01 the 

SENATE AND OF THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE

and to tho 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 


AND SECRETARY OF THE TREAS

and the 


SECRETARIES OF THE DAPARTMENTS OF 

ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORCE 


PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MWTARY JUSTICE 

For the Period 


January I, 1965 10 Decemher 31, 1965 
Contents 

JOINT REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITA

AND THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL OF THE ARM

AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTME

TREASURY 

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY 

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 DEPARTME

TREASURY (UNITED STATES COAST GUARD) 
UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY APPE

and 


THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL 


OF THE ARMED FORCES 


and 


THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE 


DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

January 1, 1965 to December 31, 196
Armed Forces, and the General Counsel of the Departm

Treasury to meet annually to survey the operations o

and to prepare a report to the Committees on Armed 

the Senate and of the House of Representatives, to the 

of Defense and the Secretary of the Treasury, and to 

taries of the Departments of the Army, NavY, and 

with regard to the status of military justice and to t

and means by which it can be improved by legislative 

The Chief Judge and the Judges of the U.S. Court 

Appeals, The Judge Advocates General of the Army, 

Air Force, and the General Counsel of the Departm

Treasury, hereinafter referred to as the Code Comm

met and conferred at the call of the Chief Judge sev

during the period of this report. These conferences 

full consideration of legislative amendments to the Un

of Military Justice consistent with the policy and purp

Committee. 

Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., chairman of the Subco

Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judicia

States Senate, introduced 18 bills in the Senate on J

1965. The stated purpose of the bills is to protect th

tional rights of military personnel. Hearings have been 

on these bills early in the second session of the 89th 

The Department of Defense has presented its views in 

the Committee on those bills that pertain to milita

and it is expected that the Judges of the Court of Milita

and The Judge Advocates General will testify at the 

Senator Ervin introduced 18 similar bills in the 88th 

but due to the press of Congressional business, no hea

held. As stated in our last two reports, the Department 

recommends, as substitutes for certain bills pertaining 

justice, legislative proposals designated as "F", "G"

"G" has been introduced as H.R. 273 (89) and "H
prisoner from that accorded a sentenced prisoner c

the administration of confinement facilities and has, on 

-created complex administrative problems. "F" bill wo

nate this source of difficulty. The bill would also c

lesser punishments included in a death sentence and 

a related anomaly in the present law by permitting the 

ment and forfeiture of pay inherent in a death sente

made effective when the sentence is approved by the 

authority. 

"G" bill is essentially a combination of the so-called 

"D" bills recommended in our report for 1962, with an 

provision that a bad-conduct discharge may not be 

unless an accused is represented by a qualified lawy

refused the services of legally qualified counsel. In a

this requirement for qualified counsel, "G" bill would 

single-officer special and general courts-martial, and in

authority of the law officer (or President of the cou

case of a special court-martial without a law officer). 

provide authority, with necessary safeguards and 

changes, whereby an accused person could waive a hear

court members and be tried by the law officer alone-co

to a trial without a jury in the Federal courts. The 

also authorize pretrial sessions by a law officer, prior t

the members are assembled, to consider and dispose 

locutory questions and other procedural matters. This 

is similar to that contained in the Federal Rules of 

Procedure applicable to Federal courts. Various tech

visions are contained in the bill to clarify the status 

officer in pretrial proceedings and related administrativ

Judge Ferguson continues to have reservations, a

in our report for the year 1962, concerning the desi

some aspects of the proposals contained in "F" and 

"H" bill would make two desirable changes in the 

available to an accused who seeks relief after appell

2 
The sectional reports of the Court and of the indiv

ices outline the volume of court-martial cases subject 

review during the reporting period. Exhibit A is 

recapitUlate the number of court-martial cases of all 

throughout the world, the number of such cases wh

viewed by boards of review, and the number ultimate

by the United States Court of Military Appeals. 

Respectfully submitted, 

ROBERT E. 	QUINN, 

C

HOMER FERGUSON, 

Assoc

PAUL J. KILDAY, 

Assoc

ROBERT H. 	McCAW, 

The Judge 	 Advocate 

United S

WILFRED HEARN, 

The Judge Advocate 

United S

ROBERT W. 	MANSS, 

The Judge Advocate 

United States 

FRED B. SMITH, 

Acting Gene

Department of th

EXHIBIT A 


Total 

Cases Reviewed by Boards of Review ~rrny ____________________________________________________

~avy ____________________________________________________

llir Force ------------------------------------------------

.Coast Guard _____________________________________________

Total ______________________________________________

Cases Docketed with U.S. Court of Military Appea

~rD1Y ____________________________________________________

~avy ____________________________________________________

~ir Force _______________________________________________

Coast Guard _____________________________________________

Total 

For the Period 

July 1, 1964 to June 30, 1965 

REPORT 


of the 


UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY APP

January 1, 1965 to December 31, 196

matters to the Committees on Armed Services of 

States Senate and House of Representatives, to th

of Defense, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the 

of the Departments of the Army, Navy and Air Fo

As this report is submitted, the United States Court 

Appeals is in its fifteenth year of the administration 

justice under the Uniform Code, enacted on May 31

put into effect one year later. In June 1951, when th

first civilian judicial body in this Nation's history to 

review upon military courts-martial, was constitu

immediately faced with an enormous task. Those ac

the provisions of the Articles of War and the Arti

Government of the Navy found its terms revolutionar

for the accused and the Government-a law officer w

deliberate with the court-instructions on the law in 

-verbatim records of trial in all serious cases-a 

system of appellate review had, for the first time, be

for all branches of our Armed Forces by a Congress 

tive determined to uproot the last vestige of evil 'w

from practices under antecedent legislation. But, in 

of most Codes, these provisions of law supplied only 

of military due process. Their interpretation, purs

intent of Congress, was left to this Court, composed 

judges in accordance with the well-tried American 

ultimate civilian control over the military, and t

balanced by devolution upon the Executive of the r

scribe rules of evidence and procedure as well as limi

maximum punishment. 

At the outset, the Court was met with hostility on 

many Armed Forces officers, accentuated by the fact 

role as a supreme judicial body in the midst of war. N

from the beginning, it insisted that rights granted 
commendable institution by the Army of its Field Jud

gram, whereby professional law officers-judges in e

of the word-are made available in all commands f

general courts-martial. In 1962, the Navy, benefit

Army's experience, extended the same program to i

justice operations and those in the United States Ma

The Air Force has decided not to participate in thi

advantageous procedure, but there is now pending 

Congress legislation, which we warmly approve, that w

adoption of the professional law officer idea by all 

Forces. 

So, too, have gigantic strides been made in the field 

legal education and the dissemination of legal info

the field by all the Armed Services, so that the Co

better implemented at its most basic level, i.e., at th

contact with the potential accused and those with w

associated. Training films, technical manuals, law 

newsletters and similar publications, are now chara

the administration of military justice, just as such too

years, been used in other military specialties and in 

legal field. 

Thus, we are able to report at the present time that, 

a basic problem under the Uniform Code has been 

matter how excellent a law may be, it is useless unle

administered. We have noticed a growing conviction 

of the Armed Forces that, given an opportunity, th

Code will work in punishing the guilty and protectin

cent, in war and in peace. No longer do we find the 

and hostility which met its introduction into militar

this new spirit continues to flourish and pervade the a

tion of the Code, it is apparent that it will brighten 

of military law and gradually eliminate the righteou

12 
accompanying service during good behavior has been 

by the recent suit filed against the Judges in Robert G. 

Robert E. Quinn, et al. (U.S.D.C. D.C., Civil Actio

65), presently pending on appeal before the United 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The peti

urges this Court is no more than an instrumentality o

tive, created under Congress' power to make rules for 

ment of the land and naval forces. He finds cogent 

his contention in the Judges' limited terms, a feature 

not obtain in other Federal judicial tribunals, though 

only special jurisdiction. 

Originally, Congress sought to provide the Judg

tenure, but deleted the provision therefor in view 

highly experimental nature of the vast changes it w

in military law. We believe, together with the Arm

that the last fourteen years of administration of mil

demonstrate the premanency of the Court as an ins

respectfully request, therefore, that the Congress ag

the question of extending its Judges tenure, to th

good behavior. 

III 

In fiscal year 1965, 935 cases were docketed with 

14 were forwarded on certificates of The Judge Advoc

of the Armed Services. No mandatory appeals, i.

volving death sentences or affecting general or flag o

heard, but the Court heard arguments and received b

issue whether the provision therefor in Article 67 (b

Code, as it applied to a general or flag officer, constitu

of due process when considered in light of the bu

ordinary accused to show good cause in order to have 

granted. The constitutionality of the statute wa

United States v Gallagher, 15 USCMA 391, 35 CMR 
at New London, Connecticut. Associate Judge Homer 

represented the Court at the annual meetings of the 

Bar Association and Judge Advocates Association 

Beach, Florida, during August 1965. Judge Ferguson 

ticipated in the Army's Worldwide Judge Advocates' C

at Charlottesville, Virginia, in September 1965. Associ

Paul J. Kilday joined Chief Judge Quinn and Judge 

in attending the Military Law Committee Dinner, D

Columbia Bar Association, held at the Commissioned 

Club, Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, on 

1965, and all judges conferred on a number of occas

The Judge Advocates General and their representatives 

ing military justice operations in the field. The Court 

sought to maintain contact both with those who prese

will in the future be, charged with the practical admi

of military justice at the operating level and the lead

civilian legal sphere. 

During the year, the Court was honored by a visit fr

Trevor Rapke, The Judge Advocate General, Royal A

Navy, as well as other distinguished persons whose in

spoke the widening concern of the public, both here an

with courts-martial matters. In order to make readily 

full information concerning the Court's operations, a b

phlet was issued describing its history and functions

available to all who visit the Courthouse or inquire c

the nature of the institution which it houses. 

VI 

In conclusion, the Court reiterates its belief that the 

ments in the administration of military justice over 

fourteen years, under the aegis of all the Judges, have f

fied the great experiment which Congress launched in 1

present system, subject, of course, to improvements 

14 
of cases processed by the Court since it began opera

Respectfully submitted, 

ROBERT E. QU

C

HOMER FERGU

Assoc

PAUL J. KILDA

Assoc

EXHIBIT A 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total by Services 

Petitions (Art. 67(b) (3»: 

Army 

Navy 

Air Force 

Coast Guard 

Total 

Certificates (Art. 67(b) (2»: 

Army 

Navy 

Air Force 

Coast Guard 

Total 

Mandatory (Art. 67(b)(1»: 

Army 

Navy 

Air Force 

Coast Guard 

Total 

Total cases docketed 

12 Flag officer cases: 1 Army and 1 Navy. 

Total as of 


June 90, 
 1969 


9,254 


3,666 


3,845 


43 


16,808 

135 


192 


62 


6 


395 


31 


3 


3 


0 


37 


17,240 

218,740 cases actually assigned docket numbers. Overage 

same cases. 

July 1, 

1969 to June 90, 1964 


371 


302 


176 


2 


851 


= 

3 


6 


8 


0 


17 


= 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

868 


J

due to multip

Disposed of by Order setting aside 

findings and sentence __________ 3 

Remanded to Board of Review ____ 149 

Court action due (30 days) 3 _____ _ 57 

Awaiting replies 3 ________________ 21 

Certificates (Art. 67 (b) (2» : Opinions rendered _______________ 382 

Opinions pending 3 _______________ 2 

Withdrawn ______________________ 7 Remanded _______________________ 2 

Disposed of by Order ___________ _ 1

Set for hearing3 _________________ o 

Ready for hearing3 ______________ o 

Awaiting briefs 3 ________________ 2 

Mandatory (Art. 67(b) (1»: 

Opinions rendered ________________ 37 

Opinions pending3 _______________ _ o Remanded _______________________ 1 

Awaiting briefs 3 o 

= 

Opinions rendered: 

Petitions _______________________ _ 1,503 Motion to Dismiss ______________ _ 11 

Motion to Stay Proceedings_______ _ 1 

Per Curiam Grants ______________ 29 

Certificates ______________________ 338 

Certificates and Petitions _______ _ 42 Mandatory ______________________ 37 

Remanded _______________________ 2 

Petitions for a New Trial _______ _ 2 

Petition for Reconsideration of De­ nial Order ____________________ _ o 

Petitions for Reconsideration of Petition for New Trial ___________ _ 1 

Motion to Reopen ________________ 1 

Total _________________________ 1,967 

8 As of June 30, 1963, 1964, and 1965 . 

• 2,175 cases were disposed of by 2,156 published Opinions. 

o 

4 

38 

25 

19 

1 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

1 

o 

o 

o 

o 

== 

84 

o 

o 

1 

15 

4 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

104 

111 Opinions 

cases involving 65 Army officers, 27 Air Force officers, 15 Navy officers, 4. Ma

2 Coast Guard officers, and 1 West Point Cadet. In addition 19 Opinions wer

involving 20 civilians. The remainder concerned enlisted personnel. 
Disposed of by Order setting aside 

findings and sentence _________ _ 3 o 

Writ of Error Coram Nobis by Order ________________________ _ o 1 

Remanded to Board of Review ___ _ 150 4 1

Total _________________________ 17,125 874 94

= 

Pending complet

June 90, June 9

1968 1961, 

Opinions pending _________________________ _ 15 2

Set for hearing ___________________________ 0 

Ready for hearing ________________________ 0 

Petitions granted-awaiting briefs ________ _ 9 1

Petitions-Court action due 30 days_________ 57 3

Petitions-awaiting replies _______________ _ 21 2

Certificates-awaiting briefs _______________ 2 

Mandatory-awaiting briefs ______________ _ 0 

Total _____________________________ _ 104 9

22 
REPORT 

of 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 

of 

THE ARMY 

January 1, 1965 to December 31, 196

py (

1965) (Average Strength-Total Army-1,016,832) 

Convicted Acq

General _______________________________ _ 1,463 

Special _________________________________ 23,757 1,

Summary ______________________________ _ 16,106 

Total ___________________________________ 41,326 2,

Records of trial by general court-martial received b

Advocate General during fiscal year 1965: 

For review under Article 66 ______________________________

For examination under Article 69 __________________________

TOTAL __________________________________ _______________

Workload of the Army Boards of Review durin

period (Persons Tried) : 

On hand at the beginning of period ________________________

Referred for review ______________________________________

TOTAL __________________________________________________

Reviewed ________________________________________________

Pending at close of period ________________________________

TOTAL _________________________________________________

*This figure includes 2 cases which were referred to Boards of Review pu

ii9. Uniform Code of Military Justice. and 2 eases on rehearing or reconsid

Actions taken during period 1 July 1964 through 3

by Boards of Review: 

Affirmed _________________________________________________

Sentence modified _________________________________________

Rehearing ordered ________________________________________

Charges dismissed ________________________________________

Findings affirmed, sentence disapproved ____________________

Findings and/or sentence disapproved in part ______________

Sentence commuted _______________________________________

TOTAL __________________________________________________

Of the 1,261 accused whose cases were reviewed b

Review pursuant to Article 66 during the fiscal year, 9
8 

Petitions Denied Petitions Granted 

429 32 

In compliance with the mandate of Article 6 (a), Uni

of Military Justice, The Judge Advocate General a

members of his staff inspected numerous judge advoc

in the United States and overseas in the supervision 

ministration of military justice. 

26 
consisted of round table discussion on current pro

fessions, searches and seizures, out-of-court hearing

on sentence, and the Law Officers' attitude towar

addition the Conference heard reports on propos

and on operations of the United States Army Crim

Committees were appointed to revise the current 

Pamphlet and to report on changes needed in th

Courts-Martial in the event legislation revising 

Code of Military Justice is enacted into law. 
pending in the House as H.R. 273 and H.R. 277. The 

were discussed fully in the 1963 Annual Report and t

stitute bills, denominated the "G" and "H" bills fo

purposes, were discussed in the 1964 Annual Report a

ed to the joint report as Exhibits Band C. Hearin

two bills in the House of Representatives have been 

pending completion of the Senate hearings on the 

The two House bills have been endorsed by the Am

Association. I reaffirm my belief that these two pro

accomplish highly desirable changes in the field of mili

and I continue to hope that they will be passed b

Congress. 

My office continued to take action to improve the 

tion of military justice during 1965. For example, Ar

tion 27-12, Summary and Special Courts-Martial, pu

15 October 1965, represents a substantial revision of 

Army Regulation 22-145 and should improve the 

proceedings in summary and special court-martial cas

other things, the new regulation requires convening 

to assure themselves by obtaining certificates or othe

personnel of summary and special courts-martial ar

familiar with the Army publications pertaining to th

These publications, which are enumerated in the regu

Department of the Army Pamphlet 27-7, Military Jus

book-Guide for Summary Court-Martial Trial Proc

partment of the Army Pamphlet 27-10, Military Jus

book-The Trial Counsel and The Defense Counsel, a

ment of the Army Pamphlet 27-15, Military Justice 

-Trial Guide for the Special Court-Martial President. 

version of the last-mentioned pamphlet was publishe

1965, reorganizing the material to make this pUblica

useful guide for the special court-martial president. 

A comprehensive and detailed study concerning mili

training for officers was conducted during 1965, and re

28 

The Excess Leave Program, under which Regular Ar

are permitted to attend law school in an excess leave 

now been in operation for four years. Our experie

indicates that it will playa very important part in m

within the Corps a large number of experienced Reg

judge advocates. As of September, 1965, 105 officer

rolled in school under this program. Seventeen officers 

their legal training in 1965, and 36 are scheduled t

legal training in 1966. By 1967, we expect to have 

input from this program of 30 to 35 officers. 

The Vietnam build-up has resulted in an increased d

legal services. As of 31 December 1965, 38 judge advoc

are serving in Vietnam, providing legal services for 

In addition, it has been necessary to assign additi

advocates to many of the Training Centers and Servi

As a result of these increased requirements, we expect 

190 officers during Fiscal Year 1966, an increase of 80 o

Fiscal Year 1964. 

30 
The Thirteenth Judge Advocate Officer Career C

graduated from the School in May, 1965. Among it

students were two officers from the United States Na

officers from the United States Marine Corps. The 

Career Course began September, 1965, and will be grad

the School in May, 1966. It is composed of 31 student

two officers from the United States Navy, two officer

United States Marine Corps, two officers from Iran

officer from Argentina. 

In addition to these two general courses, a numb

functional courses were conducted during the calendar 

These courses were: Procurement Law (two cycles) 

(two cycles) ; Military Justice; Military Affairs; Fo

International Law; the Judge Advocate Refresher C

the Law Officers' Seminar. Attendance numbered ov

dents, including representatives from the Navy, Ma

and Air Force, the Departments of Justice, Commerce

Office, and the General Accounting Office, Federa

Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administr

tional Science Foundation, Small Business Administ

Atomic Energy Commission. 

Two new texts were published during 1965. Thes

Pam 27-160-1, Foreign Legal Systems (Private Law

Pam 27-174, Military Justice-Jurisdiction. In ad

texts were revised. These were DA Pam 27-164, Mili

vations and Navigable Waters, and DA Pam 27-6, 

Governing Line of Duty and Misconduct Determinati

Army. By the end of the calendar year 1965, it is ex

12 issues of the Procurement Legal Service will have 

lished and distributed. 

In February, 1965, the Fourth Annual Judge Adv

eral's Reserve Component Training Conference wa

Charlottesville. Both active and reserve component j

cate officers participated. Conferees included regular 
Four issues of the Military Law Review were publis

1965. The Annual Survey of Military Justice was p

the April issue. Additionally, the 1965 Review contain

comments, and surveys dealing with the defendant

obtain evidence, Article 15, the relationship between j

cates and Army criminal investigation, military jus

Philippines, and a comparison of the Turkish and Am

tary systems of nonjudicial punishment. 

During 1965, 35 issues of the Judge Advocate Le

were published. The Judge Advocate Legal Service c

insure the rapid dissemination to judge advocates in 

all recent developments in military justice. In additio

ing the decisions of the United States Court of Milita

and the boards of review, the Judge Advocate Legal 

included a number of civilian decisions in the area of cr

This extensive coverage of all areas of criminal law 

instituted in an attempt to bring more information h

ing on military justice to the attention of judge advo

field. 

During 1965 the School wrote and distributed comm

lesson plans on military justice and other matters of 

all United States Army Service Schools. Additionally

ing films, "The Uniform Code of Military Justice" a

of Forces Agreements" were approved by The Judg

General's School. 

ROBERT H. MCCAW 

Major General, USA 

The Judge Advocate 

United States Army 

32 
REPORT 


of 


THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 


of 


THE NAVY 


January 1, 1965 to December 31, 1965 

otherwise indicated, statistical information covering 

1965. 

Courts-martial of all types-general, special and 

convened within the Navy and Marine Corps totale

FY 1965 as compared to 25,041 in FY 1964. Altho

marked as in the previous two years, the downwa

courts-martial cases continues. It is believed that th

PL 87-648 which increased the nonjudicial punishme

of commanding officers remain a major factor in th

decrease. Other factors considered to have an influen

reduction in the number of cases are the stress placed 

of leadership in the Navy; an improvement in quality 

nel in the Navy; and improvements in the admin

discipline and military justice in the Navy. 

Navy Boards of Review received for review durin

264 general courts-martial and 2,158 special courts

compared to 338 general courts-martial and 2,375 spe

martial during FY 1964. Of the 2,422 cases received 

by Boards of Review during FY 1965, 56 % of the 

quested counsel (1,367 cases). A more detailed statis

is attached as Exhibit A. 

The Navy has, over the years, been encouraging of

representation of accused before special courts-mart

quest such representation to the maximum extent con

the performance of other necessary duties of such 

determine the extent to which such representation h

corded during the last two calendar years, subst

records of trial by special court-martial were revi

following are the results of that review: 

Calendar year 1964: 

Navy 

Percentage of total BCD-cases in which accused was 

represented by an officer lawyer__________________ 45.270/

Percentage of total non-BCD cases in which accused 

was represented by an officer lawyer ____________ 40.60% 
therefore conducting studies to determine whether 

exist and to identify fields of extreme difficulty tha

encountered in the trial of offenders in combat area

As mentioned in my previous report, an Ad Hoc 

consisting of representatives of the Judge Advocate

the Army, Navy and Air Force has been preparing 

Manual for Courts-Martial with a view to having 

in loose-leaf form. A second draft of the revised 

completed by the Committee and the individual se

now submitted their comments on this draft. An ef

made currently to resolve the differences of opinion 

the proffered comments. As soon as agreement is a

early publication date for a revised Manual for Co

is anticipated. 

The informal newsletter "Off the Record", menti

previous reports, has been continued with considera

The increased benefits which were anticipated as 

changes in format and enlargement of content have b

during the past year. 

Since one of the most important functions of a pr

special court-martial is properly, fully and correctly 

the court in applicable law (which is far from a sim

task in even the most routine cases), it was considered 

that maximum guidance be provided to such funct

the most frequently recurring situations. According

cation was prepared during this year for use prima

lawyer presidents of special courts-martial, which is 

a supplement to the Special Courts-Martial Trial 

Presidents and Members (NAVPERS 10096.1962) an

general guidance to presidents of special courts-ma

forming their instructional function. This publica

be distributed to field commands within the very n

I mentioned in my previous report that, for reasons 

36 
The U. S. Navy-Marine Corps Judiciary Activity, 

been in operation since 1 July 1962, has continued 

specially selected judiciary officers to sit as law off

general courts-martial convened within the naval est

During 1965 there has been a reduction in the number 

courts-martial within the Naval Districts of the Ea

the United States. On the other hand, the case load 

the judiciary activity in the Western Pacific has signi

creased. The greatest part of this increase has been 

military build-up in Vietnam. As a result of this chan

load, there is under contemplation, at the end of 196

tion of one judiciary officer assigned to the East Coa

addition of one judiciary officer billet in the Western 

The program of providing specially selected office

as law officers has continued to work effectively and 

In addition to their work as law officers, judiciary of

when their GCM docket permits, served as president

courts-martial, which has also contributed to the im

in the quality of judicial proceedings in the Navy a

Corps. 

The U. S. Naval Justice School, operating under th

supervision of the Judge Advocate General, continu

intensive instruction in the fundamental principles 

justice. During the fiscal year the School afforded 

in military justice, legal clerk duties and court repo

grand total of 2,014 officers and enlisted personnel 

armed forces. Five regular seven-weeks' classes wer

at the Justice School in Newport, Rhode Island, an

was convened at Camp Pendleton, California. Eig

twenty-five line, staff corps and newly commissioned off

of the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard complete

lar courses of instruction offered by the Naval Jus

during the fiscal year. Four hundred fifty-four enliste

of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and C
the Navy. The course was offered for the first time in 

1965 and will be offered thereafter as each class of 

lawyers reports to the school. 

WILFRED HEARN, 

Rear Admiral, USN, 


The Judge Advocate 

United States Navy. 


38 
EXHIBIT A 


Received for review under Article 66 ________________ 

Received for review under Article 65c ________________ 

Reviewed in the field ______________________________ 1

Total ______________________________________________

Summary courts-martial 

Received for review under Article 65c ______________ 

Reviewed in the field ______________________________ 1

Total ______________________________________________

Total all courts-martial _______________________________

Board of Review actions 

On hand for review 1 July 1964 ______________________ 

Received for review during FY 1965 ________________ 

Total on hand _____________________________________

Reviewed during FY 1965 __________________________ 

Pending review on 30 June 1965 ____________________ 

Total ______________________________________________

Findings modified by boards of review during FY 1965 ___

Requests for appellate counsel _________________________

U. 	S. Court of Military Appeals actions 

Petitions forwarded to USCMA _____________________ 

Cases certified to USCMA by JAG __________________ 

Total cases docketed with USCMA ___________________

Petitions granted by USCMA _______________________ 

Petitions 	denied by USCMA ________________________ 

Total petitions acted upon by USCMA _______________

REPORT 


of 


THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 


of 


THE AIR FORCE 


January 1, 1965 to December 31, 196

2. Complying with the requirements of Article 6 (

Code of Military Justice, Major General Robert W. M

overseas bases in the United States Air Forces in Eur

Air Forces, and numerous bases in the United Stat

Lumpkin also inspected the legal activities of bases in 

States. Both Generals Manss and Lumpkin attended 

ciation meetings and spoke before many civic, profe

military organizations during the year. 

3. a. The number of records of trial received in 

The Judge Advocate General, for review pursuant t

and for examination pursuant to Article 69, during 

1965, is shown in the following table: 

Total number records received ________________________

Received for review under Article 66 __________________

General Court-Martial records ____________________

Special Court-Martial records ____________________

Examined under Article 69 ___________________________

The Boards of Review modified the findings and/or 

58 cases. 

b. The workload of the Boards of Review was a

Cases on hand 30 June 1964 __________________________

Cases referred for review ____________________________

Total for review _________________________________

Cases reviewed & dispatched __________________________

Cases on hand 30 June 1965 __________________________

c. During the fiscal year 69.3 % of the accused, 

were reviewed under Article 66, requested repres

Appellate Defense Counsel before Boards of Review

d. The table below shows the number of cases f

the United States Court of Military Appeals purs

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

granted during the period: 
General Courts-Marital ________________________________ 

Special Courts-Martial _________________________________ 

Summary Courts-Martial ______________________________ 

Total _____________________________________________ 

4. Reportable Article 15 Actions, FY 1965: 

29,999 

TOTAL CASES __________________________________ _ 

Officers ______________________________________ _ 272 

Airmen ______________________________________ _ 29,727 

PUNISHMENTS IMPOSED 

Reduction in grade ___________________________ _ 19,551 

Forfeiture of pay ___________________________ _ 15,895 

Restriction (over 14 days) _____________________ 4,675 

Correctional Custody/Quarters Arrest _________ _ 4,852 

Extra duties (over 14 days) __________________ 2,889 

Detention of pay _____________________________ _ 141 

MITIGATING ACTIONS 

Appeals taken _________________________________ 268 

Officers __________________________________ _ 7 Airmen __________________________________ _ 261 

Appeals denied ________________________________ 257 

Officers __________________________________ _ 6 Airmen___________________________________ _ 251 

Suspension of punishment ____________________ _ 6,549 

Officers ___________________________________ 7 Airmen___________________________________ _ 6,542

Other action _________________________________ _ 1,312 

Officers __________________________________ _ 4 Airmen___________________________________ _ 1,308 

·Of total eases ~~~----

"Of appeals taken _____-----­

~~-

~The Judge Advocate General's Office supervise

_--ranged, on behalf of all of the Armed Services, for the p

of Decisions of the United States Court of Military Ap

Selected Decisions of the Boards of Review of all the S

the Court-Martial Reports. The same service was also 

46 
selection boards were also convened to consider the 

of 993 individuals seeking direct appointment as Re

with a concomitant three year tour of active duty. 

vacancy limitations, only 140 of these could be sele

are expected to be called to active duty by 30 June 

7. At the close of the period of this report, th

commands exercising general court-martial jurisdic

ROBERT W. MANSS, 

Major General, US

The Judge Advoca

United States Air 

REPORT 

of 

THE GENERAL COUNSEL 

of 

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

(UNITED STATES COAST GUARD) 

January 1, 1965 to December 31, 196

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

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

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

p

ment is submitted pursuant to Article 67 (g) of t

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

The number of Coast Guard court-martial cas

slightly from the 1964 figures. Although there we

special courts-martial this year, there were two l

courts-martial and 24 fewer summary courts. On

docketed with the Court of Military Appeals, but the C

the petition for grant of appeal. 

The following table shows the number of court-ma

received during each of the past five fiscal years: 

1965 1964 196

General courts-martial 1 3 

Special courts-martial 95 89 13

Summary courts-martial 231 255 44

Total 327 347 59

Analysis of the 96 principal cases (general and sp

martial) shows that exactly 50% of the persons pros

represented by qualified lawyers. In the preceding 

38 of 93 accused (41 %) had lawyers. Of the 48 accu

professional counsel, 44 were defended by Coast Gua

two of these also had civilian counsel; and there 

instances of representation by a civilian attorney al

lawyers from the Navy, the Marine Corps and the A

As might be expected, certified counsel was more 

available in cases tried ashore than in cases conve

Thirty-eight men were tried aboard ship by special cou

12 of these had lawyers, while 26 did not. Of the 58 t

36 had qualified counsel; 22 did not. 

There were contests in 42 of the cases; 54 were 

trials. Twenty-three of the uncontested cases were a

Of the 54 accused who entered guilty pleas, 15 had pre

ments. Non-lawyer defense counsel negotiated pre

ments in five instances. 
tence in 50 other cases. The sentence as imposed by 

was affirmed without change in 37 instances. 

The average confinement adjUdged was 3.3 months

ment was included in only 62 of the 94 sentences. T

convicted persons had one or more previous convictio

of the 13 receiving bad conduct discharges had pre

victions. 

The table below shows the number of cases, out of 96 

in which the listed offenses appeared: 

Unauthorized absence ______________________________________

Larceny ___________________________________________________

Insubordinate to petty officer________________________________

Missing ship ______________________________________________

Offense against military property ____________________________

Assault; aggravated assault ________________________________

Failure to obey an order ____________________________________

Breaking restriction ________________________________________

~rongful appropriation ____________________________________

Conspiracy to commit larceny ______________________________

Drunk; disorderly _________________________________________

Violation of regulation _____________________________________

~illful disobediance of order _______________________________

Dereliction in duty ________________________________________

Assaulting commissioned officer _____________________________

Desertion _________________________________________________

Escape from custody _______________________________________

False or fraudulent claim __________________________________

Issuing bad checks ________________________________________

Prohibited use or possession of liquor ________________________

Unlavvful entry ____________________________________________

,\rson _____________________________________________________

False official statement _____________________________________

Forgery ___________________________________________________

Gambling vvith subordinates ______________________________ __

Graft _____________________________________________________

Negligently hazarding vessel ________________________________

Offense against private property ____________________________

Resisting apprehension _____________________________________

52 
jg

FRED B. SMITH 

Acting Genera

Treasury Depa

* u. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE