and 


THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GE 

I the 


ARMED FORCES 


and the 


GENERAL COUNSEL 


01 the 


DEPARTMENT OF TH REA

PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF ILITARY JUST

For e Peri 

January I, 1958, 10 Dece er 31, 1

PRO iI . THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL: SCH

LIBRARY 

WM. S. fULTON 

ollhe 


SENATE AND OF THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 


and 10 Ihe 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ond 

SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY 

and Ihe 

SECRETARIES OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF T

ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORCE 

PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 


For The Period 


January I, 1958, 10 Decemher 31, 1958 

Contents 

JOINT REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITA

AND THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL OF THE ARM

AND THE GENERAL COUNSel OF THE DEPARTMEN

TREASURY 

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY A

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE A

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NA

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE AI

REPORT OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTME

TREASURY (UNITED STATES COAST GUARD) 

Joint Report 

01 the 

UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY APP

ancl 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL 

OF THE ARMED FORCES 


ancl 

THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

January 1, 1958, to December 31, 1958 
(g)qg

States Court of Military Appeals, the Judge Advocates 

the Armed Forces, and the General Counsel of the Dep

the Treasury to meet annually to survey the operations o

and to prepare a report to the Committees on Armed Serv

Senate and of the House of Representatives, to the Secre

fense, and to the Secretaries of the Departments with reg

status of military justice and to the manner and means b

can be improved by legislative enactment. 

The Judges of the United States Court of Military A

Judge Advocates General and the General Counsel of the D

of the Treasury, hereinafter referred to as the Code Comm

met and conferred during the period of this report. The 

mittee is not urging the consideration of additional recomm

at this time other than those set out in its last annual rep

endar year 1957. These suggested amendments, with cer

ments, are identical with those originally proposed in the 19

Report and reaffirmed in all subsequent annual reports to 

purposes of availability, these recommended changes are 

Exhibit A with an accompanying Statement of Purpose, 

cipal features, and Sectional Analysis. It is hoped that th

will resume hearings held in 1956 on these recommendatio

purpose of enacting into law those changes it believes wou

beneficial to the sound administration and effectiveness o

form Code of Military Justice. 

Under consideration by the Code Committee is a repo

during the latter part of this reporting period from its app

committee, composed of a representative of each branch of 

Services and the Court. This subcommittee first met in the 

of 1958 to conduct a critical review of the operations of t

all levels. From this continuing study other changes m

ommended for consideration and action by the Congress. 

This annual report, as well as previous annual report

statistical information based on the close of business of th
outline the volume of court-martial cases subject to app

during this reporting period. Exhibit B is attached to 

the number of court-martial cases of all types tried thr

world and processed since the Uniform Code of Military 

into effect. 

Respectfully submitted. 

ROBERT E. QUINN, 

Oh

GEORGE W. LATIMER, 

HOMER FERGUSON, 

GEORGE W. HICKMAN, JR

The Judge Advocate Ge

United Sta

CHESTER WABO, 

The Judge Advocate Ge

United Sta

REGINALD C. HARMON, 

The Judge Advocate Ge

United State8 

NELSON P. ROSE, 

General 0 o

Department of the 

2 
EXHIBIT A 

lW2689-lS9-2 

General Counsel of the Department of the Treasury, made 

annual meetings as required by Section 867 (g) of Title 

States Code. In essence, this proposal is designed to elim

of the procedural difficulties and delays which have arise

Uniform Code of Military Justice since May 31, 1951, and 

for more prompt and more efficient administration of mili

both from the standpoint of the individual and the Gover

PRINCIPAL FEATURES 

1. Single-officer courts. The proposed legislation, whi

upon Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 

mit an accused to request and, if the convening authori

thereto, be tried before a single qualified officer, instead of 

member special court-martial. The adoption of such a pro

result in a reduction of both time and manpower normall

in trials by special courts-martial. The rights of the accu

cases are protected by the requirement that the officer 

special court-martial have the basic qualifications of a law o

Article 26 (a) and that he be certified as qualified for that 

Judge Advocate General. 

2. Records of trial. At the present time, the use of a s

record of trial is permitted in trials by special courts-marti

accused is acquitted of all charges and specifications o

sentence does not extend to a bad-conduct discharge. O

hand, all records of trial by general courts-martial are co

batim accounts of the proceedings thereof, even though t

is one which, if adjUdged by a special court-martial, cou

marized. The proposed bill would correct this situation by 

for a complete verbatim record in only those cases in whi

adjudged includes a bad-conduct discharge or is more than 

could be adjudged by a special court-martial. All other 

trial would contain such matter as may 'be required by regu

scribed by the President. 
g

y

review. The proposed legislation provides that cases 

to be reviewed by a board of review only because the sent

a punitive discharge or confinement for 1year ormore wil

in the office of the Judge Advocate General in accordance 

69, rather than by a board of review, if the accused plead

if he stated in writing that he does not desire review b

review. The enactment of this provision would materia

number of cases which need to be reviewed by boards of re

thereby diminish the overall time required to process 

cases. As this procedure upon review would be employed 

cases where the accused has pleaded guilty, it is believed 

stantial rights will not be prejudiced thereby. 

The present law requires the Judge Advocate Gen

Article 69 cases to a board of review for corrective action 

all or part of the findings or sentence incorrect in law o

great many cases, the irregularities concerned involve 

settled in the law, and in those cases the board of re

amounts to no more than the application of those well

ciples. This situation results in an unnecessary burden o

of review and unduly increases the time required to p

martial cases. To eliminate this unnecessary reference t

review, the proposed legislation authorizes the Judge A

eral to correct the irregularity or injustice, vesting in h

powers and authority with respect to those cases that a bo

has. Itwill be noted that the Judge Advocate General rem

ized to refer any Article 69 case to a board of review in h

and it is required that any finding or sentence incorrect in 

be corrected either by a board of review or by the Jud

General. 

4. Powers of the Judge Advocate General. The prop

tion authorizes the Judge Advocate General to dismiss 

when the Court of Military Appeals or the board of rev

rehearing which the Judge Advocate General finds im

6 
ment as a sentenced prisoner, the administration of c

facilities is unduly complicated. In some instances, dela

pletion of the required review have led to complex adm

problems and loss of morale. Consequently, the proposed 

provides that a. convening authority may order executed a

of a sentence except that portion involving dismissal, di

or bad-conduct discharge, or affecting a general or flag o

eliminating the differences between sentenced and unsente

oners. No sentence extending to death may be executed 

proved by the President, although the proposed legis

remove an anomalous result under the present code by prov

an accused sentenced to death forfeits all pay and allow

that the forfeiture may be made effective on the date the 

approved by the convening authority. 

6. New trial. To betttlr protect the rights of an accuse

posed legislation extends the time within which an acc

petition for a new trial to 2 years from the date the con

thority approves the sentence. Further, the board of r

United States Court of Military Appeals, and the Judge 

General would be permitted to grant more comprehensive 

is now possible. 

7. V oting8 and rulings. The proposed bill provides t

officer shall rule with finality upon a motion for a findi

guilty. It is anomalous to allow the lay members of a cou

to overrule the law officer on a question which is purel

of law. 

8. Punitive articles. The present code does not provi

statutory authority for the prosecution of bad-check offe

proposed legislation adds an additional punitive article w

tains provisions similar to the bad-check statutes of the D

Columbia and the State of Missouri, including a provis

failure to pay the holder of a bad check the amount due 

days shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to defraud 

One of the difficulties arising under existing law is the n
nonjudicial punishment. Consequently, the proposed leg

vides that a commanding officer in a grade of major o

commander or above may confine an enlisted member of h

for a period of not more than 7 days, or impose a forfei

half of 1 month's pay. Under Article 15, officers may 

for minor offenses, such as traffic violations, by impositio

tures, and they are thereafter not handicapped profess

trial by court-martial. However, in order to achieve 

monetary punishment for enlisted members in similar 

necessary to resort to a trial by court-martial, resulting 

nent black mark on the enlisted member's record in th

conviction by court-martial. The change contemplated 

posed legislation would permit prompt and effective di

such minor offenses. In addition, a commanding office

general court-martial jurisdiction may impose on an office

officer of his command forfeiture of one-half of his pay f

instead of 1 month as now provided in the code. The 1

tation has proved unsatisfactory to commanders in the 

not cured by the fact that an officer may be tried by a sp

martial. An officer's present and future value within h

is seriously and permanently impaired by the publicity 

trial by court-martial. When such an event occurs, prom

()f the officer after trial is imperative, regardless of the out

:a procedure is costly in time, money, and manpower. I

to be essential that commanding officers retain their pr

to try officers by special court-martial as exceptional c

warrant. However, it is considered desirable to increase 

powers of Article 15 so that an adequate punishment can 

upon an officer for a relatively minor offense. 

10. Miscellaneous. To facilitate administration of 

facilities under the United Nations or other allied com

proposed legislation authorizes the confinement, in Un

confinement facilities, of members of the Armed Forces o

8 


2 sentatives of the United States ofAmericain Oongres8 

3 assembled, That title 10, United States Code, is amende

4 as follows: 

5 (1) Section 801 is amended by adding the 

6 following new clause at the end thereof: 

7 "(13) 'Convening authority' includes, in add

8 to the person who convened the court, a 

9 commissioned officer commanding for the time 

10 being, a successor in command, or any officer 

11 exercising general court-martial juris12 diction." 

13 (2) Section 812 is amended to read as follows: 

14 "§ 812. Art.12. Oonfinementwithenemy 

15 prisoners prohibited 

16 "No member of the armed forces of the 

17 United States may be placed in confinement 

18 in immediate association with enemy prisoner

19 or other foreign nationals not members of 

20 the armed forces of the United States, except 

21 that a member of the armed forces of the 

22 United States may be confined in United 

502639-59---.8 
12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

subsection (a) (2) (F) and inserting a semico

in place thereof; and 

(D) by adding the following new clauses at 

end of subsection (a) (2) : 

"(G) if imposed by an officer in the 

grade of major or lieutenant commande

or above, forfeiture of not more than 

one-half of one month's pay; or 

(H) ifimposed by an officer in the 

grade of major or lieutenant commande

above, confinement for not more than se

consecutive days." 

(4) Section 816 is amended by striking out the 

word"; and" in clause (2) and inserting the 

words "or only of a law officer who is certified 

12 
12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

 (b) If any person described in subsection (a), except the President of the 

United States, is an accuser, the court 

must be convened by a competent authority 

not subordinate in command or grade to the 

accuser, and may in any case be convened 

by a superior competent authority." 

(6) Section 825 ( a) is amended by adding the 

following new sentence at the end thereof: 

"However, to be eligible for appointment 

as a single-officer special court-martial, 

the officer must have the qualifications 

specified for a law officer in section 826 (a) 
12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

after the words "law officer" the words "and 

an officer appointed as a single-officer special 

court-martial". 

(9) Section 851 is amended­

(A) by striking out in the second sentence 

of subsection (b) the words "a motion for 

a finding of not guilty, or"; 

(B) by inserting in the third sentence of 

subsection (b) after the word "trial" the 

words "except a ruling on a motion for a 

finding of not guilty that was granted"; 

and 

(C) 	by adding the following new subsection

"(d) Subsections (a), (b),and (c) of 
13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

() 

separate record of the proceedings of the 

trial of each case brought before it. A 

record of the proceedings of a trial in 

which the sentence adjudged includes a 

bad-conduct discharge or is more than that 

which could be adjudged by a special court­

. martial shall contain a complete verbatim 

account of the proceedings and testimony 

before the court, and shall be authenticated in such manner as the President 

may, by regulation, prescribe. 

All other records of trial shall contain 
13 following new sentence at the end of sub14 section (a) : 

15 "A sentence to death includes forfeiture 

16 of all pay and allowances and dishonorable 

17 discharge. The forfeiture may apply to 

18 all pay and allowances becoming due on or 

19 after the date on which the sentence is approv

20 by the convening authority." 

21 (12) Section 865 is amended22 (A) by amending subsection (a) to read 

23 as follows: 

~ "(a) When the convening authority h

16 
15 

20 

25 

13 words "to be reviewed by a board of review" 

14 wherever they appear therein; and 

(C) by amending subsection (c) to read as 

16 follows: 

1'7 "(c) All other records of trial by 

18 court-martial shall be reviewed by19 (1) a judge advocate oftheArmy 

or Air Force; 

21 (2) an officerofthe Navy or 

22 Marine Corps on active duty who 

23 is a member of the bar of a Federal 

24 court or of the highest court of a 

State; or 
15 

20 

25 

12 approved sentence

13 (1) extends to death; 

14 (2) affects a general or flag 

officer; 

16 (3) extendstothedismissalofa 

17 commissioned officer or a cadet 

18 ormidshipman; or 

19 (4) includes a dishonorable or bad

conduct discharge, or confinement 

21 for one year or more, unless the 

22 accused pleaded guilty to each 

23 offense of which he was found 

24 guilty and has stated in writing, 

after the convening authority 

18 
12 action by the President, the Secretary 

13 concerned, or the Court of Military 

14 Appeals, instruct the convening 

15 authority to take action in accordance 

16 with the decision of the board of 

11 review. Ifthe board of review has 

18 ordered a rehearing and the convening 

19 authority finds a rehearing impracti20 cable, he may dismiss the charges." 

21 (14) Section 861 is amended by inserting the 

22 following new sentence after the first 

23 sentence of subsection (f) : 

24 "The Judge Advocate General may dismis
12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

this title (article 65 or 66) ,shall be 

examined in the office of the Judge Advocate 

General. If any part of the findings or 

sentence is found unsupported in law, the 

Judge Advocate General shall either refer 

the record to a board of review for review 

under section 866 of this title (article 66) 

or take such action in the case as a board 

of review may take under section 866 (c) an

ofthis title (article 66 (c) and (d) ). If 

the record is reviewed by a board of review, 

there may be no further review by the Court 

of Military Appeals, except under section 

867 (b) (2) of this title (article 67 (b) (2»." 

20 
13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

() y g () 

as follows: 

"(c) That part of a sentence 

extending to dishonorable or bad -cond 

discharge may not be executed until 

approved by the Judge Advocate Gene

or affirmed by a board of review, as 

the case may be, and, in cases reviewed 

by it, affirmed by the Court of Military 

Appeals."; and 

(C) by inserting in subsection (d) afterth

words "court-martial sentences" the words 

"and parts of sentences". 
12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

or shall take appropriate action under 

section 866 or 867 of this title 

(article 66 or 67), respectively. 

Otherwise, the Judge Advocate General 

may grant a new trial in whole or in 

part or may vacate or modify the 

findings and sentence in whole or in 

part." 

(18) Section 895 is amended by striking out the 

words "custody or confinement" and inserting the 

words "physical restraint lawfully imposed" in 

place thereof. 

(19) Subchapter X of chapter 47 is amended22 
13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

y pp, 

ceive; makes, draws, utters, or d

check, draft, or order for the paymen

upon any bank or other depository, k

time that the maker or drawer has n

have sufficient funds in, or credit with

bank or other depository for the pa

check, draft, or order in full upon it

shall be punished as a court-martial 

The making, drawing, uttering, or d

maker or drawer of a check, draft, Or o
13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

g

standing, express or implied, with the ba

or other depository for the payment of th

check, draft, or order."; and 

(B) by inserting the following new 


item in the analysis: 


"923a. 123a. Making, drawing, or 

uttering check, draft, 

or order without 

sufficient funds." 

SEc.2. This Act becomes effective on the first 

day of the tenth month following the month in whic

enacted. 
Section 1 (1) amends Article 1 by defining the term 

authority". 

Section 1 (2) amends Article 12 to provide that a m

armed force of the United States may be confined in U

confinement facilities with members of the armed force

foreign nations. 

Section 1 (3) amends Article 15 to authorize a comm

exercising general court-martial jurisdiction to impose 

ficer of his command forfeiture of one-half of his pay p

a period of 2 months. It also authorizes a commandin

grade of major or lieutenant commander or above to im

enlisted man of his command forfeiture of not more tha

1 month's payor confinement for not more than 7 conse

Section 1 (4) amends Article 16 to provide that a s

martial shall consist of only a law officer if the accuse

court is convened, so requests in writing and the conven

consents thereto. However, before he makes such a req

cused is entitled to know the identity of the law officer an

advice of counsel. 

Section 1(5) amends Articles 22(b) and 23(b) to prov

cept for the president, a convening authority not subord

mand 01' grade to the accuser shall be "competent autho

the meaning thereof, and that a court may, in any case, 

by superior competent authority when considered desir

Section 1 (6) amends Article 25(a) to provide that the 

as a special court-martial must have the qualifications s

law officer in Article 26 ( a) and, in addition, must be c

qualified for duty as a single-officer special court-martial 

Advocate General. 

Section 1 (7) extends the provisions of Article 37 to 

officers serving convening authorities and commanding 

Section 1 (8) amends Article 41 (b) to provide that a 

special court-martial may be challenged only for cause. 
y pp

regulations prescribed by the President. It also provide

verbatim account is not required, the accused may buy such 

Section 1 (11) amends Article 57 (a) to provide that 

sentenced to death forfeits all pay and allowances and tha

ture may apply to all pay and allowances becoming due 

the date the sentence is approved by the convening autho

Section 1 (12) amends Article 65 to require the convenin

when he has taken final action, to send to the appropriate J

cate General each record of trial in which the sentence, a

by him, includes a bad-conduct discharge or is more than 

could have been adjudged by a special court-martial. It 

language implying that all records of trial by special co

forwarded to the Judge Advocate General under that sect

reviewed by a board of review. It also provides for the 

disposition of all records of trial not otherwise provided fo

65 (a) and (b). 

Section 1 (13) amends Article 66 to provide that a rec

which would otherwise be reviewed by a board of review 

sentence includes a dishonorable or bad-conduct discha

finement for 1 year or more, need not be reviewed by a boa

if the accused pleaded guilty to each offense of which he 

guilty and if he stated in writing after the convening aut

in his case that he does not desire review by a board of 

also authorizes the Judge Advocate General to dismiss 

whenever he finds that a rehearing ordered by a board 

impracticable. 

Section 1(14) amends Article 67(f) to authorize the 

vocate General to dismiss the charges whenever he f

rehearing ordered by the Court of Military Appeals is im

Section 1 (15) amends Article 69 to provide that e

forwarded to the Judge Advocate General under Art

appellate review for which is not otherwise provided by 

or 66, shall be examined in the office of the Judge Advoc

26 
y pp

y pp

involving death, dismissal, or dishonorable or bad-conduc

or affecting a general or flag officer. It describes those 

which must approve a sentence before it may be executed. 

enthetical phrase "other than a general or flag officer" is 

surplusage in view of the express provision of Article 71(a

Section 1 (17) amends Article 73 to extend the time within 

accused may petition for a new trial to 2 years from th

convening authority approves the sentence, and to provid

Court of Military Appeals and the board of review may, in 

determining whether a new trial in whole or in part should b

take appropriate action under Article 66 or Article 67, re

Further, the Judge Advocate General is authorized to grant 

in whole or in part, or to vacate or modify the findings and th

in whole or in part. 

Section 1 (18) amends Article 95 to remove all distinctio

confinement and custody. 

Section 1 (19) inserts an additional punitive article sim

bad-check statutes of the District of Columbia (Title 22, 

sec. 1410) and the State of Missouri (Revised Statutes o

561.460, 561.470, 561.480). 

Section fJ provides that these amendments become effec

1st day of the 10th month following the month in which en

EXHIBIT B 


Cases wherein findings were 

modified by boards of review _ a 3, 282 469 53

Cases docketed with USCMA_ a 9, 465 1,616 1,56

Opinions published by USCMA__________________ a 852 209 30

Opinions published wherein decisions of boards of review 

were modified by USCMA__ a 411 142 18

I As of Dec. 31; all military personnel on extended or continuous active duty. Dat

categories ofsuch personnel, as follows: Nurses. Navy and Marine Corps Reservists associa

Activities and Officer Candidates. Retired personnel are excluded. 

I Total court'martial cases for calendar years 1951 through 1956. 

2 Total court-martial cases from May 31. 1951 (effective date of the Uniform Code of 

to Dec. 31, 1956. 

Report 


of the 


UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY APP

January 1~ 1958, to December 31, 195

as the statistics on the volume and scope of the work 

during the past year. 

During calendar year 1958, there were 1,608 cases filed i

States Court of Military Appeals. It appears that th

levelling off in the number of cases filed at about 1,7

since the Court's establishment. The number of opinion

the reporting period was 306. This is the largest numbe

written by this Court in a single year. By comparison, 

opinions were written and published and, in 1956, 104 o

released by the Court. Of these 306 opinions, 181 co

versals or modification of decisions of the boards of review

The Court has now admitted 7,449 practitioners to 

ship of its bar of which number 533 were admitted in 

membership includes attorneys from all 49 States, the 

Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and also inc

ican attorneys practicing in Germany, Guam, Canada, a

ama Canal Zone. In addition, because of the normal d

of uniformed personnel, military lawyers admitted to p

now be found wherever United States troops are station

out the world. 

The workload of the Court was very heavy during t

and for that reason it was not possible for the Judges to 

the invitations extended to them to address various Res

Associations, State and Regional Bar Associations, an

organizations; however, the Judges did make themselv

for lectures at the military Service Schools at Charlot

and Newport, R.I., and for as many other appearances 

worked into a heavy schedule. Also, the Judges confer

ficers of supervisory rank from each branch of the Arme

order to become familiar with the problems that occur 

justice at the operational level. The Judges believe that 

and coordination among all levels of the military and 

the sphere of military justice can only result in a contin
gress to effect their early enactment. 

While a detailed analysis of the status of cases proc

the Court came into existence in 1951 is attached hereto, a 

mary of those statistics may serve as a convenient and read

The Court, since 1951 has docketed by way of petition, c

mandatory review, 12,816 cases. Of this number, action ha

pleted in 12,650. Opinions numbering 1,368 have been pub

another 40 in the process of completion. Of the 1,368 pub

ions, 50 related to Army officers; 11 Naval officers; 15 A

ficers; 2 Coast Guard officers, and 20 civilians. The rema

ions affected enlisted personnel. As of December 31, 1

had been completed in 31 capital cases including 35 mem

Armed Services. 

Respectfully submitted. 

ROBERT E. QUIN

Ohi

GEORGE W. LATI

HOMER FERGUSON

36 
f 

,9,

Total bV 8ertlicu Dec. 31, 1956 Dec.31,1957 Dec. 31, 1

Petitions (Art. 67(b) (3»: Arrny_____________________ 5,810 965 7

~avy_____________________ 1,744 232 2

Air Force__________________ 1, 735 403 5

Coast Guard_______________ 28 6 

TotaL __________________ 9,317 1,606 1,58

Certificates (Art. 67(b) (2»: Arrny_____________________ 74 8 

~avy _____________________ 

Air Force__________________ 123 

23 

14 

6 

Coast Guard_______________ 5 0 

TotaL __________________ 225 28 

Mandatory (Art. 67(b)(I»: Arrny_____________________ 29 2 

~avy_____________________ 

Air Force__________________ 0 

1 

0 

0 

Coast Guard_______________ 0 0 

Total___________________ 30 2 

Total cases docketed______ 9,572 1,636 1,60

12 flag officer cases; 1 Army and 1 Navy. 

112,642 cases actually assigned docket numbers. 74 cases counted as both Petition

3 cases certified twice. 92 cases submitted as Petitions twice. 1 mandatory case tiled tw

cases tiled as Petitions after second Board of Review opinion. 
I>isposed of by Order setting 

aside findings and sentence_ 2 0 

Remanded to Board of Review_ 26 12 

Court action due (30 days) 1 __ 91 111 

Awaiting briefs 1____________ 35 47 

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

Opinions rendered __________ 208 22 

Opinions pending'__________ 4 10 

Withdrawn ________________ 4 0 

Set for hearing 1____________ 4 3 

Ready for hearing 8 _________ 1 2 

Awaiting briefs 8____________ 5 5 

Mandatory (Art. 67 (b) (1)): 

Opinions rendered __________ 30 1 

Opinions pending 1__________ 0 0 

Remanded_________________ 1 0 

Awaiting briefs 1____________ 0 1 

Opinions rendered: Petitions__________________ 596 185 2

Motions To I>ismiss ________ 9 0 

Motion To Stay Proceedings_ 0 0 

Per Curiam grants__________ 21 1 

Certificates ________________ 181 21 

Certificates and Petitions____ 26 1 

Mandatory________________ 30 1 

Remanded_________________ 1 0 

Petition for a New TriaL___ 1 0 

Petition for Reconsideration 

of Petition for New TriaL_ 1 0 

Motion to Reopen__________ 0 0 

TotaL __________________ 867 209 -3

• As of Dec. 31, 1956, 1957, and 1958. 

, 1,429 cases were disposed of by 1,368 published opinions. 79 opinions were rendered 

50 Army officers, 15 Air Force officers, 11 Navy officers, 2 Coast Guard officers, and 1 

In addition, 19 opinions w~re rendered In cases involving 20 civilians. The remainder 

personnel. The Court remanded 47 cases In 1958 by Order. 

38: 

Remanded to board of re

view ____________________ 27 


TotaL __________________ 9,354 

Opinions pending________________________ _ 

Set for hearing __________________________ _ 

Ready for hearing _______________________ _ 

Petitions granted-awaiting briefs_________ _ 

Petitions-Court action due 30 days_______ _ 

Petitions-awaiting briefs________________ _ 

Certificates-awaiting briefs ______________ _ 

Mandatory-awaiting briefs______________ _ 

TotaL ___________________________ _ 

12 


1,510 

6

1, 78

Pending complet

Dec. SI, 1958 Dec. Sl, 19

37 12

17 1

4 

17 3

91 11

35 4

5 

01

206 33

Report 

of 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 


of 


THE ARMY 


January 1, 1958, to December 31, 1958 

has been made a part of the Department of Defense Legis

gram for 1959. Comments received from judge advocates 

indicate that support of this proposed legislation has been u

As noted in my report of last year, changes in basic m

are occurring with increasing rapidity as a result of the d

appellate tribunals. The following brief survey indicate

important of these innovations: 

(1) Oounsel for the accused. In the case of United Stat

kouskas,9 USCMA 607,26 CMR 387, it was held that it is p

error to permit an accused, even at his own request and 

advice as to his right to be represented by qualified counsel, t

sented before a general court-martial by a non-lawyer. 

(2) Ohanges in the Manual for Oourts-Martial. The m

cant change in the Manual during 1958 was the deciSIon 

paragraph 127b which provided that a court could not adjud

ment at hard labor for more than 6 months unless a punitive 

was included in the same sentence. United States v. Va

USCMA 471, 26 CMR 251 and United States v. Holt, 9 US

26CMR256. 

(3) Oonduct punishable under Article 134-, UOMJ. No

of a check issued as a part of a gambling debt does not now 

conduct punishable under Article 134, UCMJ, even thoug

of nonpayment is widely known to the civilian community

States v. Lenton, 8 USCMA 690, 25 CMR 194. 

(4) Review of general courts-martial by SJA and actio

vening authority. A staff judge advocate and his convening 

are both disqualified to act on the case of an accused where t

ing authority upon the recommendation of the staff judge 

approves a grant of immunity to a co-conspirator who su

testifies as a prosecution witness in the case. United Statesv

9 USCMA 628, 26 CMR 408, and United States v. White, 1

63,27 CMR 137. 

(5) Instructions on constructive knowledge. Where a

is charged with violating a lawful order of his ,command
Minnifield, 9 USCMA 373, 26 CMR 153. It was reasone

Article 31 an accused may not be compelled to produce evi

himself by either an oral or a physical act. The Court 

strued Article 31 to require a military policeman to info

of his rights pursuant to Article 31 before requesting him 

his pass if the military policeman suspects him of havin

a pass violation or some other offense. United States 

9 USCMA 100, 25 CMR 362. 

In many instances these sharp departures from prev

legal practice have created difficult problems for mili

forcement authorities. In order to correct some of these 

proposed remedial legislation is under study. 

Until recently a prisoner confined in a disciplinary b

was determined to be eligible for parole under pertinen

could not be released on parole until his discharge had b

By the terms of Article 71 (c) of the Uniform Code of M

tice no sentence which includes a dishonorable or bad-

charge (unsuspended), (or confinement for 1 year or m

executed until it has been affirmed by a board of review 

reviewed by it, the Court of Military Appeals. It fre

pened that when a prisoner was determined to be eligib

the review of his case was pending before the Court of 

peals. The individual thus found that he would have 

tween perfecting his appeal or being released on parole. 

he chose the latter. To alleviate this situation, the Sec

Army, on 10 June 1958, upon recommendation of The J

cate General, approved a plan to authorize a form of co

lease known as "Commandant's Parole" for those unse

oners whose parole had been duly approved but whose 

been finally reviewed by the Court of Military Appeals. 

tation of the plan has required two advance decisions o

troller General, but the necessary action to implement th

now been accomplished. 
officers and their sole duty will be to perform the function

of law officer. In this connection, Judicial Areas are 

nated and subdivided into Judicial Circuits, and one or m

officers have or will be given a duty station within each C

they will be available for appointment as law officers o

courts-martial convened there, but will remain under De

the Army command and operational control. It is not c

that the certification of those officers who have been prev

fied as provided by Article 26(a), UCMJ, will be withdr

ever, following notification of the activation of each Ci

fected convening authorities will thereafter appoint a

only a judicial officer or other such officer as may be ex

ignated for that duty by The Judge Advocate General

mated that a period of 9 months will be required f

worldwide implementation of this program. 

A serious personnel problem exists. As this report is be

1,011 judge advocate officers are on active duty. Of them

the Regular Establishment and 498 are in the Judge Ad

eral's Corps Reserve. The Regular Army authorized str

but 21 percent of the spaces therefor are vacant. It is ver

that only 20 of the 392 lieutenants on active duty are me

Regular Army. With such negligible input of career la

bottom, it is becoming necessary to fill increasing number

sible positions in the Judge Advocate General's Corps 

who lack proper experience and maturity and who are n

toward a military career. Also, with virtually no input a

in the future we will have practically no officers in the hi

Even now, experienced military lawyers are in such short 

it is impossible to maintain an appropriate career 

program. 

During the calendar year 1958, The Judge Advoca

School, United States Army, provided resident instruc

military lawyers and civilian attorneys employed by the G
part of the advanced curriculum. Many of the theses 

members of past classes have been reproduced and distri

jurisdictions or have formed the basis of scholarly article

various legal periodicals. 

In the field of procurement law, the School conducte

courses as well as 2 weeks' instruction in contract term

research and development seminar. Approximately 270 

civilian Government attorneys, representing all of the A

and many other official agencies, participated in these clas

The annual National Guard Judge Advocate Refresh

tended by 78 Army and Air Force National Guard offi

ducted during June 1958. Thirty-eight Army officers at

week courses designed to prepare them more fully for 

duty as law officer of a general court-martial. 

New courses conducted at the School during 1958 we

ArmyReserve JudgeAdvocate Refresher Course and the 

Law Course. The former, which will be continued on an 

was attended by 58 Reserve officers not on active duty

designed to meet the need of many oversea commands f

advice in international law, was attended by 14 officers 

Government attorney. 

During the period 29 September 1958, through 2 Oct

annual conference of judge advocates representing g

martial jurisdictions throughout the world was held at t

was attended by over 100 senior officers of the Corps who 

in panel discussions of space law concepts, development o

instituted law officer program, and other problems in 

which now confront military legal personnel. 

Several Department of the Army publications were r

1958 at the School and distributed to officers in the fiel

among these was Department of the Army Pamphlet 2

Officer, which furnished, in looseleaf format, guidance 

of general courts~martial and presidents of special cou

46 
y g

gp

ernment contracts and procurement law, and the weekly 

letter of The Judge Advocate General by which recent de

in military law are disseminated to all members of the Corp

those officers assigned to the Ready Reserve. Distribution 

terly newsletter to all of the School's mobilization designe

tiated in April 1958. This service is designed to assist d

maintaining their ability immediately to assume the duti

particular assignments upon mobilization. 

A study of the feasibility of instituting a system of pro

parole at the convening authority level was completed at 

and is now being reviewed by the Department of the Arm

poses to establish by regulations a system of probation

whereby more accused will be restored to duty by conveni

ties under the supervision.of their immediate commanding 

probation officers appointed for each general and special co

jurisdiction. The object of the proposal is to secure a sub

duction in the number of punitive discharges ordered exec

Army~ 

A new training film entitled "Investigation of a Claim A

Government" was placed in production. Arrangements 

initiated for the production of a recruiting film entitled "C

portunities in The Judge Advocate General's Corps" to 

procuring applicants for Regular Army commissions in th

Nonresident training was provided in military justice 

military legal subjects to almost 2,000 Reserve judge advo

School continued its support of the USAR School Program 

trjbution of instructional material to 83 judge advocate 

partments. These departments conducted 118 classes w

enrollment of approximately 1,000 students in associate co

advanced officer courses. A catalog of available instruction

for Reserve ·components was also published and distribu

various Reserve units which have judge advocate sections 
commands supporting a field army in an oversea theater 

Particular emphasis was placed on problems of internat

veloped from the presence of United States Armed Force

tory of a sovereign allied nation and the use of oper

advocate teams designed to permit rapid shifting of le

strength to meet changing workloads in various command

follows the trend toward decentralization and dispersi

for the atomic battlefield. 

The number of records of trial received in the Office o

Advocate General for review pursuant to Article 66 duri

covered by this report follows: 

Total________________________________________________________

In addition, the following table shows the number of re

received in the Office of The Judge Advocate General for 

pursuant to Article 69 during the same period: 

Total________________________________________________________

The following table shows the workload of records o

Boards of Review during the same period : 

On hand at beginning of period_____________________________

Eteferred for review_____________________________________ ~ ____

TotaL_________________________________________________

Eteviewed ___________________________________________________

PendIng at close of perIod_____________________________________

Total__________________________________________________

1 This figure Includes 9 cases which were received for review pursua

referred to Board of Review. 

S There were 2,447 accused persons Involved In this figure. 

48 


Report 

of 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 


of 


THE NAVY 


January 1, 1958, to December 31, 1958 

administration of military justice. OPERATION TAPE

tiated in 1957 by the Judge Advocate General to speed 

ministration of military justice throughout the Navy, post

view techniques, new clemency procedures, negotiated ple

and organizational improvements in the Office of the Judg

General have reflected improved personnel management te

military justice. The Marine Corps in particular has ac

tinguished success in many areas of the administration of 

OPERATION TAPECUT, during the year 1958, ha

tangible evidence of having achieved its primary aim. Be

tember 30, 1957, and September 30, 1958, a year which 

decline in Naval and Marine Corps strength of only 2% p

total number of personnel confined in the Navy for al

shrunk from 6,379 to 4,412. This represents a 30-perce

More significant, however, was the 42-percent drop in the 

personnel confined who were not under sentence. The 

OPERATION TAPECUT has proved such that it will 

be emphasized. 

OPERATION TAPECUT was directed principally at 

tencing phase of the court-martial. With such marked 

reducing the Navy brig population-without sacrificing 

of justice administered in the Navy-the Judge Advoca

has been encouraged to reevaluate what can be done "after s

The success attained by the Army in this phase has also s

efforts in this fertile field. 

The Judge Advocate General continued the use of hi

Review Procedure during 1958. The sentences in all cas

by the Judge Advocate General under Articles 65, 66, a

subjected to a thorough review for both appropriatenes

formity. Using the authority delegated to him by the S

the Navy under Article 74a, the Judge Advocate General 

and remitted a number of punitive discharges and reduced 

of confinement and/or forfeitures in many instances. In 
Post-trial interview'S in individual cases, of cours

exercise of a better judgment with regard to clemency 

bility. Ideally this would be a required phase in ea

fortunately, the law specialist personnel shortage has 

Navy-wide adoption of the post-trial interview tec

legal officers have, however, been encouraged by the Ju

General to obtain as much post-trial information as 

cerning their sentenced personnel so that the conveni

quent reviewing authorities could better judge the effica

or suspending part of or all of the sentence. Emphasi

trial interview and on probation and clemency procedure

in the forthcoming year. 

The "Negotiated Plea Program" of the Navy was 

SECNAVINST 5811.1 of September 11, 1957, and SE

5811.2 of December 17, 1957. Experience for the year 

that these agreements have been handled judiciously a

dence to accomplish their intended purpose. This pro

forded a reduction in our brig population, has conserv

and money, has improved the over-all administratio

justice and has greatly reduced the over-all processing ti

of trial throughout the Navy. 

Many landmark decisions were handed down by the 

Court of Military Appeals during 1958 which have ex

of the troublesome areas in military law. Many of t

demonstrate the maturing and changing of military law 

case basis. They also demonstrate that today's deman

of military justice (as well as in the other fields of law

professional experience of the full-time practicing lawy

. There has been a marked decrease in the number of re

received in the Office of the Judge Advocate General for 

Articles 66, 69, and 65(c). During 1958,4,476 records 

received in JAG for review under Article 66, which 

than 1957's total-a decrease of approximately 21 perc

54 
Pending 31 December 1958_____________________________________ 

Total ___________________________________________________

During 1958, 54 percent of the accused whose cases w

for review under Article 66 requested representation by a

fense counsel (2,429 out of 4,476). In 1957, 59 percent of 

entitled to representation requested it. During 1958, 2

were acted upon by the USCMA. Of this total, 217 pe

denied and review was granted in 53 cases. The JAG ce

cases to USCMA during this period. The two boards o

the "West Coast received for review 407 general courts-

1,344 special courts-martial. This total of 1,751 compris

mately 39 percent of the total of 4,476 cases received fo

boards of review during 1958. 

Patently the nurnlJer of courts-martial during any per

cannot be equated with the quantity of law work experie

that same period. ·With a reduction in the number of c

cases one could have expected a proportionate decrease in t

placed on our law specialists. Such a decrease was not 

1958. The bold reduction in numbers of cases in mil

contrasted sharply with tne increase in demands for le

of law specialists in other fields. There has been a stea

tinuing increase in the legal work in the Office of the J

cate General and in the offices of the naval lawyer thr

world. 

Typical of the growing demand for legal services was 

during the past year in the number of requests made 

shore establishments of the Navy for the establishmen

additional billets for lawyers. The majority of these re

not be granted in view of the present ceiling limitation

the law specialist strength. Pressures for additional le

have been mounting and continue to mount. To afford a 

relief to the immediate ·pressures in overload in court-m
ing turnover of legally trained personnel-especially 

grades. The procurement program for law specialists 

last year's report has provided sufficient attorneys to 

vacancies. So long as the draft law remains in effect 

procurement difficulties are anticipated. There is a d

however, for a realistic and current retention program. 

The present constant ebb and flow of unseasoned, 

young lawyers in the Navy has produced a real han

sure that the other services have felt this same handi

berswise, they are in a better position to absorb it.) F

school graduates have had sufficient experience in the 

take many of the specific legal tasks required of the n

tasks where a highly specialized skill in the law is 

lack of career incentive to the young top flight men of 

has required the Navy to rely on a hard corps of "se

,eialists for the complex legal services performed by the 

The personnel problem is expected to become more 

<of anticipated high selection attrition which was expe

last year's selection cycle in the law specialist group. 

of the problem is evident in the fact that to date 72 pe

law specialist Commanders have felt the impact of at 

,over. Twenty-five percent of all regular law special

passed over at least once. The potential loss of legal ex

this group represents-experience both civilian and 

cannot be replaced-is such that if effected it would c

damage to the legal services of the Navy-services to w

its personnel and their dependents are entitled and need. 

Continued education for the Navy's professional la

limited, extends to some phases of the law specialists' r

Courses at the Naval vVar College, the Armed Forces Sta

the Navy Line School provide a non-legal technical train

organization, planning, and operations. Training in 

provides a degree of knowledge, understanding, and 

which is beneficial to the naval officer lawyer. Continui

.56 
gpp

of the prime responsibilities of the Judge Advocate Gene

vide opportunity for continuing legal education in militar

other fields. 

The U.S. Naval School (Naval Justice), staffed by la

and under the technical supervision of the Judge Advoc

continues to afford an opportunity for the non-lawyers 

service to become familiar in the working requirements of 

Code of Military Justice. With a staff of 15 officers an

instructors, the following was accomplished during 195

O

Regular 7 -week Course _______________________________ _ 

Court Reporting Course _______________________________ _ 

Senior Officer's Short Course _________________________ _ 

Special Course Naval War College _____________________ _ 

Reserve Training Course_______________________________ 

Special 7-week Course at Camp Pendleton______________ _ 

Limited Duty Officers _________________________________ _ 

Law Reserve Seminars: New Orleans_____________________________________ _ 

San Francisco____________________________________ 

Total _________________________________________ _ 

The Judge Advocate General has continued his emp

importance of the Inactive Reserve officer-lawyer traini

Notwithstanding a curtailment of funds for active duty 

this group of Reserve naval officers, the Judge Advo

has successfully sponsored and conducted two law semin

to keep the Reserve lawyers equipped and prepared 

defense of the Nation in the event of mobilization. T

conducted during 1958 were held in San Francisco and N

The second week of each of these seminars was devoted 

and concentrated refresher course in military justice. 

to these seminars, additional training in military law was 

the U.S. Naval School (Naval Justice) and at the distric
cerned over the personnel posture of the law specialist 

which now faces the loss of years of mature legal experie

when this experience cannot be replaced. 

CHESTER WARD, 

Rear Admiral, USN

The Judge Advoca

58 
Report 

of 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 


of 


THE AIR FORCE 


January 1, 1958, to December 31, 195

that this needed legislation will be introduced and receiv

action by the Congress during its next session. 

2. In the case of United States ex rel. Guagliardo v. Jlfc

referred to in my report for calendar year 1957, the U

District Court for the District of Columbia on Janua

dismissed the petition for habeas corpus and discharge

to show cause. The Court in its opinion held that Arti

the Uniform Code of Military Justice, in so far as it appli

employees, was a valid exercise of the power of Congress t

for the Government and regulation of the land and n

(Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 14 of the Constitution). An appe

from the Court's order and on September 12, 1958, the U

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, one judg

reversed the order of the District Court. The Court in 

opinion concluded that pursuant to the holding of the Sup

in Reid v. Oovert, 354 U.S. 1, a civilian employee of the A

could not constitutionally be tried by court-martial f

offense. The Court then held that Article 2(11), as e

non-severable and thus could not provide a valid basis fo

martial of civilian employees charged with non-capital of

Solicitor General has filed a petition for a writ of certi

case and the petition is presently under advisement by t

Court. 

3. On January 1, 1958, there were 1,202 Judge Advoca

duty with the United States Air Force; on December 31

were 1,203 Judge Advocates on duty. During this perio

Advocates were gained while 217 were separated from 

Approximately one-half of the Judge Advocates on activ

the Air Force Judge Advocate General's Departmen

lawyers recently out of law school who possess a mini

perience. If these young officers leave the Air Force t

replaced by recent law. school graduates who, in turn, 

obligated period of service and return to civilian law pra
Judge Advocate General, made staff visits to legal office

United States and overseas as required by Article 6a of 

Code of Military Justice. In addition, they attended 

tion meetings, spoke before veterans' organizations a

other meetings where the subject of military law wa

discussion. 

5. The Office of The Judge Advocate General su

arranged for the publication of two bound volumes of C

Reports and one volume of Digest of Opinions containin

ions of the United States Court of Military Appeals, 

Air Force, and Coast Guard. In addition, it published f

paperbound volumes of Digest of Opinions; drafted

published two sets of slipsheet annotations to the Manu

Martial, 1951, of cases decided by the United States Su

and the United States Court of Military Appeals, wh

or modified portions of the Manual for Courts-Martial 

form Code of Military Justice; analyzed, indexed and 

decisions by the United States Court of Military App

Force boards of review and 125 grants of review by the 

Court of Military Appeals; and published 27 issues of t

\ 	 Judge Advocate General Bulletin which provides a rap

vehicle for disseminating military justice information 

vocates in the field. 

6. The changed concept of the mobilization assignmen

The Judge Advocate General's Department, both in 

United States Air Force and in the command provided 

of utilization of Reserve Judge Advocate legal talent. 

job" training concept resulted in the augmentation of th

to meet heavy workloads. The Continental Air Forc

to bring to Washington groups of Reserve officers who w

to practice before the United States Court of Military 

the United States Supreme Court as applicable and atten

'in the Office of The Judge Advocate General and o

agencies. 

62 
Total____________________________________________________

b. The following table shows the workload of the board

during the same period: 

On hand at beginning of period___________________________ 

Eteferred for revievv ______________________________________ 

Etevievved___________________________________ ._____________ 

Pending at close of period________________________________ 

c. From January 1 to December 31, 1958, 53 percent of 

whose cases were reviewed in the Office of The Judge Ad

eral for review pursuant to Article 66 requested repres

appellate defense counsel before boards of review. 

d. Based upon the number of cases reviewed by board

during this period, 23.3 percent were forwarded to the U

Court of Military Appeals pursuant to the three subdivi

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

forwarded, all except six were based upon petitions of 

for grant of review by the Court of Military Appeals

during the period were certified by The Judge Advoca

Petitions were granted by the Court of Military Appeals 

period in 13 percent of the cases which were petitioned, 

cent of the total number of cases reviewed by the board

e. During the period of this report, there were 27,948 

tial convened in the Air Force. 

8. At the close of the period, there were 90 command

Force exercising general court-martial jurisdiction. 

REGINALD C. HARMON

Major General, USAF

The Judge Advocate 

United State8 Air Forc

Report 

of 

THE GENERAL COUNSEL 

of 

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

(UNITED STATES COAST GUARD) 

January 1, 1958, to December 31, 195

submitted pursuant to the mandate of Article 67(g) of th

Code of Military Justice to survey the operation of the Cod

and to make recommendations on matters considered approp

courts-martial volume in the Coast Guard during 1958, with 

for purposes of comparison of the preceding 4 years, is sh

table below: 

1958 1951 1956 

General courts-martiaL ___________________ 10 14 19 

Special courts-martiaL ____________________ 213 233 202 

Summary courts-martiaL __________________ 665 751 585 

Totaffi_____________________________ 888 998 806 

The average number of courts per year for the 5 years ha

During 3 years before the Uniform Code, the average numb

per year was 1,869. Courts-martial have decreased very su

under the Code despite the fact that the Code gave the C

broader jurisdiction and greater punishment power. 

What this proves is problematical. Certainly, it is much 

cult to try an offender by a general or special court-martia

Code than it was by comparable court-martial under the 

However, the one-officer summary court of today is as sim

pre-Code deck court and furnishes no more of an obstacle 

of offenses. Difficulty of trial may account for the decline 

and special courts-martial, but it is not a logical cause for 

in summary courts or in total volume. Possibly many of

unnecessarily tried by courts before the Code; possibly ma

which would have been tried by deck court in 1950 are bei

of at mast today. Nevertheless, it is a fact that if the 19

courts to personnel strength had held true in 1958, then wit

ing any more general and special courts-martial, we shoul

2,117 summary courts-martial instead of the 665 actually 

the table above. If the ratio for all of the Armed Servi

was carried out in the Coast Guard in 1958, the total of co

have been 1,840 instead of 888. 
y, 

Coast Guard has been the lowest of all the military servic

It is noteworthy that there has been no increase in a

Undesirable Discharges to balance the decrease in cour

charges; on the contrary, Undesirable Discharges in 19

Code far exceeded the number of such discharges in an

the Code. If the materially fewer Bad Conduct Dis

honorable Discharges, and Undesirable Discharges sinc

date of the Code was caused by the Code, I am incline

rather than to condemn the Code for it. 

During 1958, the Treasury Department Board of Rev

51 decisions in Coast Guard court-martial cases referred 

to Article 66 ( c) of the Codlr-40 of these cases, almo

were guilty plea cases. The accused asked for appell

5 of the 11 not guilty plea cases and in 15 of the 4

cases. Remedial action by the board was accorded in on

not guilty plea cases, but in 13 of the 40 guilty plea 

cases the board modified the sentence alone; in 4 othe

both findings and sentence; and in 2 cases, the findings w

but the sentence left unchanged. In 9 of the 14 cases 

board modified the sentence, the punitive discharge w

Of the nine punitive discharges eliminated, all but one w

plea cases. In one other guilty plea case, the accused b

the board's recommendation that the bad conduct dis

mitted on probation. 

It may be noted that most of the board's corrective act

in the area of guilty plea cases. It was chiefly in this a

the board discovered errors of law affecting not only the 

also the findings, as where the statement of offense wa

legally insufficient. In the 14 instances where the board 

sentence, such action was taken on grounds of legal err

cases and on the ground of appropriateness of the punis

remaining 5. The accused petitioned the Court of Mili

68 
Treasury Dep

U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING O
WM. S. fULTO~!