and 


THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GEN

01 the 


ARMED FORCES 


and the 


GENERAL COUNSEL 


01 the 


DEPARTMENT OF THE TREA

PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUST

For the Period 


January I, 1961 to December 31, 1
01 the 


SENATE AND OF THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE

ond to the 


SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 


AND SECRETARY OF THE TREAS

ond the 


SECRETARIES OF THE DEPARn'ENTS OF 

ARMY, NAVY, liND Am FORCE 


PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTIC

For the Period 


Jonuary I, 1961 to December 31, 196
Contents 

JOINT REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILIT

AND THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL OF THE A

AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTM

TREASURY 

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY A

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENE'RAL OF THE A

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) 
Joint Report 

of the 

UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY A

and 


THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERA

OF THE ARMED FORCES 


and 


THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

January 1, 1961 10 December 31, 19
Forces, and the General Counsel of the Department of 

to meet annually to survey the operations of the Code a

a report to the Committee on Armed Services of the Sen

House of Representatives, to the Secretary of Defense a

tary of the Treasury, and to the Secretaries of the De

the Army, Navy and Air Force with regard to the statu

justice and to the manner and means by which it can be 

legislative enactment. 

The Chief Judge and the Judges of the United 

of Military Appeals, The Judge Advocates General o

Navy and Air Force, and the General Counsel of the D

the Treasury, hereinafter referred to as the Code Com

met and conferred at the call of the Chief Judge several 

the period of this report. These conferences included 

sideration of the provisions of the so-called Omnibus B

resubmitted to the Congress on January 13, 1961, by the D

the Air Force on behalf of the Department of Defense 

the Department of Defense legislative program for 196

with the accompanying statement of purpose and princ

is contained in the Joint Report of the Code Committee 

January 1, 1959, to December 31, 1959. 

·While the Code Committee reendorses and rerecomme

ment of the Omnibus Bill, further study of the propos

and discussion of the various provisions in the Omn

resulted in a determination that, consistent with the 

nounced objectives of the Code Committee, some of t

of the Omnibus Bill should be expanded. Further, th

mittee has been advised that due to the press of legisl

in the Congress, it will be impossible for the Congres

the entire Omnibus proposal at this session. It has b

to the Code Committee that individual bills embodyi

changes doomed most important in the administration 

justice be submitted for the consideration of the Congr
pp

several of the basic concepts of the so-called Omnibus 

well as other proposals submitted by the Judges of the 

Court of Military Appeals in their annual report for th

uary l' to December 31, 1960. In that report, the Cou

recommended eliminating the summary court-martial, 

corrective powers of commanders under Article 15, U

of Military Justice, and conferring greater authority up

analogous to those exercised by judges of Federal civil 

More specifically, the so-called "A" Bill provides 

authority of commanders to impose nonjudicial punish

been introduced in the Rouse of Representatives as R

Congress. This bill is set out in Exhibit I with an 

statement of purpose and its principal features. 

The so-called "B" Bill provides, inter alia, for elim

summary court-martial, procedures for single officer c

and increased authority of the law officer. This bill ha

unanimous appro"al of the Code Committee and is set 

II with an accompanying statement of purpose and 

features. 

In addition, the Code Committee has under consid

present time several procedural changes relating to 

of court-martial trials by providing for pretrial sessio

and dispose of interlocutory and other procedural m

will be submitted to the Congress at a future date a

Committee has had an opportunity to consider the p

tages or disadvantages of such changes. 

The proposed legislation as set forth in Exhibits I an

the spirit of the Uniform Code of Military Justice

thereof would be most beneficial to the sound administ

tary justice and is recommended. 

The sectional reports of the Court and of the indiv

outline the volume of court-martial cases subject to ap

during the reporting period. Exhibit III is attached t

2 
The Judge Advocate Ge

United Stat

lrILLIAM C. MOTT, 

The Judge Advocate Ge

United Sta

ALBERT M. KUHFEL

The Judge Advocate Ge

United States A

RoBERT H. KNIGHT

General 0 o

Department of the 

632307-62-2 

EXHIBIT I 


JUNE 14, 1961 

~fr. VINSON introduced the following bill; which wa

the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend section 815 (article 15) of title 10, U

Code, relating to non-judicial punishment, an

purposes. 

2 

1 

tive8 

Be 

01 

it enacted 

the United 

by the 

State8 

Senate 

01 America 

and House 

in Oongre88 

01 Repre8

3 That section 815 (article 15) of title 10, United Sta

4 Code, is amended to read as follows: 


6 

'7 

8 

5 

prescribe, 

"§ 

" 

815. 

(a ) 

Art. 

Under 

and 

15. 

under 

such 

Oommanding 

ment 


regulations 

such additional 

officer'8 

as the 

regulations 

non-judicia,l 

President m

as 

9 prescribed by the Secretary concerned, limitations m

10 placed on the powers granted by this article with r
11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

commanding officer may, in addition to or in lie

tion or reprimand, impose one or more of the follo

disciplinary punishments, or such equivalent p

as the Secretary concerned may prescribe, for mino

fenses without the intervention of a court-mar

"(1) upon officers of his command­

" (A) restriction to certain specified limits, wi

or without suspension from duty, for not more th

thirty consecutive days. 


"(B) if imposed by an officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction or an officer of gen

eral or flag rank in command: 


"(i) arrest in quarters for not more than 


thirty consecutive days. 


8 
11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

one month's pay per month for two months. 


"(D) reduction to the lowest grade or any intermediate grade, if the grade from which demot

is within the promotion authority of the officer im

posing the reduction or within the promotion 


authority of any officer subordinate to the one wh

imposes the reduction. 


An officer in charge may impose on enlisted membe

assigned to the unit of which he is in charge such o

punishments authorized under subsection (b) (2) a

Secretary concerned may specifically prescribe by re

tion. For the purposes of this subsection, 'correcti

custody' is the physical restraint of a person during 

nonduty hours and may include extra duties, fatigu
15 

20 

25 

11 time, remit or mitigate any part or amount of the 

12 punishment imposed and may set aside in whole o

13 the punishment, whether executed or unexecuted, 

14 store all rights, privileges, and property affected. 

"(d) A person punished under this article who 

16 siders his punishment unjust or disproportionate 

17 fense may, through the proper channel, appeal to 

18 superior authority. The appeal shall be promptly 

19 and decided, but the person punished may in th

be required to undergo the punishment adjudged. 

21 superior authority may exercise the same powers 

22 respect to the punishment imposed as may be exer

23 under subsection (c) by the officer who imposed th

24 ment. 

"(e) The imposition and enforcement of discip

10 
632307-(12--3 

problems adversely affecting discipline are engendered b

quacy of powers of commanders unde~ the present Ar

with behavioral infractions without resorting to the 

criminal law. 

PRINCIPAL FEATURES 

This legislation proposes to effect the following majo

a. Designated commanders, or those to whom author

delegated by regulations, will be empowered to impo

punishments or prescribed equivalents. 

b. In the case of enlisted personnel, increased punishm

substantially within the punitive authority of a sum

martial. Imposition of correctional custody not to exc

forfeiture of not more than one-half pay per month fo

and reduction to the lo,yest enlisted grade are authorized 

punishments. 

c. In officer cases, provision is made for the impositio

tion not to exceed 30 days, and, when imposed by an offic

general court-martial jurisdiction or an officer of general 

in command, arrest in quarters for not more than 30 d

feiture of not more than one-half pay per month for 2 

(d) In order to remedy the restrictive implications of a 

General decision (B-131093, June 1957) which held tha

under Article 15, once accomplished, could not be rem

pended, this legislation provides that the officer who 

punishment, his successor in command, and the superior 

whom an appeal is taken, may suspend probationally 

amount of the unexecuted punishment imposed, including 

in grade or a forfeiture, whether or not executed and may 

remit, mitigate or set aside the punishment in whole or 

restore all rights, privileges and property affected. 

Of major concern is the stigma of a criminal conviction w

when resort must be had to trial by summary court-m

legislation, by increasing the powers of a commander an
from the command in which he has been tried. As pro

creased powers conferred upon commanders under A

respect to officers will insure adequate punishment for re

offenses through nonj udicial means. 

The provisions of this proposal authorizing the susp

tion, mitigation or setting aside of punishments will plac

of commanders a useful tool to effect rehabilitation o

14 
EXHIBIT II 


10, United States Code, by abolishing summary c

and creating single-officer general and special c

'. and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate arullIouse of Repres

2 of the United States of AmerIca in Congress assem

3 chapter 47 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) of 

4 United States Code, is amended as follows: 

5 (1) Section 801(10) (article 1(10» is amended 

6 inserting the words "or special court-martial" afte

7 the words "general court-martial". 

8 (2) Section 816 (article 16) is amended to read 

9 follows: 

10 "§ 816. Art. 16. Cour-ts-martial classified 

11 "The two kinds of courts-martial in each of the 

B armed forces are13 "(1) general courts-martial, consisting of14 "(A) a law officer and not less than 

15 five members; or 

16 "(B) only a law officer if, before the 

17 court is convened, the accused, knowing the 

18 identity of the law officer, and after 

19 consultation with counsel, requests in 

20 writing a court composed only of a law officer 

21 and the convening authority has consented 

22 thereto; and 
11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

815 (article 15)." 


(3) Section 810 (article 10) is amended by strik

out the words "tried by a summary court-ma

first sentence and inserting the words "punishable 

section 815 of this title (article 15) ," in place ther

(4) Section 818 (article 18) is amended to read 

follows: 

"§ 818. Art. 18. Jurisdiction of general CO'1J;rtsmartial 

"Subject to section 817 of this title (article 17), 

general courts-martial have jurisdiction to try pers

subject to this chapter for any offense made punish

able by this chapter and may, under such limitatio

as the President may prescribe, adjudge any puni

ment not forbidden by this chapter, including the 

18 
12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

analysis: " 

"820. 20. Jurisdiction of summary courts-marti

(6) Subchapter V is amended­

(A) by i'epealing section 824 (article 24) ; and 

(B) by striking out the following items in the 

analysis: 

"824. 24. "Who may convene summary courts-m

* * * 

"826.26. Law officer of a general court-martial.

and inserting the following item in phice thereof: 

"826. 26. Law officer of a general or special 


court~martial." 

(7) Section 826 (article 26) is amended to read 

follows: 

632307-62-----4 
11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

is certified to be qualified for duty as a law 

officer of a general court-martial is also qualified 

for duty as a law officer of a single-offier or 

other special court-martial. A commissioned office

who is certified to be qualified for duty as a law 

officer of a special court-martial is qualified for 

duty as a law officer of a single-officer special 

court-martial However, no person may act as a 

law officer of a single-officer general court 

martial unless he is specially certified to be 

qualified for that duty. 

" (b) No person is eligible to act as law officer 

in a case if he is the accuser or a witness for the 

prosecution orhas acted as investigating officer 

or as counsel in the same case. 

20 
12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

(B) by amending subsection (c) as follows: 

(i) by inserting the words", other than a 


single-officer special court-martial," after 


the word "court-martial" in the first sentence; 


and 


(ii) by striking out the words "the accused" 


and inserting the words "the law officer, if 


any, the accused," in place thereof; and 


(C) by adding the following new subsection at 

the end thereof: 

"(d) If the law officer of a single-officer 

court-martial is unable to proceed with the 

trial because of physical disability, as a result 
11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

, 

(9) Section 837 (article 37) is amended by stri

out the words ", special, or summary" and insertin

words "or special" in place thereof. 

(10) Section 839 (article 39) is amended~ 

(A) by inserting the words "or it special cour

martial with a law officer" after the word "cour

martial" in the second sentence; and 

(B) by inserting the words "and inspecial 

court-martial caSes in which a: law officer has bee

detailed," after the word "cases," in the last . 

sentence. 

(11) Section 841 (article 41) is amended~ . 

(A) by striking out the words "law officer of 

a general court-martial" inthe first sentence of 


22 
15 

20 

25 

11 ing the word "special" in place thereof. 

12 (13) Section 851 (article 51) is amended13 (A) by amending the first sentence of subsect

14 (a) to read as follows: 

"Voting by members of a general or special co

16 martial on the findings and on the sentence, a

17 by a special court-martial without a law offic

18 upon questions of challenge, shall be by secret 

19 written ballot."; 

(B) by amending the first two sentences of su

21 section (b) to read as follows: 

22 "The law officer of a general or special court­

:23 martial, and the president of a special court24 martial when no law officer is detailed, shall 

rule upon all questions of law and all inter26 locutory questions arising during the proceedi
11 in place thereof; and 

12 (D) by adding the following new subsection a

13 end thereof: 

14 "(d) Subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this s

15 tion do not apply to a single-officer court-mart

16 An officer who is detailed as a single-officer cou

17 martial shall determine all questions of law an

18 fact arising during the trial and, if the accused 

19 convicted, adjudge an appropriate sentence." 

20 (14) Section 852(c) (article 52(c» is amended 

21 ing out the words "All other questions" in the first 

22 tence and inserting the words "All other questions 

23 rulings (other than those to be decided by a law of

24 in place thereof. 


25 (15) Section 854 (article 54) is amended26 (A) by amending subsection (a) to read as fo

24 
15 

20 

25 

11 him if the court included members, or by the 

12 counsel in lieu of the law officer if the court 

13 did not include members. If both the presid

14 the law officer are unavailable for any of thos

reasons, the record shall be authenticated by 

16 members."; and 

17 (B) by striking out the words "and summar

18 subsections (b) and (c). 

19 (16) Section 934 (article 134) is amended by st

out the words ", special, or summary" and inserti

21 words "or special" in place thereof. 

22 (17) Section 936(a) (3) (article 136(a) (3)) is 

23 to read as follows: 

24 "(3) All single-officer general or special 

courts-martial." 
10 (3) by striking out the words The summary 

11 martial" wherever they appear therein and inse

12 words "The officer detailed for the purpose" in 

13 thereof. 

14 SEC. 3. Chapter 445 of title 10, United States C

15 amended16 (1) by amending the catchline of section 471

17 read as follows: 

18 "§ 4712. Digposition of effects of deceased pe

19 by the officer detaued~'; and 

20 (2) by striking out the following item in th

21 "4712. Disposition of effects of deceased pers

22 summary court-martial." 

23 and inserting the following item in place ther

24 "4712. Disposition of effects of deceased pers

25 by the officer detailed." 

,> '1f,~~ 

26. 
11 

12 

13 

and inserting the following item in place there

"9712. Disposition 	of effects of deceased per

by the officer detailed." 

632307-62-5 

PRINCIPAL FEATURES 

a. Elimination of Summary Oourt8-Martial. The J

l!nited States Court of Military Appeals as well as c

all three services are concerned with the stigma whic

conviction by summary court-martial for minor beha

tions. 'With the increased powers conferred upon comm

H.R. 7656 if enacted (Exhibit I), assuring effective disc

tions for minor infractions, there will no longer be any 

in the Armed Forces judicial structure for summary c

Furthermore, summary court-martial convictions wh

a permanent blot on the individual's military record an

into civilian life would be eliminated. 

b. Single Officer Oourt8. The proposed legislation, w

upon Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Proce

an accused to request and, if the convening authority co

be tried before a single qualified officer, instead of befo

member general or special court-martial. The adopt

procedure will result in a reduction of both time a

normally expended in trials. The rights of the accused 

are protected by the requirement that the officer actin

officer court be certified as qualified for that duty b

Advocate General of the service of which he is a mem

c. Increased Authority of Law Officer8. This legisl

that a law officer shall rule with finality upon all le

including the capacity of an accused to stand trial. I

the law officer to pass with finality upon all challenges. 

ent requirements of the Uniform Code of Military Just

martial must pass upon challenges for cause against t

members thereof. This provision has engendered ma

because to evaluate the matters affecting eligibility of a 

other members of the court-martial must be apprised o

1 Enactment of this bill is dependent upon enactment of the "An Bil

~ions on elimination of the summary court-martial are concerned. Th

provisions may be enacted independently. 
law officer of a special court-martial all of the au

responsibilities of a law officer of a general court-mar

30 
EXHIBIT III 


Cases Reviewed by Boards of Review 

Army ______________________________________________________

Navy ______________________________________________________

.~ir Force___________________________________________________

Coast Guard ________________________________________________

Total 

Cases Docketed with U.S. Court of Military Appe

.~rmy ______________________________________________________

Navy ______________________________________________________

.~ir Force____________________________________________________

Coast Guard_________________________________________________

Total 

For the Period 


July 1, 1960, to June 30, 1961 


Report 

01 the 

UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY 

January 1, 1961 to December 31, 1

632307-62-6 

system on all levels. 

The workload of the Court during the fiscal year 1

of a review of 979 cases. Of these, 954 were on petition o

filed in accordance with Article 67(b) (3), 24 were ce

Court by the various Judge Advocates General in acc

Article 67(b) (2), and one mandatory case involving a d

was filed under Article 67(b) (1) of the Uniform Cod

Justice. 

On May 1, 1961, the term of office of Judge George 

who served under a lO-year appointment, expired. 

On June 1,1961, President Kennedy announced from 

that he intended to appoint Representative Paul J. Kild

of Texas, as a judge of the Court to succeed Judge 

June 28, 1961, the Senate officially received the executiv

of Congressman Kilday, and such nomination was 

July 17, 1961. Thereafter, on September 25, 1961, the 

of office was administered to Paul J. Kilday by Mr. Ju

Clark in a formal ceremony in the courtroom of the U

Court of Military Appeals after which he immediately 

duties of his new office as Associate Judge of the Cour

A detailed analysis of the status of cases processed 

from its establishment in 1951 through June 30, 196

hereto as Exhibit A and a 10-year chronology of the 

the Court is included as Exhibit B. 

Respectfully submitted, 

ROBERT E. Q

O

HOllfER FERG

PAt;,"L J. KILD

EXHIBIT A 


Petition (Art. 67(b)(3»: 

Army---------------------- 7, 757 342 

~avy--------------------- 2,435 310 

Air Force ___________________ 2, 866 330 

Coast Guard ________________ 38 1 

Total ___________ ~ ________ 13,096 983 

Certificates (Art. 67 (b)(2» : 

Army---------------------­

~avy ____________.__________ 

Air Force __________ ~ ________ 

Coast Guard ________________ 

105 ·6 

151 23 

36 7 ~ 

6 0 

Total_~ __________________ 298 36 

Mandatory (Art. 67 (b) (1»: 

Army---------------------­

~avy-------.-------------- AJr Force___________________ 

Coast Guard ________________ 

31 

2 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

Total ____________________ 34 2 

Total cases docketed _______ 13,428 1,021 9

12 Flag officer cases; 1 Army and 1 Navy. 

J 16,182 cases actually IISSlgned docket numbers. 104 cases counted as both Petitio

6 cases Certified twice. 128 cases submitted as Petitions twice. 2 Mandatory cases fl

tory cases flied as Petitions after second Board of Review Oplnlon. 1 case submitted 

third time. 
])py

aside findings and sentence_ 2 1 

Remanded to Board of Review____________ • _____ _ 107 

Court action due (30 days)l_ 67 7~, 

Awaiting briefs 3___________ _ 29 19 

Certificates (Art. 67(b)(2»:

Opinions rendered _________ _ 282 29" 

Opinions pending3_________ _ 6 10 

Withdrawn _______________ _ 5 1 

Remanded________________ _ o 1 

Set for hearing8___________ _ o o 

Ready for hearing 3 _.:______ _ o 1 

Awaiting briefs 3___________ _ 6 6 

Mandatory (Art. 67(b)(1»: 

Opinions rendered _________ _ 33 2 

Opinions pending 1_________ _ o 1 

Remanded________________ _ 1 o 

Awaiting briefs 3___________ _ 1 o 

Opinions rendered: 

Petitions _________________ _ 1,115 113 

Motions to ])ismiss________ _ 10 o 

Motion to Stay Proceedings__ 1 o 

Per Curiam grants_________ _ 22 o 

Certificates ____________ .:. __ _ 245 27 

Certificates and PetitionS___ _ 35 2 

Mandatory _______________ _ 33 2 

Remanded_____ , __________ _ 49 6' 

Petition for a New TriaL___ _ I' o 

Petition for Reconsideratioli 

of Petition for New TriaL_ 1 o 

Motion to Reopen_________ _ 1 o 

TotaL _________________ _ 1,513 150 

aAs of June 30, 19.'.9, 1000, and 1961. 

'1,818 cases were disposed of by 1,727 published Opinions. 96 opinions were rende

57 Army oflicers, 20 Air Force Ofli0018, 13 Navy oflicers, 3 Marine Corps Oflicers, 2 

and 1 West Point Cadet. In addition 19 opinions were rendered In C38e8 Involvlng 

malnder concerned enlisted personnel. The Court remanded 47 casea In Fiscal Year 

In Fiscal Year 1000 by Order; and 21 cases In Fiscal Year 1961 by Order. 
g_ 

Remanded to Board of Review____________________ 106 9 

Total ___________________ 13,272 1,018 1,

Pending comp

June SO, 1969 June SO

Opinions pending________________________ _ 

Set for hearing __________________________ _ 30 

0 

Ready for hearing _______________________ _ 1 

Petitions granted-awaiting briefs _________ _ 15 

Petitions-Court action due 30 days _______ _ 67 

Petitions-awaiting briefs ________________ _ 29 

Certificates-awaiting briefs ______________ _ 6 

Mandatory-awaiting briefs ______________ _ 1 

Total ____________________________ _ 149 

EXHIBIT B 


tem of the Armed Forces of the United States. It unifie

in the field of military justice for the first time in histor

did not become effective untill\fay 31, 1951, thus giving 

ample opportunity to prepare for the changes which 

place. 

The Code evolved really as a result of public clamor 

",Var I at which time many apparent or actual injustices 

to light. At that time some major changes were made 

and, in general, public concern over such problems di

the short span of years between ",Vorld ",Vars I and II m

were made but with the advent of World ",Var II it 

obvious that drastic changes and improvements were in 

public became aware of many miscarriages of justice 

the press and through information received from relative

force·s. For the first time since the Civil War almost ev

the Nation had a personal stake in the soldiers, sailors

'''ho were doing battle for the survival of a free world. 

more and more people became aware of the importance 

system which while adequate to maintain military discipl

less would give rights to those accused of crime closely p

rights enjoyed by the civilian community. The Unif

Military Justice ,vas designed to perform this function

One of the most significant accomplishments of the U

of Military Justice ,vas the establishment of a supreme 

military composed entirely of civilians. The United St

Military Appeals, presently located at 5th and E Street

ington, D.C., is that Court. 

To this military tribunal President Harry S Trum

three men from civilian life. The Chief Judge was Rob

former Governor of Rhode Island and judge of the Su

in that State. Chief Judge Quinn was given a 15-year 

Associate Judge George ",V. Latimer was appointed for 

years and Associate Judge Paul ",Y. Brosman receive

appointment. All subsequent full appointments were to 
He was a member of the United States Diplomatic Intel

ice in England and France from 1917 to 1919, a memb

ate of the State of Rhode Island from 1923 to 1925 a

to 1933. He served as Lieutenant Governor of Rhode 

1933 to 1936, and as Governor of that State from 1937 

became a judge of the Superior Court of Rhode Island 

on :\Iay 1, 1941, and he served as legal officer of the Fir

trict from 1942 to 1945. In 1943 Judge Quinn was 

Secretary of the Navy Forrestal to collaborate with A

tyne, Esquire, of New York in reviewing the Articles 

ernment of the Navy. In 1944, he was sent to the 

Area by Secretary Forrestal to adjust certain extrater

lems with New Zealand, Australia, and other nations, 

the operation of military justice in that area. He wa

the U.S.S. Miza and was recommended by Admiral Tho

for the Legion of Merit for "giving advice and instruc

and stations in the Pacific Ocean Area, in combat area

combat ..." He was awarded the Commendation Med

by Secretilry Forrestal and also by Secretary Matthews. 

he was cited by the United States Army for Distingu

Judge Quinn is a member of the Democratic Party. 

Judge George ""V. Latimer was nominated by Presi

as judge of the United States Court of Military Appea

1951, for the term expiring May 1, 1961. His nomina

firmed by the Senate on June 19, 1951, and he took the 

on June 20, 1951. 

Judge Latimer was born in Draper, Utah. He at

schools in Salt Lake City, Utah. He received a Bach

Degree from the University of Utah in 1924. He was 

attorney in Salt Lake City from 1925 to 1940 and from 

He enrolled in the Reserve Officer Training Corps at the 

Utah in 1920. He was commissioned in the National G

and served that organization.in all ranks from second 

colonel. He was inducted into the Federal service as 

48 
gjg

States Court of Military Appeals on May 22, 1951, 

expiring May 1, 1956. He was confirmed by the Sena

1951, and he took the oath of office on June 20, 1951. 

Judge Brosman was born in Albion, Ill., on Nove

He received a Bachelor of Arts Degree from Indiana 

1926, a Bachelor of Laws Degree from the University 

1924, Doctor of Juridical Science Degree from Yale 

1929. He was admitted to law practice in Illinois in 

isiana in 1942. He was an instructor in business la

University in 1924 and 1925 and an assistant professo

university in 1925 and 1926. He was professor of l

University from 1926 to 1928, a Sterling Fellow in Law 

1928 to 1929 and professor of law at Tulane University 

1932. Between 1932 and 1951 he was professor of law, 

and dean at Tulane University Law School. Judge B

as a private in the United States Army in 'World 'W

commissioned a major in the Army in 1942 and was a

Army Air Force. He was chief of the Military Jus

Office of the Air Judge Advocate, Continental Air Com

Air Force Base, Long Island, in 1950 and 1951. He wa

Legion of Merit. Judge Brosman was a member of th

Party. 

The Uniform Code of Military Justice, the law whi

the United States Court of Military Appeals, specific

that not more than two of the judges of the Court could 

from the same political party, nor would any person 

appointment to the Court who was not a member of the 

eral court or of the highest court of a State. The Cong

to the President of the United States the prerogative 

from time to time one of the judges as Chief Judge. F

of original appointment to the writing of this chronolo

Robert E. Quinn has been the Chief Judge. 
hired by the Court. 

The Court did not officially meet again until July 9, 

time it approved the appointments of Phyllis 1. Rou

to Judge Brosman, and Ida M. Hansen as Secretary to J

On July 11, 1951, the Court met again and appro

Practice and Procedure" for practice before the Cou

On July 12, 1951, the Court moved its quarters from 

Building and established further temporary quarters 

Floor of the Internal Revenue Building at 10th an

A venue N'V., ,Yashington, D.C. . 

The charter members of the personnel of the Court 

they reported for duty are listed below. (It should be 

term "charter member" has been arbitrarily chosen by 

refer to the three original judges and any employee

the year 1951.) 

Robert E. Quinn, Chief Judge-June 20, 19

George 'Y. Latimer, Associate .Tudge-June 

Paul ,V. Brosman, Associate Judge-June 2

David L. Smith-June 25, 1951 

Ida M. Hansen-July 9, 1951 

Phyllis 1. Roule-.Tuly 9, 1951 

Richard L. Tedrow-July 16, 1951 

David F. Condon-July 16, 1951 

Alfred C. Proulx-July 30, 1951 

Louise Rowe-July 30, 1951 

Leonora Brown (Vaz)-July 31, 1951 

Anthony Ortega-August 3, 1951 

Beatrice M. Meyer-August 6, 1951 

Vincent Murray-August 31, 1951 

Margery Sarff-September 17, 1951 

Michael Katen-September 21, 1951 

Daniel ,Valker-October 1, 1951 

~fontroze P. ,Vilson-October 1, 1951 

Frederick R. Hanlon-October 15, 1951 

50 
g, , gy, 

K. Carlock, Assistant General Counsel for the Depar

Treasury. Thereafter, on the same day 43 officers an

torneys were sponsored by the original 4 members of the 

duly admitted to practice before the Court. 

The Code provides that review of cases by the Court 

three difl'erent ways. 

1. 	All cases in which the sentence, as affirmed by a 

view, atTects a general or flag officer or extend

2. 	All cases reviewed by a Board of Review whic

Advocate General orders forwarded to the Cou

Appeals for review. 

3. 	All cases reviewed by a Board of Review in whi

tion of the accused and on good cause shown

Military Appeals has granted a review. 

In any case reviewed by it, the Court of Military App

only with respect to the findings and sentence as approv

vening authority and as affirmed or set aside as incorrect 

Board of Review. The Court may take action only with r

ters of law. . 

The first case docketed with the Court was United Sta

•11cSorley. The opinion in this case was released on Nove

The petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Th

be found at page 84 of Volume 1 of the Court's report

The first case heard by the Court was United Sta

McCrary, Private, United States Air Force (Docket No

argued on September 7, 1951, had been certified to the 

Judge Advocate General of the Air Force. On argu

Abner E. Lipscomb represented the accused, McCrary, a

Colonel Jean F. Rydstrom and Captain ·William E. Sh

sented the United States. 

The case of United States v. McCrary, 1 USCMA 

first opinion released by the Court. This occurred on 

1951. Judge Latimer wrote the majority opinion in 

Brosman concurred with a separate opinion. Chief 
entrance to the Court, in the Clerk's Office, in the ch

judge, and in the Courtroom itself. 

In the first year of the Court's existence, through 

the Court released 97 opinions. In that period 996 case

with the Court. In the next fiscal year, that is, the 

1952, to June 30, 1953, the Court docketed the larg

cases for any year up to the present date. In that y

were docketed. Thereafter, the number of cases filed 

leveled off so that as of June 30, 1961, 15,182 cases had 

an average in a 10-year period of 1,518 cases per ye

The decrease in the number of cases may be attrib

factors. First, the decisions of the Court have estab

on many points so that many of the errors committe

tribunals have now been corrected. Also the number 

armed forces has decreased each year thus cutting dow

ber of courts-martial. For example, on July 1, 19

approximately 1,600,000 personnel in the Army and in 

July 1, 1951, to June 30, 1952, the Army held 8,037 

martial. On July 1, 1959, the personnel of the Army ha

to approximately 873,000 and in the year July 1, 1959, to 

the Army held 2,060 general courts-martial. In add

be remembered that in the early stages of the Court

United States was involved in the Korean conflict. 

These reasons, plus others, such as the awarding of 

discharges in lieu of a court-martial, a practice wh

deplores, have tended to reduce the number of cases 

the Court of Military Appeals. 'While the case-load ha

some idea of the tremendous work accomplished by t

early years can be gleaned from the fact that it is s

busiest appellate courts in the country. 

The opinions of the Court were originally publis

graphed form and then printed in pamphlet form b

ment Printing Office. Contacts were made with pu

and in early 1952 a contract was made with The Law

52 
also contains the Rules of Practice and Procedure 

rules have been modified three times since they were ori

on July 11, 1951. The Rules were revised March 1, 

1953, and January 1, 1959. Under the present case-

completes about one volume of cases a year. 

On April 12, 1952, the Court submitted an "Interim 

United States Court of Military Appeals" to the 

Armed Services of the Senate and House of Represe

the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the 

Air Force, and Treasury pursuant to the requirements 

Code of Military Justice. This report was made solel

and covered the period May 31, 1951, to March 1, 1952

thereafter the Annual Reports have been submitted 

with the Reports of the Army, Navy, Air Force, an

(Treasury). Such reports were made on a calendar ye

for the year 1952 where, after the interim report, t

was filed for the period May 31, 1951, to May 31, 19

the Annual Reports the Court and the respective servic

ual reports and also a joint report. However, the jo

omitted in the report for the year January 1, 1960, t

1960. There were several reasons for the omission but t

cant was that the Army, in its report, indicated it no 

with all the recommendations that had been made 

therefore submitted its own new recommendations for 

Uniform Code. Since these changes had not been su

Code Committee beforehand there had been no discu

merits or demerits of such proposals. This eliminated 

of agreement on any matters of substance in a joint re

In 1952 the Court took under consideration the ap

Civilian Committee to study the progress made unde

Code of Military Justice during the first 2 years of it

tion with a view to recommending improvements wher

Thus on January 15, 1953, the Court established the Co

consisting of the following distinguished lawyers: 'W
to act upon the various earlier recommendations. 

After the Court moved to its permanent quarters 

Streets N'Y., 'Yashington, D.C., in October 1952, the gre

the sessions of the Court were held at that address. H

were sessions held for various reasons at other location

On August 17, 1954, a special admission session was he

tion with the Annual Meeting of the American Bar Asso

United States Courthouse in Chicago, Ill. Chief Jud

Judges Latimer and Brosman were present. At th

applicants were admitted. This was the largest adm

held in the 10-year history of the Court. 

On July 19, 1956, a special admission session was 

George G. :Meade, Md. Judge Latimer was present as pr

Fifty-six applicants were admitted. 

The next special session took place less than a month 

cally August 15, 1956, at Ross Auditorium, Great Lakes 

Great Lakes, Ill. Chief Judge Quinn presided and 2

were admitted. 

On August 22, 1956, a special admission session was h

Hall, Fort Benning, Ga. Judge Latimer presided and 

were admitted. 

On August 28, 1956, a special admission session w

United States District Court for the Northern Dist

Dallas, Tex., in conjunction with the Annual Meeting of 

Bar Association. Chief Judge Quinn, Judge Latime

Ferguson presided. One hundred and forty-eight ap

admitted. 

On November 19, 1956, a special admission session w

Bar Association Building in New York City. Judges 

Ferguson presided. One hundred and seventy-six ap

admitted to the bar. 

On JUly 27, 1957, a special session was held in the Con

Headquarters Third Air Force, Victoria Park Estate, 

54 
As stated previously, the United States Court of Mil

has been located at 5th and E Streets N1V., 1Vashing

the past 81;2 years. The building occupied by the Court w

by the Congress by Act of May 30, 1908 (35 Stat. 544

of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. 

was established by act of February 9, 1893 (27 Stat. 434

act of June 7, 1934 (48 Stat. 926), the title of the cour

to "United States Court of Appeals for the District o

Under the act of June 25,1948 (62 Stat. 870), the titl

was changed to "United States Court of Appeals fo

of Columbia Circuit." ·When that Court moved to th

house at 3d Street and Constitution A venue NW., the C

tary Appeals took over the building. 

The original authorization of the Congress provided 

tion of the building under the supervision of the Ar

Capitol at a limit of cost of $200,000. Subsequent ap

totaling $240,792 for construction, and, in addition

furnishings were provided. 

The building, located in Judiciary Square, was c

occupied October 1, 1910. 

Pursuant to the provisions of section 404 of the Jud

priations Act, 1953, jurisdiction over the building wa

from Architect of the Capitol to the General Services A

effective October 1, 1952. 

The United States Court of Military Appeals moved 

ing on October 31, 1952. 

Only one of the original appointees to the Court, 

Quinn, is still on the bench at this time. On Decem

Judge Brosman died suddenly of a heart attack in his 

the second floor (Room 217) of the Court's building 

Streets mv., Washington, D.C. The Honorable Hom

former United States Senator from Michigan, was 

President Dwight D. Eisenhower on January 30, 19

unexpired 5-year term of Judge Brosman, and for a 
County, Mich., in 1929 and was elected to successive te

year 1941. He sat as a one-man grand jury in 1Vayne C

from August 1939 to the end of 1942. He was United S

from Michigan from 1943 to 1955. He was United State

to the Philippines from March 22,1955, to AprilS, 1956

he resigned that position to accept appointment to the 

Court of Military Appeals. Judge Ferguson is aRepub

On February 15, 1956, memorial proceedings were hel

room at 10:00 a.m. with Chief Judge Quinn and J

presiding. Respects were paid to the late Judge B

marks made by Chief Judge Quinn, Brigadier Gener

Kidrter, United States Air Force, Major General Euge

United States Army, Rear Admiral Ira H. Nunn, 

Navy, Major General Reginald C. Harmon, United Sta

Honorable Fred C. Scribner, Jr., Department of the Tre

senting the United States Coast Guard), and Honora

Bernays 1Viener, Secretary, The Judge Advocates Assoc

Brosman's chair was draped in black for the ceremon

On February 25, 1957, a meeting was held in the C

presentation of a bronze plaque in the memory of the la

W. Brosman. Chief Judge Quinn and Associate Ju

and Ferguson sat on the bench. The officers and dir

Judge Advocates Association took chairs reserved fo

well of the Courtroom. The public section of the C

filled with other friends of the late Judge Brosman, inc

of the United States Court of Appeals for the Distric

Circuit, the United States District Court for the Distric

The Judge Advocate General and the Assistant Ju

General of the Air Force, and distinguished members 

the Court of Military Appeals. Chief Judge Qui

Colonel Nicholas Allen, President of The Judge Ad

ciation, who gave a eulogy of Judge Brosman and pres

plaque to the Court on behalf of The Judge Advocate

Colonel Thomas H. King, First Vice-President of the A

S6 

Dean and Teacher of the Law 


Judge Advocate, U.S. Air Force 


By his Associates in the 


Judge Advocates Association 


Chief Judge Quinn thanked the members of the As

accepted the plaque on behalf of the Court, noting tha

given a place of prominence in the Courthouse. He pra

of Judge Brosman and lauded him personally as an able 

and a friend. 

Judge Latimer spoke of Judge Brosman as a friend

gable worker, a stylistic writer and a judge whose judgm

Judge Ferguson stated that although he had not 

Brosman personally he had a very high regard for Jud

opinions and work in the Court. Thereupon, the Cou

The plaque was later placed in the stairwell of the Cou

first and second floors where it remains to this day. 

On November 18, 1958, the Court noted with regret 

Chief Judge Bolitha J. Laws by adopting the following 

"The United States Court of Military Appeals notes th

of Honorable Bolitha J. Laws, Chief Judge of the United 

Court for the District of Columbia with deep regrets. In 

Nation suffers the loss of a man of learning, industry, wis

standing, who, dedicated to the cause of justice, served his tr

well. He will forever be recognized as an able and outstandi

will long be remembered in gratitude by his fellow countrym

Copies of this resolution were forwarded by the Cler

to Mrs. Bolitha J. Laws of Washington, D,C., and to 

Dickinson Letts, Chief Judge of the United States D

for the District of Columbia. 

On May 27, 1959, the Court, with Chief Judge Quin

Latimer and Ferguson present, adjourned out of re

Foster Dulles, former Secretary of State, who died Su

1959, and who was to be buried on the afternoon of May 

held in the National Cathedral and at Arlington Natio

On October 20, 1959, the Court established a grieva
On March 24, .1961, the Court, in regular session, re

missioner Daniel F. Carney who introduced to the 

Edward T. Johnson, United States Army, Chief of th

Judiciary Division, who was to be retired March 31

Judge Quinn, Judge Latimer, and Judge Ferguson a

Colonel Johnson on his fine work on the law officer 

wished him good fortune in his retirement. 

On May 1, 1961, the term of office of Judge George 'V

served under a 10-year Presidential appointment, expi

In the first 10 years of its operations through June 

Court admitted 9,091 applicants to the Bar of the Court

the Court granted honorary membership to 25 lawyers 

countries. The countries include Sweden, Thailand

Burma, Vietnam, Taiwan, Korea, and Nicaragua. 

In addition to the 3 judges, the Court has a staff of 

39 employees, all civilians. To assist the judges in the 

many cases received by the Court, there are at pre

Commissioners and 1 Chief Commissioner. Mr. Richa

has been the Chief Commissioner since he came on duty 

in July 1951. It is the function of the Commissioners 

cases as they are received in the Court. A case is consi

when a petition is filed by the accused, or a certificate 

of the Judge Advocates General, or when an Assignm

(in a mandatory case) is filed, and a reply to the initia

been filed. The date of receipt is significant because th

receipt of the reply in each case, has thirty (30) days in 

that is, either grant, deny, or dismiss the proceeding. T

pleadings, and the record of trial are sent to the jud

careful consideration make the final decision as to th

taken. If the case is denied, then normally that is th

appellate review in the military system. The only ex

would, under ordinary circumstances, be a petition fo

tion filed with the Court. If the petition is granted o

either one certified by a Judge Advocate General or a m

58 
jgg

After the opinions are released the parties may req

modification or reconsideration of the Court's action. 

a petition must be filed with the Court within five (

reCeipt of notice of entry of an order, decision or 

Court. Mandates (on opinion cases only) are issued tw

after the release of an opinion. Issuance of the mand

Close the legal appellate review of the case in the Court u

has ordered further action by one of the lower echelo

martial system. Thus, further action ona case by a b

in the office of The Judge Advocate General is usually 

the Court again. . ' 

In addition to the employees in the immediate ch

judges and also the office of the Comniissioners, ther

as in all courts,a Clerk's Office. Alfred C. Proulx i

Court and he has held that, position since he came wit

JUly 1951. In addition, 'that office has a Deputy Cle

clerical employees.', The Clerk's office is responsible f

and recording of all papers and pleadings filed with 

action taken by the Court on any case coming before it

The Court has a very fine legal library on' the'thi

building. Numbering approximately 13,000 volume

holdings include basic reference works common to bo

law libraries; legal volumes covering the Federal and 

decisions ofthe Supreme Court of the United States, '

and State courts as recorded in the West Publishing Re

pamphlets and loose-leaf services necessary for the op

Court; and voluminous material from the military 's

nection with the military laws and regUlations coming w

of the Uniform Code of Military Justice; as well as 

hensive. collections in such specializations as crimina

law, law of evidence, certain aspects of international law

there are smaller personal collections of legal reference 

in the chambers of each of the three jUdges. 
Kilday. 

In its 10-year history the Court has made a profou

military justice. During that period, the Court has ha

for the work it is doing in promoting a fair and equi

justice system. There have also been critics on the o

feel the Court has changed the system so radically 

discipline has been adversely affected . 

.To all who have an interest in military justice, an

include everyone, it can be stated without equivocation 

has done, and is doing, what the people of the United S

their duly~elected representatives have authorized it 

justice is done, discipline cannot suffer. Discipline is 

command. When there is a lack of discipline, there is 

mand. Ifthose in command are unable to achieve a 

discipline, it constitutes persiflage to attempt to trans

to a military justice system which is in essence the same 

counterpart. It should be noted, however, that there is 

that discipline actually has suffered during the ope

Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

In October 1959, General L. L. Lemnitzer, Chairma

Chiefs of Staff, stated: 

"I believe that the Army and the American people ca

the positive strides that have been made in the administrat

tion of military law.under the Uniform Code of Military Jus

today has achieved the highest state of discipline and go

history." 

In September 1960, General. G. H. Decker, Chief of 

States Army, stated: 

-"Today our Army has the highest state of discipline 

conduct in our history. We have never had better morale w

The Court of Military Appeals looks back with prid

year history. Its work is not yet accomplished-it can 

the law is a living thing. Amendments and improv

law will always be possible. . The enforcement and int

60 
July 1, 1961. 

Report 

of 


THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERA

of 


THE ARMY 


January 1, 1961 to December 31, 19

______ _____________________ _ 

of general court-martial trials decreased for the eig

year. The number of court-martial trials for fiscal year 

Strength-Total Army-923,828) follows: 

Convicted Ac

Gener~ ~ 1, 768 

Special______ ~ ______ • ________ ~ ______ _ 22,108 1

Surnrnary____________ ------- ________ _ 36,499 1

Tot~-All Courts-MartiaL__________ 60,375 3

Records of trial by general court-martial received b

Advocate General during Fiscal Year 1961: 

For review under Article 66______________________________

For examination under Article 69 _________________________

Total_____________________________________________

'Vorkload of the Army Boards of Review during the 

On hand at beginning of period___________________________

Referred for review_____________________________________

Total_____________________________________________

Reviewed_______________________________________________

Pending at close of period________________________________

Total_____________________________________________

·This figure Includes 14 cases which were referred to Boards of Review 

under Article 69, Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

Of the 1,389 accused whose cases were reviewed by Boa

pursuant to Article 66, and completed in accordance w

from 1 July 1960 through 30 June 1961, 1,056 (76.03 perc

representation by appellate defense counsel before t

Review. The records in the cases of 386 accused were 

the United States Court of Military Appeals pursuan

subdivisions of Article 67b. These accused constituted 

of those whose cases were reviewed by Boards of Revi

period. 
jp

g

authority which will permit them to make adequate dis

type of offense now referred to summary courts-martia

be abolished. This concept was approved by the Unite

of Military Appeals in its last Annual Report. New t

including legally qualified single-officer courts and 

martial with law officers, are needed. Law officers ch

responsibility of insuring that established legal stand

tained during trial require additional authority to perf

tions properly. Legislation designed to accomplish t

was prepared as a joint effort with the other service Ju

General. This legislation was approved by the Departm

and other agencies and has been sent to the Congress. 

At the request of the United Stat~ Court of Military 

at a meeting of the Code Committee, my office has draf

to permit pretrial hearings by law officers to dispose o

matters before the members of the court assemble, th

valuable time of these individuals, and to permit other 

of court-martial procedures. This legislation has bee

the Court. 

Other changes to the Code should also be effected and 

considered. Formal pretrial investigations should be 

oriented and more in keeping with the methods em

civilian jurisdictions in the United States. Article 

amended to provide a definition of the word "stateme

clarify military law in this respect, and I believe that 

found in Rule 62 (1) of the Uniform Rules of Evidence w

purpose. We should adopt United States district cou

will permit disposition, at the trial level, of some of 

considered by appellate bodies, and the convening autho

relieved of the requirement of acting on findings and 

only with the sentence. Certain of the punitive a

changes. Additionally, I am of the opinion that codal 

required to make it clear that military sentences to co

66 
ygp

have been filled during the past year by eminently q

and practicing attorneys residing throughout the Un

On 1 January 1961, the Army Judge Advocates Ju

ence was created. Those officers of the Judge Advo

Corps are members whose assignments require the

judicial duties at the trial or appellate level. The p

Conference is to discuss and recommend methods of 

judicial aspects of the administration of military jus

session of the Conference was held on 28 and 29 Se

The Conference initiated work on Supplementary Ru

and Procedure in general courts-martial which are d

prove procedures and to bring court-martial practices 

of the Federal courts. 

No system of law is better than the lawyers who 

system. The quality of the legal service which The Ju

General's Corps renders to today's Army is geared, 

the talent and experience of the individual judge advoc

up the Corps. From Korea to the Pentagon to Iran, t

lawyers of the Army engaged in the practice of th

of military law are unmatched, as a group, for legal s

lem is too broad or too complicated for the dedicated s

The administration of military justice and the exec

military legal responsibilities are today a matter of 

Army and of pride in the serving judge advocates. 

The future, however, is uncertain. Despite an upsw

year in the retention rate of obligated tour officer

number of junior officers who have accepted Regular A

sions, mandatory losses of experienced officers over the 

will seriously threaten the capacity of the Corps to fulf

We are already handicapped by a lack of sufficient

officers. 

Many solutions have been proposed which are design

an incentive to qualified attorneys to accept Regular Arm
are ever alert to place the opportunities of a Judge Ad

before inter~sted groups. 

Although our retention rate of obligated tour officers 

18 percent for fiscal year 1961, caution must be exercised 

this figure. It is strongly affected, I think, by our policy 

obligated tour officers who will extend their categories to 

areas of their choice. The increased retention rate s

accepted as a trend, but rather as the immediate result o

ment policy. The end results will not be known until 

category officers have completed their required tours. 

In fiscal year 1961, 30 officers accepted Regular Army a

a striking increase. It should be noted, however, tha

same period the Corps lost 29 experienced career offic

impossible to estimate how many of the new appointee

with us for 30 years. 'With a requirement for 786 Regu

ficers, we have only 520, a shortage of 266. 

In order to tap every possible source of legal talent 

in June 1961, the Judge Advocate General's Excess Lea

Under this plan highly qualified Regular Army officers, w

10 years active service, and Distinguished Military Gra

Reserve Officers Training Corps who have been commiss

basic branch, are detailed to our Corps. They are th

excess leave (without pay and allowances) while they p

study necessary to gain a legal education. Three officer

participating inthis program and an encouraging numb

applications for entry into the program in the months 

in the period covered by this report, three 'Women's Ar

ficers who are attorneys have been detailed to our Corp

Although the personnel picture has improved slightly

opinion that prompt action must be forthcoming to pro

incentive so that lawyers will seek a judge advocate caree

absolutely essential that legal training at Government ex

be availa.ble for career officers. 

68 
Course, now in residence, began instruction on 11 Sep

Officers from the Philippines, Viet-Nam, the Repub

Nicaragua, Thailand, and Burma attended courses at 

During 1961, the school provided nonresident trainin

Justice and other military legal subjects for approx

reserve judge advocates. The school continued its su

USAR school program ,,,ith distribution of instruction

77 USAR schools. These schools began in September 

the first year reserve duty phase of the new Career Cour

mately 1,000 judge advocates participated in the USAR 

gram, and 1,123 were enrolled in the Extension Cours

Annual active duty training for all personnel assig

Advocate General Service Organizations (TOE 27-500

ducted at Fort Sheridan, Ill., from 9 July to 23 July 

conduct of this training was accomplished by reserve p

guidance from the school. Guest speakers presented 

ments and trends in various fields of military law. 

Four issues of the Military Law Review were publishe

period. In addition to scholarly articles, comments, 

interest to judge advocates, this publication contains the 

of recent United States Court of Military Appeals de

A new training film entitled "Evidentiary Problems an

niques" was completed during this period. It is designed 

Judge Advocate GeneraFs Corps officers and nonlawy

court-martial trial techniques. 

In conclusion, the work of the Code Committee du

few months has been encouraging. I believe that prog

made toward a common agreement among the members 

mittee on those changes to the Uniform Code of Militar

are most urgently needed for the effective administratio

justice in the Services. However, progress and result

same. In a small war, with our well-trained reserve and 
70 
Report 

of 


THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENER

of 


THE NAVY 


January 1, 1961 to December 31, 

Corps charging servicemen with offenses-military a

demeanor and felony-totalled 45,042 in fiscal year 196

to 46,281 in fiscal year 1960, an overall decrease of 1,239 c

courts-martial for fiscal year 1961 totalled 500 cases, as c

805 cases in fiscal year 1960. Since, normally, general 

involve serious military offenses or felonies, this decrea

is deserving of special attention since within the sam

incidence of civil felonies in metropolitan areas as re

Uniform Crime Reports by the Federal Bureau of Inve

increased some 10 percent. 

In last year's report, I noted a trend away from the g

martial in favor of the special courts-martial. This t

have continued into the year just past despite the dec

case load. Special courts-martial for fiscal year 1961 t

as compared to 15,830 in 1960. Summary courts-m

28,953 in fiscal year 1961 as compared to 29,646 in fisca

Navy Boards of Review during fiscal year .1961 recei

369 general courts-martial and 2,992 special courts-

pending cases at the end of the fiscal year were 136 a

151 at the commencement of the year. Boards modified 

112 of the cases reviewed. Fifty-four percent of the 

cases were received for review by Boards of Review re

sentation by appellate defense counsel. During the fiscal 

tions were acted upon by the U.S. Court of Military App

total 291 petitions were denied and review was grante

The Judge Advocate General certified seven cases to the 

this period. 

The JAG Task Forces (East and West Coast) crea

meet Command's urgent requirements for legal serv

above their own capabilities, continue to function. Alth

in strength, within their numerical capabilities they c

spond to requests for special services whenever and wher

·Whether as counsel for a court of inquiry, for a par
to serve the entire naval establishment. 

In order to keep our lawyers in the field current in 

matters, my Assistant Judge Advocate General for M

has developed a Kiplinger type newsletter which he d

Navy and Marine la·wyers in the field. This informal 

advises the field of new developments, new decisions, e

committed, pitfalls that are apt to be encountered

Response to this type newsletter has been most favorab

·With but minor modifications, the Manual for Cou

remained unchanged since its effective date in 1951

10-year period, the United States Court of Militar

handed down numerous decisions which have rendered 

fied or qualified various provisions of the Manual. 

these changes has been such that, in the hands of a 

Manual is now a poor tool for use in the administrat

Justice. Since the nonlawyer is the prime user of t

situation is fast becoming alarming. As an interim 

office, working with the staff of the U.S. Naval Justic

piled a list of the Manual provisions that had been m

law. This compilation was published as the August 

the JAG Journal for distribution to the field. Over 

this one issue of the JAG Journal have been distribu

mand continues. I am constrained to observe that much 

directed against the Uniform Code of Military Just

the fact that the Manual for Courts-Martial is no 

purports to be. In the words of the Commander-i

Pacific Fleet, "Many of the difficulties which have at

ministration of naval justice during this period [the 

might have been avoided or diminished by giving o

sharp up-to-date tool with which to work." One of t

of military justice lies in the complete revision of t

it is my recommendation that such a task be undertak

services and the Coast Guard at the earliest practic

74 
program. This legislation was not, however, introduc

the year representations were made by members of th

House Armed Services Committee that amendments to 

Code of Military Justice should be sought by means 

controversial bills rather than a single bill containing se

Consequently, conferences were commenced between r

of the Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy a

to formulate such small bills. A compromise bill wh

crease the authority of a commanding officer to impos

punishment was agreed upon by all representatives a

number one priority with respect to any changes that mi

to the Code. Additionally two other compromise bills 

which would (a) realign the composition of courts-marti

the summary court-martial and (b) create a substanti

volving bad checks. The bill relating to nonjudicial pu

introduced as H.R. 7656 and the bill relating to bad che

duced as H.R. 7657. The other compromise bill propose

resentatives of the Judge Advocates General was not in

action was taken with regard to H.R. 7656 but H.R. 765

into law. 

The enactment of H.R. 7657 as Article 123a of the U

of Military Justice demanded changes in the Manua

Martial. Representatives of my office together with re

of the Judge Advocates General of the Army and A

working out the details of an Executive order that w

the changes in the Manual. 

During the year the publication "1955 Naval Suppl

Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951" was su

publication entitled "Manual of the Judge Advocate Gen

lations appearing in Chapter I of the 1955 Naval Sup

revised and reissued as Chapter I of the JAG Manual. 

of Chapter I was accomplished with a view to makin

more concise the regulations governing the administratio
pp

and procedure which are designed to train officers an

sonnel of the armed forces who have not been trained i

a part of the continuing program for common special

armed forces personnel the Justice School trains enl

service personnel of all armed services in closed mic

reporting as well as military justice. The faculty of t

sists of 15 officer lawyers and 8 enlisted instructors. 

the law specialists and enlisted personnel of the Nav

includes one officer lawyer and one enlisted instructor 

Corps and one Army and one Air Force enlisted instru

The personnel problem has remained acute during 

demand for legal services in the Navy has exceeded th

ment of new lawyers. The majority of new officers 

serving their obligated service. 

Early in the year the Secretary of Defense recom

Congress enactment of a bill to establish a Judge Advo

Corps in the Navy. This bill was approved by the curre

tion and introduced as R.R. 12347 by Mr. Vinson on 

The American Bar Association, the Federal Bar As

Judge Advocates Association, The Reserve Officers A

Naval Reserve Association as well as many State and 

ciations are on record favoring a JAG Corps in the 

on the Corps bill, like action on the amendments to 

Code of Military Justice is long overdue. Enactmen

lation will provide professional status for lawyers in 

make a naval legal career more attractive to young la

w. C. MOTT, 

Rear Admiral, US

The Judge Advoc

76 
Report 

01 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERA

01 ' 

THE AIR FORCE 

January 1, 1961 to December 31, 19

the period of this report follows: 

Total________________________________________________

387 by general court-martial; 807 by special court-martial. 

The board of review modified findings of guilty in 35 of these 

In addition, the following table shows the number 

trial received in the Office of The Judge Advocat

examination pursuant to Article 69 during the same 

Total________________________________________________

b. The following table shows the workload of the bo

during the same period: 

On hand at beginning of period_______________________________

Referred for review_________________________________________

Reviewed___________________________________________________

Pending at close of period____________________________________

c. From 1 July 1960 through 30 June 1961, 60 percent 

whose cases were received in the Office of The Judge A

eral for review pursuant to Article 66 requested rep

appellate defense counsel before boards of review. 

a. Based upon the number of cases reviewed by bo

during this period, 21.6 percent were forwarded to the 

Court of Military Appeals pursuant to the three subd

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

forwarded, all except seven were based upon petitions 

for grant of review by the Court of Military Appeals

during the period were certified by The Judge Adv

Petitions were granted by the Comt of Military Appe

period in 10 percent of the cases which were petitioned

of the total number of cases reviewed by the boards of 
, 

(), p

Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 27 (b), to perf

of trial and defense counsel, who are made available to 

capacities on general and special courts-martial conv

The Commander, Field Command, Defense Atomic Su

had previously been empowered by the Secretary of Defe

general courts-martial and to refer for trial the cases 

any of the armed forces assigned or attached to or on 

command. 

c. On 22 November 1961, in accordance with paragra

6a, Manual for Courts-Martial, 1951, the Secretary of 

with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Navy, 

Commander, Air Forces Iceland, to appoint officers 

qualified under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 

to perform the duties of law officer, and the Uniform 

tary Justice, Article 27 (b) , to perform the duties of tri

counsel, who are made available to serve in such capaci

courts-martial convened by the Commander, Air Force

3. Although the Department of Defense legislative 

amend title 10, United States Code, as relates to the U

of Military Justice" (so-called "Omnibus Bill") was 

the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the 

the Senate on 13 January 1961, it was not introduced. 

portion of the proposal relating to a specific statutory 

the prosecution of bad-check offenses was introduced 

on 14 June 1961 and subsequently enacted as Public 

This act will become effective on 1 March 1962, as Article 

Code of Military Justice. 

4. Legislation increasing the authority of designate

under Article 15 was introduced as H.R. 7656, but was 

by the Congress. 

5. During the calendar year period, Major Gene

Kuhfeld, The Judge Advocate General, and Major G

Tidwell, Jr., the Assistant Judge Advocate General, m

80 
of young company grade officers, serving only a 3-year 

remains low. Although departmental efforts to increas

rate are continuing, there is still a high personnel tu

indication that the situation will improve. 

7. As in the past, The Judge Advocate General's O

and arranged for the publication of Decisions of the 

Court of Military Appeals and selected Decisions o

review of all the services in the Court-Martial Repo

service was also performed. in regard to publishing le

the Army and Air Force Exchange Service in the Dige

ALBERT M. KUHFE

Major General, US

The Judge Advoc

Reporf 

of 

THE GENERAL COUNSEL 

of 

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASU

(UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

January 1, 1961 to December 31, 19

Justice. 

The table below shows the type and number of Coast 

martial cases as determined by the number of trial record

appellate review or for filing during the fiscal year 19

poses of comparison the figures for the two preceding f

also shown. 

1961 

General courts-martial_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4 

Special courts-martial_ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ 162 

Summary courts-martiaL___ _ _ ___ ___ ___ _ _______ __ 586 

Totals___________________________________ 752 

The current year's total not only represents a substantial 

the totals of the two preceding fiscal years, but also from 

of 831 courts per year for the 5 calendar years 1954-58. 

Of the general court-martial cases, three required r

Board of Review pursuant to Article 66 and one by the Ge

pursuant to Article 69. Of the special courts-martial, 1

final by the supervisory review of a general court-mart

authority and 35 by appellate action of the General C

remaining 21 special courts-martial required review by 

Review. Of the 586 summary courts-martial, final super

was accomplished by the General Counsel in 25 cases, 

mandant of the Coast Guard in 10 cases and by a general 

convening authority in the field in the remaining 551 cas

During the period of this report the Treasury Departm

Review received 3 general courts-martial and 21 special c

for review under Article 66 (b) of the Code. In only 

cases did the accused petition the Court of Military Ap

ther review; and in this case the petition was denied. 

reviewed by the Board of Review represent the most 

Coast Guard's court-martial cases. 'While punitive di

adjudged in all 24 cases, in 10 instances the convening 
cases was 4.4 months. The convening authority mit

finement in four of the cases; the Board of Revie

confinement in only one case. The confinement actu

each of these cases was, of course, further reduced by 

good conduct time allowance. The· Board of Revi

rehearings on either findings or sentence, and set no tr

In pursuance of the requirements of Article 6 (a) 

senior member of the staff of the Chief Counsel, U.S

conducted an inspection during the past fiscal year 

legal offices located in Long Beach and San Francisco, 

1Vash., and J unea u, Alaska. 

ROBERT 

Genera

86 u.s. GOVERNMENT PRI