and Ihe 

JUDGE ADVOCATES GENER

01 the 

ARMED FORCES 


and the 

GENERAL COUNSEL 


01 the 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUS

For Ihe Period 

January I, 1970 10 December 31, 

PROPERTY OF u.S.ARWN 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S S

LIBRARY 

SENATE AND OF THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 


and 10 the 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 


AND SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTAT

and Ihe 


SECRETARIES OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF T

ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORCE 


PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 


For Ihe Period 


January I, 1970 10 December 31, 1970 

Contents 

JOINT REPORT OF THE U.S. COURT OF MILITARY APP

JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL OF THE ARMED FO

GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TR

REPORT OF THE U.S. COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF TH

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF TH

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF T

REPORT O.F THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTM

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

and the 

JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL 


OF THE ARMED FORCES 


and the 


GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE 


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 


January 1, 1970, to December 31, 1970 

The following is the 1Dth annual report of the committee 

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

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

Appeals, the Judge Advocates General of the Armed Forc

General Counsel of the Department of Transportation t

nually to survey the operations of the code and to prepare 

the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and of th

Representatives, to the Secretary of Defense, and the S

Transportation, and to the Secretaries of the Army, Nav

Force with regard to the status of military justice and the m

means by which it can be improved by legislative enactmen

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

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

and the General Counsel of the Department of Transportat

after referred to as the Code Committee, have met and c

the call of the chief judge during the period of this report. 

ferences included full consideration of legislative amendm

Uniform Code of Military Justice consistent with the 

purpose of this committee. 
Military Justice and in the administration of milita

ever, are always desirable. Proposals for change are c

study by the Code Committee with a view to the con

ment of the military justice system. 

The Code Committee now has under study and co

following subjects: 

(1) Legislation which would expand the power of th

judge in contempt matters. 

(2) Legislation which would specify the powers o

Military Appeals, the Courts of Military Review, and 

to issue writs and orders in aid of their jurisdiction. 

(3) Legislation to permit an appeal to the U.S. Supr

decisions of the Court of Military Appeals in cases i

tutional questions. 

(4) Legislation to permit the execution of a sentenc

at the time the convening authority approves the sente

lation not only would reduce the pointless and costly 

various classes of prisoners, but would permit this c

to benefit from rehabilitation training. 

(5) Legislation to amend article 69, Uniform Co

Justice, to permit limited delegation of the authorit

Advocate General of an Armed Force to correct errors 

martial cases and to give the Judge Advocate Gener

Force the authority to correct errors in certain records 

eral court-martial without the necessity of referring s

Court of Military Review. 

(6) Legislation to amend article 62(a), Uniform C

Justice, to permit an appeal of an interlocutory ruling 

tion in certain limited categories of cases, such as a ru

fession, or evidence obtained as the result of a search, i

2 
(8) Legislation to provide for a system of random 

court members in general courts-martial and possibly in sp

martial. 

(9) Legislation which would transfer sentencing power 

tary judge in all cases, except those involving the death 

The Code Committee notes the increasing shortage of 

military lawyers. One indication of this shortage is the 

forma errors which are appearing in records of trial by co

These errors can be attributed only to a lack of experi

legal personnel. The Code Committee recommends the in

of para-professional personnel and that attention be paid 

ing the skills and the retention of legal clerks and court r

highly trained para-professional corps ,,,ould not only save 

would improve the attractiveness of a career as a military 

it would permit military lawyers to devote their energy 

only to those matters requiring a lawyer's skill and trainin

sage by Congress of legislation authorizing incentive or p

pay for military lawyers is necessary to raise the experie

military lawyers to an acceptable level. .Tudge Darden join

the importance of attracting and retaining well qualifi

lawyers. He considers, however, that a decision on ,....heth

or professional pay for lawyers is necessary is a part of 

manpower problem that is for determination by Congre

ing which he should make no recommendation. 

The sectional reports of the Court and of the individ

outline the volume of court-martial cases subject to appe

during the reporting period. Exhibit A is attached to 

the number of court-martial cases of all types tried thro
KENNETH J. HOD

The Judge Advoca

JOSEPH B. McDEV

The Judge Advoca

JAMES S. CHENEY

The Judge Advoca

U

JAl\IES A. 1VASIIING

GeneralOounsel, 

Department of Tr

4 
CourtMartial Cases 

Army ________________________________________________________

~avy ________________________________________________________

Air Force _____________________________________________________

Coast Guard__________________________________________________

Total __________________________________________________

Cases Reviewed by Boards 01 Review (now Courts 01 Military 

Army ________________________________________________________

~avy ________________________________________________________

Air Force_____________________________________________________

Coast Guard__________________________________________________

Total __________________________________________________

Cases Docketed with U.s. Court 01 Military Appeals Army ________________________________________________________

~avy ________________________________________________________

Air Force____________________________________________________

Coast Guard__________________________________________________

Total __________________________________________________
pp

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

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

report on military justice matters to the Committee on A

of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, th

Defense, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Sec

Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. 

CASES DOCKETED 

The workload of the Court during fiscal year 1970 ha

steady pace with 983 cases docketed as compared to 101

1969, a drop in number of 27 cases. Included in the 9

Certificates forwarded by the Judge Advocates Genera

67(b) (2), an increase of 4 over the previous annual pe

datory appeal was filed, thus marking the ninth consecu

a case under article 67 (b) (1) has been submitted for f

The court granted 227 petitions or 23 percent of those 

excl uding those classified in the miscellaneous docket 

237 written opinions. In these opinions 56 percent cont

in whole or in part of the decisions of the Courts of M

below. 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET 

As recited in the Court's Annual Report for 1£)69, on 

the U.S. Supreme Court in Noyd v. Bond, 395 U.S. 68

that a Federal district court does not have jurisdictio

for writ of habeas corpus filed by a military prisone

sought relief in the U.S. Court of Military Appeals. As 

decision, this Court's workload in the area designated 

docket" has increased significantly. Prior to that decisi

ing number of petitions for extraordinary relief under 

Act, 28 USC § 1651 (a), were filed during the periods n

Year ending No. oj petition8 Year ending 

1966 ________________________ 2 1968 ______________

1967 ________________________ 24 1969 (thru June 30) 

6 
Vrits Act, United State8 v. Ilomey, 18 USCUA 515, 4

(1969). One whose charges have been referred to trial 

court-martial, or to a special court-martial without a re

not seek extraordinary relief. United State8 v. Snyder, 

480, 40 CMR 192 (1969). Petitions for extraordinary re

be filed by one against whom no court-martial proceedin

ing. Mueller v. Brown, 18 USCMA 534, 40 CMR 246 (1969

In Swisher v. Secretary of Army, Miscellaneous Dock

20 USC~fA - (1970), the Court declined to exercise juri

petition in the nature of mandamus to be directed to the 'V

U.S. Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kans., holding: 

"[T]his Court's jurisdiction is limted to the administration o

Code of Military Justice exclusively within the armed forces 

States." 

A serviceman in confinement for a period of approxima

under sentence of a general court-martial is entitled t

Mandamus to compel the convening authority to review a

his case pursuant to Articles 61 and 64, Uniform Code, 10 U

864. Montavon v. United State8, Miscellaneous Docket 

USCUA.628 (1970) ; Hundley v. United State8, Miscellan

No. 70-64, 20 USCMA - (1970). 

A civilian employee, serving ·with the Armed Forces 

is not subject to trial by court-martial (United State8 v. 

USC~L<\' 363, 41 GMR 363 (1970», and charges against 

dismissed. Zamora v. lVood80n, et aZ., 19 USCMA 403

(1970). 

The deferment of a sentence to confinement pursuan

57(d), Uniform Code, 10 U.S.C. § 857(d), may not be v

subsequent commander without independent cause. Colli

State8, 19 USCMA 42 GMR 113 (1970). 

In Mereer v. Dillon, 19 USC~fA 264, 41 CMR 264 (197

held that the limitations on jurisdiction of courts-martial 

civilian offenses fixed by O'Callahan v. Parker, 395 US 25

not apply to convictions which were final prior to O'CaZla

not apply to convictions which were final prior to the 

decision. 

426-070--71----2 
Chief Judge Robert E. Quinn held a special admissi

Courtroom of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First 

Mass., on June 17, 1970. This special admission sessio

quested and coordinated by Capt. Anthony J. DeVico

Staff Judge Advocate of the First Naval District, in 

reservists of all branches of the Armed Forces in the 

area an opportunity to become members of the bar 

Sixty-one individuals, including Hon. Robert H. Qu

ney General of the State of Massachusetts, were spon

DeVico. The oath was administered by Alfred C. Prou

the Court. 

Before concluding the court session, Chief Judge 

court, administered the oath of Military Judge to Cap

the provisions of the Military Justice Act of 1968. 

After Court adjourned, Chief Judge Quinn was th

at a luncheon given by the admittees at the Officer's Clu

Naval Yard. He was presented with a memento com

event, which carried a seal of the United States Navy 

made of wood from the gun deck of "Old Iron8ide8", no

docked at a pier adjoining the Officer's Cl ub. 

ACTIVITIES OF THE JUDGES AND STAFF ME

Chief Judge Quinn, Judge Ferguson, Judge Darden, 

C. Proulx, the Clerk of the Court, were guests at the 

Meeting of the Military Law Committee of the Distr

Bar Association at the Officer's Club of the 'Walter Re

cal Center on the evening of April 22, 1970. 

At the invitation of the Board of Directors of th

Society for Military Law and Law of 'Var, Chief Judg

Ferguson and Mr. Proulx participated at its Fift

Congress on Military Law and Law of 'War, held in D

from May 25-31, 1970. The Congress, of interest to all t

themselves to the study and practice of military penal 

8 
the Congress. While in Dublin a visit ,vas made to the Co

land and a courtesy call was paid to the Chief Justice of th

Court of Ireland, the Honorable Cearbhall O. Dalaigh. 

At the conclusion of the Congress the party attended. a

pated in the 29th meeting of the Interservice Legal Commi

by Gen. James A. Polk, Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Army, 

Berchtesgaden, Germany, on June 1-2, 19iO. The committe

of approximately 100 senior staff judge advocates of the A

and Air Force in Europe, Iceland, and Africa, as well as 

Advocates General of the Army, Navy and Air Force. Judg

was the principal speaker at the dinner closing the confere

On the evening of June 5th, Chief Judge Quinn addresse

man-American Law Dinner in Heidelberg, Germany. App

200 German and American lawyers were in attendance. 

'Vhile in Europe, the Judges and the Clerk of the Court 

SHAPE Headquarters in Belgium and attended a comma

in Heidelberg at Headquarters, U.S. Army, Europe, at ,,,hic

officers of the command were present. 

Chief Judge Quinn (1) delivered a lecture to the office

dents of the Military Science Department at the University 

Island, Kingston, R.I., on February 25, 19iO. This lectur

comed as part of the ROTC instruction on the evaluation o

ness of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, both to the a

to the military system. 

(2) Attended at the invitation of Chief Justice Bailey A

Annual Conference of the First Judicial Circuit in Boston

May 13, 1970. Chief Judge Quinn also attended, at the in

Chief Justice Thomas H. Roberts of the Rhode Island Supre

the Tenth Annual :Meeting of the Judicial Conference of Rh

on October 3, 1970. 

(3) Contributed an article entitled "Oourts-M artial P

Vie'w From the Top" to the Ila8ting8 Lato Journal, Hastin

of Law, University of California, for its 1970 Symposium o

Law issue publication; and 
sity, on the evening of April 17, 1970. 

(3) Visited the Rehabilitation Center of the Un

Force, known as the 3320th Retraining Camp (Air 

mand) , located at Lowry Air Force Base, Colo., on 

(4) Participated in "A Symposium on :Military 

and Prospective", and served as a panel member i

entitled "The Role of the :Military Judge", sponsored 

Law and Justice Committee of the Federal Bar Ass

Annual Convention in 'Vashington, D.C., on Sept

.Mr. Proulx represented the Court at the Annual 

American Bar Association, held in St. Louis, :Mo., Au

'Vhile at this meeting he participated in the annual 

of the Judge Advocates Association, convened in S

gust 10th, reporting on the work of the Court during 

also attended the Federal Bar Association Annual Con

with Commissioner Benjamin Feld and the Court's 

Dorothy V. Allport, in 'Vashington, D.C., Septembe

the invitation of the Judge Advocate General of the N

the annual 1970 Judge Advocate General's Conferenc

ington, D.C., during the period October 19-23. 

Chief Commissioner Daniel F. Carney was the gue

54th and 55th Basic Classes of the Judge Advocate G

Charlottesville, Va., on March 20 and June 10, 1970

"ell as at the Navy Appellate Review Activity, wher

lecture on ways in which counsel can improve their pra

Court, in conjunction with their continuing legal edu

at the Washington Navy Yard on April 15, 1970. He 

weekly meeting of the Naval Reserve Law Company 

United States Court of :Military Appeals Courtroom o

Act", on the evening of October 6, 1970. An address o

was given by him at the Navy Judge Advocate Gene

held in Washington, D.C., on October 22,1970. 

10 
involved in the controversial subjects of the rights of men a

in the military service of their Nation. 

EXPEDITING APPELLATE REVIEW 

At a meeting of the Code Committee held in the Conferenc

the Court building, among the subjects discussed was the d

of expediting the review of the court-martial record at eve

the appellate process. It was the opinion of each Judge 

General that one of the major delays occurred between the c

of trial and the convening authority's action-a delay attri

an overall shortage of personnel and court reporters, in par

the preparation of the transcript of the record of trial f

Chief Judge Quinn agreed to bring this matter to the atten

Secretary of Defense and the following letter was disp

November 10, 1970, with the Secretary's response dated No

1970: 

UNITED STATES COURT OF :\IILlTARY Ap

Wa8hington, D.C., Novembe

Hon. MELVIN R. LAIRD 

Secretary of Defense 

Room SESSO The Pentagon 

Washington, D.C. 

My DEAR MR. SECRETARY: During my years as Chief Judge of 

States Court of Military Appeals, I have been impressed with th

efforts of military lawyers to process court·martial cases expeditiousl

however, I have noted a steady increase in the time elapsing between 

of the trial and the convening authority's action. Another disturbing 

increase in time required to dispose of cases <at the appellate review 

passing on to you my thoughts concerning this problem because 

importance and potential impact upon the orderly administration 

justice within the Department of Defense. 

Both the Constitution and the Uniform Code of Military Justice g

accused certain important procedural and substantive rights. Protect

rights is a prerequisite for a fair and orderly system of military 

tensive delays in the processing of a case are often prejudicial to t

For example, a record of trial is often received for appellate revie
through the use of incentive pay. 

Faced with continuing attacks on the military and our system 

imprudent and unwise not to provide the court reporters and 

needed to keep abreast of the greatly increased caseload an

protect the rights of each accused. 

Sincerely yours, 

(S) 	Robert E

ROBERT 

THE SECRETARY OF 

Washington, D.O., Nove

Hon. ROBERT E. QUINN 

Ohief Judge of the United Statcs Oourt of Military Appeals, 

Washington, D.O. 

DEAR JUDGE QUI~N: I have read with interest and concern yo

vember 10, 1970 concerning delays you have noted in the proce

martial cases. You indicated that a lack of sufficient court reporte

shortage of experienced Judge Advocates are major contributin

delays at both trial and appellate levels. 

I share with you a deep conviction that all constitutional and 

must be fully enjoyed by members of the Armed Forces, in part

to expeditious trial and appellate review. 

I am making inquiry into the matters raised in your letter. You 

that I will continue to do all that is within my power to insure 

istration of military justice within the Department of Defense m

possible standards. With respect to shortages of experienced mili

have correctly noted that the pending incentive pay legislation 

one of our principal efforts to improve retention. L'nless this le

I am afraid that this problem will increase. 

I appreciate your bringing these matters to my attention. 

Sincerely, 

( Signed

12 
g 

British Ministry of Defence, visited the Court later in t

September. These officers were on a survey study tour in 

States of the operation of the Uniform Code of Military J

end of making recommendations to their Parliament re

adoption of a similar code, which is now under consider

armed forces of Great Britain. 

On December 18, 1970, Judge Tun-Hua Huang of t

District Court of the Republic of China (Taiwan), wh

study of the Federal court system of the United States, p

the Court. 

STATUS, OF CASES 

There is attached hereto a detailed analysis of the statu

which have been processed by the Court since the commen

operations in 1951 (Exhibit A). 

Respectfully submitted, 

ROBERT E. QUIN

Oh

HOMER FERGuso~

Associa

'VILLIAl\I H. DA

Associa
United States Court of Military Appe

CASES DOCKETED 

Total by Services Total as of July 1,196Sto July 1,

J uue 30, 1968 June 30,1969 June 3

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

Arrny---------------------­

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

11,320 

5,084 

4,60.'> 

499 

363 

139 

Coast Guard ________________ 52 0 

Total____________________ 21, 061 1,001 

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

Arrny---------------------­

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

169 

222 

87 

2 

2 

5 

Coast Guard ________________ 8 0 

Total____________________ 486 9 

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

Arrny---------------------­

Navy---------------------­ Air Force ___________________ 

31 

3 

3 

0 

0 

0 

Coast Guard ____________ --­ 0 0 

TotaL ___________________ 37 0 

Total cases docketed _______ 21,584 1,010 

12 Flag officer cases; 1 Army and 1 Navy. • 23,159 Cases actually aSSigned docket numbers. Overage due to multiple actions o

14 
dismiss: 

With opinion____________ 8 0 

Without opinion _________ 41 2 

Disposed of by order setting 

aside findings and sentence __ Remanded__________________ 6 

177 

0 

2 

Court action due (30 days)3 ___ 30 100 

Awaiting replies 3 ____________ 24 14 

Certificates (Art. 67(b) (2»: 

Opinions rendered ___________ 471 9 

Opinions pending 3 ___________ 0 3 

Withdrawn _________________ 7 0 

Remanded__________________ 4 0 

Disposed of by order_________ 1 0 

Set for hearing 3_____________ 0 0 

Ready for hearing 3 __________ 2 0 

Awaiting briefs 3 _____________ 2 1 

Mandatory (Art. 67(b)(I»: 

Opinions rendered _______ - - -­ 37 0 

Opinions pending________ - - -­ 0 0 

Remanded___________ - _- - - -­ 1 0 

Awaiting briefs 3_____________ 0 0 

Opinions rendered: 

Petitions ___________ -_ -----­ 1,984 99 

Motions to dismiss___________ 11 0 

:Motions to stay proceedings __ 1 0 

Per curiam grants ___________ 56 1 

Certificates _____________ - _-­ 41S 6 

Certificates and petitions ___ -_ S3 3 

Mandatory_________ - - - - - - -­ 37 0 

Petitions remanded ___ - - - - - -­ 2 0 

Petitions for a new triaL _____ 2 0 

Petions for recomlideration 

of: 

Denial orders __ - ­ - - - - - - ­ 8 1 

Opinions _______________ 0 

Petition for new triaL ____ 0 

nIotion to reopen ____________ 0 

Petitions in the nature of 

writ of error coram nobis_ -­ 2 1 

Motion for appropriate relieL_ 0 0 

:'.Iiscellaneons dockets ___ ­ - - -­ 5 3 

TotnL _____________ - - - - -- 2,579 114 

~"e footnotes at end of table. 

426-070-71--3 
----

Disposed of on motion to dismiss: 

With opinion____________ 

Without opinion_________ 

Disposed of by order setting 

aside findings and sentence__ 

Writ of error coram nobis by order_____________________ 

::\Iotion for bail denied _______ Remanded__________________ 

8 

41 

6 

3 

1 

180 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

2 

TotaL ___________________ 21, 517 894 

l\Hscellaneous docket Nos. assigned 

(1967 to present): 32 Pending____________________ 0 

Granted____________________ 0 Denied_____________________ 16 

Withdrawn _________________ 0 

Dismissed __________________ 8 

Issue moot _________________ 0 

Opinions rendered ___________ 5 

38 

0 

0 

20 

1 

13 

0 

3 

TotaL ___________________ 29 37 

Pending completion 

June 30, 1068 June 30,19

Opinions pending___________________ _ 1 5

Set for hearing _____________________ _ o 

Ready for hearing __________________ _ 6 

Petitions granted-awaiting briefs ____ _ 5 1

Petitions-Court action due (30 days) __ 30 10

Petitions-awaiting replies___________ _ 24 1

Certificates-awaiting briefs_________ _ 2 

Mandatory-awaiting briefs _________ _ o 

Total _______________________ _ 68 18

3 As of June 30,1968,1969. and 19iO. • 2,964 c~ses were disposed of by 2,928 publisbed opinions. 142 opinions were render

80 Army officers, 33 Air Force officers, 20 Navy officers, 6 Marine Corps officers, 2 Coas

1 West Point cadet. In addition 19 opinions were rendered In cases Involving 20 clv!

concerned enlisted personnel. • Overage due to mnltlple actions on the same cases. 

16 
___________________________________________________ _ 

py 

(average Army strength, 1,473,191) follows: 

Convicted Acquitt

General_________________________________ _ 

Special (w/BCD's) ________________________ _ 2,449 

581 

1

Special (w/o BCD's) ______________________ _ 

Summary_________________________________ _ 38, 043 

14,146 

2,7

8

Total_____________________________ _ 55, 219 3, 7

* * * 

Uecords of trial by gcncral and special (BCD) court

ceived by the .Judge Advocate General during fiscal y

J!'or review under Article 66 (general) _________________________

For review under Article GG (Specials \vjBCD's)_______________

For examination under Article 6!L______________________________

Total _________________________________________________

* * * 

'Workloads of the Army Court of J\Iilitary Heview dur

period: 

On hand at the beginning of periotl ___________________________ _ 

General courts-martiaL_________________________________ _ 

Special courts-martial (BCD) ___________________________ _ 

Referred for revie~·_________________________________________ 

General courts-m!lrtiaL__________________________________ 

Special COul'ts-murtiuL __________________________________ 

~'otal 

1 Figures In this section lire base!! Oil r.'cords of trial ns O(l!lO"~!! to nU

ill\,olved, Bp('uuse of C:I"CS tn which more than 0111' Ind\vhlllul I~ tried, th

"p('tion will h., 1<'" than those In tlH' othcr s('etlolls. 

• This figure Ill(']udps 33 cases which were refprrcd to the Conrt of ~Ili

""aut to Article 6!l, Uuiform Code of lIIilitary JIl"tice, :10 cnses referred 

26 ca"e~ referre!! for recons\d..ration, 3 cases forwarded to Court en ban

2 (':1",'S refprre!l I1ftpr new S,L\ revipw nnd CIA adion, nIlll 1 motion for a
Court of :Military Heview: 

Findings and sentence affirme!L ______________________________

Finding affirmed. sentence modified___________________________

Findings affirnwd, sentence reassessed. or relwaring ordpred as to 

only _____________________________________________________

Findings affirmed-Hl'ntellce disallproyed or set aside___________

Findings llartially di;.;allprO\'ed, sentence affirmed______________

Findings partially disapllrOyed and rehearing ordered_________

Findings and sentence affirmed in part, disapproved in parL_____

FIndings and sentence disapproved, rehearing ordered__________

Findings and sentence disavprO\'ed. charges dismissed_________

Returned to field for new SJA review-C/A action______________

:'IIotion for fll1prollriate relief, denied__________________________

~'otal ________________________________________________

Of 2,420 accused whose cases were reyicwed by the Cou

Reyiew pursuant to Article 66 during the fiscal year, 1,

cent) requested representation by appellate defense co

* * * * * 

The records in the cases of 40!) accused ,,'ere forwarded 

States Court of )Iilitary Appeals pursuant to the thrp

of Article 67 (b) during fiscal year 1!J70. These comprise

of the number of these cases reviewed by the Court of Ui

dming the period. Of the mentioned 40!) cases, 4013 were 

petition of ace used and six "were eertifiecl by TJAG. 

The Court of Military Appeals took the following ae

eases c1urill~ fiscal year 1!)70: 

Petitions Certification lIIandatory review 

Pe

Atnrmed RcverRed Affirmed Reversed Allirmed Reversed dO

3;j 57 3 ;, 0 0 3

* * 

18 
In compliance with the mandate of ~\..rticle 6(a), Uni

~lilitary Justice, The .Tudge Advocate Geneml and se

of his staff inspected numerous judge advocate offices i

States and overseas in the supervision of the -aclministratio

justice. 

UNITED STATES ARMY JUDICIARY ACTIVITIE

The Unitecl States ~\.rmy Judiciary collects and revie,Y

courts-martial. A reyiew of the 1!l70 statistics indicates th

activities in Vietnam are slowing down and as the oyera

the Army is being redllce(l, the lllunlwr of trials by cou

increasing. This follows the pattern of increased court

tivity that occurred at the end of ,Vorld ,Vur I, ,Vorlel 

Korea. It is anticipated that as happened in those prio

increase will be only temporary before a sharp do,Ynturn

The number of court-marital cases requiring mandato

der Article 66, UGMJ, increased so greatly during 197

panel of the United States Army Court of Military Re

necessary. This new panel is expected to be fully operati

1971. The authorized strength of the U.S. Army .Tudi

creased to 139 officers at the end of fiscal year 1970. The ac

of the Trial Judiciary rose from G6 in January 1970 to 74 

1970. The 74 trial Judges are further subdivided into 26 g

martial jndges and 48 special court-martial judges. It is 

by June 1971 the strength of the Trial Judiciary will in

100 trial juclges as the goal of haying all special courts-ma

a military judge assigned to the judiciary is reached. Tria

military juclge alone, ,yhich were first permitted uncleI' 

Justice .:\.ct of 1968, resulted in great savings of tillle. )

percent of ,the general comt-lmutial eases auaDO percent 

court-martial cases were tried before it judge alone. 

The Annual Judicial Conference was held ill Octobe

.Tudge Advocate General's School in cDnjunctioll with th

ference, but only a limited number of judges were able to 
The end of the first full year's operation uncler the ~li

Act of 1968 has seen ,vide acceptance and nse of the ac

'We arc fast reaching our goal of having a military jud

every special court-maltial. Military judges arc now be

approximately 83 percent of the special courts-martial co

Public interest in the administration of criminal justi

tary continues to be yery high. It is reflected by the in

Congress of a number of bills which propose sweeping 

military justice system. These bills also contain some of 

which I indicated as being under stuJy in my office in m

Studies conducted in my 'office and problems related 

rent cases indicate the ,yisclolll of 1ll0\-ing toward mode

the Uniform Code of ~lilitary .fustice and military justi

The present powers of the military jndge oYer proeeedi

of COUIt are inadequate to permit him to ha\'e full cO

palties, the witnesses, counsel, and the press. LE'gislatio

defining the power of the military judge and increasing 

power should Le enacted, Trained law."01's, preferably m

:,;honlc1 replace the convening authority in those strictly l

which the convening authority is now reqnired by the Co

and the Code should be amended to remove requirement

Yening authority perform duplicative legal review of 

findings. The conyening authority should retain the pow

the sentence of a eomt-ll1urtial in order to permit h

clemency in favor of the accused. Sinee eyery court-mart

for legal errors by a trained la'Y'yer, the review of fi

cOllYening authority is unueeessary. The conn-ning au

be replaced by a trained lawyer, preferalJly a military ju

dures under Alticle 62, Reconsideration and Revision, 

Rehearings. The strictly Jegal questions raised under th

should not be handled Lv laymen. 

The conveningautho~ity'should be empowered to ord

the confinement portion of a court-martial sentence in o

finement facilities not be burdened with trying to comp

ingless segregation of prisoners. Finally, the Supreme 

20 
create increased personnel requirements in 

U period of pe

ages and ,thus would be difficult to implement. :Milit

general courts-martial and, increasingly in the Army, m

of special courts-martial are already members of an inde

nization. Unless changes are made with regard to the 

thority's discretion to prosecute, there is no possible 

independent trial counselor prosecution division. 'What 

is the question of the independence of defense coun

martial. 

I believe that defense counsel are already independ

protected by the Code from unlawful influence and from 

actions by their superiors for the zeal with which th

their responsibilities. I have studied the possible impl

an independent defense command for two other rea

possibility that such an organization would improve t

which accused have in military defense counsel; (2) the p

such an organization would improve the confidence w

defense cOlllsel have in their own independence. I sha

study the possibility of implementing such a system 

because I believe these latter two reasons to be as imp

actual independence of counsel at courts-martial. Pi

should be run to test the feasibility of this type of organ

legislation requiring it is enacted. 

I do not believe that changes in the area of prosecuto

are necessary. Provisions of the Code and the Uanua

Martial sufficiently circumscribe this discretion. The 

thority's place in the military justice system is in 

breach of discipline is so serious that it warrants th

judicial process. Once this decision is made, the co

and should be completely out of his control. The milita

remains responsible for discipline within his command an

the ultimate decision on matters of prosecution subject 

ards set out by the Manual and the Code. 

Random selection of court members presents an extr

problem. As court members are selected by the individ
missioner, and probably also for a greater number 

challenges by prosecution and defense. This factor w

greater numbers of people being unavailable for duty du

ber selection process. This type of ineftlciency is comple

in a combat situation and difllcult to tolerate in any mil

Under the current systBm, the convening authority is re

persons of judicial temperament as court members. Th

duces the necessity for great numbers of peremptory c

system of random selection for members of courts-mart

tain some objective screening standards to reduce the siz

and the need for large numbers of peremptory challenges

A member of a court-martial takes on a tremendous 

In his decision, he must do justice both to the military c

the accused. It would be undesirable to empanel as cour

sons who were so immature and inexperienced that they 

able to accept seriously and conscientiously their resp

members of the military community. For this reason, 

random selection should contain some criteria to ass

selected have the maturity and experience necessary to 

PERSONNEL 

The strength of the Judge Ad\'ocate General's Corps 

stant during the year, averaging approximately 1,000 

attorneys. This permitted the curtailment of the progra

tion of non-JAGC attorneys to perform duty as tria

counsel in trials by special courts-martial. However, it w

to completely discontinue the program. Non-JAGC attor

be utilized in areas such as Vietnam and Europe where 

widespread geographically and time-space factors preclu

of JAGC attorneys for all cases. 

Following the increase in commissioned strength it 

to provide aclditionallay personnel to support the new j

functions at the special court-martial level. It was reco

11 position be provided for a trained enlisted legal clerk, 

22 
Compared to 1969, applications for commission in the Jud

General's Corps were down more than 50 percent in 197

needs the passage of legislation containing a reasonable 

order to attract competent, and retain experienced, attor

EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

During calendar year 1970, the Judge Advocate Gen

United States Army, provided resident instruction for 1

This instruction was presented in 21 courses. 

Four cycles of the 10-week Basic Course were cond

School during 1970. The 55th Basic Class of 83 students

Vietnamese officers, 3 Thai officers, and one Iranian office

ated in April 1970. The 56th Basic Class (58 students, 

Liberian Judge Advocate General) graduated in June 1

Basic Class (36 students) in September 1970. The 58th B

100 students, including one Korean officer, one 'Yomen's 

officer, and seven Coast Guard officers, was graduated 

1970. This represents an increase of two classes over th

cycles of the Basic Course per year. The increase was 

meet the continued increased counsel requirements of 

Justice Act of 1968. 

The 18th Judge Advocate Officer Advanced Course w

from the School in May 1970. It comprised 29 studen

one officer from the United States 1Yomen's Army Corp

of the United States Navy, two officers of the United S

Corps, and one officer from Iran. 

The 19th Advanced Course began in August 1970. Am

students are two officers from the United States Navy, 

from the United States Marine Corps, one officer from E

officer from Vietnam, and one officer from Iran. 

In addition to these general courses, a number of sho

courses were conducted during calendar year 1970. T

were: Legal Logistics; :Military Judge (2 cycles) ; Intern

Civil Affairs Law; Military Justice; Labor Law (2 cyc
y 

a Legal Clerk's Course and it is anticipated that the 

courses will be conducted in calendar year 1971. 

Blocks of instruction on the :Manual and the Code wer

the Non-Commissioned Officer Education System, und

of U.S. Continental Army Command, and distributed 

service schools. :More extensive blocks of instruction h

pared for student officers in Army service schools. Additi

hours of military justice instruction were written fo

Reserve school courses. 

In order to improve the quality of military justice ins

~\.rmy service schools, extensive information regarding 

rent instruotion was obtained in 1970. In order to kee

instructors in other schools up-to-date, a Military L

Instructors' Conference is planned for 8-9 February 197

A substantial portion of the School's contribution to th

tion of the :Military Justice Act of 1968 was the writin

lations and pamphlets and the revision of old publicatio

justice. Publications which have been revised to ref

changes include "School Text on Pretrial Procedu

Pamphlet 27-16, "The Legal Clerk's Handbook." 

Four issues of the "Military Law Review" were pub

1970. Volume 47 included an article on conscientious obj

David :M. Brahms, USMC. Volume 50 contains an art

corpus, by Maj. Charles Cushman, USMC, and one o

straint, by Maj. Richard R. Boller, JAGC. 

During 1970,20 issues of the Judge Advocate Lega

published to insure rapid dissemination of recent milit

velopments to judge advocates in the field. This pam

digests of all United States Court of :Military Appeal

published Army Court of Military Review opinions, g

tifications of review by USCO~L'-\.., actions of The Ju

General under Article 69, UCMJ, miscellaneous noti

oranda concerning military justice, selected military af

and selected civilian court decisions. 

24 
y jgp, jg

the United States Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Gu

The annual Judge Advocate General's Conference wa

lottesville during the period 4-8 October 1970. Eighty

conferees attended. Principal speakers were Mr. Leon Ja

dent-elect of the American Bar Association, and 

Buzhardt, General Counsel of the Department of Defen

principal subjects of discussion was the implementation 

Justice Act. 

The school planned the judge advocate phases of LO

nuallogistical exercise conducted at Fort Lee, Va., Du

restrictions, however, LOGEX 70 was cancelled, after 

of considerable preparation. It is expected that this wor

be utilized in future logistical exercises. 

The collection of materials for the Military Legal Cen

last year, is continuing. During 1970, several individua

the center were received, including materials from th

the late S. Arthur Devan. 

KENNETH J. HODSON, 

Major General, USA, 

The Judge Advocate 

United S
Following the practice in recent years of having the C

tee Report reach the Armed Services Committees of Co

after the convening of each new session, this report, alth

ing Calendar Year 1970, contains, unless otherwise indic

cal information covering fiscal year 1970. 

OOURT-lIJARTIAL lVORKLOAD. a. The total 

workload within the Navy and Marine Corps has remai

stable, but the number of general courts-martial has co

crease (during the past 5 fiscal years there has been 

increase in general courts-martial). The fiuotuation in 

case during the past fiscal year is set forth below: 

Fisral year Fiscal year Increase 

Type case 1969 1970 or 

decrease 

General court-martiaL _______________ 929 1,317 +

SpeCial court-martial involving BCD___ 2,808 2,991 +

SpeCial court-martial not involving BCD_____________________________ 13,431 12,371 -1,0

Summary court-martiaL _____________ 13,078 13,309 +2

Total ________________________ 30,246 29,988 ______

b. During fiscal year 1970 Navy Board of Review/th

of Military Review received for review 1,073 general c

and 2,991 special courts-martial (total 4,064) as compa

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

during fiscal year 1969. Of the 4,064 cases received by Na

Review/the Navy Court of Military Review during fis

2,102 accused requested counsel (52 percent). A more deta

report is attached as Exhibit A. 

SUPERVISION OF ADlIJINISTRATION OF 

JUSTIOE. Complying with the requirements of Artic

form Code of Military Justice, the Judge Advocate G

26 
and a half. Although this relatively short time of exi

provide a basis for full evaluation, it is noteworthy tha

workload resulting from the implementation of the M

Act of 1968, has been met without undue difficulty. 

studies are presently pending to provide for the incre

billets within the law center system in order to furthe

increase the services provided. 

U.S. NAVY-lIfARILYE CORPS JUDICIARY AC

present manning level of the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Ju

ity stands at 21 military judges, a decrease of two from 

level of 23 at the close of calendar year 1969. Additio

December 19iO, 6i3 Marine and Navy judge advoca

certified as qualified to preside at special courts-martial. 

made to ensure that as many as possible of those judge 

are certified as military judges for special courts-martial 

training. Similarly, effort is made to keep member

Navy-l\Iarine Corps Judiciary Activity up to date w

spectrum of military discipline, correction, and justice

during calendar year 19iO, five military judges visited 

Disciplinary Command, Portsmouth, N.H., where the

tensive briefings on the program objectives, resourc

achievements; six military judges attended the 'Vest 

Conference at Camp Pendleton, Calif.; nine military ju

the East Coast Judicial Conference at Camp Lejeune, 

military judges attended the Judge Advocate General's 

'Vashington, D.C. 

ARTICLE (J9, UClIfJ, PETITIONS. There has be

in the number of petitions for relief pursuant to the 

of Article 69, Uniform Code of Military Justice, whi

Judge Advocate General to act in certain cases wh

finally reviewed under Article i6. In calendar year 19i

for relief were received and action has been completed 

cases. 
Military Justice and in related support activities. The S

instruction in military justice, legal clerk duties, and co

to officers and enlisted personnel of all the Armed Forc

vides an officer lawyer course which is designed for 

appointment lawyers of the Navy. During calendar y

School provided instruction in various courses to a to

officers and enlisted personnel of all the Armed Forces

b. Five nonlawyer officer classes graduated at the Just

Newport and one class at Camp Pendleton, Calif. The 

classes consisted of 440 officers of the Navy, ~farine Corp

Guard. In addition thereto, 278 lawyers of the Navy, l\

and Coast Guard completed the officer lawyer courses o

School. 

c. Four hundred and ninety-five officers completed th

cers' short courses offered at Newport, R.I.; Quantico, V

Beach, Va.; and San Diego, Calif. One hundred and 

completed the Reserve seminars for lawyers and 145 o

Navy were given special instruction in military justic

of the Naval Justice School staff as part of a course 

Destroyer School. 

d. Four hundred and thirty-three enlisted members of 

)Iarine Corps, and Coast Guard have graduated from 

legal clerk and court reporting courses. 

STAFF JUDGE ADVOOATES OONFERENOE. 

ence was held in 'Washington, D.C., of staff judge advoc

major Navy and Marine Corps commands. The confe

was held in October, was particularly timely in that th

had been in operation for over a year, and this meeting 

staff judge advocates with an opportunity to discuss a

which were being encountered in the field in regard to 

The major provisions of the Military Justice Act of 1

been in effect for over a year and topics relating to the rev

28 
p

are now being formulated to hold a similar conference 

JOSEPH B. McDEVIT'r, 

Rear Admiral, D SN, 

Th.e Judge Advocate G

United S
Special courts-martial: 

Received for review under Article 66 __________________ _ 

Received for review under Article 65c _________________ _ 

Reviewed in the field _______________________________ _ 

Total ______________________________________________

Summary courts-martial: 

Received for review under Article 65c_ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

Reviewed in the field________________________________ 

Total ______________________________________________

Total all courts-martiaL______________________________

Board of Review/Navy Court of Military Review actions: 

On hand for review 1 July 1969______________________ _ 

Received for review during fiscal year 1970____________ _ 

Total on hand_______________________________________

Reviewed during fiscal year 1970_____________________ _ 

Pending review on 30 June 1970 ______________________ _ 

Total ______________________________________________

Findings modified or set aside by Boards of Review/Navy Co

Military Review during fiscal year 1970____________________

Requests for appellate counseL _____________________________

Court of Military Appeals actions: 

Petitions forwarded to USCMA_______________________ 

Cases certified to USCMA by JAG____________________ 

Total cases docketed with USCMA____________________

Petitions granted by USCMA_________________________ 

Petitions denied by USCMA__________________________ 

Total petitions acted upon by USCMA_________________

30 
1. Brig. Gen. :Morton J. Gold, Deputy Staff Judge Adv

was named the Assistant Judge Advocate General on 2 F

vice Brig. Gen. Joseph E. Krysakowski, who was reassig

the Staff Judge Advocate of SAC. Generals Cheney an

staff visits to legal offices in the United States and overse

by the Uniform Code of :Military Justice, Article 6 (a

attended and participated in various bar association 

spoke before numerous civic, professional and milita

tions. The Judge Advocate General hosted a worldwide 

mand and General Court-martial Convening Authority 

Adv'ocates Conference at :Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala

1970. The Military Affairs Division was redesignated a

istrative Law Division in November 1970, and the Legal 

was formed in the Civil Law Directorate to implement 

legal assistance program whereby judge advocate offi

as counsel for personnel in the grade of E-4 and belo

civil and criminal court appearances where permitted 

local laws. The Legal Automated 'Writing System (LAW

mated typing center using:MT 1ST automatic typewriters 

dictation recording system, was formed in order to prov

typing and correspondence preparation for the departm

the year a study was conducted as to the feasibility of 

trial counsel, defense counsel, and military judges to 

circuit offices throughout the world, reporting directly 

Advocate General rather than being assigned to the vario

and personnel being assigned to the duties on a full time 

determined that such an organization of the trial person

to be feasible and that a pilot project in the southeastern 

should be placed into operation to test the soundness of su

zation. At year's end, a detailed plan outlining the pilo

being staffed through the Air Staff with a target date 

for the start of the pilot project. 

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

Judge Advocate General for review pursuant to Artic
in 66 cases. 

b. The workload of the Court of Military Review wa

Cases on band 30 June 1969_____________________________________

Cases referred for review______________________________________

Total for re\iew_________________________________________

Cases re,iewed and dispatched_________________________________

Cases on band 30 June 1970_____________________________________

Miscellaneous Docket matters__________________________________

1 Includes 5 En Bane Decisions. 

c. During the fiscal year 74.5 percent of the accused, who

referred for review under Article 66, requested repre

appellate defense counsel before the Court of Military R

d. The following table shows the number of cases forw

United States Court of Military Appeals pursuant to th

divisions of Article 67 (b) ; and the number of petitions 

ing the period: 

Cases reviewed and dispatched by Court of Review_______________

Xumber cases forwarded to USCl\fA_____________________________

Cases petitioned___________________________________________

Cases certified____________________________________________

Percent total forwarded of total cases reviewed_________________

Petitions granted______________________________________________

Percent grants of total petitioned______________________________

Percent petitions granted of total cases reviewed by Court of Revie

e. During the fiscal year, the following numbers of c

were convened in the Air Force: 

General courts-martiaL________________________________________

Special courts-martial_________________________________________

Summary courts-martiaL______________________________________

Total ----------------------__c _________________________

32 
______________________________________ _ 

__________________________________________ _ 

Restrictions (over 14 days) : Officers______________________________________ _ 

Airmen______________________________________ _ 

Quarters arrest/correctional custody: Officers______________________________________ _ 

Airmen______________________________________ _ 

Extra duties (over 14 days): Airmen ________________ _ 

Reduction in grade: Airmen _______________________ _ 

Forfeiture of pay: Officers______________________________________ _ 

Airmen______________________________________ _ 

Detention of pay: . Officers ______________________________________ _ 

Airmen______________________________________ _ 

Written reprimand: Officers______________________________________ _ 

.~irmen 

Mitigating actions: 

Appeals taken____________________________________ _ 

47,

4,

3,

2,

19,

16, 

1,

Officers__________________________________________ _ 

A~men 1,

Appeals denied ___________________________________ _ 
 1,

Officers__________________________________________ _ 

Airmen __________________________________________ _ 1,

Suspension of punishment- ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 11, 

Officers__________________________________________ _ 

Airmen ___________________________________________ 11,

Other action_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2, 

Officers__________________________________________ _ 

Airmen__________________________________________ _ 2,

I Of total Casos (28,776) 2 Of appeals taken (1,639) 
and civilian. There were two special issues: Spring, 

sored by the Air University, and Fall, 1970 devoted to I

Law. Articles of particular note in the Military Justice 

"The Guilty Plea-Recent Developments," 'Winter, 1970; 

of O'Callahan," Spring, 1970; "Conduct Expected of an 

a Gentleman: Ambiguity," Spring, 1970; "The Effect of 

on Drug Abuse Cases," Spring, 1970; "The Military Jud

tiple Confessions by Single Accused," Summer, 1970; an

Justice is to Justice as ...," Summer, 1970. The last 

written by Mr. Robinson O. Everett from material he 

the American and Federal Bar Association Convention

answer to many of the criticisms directed at the Military 

tem. Mr. Everett, a professor of law at Duke University 

nized authority in the field of military law, is a Lieutenan

the United States Air Force Reserve assigned to The Jud

General's Department. 

6. The Air Force JAG Reporter was published monthly 

year. This publication contains digests of the latest opi

Court of Military Appeals and the Court of Military Re

digests are printed in the Reporter on 5" x 8" perforated 

the descriptive word index lines to facilitate filing. Thus, t

serve as an advanced report of the latest developments of 

also as a research tool in the interim between release of the 

its full text publication in permanently bound volumes. T

also contains other opinions, notices, and directions for gu

judge advocates. 

7. The Ofiice of The Judge Advocate General acted as 

the Armed Services in administering a contract with a 

book publisher for publication of the Court-Martial Re

contain the decisions of the United States Court of Milit

and selected decisions of the Courts of Military Review of 

The Judge Advocate General continued to have the op

sponsibility for LITE (Legal Information Through E

34 
these, 589 were members of the Regular Air Force, 368 

Reserve officers (of this number 265 entered active du

Reserve status and have a 4-year active duty service comm

280 were Reserve officers with established dah~s of se

Regular officer strength decreased by 28 and the total o

increased by 59 between 30 June 1969 and 30 June 1970. 

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

exercising general court-martial jurisdiction. 

JAlIfES S. CHENEY, 

lIfajor General, USAF

The Judge Advocate G

United States 
The following is the annual report of the General C

Department of Transportation submitted pursuant to 

of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Unless otherw

figures are for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1969 

June 30, 1970. 

The table below shows the number of court-martial re

and filed at Coast Guard headquarters during the fiscal 

4 preceding years: 

1970 1969 19

General courts-martiaL ____________________ 2 2 

Special courts-martiaL _____________________ 76 92 9

Summary courts-martiaL___________________ 174 207 21

TotaL _____________________________ 252 301 30

Major provisions of the Military Justice Act of 1968 

90-632) became effective on August 1, 1969, shortly after 

of the fiscal year. One general and 15 special courts-ma

this report were tried before the new provisions became 

general and 61 special courts-martial were tried after the 

Perhaps the most important features of the new law w

signed to increase defense representation by lawyers in 

martial trials. The Military Justice Act had this result 

Guard. In terms of percentage, 95 percent of the accused 

under the new provisions (58 out of 61 special court-m

ants) were represented by lawyers. In the two previous f

percent and 69 percent of the special court-martial de

lawyers. For the whole of the current year, 72 of the 76 

martial defendants had qualified lawyers as their defense 

new legislation also had an impact on the detailing of le

prosecutors. In 56 of the 61 special court-martial cas

August 1, HlG£l, the trial counsel was a lawyer; in the p

36 
~Iissing ship________________________________________________

Assaults ___________________________________________________

Violation of regulation or order_______________________________

ColllDlUIllcating a threat_____________________________________

False official writing________________________________________

Willful disobedience or disrespecL___________________________

Escape from confinement or custody___________________________

Drunk or disol'derly_________________________________________

Others _____________________________________________________

The 17 marihuana-LSD offenses were charged against 

cused, four of whom were cleared of such charges. None 

ing drug offenders received a bad conduct disch

confinement in excess of 4 months adjudged. 

Thirty-four of the year's special courts-martial and 

courts-martial were contested cases; 42 of the special 

were uncontested. Sixteen of the special court-martial 

in acquittals or dismissal of charges or disapproval of g

Twenty-eight sentences were affirmed as adjudged; 34 

mitigated in some degree. 

Ten cases were docketed with the Coast Guard Cou

Review during the fiscal year. The court wrote opinions i

cases and also an opinion upon an application for a writ 

Punitive discharges were disapproved by the court in 

cases reviewed and approved in four others; the court 

one suspended bad conduct discharge. The two general 

cases were reviewed under the provisions of Article 69; 

did not include a punitive separation. Five of the 10 

by the court were tried after the Military Justice Act o

effective; two of the five cases were tried by the military 

alone. 

Only one petition for review of a Court of Military R

was filed with the U.S. Court of Military Appeals du

the petition was denied. However, the General Counse

case involving a question as to the authority of a militar

alone to examine the contents of a pretrial agreement. T
New York, St. Louis, Long Beach, San Francisco, an

connection with his St. Louis visit, he also attended s

American Bar Association Standing Committee on Mi

and of the Judge Advocates Association. In October he 

)Iilitary Judicial Seminar sponsored by the Marine Co

Lejeune, N.C. In December a senior member of the Ch

staff, Capt. R. A. Ratti, represented the Coast Guard 

ceremonies of the Judge Advocate General's School, U.S. 

lottesville, Va., and addressed the graduates of the adv

Eight Coast Guard officers commissioned for active du

were included among those graduating from the basic 

~\.rmy school. 

A conference of district and base legal officers was h

Guard Headquarters during the period May 25-27, 1970

ence was addressed by the General Counsel, the Chief 

members of his staff, and information was exchanged on a 

of legal problems encountered by field legal officers. It is 

such conferences of Coast Guard lawyers will become an 

The General Counsel certified two additional legal of

tary judges. In view of the relatively small number o

general courts-martial, the Coast Guard has established 

of certifying only qualified officers in the grade of lie

mander and above as military judges. Setting a minimu

is considered to be consistent with present and emergin

the position and prestige of military judges. 

JAMES A. 'VASHINGTON, J

General O

Department of Tran

U,!, GOVERNMENT PRINTIN

38