 17 Air Force ollicera, 11 Navy olliears, 2 Coast Guard ollicera

Cadet. In addition 19 oplnlons were rendered In cases involving civilians. The rem

enlisted personne1. The Court remanded 47 cases In fiscal year 1959 by Order. 
view____________________ 31 24 5

TotaL __________________ 10,112 1,592 1,56

Pending comple

JuJU SO, 1957 JuJU SO, 19

Opinions pending________________________ _ 91 8

Set for hearing __________________________ _ o 

Ready for hearing _______________________ _ 2 

Petitions granted-awaiting briefs _________ _ M 2

Petitions-Court action due 30 days _______ _ 64 15

Petitions-awaiting briefs ________________ _ 59 6

Certificates-awaiting briefs ______________ _ 3 

Mandatory-awaiting briefs ______________ _ o 

Total ____________________________ _ 254 33

Report 

of 


THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 


of 

THE ARMY 

January 1, 1959, to December 31, 195

manders are of the opinion that the system would be in

maintain the necessary degree of disciplinary control o

of the Army in the event of a serious emergency or unde

of modern warfare. Complaints from the field and repor

ing officers indicate a growing concern over lack of sta

law, burdensome and duplicative procedures, multipli

versary proceedings, and lack of authority on the part of 

to dispose of minor offenses without resort to courts-ma

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the presen

military justice, the Secretary of the Army appointed 

general officers to study the present system of military 

its impact on the administration of discipline in the Arm

the essential fairness of the Uniform Code of Military 

to the accused and to the Government. The findings 

mendations of this board should be of considerable va

mining the need for remedial legislation in addition to t

changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice found i

to the Joint Report. 

Appellate court decisions within the last year have m

major changes in military justice by overturning, in som

well established rules of military law. A brief survey of 

icant decisions indicative of the trend is as follows: 

(1) 	Extension of the Holt and Varnadore Rule. Uni

Smith, 10 USCMA 152,27 CMR 227, and United St

10 USCMA 276, 27 CMR 350, represent an enlarge

precedent established in the United States v. Holt, 9 U

26 CMR 256, and United States v. Varnadore, 9 U

26 CMR 251, cases which were discussed in the pr

nual Report. In Smith the Court of Military A

invalid a provision in the Manual that an "officer 

sentenced to hard labor without confinement unless 

includes dismissal, nor may he be sentenced to hard la

confinement in any case." The Jobe case overrules 

of the Manual which provided that a court could 

forfeiture of more than two-thirds pay per month 
enlisted persons whenever the convening authority 

a sentence including either a punitive discharge, co

or hard labor without confinement whether or not 

even though reduction was not expressly included i

tence. Subsequent to this decision the Comptroller 

the United States held that pursuant to this Execu

members of the service should be paid at the rate o

plicable to the reduced grade pending a decision by 

of Claims in the case of Johnson v. United States, The 

ler General stated that the "President, as Command

of the Armed Forces, has an inherent right to determ

ards of conduct to which memberS of the service are e

conform. His authority to reduce to the lowest pa

noncommissioned officer who has been convicted of an 

a serious nature is not open to question." 

(3) 	Authority of Oommanders to Issue General Orde

Article 92(1), Uniform Code of Military Justice, gen

and regulations are considered to have the force an

law and, thus, the long-established civilian rule of 

of the law is no excuse" is applicable to violations of s

Recent appellate decisions, however, have severely l

type of commanders authorized to issue general orde

lations within the meaning of Article 92 (1) . In Unite

Keeler, 10 USCMA 319, 27 CMR 393, the Court o

Appeals held that the -commanding officer of an air b

have the authority to issue an Article 92(1) order and

it was necessary to prove that the accused had actual 

of the base regulation which he had violated. In Unit

Ochoa, 10 USCMA 602,28 CMR 168, the same result w

with respect to regulations issued by the commandin

a naval air training center. It is important to realize 

lations governing military installations are in man

similar to ordinances of towns and cities. The necessi

ing actual knowledge of each "ordinance" of a m
y, , , 

Oecil, 10 USCM.A.. 371, 27 GMR 445, the Court of M

peals held that such suspensions create a probationary 

hence the suspension cannot be vacated without an artic

form Code of Military Justice, vacation of suspension h

ative to an alleged violation of probation. It is int

observe that for the period of November 1958 throu

1959, 62.26 percent of all sentences to punitive discharg

pended by convening authorities whereas only 9.1 pe

suspended for the period of July 1959 through Nove

(5) Oommanding Officer's Authority to Search Persom 

Oommand. In United States v. Bro~()n, 10 USCMA 48

48, the accused and nine other soldiers in South Kor

pass. Six of the ten soldiers had been suspected of us

ics, and the accused's commanding officer had receive

tion that 1 of the 10 had borrowed 10 dollars befor

pass. Also included in the group was one individu

accused, who reputedly had been caught with narcot

never been tried because of a difficulty in the chain 

Acting upon his suspicions, the commanding officer ar

a search of the 10 men upon their return. They all r

the same truck and upon reaching the unit they were ap

and searched. Two bottles of heroin were found on 

and this evidence was introduced at his trial. Th

Military Appeals held that the search of the accused 

because it was "exploratory in nature and wholly lack

sonable cause." The dissenting opinion states, "To d

manding officer the right to search men returning to 

after being exposed to drug peddlers in foreign cou

cripple the services in their endeavor to protect the

maintain peak combat efficiency." 

The number of records of trial received in the Office of 

Advocate General for review pursuant to article 66 durin

year 1959 follows: 
On hand at beginning of period________________________________

Iteferred for revievv__________________________________________

Total__________________________________________________

Itevievved____________________________________________________

Pending at close of period ___________________ ~_________________

Total__________________________________________________

1 This figure Includes 8 cases which were received for review pursu

.and referred to Boards of Review. 

• There were 1,931 accused involved In this figure. 

Of the 1931 accused whose cases were reviewed by Boar

pursuant to article 66, from 1 July 1958 through 30 

75.2 percent requested representation by appellate def

before the Boards of Review. 

The records in the cases of 616 accused were forwarded t

States Court of Military Appeals pursuant to the three 

of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, article 67 (b) ; th

~1.9 percent of the number of accused whose cases were 

Boards of Review during the period. 

The Field Judiciary Division, created by DA GO 37, 

1958, as a class II activity under the direct supervision 

of the Judge Advocate General was activated on 1 Janua

1 November 1959, all 8 contemplated Judicial Areas and a

were fully operational with a total personnel of 31 o

warrant officer assigned. Although some minor adjustm

cuits have been dictated by a reduction in case loads in s

major change in the judicial program is contemplated 

A preliminary study of the first 6 months of 1959 indic

pellate reversals caused by law officer errors have been 

1957 figure of2% percent to 0.'7 percent. 

The personnel field continues to be a problem area. 

year 1959, 14 lawyers from civilian sources accepted Re
film, entitled "The Most Rewarding Law," has been pro

will be used in our Regular Army recruiting program. N

unless the present trend can be reversed, by 1 July 1964 mo

half of the Corps will consist of law school graduates who 

ing their military obligation by serving short tours of d

lieutenants. If the Corps is to execute its mission, dras

mediate action, including legislation, is necessary to cr

centive for lawyers to seek a career as judge advocates in 

During the calendar year 1959, The Judge Advocat

School, U.S. Army, provided resident instruction for 6

lawyers and civilian attorneys employed by the Governm

cycles of the ll-week basic course were completed durin

and a third cycle began on 23 November. A total of 2

lawyers attended these courses, including 6 officers from th

of Korea, 3 officers from Vietnam, 2 officers from the Phili

1 officer from Free China. 

The 22 members of the Seventh Advanced Class complet

of resident study on 29 May. The Eighth Advanced Clas

gan on 14 September 1959, consists of 23 Army judge a

Navy legal specialists, 1 Marine officer, and 1 Burmese off

The revised program of instruction recognizes the im

scholarly research and writing by placing greater emph

preparation of a graduate-level thesis. These theses are 

and distributed to field jurisdictions, and many have be

the basis of scholarly articles appearing in various legal 

In February 1959, 30 judge advocates of the active Arm

a 3-week course designed to provide advanced instruction i

and responsibilities of the law officer. During the first w

seven judge advocates selected for duty as full-time law 

ticipated in a seminar concerning their new duties and re

in military justice. 

In May and early June 1959, 70 judge advocates of the 

Air National Guard attended a 2-week refresher cour
were shipped to the USAR School Reserve duty and 

training sites and to more than 900 students enrolled in ju

correspondence courses. 

A significant event during this period was the activ

of the Judge Advocate General Service Organization 

27-5000. These units have the mission of performing 

excess of the capacities of organic judge advocate perso

units and of providing augmentation for variable stren

tions. Directives issued pursuant to the TOE provided 

vation in the Army Reserve of 12 judge advocate genera

(two in each continental Army area) comprised of 21

staffed by 504 officers, 12 warrant officers, and 199 enlist

TOE authorizes detachment headquarters, claims servic

general court-martial trial, legal assistance, and proc

teams. Team training consists of 48 training assembli

Reserve duty training period concluded by a 15-day ac

training period. The first active duty for training for 

ments was conducted at Fort Carson, Colo., and Fort G

the summer of 1959. Instruction was provided by re

of The Judge Advocate General's Office and The Jud

General's School. Fort Sheridan, Ill., has been desig

active duty for training site for 1960. 

The publication, A Ohronicle of Recent Developmen

Law of Immediate Importance to Army Judge Advocat

'seded by the Judge Advocate Legal Service. The Jud

Legal Service is a Department of the Army pamphlet 

all judge advocate officers on active duty, J AGC officers 

and National Guard judge advocates. Its purpose is t

"3.S rapidly as possible to active Army judge advocates 

ments in military law and allied subjects as found in 

of the various military and civilian tribunals; admini

ions of The Judge Advocate General, Comptroller Gene

missioner of Internal Revenue, departmental policy l

48 
The manuscript for the 1960 edition of the Cumulativ

to the Manual for Courts-Martial has been completed a

and is currently at the printers. This edition of the 

Pocket Part has been compiled and edited with emphas

it more useful as a source of information and guidance 

without legal training. 

Thirty-six enlisted personnel were trained in the close

system of court reporting. Through a cross-servicing 

with the United States Navy, this activity was trans

United States Naval School (Naval Justice), Newpor

1 November 1959. 

GEORGE W. HICKM

Major General, U

The Judge Advoca

Report 

of 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 

of 

THE NAVY 

January 1, 1959, to December 31, 195

statistics which were collected at the close of the last fisca

report itself, however, continues on the calendar year ba

Courts-martial convened within the naval service charg

men with crimes of every nature-military and civil, m

and felony-numbered 46,703 during fiscal year 1959. Ge

martial cases received by the Office of the Judge Advocate 

review totaled 1,064. Of this figure 864 were reviewed b

Review under article 66, UCMJ. Special court-martial ca

the sentence as approved included a bad conduct discharg

required review by a Board of Review under article 66, U

bered 3,239. Less serious cases received by the Office o

Advocate General for review under article 65 ( c) totale

42,000 non-BCD special courts-martial and summary co

were reviewed other than in the Office of the Judge Advoc

There was a 32 percent reduction in the number of ge

martial cases and a 27 percent reduction in the number of sp

martial cases tried throughout the Navy and Marine C

fiscal year 1959. In contrast, there was a 10 percent de

number of summary court-martial cases tried during the s

Numerous factors have combined to produce such unus

especially unusual in light of recently released FBI stat

show a great increase in juvenile crime. 

One of the most important contributing influences in th

is the more effective naval leadership program instituted 

retary of the Navy in General Order 21 of 17 May 1958. 

called for a revitalization of traditional naval leadership, 

emphasis on the morale aspects of leadership development. 

continuing and intensive program to carry out General Or

21 now permeates the Navy. From the youngest petty of

most senior leaders, a new personal interest is thus being 

ward the young men in the Navy as individuals. Since th

of this revitalization of traditional naval leadership, u

absence cases have been reduced by 17.3 percent and des

by 30 percent. 
Stripping away military offenses through the exer

leadership, the results of the Navy-wide efforts to impro

up military justice by Operation Tapecut, the Negotia

The Post-Trial Interview have all helped cause a drasti

prisoner confinement-a reduction which has saved defen

and tax dollars. Not only has there been a saving in 

of pay accruing to an offender from the date of pretria

until forfeitures adjudged by a court-martial, but there 

11 curtailment in the loss of both manpower and mon

with prisoner management and care. 

Savings have also resulted from the "new look" at c

<!edures and their more active use by convening and 

authorities and by the Judge Advocate General. Po

views and a continuing emphasis on the importance 

reports, especially where a punitive discharge has been 

sentence, have been found to be important to this clem

Because of these reports, which contain matter which do

in the record of trial and include the results of the po

view, a better judgment of "restorability" has been pos

"successes" of those restored to duty have been greater. 

The Judge Advocate General, under the authority 

him by the Secretary of the Navy, pursuant to article 7

sidering 4,299 court-martial cases during the past fiscal y

able to take 204 mitigatjng actions which include the re

punitive discharges, the suspending on probation of 94 

<!harges, and the reducing of the period of confinement 

in 96 instances. Recent reports from the Retraining Co

that of their prisoners restored to duty during the fir

of fiscal year 1959 by the clemency action of the Jud

General, 68 percent have already been evaluated as "su

Unfortunately, our present law specialist personnel 

prevented the Navy-wide adoption of the "post-trial" in

tice which has proved so eminently valuable and necess

tion judgments. Thus, the "probation technique" in con

54 
jpyg

matters pertaining to Administrative Law, Civil Law, I

Law, and Litigation as well as the traditional Admiralty a

Justice. With a marked increase in demand for legal a

areas, the limited numbers of law specialists available 

needs of the service has been a continuing problem. T

can be understood with striking simplicity by compari

ceiling of 465 law specialists on active duty with the figu

in the last report the Judge Advocate General of the A

Judge Advocate General of the Air Force. The form

1,011 Judge Advocates on active duty, the latt~r reported 

Advocates on active duty. 

For the foreseeable future the present demand for le

by the Navy will continue at the same or a higher leve

this responsibility, young, able lawyers must be encoura

upon a career in the Navy. Such encouragement, howe

been possible. Vacancies in the regular list must occur 

career officers can be brought into the Navy. Present 

law specialist numbers permitted only nine young la

integrated into the regular Navy during fiscal year 1959

insignificant number for an acceptable career developme

The Navy continues to find its junior ranks of law spec

pied by inexperienced legal talent-a talent which in th

never becomes experienced because of the loss in the co

over of young lawyers who understandably reflect little 

in remaining on active duty as naval reserves with min

tunity for integration. The large numbers of reserves w

Navy's legal needs for but one full tour of duty is not 

and inefficient but severely handicaps the rendering of ad

services. Continuation of low input into the regular la

group can, in the foreseeable future, cause a sudden dete

the Navy's law program. The major part of the Navy's 

specialists entered the service during vVorld 'Val' II an

the service by normal retirement at approximately the 

At that time there must be experienced lawyers availabl
law specialists. 

Within the calendar year a number of "landmark" dec

emanated from the U.S. Court of Military Appeals. Th

case held that regulations regarding automatic reduction 

viction were illegal. (This case has no direct application t

but is important in that the present procedure of the N

considered the only legal one.) The Spann case approved 

procedure used by the Navy in "gold seal" desertion 

Sam1wls case held that an investigating officer may not c

sworn statements during an article 32, UCMJ, in

The May and Oecil cases held that "technical suspension

probationary status where any portion of the sentence w

executed. The Jemison case held that the staff legal of

clearly outline the duties of the convening authority in 

with his review. The Bennie case further extended the re

of the staff legal officer's review, so that in addition to s

the evidence and stating his opinion on sufficiency, he mu

his reasons for that opinion. The Brown case held that 

search of an accused may be directed by his commanding 

if he has a reasonable belief that the accused has committed 

The Ochoa case held that general orders and regulatio

issued only at departmental level or by major command

those occupying a substantial position in effectuating the 

the armed forces. The Wheeler case held that article 3(

which was ruled unconstitutional as to a discharged sol

U.S. Supreme Court, is constitutional as to an airman w

leased to inactive duty and who voluntarily returned to 

for trial. These decisions are indicative of the constant ev

growth of military law which today, as in the past, requi

the professional attention and time of the military lawy

With 65 percent of all activities having authorization 

being manned by but one law specialist, it is evident that an 

number of lawyers is availaible to handle unpredictable surg

To relieve unacceptable delays in courts-martial and to b

56 
ducted in the Navy to determine what percentage of Nav

tained errors committed by law officers. The result o

survey indicates that there is a need for a more compreh

of this area of concern and-such a study is planned for th

ing year. If the results of this study warrant such actio

Advocate General will consider recommending a progra

law officers similar to that inaugurated within the Army. 

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

and under the technical supervision of the Judge Advoc

continues to afford an opportunity for the nonlawyers 

service to become familiar with the working requirem

Uniform Code of Military Justice. With a staff of 15 o

enlisted instructors, the following was accomplished duri

Of

Regular 7-week Course____________________________________ 

Court Reporting Course____________________________________ 

Senior Officer's Short Course________________________________ 

Special Course Naval War College_________________________ 

Reserve TTaining Course___________________________________ 

Special 7-week Course at Camp PendletoIL___________________ 

LtrrUted ])uty OfficerB-_____________________________________ 

Law reserve Seminars: 

New Orleans__________________________________________ 

San Fran~________________________________________ 

Total _______________________________________________ 1,

In addition to its normal teaching duties, the Scho

to prepare unofficial changes to those sections of the 

Courts-Martial which have been modified, held invalid, 

inaccurate !by Executive Orders, Federal court decisi

Court of Military Appeals decisions. As these changes a

they are published in the JAG Journal, an official publi

Navy Department, and thereby become available to the 

service. 

CHESTER WARD, 


Rear Admiral, USN

The Judge Advooat

Report 

of 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 

of 

THE AIR FORCE 

January 1, 1959, to December 31, 1959 

before the appropriate House Armed Services Subcomm

time during the second session of the 86th Congress. 

2. In the case of United States ew rel. Guagliardo v. McE

referred to in my report for calendar year 1958, the Supr

granted the Government's petition for writ of certiorari on 

ary 1959 (359 U.S. 904). The case was docketed in th

Court as No. 21 October Term, 1959 and on 21 October 19

was argued before the Court. For the purposes of briefing 

ment, the Guagliardo case was joined with Kinsella v. Un

ern rel, Singleton, No. 22; W iZson v. B ohlender, No. 37; and 

Hagan, No. 58, three cases arising out of Army courts

civilians. 

3. On 1 July 1958, there were 1,193 Judge Advocate

duty with the United States Air Force; on 30 June 1959, 

1,220 Judge Advocates on duty. During this period 195 Ju

cates were gained while 168 were separated from active 

proximately one-half of the Judge Advocates on active du

Air Force Judge Advocate General's Department are you

recently out of law school who possess a minimum of 

If these young officers leave the Air Force they must be r

recent law school graduates who, in turn, serve their oblig

of service and return to civilian law practice. This con

sonnel turnover is not conducive to the administration of th

Code of Military Justice with the high degree of profess

petence which Congress intended. This Department has t

administrative steps to provide incentives for these young 

become career Judge Advocates, among which is an extend

assignment system whereby an officer may know of his n

ment as early as one year prior to the date of that assignm

with such administrative improvements additional incent

can only be provided by congressional action are essential. 

4. In the field of Reserve activities, the concept of givin

tion assignees within Headquarters United States Air Fo

job" training has been continued and has resulted in c
g

numerous civic, professional, and military organizatio

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

Judge Advocate General for review pursuant to article 

period of this report follows: 

Total__________________________________________________

*684 by general court-martial; 1,223 by specIal court-martial. 

The board of review modified findings of guilty in 45 

In addition, the following table shows the number of re

received in the Office of The Judge Advocate General fo

pursuant to article 69 during the same period : 

Total__________________________________________________

b. The following table shows the workload of the 

view during the same period: 

On hand at beginning of period_____________________________ 

Iteferred for revievv________________________________________ 

Itevievved__________________________________________________ 

Pending at close of period:.__________________________________ 

c. From 1 July 1958 to 30 June 1959, in those case

the Office of The Judge Advocate General pursuant 

55 percent of the accused requested representation by 

fense counsel before boards of review. 

d. Based upon the number of cases reviewed by boa

during this period, 24.2 percent were forwarded to the 

Court of Military Appeals pursuant to the three subdi

Uniform Code of Military Justice, article 67(b). Of t

62 
eral supervised and arranged for the publication of decis

United States Court of Military Appeals and selected d

the boards of review of all the services in the Court-Marti

It also performed the same service with regard to publi

opinions of the Armed Services as well as the opinions of 

and Air Force Exchange Service in the Digest of Opin

Military Justice Course offered by the Extension Course I

the Air University was replaced with a current edition p

the Office of The Judge Advocate General A Military Jus

was also prepared for use in the Reserve Officer Training P

Continental Air Command. Air Force Manual 110-8, Milit

Guide, and Air Force Manual 110-6, Legal Research Gui

which are designed to serve as desk references, were prepa

the year. In addition, a complete revision of Air For

110-5, Court-Martial Instructions Guide, was prepared for 

officers. In March of the year, the Office of The Judge Adv

eral introduced a bimonthly publication, the JAG Bulletin, 

the style of law reviews and which is designed to afford a 

discussion of current legal problems of interest to service a

lawyers alike. Thus far, five issues have been published. 

of this publication necessitated the renaming of a forme

tion of the same name. Reference is made to the Air Forc

porter which was given that name during the year. T

issues of the Air Force JAG Reporter published througho

continued to furnish digests of current United States Cou

tary Appeals and Air Force board of review decisions, tog

legal opinions and other subjects of interest to judge advoc

REGINALD C. HARMON

Major General, USA

The Judge Advocate 

United State8 Air Fo

Report 

of 


THE GENERAL COUNSEL 


01 

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

(UNITED STATES COAST GUARD) 

January 1, 1959, to December 31, 1959 

is submitted pursuant to the mandate of article 67 (g) 

form Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 867(g). The 

resents figures for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1959

for the calendar year in response to the suggestion o

Committee contained in the last annual report. 

The following table shows the type and number of C

court-martial cases as determined by the number of tr

received for filing during the period covered by this report: 

General Courts-MartiaL____________________________________

Special Courts-MartiaL____________________________________

Summary Courts-MartiaL__________________________________

Total _______________________________________________

The above total compares with the average number of 83

year for the calendar years 1954-58. 

The number of cases docketed with the Treasury Depart

of Review during the period of this report was 53 in

defendants. Appellate counsel appeared in 23 of these 

cases, the accused petitioned the United States Court of M

peals to grant review of the decision of the Board of Re

petitions were denied in each instance. A fifth case, U

v. Braud, was sent to the Court of Military Appeals by 

General Counsel for review pursuant to article 67(b) (2

Code of Military Justice. The Court's decision is pen

case. 

It is noted that of the 53 cases reviewed by the Board 

over 80 percent were guilty plea cases. Nevertheless, as 

years, the Board found that remedial action to set aside leg

cient statements of offenses and to modify sentences was 

in the uncontested cases as in those which were contes

action affected both findings and sentence in four cases, 

alone in two cases, and the sentence alone in nine cases. 

set aside seven punitive discharges, it recommended prob

case which the General Counsel granted; and followin
v ••• aOVERNMENT PRINTI

68 
WM, S. FULTON