cmd the 

JUDGE ADVOCATES GENER

of the 

ARMED FORCES 


and the 

GENERAL COUNSEL 


of the 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUST

For the Period 


October I, 1979-Septemher 30, 198

PROPERTY OF U.S. ARMY 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAeS SCH

LIBRARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATI

and to the 


SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 


AND SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTA

and the 

SECRETARIES OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF 

ARMY, IfAn, ARB AIR FORCE 


PURSUAlfT TO THE 


UlfIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTIC

For the Period 


October I, 1979-Septemher 30, 1980 

PORTATION 

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 NAV

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE AIR 

REPORTOFTHEGENERALCOUNSELOFTHEDEPARTMENT

PORTATION (UNITED STATES COAST GUARD) 
and the 

JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL 


OF THE ARMED FORCES 


and the 


GENERAL COUNSEL 


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

October 1, 1979 to September 30, 1980 

The judges of the United States Court of Military A

Judge Advocates General of the military departments, a

eral Counsel of the Department of Transportation subm

nual Report on the operation of the Uniform Code of Mili

pursuant to 10 U.S.C. §867(g). 

The Code Committee, consisting of the individuals 

above, continued its tradition of meeting quarterly durin

year to review developments in the field of military ju

consider proposals designed to improve the operation of t

Code of Military Justice. In particular, the Code Committe

the commencement of an extensive review of the Manual 

Martial, United States, 1969 (Revised edition), with a v

developing a substantially revised manual. This review 

undertaken by a working group composed of representat

individual service and a member of the Court's staff and 

to be completed within a two-year period. In addition, t

Rules of Evidence, which were reviewed and approved b

Committee and thereafter promulgated by the President 

his rule-making authority under Article 36 of the Unifo

Military Justice, took effect on September 1, 1980. 
ALBERT B. FLETCHER. JR. 

Associate Judge. 

ALTON H. HARVEY 

The Judge Advocate Genera~ U.S. Army

JOHN S. JENKINS 

The Judge Advocate Genera~ U.S. Navy. 

THOMAS B. BRUTON 

The Judge Advocate Genera~ U.S. Air F

THOMAS G. ALLISON 

General Counse~ Department of Transpo

2 
The judges of the United States Court of Military Ap

their FY 1980 report on the administration of the Court 

justice to the Committees on Armed Services of the U

Senate and House of Representatives and the Secretarie

Transportation, Army, Navy, and Air Force in accordan

cle 67(g), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.s.C. §8

THE BUSINESS OF THE COURT 

During the fiscal year 1980 term, the Court acted on 1

for grant of review, granting review in 337 cases (2

master docket of mandatory appeals, certificates, and 

tions, the Court acted in 195 cases, affirming the Court

Review in 69% of those cases. The master docket cases w

in 60 signed opinions, 17 per curiam opinions and 118 sum

sitions. The Court also acted upon 50 cases on the m

docket, granting extraordinary relief in one case. At the 

term, 320 cases were pending on the petition docket an

the statutory 30-day review rule; 387 cases were pen

master docket; and 3 cases were pending on the m

docket. The increase of 185 pending master docket ca

number of cases pending on the same docket at the clos

vious year is accounted for by a large number of cases 

common issue which were granted during the year but wh

undecided on September 30, 1980. The impact of these c

cases was reflected in an increase of some 163% in c

review over the prior year. The number of initial filings 

siderably higher in the case of appellate filings in FY 8

for grant of review were up by 14%. The motion pI:a

creased by 8% during this period. However, extraordina

tion filings on the miscellaneous docket decreased by 3

Reports from the Courts of Military Review indicate t

intermediate appellate courts have experienced an upsu
Shortly before the beginning of the FY80 term of the C

Matthew J. Perry resigned to accept an appointment a

States District Judge for the District of South Carolina. 

the Court's previous annual report, Judge Perry's resignat

the second time in less than 6 years that a judge of thi

elected to resign to accept a federal district judgeship. T

resulting from Judge Perry's resignation was not filled un

1980, when Robinson O. Everett became a member of the 

also was designated as Chief Judge. During the intervenin

approximately 7 months the two judges serving on the Co

the policy of granting a petition for review if either of 

believed that "good cause" had been shown as required 

67(b)(3), UCMJ. Also, during this period in which a vacancy 

the Court, cases in which petitions had previously been g

which were pending on the master docket, or cases in whi

questions had been submitted by a Judge Advocate Gene

the services under Article 67(b)(2), UCMJ, could not be 

unless both sitting judges agreed on the result in a part

Upon the assumption of office by Chief Judge Everett, a 

cases which had been argued previously were set for rear

setting the cases for argument subsequent to April 16, 198

was made to dispose of the oldest pending cases and, in 

those common to a significant number of other cases aw

disposition by the Court. 

JUDICIAL VISITATIONS 

The Judges of the Court continued their policy of part

conferences relating to the administration of military 

visiting military installations in an effort to familiarize 

with the conditions under which military justice is adm

the armed forces. Judge Cook was at San Diego, California

ber 1979; Cherry Point, North Carolina, in December 197

Illinois in January 1980; and Honblulu, Hawaii, in Augu

meetings sponsored by the American Bar Association on t

4 
in the Army Lawyer. He also presented the Court's Rep

nual meeting of the Judge Advocates Association, which 

August 1980 in conjunction with the annual meeting of th

Bar Association. In addition, he addressed regional co

Air Force Reserve Judge Advocates at San Antonio, Tex

well Air Force Base, Alabama and a meeting of Wash

Naval Reserve Judge Advocates. 

In addition to the Judges' visitations, the Court hoste

at the courthouse of the Standing Committee on Militar

American Bar Association in May 1980. Also, it c

ceremony for admission of new members to its Bar in con

the Annual Meeting of the American Bar Association. 

APPELLATE ADVOCACY CONFERENCE 

Under the sponsorship of the United States Court of 

peals, in conjunction with the Military Law Institute, t

nual Homer Ferguson Conference on Appellate Advocacy 

the Georgetown University Law Center on May 21- 23

conference has been held each year since its inception in 

named in honor of Senior Judge Homer Ferguson, who 

guished retired member of the Court and a former me

United States Senate. The conference gives military 

practitioners an opportunity to receive concentrated in

tended to develop and maintain the skills necessary f

court practice within the military justice system or els

conferees may obtain certified credit to meet the cont

education requirements of their respective State Bars. D

speakers at this year's conference included Honorable A

Jr., Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the F

Honorable Howard T. Markey, Chief Judge, United Sta

Customs and Patent Appeals; Honorable James Duke Cam

Justice, Supreme Court of Arizona; Honorable William 

Chief Justice, Supreme Court of New Hampshire; Honora

McCree, Solicitor General of the United States; and D
ly expanded word processing and data processing capab

installation of this equipment followed an extensive surv

able computer hardware with a view toward procuring an 

system which would provide superior data processing ca

state-of-the-art word processing support for all aspects of 

operation. The innovativeness of the chosen system is atte

number of visits to the Court by officials of both trial an

federal and state courts, members of governmental ag

representatives of private firms, who are interested in 

hand the many uses to which such an automated manage

mation system can be put. The basic design of the Court's 

has also served as a model for a number of federal and sta

courts, as well as several U.S. Attorney's offices thro

country. 

SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS AFFECTING THE ADMINIS

OF MILITARY JUSTICE WITHIN THE ARMED FO

Court·Martial Jurisdiction over Persons and Offenses 

During the FY80 term the Court rendered a significant 

court-martial jurisdiction over the person of a military a

unanimous opinion in United States v. Bridgeford, 9 M.

the Court held that an enlistee in the United States Arm

who was involuntarily recalled to active duty and notified 

to object to such activation, waived his right to object to 

irregularities in his involuntary activation by his failure t

an objection until he was tried by court-martial several m

being recalled to active duty. The Court distinguished an 

ing in United States v. Kilbreth, 22 U.S.C.M.A. 390, 47 

(1973), on the basis that the appellant in Bridgeford fail

*This section of the Court's Annual Report is prepared solely as an inform

the staff of the Court. It is included for the convenience of the reader to 

locating cases of particular interest during the term. The case summ

precedential value and should not be cited in briefs filed with the Cour

6 
y 

gy 

through all the essential steps but the last, the court

jurisdiction to try the accused for the charged offense of 

However, the Court also held in this case, that the c

lacked jurisdiction to try the accused for a separate dru

occurred two days after the first offense at the apartmen

accomplice where all the details for this second sale were 

In United States v. Hardin, 7 M.J. 399 (C.M.A. 1979), the 

with respect to the charged offenses of sale and transfer 

which occurred off-base that the court-martial which tried 

had jurisdiction over these off-base offenses, since the 

negotiations for the sale and transfer took place aboard 

ship and since the buyer returned to or near military pr

the drugs, even though the actual exchange of marijuan

occurred off-base.· 

In an unusual case involving the court-martial of a mili

for larceny of monies from his civilian insurance compan

sion of a false claim for a stolen vehicle, the Court held 

martial jurisdiction existed. United States v. Seivers

(C.M.A. 1979). Even though the accused filed the fraud

from his off-base residence, the insurer had mailed draf

surance proceeds back to the accused at his duty station

cused's larceny offense therefore did not reach fruiti

received these drafts, endorsed them, and deposited them 

account, which was located on-base. 

Right to Counsel 

In United States v. Edwards, 9 M.J. 94 (C.M.A. 1980

defined the responsibility of the Government to serve the 

advocate's post-trial review on an accused's original defe

·Shortly after the FY80 term ended, a majority of the Court express

change of position when it observed in United States v. Trottier; 9 M

1980), that almost every involvement of service personnel with the com

whether on or off base. is "service-connected." 
tary severance of the accuseds right to his original counsel

In a case in which a military accused petitioned the Co

traordinary relief in connection with the proceedings of 

court-martial held at the U.S. Naval Station, Subic Bay, R

the Philippines, the military judge had denied a defense re

a civilian member of the Bar of the Philippines be permitte

sent him at trial. Over a strong dissent that the Court w

restricting a statutory right afforded to a military accused 

ticle 38(b), UCMJ, a majority of the Court denied the acc

quest for an extraordinary writ to reverse the ruling of th

judge and held that the military judge had authority to ba

lawyer from acting as civilian counsel at the accused's cou

that an attorney who has not been admitted to practice 

highest court of a state of the United States, or is not a mem

bar of a Federal court may be required to demonstrate 

qualified to practice before courts-martial; and that th

whether the military judge abused his discretion in this par

stance was a matter for examination during the normal 

direct review of the accused's case. Soriano v. Hosken, 9 

(C.M.A. 1980). 

Right to Witnesses 

The Court rendered several decisions during this term w

cerned rulings by a military judge on a defense request for 

psychiatrist and a request by an accused to allow his sister 

on his behalf. In United States v. Salisbury, 7 M.J. 425 (C.M

the Court held that the military judge committed prejudicia

denying a defense request for an expert psychiatrist to te

murder case in order to establish the defense theory that th

death resulted from suicide. In support of his request that t

psychiatrist be called as a defense witness, the accused

represented to the military judge that the psychiatrist's 

would indicate that the deceased victim's mental condition 

sistent with the defense position that the victim committe

8 
of testimony was available in lieu of the live testimony of a 

witness. In view of the substance of the expected testimon

cused's sister, as stipulated at trial, and because of the pra

culties of producing her live testimony, the availability to t

of other live testimony on the same topic, and the tim

defense request, the trial judge had not abused his dis

refusing to compel the Government to bring the requested 

testify at trial. 

The Court also addressed a troublesome problem enco

defense counsel seeking to interview protected governm

mants in drug cases. In United States v. Killebrew, 9 M.J.1

1980), the Court found that the Government had intentiona

defense counsel's pretrial access to an informant by secretl

ring him to a distant and undisclosed location and that an u

cated telephone interview between the accused's defense c

the supposed informant was insufficient to protect the 

right under the Manual for Courts-Martial to interview 

witnesses. Although its decision provides guidance to c

trial judges, the Court was unable to determine from 

whether there was any risk of prejudice to the accused. 

the record was remanded for a limited hearing to determin

formation the informant might have provided if the accu

defense counsel had originally been granted meaningful acc

duct an interview with him. 

Search and Seizure 

In United States v. Dillard, 8 M.J. 213 (C.M.A.1980), the 

with respect to evidence seized during a search conducte

dance with an oral authorization that, because the authori

not been reduced to writing by the local military comma

quired by Army regulations, the discovered evidence sh

been suppressed. 

United States v. Fimmano, 8 M.J. 197 (C.M.A. 1980) 

argued before Judge Perry left the Court but was not de
of an automobile may be predicated on reasonable susp

ever, to search a car probable cause is required, and the 

tip received by telephone in these cases was insufficient 

probable cause, when the informant did not identify hims

no information as to how he had acquired the reported 

that a particularly described automobile enteri~g the m

certain military base would be carrying passengers wh

marijuana. 

In Unite.d States v. Paige, 7 M.J. 480 (C.M.A. 1979), th

sidered the legality of the apprehension and search of a 

cused at a border crossing from Holland into Germany. W

cused and his fellow serviceman attempted to enter Ge

Holland by automobile, a German border official stopped t

quested identification. The German official thereupon d

identification cards produced by the accused and his co

Army military policemen, who ordered both individual

their personal luggage to a room within the checkpoint st

conducting "pat down" searches, the military policem

them that they were being apprehended for "illegal bord

and directed them to remove their clothing and submit 

searches. Two plastic bags containing heroin found on the 

to his conviction by court-martial. On appeal, the Cour

since there was no such offense as "illegal border crossin

tary policemen who apprehended and searched the accu

companion in the checkpoint station had no lawful basis 

prehension. Thus, the apprehension and search violated 

Amendment of the United States Constitution; and so the 

bags of heroin were inadmissible at the accused's court-

Court·Martial Practice and Procedure 

In United States v. Slubowski, 7 M.J. 461 (C.M.A. 1979

concluded that an accused's right to be tried by impartial 

bers had not been prejudiced by the military judge's r

that, in conducting the voir dire examination of the cou

10 
The Court concluded that this erroneous information had 

ly misadvised accused as to the consequences of his gu

that this erroneous advice - although given with the co

the accused's trial defense counsel and not contested by 

until his case came on for appellate review of his recor

the accused's guilty pleas improvident. Accordingly, the 

sentence were ordered set aside with provision for a re

In United States v. Cooper, 8 M.J. 5 (C.M.A. 1979)

course of an inquiry to determine whether an accused's p

to aggravated assault and communicating threats wer

the military judge decided to reject the pleas because 

had stated that he did not believe in his own mind that h

The judge thereupon refused to accept the guilty pleas, e

of not guilty, and proceeded to try the accused at a bench 

defense objection that the judge h'ad become disqualified 

impartial trier of the facts and should have recused him

jecting the accused's guilty pleas. The Court held that 

cused had not fully and unequivocally admitted his guil

providency inquiry and since nothing in the record indica

military judge had inexorably concluded, as a result of t

that the accused was guilty of the crimes to which he a

plead guilty, the judge did not abuse his discretion in den

cused's challenge for cause against him at the bench tria

In another significant case decided this term, a militar

general court-martial ordered the reopening of an Articl

pretrial investigative hearing after charges had earlier b

to trial and after the accused had been arraigned. The ju

resulted from a defense motion in which it was claime

were deficiencies in the original Article 32 investigation. 

investigation was reopened in accordance with the mili

ruling and, at the conclusion of this supplemental investi

ing, the convening authority reviewed the pretrial advic

judge advocate and again referred the case on the ident

to the same general court-martial. However, when the 

vened, the accused was found to have voluntarily absen
court-martial anew. Thus, the accused's original arraign

fective and his trial in absentia was proper. 

The Court reviewed and disapproved the use by milit

a form instruction to court members contained in the Arm

Judge's Guide, which in effect equated reasonable dou

stantial doubt. In United States v. Salley, 9 M.J. 189 (

the Court noted that the instruction on reasonable doub

accused complained has met with disfavor among app

generally but that there has been reluctance to revers

because of the use of such an instruction, at least in the 

defense objection or request for clarification. After revie

tire record, the Court concluded that the accused had n

udiced by the trial judge's reference to substantial doub

ing the court members on the meaning of reasonable do

In three separate cases the Court again reviewed the 

ness of considering general deterrence as a factor in deli

just and proper sentence in a court-martial. In United Sta

9 M.J. 100 (C.M.A. 1980), the Court held that a trial couns

erly urge the court members to consider the general d

others in deliberating on a just and fair sentence, so lon

not invite the court members to rely on deterrence alon

clusion of other appropriate factors, in imposing an in

sentence in a particular case. After quoting extensively 

counsel's argument to the court members, the Court rea

principle in the case of United States v. Thompson, 9 M.J

1980), when it held that the court members were adequat

of the various factors, including the deterrence of others

could properly consider in arriving at an appropria

sentence for the particular accused in that case. Aga

States v. Smith, 9 M.J. 187 (C.M.A. 1980), the Court rej

cused's contention that substantial prejudice resulted fro

judge's instructions to court members to consider wh

any, the sentence which they would impose might have 

others from considering similar acts and misconduct

noted in this case that the military judge mentioned o

12 
(), g g

thorized absence status on his right to file a petition w

either personally or through his duly authorized couns

had held in Smith that an appellate defense counsel c

petition on behalf of his unauthorized absentee client 

67, UCMJ. In Schreck, decided this term, the Court n

even when an accused is in an unauthorized absence sta

entire 30-day appeal period - which commenced in this 

vice of the Court of Military Review decision on his pr

rized appellate defense counsel- his counsel may file 

review under Article 67, UCMJ. 

ROBINSON O. E

Chief Judge. 

WILLIAM H. CO

Judge. 

ALBERT B. FLE

Judge. 
TOTAL............................... 507 

CUMULATIVE FILINGS 

Certificates filed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 

Petitions for grant filed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1,725 

Petitions for new trial filed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Extraordinary writs sought.. .. . . . . . .... 47 

Reconsiderations granted ...............__5 

TOTAL .......................... " . .. 1,812 

CUMULATIVE TERMINATIONS 

Master Docket.. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 

Petition Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 

Miscellaneous Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

TOT AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 

195 

1,364 

50 

1,609 

CUMULATIVE END PENDING 

Master Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Petition Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Miscellaneous Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

TOTAL............................... 

387 

320 

3 

710 

OPINION SUMMARY 

CATEGORY 

Master Docket ..................... 

Petition Docket .................... 

Miscellaneous Docket ............... 

SIGNED 

60 

0 

1 

PER CURIAM 

17 

0 

0 

MEM/

1,

TOTAL ........................... 61 17 1.

FILINGS (MASTER DOCKET) 

Appeals filed.......................... 

Certificates filed. .. .. .. .. . . . . . .. . . .. . .. 

Petitions granted...................... 

Reconsideration granted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

0 

34 

337 

5 

TOTAL............................... 376 

14 
Final briefs pending ................... . 21 

TOTAL .............................. . 387 

FILINGS (PETITION DOCKET) 

Petitions for grant of review filed. . . . . . .. 1.717 


Petitions for grant/new trial filed. . . . . . . . . 1 


Cross-petitions for grant filed. . . . . . . . . . . . 8 


TOTAL ............................... 1.726 


TERMINATIONS (PETITION DOCKET) 


Petitions for grant dismissed ........... . 7 


Petitions for grant denied .............. . 1.340 


Petitions for grant. remanded ........... . 15 


Petitions for grant withdrawn .......... . 2 


TOTAL .............................. . 1.364 


PENDING (PETITION DOCKET) 


Petition briefs pending. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 


Staff attorney action pending. . . . . . . . . . . . 96 


Court action pending ...................--.11 


TOTAL............................... 320 


FILINGS (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET) 


Writs of errors coram nobis sought. . . . .. . 3 


Writs of habeas corpus sought. . . . . . . . . . . 14 


Writs of mandamus/prohibition sought. . . . 19 


Other extraordinary relief sought. . . . . . . . 11 


TOTAL............................... 47 


TERMINATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET) 


Petitions withdrawn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 


Petitions remanded.................... 0 


Petitions granted ..................... . 1 


Petitions denied ...................... . 36 


Petitions dismissed .................... . 10 


TOTAL .............................. . 50 


Signed.

Per curiam

Mem/orde

TOT AL . 

Signed ...

Per curiam 

Mem/orde

TOTAL ..
Master Docket .................. 15 0 5 

Petition Docket ................. 16 4 2 

Miscellaneous Docket ............ 0 0 0 

TOTAL.: ...................... 31 4 7 

MOTIONS ACTIVITY 

CATEGORY FILINGS PENDING DISP

Granted R

All Motions .................... . 728 36 551 

16 
In fiscal year 1980, Brigadier General Lloyd K. Rector 

duties of the Commander, U.s. Army Legal Services 

Chief Judge, U.S. Army Court of Military Review. 

During fiscal year 1980 the Office of The Judge Advo

continued to monitor the proceedings of courts-martial, 

prepare military justice publications and regulations, a

draft legislative changes for the UCMJ. 

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 


AND U.S. ARMY JUDICIARY ACTIVITIES 

After several years of declining court-martial rate

1980 saw a significant increase in the Army-wide num

martial. The total number of persons tried by all typ

martial in fiscal year 1980 was 23.3% higher than the 

This overall increase reflects primarily a 59% rise in s

martial empowered to adjudge a bad conduct discharge 

increase in the number of summary courts-martial. Th

regular special courts-martial decreased slightly (

general courts-martial increased by 7.7%. The overall co

also increased, from 88% of persons tried in fiscal year 

of persons tried in fiscal year 1980. 

Use of nonjudicial punishment increased slightly i

1980. The total number of Article 15's imposed in fiscal y

151,371, up 3% from the previous year's figure of 146,41

the average active duty strength of the Army, the num

15's imposed in fiscal year 1980 amounted to 196.9 p

soldiers, compared to a rate of 193.0 per thousand for 

year. 

Average active duty strength of the Army in fiscal y

10,000 greater than in fiscal year 1979, a 1.3% increase. 

in the size of the Army would not appear to be a signifi

.the increased number of disciplinary actions. 
BCD SPECIAL 1385 1169 + 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 3065 2870 195 

SUMMARY 3467 3148 319 + 

OVERALL RATE OF INCRE4SE (+)f~ (-, OVER LAST REPORT -t

PART 5 - APPELLATE COUNSEL REOUESTS BEFORE COURT 

REVIEW 

PART 6 - U. S. COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS ACTIONS 

PERCENTAGE OF COMR REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO U3CMA 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREAse (+) ( ) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+1_1-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY COMA 

RATE Of INCREASE 1+) ( 'OVER THE NUMBER OF CASES REVIEWED DURING 

LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

PAGE 1 OF 2 

18 
PART 9 - COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS I I::: 

PART10-STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 

PAGE 20F 2 

ppgy 

Army and the Department of Defense in certain contract

before regulatory commissions and boards. The Professio

ing Office coordinates the recruitment of lawyers for the 

U.S. Army Trial Defense Service 

In fiscal year 1980, the Army completed a worldwide te

Army Trial Defense Service (USATDS), a new, independe

tion for military defense counsel. After a successful year-

sixteen TRADOC installations in FY 1979, the Army Ch

directed the expansion of the USATDS test to all comm

United States, including Alaska, Hawaii, and the Republic 

beginning 1 September 1979. The Commander in Chief, 

Army, Korea, and the Commander in Chief, US Army, E

given the option of including their commands in the test

By 1 January 1980, all Army commands, including thos

and Korea, had joined the test. At the end of FY 1980, U

42 field and branch offices located at 39 CONUS installat

Korea, and 33 in Europe (all but one in Germany). One h

ninety-eight defense counsel provide specified defense 

vices at these offices. For administrative and supervisor

the field offices were divided into nine geographical regi

grade Regional Defense Counsel supervised operations 

region, while a Senior Defense Counsel directed each fie

The primary purpose of the expanded test was to test t

USATDS to perform larger mission requirements in m

organizations, particularly combat and combat support u

end of FY 1980, USATDS counsel had participated in man

exercises and in deployment exercises at Fort Irwin, 

Plans were completed to send a USATDS counsel to Euro

2d Armored Division's contingent to a Reforger exercis

accomplished numerous cross-support missions among 

commands, including the provision of 13 defense counsel 

investigation at Lexington Bluegrass Army Depot, and 

counsel for a multiple-accused rape case in Panama. 

20 
y jg 

jor projects; rendering opinions for the Army staff; an

various aspects of criminal cases for action by the Army 

and staff. 

Change to Military Justice Regulation 

Change 20, Army Regulation 27 - 10, Military Justic

lished with an effective date of 15 August 1980. Some of 

cant changes included: providing The Judge Advocate G

authority to grant limited exceptions to the regulation wh

by military exigencies; clarifying that special courts-

powered to adjudge bad-conduct discharges may be conve

an officer exercising general court-martial convening auth

inating review of denials of applications for deferment of 

confinement; eliminating the requirement for mental sta

tions of service members referred to trial by general or 

courts-martial; providing authorization for command

minister oaths for military justice purposes, including 

seizure and apprehension; describing the military judge

to issue orders authorizing interception of oral and wire 

tions; revising procedures for notifying an accused of th

decision on his case by the Court of Military Review; a

commanders who impose nonjudicial punishment to 

whether records of minor punishment will be filed in a 

ficial Military Personnel File or maintained in unit record

last mentioned change permits a local commander to dec

a record of punishment which has been characterized as "

be available to promotion and school selection boards. A

commanders now have greater flexibility in imposing p

since minor punishment can be imposed for a minor disc

fraction without long-term effects on a soldier's career. M

ment is defined in the regulation as restriction or extra 

days or less, detention or forfeiture of pay for not mor

month, correctional custody for seven days or less, adm

reprimand, or any combination thereof. 
LITIGATION 

Litigation involving the Army during fiscal year 1979 

limited impact upon military justice matters. 

In Hatheway v. Secretary of the Army, No. 80 - 4013 (

pellant challenges the decision of the Northern District o

sustaining the constitutionality of Article 125, Unifor

Military Justice. He alleges that private consensual sodom

members of the same sex cannot be prosecuted. Th

pending. 

EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

During fiscal year 1980, The Judge Advocate Gener

located in Charlottesville, Virginia, provided legal ed

lawyers of the military services and other Federal agen

three resident courses were conducted with 2,123 studen

dance. Courses were attended by 1,283 Army, 160 Navy a

90 Air Force, 31 Coast Guard, 50 Army National Guard, 4

and 11 foreign students. 

During fiscal year 1980, three Basic Classes, the 91 - 

conducted. A total of 232 officers (231 Army, and one fo

graduated. 

The 29th Graduate Class began on 18 August 1980 wit

one Navy, five Marine, and three foreign officers in atten

The Criminal Law Division sponsored six resident cont

education (CLE) courses in fiscal year 1980, including thre

vocacy courses. The advocacy courses combine instruct

developments in criminal law, seminars, and videotaped 

to improve and polish the experienced trial attorney'

skills. The major portion of these offerings is devoted 

participation workshops and exercises designed to ena

torneys to refine their courtroom skills and the technique

sion. The courses are accredited by all states having mand

22 
exercises, seminars and war gaming techniques, the stu

presented realistic situations that they had to resolve usin

rials which should be available in the field. With the att

both judge advocates and operational staff officers, all stu

exposed to the interface of operational necessities 

requirements. 

The International Law Division was also responsible f

ing the periodic Judge Advocate General Service Organiz

training to USAR International Law Detachments. Begin

fall of 1979. the division mailed selected materials on in

law to each team and recommended various courses of stu

ing with the materials. When the teams arrived for trainin

week was devoted to conferences and seminars on the ro

national law in military operations and the role of the USA

menting international law programs. The second week wa

Practical ExerciseIW ar Game commencing in a peacetime 

moving through mobilizations, pre-deployment, deployme

sertion of active and reserve units into a combat theatr

tions. With this training completed and with on-going un

programs proposed, the division has been working with th

Affairs Department and selected active force JA's to ut

USAR assets in field training and command post exercis

use will provide realistic training to the teams as well as p

service to both active and reserve component commande

The Contract Law Division sponsored 12 continuing le

tion courses, covering areas from Fiscal Law to the Go

new contracting out policy. The 10th Contract Attorneys 

Course, 7 -11 January 1980, featured recent and propose

affecting Government contract law. Among the topics cov

8(a) contracting under Public Law 95 - 507, contracting fo

cial and industrial type activities (CITA), and the Contrac

Act of 1978. Two courses, Contract Claims, Litigation and 

and Negotiations, Changes, and Terminations, were offe

first time. Additionally, the Division sent two instructor

Korea, to present a three day Fiscal Law Course. 
Six resident classes of the Senior Officers Legal 

Course were conducted at TJAGSA for 259 senior fiel

mand and staff officers. The School also continued to 

SOLO Course at the U.S. Army War College, Carli

where 32 students received instruction (28 April- 2 M

new course instituted during fiscal year 1980 was the Ge

Legal Orientation (GOLO) for General Officer comman

During this fiscal year, TJAGSA conducted nine GOLO 

total of ten General Officers. 

During fiscal year 1980, members of the Administrat

Law Division made several presentations outside of T

Division Chief taught at the first Pre-Command Course 

Base Commanders at Fort Dix, New Jersey on 5 and 6 De

and in July 1980 a Division representative addressed 

Law Section of the American Bar Association on the Arm

trative separation program. Additionally, at the U.S. A

Administrative Law Conference from 12 to 16 May 80, t

of this Division were the principal instructors and co

range of administrative law topics. 

MAJOR PROJECTS 

The Director of the Judge Advocate Division, H

Marine Corps, Brigadier General James P. King, USMC

Graduate Class on the role of the Marine Judge Advoc

1980. 

On 1 May 1980, the fourth Charles L. Decker Lecture 

trative and Civil Law was presented by Professor John 

Associate Dean and Professor of Law at Campbell Univ

of Law. Professor Broderick's topic was "Arbitration: An 

Time Has Come." 

The Honorable Charles E. Moylan, Jr., Associate J

Maryland Court of Special Appeals, delivered the Nint

Hodson Lecture in Criminal Law on 21 March 1980. 

24 
the academic year 1979 - 1980 provided training to 1,4

judge advocates, 105 enlisted members, and 20 civilian a

38 cities covered during 22 trips. The Law School Liaiso

was revamped during the last quarter of fiscal year 1979. A

proved law schools now have liaison officers. During cal

1979, reserve judge advocates assigned to USAR troo

units provided over 90,000 manhours of mutual support to 

Army. 

The Judge Advocate General's Mobilization Designatio

administered by the Reserve Affairs Department of TJA

leveled off at approximately 500 positions CONUS-wid

transferring from Troop Program Units to the Individ

Reserve are seeking Mobilization Designation vacancies, 

component Staff Judge Advocates continue to rely on the 

their MOBDES officers. Mobilization designees serve at 

ponent stations throughout the country. They also serve 

Army Court of Military Review, at Government and D

pellate Divisions, Examination & New Trials Division, and 

of The Judge Advocate General. 

The School hosted the 1980 Worldwide JAG Conferen

October 1980. Over 200 senior Judge Advocates from a

world conferred on areas of interest and discussed rece

ments in all areas of military law. 

New editions of several DA publications for which T

responsible were issued during fiscal year 1980. These in

27 -14, Legal Guide for the Solider; DA Pam 27 -15, Milit

Handbook: Trial Guide; DA Pam 27 - 17, Military Justice 

Procedural Guide for the Article 32(b} Investigating Offic

Pam 27 - 174, Military Justice: Jurisdiction of Cou

Change 3 to DA Pam 27 - 12, Legal Assistance Hand

Change 4 to DA Pam 27 - 21, Military Administrative L

book, also were issued during the year. 

The number of law libraries serviced by the Army La

Service (ALLS) grew to 267 with the addition of the 

Engineers Near East Project Office in Tel Aviv, Israel. 
PERSONNEL, PLANS, AND POLICIES 

Excluding law students, the strength of The Judge Ad

eral's Corps at the end of fiscal year 1980 was 1,501. R

minority groups were 62 Blacks, 17 Hispanics, 11 Asian 

Americans, and 98 women. The fiscal year 1980 end st

pares with an end strength of 1431 in fiscal year 1979, 1

year 1978, 1525 in fiscal year 1977, and 1565 in fiscal ye

grade distrib.ution of the corps at the end of the fiscal 

general officers, 86 colonels, 149 lieutenant colonels, 249 

1011 captains. There were also 58 warrant officers. In ad

ficers were participating in the Funded Legal Education 

To ensure that the best qualified candidates for initial 

career status, and The Judge Advocate Officer Grad

were selected, formal boards were convened under Th

vocate General's written instructions at several time

year. 

In February 1980 a selection board was convened to 

tive duty commissioned officers to commence law scho

Funded Legal Education Program. 

Notwithstanding recent trends toward a larger pe

career judge advocates, there is still a shortage of field g

in the Corps. 

Sixty-six judge advocate officers completed the follow

U.S. Army War College. . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . .. .. . . . . ....... . . . . . . ..

Industrial College of the Armed Forces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

U.S. Army Command and General Staff College ........... '.' . . . . . . . . 

Armed Forces Staff College. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

The Judge Advocate Officer Graduate Course. .... .. .. . . . . . . . .... . . 

With worldwide testing of the Trial Defense Service

Advocate General has discontinued the policy of requir

certification of judge advocates as defense counsel. 

ALTON H. HARVEY 

Major Genera~ USA 

The Judge Advocat

26 
pursuant to 

THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTI

for 

FISCAL YEAR 1980 

Supervision of the administration of military justice. - 

with the requirement of Article 6(a), Uniform Code 

Justice, the Judge Advocate General and the Deputy 

vocate General continued to visit commands within the Un

and Europe in the supervision of the administration 

justice. 

Court-Martial Workload. 

a. There has been an increase in the total number of cou

during fiscal year 1980. (See Exhibit A attached to this r

b. During fiscal year 1980, the U.S. Navy Court of Milit

received for review 2,877 new court-martial cases, consis

general courts-martial and 2,654 special courts-martial, as 

with 1,970 courts-martial consisting of 209 general courts-

1,761 special courts-martial during fiscal year 1979. Of the 

cases received by the U.S. Navy Court of Military Revie

year 1980, 2,500 accused requested counsel (87% percent)

Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary. 

The Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary provided milit

for 428 general courts-martial during fiscal year 1980, an 

114 cases from the 1979 level of 314 general courts-marti

57% of the general courts-martial were tried by courts c

with military judge alone. This represents a 19% incre

number of courts constituted without members since fiscal 
yy j

g

cate General's conference held in Washington, D.C., 22 

1979. Four military judges attended the three-week Gen

tion Course at the National Judicial College, Reno, Ne

military judges attended the one-week Evidence Cours

tional Judicial College, Reno, Nevada. Eighteen judges 

Military Judge Course given at the Army JAG Schoo

tesville, Virginia. Six military judges attended the Mili

Justice Seminar hosted by the California Western Law S

Diego, California. Two military judges attended the Mili

Evidence Workshop in Pensacola, Florida. Four milita

tended the 1980 WESTPAC Judiciary Seminar at Oki

Eleven military judges attended the 2nd Annual Cam

Continuing Legal Education program for the Am

Lawyers Association. 

In an effort to further reduce travel expenses thr

judiciary, the circuits have been realigned to show m

geographical limitations. 

Naval Legal Service Command. 

The Naval Legal Service Command at present consist

Naval Legal Service Offices and seventeen detachmen

located in areas of naval concentrations throughout th

total manpower strength authorization for the Naval L

Command includes 380 judge advocates, 12 warrant 

legalmen, 62 yeomen, and for fiscal year 1980, 163 civilia

which includes 33 direct-hire foreign nationals and 7 indi

eign nationals. Navy judge advocates in the Naval L

Command comprise approximately 38% of the Navy's 

advocate strength. 

The Naval Legal Service Command, during the pa

undergone the following changes: 

a. Several title changes were made as follows: 

Commander, Naval Legal Service Command vice Dir

Legal Service; 

28 
The Naval Legal Service Command continues to pr

response to requests from activities requiring counsel a

services. The Naval Legal Service Command is provid

increasing amount of necessary legal services to loca

Periodic command inspections into the operation of 

various Naval Legal Service Offices and detachment

most line commanders who depend upon the Naval L

Command for support are satisfied with the quality and 

services received. 

Article 69, UCMJ, Petitions. a. The number of petitio

suant to Article 69, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 

the Judge Advocate General may vacate or modify the 

sentence of courts-martial which have been finally rev

Article 76, but have not been reviewed by the U.S. Na

Military Review, decreas'ed slightly during fiscal year 1

b. In fiscal year 1980, 67 petitions were received b

Advocate General. Seven petitions were pending from pr

these 74 cases, 59 petitions were reviewed during fiscal y

those petitions reviewed, 50 petitions were denied, whi

granted, in whole or in part, in 9 of the petitions. Fiftee

pending review at the close of fiscal year 1980. 

c. In addition, in fiscal year 1980, 116 general court-m

which were not statutorily eligible for automatic review 

Navy Court of Military Review, were reviewed by the 

cate General. 

Article 73, UCMJ, Petitions. In fiscal year 1980, six 

new trials were submitted, one of which was referred 

Navy Court of Military Review pursuant to Article 73, U

of Military Justice. Five petitions were denied. 

Article 7~'(b), UCMJ, Petitions. Eight new petition

mitted requesting the substitution of an administrative d

a punitive discharge awarded as part of a sentence by c

Two cases were pending from the prior fiscal year. Two 

adjudicated, and eight cases were pending at the close 

year. 
g, y

tion, foreign criminal jurisdiction, the Privacy Act, and 

of Information Act. Continuing legal education videot

tions were made concerning cross-examination, extrao

practice, the U.S. Court of Military Appeals, setting goa

litigation, trial tactics, collateral attack on court-marti

in U.s. District Court, conflict of interest/standards of 

the psychology of eyewitness testimony. In addition to 

tations, seminars discussed military personnel and f

agement issues, appellate defense and appellate gover

law-of-war problems, legal assistance, malpractice 

community involvement. 

b. This annual conference of judge advocates once 

strated the tremendous benefit which is derived when 

cates from all over the world have the opportunity to at

and participate in seminars concerning significant leg

areas of mutual concern, which have arisen during the 

Naval Justice School. 

1. The Naval Justice School in Newport, Rhode I

teaching staff of twelve officers and five enliste

presented the following courses of instruction in mili

relat~d administrative and civil law matters to a total 

dents during fiscal year 1980. 

Lawyer Course: Four eight-week lawyer classes we

during the year. This course, designed to provide bas

military justice and military administrative and civil la

incoming Navy and Marine Corps lawyers, includes 

classroom instruction and 127 hours of practical exerci

moot courts and various criminal law practical exerci

was provided to 134 Navy lawyers and 47 Marine Corp

Legal Officer Course: Eight five-week classes were pr

ing the year (seven classes in Newport and one at Cam

California). This course is designed for the nonlawyer, j

about to assume duties as a legal officer for a ship, stat

military unit with no military lawyer assigned. Included 

30 
y g p

lawyers. 31 Marine Corps Reserve lawyers. and one 

Reserve lawyer. 

Senior Officer Course: Seventeen one-week classes we

during the year. reaching a total of 910 students. Six o

were presented in Newport. The other eleven were pres

folk. Virginia; Charleston. South Carolina; Jacksonville. 

Diego and San Francisco. California; Seattle. Washin

Pendleton. California; Amphibious Warfare School an

and Staff College. Quantico. Virginia; Pearl Harbor. 

Camp Lejeune. North Carolina. This course is designed 

commanding officers and executive officers. and is 

prepare these officers to handle the legal problems norm

commanding and executive officers in the areas of mi

and administrative and civil law. Training was provided 

officers. 410 Marine Corps officers. 44 Coast Guard offic

officers. 4 Air Force officers. and 1 civilian during the f

Legal Clerk Course: Five three-and-one-half-week clas

ducted during the year. This course is designed to train 

sonnel to serve as legal yeomen or legal clerks at the

commands. Graduation from this course. and from t

Court Reporting Course. is required for conversion to leg

Navy. Training was provided to 181 Navy personnel, 10 

personnel. and 3 civilians. 

Court Reporter Course: Four five-and-one-half-week 

presented during fiscal year 1980. The purpose of this 

train enlisted personnel in the field of closed-mask cou

Training was provided to 65 Navy personnel. 28 Army pe

10 Coast Guard personnel. 

2. In addition to those formal courses of instruction 

the Naval Justice School also presented nearly 357 lect

instruction in the areas of search and seizure. confession

sions. nonjudicial punishment. investigations. ad

discharges. and command relations with civil authorit

students at the Surface Warfare Officers School. Office
y 

a. The Joint-Service Committee on Military Justi

lished by the Judge Advocates General and the Gene

the Department of Transportation, on 17 August 1972

tives are provided by the Army, Navy, Air Force, M

Department of Transportation (Coast Guard), and a no

sentative is provided by the U.S. Court of Military Ap

fiscal year 1980, the Navy representative was the Com

man. A Navy representative also chaired the Working 

Committee. The primary function of the Joint-Service 

Military Justice is the preparation and evaluation of pro

ments and changes to the Uniform Code of Military Ju

Manualfor Courts-MartiaL It also serves as a forum for 

of ideas relating to military justice matters among th

the past, the Committee has mainly considered propo

generated within the military services. In 1976, it was g

tional responsibility for commenting on military jus

originating from outside the military services. 

b. The proposed legislation on improving the efficien

tary justice system, noted in last year's report, was sub

Department of Defense as part of its legislative pro

second session of the 96th Congress. 

c. The Military Rules of Evidence, discussed in last 

became effective on 1 September 1980, after two-and-

of effort. 

d. The Working Group of the Joint-Service Commi

the process of revising the Manual for Courts-Martia~ 

is expected to take at least three years to complete. An 

project has been approved by the Department of De

Counsel and drafting of the new Manual for Courts

progress. 

Ethics. Action was taken to maintain high ethical 

counsel and judges who participate in courts-martial. In

advocates received instruction at the Naval Justice 

ABA Code of Professional Responsibility and Canon

Ethics, and the ABA Standards for the Administratio

32 
unethical conduct or malpractice by any naval service jud
LAST REPORTING 'ERIOD 530 (+26%) 

PART 5 - APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE COU

REVIEW 

PART 6 - U. S. COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS ACTIONS 

PERCENTAGE OF COMR REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCMA 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+'/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING 'ERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE 1+'/DEeREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING 'ERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF 'ETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY COMR 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE C-) OVER THE NUMBER OF CASES REVIEWED DURING 

LAST ".PO"T'NG ••"'00 

PAGB 1 OF 1 

34 
TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 

GENERAL COUftTS-MAATIAL 

ARTICLE 69 

PART 9· COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS I 

PART 10· STRENGTH 

AVEAAGE ACTIVE DUTY STAENGTH 
In compliance with the requirements of Article 6(a), U

of Military Justice (UCMJ), Maj General Walter D. Ree

Advocate General, and Brig General James Taylor, Jr., 

Judge Advocate General, made official staff visits to le

the United States and overseas. They also attended and 

in various bar association meetings and addressed nu

professional, and military organizations. On Septem

Major General Thomas B. Bruton became The Judge A

eral of the Air Force. 

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS AND 


US AIR FORCE JUDICIARY ACTIVITIES 

During FY 1980, the Judiciary Directorate of the O

Judge Advocate General processed in excess of 2140 ac

ing military justice. The Directorate has the overall resp

supervising the administration of military justice thr

United States Air Force from the trial level through t

review process, pursuant to the provisions of the Manua

Martial 1969 (Rev.) and the UCMJ. In addition, the Dir

the staff responsibility for the Office of The Judge Advo

in all Air Force military justice matters which arise i

with programs, special projects, studies and inquiries g

the Air Staff; Headquarters USAF; the Secretaries, De

Defense, Army, Navy, and Air Force; members of C

other interested federal, state and civil agencies. Some 

torate's activities are discussed below. ­

a. The Judiciary Directorate also serves as the actio

the review of applications submitted to the Board for C

Military Records. There were 387 formal opinions pro

Secretary of the Air Force concerning those application

b. The Directorate also received 850 inquiries in spec

quiring either formal written replies or telephonic repl

executive officials, including the President, or to 

Congress. 

36 
governmental agencies, and for internal management pu

During FY 1980, the system produced approximately 

reports on a monthly basis and an additional 40 reports on 

basis. The system was also used to answer over 350 in

quests for particular statistical information. These spec

were received from such activities as the General Accou

the Senate Armed Services Committee, Air Force Sec

and the Air Force Military Personnel Center. 

Progress continues towards the planned conversion o

to the Honeywell H-6000 computer on 1 January 1981. E

culties relating to programming errors have been overco

version is now in the final stages of system testing. No fu

difficulties are anticipated. 

Trial Judiciary 

The Air Force Trial Judiciary had an average of 31 m

judges assigned at eleven locations. The program for 

military trial judges between the Army and Air Force in 

tinued with substantial savings and a limited similar pr

the Navy in Iceland was started. 

Circuit Trial Counsel Program 

The 22 Circuit Trial Counsel stationed at nine location

seven judicial circuits worldwide continued a busy sched

ecuting general courts-martial and selected special cou

The caseload for calendar year 1980 showed a signific

over the previous year. In 1979 CTCs tried 229 general co

the total) and 292 special courts (27% of the total). In 198

345 general courts (92% of the total) and 229 special cou

the total). They also served as government counsel on 21 

charge boards. 

A recent survey of base staff judge advocates thro

world showed that CTCs are continuing to provide outst
the past year, the increased demand for space at Fort 

Army itself, coupled with an increase in Air Force priso

ing midrange periods of confinement (roughly four th

months) has necessitated reopening the Confinement 

Lowry Air Force Base to accept some of these prisoners. 

tional to the rehabilitation program which continues to 

by the 3320th Correction and Rehabilitation Squadron a

Force Base. 

PREVENTIVE LAW AND LEGAL ASSISTANCE PRO

In calendar year 1980, Air Force attorneys provided m

to more people than any time in the past. The number 

creased 10% - from 1.066,123 to 1.169.358. The numbe

served increased 8%-from 469,268 to 506,519. In numb

served, the Legal Assistance Program is by far the la

Departmental activities. The importance of these progra

on the premise that a service person whose concern abo

civil legal problems has been alleviated is much more cap

form those military duties essential to mission accompli

Preventive Law Program compliments other Departme

by stressing, through educational means, the importance 

avoidance rather than mere problem solving. Morale and 

much improved when people understand the law is more 

backed by threats and they have the power to mold th

legal relationships. These programs are but another exa

efforts being made to further accomplishment of the 

mission. 

EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

During calendar year 1980, The Judge Advocate Gene

ment provided numerous continuing legal and general e

portunities to its personnel. 

38 
, 

one Army judge advocate attended_ 

d. The Legal Services Advanced Course-This cour

sented once during 1980 and 40 Air Force and two Nav

technicians were graduated. The Department's enliste

receive their basic paralegal training at a special legal 

school at Keesler AFB, Mississippi. Fourteen sessions o

were held in 1980; 164 active duty and 28 Reserve and A

Guard students were graduated. In addition, two Leg

Refresher Courses were conducted for Reserve and A

Guard legal technicians; a total of 14 students attended

e. The Claims and Tort Litigation Course - This is a n

tinuing course which is now fully established. A pilot se

class was held in 1980 and was attended by 11 NCO and 

paralegal technicians. 

f. The Federal Labor Relations and Equal Opportuni

This is a new course designed to provide training in sev

growing judge advocate participation. One session of the 

held in 1980 and was attended by 59 judge advocates and 

attorneys employed in the Department. 

Professional Military Training 

During 1980, five judge advocates attended the Air Co

Staff College, and two attended the Air War College 

AFB, Alabama. Two officers attended the Armed Force

lege, and one attended the National War College. 

Short Courses at Civilian Universities 

a. Prosecuting Attorney's Course at Northwestern U

25 judge advocates attended this five-day course in 1980

b. Defense Attorney's Course at Northwestern Un

judge advocates attended this five-day course in 1980. 

c. National College of State Trial Judges at the U

Nevada-Fifteen judge advocates and one senior NC

courses at the College during 1980. 
CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION SEMINARS 

USING VIDEOTAPE 


These seminar programs, specifically developed for C.L.E

a current course of study on subjects of special interest to th

ment. Written study and reference materials accompany 

gram. They are the most widely available source of credit f

tory state CLE programs, since the seminars are conduc

Force bases around the world. Reserve judge advocates 

advocates of the Army and Navy have also participated. 

presently available and the number of credit hours availab

follows: 

Law of Federal Labor!Management Relations .....................

Government Lawyer and Professional Responsibility ...............

Trial Techniques ..............................................

International Law - Conduct of Armed Conflict. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Federal Income Tax .............................................

Supreme Court Trends in Criminal Law ...........................

Appellate Commentary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Environmental Law .............................................

Government Contract Law .......................................

Computer Assisted Legal Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Estate Planning ..............................................".

THE REPORTER, AFRP 110-2 

Interest in our law journal, the Reporter, has continued t

Subscribers now include government agencies at federal, 

local levels, private and public libraries, bar associations

firms. Topics with special emphasis in 1980 included the 

lawyer's contribution to military readiness, medical and risk 

ment, and international law. The Reporter continues to be 

its readership as an extremely valuable communicative m

moting crossfeed, sharing streamlined procedures and 

40 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, every uniformed service, the Court 

Appeals and the Armed Services Board of Contract Ap

numerous non-DOD users included the Office of the Presi

gress, U.S. Courts, the Departments of Justice, Energy, a

ternational Trade Commission. 

PERSONNEL 

This department is authorized 9 generals, 107 colonels, 2

ant colonels, 249 majors, and 594 captains. As of 30 Septem

there were 1213 judge advocates on active duty (5 general 

colonels, 157 lieutenant colonels, 232 majors, 722 captains, 

lieutenants). 

THOMAS B. BRUTON 

Major Genera~ USAF 

The Judge Advocate 

United States Air Fo
NON·BCD SPECIAL 991 908 83 

SUMMARY 45 32 13 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+I/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPOAT 

PART 2 - DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENE 

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

PART 5 - APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE COU

REVIEW 

PART 6 - U. S. COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS ACTIONS 

PERCENTAGE OF COMR REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCMA l'';J j L4 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 71/17 Y 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY COMR 44/ jL4 

RATE OF INCREASE I+}/DECREASE I-lOVER THE NUMBER OF CASES REVIEWED DURING 

LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

PAGE 1 OF 2 

42 
TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

PART 9· COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS I 40 

PART 10· STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 546,176 b:::;::::::::.:.;·········· .......................

PART 11· NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15) 

PAGE20F2 
() 

October 1, 1979 to September 30, 1980 

The table below shows the number of courts-mar

received and filed at Coast Guard Headquarters during F

five preceding years. 

80 79 78 77 76A 

General Courts-Martial .......... 3 2 3 5 

Special Courts-Martial ........... 67 47 58 84 2

Summary Courts-Martial ......... 169 122 180 188 4

Total .................... 239 171 241 277 7

COURTS·MARTIAL 

Counsel and military judges are detailed to all spe

martial. For most cases, the presiding judge was the full-

courts-martial judge. When he was unavailable, military 

other primary duties were utilized. Control of the detail 

centrally exercised, and all requirements have been fille

fashion. 

General Courts·Martial 

Charges referred to the three general courts-martial c

year included specifications alleging violations of Article

128, and 92 or 134 involving marijuana. One accused re

was tried by the military judge alone. One of the trials w

resulted in an acquittal of all charges and specific

sentences adjudged by the two general courts-martial inc

conduct discharge. 

44 
Pay Grade 

E -1 through E - 3 (Non-Rated) ....................................

E - 4 through E - 6 (Petty Officers). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

E - 7 through E - 9 (Chief Petty Officers) ............................

Commissioned Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

The following table shows the distribution of the 363 sp

referred to the 67 special courts-martial. 

Violation of the UCMJ, Article 

81 (conspiracy) ...................................................

85 and 86 (desertion and UA) .......................................

87 (missing movement) ............................................

91 (willful disobedience or disrespect) ................................

92 (violation of order or regulation) ..................................

107 (false official statement) ........................................

108 (offenses against USCG property) ...............................

121 (larceny and wrongful appropriation) .............................

123 (forgery) .....................................................

128 (assault) ......................................................

134 (breaking restriction) ..........................................

134 or 92 (marijuana offenses) ......................................

134 or 92 (other controlled drug offenses) .............................

Other offenses ....................................................

The following is a breakdown of sentences awarded by t

judge alone inspecial courts-martial (30 convictions). 

Sentence 

Bad-conduct discharge .............................................

Confinement at hard labor .........................................

Hard labor without confinement ....................................

Reduction in rate .................................................

Restriction ......................................................

Forfeiture of pay ($12,096 total) .....................................

Others ................................................. .". " .....
Others. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

In 11 of these 34 convictions, the accused pled guilty t

and specifications. 

The following indicates the three sentences imposed 

cial courts-martial in the past four fiscal years. 

Number of 

FY Convictions Forfeitures Confinemen

80 

79 

78 

77 

64 

42 

52 

76 

45 (70%) 

30 (71%) 

28 (54%) 

53 (70%) 

37 (58%) 

24 (57%) 

25 (48%) 

44 (58%) 

Average % for 4 yrs: (66%) (55%) 

Summation 

Forty-seven percent of the accused this fiscal year w

the military judge alone, and about one-half of them pled 

charges and specifications. In the trials with members 

the accused pled guilty to all charges and specifica

enlisted active duty strength in the Coast Guard remain

same during the three years prio!"" to fiscal year 1980, th

courts-martial declined. This trend appeared to be linke

tinuing increases in impositions of nonjudicial punishmen

istrative discharge of individuals for marginal perform

ability, misconduct, and abuse of drugs and alcohol. All t

including enlisted active duty strength, remained about 

fiscal year 1980; however, the number of courts-martial i

the first time since 1975. The following ilustrates these 

cent years. 

Courts-Martial NJP D

FY Amount (% of + or -) Amount (% of + or -) Amount 

77 277 2,430 80

78 241 (-13%) 2,615 (+ 08%) 88

79 171 (-29%) 3,086 (+ 18%) 1,08

80 239 (+ 40 oAl) 2,697 (- 13%) 1,09

46 
Supervisory Authoritys Action set aside and record of trial forwarded to 

GCM authority for new Article 65(c), UCMJ, review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

PERSONNEL AND TRAINING 

The Coast Guard has 164 law specialists serving on activ

are serving in a legal capacity and 32 are serving in ge

billets. The junior law specialists serving at district office

trial and defense counsel services. Senior law specialists, 

ing as district legal officers, are used as military judges 

quired. 

The Fifth Coast Guard Basic Law Specialist Course was 

Coast Guard Reserve Training Center, Yorktown, Virgin

September 1980 through 31 October 1980. The eight-we

introduced both the direct commissioned lawyers and the 

ficers, just completing law school, to the many duties they w

perform as Coast Guard law specialists. One-half of the c

devoted to military justice. Nonjudicial punishment, jurisd

fessional responsibility and ethics, court procedures, tri

counsel duties, and the Articles of the Code most frequentl

were some of the areas covered. Each student was given 

tunity to demonstrate recently acquired knowledge and ski

courts. 

ADDITIONAL MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Appendix A contains additional basic military justice sta

the reporting period and reflects the increase/decrease of 

load in various categories. 

THOMAS G. ALLISON 

General Counsel 


Department of Transpo
GENERAL .J ::> 1 

BCD SPECIAL 9 9 ;=;::}:::::.......... 

NON-BCD SPECIAL 58 55 3 

SUMMARY 16q 16<; 4 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE f-. OVER LAST REPORT 

OF INCREASE (+)!OECREA$E f-) OVER NUMBER OF CASES 

DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

PART 5 - APPELLATE COUNSEL REOUESTS BEFORE COAST GUARD COU

REVIEW 

PART 6 - U. S. COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS ACTIONS 

PERCENTAGE OF COMR REVIEWED CASES FORWARDEO TO USCMA 

I'ERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/OECREASE (-) OVER ""EVIOUS REPORTING PEAIDO 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/OECREASE (-) DVU. PREVIOUS REPORTING "ERtOO 

PEACENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY COMA 

RATE OF INCREASE C+)lDECAEASE C-' OVER THE NUMBER OF CASES REVIEWED DURING 

LAST REPORTING '£"100 

PAGE] OF 2 

48 
TRIAU; BY MILITARY JUDGE MEMBERS 

GENERAL COURTS-MA 

PART 9 • COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS I 5 

PART 10· STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 

'AGE20F2 

lIncludes one which was tried during FY-79 and returned 

substitute supervisory authority action. 

2Includes one which was tried in past FY and received af

convening authority's action. 

3Enlisted personnel only. 

* u.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1981 -0- 352·345/9213