ood the 


JUDGEADVO£ATESGENERA

of the 


ARMED FORCES 


ood the 


GENERAL COUNSEL 


of the 


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUS

For the Period 


JODuory I, 1974 to December 31, 1

PROPERTY OF U.S. ARMY 

T,HE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAl'S 

UBRARY 
Received your letter and am 

enclosing a copy of the 1974 Annual 

Report. The 1975 Report has not 

gone to the printers as yet. 

I didntt even know that you lef

the JAG School and were now in DC

Be sure you stop in to see me when 

you corne over for any ar guments. 

Itt s always nice to see you. Call 

anytime also. 

Sincerely, 

I~ i~.J 

Virginia Siegel 

Enclosure X31922 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE

ond to the 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 


AND SECRETARY OF TRANSPORT

ond the 

SECRETARIES OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF 

ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORCE 

PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTIC

For the Period 


January 1, 1974 to December 31, 19

Contents 

JOINT REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITA

AND THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL OF THE AR

AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT 

PORTATION 

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY A

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE N

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE A

REPORT OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMEN

PORTATION (UNITED STATES COAST GUARD) 

JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL 


OF THE ARMED FORCES 


and the 

GENERAL COUNSEL 


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 


January 1,1974 to December 31,1974 

As required by Article 67(g), Uniform Code of Mili

the judges of the United States Court of Military A

Judge Advocates General of the military departmen

General Counsel of the Department of Transportatio

ing the Code Committee, submit their annual report o

tion of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to the Co

Armed Services of the United States Senate and Hou

sentatives and to the Secretaries of Defense, Tra

Army, Navy, and Air Force. 

Certain amendments to the Manual for Courts-Ma

States, 1969 (Revised Edition) were submitted to the 

calendar year 1974. (On 27 January 1975 President 

Executive Order 11835 implementing those propo

ments.) Paragraph 34d of the Manual for Courts-

amended to authorize the Secretary of a Department 

regulations permitting payment of transportation and 

civilians called to testify at a pretrial investigation. P

was revised to require that the military judge or the 

a special court-martial without a military judge que

cused as to his understanding of his right to retain c

sel or to request individual military counsel. Paragr
tal responsibility or capacity. Paragraph 152 was am

tend authorization to search incident to arrest to inc

where the person arrested might gain possession of 

destructible evidence. The majority of the changes t

for Courts-Martial were intended to implement recen

the United States Supreme Court and the United St

Military Appeals. 

The Judge Advocates General and the General Cou

ment of Transportation, have initiated studies of pro

tion that would enhance the quality and efficiency of 

judicial system. Among the proposals are studies of 

provide for discretionary appeals, expansion of the 

Judge Advocate General under Article 69, eliminatio

ent requirement for a detailed pretrial and post-tri

the staff judge advocate, elimination of review of the 

court-martial by the convening authority, and use 

as trial records. The judges favor study of granting a

and probation authority to military judges and c

offenses under Articles 133 and 134. 

The Joint Service Committee on Military Justice

Committee composed of representatives of each of 

has been directed to study those proposals and pres

tive package of changes to the Uniform Code of Mi

to the Judge Advocates General and the judges o

States Court of Military Appeals. A working gro

formed to research the proposals and to draft a leg

age. 

The continuing deficit of experienced military lawye

in the 1972 and 1973 Reports, remains a primary c

Code committee. Quality military justice requires c

perienced military lawyers. The Code committee reco

sage of S 1362 and HR 4372, bills which would pr

2 
WILLIAM H. COOK, 

Associate Judge 

HOMER FERGUSON, 

Senior Judge 

WILTON B. PERSON

The Judge Advoca

United States Arm

H. B. ROBERTSON, 

The Judge Advoca

United States Nav

HAROLD R. VAGUE, 

The Judge Advoca

United States Air 

JOHN H. ELY, 

General Counsel 

Department of Tra
Cvwd y C0/ y vw 

~rrny _________________________________________________

~avy _________________________________________________

~ir Force _____________________________________________

Coast Guard __________________________________________

TOT~L ________________________________________

Ca8e8 Docketed with U.S. Court 0/ Military App

~rrny _________________________________________________

~avy _________________________________________________

~ir Force _____________________________________________

Coast Guard ___________________________________________

TOT~L 

4 
The Judges of the United States Court of Military A

mit their report on the administration of the Court a

justice to the Committees on Armed Services of the U

Senate and House of Representatives and the Secret

fense, Transportation, Army, Navy, and Air Force, in 

with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 

U.S.C. § 867 (g). 

Chief Judge Robert M. Duncan resigned from the 

tive July 11, 1974. He was subsequently appointed Di

for the Southern District of Ohio. 

Associate Judge William H. Cook, nominated b

Nixon on August 2, 1974, and confirmed by the 

August 16, 1974, took his oath of office on August 21

vacated unexpired term of Chief Judge William H. 

Two events, not within the reporting period, shou

nonetheless. On March 13, 1975, President Ford 

Judge Albert B. Fletcher, Jr., of the Eighth Judicial 

the State of Kansas, to fill the unexpired term of C

Robert M. Duncan. Following confirmation by the U

Senate, he took the oath of office as Chief Judge o

1975. 

On May 19, 1975, after an illness that forced his 

Senior Judge Robert E. Quinn passed away. His l

everyone. 

The influx of cases docketed in the Court through 

1974 continued unabated, a total of 1,517 cases bein

1,399 Petitions for Grant of Review, 18 Certificates 

and 100 Petitions for Extraordinary Relief comprised 

gate. 109 opinions, affecting 115 accused, emerged fr

tion of 85 Petitions, 17 Certificates, 8 Petitions for Ex

Relief, 4 combined Petitions and Certificates, and 1 

Reconsideration. 
In the case of United States v. Henry N. Lum

USCMA 231, 49 CMR 248 (1974), the Court held t

on an acting noncommissioned officer while in 

of his office is not in violation of Article 91 of the U

of Military Justice and is punishable only as a s

Article 91 covers insubordinate conduct toward wa

noncommissioned officers and petty officers but says 

persons only acting in such a capacity. The history 

indicated that Congress never intended Article 91 to 

noncommissioned officers. We believe this is a mat

gress may well want to look into so that legislative 

be considered. 

In other areas, the constitutionality of Article 

unbecoming to an officer and gentleman) and Art

order and conduct of a nature to be discrediting) o

Code have been upheld by the Supreme Court in Pa

417 U.S. 733, 41 L. Ed. 2d 439, 94 S. Ct. 2547 

Secretary of the Navy v. Avrech, 418 U.S. 676,41 L

94 S. Ct. 3039 (1974). 

Intervention by Federal courts exercising equitab

by injunction was another question argued before 

Court in both Schlesinger v. Councilman3 and Mc

Champlain4 in December of 1974. The validity of th

crime portions of Article 134 (crimes and offenses 

of the Code was also at issue and argued in the l

A meeting of the Code Committee was held in De

at which time notice was served by the members 

that they intended to take a more direct interest in 

than has been our practice for the past several y

1 United States v. Burton. 21 USCMA 112, 44 CMR 166 (1971). 

• United States v. Marshall. 22 USCMA 431,47 CMR 409 (1973). 

• Equitable jurisdiction curtailed, 420 U.S. 738, 43 L. ed 2d 591, 95 S. Ct. 

• Constitutionality of this portion of Article 134 sustained, 421 U.S. 21, 4

S. Ct. 1365 (1975). 

6 
HOMER FER

Senior Jud
-------------------

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

July 1, 1972 July 1,1

Total as of to to 

Total by Services June 30,1972 June 30,1973 June 30,

Petitions (Art. 67(b)(3»: 

Army ------------------­ 13,531 957 72

Navy ------------------­ 7,016 376 46

Air Force --------------­ 5,053 114 20

Coast Guard _____________ 55 5 

Total ----------------­ 25,655 1,452 1,39

Certificates (Art. 67(b)(2»: 

Army 203 18 1

Navy ____________________ 239 6 

Air Force 97 3 

Coast Guard _____________ 11 0 

Total ----------------- 550 27 1

Mandatory (Art. 67(b)(1»: 

Army ---­-­ ----------­ 31 0 

Navy ------------------­ 3 0 

Air Force --------------­ 3 0 

Coast Guard ------------­ 0 0 

Total ----------------­ 37 0 

Total cases docketed ____ 26,242 1,479 1,41

See footnotes at end of table. 

8 
Dismiss: 

With Opinion ______ . 8 o 

Without Opinion ____ _ 45 6 

Disposed of by Order setting 

aside findings and sentence 

Remanded _______________ 6 

199 

o 

10 

Court action due (30 days)" 80 97 1

Awaiting replies' __ __. __ 48 60 

Decision affirmed by Order _ o o 

Certificates (Art. 67(b) (2»: 

Opinions rendered _______ _ 528 25 

Opinions pending' _______ 6 6 

Withdrawn ____ . _______ _ 8 o 

Remanded 4 o 

Disposed of by Order _____ _ 1 o 

Set for hearing· ________ _ o o 

Ready for hearing· _____ _ 1 o 

Awaiting briefs' ________ _ 1 o 

Leave to file denied __ 2 o 

Motion to dismiss granted _ o o 

Mandatory (Art. 67 (b) (1» : 

Opinions rendered _______ _ 37 o 

Opinions pending __ __ __ Remanded ______________ _ o 

1 

o 

o 

Awaiting briefs· __ . o o 

Opinions rendered: 

Petitions ____ _ 2,621 126 

Motions to dismiss _______ _ 11 o 

Motions to stay proceedings 1 o 

Per Curiam grants ____ _ 57 o 

Certificates ___________ _ 465 19 

Certificates and Petitions 

Mandatory . ____________ _ 60 

37 

6 

o 

Petitions remanded ____ _ 2 o 

Petitons for a new trial __ _ 2 o 

See footnotes at end of table. 
Petition for writ of 

habeas corpus __________ 1 0 

Motion for appropriate 

relief ----------------­ 1 0 

Petition (motion to strike)_ 0 1 

Miscellaneous Dockets ____ 69 11 

Total ----------------­ 3,346 163 1

Completed cases: 

Petitions denied --------­ 22,079 1,270 1,2

Petitions dismissed _______ 21 3 

Charges dismissed by Order 2 0 

Petitions withdrawn ______ 424 7 

Certificates withdrawn ____ 8 0 

Certificates disposed of by 

Order ----------------­ 1 0 

Opinions rendered ________ 3,269 151 1

Disposed of on motion to 

dismiss: 

With Opinion ________ 8 0 

Without Opinion _____ 45 6 

Disposed of by Order setting 

aside findings and sentence 6 0 

Writ of error coram nobis 

by Order ______________ 3 0 

Motion for bail denied ____ 1 0 

Remanded --------------­ 202 10 

Decision affirmed by Order 0 0 

Total ----------------­ 26,069 1,447 1,39

Miscellaneous Docket Nos. 

Assigned: ------------­

(1967 to Present) Pending" ________________ 

267 

0 

64 

0 

10

See footnotes at end of table. 

10 
-----------

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

Pet for Reconsideration 

denied ---------------­ 8 2 6 

Pet for Reconsideration 

granted --------------­ 0 0 

Opinion rendered 

(Pet Recon) ----------­ 1 0 0 

Pet for new trial remanded 1 0 0 

Total ----------------­ 280 55 11

Pending comple

June 30, 1972 June 30,1

Opinions pending ______________________ 23 17 

Set for hearing _______________________ 0 0 

Ready for hearing _____________________ 2 3 

Petitions granted-awaiting briefs ______ 8 9 

Petitions-Court action due (30 days) --- 80 97 

Petitions-awaiting replies _____________ 48 60 

Certificates-awaiting briefs 1 3 

Mandatory-awaiting briefs ----------- 0 0 

; 

Total 162 189 

i 1 a Flag officer eases; 1 Army and 1 Navy 

• 28,591 eases actually assigned docket numbers. Overage due to multiple act

cases. 

• As of June 30, 1972, 1973 and 1974 . 

• 3,624 eases were disposed of by 3,545 published' Opinions. 176 Opinions 

eases involving 103 Army officers, 38 Air Foree officers, 24 Navy officers, 

officers, 2 C08St Guard officers and 1 West Point cadet. In addition 19 opionio

in cases involving 20 civilians. The remainder concerned enlisted personnel. 

"As of June 30, 1974. 

• Overage due to multiple actions on the same cases. 
During 1974 the process of monitoring the c

system, developing improved procedures, and rev

justice publications and regulations continued t

activity of the Office of The Judge Advocate Gen

the trend of recent years, increased emphasis w

procedural improvements which could be effected 

changes. 

The Army representatives to the Code Comm

Joint Service Committee on Military Justice conti

to participate in the process of reviewing both t

Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (Revised ed

Uniform Code of Military Justice, with a view tow

in accordance with the needs of the Army, devel

.law, and changes in the Federal legal system. 

MAJOR PROJECTS 

The favorable evaluation of test programs inv

magistrates and the use of legal centers resulted in 

usage during 1974, while development of study 

as the random jury selection plan and the study 

in time of war continued. New projects examin

video-tape in courts-martial and of judge advo

inferior courts-martial were undertaken. 

a. The evaluation of the CONUS Military M

program, conducted at Forts Bragg, Dix, and H

pleted in 1974. Under the program, records of 

pretrial confinement are reviewed by a judge a

limited circumstances a field grade officer with m

experience, to determine the legality of, and need 

pretrial confinement. In determining whether pr

ment meets the criteria set forth in paragraphs 

12 
g 

the military magistrate or a substituted program, p

of an action to make the military magistrate manda

pretrial confinement situation. The program was for

mented by Change 13 to Army Regulation 27-10. 

b. In April 1974 the Chief of Staff approved the 

tion of the legal center concept at the option of local 

In operation, the legal center concept envisions the 

supervising the processing of all legal and quasi-l

including administrative discharges, within a specif

cal area, rather than solely within a particular g

martial jurisdiction. Special court-martial jurisdicti

solidated at the brigade or comparable level, and ind

advocates at the legal center are designated to ad

level commanders. The decision to implement the 

concept on a "local option" basis was predicated on 

tion that its use might not be beneficial at all inst

pending on the size and composition of the command

ual characteristics, and its case load. 

c. The initial test of the random jury selection 

completed at Fort Riley, Kansas, in December 1974. 

was designed to test the concept of limited random 

court members, without derogation of the statutory r

of the convening authority. Under the plan, a mas

is compiled from post locator files. Individuals on th

are then administered a questionnaire, based upon c

lished by the convening authority, to determine w

possess basic qualifications. A panel is then rando

from those found to be qualified. The convening auth

veto power over the entire panel, but not individ

thereof, and when this power is exercised, anoth

selected panel must be chosen. The basic criteria 

by the convening authority of the test jurisdiction in
the Uniform Code of Military Justice in time of w

Judge Advocate General's School being tasked to 

initial phase of the study. The initial effort, comp

was a thesis entitled: "The UCMJ in Future Hostili

a More Workable System." Using the work done b

Advocate General's School as a starting point, a com

the Office of The Judge Advocate General recomm

multi-phase approach be taken, to include a form

The Judge Advocate General's School and the ap

an ad hoc committee to study the effectiveness of 

of the military justice system in time of war. T

these studies will be available in 1976 and will 

basis on which legislation and regulatory changes c

in order to insure a responsive military justice syste

hostilites, regardless of the magnitude of the conflict

e. Taking cognizance of the rapidly expanding 

tape in both state, and federal jurisdictions, steps 

. during 1974 to initiate a study to determine the pote

video-tape in the law enforcement and military ju

of the Army. The potential uses of video-tape are 

In the law enforcement area video-tape may be us

crime scenes, hard evidence, confessions, line-ups

instances where the visual display of facts assi

adjudication. Video-tape also has great potential in 

justice system, where it may be used in pretrial inve

cases which may result in courts-martial; in the pr

evidentiary facts to a court; in the prerecording of t

later televising to an empaneled jury; and as a rep

the traditional record of trial. The study will prov

for a determination as to whether the Army shoul

tape, and to what extent, in its legal and law enforcem

f. Also undertaken during 1974 was a project to d

feasibility of requiring informal judge advocate ad

14 
to ensure that their intended use in armed conflict i

with the obligations assumed by the U.S. under appl

national laws (i.e., not one prohibited by internation

as a weapon calculated to cause unnecessary sufferin

h. The Office of The Judge Advocate General has a

in the preparation, of DOD Directive 5100.77, "DO

for the Implementation of the Law of War" and im

instructions. The DOD Directive is the first uniform 

of Department of Defense policy on the implementa

law of war. That policy requires, in part, that the m

partments adopt procedures to ensure the prompt re

investigation of alleged violations of the law of war

by or against members of the military department

provides for appropriate disposition under the Un

of Military Justice of cases involving alleged violations 

subject to court-martial jurisdiction. 

i. Several decisions of the Federal courts durin

pacted on the military justice system. One such was 

corpus proceeding initiated by former Lieutenant Wil

in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District 

after his conviction for murder in the My Lai in

affirmed by the Court of Military Appeals. Initial

released on bail by the District Judge on 27 February 

order was ultimately reversed by the appeals court 

Callaway, 496 F. 2d 701, (5th Cir., 1974). Upon cons

the merits, the District Court held that Calley had b

a fair trial under the Constitution (382 F. Supp. 650 (D

1974». Significantly, the court ruled that Calley was 

by pre-trial publicity which was exacerbated by wha

believed was the inability of the military justice 

protect Calley. Further, the court held that Calley 

due process and the right to confrontation by the 
Supreme Court in Parker v. Levy, 417 US 733 (197

Secretary of the Navy, 418 US 676 (1974); and 

De Champlain, _US_ (April 15, 1975). 

k. During 1974 the availability of Federal cou

against allegedly unconstitutional courts-martial co

contested. In Scott v. Schlesinger (498 F. 2d 10

1974» and Mascavage v. Richardson (494 F. 2d 11

1974» the Fifth and District of Columbia Circui

Third and Fourth Circuits in disapproving Federal 

vention into active courts-martial. Thus, when S

Councilman, _US_ (43 USLW 4432, March 25

argued in December 1974 the Tenth Circuit was al

ing the injunction of a court-martial because it alleg

Q'Callahan v. Parker, 396 US 258 (1969). (Reversi

Circuit in Councilman (in 1975), the Supreme Court 

the military judicial system be given all the defere

a system fully capable of interpreting not only mil

the Constitution as applicable within the Armed Se

1. In an area possibly left open to Federal co

tion, i.e., personal jurisdiction disputes, the U.S. D

for Kansas ruled during 1974 that the military cour

an opportunity to consider the matter prior to its be

by the Federal Courts. See, Montoya v. Rowe (unr

74-226-C3, USDC, D. Kansas. 

m. Additionally, the Court of Claims held in Ar

States, _F.2<L- (18 Dec. 1974) that Article 69, UC

must be exhausted prior to collateral review of sp

martial. It appears that during 1974 the military ju

has gained acceptance as a fully competent criminal 

n. During 1974 several unreported decisions o

16 
the Supreme Court required a rapid hearing befor

magistrate to determine probable cause following an 

De Champlain, concerning an airman in pretrial con

charges of selling classified defense information, the 

that the Fifth Amendment due process clause requir

trial confinement be ordered only by an officer or mi

who is neutral and detached from the prosecution

rapid hearing before a neutral officer must be afford

the accused might present evidence supporting his r

Government is to bear the burden at the hearing a

statement of reasons for non-release must be given 

Eighth Circuit decision. The Supreme Court has grante

in the case, but the impending trial may moot the cas

o. The Supreme Court decided in Schick v. Reed, _

USLW 4083, 24 Dec. 1974), that the President may 

stitutionally inoffensive conditions to pardons. 

p. Raised in 1974, but not yet judicially resolved, ar

ment of prisoners at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks 

v. Froehlke, D. Kansas) and whether a U.S. Court 

Review merely authorizing a rehearing instead of o

is significant and whether that rehearing must be at 

location or can be held at Fort Leavenworth (Hamlin v

S.D. Ga., 1974). 

q. Of peripheral interest is the holding of the U.

Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that a violation of 

Comitatus Act could vitiate the conviction of a civilia

(U.S. v. Walden, 490 F. 2d 372, (4th Cir., 1974, c

416 U.S. 983, reh. denied, 417 U.S. 977». Also, on 2

1973, the U.S. Circuit Court for the Fifth Circuit h

stitutional a local ordinance that proscribed the hiring 

service of anyone with a less than honorable discharg
rendering opinions for the Army staff; and revie

aspects of criminal cases for action by the Army se

staff. 

The first changes to the Manual for Courts-Ma

States, 1969 (Revised edition), were forwarded to 

during 1974. These changes had two basic purpo

bring various portions of the Manual into conform

sions of the United States Court of Military App

United States Supreme Court; and, secondly, to 

payment of travel expenses to witnesses who testi

investigations under Article 32, UCMJ. 

Army Regulation 27-10, Military Justice, was rev

occasions during 1974. Change 12 provided simplifi

for obtaining qualified defense counsel at special c

'provided for the permanent filing of all Article 15s 

ency portion of personnel files; provided for enhanc

safeguards in Article 15 proceedings; revised and 

record of proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ; 

attorney-client guidelines and a suggested guide fo

of Article 15 proceedings. Change 13 implemented 

magistrate program, previously discussed. Change 

standards and procedures for handling complaints b

counsel, including civilian counsel,' and for handlin

against military judges. 

Army Regulation 27-50, the status of forces 

policies and procedures, was revised during 1974 

provision for assignment of military legal advisers to 

men being tried before foreign courts and a new 

porting status of individual foreign criminal juris

During 1974 the Office of The Judge Advocate Gen

both professional legal texts for practicing judge a

informational legal pamphlets for Army-wide dist

Pamphlet 27-162, Claims (January 1974) compile

text both the statutory and decisional law relati

18 
effectively with administrative, disciplinary and per

lems arising in their commands. Finally, a guide to 

conduct in combat situations was prepared for dis

individual soldiers. Published under the auspices of th

Army-Wide Training Literature Program, Your 

Combat Under the Law of War, TRADOC Pamphlet 2

ary 1974) appears in easily readable, illustrated fo

scribes the limits of acceptable conduct during comba

under the laws of war. 

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS AND U.S. 

JUDICIARY ACTIVITIES 


a. A statistical summary of court-martial activit

74 follows: 

The number of persons tried by courts-martial for 

1974 (average Army strength, 799,301) follows: 

Convicted Acquitted 

General --------------------------­ 1,696 152 

Special (WIBCDs) ----------------­ 1,249 112 

Special (W/O BCDs) --------------­ 12,395 1,058 

Summary -------------------------­ 4,825 500 

TOTAL --------------------­ 20,165 1,822 

The number of service personnel convicted of 

federal and state courts during fiscal year 1974 follo

CONUS __________________________________________________

Overseas _________________________________________________

TOTAL 
Referred for review: ____________________________ 
 

General Courts-Martial ____________________________ 

Special Courts·Martial (BCD) _____________________ _ 

TOTAL ________________________________________ 

Reviewed _______ _________________________________ 

General Courts-Martial ____________________________ 

Special Courts-Martial (BCD) _____________________ 

Pending at close of period _____ . ________________________ 

General Courts-Martial ____________________________ 

Special Courts-Martial (BCD) ______________________ 

TOTAL ________________________________________ 

1 Figures in this section are based on records of trial as opposed to n

involved. Because of cases in which more than one individual is tried, the figu

will be less than those in the other sections. 

• This figure includes 28 cases which were referred to the Army Court o

pursuant to Article 69, Uniform Code of Military Justice; 4 cases referre

and 38 cases referred for reconsideration. 

• In an effort to cope with the backlog, 17 additional attorneys have be

Defense Appellate Division, and steps have been taken to add an additional 

Court of Military Review. 

Actions taken during 1 July 73 thru 30 June 74 by 

of Military Review: 

Findings and sentence affirmed ___________ . _________________

Findings affirmed, sentence modified ________________________

Findings affirmed, !entence commuted ______________________

Findings affirmed, no sentence affirmed _____________________

Findings affirmed, sentence reassessment or rehearing as to 

sentence only ordered ___________________________________

Findings partially disapproved, sentence affirmed ___________

Findings partially disapproved, rehearing ordered ___________

Findings & sentence affirmed in part, disapproved in part ___

Findings & sentence disapproved, rehearing ordered _________

Findings & sentence disapproved, charges dismissed ________

Returned to field for new SJA & C/A action _______________

Proceedings abated, death of accused ___________.._________

Case returned to field for lack of jurisdiction by ACOMR ____

TOTAL __________________________________________

20 
y ppg 

Army cases during fiscal year 1974: 

Petitions Denied Petitions Grante

672 50 

Petitions Certification Manda

Affirmed Reversed Affirmed Reversed Affirmed 

20 34 7 6 o 

Applications for relief, Article 69: 

Pending 1 July 1973 _________________________________ _ 

Received ______________________________________ 

Disposed of ________________________________________ _ 

Granted _________________________________________ 

Denied _______________________________________ _ 

Field (action by SJA) ___________________________ 

No Jurisdiction ___________________________________ 

Withdrawn ________________________________________ 

Pending 1 July 1974 ________________________________ _ 

b. The US Army Judiciary is an element of the US A

Services Agency. The Agency includes the Contrac

Division (twenty officers, four enlisted, and twelve civili

has no function related to the US Army Judiciary and 

martial mission. Of the remaining Agency personnel, 

are assigned to the Trial Judiciary, 55 officers to Defe

late Division, 33 officers to Government Appeallate 

4 officers to Examination and New Trials Division, and 

late military judges to the US Army Court of Military 

c. Several continuing legal education programs sp

military and civilian bar groups were attended by milit

during the year including the National College of 

Judiciary, Joint Services Military Judicial Seminar at 

VA, and Treasure Island, CA, and several seminars 
the exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction over U.S

During the period 1 December 1973-30 November 

16,875 cases (world-wide) involving primary foreig

jurisdiction, foreign authorities waived their ju

15,970 for a waiver rate of 94.6 percent. This com

waiver rate of 94.4 percent for the previous reporti

COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ (1

Procedures 

Article 138, Uniform Code of Military Justice (1

as implemented by Army regulations, provides that 

of, the Army who feels that he has been wronged 

mander may complain of that wrong to the command

If the commander declines to provide redress, the 

may then submit a formal complaint to the general 

convening authority over the commander who denie

Following his action on the complaint, the general 

convening authority must forward the complaint t

Advocate General for his personal review on behalf 

tary of the Army. 

Volume and Results 

The Judge Advocate General, as the designee of 

of the Army, reviews each complaint submitted und

sions of Article 138. During 1974, he received an

122 cases, holding as follows: 

Ca

The complainant was wronged in whole or in part: ______ 2

The complainant not wronged in whole or in part: ______ 6

The complainant was referred to other channels: ___ __ 1

The complaint was returned for procedural reasons with leave to resubmit: __ ________ ___________ __ __ 2

The complaint was moot when received: _______________ 

The foregoing statistics do not take into accoun

22 
2,000 students and conferees. 

Courses of Instruction. 

In May 1974 the Judge Advocate Officer Advanc

approved by the American Bar Association, graduated 

39 students (including 32 Army, 1 Navy, and 5 Ma

advocates, and 1 Allied Officer from Ethiopia). T

curriculum consists of 34 semester hours, of which 2

hours are of core courses, 8 elective, and the remai

successful completion of a Legal Writing Program

Some 347 newly-commissioned Army judge advocat

one of the five 8-week Judge Advocate Officer Basic C

during the year. In addition, 11 Coast Guard Officers a

Officers attended the Basic Courses. Many of the Arm

had attended a preliminary 4-week phase at the US 

tary Police School, Fort Gordon, Georgia, emphasi

orientation, and introductory military and police scien

The School's continuing legal education program for 

reserve forces judge advocates included a qualification 

military judges and courses in criminal trial advocac

law, procurement law, international law, overseas jud

operations, claims, military administrative law de

legal assistance, command legal problems, civil right

mental law, and federal labor relations. In all, 

Advocate General's School courses were attended by 

Army judge advocates, 272 Army Reserve and Arm

Guard judge advocates, 74 judge advocates of other se

121 government civilian attorneys (approximately o

whom represented agencies other than the Departm

fense). In addition, the School was the site of the ann

wide Judge Advocate General's Conference, the Fif

United States Army Reserve Judge Advocate Confe

Fourth Annual National Guard Judge Advocate Con
headed for command assignments. 

Paraprofessional training responsibilities are 

The Judge Advocate General's School, US Army I

ministration (Adjutant General School), and the S

Justice. During 1974, 381 students graduated 

week Legal Clerk Course at the Adjutant Genera

38 new court reporters successfully completed 

porter's Course at the School of Naval Justice. Ni

noncommissioned officers completing the NCO Ad

attended a final, two-week phase conducted at The J

General's School in April 1974. Additional warra

listed personnel, and legal secretaries have attend

Legal Assistance and Criminal Law Military Law

. Courses and the Law Office Management Course. 

Major Projects 

The Judge Advocate General's School continued 

mobilization readiness of reserve component units 

by providing technical training and assistance to 

advocates at their home stations (Army Reserv

National Guard Armories) during the inactive 

their training program. During calendar year 197

faculty members presented instruction on 171 oc

reserve component judge advocates in 63 cities. 

form programs of instruction-related where pra

annual training of the host unit-this "on site

criminal law, claims, legal assistance, procurem

international law has improved the capability of un

reserve judge advocates for immediate delivery of 

to the Army upon mobilization. Equally, it is en

capacity for expanding legal services in the Army 

time by providing practical assistance to Army j

offices by performing on-the-job reserve training i

24 
legal education programs conducted by such agenc

American Law Institute-American Bar Association 

mittee on Continuing Legal Education, the Practicin

stitute, Northwestern University, the National College 

Attorneys, and the National Institute of Trial Advo

School publications during 1974 included four iss

Military Law Review, 12 issues of The Army Lawyer, 

issues of the case-digest Judge Advocate Legal Serv

provides rapid dissemination of digests of recent cases 

to judge advocates). Besides school texts produced 

for resident and nonresident instruction, the School 

Staff Judge Advocate Handbook, a legal profession

procurement law, and substantial changes to the curre

Evidence and Military Administrative Law pamphlets

Faculty members provided technical assistance for t

ing films prepared for distribution throughout the Arm

During 1974 filming of the following motion pictures 

pleted: "Uniform Code of Military Justice, Part I 

Trial and Post-Trial procedures)"; "The Civilian and 

Convention"; and "Nonjudicial Punishment under A

Additionally, technical advice was provided for a seq

Military Justice, Part I motion picture. ("Uniform Co

tary Justice, Part II, Offenses, Rights and Safegua

second film, which deals with substantive offenses unde

will serve to satisfy the requirements of Article 137, UC

completed in 1975. 

The Board of Visitors met at the School in Decem

Members in attendance were Colonel Eberhard Deut

Robert M. Duncan, Mr. John H. Finger, Professor Joh

and the Honorable Richard E. Wiley. 

PERSONNEL 

The average strength of the Judge Advocate Gener

was 1571 officers, compared with an average of 155
fill the 262 requirements for fiscal year 1975

authority for fiscal year 1976 is 175, and it is ap

Corps will process a great number of applica

positions. 

The shortage of field grade officers, as repo

persists. On 31 December 1974 the Corps was 

authorized Colonels, 45ro of authorized Lieutena

55% of authorized Majors. The shortage of C

further aggravated during 1975 by unexpected 

tory retirements. At present promotion rates, the 

71 Colonels at the end of the summer of 1975 c

in September 1972. However, in the same are

rate of newly commissioned personnel is incre

. Fully Funded Legal Education Program, which 

last year, has been fully implemented. This pro

with the Excess Leave Program, will provide a

attorneys per year. These officers, for the most 

tensive line experience and bring both maturity a

to the Corps. 

As reported last year the training of a limited 

listed personnel at civilian institutions in sten

porting is in progress. The first graduates will 

new units in the fall of 1975, joining the appr

legal clerks and 98 court reporters currently on 

GEORGE S. PR

Major Genera

The Judge A

United States 

26 
Following the practice in recent years of havin

Committee Report reach the Armed Services Commi

gress shortly after the convening of each new session

although embracing calendar year 1974, contains, u

wise indicated, statistical information covering fiscal 

SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF 

JUSTICE. Complying with the requirements of artic

form Code of Military Justice, the Judge Advocate 

Deputy Judge Advocate General, and the Assistant 

cate General (Military Law) continued to visit comm

the United States, Europe, and the Far East in the su

the administration of military justice. 

COURT-MARTIAL WORKLOAD. a. There has be

change, generally speaking, in the fiscal year 1974 c

workload. (See Exhibit A attached to this report). 

b. During fiscal year 1974, the Navy Court of Mil

received for review 485 general courts-martial and 

courts-martial (total 2,600) as compared with 674 ge

martial and 2,004 special courts-martial (total 2,678) 

year 1973. Of 2,600 cases received by the Navy Cour

Review, 1,589 accused requested counsel (61 percent

NAVY-MARINE CORPS TRIAL JUDICIARY. 

INST 5813.6B, promulgated 18 June 1974 with an e

of 1 July 1974, changed the title of the U. S. Navy-M

Judiciary Activity to Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judic

forth as its mission: 

... To provide certified military judges for all ge

martial convened within the naval service and 

courts-martial convened on board a Navy ship, stat

ity (except those special courts-martial for which th

of a certified military judge, not assigned to the Tri

is authorized pursuant to directions of the Judge A
martial. In 1974, 71 percent of the general cour

tried by courts constituted with military judge a

pares with 63 percent of the general courts-martia

constituted without members during 1973. 

c. The establishment of the Navy-Marine Corps 

with the additional responsibility of assigning 

martial judges, accounts for the dramatic increas

of special court-martial cases in which Navy-Mar

Judiciary personnel were involved. During calen

military judges were furnished for 4,029 special c

opposed to 1,853 in calendar year 1973. In additio

tary Judges of the Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judi

ad hoc military judges to preside ~n 365 specia

. for which full-time military judges were unava

92 percent of the special courts-martial were tried 

stituted with military judge alone. This compares 

of the special courts-martial tried by courts con

members during 1973. 

d. The present manning level of the Navy-Mar

Judiciary is 17 general court-martial military jud

of 1 from the manning level at the close of cale

Eighteen special court-martial military judges are 

Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary, fourteen of 

signed to newly created billets when the judiciary 

. e. The "Uniform Rules of Practice before Nav

Courts-Martial" and "Bailiff's Handbook" wer

Change 5 of the Manual of the Judge Advocat

former governs the trial of cases by courts-martia

by a military judge. These rules are intended to sim

uniform those court-martial procedures which th

judge has the authority to control under approp

of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Man

Martial, 1969 (Rev.), and such regulations as th

28 
fornia,2-4 May 1974. One general court-martial militar

tended a trial judge's course at the National College o

Judiciary, Reno, Nevada, from 14 July to 9 August 1974

eral court-martial military judge attended the Annual 

the American Bar Association at Honolulu, Hawaii, 12-

1974. One general court-martial military judge and t

court-martial military judges attended a three-day s

Norfolk, Virginia, 21-23 November 1974. 

NAVAL LEGAL SERVICE. The Navy's new legal 

structure, the Naval Legal Service, became fully oper

1 July 1974. As stated in last year's report, a primary 

this reorganization was to bring all trial and defen

under the direct authority of the Judge Advocate Genera

make them independent of court-martial convening a

The Naval Legal Service (NLS), under the comma

Director, NLS-the Judge Advocate General has bee

additional duty under the Chief of Naval Operations as 

consists of 18 Naval Legal Service Offices and 15 s

branch offices located throughout the world. The total 

strength authorization for the NLS includes 277 judge 

176legalmen, and 178 civilian employees. Navy judge ad

the NLS comprise approximately one-third of the N

judge advocate strength. The remaining two-thirds ar

to such traditional billets as staff judge advocates to 

commands, counsel in the Office of the Judge Advocat

and military judges assigned to the independent judici

The responsibilities of the NLS extend beyond merely 

counsel for courts-martial. They include providing al

legal services to local commands which are beyond th

capacity of the command's staff judge advocate. With 

lishment of the NLS, the Navy believes it is able to o

mum utilization of its lawyer resources in meeting th

commands and sailors alike. 
y 

NAVAL JUSTICE SCHOOL. a. Courses of 

military law and related administrative matters 

by the Naval Justice School during 1974 to 2,

enlisted personnel of the Armed Forces. A total 

Marine Corps, and Coast Guard officers received 

signed for commanding/executive officers. As in 

command-level instruction was presented both at t

locations of fleet concentrations. Three hundre

Marine Corps, and Coast Guard non-lawyer junior 

training for duty as unit legal officers. Two hund

Navy and Marine Corps lawyers were trained for 

advocates. One hundred eight lawyer reservists o

Marine Corps were provided basic" or refresher tra

law. Nine Navy and Marine Corps judge advo

signed to duty in the Navy-Marine Corps Trial Ju

a course presented for military judges. One hun

Army, Navy, and Coast Guard enlisted personnel 

perform legal clerk and court reporting duties. 

b. In addition to its formal courses of instruc

Justice School presented courses of instruction 

seizure, right to counsel, and administrative proc

officers at other Navy schools in Newport, Rhode 

London, Connecticut. 

ANNUAL JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERA

ENCE. a. A conference of judge advocates from 

and Marine Corps commands was held in Washi

23-27 September 1974. The conference heard a

Under Secretary of the Navy, Vice Chief of N

Judge Advocate General, Director, Naval Reserve 

and Solicitor General of the United States. The 

cluded presentations on various topics, including 

tion in the Navy, undesirable discharges, le

30 
as the opportunity to participate in seminars concerning 

lem areas which have arisen during the past year. The 

ference centered its efforts on informing judge advoca

field of what is taking place in the way of changes in th

justice system at the present time and of what can be e

future years. Plans are now underway for a similar c

in 1975. 

CERTIFICATION OF NCMR DECISIONS TO USC

REVIEW PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 65(b), UCMJ

Navy Court of Military Review decisions were consi

certification to the U. S. Court of Military Appeals by 

Advocate General during calendar year 1974, but only 

sion was certified. The case involved a speedy trial is

ARTICLE 138 COMPLAINTS OF WRONG. During 

year 1974, 123 Article 138 complaints of wrongs were r

the Office of the Judge Advocate General for the Secret

Navy. 

During the past calendar year the Military Justice Div

pleted staffing of the new Chapter XI to the Manual of 

Advocate General--"Regulations governing complaints 

under Article 138, UCMJ." On 18 November 1974, the Se

the Navy approved the new regulations which are sch

appear as Change 7 to the JAG Manual. This new cha

signed to clarify the procedures by which complaints o

submitted pursuant to Article 138, UCMJ, are to be pro

addition, the new chapter sets forth Navy policy with 

such matters as scope of coverage of the basic statute a

plicability to various classes of persons. 

FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE. During the past fo

the Military Justice Division has been involved in the 

the proposed new Federal Criminal Code. In November 

final Justice Department draft was reviewed and comm

submitted to the Office of Legislative Affairs. It is exp
ppp

proposed changes to the Uniform Code of Military 

mission to Congress. A timetable was establishe

implementation of these proposals and was subm

Chief of Naval Operations. The Committee met 

Advocates General of all services on 5 Novembe

these proposals. A subsequent meeting of the 

General was held 15 January 1975 for a more de

At this meeting the Judge Advocates General disc

differing approaches to the various problems in 

that are common to all the services. It was resolv

exchange of ideas among the services should 

through the Committee. 

The proposals which the Com'mittee has discus

designed to streamline the military justice sys

tion with the work of the Committee, the Militar

reviewed various recommendations of the ABA S

tee on Military Justice to amend the Uniform 

Justice and monitored various bills introduced in 

concerning military justice. 

CIVIL LITIGATION. During calendar year 

Advocate General worked closely with the Jus

in several civil litigation cases that had potenti

military justice system. Assistance was provided t

and to various U. S. Attorneys, including prep

memoranda and litigation reports-in which th

relevant to a case are set forth, proposed motio

final form to be submitted over a U. S. Atto

preparation of U. S. Attorneys for oral argu

Federal courts, including the United States Sup

assignment of judge advocates to make oral arg

States district courts and courts of appeal. A 

significant cases and issues involved are set fort

32 
with the Supreme Court decision in Argersinger v. H

Betonie, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fi

held that counsel is required by Argersinger before c

can be imposed by summary court-martial. In Ifenry a

the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circu

the Argersinger right to counsel did not apply to summ

martial. The court also held, however, that due proces

that counsel be provided in certain relatively complex ca

is at present pending decision by the United States Supr

(Middendorf v. Henry). 

c. Brown v. United States presented the issue wheth

cision in United States v. Greenwell, 19 USCMA 460, 4

(1970), is retroactive. In Greenwell, the United State

Military Appeals held that the Secretary of the Navy 

personally in granting commanding officers and officers 

of separate and detached commands smaller than those o

size the authority to convene special courts-martial. On 

1975, the United States Court of Appeals for the Th

held that Greenwell was not retroactive and affirmed th

of the United States District Court for the Eastern 

Pennsylvania to grant the Government's motion for 

judgment. 

d. Priest v. Secretary of the Navy involves the consti

of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, and 

of freedom of the press under the first amendment as 

members of the Armed Forces. On 25 October 1974!, 

States District Court for the District of Columbia g

Government's motion for summary judgment. The pl

appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Columbia Circuit. 

e. Gibson v. Warner and Jones v. Frudden involve t

whether Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, v
p

py 

petitioner remained at large for six months. Up

to military authorities in October 1974 at San 

fornia, he sought his release through a habeas corp

in the United States District Court for the Nort

California. In his petition, plaintiff is attempting 

same challenges to his court-martial conviction ra

against him in,his military appeals. He also mov

release him on bail pending the outcome of his pet

corpus. The case is pending decision on both the 

the habeas corpus petition. 

g. Stahl v. Warner is a class action against t

the Navy, which presents the issue of whether 

detailed to represent servicemen before courts-m

be permitted to represent their accused clients in 

court in actions collaterally attacking the court-

ings. On 1 October 1974, the United States Distri

Northern District of Illinois dismissed the compl

the named plaintiffs, an accused at a court-martia

charges were dismissed, on grounds of mootness. 

ever, refused to hold the action moot as to two JA

tiffs who have been released from active duty. T

considering whether a class of all Navy JAG la

certified as appropriate in this case. 

h. Artw v. United States involved the issues 

the multiple roles of the convening authority 

justice system constitute a denial of due process 

whether admission of official service record entr

offense of unauthorized absence violates the si

guarantee of cross-examination and confrontati

States Court of Claims dismissed the case 18 

for failure of the plaintiffs to exhaust the intra

34 
the record of trial for review. The court dismissed the co

complaint alleging this error, but remanded for furthe

to the other issues. 

j. Sanders v. United States is another case in which th

ment of multiple roles to convening authorities under the 

Code of Military Justice is attacked as unconstitutional. 

is pending decision before the United States Court of C

k. Mascavage v. Richardson and Rainville v. Lee pres

issue of whether there is court-martial jurisdiction ove

off-duty, and out-of-uniform possession and sale of mar

another serviceman. On 27 April 1973, in the Mascavage 

United States District Court for the District of Columb

plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and dism

action for failure to exhaust intramilitary remedies. 

court took a similar action in the Rainville case on 21 J

The cases were joined on appeal to the United States 

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which on 

1974 affirmed the actions by the District Court and or

cases dismissed for failure to exhaust military remedies. 

have been petitioned to the U. S. Supreme Court, whic

taken action on the petitions. [In Schlesinger v. Counc

L.W. 4432 (March 25, 1975), the Supreme Court rule

issue of exhaustion of remedies in a case presenting simi

The Court held that, unless a serviceman demonstrate

will suffer more severe harm than that normally associ

allowing a court-martial to proceed to determine his g

nocence, Federal courts should refuse to intervene in mil

ceedings. Although the Court found it unnecessary to ru

question of whether off-base, off-duty, and out-of-uni

session and transfer of marijuana were sufficiently se

nected to give military courts jurisdiction, the result in 
() 

THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE TASK FO

ADMINISTRATION OF MILITARY JUSTICE IN 

FORCES. As indicated in last year's report, the S

Navy submitted a reclama to the Secretary of Def

that portion of the latter's 11 January 1973 nonj

ment directive relating to the automatic staying 

punishment pending appeal. As a result of tha

Secretary of Defense exempted personnel attached 

in a vessel from the automatic stay provisions of 

H. B. ROBERTS

Rear Admiral

The Judge Ad

United States 

36 
Rec'd for review under Art 65c ____ 0 

Reviewed in the field _____________ 8,941 11,3

Total all courts-martial _______ 22,475 

Navy Court of Military Review Actions 

On hand for review end last FY ___ 250 

Rec'd for review during FY _______ 2,600 2,6

Total on hand ________________ 2,850 

Reviewed during FY _________________ 2,589 2,6

Pending review end current FY _______ 261 

Total ----- ----------- -- -- 2,850 

Findings modified or set aside by Navy 

Court of Military Review during FY __ 123 

Requests for appellate counsel 

before NCMR ______________________ 1,589 1,

U. S. Court of Military Appeals Action 

Petitions forwarded to USCMA ____ 465 3

Cases certified to USCMA by JAG__ 5 

Total cases docketed 


with USCMA ______________ 
 470 

Petitions granted by USCMA _________ 22 

Petitions denied by USCMA __________ 424 

Total petitions acted upon by USCMA ________________ 446 
required by the Uniform Code of Military Justice

also attended and participated in various meetin

fessional and military organizations. General V

annual world-wide general court-martial conv

Staff Judge Advocates Conference at Andrews 

in October 1974 and the major command Staff 

Executive Conference at the Forrestal Building, W

in May 1974. During 1974 General Vague, acco

Teagarden, TJAG Executive, attended the Un

Forces in Europe (USAFE), Air Training Co

Strategic Air Command (SAC), Tactical Air Co

Pacific Air Forces (PACAF), and Pacific Comm

JAG Conferences. 

The Area Defense Counsel Program finished 

gional test on 30 June and was implemented on a 

on 1 July. This is a landmark change in militar

since, for the first time, it separates the defense 

command and judge advocate control. Defense C

to this program work exclusively for the individ

They are assigned directly to the Office of The 

General at Headquarters, United States Air F

effectiveness reports are completed by one of 

Circuit Defense Counsel. From 1 July to 31 Dece

Defense Counsel participated in over 70 genera

and 600 special courts-martial. In addition, they 

in Article 15, administrative proceedings, and lega

The Automated Military Justice Analysis and M

tem (AMJAMS) mentioned in the 1973 Report w

Air Force-wide on 1 July 1974. The reports pro

used to assist The Judge Advocate General and 

Advocates in the management and administrat

justice. The system's data base will constitute the 

of information within this Department for cond

38 
Acquittals under Article 61 ___________________________ _ 

• This represents an increase of 25% over the number of cases received in FY 7

The Court of Military Review modified the findin

sentence in 51 cases. 

b. The workload of the Court of Military Revie

follows: 

Cases on hand 30 June 1973 ___________________________ _ 

Cases referred for review ______________________________ 

Total for review _________________________________ _ 7

Cases reviewed & dispatched ___________________________ _ 

Cases on hand 30 June 1974 ___________________________ _ 

• This represents an increase of 53% over the number of cases reviewed during 

c. During the fiscal year 80.8% of the accused, w

were referred for review under Article 66, requested r

tion by Appellate Defense Counsel before the Court o

Review. 

d. The following table shows the number of cases 

to the United States Court of Military Appeals pursu

three subdivisions of Article 67 (b) ; and the number o

granted during the period: 

Cases reviewed & dispatched by Court of Review ________ _ 

Number cases forwarded to USCMA ____________________ 

Cases petitioned ________.__________________________ 2

Cases certified ____________________________________ 

Percent total forwarded of total cases reviewed ________ _ 

(Increase of 5.4% over FY 73)

Petitions granted _____________________________________ _ 

Percent grants of total petitioned ______________________ 

(Increase of 3.8% over FY 73) 
3. Reportable Article 15 Actions, FY 1974: 

PERCENTA

NUMBE

TOTAL CASES ________________________________ 37,556 

Officers ____________________________________ 170 

Airmen ______ _____________________________ 37,386 

PUNISHMENTS IMPOSED· 

Restrictions (over 14 days) Officers ___________________________________ 13 

Airmen __________________________________ 2,649 

Quarters Arrest/Correctional Custody Officers ___________________________________ o 

Airmen ___________________________________ 2,849 

Extra Duties (over 14 days) Airmen ___________________________________ 1,846 

Reduction in Grade 

Airmen ___________________________________ 24,887

Forfeiture of Pay Officers _________________________________ 135 

Airmen ________________________________ _ 27,096 

Detention of Pay Officers ___________________________________ o 

Airmen __________________________________ 32 

Written Reprimand Officers ___________________________________ 127 

Airmen __ _____ _ ________________________ _ 352 

MITIGATING ACTIONS 

Appeals Taken 

Officers __________________________________ _ 36 

Airmen __________________________________ 3,068 

Appeals Denied 

Officers ___________________________________ 35 

Airmen _________________________________ 2,532 

Suspension of Punishment 

Officers __________________________________ 8 

Airmen ________________________________ 19,063 

See footnotes at end of table. 

40 
was transferred to the Judge Advocate School, Maxwel

A special summer 1974 issue of the Law Review was 

articles submitted by members of the Trial Judicia

related military justice topics (Vol. 15, Issue 2). With 

the JAG Law Review became the Air Force Law Revi

format was changed to that of a booklet. Four issues 

lished during the Calendar Year in this new format. Fi

justice related articles were printed in these issues

the first in a series on the history of the structure 

justice in the United States. Other articles dealt with 

of Reserve and National Guard commanders, disciplin

systems, the agency defense in drug cases and pret

examinations. 

5. In October 1974, the staff of Federal Legal I

Through Electronics (FLITE) completed work on a k

context (KWIC) index of the Court of Military Ap

reported in the Courts-Martial Reports (CMR). The c

in microfiche form indexes every uncommon word in 

it was used in the decision, with both CMR and COMA 

A copy was furnished to the Court of Military Appea

evaluation. The Air Force by DOD directive maintain

ates FLITE to provide computer based legal research 

products to all DOD components and other Federal, Sta

organizations. FLITE search service is provided to th

Military Appeals on a nonreimbursable basis. 

6. During Calendar Year 1974, The Judge Advocate 

Department provided continuing legal and general ed

portunities to 804 of its personnel. The basic course for 

advocates is the Judge Advocate Staff Officer Course 

Air University, Maxwell AFB, Alabama. This six w

was conducted five times during 1974 and 200 judge 

completed it. During the year, twelve judge advocates 

to various civilian universities to obtain an LL.M De
attended the Army Advanced Procurement Law C

25 officers attended the one-week course for prosec

and 25 additional officers attended the equal len

defense attorneys held at Northwestern Universi

General Courts-Martial judges and four of our 

Martial judges were enrolled in the course for ju

by the National College of State Trial Judges at 

of Nevada in Reno, Nevada. Judge advocates were 

ance at the various short courses offered by the Ai

such as labor management relations. 

During the year, five judge advocates attended 

and Staff College and three the Air War Colleg

attended the Armed Forces Staff College and on

Industrial College of the Armed Forces. Air Force 

the Squadron Officers School but this assignment 

selection and not by The Judge Advocate Gener

at this course is encouraged by the Department. 

nearly appointed Staff Judge Advocates which wa

1971 trained 40 of our officers in 1974 prior to th

as a base Staff Judge Advocate. The Reserve an

Guard judge advocates attended a two-week refre

160 students graduated in 1974. A 13-week for

course was conducted as required at Malcolm 

Andrews AFB, Maryland. Graduates of this course 

forensic medicine consultants to area hospital com

lawyers completed this course of instruction. In 19

Force officers participated in the Funded Legal Edu

(FLEP) and the Excess Leave Program with 19 c

law school requirements and designated as judge ad

the summer vacation months these FLEP and Exc

gram Students perform active duty in an Air Forc

"Legal Interns." Selected individuals are given t

to perform their summer training at various d

42 
authorizations were manned by captains. The Depa

authorized 125 colonels, 254 lieutenant colonels, 346 m

477 captains. The Department has assigned 100 co

short), 135 lieutenant colonels (119 short), 169 ma

short), and 821 captains (344 over). These figures re

percent shortage of experienced field grade judge adv

At the close of the period of this report, there wer

mands exercising general court-martial jurisdiction. 

HAROLD R. VAGUE 

Major General, US

The Judge Advocat

United States Air F
67 (g) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice

wise noted, the figures given are for the fiscal 

July 1, 1973, and ending June 30, 1974. 

The table below shows the number of court-

received and filed at Coast Guard Headquarters d

year and the four preceding years. 

1974 1973 197

General courts-marital ___________ 7 5 

Special courts-marital ------------ 190 206 16

Summary courts-marital ___ ------ 212 307 34

Total --------------------- 409 518 52

Even though the number of courts-martial is s

than the previous year, the lawyer involvement in 

remained about the same as in the previous yea

quirement to assign defense counsel to summary 

if confinement was to be considered as an authoriz

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

All special courts-martial had lawyers for defen

non-lawyer trial counsel were used only two tim

judge was assigned in all of the trials. As has 

previous reports, a full-time judiciary for specia

has not been established in the Coast Guard. 

are provided for special courts-martial by use of t

general court-martial judges when available, and 

military judges assigned to other primary duties. 

detail of judges is centrally exercised, and all req

been filled in timely fashion. In 145 of the special 

trial was by military judge with members, none of 

enlisted members. In the remaining 45 cases, 

elected to be tried by military judge alone. 

44 
___________________________________________

punishment only 17 times, eight when trial was by mil

alone. In one case the defendant was sentenced to 

punishment. 

Of the 184 cases in which there was a conviction, 100 

were affirmed on review without modification. Eighty

mitigagted in some manner. In 115 cases, there were g

to all of the charges and specifications. Sixty-three o

volved pretrial agreements. 

The following table shows the distribution of the 588 

tions tried by the 190 special courts-martial: 

AWOL or desertion ________________________________________

~issing ship movement _____________________________________

~arihuana offenses _________________________________________

Offenses involving controlled drugs __________________________

Willful disobedience or disrespect ____________________________

Assault ___________________________________________________

Violation of order or regulation ______________________________

Larceny or wrongful appropriation __________________________

Breaking restriction ________________________________________

Offenses .against Coast Guard property _______________________

Provoking words or threats _________________________________

~eglect of duty 

IIousebreaking ___________________________________________

Bad checks _________________________________________________

Other offenses 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

In 6 of the general courts-martial, trial was by a c

members. In one, the defendant elected to be tried b

judge alone. 

No dishonorable discharges were adjudged. In 3 case

tence included a bad conduct discharge. Two of th

adjudged by a court with members. Of the 3, none wer

or commuted by the convening al!thority; all reached 
Conspiracy ___________________________________________

Fraud & Forgery _____________________________________

Solicitation ___________________________________________

Extortion ____________________________________________

Assault ______________________________________________

False official statements ________________________________

Larceny ______________________________________________

Altering and wrongfully possessing examination papers __

COURT OF MILITARY REVIEW AND COURT OF MILI

The Coast Guard Court of Military Review 

docketed with it during the fiscal year. Of the 18 c

decided during the fiscal year, 14 were affirmed wi

tion and the findings or sentence were modified i

petitions were submitted to the Court of Military 

grant of review; one petition was granted. 

JOHN HART ELY 

General Counsel 

Department of 

*u.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

46