I

and

THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GEN

of the

ARMED FORCES

and the

GENERAL COUNSEL

of the

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREAS

PURSUANT TO THE 

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTI

For the Period 

JUNE 1,1952, to DECEMBER 31,195

l ib r a r y

SENATE AND OF THE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

and to the

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

and the

SECRETARIES OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF TH

ARMY, NAVY, AIR FORCE, AND TREASURY

PURSUANT TO THE 

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

For the Period 

JUNE 1,1952, to DECEMBER 31,1953

UNITED STATES

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1954

Contents

JOINT REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY 

AND THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL OF THE ARMED 

AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT 

TREASURY

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 

REPORT OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT 

TREASURY (UNITED STATES COAST GUARD)

UNITED STATES COURT O F M ILITARY A P PE

and

THE JUDGE A D V O C A T ES G EN ER A L

O F THE ARM ED FORCES

and

THE G EN ER A L COUNSEL O F THE

DEPARTMENT O F THE TREASURY

JUNE 1, 1952, to DECEMBER 31, 1953

of Military Appeals, The Judge Advocates General of th

Forces, and the General Counsel of the Department of the 

meet annually for the purposes of surveying the operatio

Code and preparing a report to the Committees on Armed 

of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, to the 

of Defense, and to the Secretaries of the Departments, conce

number and status of pending cases, and to submit approp

ommendations for amendments to the Code, and for other 

The report covers the period from June 1, 1952, through 

31,1953, which is in excess of 1 year, but the report is being s

at this time pursuant to the recommendation made in the firs

Report submitted for the period covering May 31, 1951, to 

1952, to the effect that reports be submitted thereafter on a 

year basis.

Pursuant thereto, the Judges of the Court, The Judge A

General, and the General Counsel of the Department of the 

hereinafter referred to as the Code Committee, have had 

meetings and conferences during the period covered by th

In addition to those conferences, The Judge Advocates Gen

the General Counsel of the Department of the Treasury a

a Committee of military personnel, hereinafter referred 

Service Committee, for the purpose of considering and recom

changes in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the C

pointed a Committee of civilian attorneys, hereinafter refer

the Court Committee, for the purpose of studying and makin

mendations which it believed would improve the workings of 

The Service Committee had various meetings and considere

mendations received from the Services and thereafter filed 

containing recommendations which formed the basis of the 

The Judge Advocates General and the General Counsel of th

ment of the Treasury, dated August 20,1953, and set out as E

to the individual section report of the Court. In carryin

duties, the Court Committee met from time to time and, upon 

the members of the Court, The Judge Advocates General, and 
Advocate Corps in all Services, the legality of sentences, el

of some of the delays encountered in appellate procedure, th

fication of some phases of trial procedure, restriction of th

appeal in guilty plea cases, and the desirability for amendm

changes.

Many of the above mentioned problems will require furt

and additional testing under the Code before any worthwh

mendations can be submitted. However, the period of opera

perience since the first report has established to the satisfact

undersigned reporting parties that there are certain requirem

prescribed by the Code which result in a substantial loss of 

an excessive expenditure of money without any real benefit 

cused. It is believed that they can be simplified or elimina

out materially prejudicing any right of one accused of com

crime.

The following recommendations are unanimously supp

the reporting parties for consideration by the Congress.

F ir s t : Experience has shown that a number of accuse

plead guilty at the time of trial; however, under present pro

the Code, it is necessary to convene a court-martial compos

eral officers before a plea may be entered. This increases sub

the cost of the trial to the Government and unnecessarily w

time and efforts of the officers who are required to meet, hea

and impose sentence. This has been a procedure which i

to the military system and it is not used in civilian practice 

and the Federal practice in particular. I f there is any ben

accused from this procedure, it is indiscernible and so unimpo

a change in this particular is considered desirable. THER

It is recommended that in general court-martial cases, 

accused with the consent of his counsel requests and the 

authority approves, a one officer court, whose identity must 

to the accused in advance, be permitted to accept a plea of g

adjudge a sentence in all, except capital, cases. This offic

have the qualifications of a law officer, must be certified as 

for that particular duty by The Judge Advocate General of th

-
better utilization of the time and talents of officers now re

sit on special courts-martial: THEREFORE,

It is recommended that where the accused, with the cons

counsel, requests, and the convening authority approves, a

the identity of a one officer court is known to the accused in 

such officer be permitted to accept pleas of guilty, to conduc

of contested special court-martial cases, and to adjudge sent

is further recommended that The Judge Advocate General of 

ice concerned be required to certify the officer to be compete

form the duties in question.

T h ir d : Under the present provisions of Article 51 (5) of 

the ruling by the law officer on a motion for a finding of n

can be overruled by the members of the court. This provis

in accord with Federal practice, tends to make court ma

cedure unnecessarily cumbersome, and can be eliminated wit

udice to the parties. The difficulty with the present provi

the fact that it permits a complex, predominantly legal que

determined by a group of officers untrained in the law. I

officer must explain to the court-martial members the legal 

by which such a motion must be measured, it appears som

usual to permit them to overturn his ruling which is p

measured by the same standards. Moreover, the Code wa

with an intent to move closer to civilian practice. To br

that result, the law officer should decide questions of law and 

martial members should be limited to deciding factual is

believe it is fair to say that a motion for a finding of not gu

presents one of the most difficult problems which a law office

upon to resolve. Yet in some instances rulings rightly in fa

accused have been overruled by the court-martial members

mit them to pay no attention to a law officer on such a quest

has a tendency to cause them to ignore his other ruling: 

FORE,

It is recommended that Article 51 (b) of the Code be am

provide that the ruling of a law officer on a motion for a 

not guilty be final.

291773 54 2

-

-

— ------­
right of appeal. THEREFORE,

It is recommended that in cases involving pleas of gu

a special or general court-martial, there be no review by 

review of the same; that in such cases the accused be requi

5 days from the date sentence is adjudged to file a notice 

to a board of review. Provided, that the same be limite

tions of law, and that it affirmatively appears of recor

accused was advised of his appellate rights at the time o

F if t h : As enacted, Article 65 (c) of the Code provides t

and summary court martial records, where a punitive disc

not been adjudged, must be reviewed by a judge advoc

Army or Air Force, a law specialist of the Navy, or a law 

or lawyer of the Coast Guard or of the Department of the 

We believe it would be desirable to permit the review of the

by lawyers as well as judge advocates and law specialis

of the services and not be limited to the Coast Guard or th

ment of the Treasury. It would permit a wider use of th

of those lawyers in the service who are not now judge ad

law specialists, and also permit the use of civilian lawye

purpose, in commands where such a use might be feasible. 

FORE,

It is recommended that Article 65 (c) of the Code be a

that the records of trials by summary and special cou

could be reviewed by lawyers as well as judge advocate

specialists in each of the Services.

S ix th : Article 37 of the Code forbids the censuring 

martial by the convening authority or any commanding 

is true that in legal contemplation staff officers act only in 

of their commanders. Nevertheless, to avoid any possible m

tion, it is believed desirable to extend this Article to in

officers serving convening authorities or other commandin

THEREFORE,

It is recommended that Article 37 of the Code, in regard 

hibition of the censuring, reprimanding, or admonishing 

-
cations in regard to pay and allowances are caused by thi

status. Because finance officers and paymasters are person

for their disbursements of public funds, they need to know 

tainty the effective dates of pay and allowance forfeiture

as the precise sums involved. THEREFORE,

It is recommended that Article 71 of the Code be amend

vide that a convening authority should be empowered to 

parts of a sentence into execution when approved by him ex

portion involving dismissal, or a dishonorable or a bad-con

charge. This recommendation is not intended to affect sen

volving death or a general or flag officer.

E ig h t h : It is a curious feature of the Code that a per

sentence of death may accrue pay and allowances. I f the 

that pay and allowances are the consideration given fo

rendered, there can be no justification for such a situation. 

FORE,

It is recommended that the Code be amended by providin

the case of a prisoner in confinement under sentence of 

pay and allowances would accrue to him as a matter of law 

date the convening authority approves such sentence, subject, 

to his rights under Article 75 in the event such sentence 

proved or set aside.

N in t h : The distinction between custody and confinement 

Article 95 of the Code has led to considerable difficulty. In 

tively short length of time that the Code has been in effe

of review have been presented with a good many cases wh

required them to distinguish between the two terms. Beca

factual situations are difficult of resolution in this regard, so

wise valid prosecutions have failed because the draftsma

specification picked the wrong alternative. There need no

distinction between the two terms for the alleged act of th

person is essentially the same in each instance. In essence h

from lawful authority in whose hands he reposed. The ad

tion of justice in such a case should not be made to depend upo

selection by the author of the charges. THEREFORE,
be considered a second time, and the length of time required 

of the case becomes greater. THEREFORE,

It is recommended that in cases covered by Article 69 of 

The Judge Advocate General of the appropriate service be 

thority to take such corrective action as boards of review no

under the authority granted to them by Article 66 of the C

E l e v e n t h : Where a case is reversed and a rehearing o

the charges are dismissed by the United States Court of Mi

peals under Article 67 of the Code or a board of review und

66 of the Code, the convening authority in the field must 

administrative burden of disposing of the charges. This 

needless delay and duplication of effort. THEREFORE

It is recommended that The Judge Advocate General of 

priate service should have the authority to dispose of a ca

dismissed by the United States Court of Military Appeals 

of review, or to dismiss a case wherein a rehearing has 

rected by either appellate body but he finds that such rehea

practicable.

T w e l f t h : Experience has shown that the 30-day appeal p

vided for by Article 67 (c) of the Code has caused some un

delays, as well as other difficulties in the handling of cases, 

assignments to penal institutions, and has added other adm

duties without any consequent advantages to an accused. 

FORE,

It is recommended that Article 67 (c) of the Code be a

reduce the period during which a petition for grant of revi

filed to 15 days.

T h i r t e e n t h : Article 73 of the Code now provides that 

may petition for a new trial during a 1-year period which 

the date of the convening authority’s approval of the sente

believed desirable to amend this Article so as to cause it to c

the present Federal enactment. THEREFORE,

It is recommended that Article 73 of the Code be amend

the time within which a petition for a new trial may be f
tion on the review level without being required to direct a 

valid findings. THEREFORE,

It is recommended that Article 73 of the Code be further a

provide that in all cases involving a petition for new trial, 

be given to order a new trial, in whole or in part, or to take 

action as provided for under Article 66 (c) and (d) of the Co

extend similar authorization to The Judge Advocates Gener

cases acted upon by them under the Article in question.

F i f t e e n t h : At the present time the services have di

prosecuting offenses involving bad checks because of the la

real guidepost to follow. This has led in those cases to ine

cations, failure of proof, improper instructions, and diverg

ards of proof required as between the several services. 

FORE,

It is recommended that an additional punitive statute hav

sions similar to the District of Columbia bad check law be 

the Code to meet the particular needs of the Services. 

S i x t e e n t h : Under the present provisions of Article 15 o

a commanding officer is not permitted to impose any pay 

enlisted man, nor is he allowed to sentence him to any co

unless the offender is attached to or embarked upon a vess

provisions so restrict the authority of the commanding o

when the necessity for discipline requires a small fine or a sh

of confinement a trial by court-martial is required. That pr

unnecessarily expensive and cumbersome, and results in a p

and unfavorable entry in the service record of an accused

the Government nor the accused person can be benefited by 

formal trials when the issue can be settled satisfactorily by 

proceedings.

In the cases of officers the present permissible punishme

of pay is limited to the loss of one-half of 1 month’s pay whe

by an officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction

these restrictions on the authority of a commanding officer 

result in trials by courts-martial that otherwise might be d

-
py pp

loss of one-half month’s pay for a period of 1 month, or co

up to 7 days, in the cases of enlisted personnel.

S e v e n t e e n t h : The provisions of Article 54 of the Cod

regulations thereunder now require that verbatim records' o

prepared in all general court-martial cases. This provision 

exclude those cases where a sentence of confinement for 1 y

and not including a punitive discharge is imposed, and t

where the accused is acquitted. Unquestionably, this re

results in a waste of time, money, and effort, and unnecessa

tion of court reporters with little or no consequent benef

accused or the Government.

Present procedure provides that where a special cou

does not impose a punitive discharge, a summarized recor

may be prepared in accordance with the regulations prescrib

President under the terms of Article 54 (6) of the Code. It i

that general court-martial cases of the type herein referred 

be processed under the same provision. THEREFORE,

It is recommended that Article 54 of the Code be amended 

general court-martial case3 where the accused is acquitted, o

ceedings otherwise terminate in his favor, or where the sen

not extend to death, dismissal, dishonorable or bad-conduct 

or to confinement for 1 year or more. Provided, that ap

provision be made whereby an accused may, at his own expen

a verbatim record of such trial.

Consideration has been given to many other proposals a

mendations but either because the Code Committee as a who

unanimous, or because some of the problems were not comm

departments, or, in some cases, because it was felt there had 

a sufficient trial period to develop the vices or virtues of a 

subject, no other joint recommendations are presented to the 

at this time. However, the lack of action at this time is not 

to be an expression of approval or disapproval of any other c

subject. Some may be supported and others not consider

priate by individual members of the Code Committee. An
D

1. Total number of cases reviewed by the boards of review 

2. Total number of cases wherein the findings were modified by the boa

of review 

3. Total number of cases docketed with the United States Court of M

tary Appeals 1 

4. Total number of published opinions rendered by the United Sta

Court of Military Appeals 

5. Total number of published opinions wherein the decisions of the boa

of review were modified by the United States Court of Milit

A ppeals 

Respectfully submitted,

R obert E. Q u in n ,

Chief Judge.

G eorge W . L at im e r 

Judge.

P a u l W . B rosm an ,

Judge.

E. M. B r a n n o n ,

The Judge Advocate 

United States Army.

I ra H . N u n n ,

The Judge Advocate 

United States Navy.

R eginald C. H ar m o 

The Judge Advocate 

United States Air Fo

E lbert P . T uttle,

General Counsel,

Department of the T

___________

______________________________________________________

____________ _____________________________________

_____________________________________

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
t
JUNE 1, 1952, to DECEMBER 31, 1953

291773 54 3 — -------

comparison with past and future reports, the statistics a

into two periods. The first period covers the 7 months in

between the last report and December 31, 1952; and the l

embraces the calendar year 1953. In addition to the statist

reported period, certain pertinent data showing the Cour

of business since its beginning are also included.

I

Subsequent to the submission of the last report to the Co

Court has been assigned permanent quarters in the court

merly occupied by the United States Court of Appeals for th

of Columbia. The Judges of the Court are indebted to th

officials who contributed to this assignment and they desire 

publicly their appreciation for the excellent accommodati

were made available. The building and conveniences are 

and appropriate and they permit the Court to function on 

basis without the previous handicap of sharing courtroom 

Furthermore, the previously reported inadequate office ac

tions no longer exist and presently a Court library and rea

are available in the courthouse to serve to the needs of the C

and members of the Bar.

II

During the period in question the Bar of the Court has 

its steady growth and there has been a marked increase of 

tion by civilian counsel in cases before the Court. On Dec

1953, membership of the bar numbered 1,672 and these are ap

on a percentage basis of one-third civilian practitioners and 

attorneys in military uniform. Experience has shown th

members of the State and Federal bars and the public gene

become more familiar with the scope and effect of the Cod

beneficient provisions, they have lost many erroneous con

cerning the abuses supposedly present in military justice. M
the Armed Forces Staff College, Reserve Officers Associat

Associations, and civic organizations in general.

I l l

On January 15,1953, the Court appointed a Committee of 

ing civilian attorneys consisting o f: Hon. Whitney North 

Chairman, Hon. Ralph G. Boyd, Hon. Henry T. Dorrance, H

E. Larkin, Hon. Joseph A. McClain, Jr., Hon. George A. Sp

Hon. Arthur E. Sutherland and Hon. Donald L. Deming, 

for the purpose of studying and making recommendations c

ways and means to, and the desirability of, amending the p

of the Code and to more fairly and expeditiously administe

justice. To avoid confusing this Committee with the Code C

we shall designate it as the Court Committee. In carryin

duties, the Court Committee met from time to time and, upon 

the Judges of the Court and The Judge Advocates General pa

in the meetings. Among other things, the Court Committ

ered a report and recommendations submitted by the Joint 

After its various meetings and deliberations, the Court C

made its report and recommendations to the Court under da

cember 21,1953. A complete copy of the report is attached a

B. All affirmative recommendations, other than one proced

and the one which appears immediately hereinafter, have be

in the Joint Report and adopted by the reporting members. 

reason they will not be restated. The one recommendation 

the Court Committee, which has not as yet been acted upo

Judge Advocates General and the General Counsel of the De

of the Treasury is as follows:

That in time of emergency the Court be authorized to certify its n

Chief Justice of the United States who would then be authorized t

one or more active or retired Federal circuit or district court judges 

rary service with the Court. In the event no such Judge was av

assignment, the Chief Justice would then so certify to the President

the advice and consent of the Senate, could then appoint one or m

(duly qualified under Article 67) for 1-year terms on the Court, with 

renewable during the emergency for 1-year periods only. This prop
by a civil court, or in those cases where a general court-m

tence does not involve a discharge or exceed a sentence that 

been imposed by a special court-martial. The Court Comm

that the elimination of such hearing might cut down a 

right of an accused. The Services jointly recommended th

of the foregoing in its entirety. The Court has given care

eration to the positions of both the Court Committee and t

and believes there is a safe and desirable middle ground, pa

in those cases which involve an accused who has been co

Federal or State institution. In this connection, the Co

mends that a suspension be vacated without hearing only in 

where the accused is serving such a sentence after final co

an offense involving moral turpitude.

V

The Court Committee considered a recommendation by t

that after approval of a sentence extending to a punitive d

an enlisted man (afterwards amended to include a dism

officer), the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdic

thorized, upon specific request of the accused, to order such 

or dismissal executed, provided the accused is eligible for 

there remains no unexecuted sentence of confinement. T

mendation contained the further proviso that such case w

viewed in the usual manner, and, if the discharge was 

sustained on appellate review, the Secretary of the Depar

cerned could take action similar to that provided for in Art

of the Code. The members of the Court Committee conc

further study was required before a decision on the desi

such a proposal could be reached. The Court Committee 

note, however, that in the event such recommendation was 

considered, there should be a mandatory restoration of t

to duty. The Court Committee specifically took issue wi

ommendation that such an accused would not be considered 

of the military for any purpose during the interval between 
accused, order such discharge or dismissal into execution f

In such event the case should be reviewed in accordance wit

plicable provisions of the Code and if the discharge is not 

upon such review, then the Secretary of the Department con

authorized to substitute for such punitive discharge an ap

administrative discharge or, at the request of the accused

restore such accused to duty with all rights, privileges, and 

to which he is entitled by law and of which he has been dep

virtue of the execution of such punitive discharge.

YI

The Court Committee disapproved of the recommenda

gested by the Services which has for its purpose the reducti

workload of the Court and involved a proposed limitatio

Court’s jurisdiction by requiring counsel to accompany any 

for a grant of review with a certificate of merit. The Judg

Court believe that this particular proposal and recommen

undesirable and, therefore, support the position of th

Committee.

V II

The Court Committee considered the recommendation pro

the Services that the law officer be permitted to enter and 

Court in putting both the findings and the sentence in prop

A conclusion was reached that the proposed change was un

The Court supports the Court Committee, at least, to the ex

the Judges are of the opinion that any difficulties in this r

purely procedural in nature and do not warrant any chan

substantive law.

V III

The Court Committee noted the Services’ recommendation 

term “convening authority,” when used in the sense of parag

of Articles 22, 23, and 24, be redefined so that in such cases th

be a referral to an officer of equal instead of superior rank. T

Committee was opposed to this recommendation and the Ju
The Court Committee considered three other proposals. 

quoted in its report as follows:

“ (a) The proposal to have the President prescribe per

ing which a sentence to confinement may be interrupted

“ (b) The proposal that Article 12 be amended so that 

be no prohibition against confining members of the Arm

of the United States with those of friendly foreign n

American confinement facilities; and

“ (c) The proposal that Article 31 should be redrafte

it more practical and reasonable in application so that i

impose an insuperable burden upon law enforcement ag

. It was the consensus of opinion of the members of the Co

mittee that further time should be afforded them to stu

proposals. The Judges of the Court feel that the matters the

tioned are not of sufficient importance to require a specific r

dation at this time and that the Court Committee should be 

an opportunity to further consider the subjects. For that 

affirmative recommendations on those items are submitted at 

X

In addition to the recommendations set out above, on July 

the Court Committee recommended that certain statistics be 

from the Services (copy attached as Exhibit C) in order to 

basis for a continuing study and appropriate recommendati

cause of the difficulties to be encountered in obtaining som

requested data, the Judges of the Court, The Judge Advocate

of the Services, and the General Counsel of the Departme

Treasury are preparing a uniform data sheet for reporting 

which are important and reasonably obtainable.

X I

As a final recommendation, the Court invites attention t

it sponsored in the initial Annual Report, to the effect that the 

tion of a special court-martial under Article 19 of the Code b
of a large number of cases. During its 31-months’ exis

Court has docketed by way of Petition, Certificate, or Man

view, a total of 4,232 cases. Of this number, action was com

4,015. The Court heard oral arguments' in 483 cases, w

resulted in 421 published opinions, with 62 opinions in the 

completion. Of the 421 opinions rendered, 19 involved Arm

3 Air Force officers, 2 Navy officers, and 1 Coast Guard o

addition, 3 involved civilians subject to the Code. The 

concerned enlisted personnel.

During calendar year 1953, negotiations, were concluded w

yers Co-Operative Publishing Company of Rochester, New 

the publication of the opinions in permanent bound volumes, 

now available. In addition, through the same legal publish

weekly advance sheet release was inaugurated, copies of 

reaching promptly every major military command throu

world. A detailed analysis of the status of cases processed d

reported period is shown on Exhibit A attached hereto, an

part hereof.

X I I I

In concluding this section of the report, the Judges 

express their appreciation to members of Congress for the

and constructive assistance; to the Department of Defense fo

ing cooperation; to The Judge Advocates General of the Se

The General Counsel of the Department of the Treasury 

efforts to improve military justice; to the Court Committee 

who have generously and gratuitously devoted their time, 

civilian and military lawyers who have participated in milit

litigation.

R obert E. Q u in n 

Chief Judge.

G eorge W . L a t im 

Judge.

P a u l W . B ro sm 

Judge.
Total by service* M a t Si, mi. June 1, 1961, Jan. 1,195

to M ay 91, to Dec. 31, to Dee. SI* 

Petitions (Art. 67 (b) (3)): i m mi 1963 

A rm y. 570 924 1, 50

Navy 103 175 34

Air F o r c e .. 76 114 270 

Coast Guard 6 2 

Total 755 1,215 2, 12

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

Army 15 18 29 

Navy 36 30 20 

Air Force 4 2 

Coast Guard 2 0 

Total 57 50 5

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

Army 5 7 

Navy 0 0 

Air Force 0 0 

Coast Guard . 0 0 0 

T o t a l 5 7 

Total cases docketed 817 1,272 2,180 

COURT ACTION

Petitions (Art. 67 (b) (3)):

Granted 113 132 14

D en ied 462 983 2, 04

Dismissed 1 1 

W ithdraw n

Disposed of on motion to dismiss:

7 9 50 

With opinion 5 0 0 

Without opinion

Disposed of by Order setting

0 4 1

aside findings and sentence 0 1 

Remanded to Board of Review. 0 0 

Court action due (30 days)* 135 168 8

Awaiting briefs* 32 87 4

* 4,232 cases actually assigned Docket numbers. 37 cases were filed both as a Certificate 

ertifled twice, or petitioned twice.

•As of May 31, 1952, Dec. 31, 1952 and Dec. 31,1953.

291773 54 i 

______ _______________ 

_____ _________________ 

________ _______ 

_____ _______ 

_________ ____ 

_____ _______________ 

_______________ _______ 

___________ _______ 

________________ 

______________ 

______________________ 

_______________ _______ 

___________________ 

______________ 

_____________ 

____ 

_______________________ 

_______________________ 

_____________________ 

________ _________ 

_____________ 

__________ 

_ 

___ 

______________ 

— -------­
Opinions pending 2 4 0 

Remanded to Board of Review. 0 0 1 

Set for hearing* 0 1 1 

Ready for hearing* 0 1 1 

Awaiting briefs* 3 3 0 

Opinions rendered:

P etitions ! 48 57 161 

Motions to dismiss 5 0 0 

Per Curiam g ra n ts. 9 8 1 

Certificates 27 20 63 

Certificates and Petitions 0 2 10 

Mandatory 0 3 11 

Motion to remand to Board of

Review. 0 0 1 

Total 89 90 247 

Completed cases:

Petitions denied 462 983 2,043 

Petitions dismissed . 1 1 3 

Petitions withdrawn 7 9 50 

Certificates withdrawn 0 3 0 

Opinions rendered 84 90 247 

Disposed of on motion to dismiss:

With opinion 5 0 0 

Without opinion 0 4 12 

Disposed of by Order setting

aside findings and sentence.. 0 1 1 

Remanded to Board of Review. 0 0 9 

Total 559 1,091 2, 365 

Opinions pending

Pending completion oj of—

May SI, 1961 Dec. St, 1951 Bee. Si, 1S6

48 69 62

Set for hearing 0 24 24

Ready for hearing 0 40 16

Petitions granted awaiting briefs . . 22 25 11

Petitions court action due (30 days). 135 168 81

Petitions awaiting briefs 32 87 43

Certificates—awaiting briefs 18 18 5

Mandatory awaiting briefs 3 3 0

T otal. 258 434 242

•As of May 31,1952, Dec. 31, 1952, and Dec. 31, 1953.

* 426 cases were disposed of by 421 published opinions. 25 opinions were rendered In case

Army officers, 3 Air Force officers, 2 Navy officers, and 1 Coast Guard officer. In additi

were rendered in cases involving civilians. The remainder concerned enlisted personnel.

_____________ 

__________ ____ 

____________ 

_______________ 

_________ ____ ______ 

___ ________ 

__________ 

__________________ 

______ 

______ _____________ 

_ ________________ 

________________ 

_____________ _ 

__________ 

___ ______ 

_________ 

_____________ 

_____________ 

__________ 

________________ 

__________________ 

______ ______________ 

_________________ 

— 

— 

— __________ 

_____ 

— _______ 

______________________ 
mittee held its first meeting on January 27, 1953, and thereafter he

on May 28 and 29, and November 17, 1953. In addition, there were 

various subcommittees. The Committee has been privileged to me

Court on several occasions and also to meet with The Judge Advoca

and to discuss various matters with them. The following recommen

comments have taken into account all of these discussions. Where 

deals with possible legislative proposals we have not attempted to 

deal with technical problems of draftsmanship.

1. As we have previously advised, the Committee felt that it wou

desirable for the Court to obtain and have available complete stati

mation that would throw light on the operations of military justic

Code. The Committee also felt that it would be in the public interest 

of this information to be included in the annual reports of the Cou

Judge Advocates General, so that both the Congress and the public 

stand the workings of military justice under the new system. The 

specific suggestions concerning additional areas in which statistical 

would be useful were outlined in its letter to the Court dated Ju

(See Exhibit C.)

2. The Committee has given careful consideration to the problems o

in the event of a sharp increase in its work which would follow any 

siderable expansion of the Armed Forces as a result of war or other 

Since such problems could not be dealt with by limiting the Court’s 

without flying in the face of the reforms established by Congress in th

we have concluded that it would be desirable to have some stand-by le

cover this eventuality in advance when there would be ample time fo

consideration. We have explored a number of possibilities and ha

the conclusion that legislation along the following lines would bes

problem:

In a national emergency (to be precisely defined), the Court sh

thorized when necessary to certify to the Chief Justice of the Un

that the Court needs additional temporary assistance. Upon receip

certificate the Chief Justice should be authorized to assign one or 

or retired Federal judges of the District Court or the Court of Appeal

rary service with the Court. (The hypothesis is that in a time of real 

as the work of this Court increased, the work of other Federal cour

reduced and thus judges of those courts might become available for 

assignment to this Court.) If thereafter the Chief Justice certi

President that he was unable to provide other Federal judges for 

assignment, the President might, with the advice and consent of 

appoint one or more judges for 1-year terms, renewable only durin

gency period upon certification of continued need by the United Stat
cates General and the General Counsel of the Treasury were sub

and considered by the Committee. These proposals had the unanimo

mendation of The Judge Advocates General and the General Couns

Treasury except for three as to which the General Counsel of the 

dissented. The latter proposals relate to (1) one-officer special an

courts martial; (2) execution of punitive discharges prior to the c

of appellate review, and (3) the confinement together in American con

facilities of members of the Armed Forces of the United States and o

foreign nations. The list of proposals which were considered by the C

is set out in Exhibit D.

A. After considering all the proposals, it was the Committee’s 

the following appeared to have such merit that they deserved to be 

for as soon as practicable:

а. Subject to the comments which follow, the Committee favored the 

innovation of a special and a general court martial consisting of one l

who should be certified by The Judge Advocate General of his service 

tent to perform duties as a one-man court. In the case of a gene

martial this officer should be of a rank of lieutenant colonel or its e

There need be no rank requirement as to special courts. This one-off

would be competent to receive pleas of guilty from the accused if, 

convening such court, the accused personally has requested in writ

advice of counsel, that the court consist only of a law officer, whose 

shall have been made known to the accused in advance of his request

convening authority consents thereto. If the accused pleads guil

such a court, it would then pass sentence upon him but would not be c

to act in capital cases.

In the event of a plea of guilty before such court, or before a s

general court as presently constituted, the accused will not receive an 

review of his record of trial regardless of the sentence imposed. In 

take an appeal it was felt that the accused should be required to d

affirmatively. Such appeals should be restricted to questions of l

it was further felt that there should also appear in the record evid

the accused had been advised of his rights of appeal and upon advice o

had decided not to seek review. It was thought that elimination of a

appeals in cases involving pleas of guilty, most of which must nece

without merit, would result in a substantial lightening of the load of 

review without, however, completely eliminating the possibility of a

in such cases where a legal question was actually involved.

б. The Committee also recommends, in the case of special courts-ma

extension of the jurisdiction of this proposed alternative one-man cou

cases as well as receive guilty pleas. This special court martial 

-

-

-
for trying cases, serious consideration could then be given to i

to general courts-martial. We do not believe that such a substan

tion should be introduced throughout the military justice system 

period of experimentation on a limited scale.

c. The Committee agreed that The Judge Advocate General sh

to take corrective action in cases wherein he finds error without re

cases to a Board of Eeview, or awaiting action by the Court, as is n

It was thought, particularly with regard to cases examined in his 

cordance with Article 69, that The Judge Advocate General shou

power of taking such action as the Board of Review can take unde

d. The Committee agreed that Article 67 ( /) should be amended 

The Judge Advocate General to order charges dismissed when the U

Court of Military Appeals directs their dismissal, or when the U

Court of Military Apeals or the Board of Review orders a rehe

The Judge Advocate General finds impracticable.

e. The Committee felt that Article 67 (c) should be amended to 

the period during which the accused may petition the United Stat

Military Appeals for a grant of review be 15 days from the time h

of the decision of the Board of Review. It was felt that this shorte

would aid in the expeditious handling of cases without cutting do

stantial right of the accused. We are inclined to think 15 days is a m

able change than the 10 days proposed.

It was also recommended that the Board of Review shall not be 

jurisdiction over a record of trial until the petition, certificate, moti

transmittal, or other document is received in the office of the Clerk 

The Committee supports this recommendation on the assumption 

stantial delay will ordinarily be involved in perfecting the appea

f. The Committee agreed with the proposal about execution of se

provision could properly be made so that all portions of a sentence 

martial may be ordered executed by the convening authority when 

him, except that portion of a sentence involving dismissal, dishonor

conduct discharge. This proposal does not, of course, extend to s

volving death or a general or a flag officer.

g. The Committee approved the proposal that: no pay or allow

accrue to a prisoner in confinement after the date a convening author

a sentence of death, subject to his rights under Article 75 where the 

disapproved or set aside.

h. The Committee agreed with the proposal to amend Article 7

the time within which an accused may petition for a new trial to 2 

the date of announcement of sentence in open court.

i. The Committee supported the recommendation that the law of

powered to rule with finality on a motion for a finding of not guilty.
did not find itself in accord in certain respects as follow s:

а. The Committee felt that there was no need for an amendment t

to provide specifically that a supervisory authority may take any a

record in review that is authorized for a convening authority in add

power to return the record to the convening authority, as the Court h

specifically so ruled in a decision on the existing statute. In that 

supplementary legislation to declare existing law would seem to be un

б. The Committee was definitely opposed to the proposal that the 

consider Petitions for Grant of Review when accompanied by a ce

merit from counsel. In this connection, it should be added that th

tee gave serious .consideration to many other proposals that would 

workload of the Court by cutting down its present jurisdiction. H

was felt that no action should be taken at this time along those line

The Committee is thoroughly aware of the tremendous administr

lem and the burden connected with the large volume of appeals to 

many of which are frivolous. Nevertheless, the Court has been ab

tion efficiently and justly under its present heavy workload. Except a

elsewhere in this report, we do not now favor placing restrictions on 

the Court.

c. The Committee felt that further study would be required befor

a decision on the desirability of the proposal to allow a convicted a

has been sentenced to a punitive discharge to request his immediate 

after completing his sentence of confinement where his case has no

finally reviewed. However, the Committee felt that if this proposal 

favorably considered, there should be made mandatory the accused's 

to duty if the conviction should be subsequently reversed follo

discharge.

Furthermore, the Committee was of the opinion that there should 

from the proposal the provision that no person restored to duty foll

discharge will be considered a member of the military service for a

during the interval between his discharge and restoration. It felt t

provision was clearly unfair to an accused whose conviction is overt

review.

d. The Committee was opposed to the proposal to make a hearing u

in a proceeding for the vacation of suspension of sentence when the 

serving a sentence of confinement in a State or Federal institution, 

tence was imposed by a civilian court, or when the sentence of a gen

martial as approved or affirmed does not extend to a bad-conduct dis

does not exceed the sentence that could have been adjudged by a sp

martial. It was thought that the elimination of such hearing might 

substantial right of an accused.
tence to confinement may be interrupted;

б. The proposal that Article 12 be amended so that there will be no 

against confining members of the Armed Forces of the United States 

of friendly foreign nations in American confinement facilities; and

c. The proposal that Article 31 should be redrafted to make it m

and reasonable in application so that it does not impose an insupera

upon law enforcement agencies.

5. The Committee felt that the law should be made plain that no 

ordinarily be required in the case of acquittals except as to matters 

to jurisdiction and thus double jeopardy. This would obviate a 

amount of useless effort which is now being expended upon verbat

for trials that result in acquittals. However, an accused who has been 

should be free to obtain a full record, at his own expense, if he desir

The Committee hopes that the above recommendations will be of as

the Court. We wish to express our great appreciation to the mem

Court and its staff for the fine cooperation, and to assure the Court t

available for further consultation if that should be desired. We ha

preciated the fine cooperation with the Committee of representat

services.

Respectfully yours,

W h i t n e y N o r t h S e y m 

Chairman for the C

R a l p h G . B o y d ,

H e n r y T. D o r r a n c e ,

F e l i x E. L a r k i n ,

J o s e p h A . M c C l a i n , J 

G eo r g e A . S p ie g e l b e r o 

A r t h u r E . S u t h e r l a n 

D o n a l d L . D e m in g , S

December 21,195S
y 

Hon. R o b e b t E. Q u in n , Chief Judge,

Hon. G e o e g e W. L a t i m e r , Judge,

Hon. P a u l W. B b o s m a n , Judge,

United States Court of Military Appeals,

Washington 25, D. V.

D e a r Sms:

The Committee of the Bar, appointed by the Court to consider vari

affecting the Court and the new Military Code, met in Washington 

and 29, 1953. In the course of its meeting, the Committee unanimo

that it would be desirable for the annual reports of the Court and o

Advocates General to contain fuller information as to the operation o

of military justice than they now do. Furthermore, for adequat

the operation of that system from time to time, it would be extreme

to collect other information and have it regularly available even 

might not find its way into the reports.

It goes without saying that the public is profoundly interested in 

of the system of military justice and is entitled to have available 

which will enable it to see how well the system is working. Th

too, is interested a n l is entitled to full information. The Cour

the other members of the Code Committee will wish to have and 

fullest possible information.

In our proposal that more information should be collected and 

able, we do not suggest undertaking the burdensome task of collect

as to the past. We suggest rather that machinery should now be 

the collection of information as to future operations so that it may 

iently available. We are not ourselves in a position to specify how t

tion should be obtained or the precise details. All that we are in 

to do is to outline the subject matters with respect to which we belie

tion should be collected, leaving it to the Court and others to dete

is the most satisfactory way of collecting the information. Acco

set out below the general areas in which information should be obta

seems desirable to have any further specification, I should be glad 

Messrs. Boyd, Spiegelberg, and Sutherland as a Subcommittee of the 

for the purpose of trying to arrive at further specifications, eithe

spondence or meeting. I shall be glad to participate in any such cor

or discussion.

The objective of the information to be collected is to inform as 

system of military justice actually operates. The information shou
(c) Geographically.

(d) As between officers and enlisted men.

6. Extent to which too heavy sentences are ordinarily imposed, 

mate fate of such sentences involving, among other things:

(а) Extent to which sentences are diminished in the cour

(б) The stage at which the sentences are diminished.

(c) Administrative reduction of sentences after process 

completed.

This analysis should further reveal the sentence actually 

possible maximum for the offense, the recommendation of the 

action thereon of the Convening Authority, the final action of 

Review or JAG, and the final administrative action after th

review is completed.

7. The time required between conclusion of investigation and ultim

tion, so that reasonable calculations could be made as to where 

could be accomplished without adversely affecting the system.

It may well be that as the Court studies this matter it will conclu

in other areas should likewise be gathered. The Committee would 

such decision because our basic feeling is that it is essential to ha

formation if the Code Committee is to realize .fully the objective for 

established by Congress and if the objective of the new Military C

fully accomplished.

Respectfully yours,

W h i t n e y N o r t h S e y m o u r 

Chairman for the C

R a l p h G. B o y d ,

H e n b y T . D o r r a n c e ,

F e l i x E. L a r k i n ,

J o s e p h A . M c C l a i n , J r .,

G eo rg e A . S p ie g e l b e r g ,

A r t h u r E . S u t h e r l a n d ,

D o n a l d L . D e m in g , Secreta
THE GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREAS

CONCERNING

RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE UNIFORM CODE OF M

JUSTICE

August 20, 1953

The Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, and Air For

General Counsel, Department of the Treasury, recommend that the 

changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice be adopted by the C

a. It is recommended that there be three kinds of court martial 

Armed Forces which shall have the composition, jurisdiction and r

lined below.

(1) Summary courts martial shall remain unchanged.

(2) Special courts martial shall consist of any number of memb

than three or, if prior to the convening of such court the accused per

requested in writing that the court martial consist of one officer on

convening authority consents thereto, of one officer having the qu

specified for a law officer in Article 26 ( a). The jurisdiction of spe

martial shall be as prescribed in Article 19.

(3) General courts martial shall consist of a law officer and any 

members not less than five (5) or, of a law officer only, if prior to the 

of such court the accused personally has requested in writing that 

martial consist of a law officer only, and the convening authority cons

to. A one-officer court may not adjudge a death penalty. The qualific

law officer acting as a one-officer general court martial shall be as s

Article 26 (a) and in addition he shall be of at least the grade of a 

commander or a major and shall be specifically certified to be quali

law officer of a one-officer general court martial. Unless a sentence to 

missal, dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge, or confinement for o

more is adjudged the record shall contain such matter, be authenticat

manner as may be required by regulations which the President may pr

need be reviewed only by the officer exercising general court martial ju

(4) Single Officer courts. Article 51 should be amended to pr

Sections (a) (6) and (c) of that Article shall not apply to courts m

sisting of one officer only, and notwithstanding any other provisions o

a court martial consisting of one officer only shall determine, subject t

review, all questions of law and fact arising in the course of a tri

-

-

-

-

-

-

- 

-

- 

-
yp

for action. The review of all cases involving an approved bad-condu

will be by the convening authority, the officer exercising general co

jurisdiction, and thereafter as provided for a like sentence adjudge

eral court martial.

(c) General courts martial. The review of general cou

by Boards of Review shall remain unchanged except, that cases no

by a Board of Review because they involve a punitive discharge or 

for one year or more will be reviewed under Article 69 if the accused 

guilty to each offense of which he has been found guilty. With re

cases examined in his office in accordance with the provisions of 

The Judge Advocate General, in his discretion, may refer any case 

him to a Board of Review as now provided in Article 69, or he himse

the power and may take such action in the case as a Board of Revie

under Article 66 (c) and (d ). He need not affirm a finding of guilty o

found correct in law and fact.

6. It is recommended that the following changes be made in ap

in addition to those specified in paragraph a (5) above.

(1) Powers of reviewing authorities. Article 67 (f) should be 

authorize The Judge Advocate General to order charges dismisse

United States Court of Military Appeals directs their dismissal, o

United States Court of Military Appeals or the Board of Review orde

ing which The Judge Advocate General finds impracticable.

(2) Review t>y the United States Court of Military Appeals.

(а) Article 67 (c) should be amended to provide that the pe

which an accused may petition the United States Court of Military 

a grant of review shall be 10 days from the time he is notified of the 

the Board of Review, but the Board of Review shall not be deprived 

tion over a record of trial until the petition, certificate, motion, lett

mittal or other document is received in the office of the Clerk of the 

(б) Article 67 (6) (3) should be amended to provide that 

States Court of Military Appeals need only consider Petitions for Gran

when counsel who represented the accused at trial in accordance 

38 (6) or before the Board of Review in accordance with Article 70, 

defense counsel appointed by The Judge Advocate General if the accu

represented by counsel before the Board of Review, shall certify 

opinion the errors of law relied upon materially prejudiced the subst

of the accused.

(3) Execution of sentences

(a) All portions of a sentence of a court martial may b

by the convening authority when approved by him, except that p

sentence involving dismissal, dishonorable or bad-conduct discharg

-

- 

-
for any purpose during the interval between his discharge and restor

(c) No pay or allowances shall accrue to a prisoner in confine

the date a convening authority approves a sentence of death.

(d) Any period of confinement included in a sentence of a co

shall begin to run from the date the sentence is adjudged by the cou

but the President may prescribe periods during which a sentence 

ment may be interrupted.

(4) Vacation of suspension. Article 72 (a) should be redr

hearing unnecessary in vacation proceedings when the accused is 

sentence of confinement, imposed by a civilian court, in a State or 

stitution, or when the sentence of a general court marital as approved 

does not extend to a bad conduct discharge and does not exceed th

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

c. It is recommended that Article 73 be amended to extend the t

which an accused may petition for a new trial to 2 years from the da

is announced in open Court; to provide that the action of the Board 

on a petition, in addition to determining whether a new trial in w

part should be granted, shall include such action authorized by arti

and 66 (d) as may be appropriate; to provide that the action of 

States Court of Military Appeals on a petition for a new trial, in 

determining whether a new trial in whole or in part should be gra

include such action authorized by Articles 67 (d), 67 (e), and 67 (/) 

appropriate; and to provide that The Judge Advocate General ma

new trial in whole or in part, vacate or modify the findings and s

whole or in part, restore the rights, privileges, and property affec

vacated portion of the sentence and, in appropriate cases, substitute 

missal, dishonorable discharge or bad-conduct discharge, previously 

a form of discharge authorized for administrative issuance.

d. It is recommended that trial procedure be simplified by adoption 

which would amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice as indica

Voting and Rulings. The Code should be amended to permit the 

of a general court martial to assist the court martial in putting both t

and sentence in proper form such proceedings to be recorded. The 

should also be empowered to rule with finality on a motion for a fin

guilty.

e. It is recommended, that the punitive articles be amended to i

the following:

(1) Any and all distinctions between confinement and cu

removed from Article 95.

^ (2) An additional punitive article should include provisions sim

bad-check statute of the District of Columbia (Title 22, D. C. Code, 

-

- -
facilities.

(3) Article 31 should be redrafted to make it more practical 

tion. The limitations suggested by Judge Latimer in his dissenting 

United States v. Wilson & Harvey (No. 647), dated 27 February 1953

used as a guide for the statutory revision.

(4) The provisions of Article 37 should be extended to include s

serving convening authorities and commanding officers.

(5) Article 65 (c) should be amended to include lawyers as w

specialists as eligible to review records of trial by summary and spe

martial.

M a j . Gen. E. M . B e a n n o n , USA,

The Judge Advocate General of the 

R e a b A d m . I r a H . N u n n , USN,

The Judge Advocate General of the 

M a j . G e n . R e g i n a l d C. H a b m o n , U

The Judge Advocate General,

United States Air Force.

Note: See attached copy of Letter signed by M b . E l b e b t P. T u 

General Counsel,

Department of the Treasury.
The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force.

FROM: The General Counsel of the Treasury Department.

SUBJ: Report of proceedings by a board of officers convened to 

mendations upon changes in the Uniform Code of Military 

Except for the three items discussed below, I would join with Th

vocates General in proposing the amendments to the Uniform Code 

Justice recommended by the board.

I suggest that the following three items not be proposed for the re

1. One-officer general and special courts-martial.

This recommendation appears to be contrary to the theory inc

the Code under which the judgment of one officer is deemed adequate 

to minor offenses, the judgment of at least three officers is deemed 

cases of more serious offenses involving more serious punishments, a

ment of a still broader cross-section is deemed desirable for the 

cases involving the most stringent penalties.

Presumably the reason for the recommendation is that the “ exi

requires the services of large numbers of line officers who could be mo

employed in their normal duties.” If this is the reason, the boar

have underestimated the importance of the function of military jus

pressures behind the enactment of the Code in the first place. Ju

civilian judicial scheme jury service is one of the highest duties of c

in the system of military justice service on a court is one of the mo

duties an officer can perform. Defendants are very often young men 

majority whom the laws of most jurisdictions will not permit to 

franchise. They are away from their home surroundings and the pe

they would normally turn for advice and help in reaching a decision 

of utmost importance to their future lives. In addition, the very n

necessary military relation between enlisted man and officer is such 

it most difficult for the former to make the decision which will bes

interests on a matter of this kind when a particular course is sug

officer, regardless of how objective and fair the latter may try to be 

For these reasons I believe that the request of the accused for a on

martial will not, in many cases, be made with the insight and jud

for in such an important exception to the basic theory of the Code. 

therefore, favor the submission of this recommendation to the Con

2. Execution of punitive discharges.

It is submitted that execution of a punitive discharge prior to f

of a case, even upon the request of the accused, is unwise. A punit

is one of the severest sentences a court martial can impose. No obs

avoidance, either actual or psychological, should be placed in the 

-
sions that are likely to ensue from the proposal.

E l b e r t P

of

THE A R M Y

JUNE 1, 1952, to DECEMBER 31, 1953

following changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice 

made:

(1) Article 15 should be amended to authorize an offic

ing general court-martial jurisdiction to impose up

and warrant officers of his command forfeitures 

exceed one-half of an accused’s pay per month for 

of 3 months. In addition, authority should be g

commanding officers to confine enlisted personne

command for a period not to exceed 7 consecutive d

though not attached to or embarked in a vessel, and 

a forfeiture of not to exceed one-half of 1 month’s 

ject to the Table of Maximum Punishments and the 

Equivalent Punishments.

(2) As previously recommended in the Joint Repor

period 31 May 1951 to 31 May 1952, article 19 

amended by adding bad conduct discharges to th

prohibited punishments.

(3) Article 57 should be amended to provide that in ca

the accused petitions the Court of Military Appe

grant of review contrary to the advice of his appella

counsel his sentence of confinement, if affirmed, sha

gin to run until the date that the case is affirmed or 

tion denied by the Court of Military Appeals.

b. During the period 28 September 1953 to 2 October 19

ence of Judge Advocates representing general court-martia

tions throughout the world was held at the Judge Advocate 

School, Charlottesville, Virginia. Many problems confron

Judge Advocates in the field were considered including a

covered in the Joint Report, supra. In addition to planning 

ducting this conference, the school conducted five complete 

the regular course, graduating 419 students. The school 

lished and distributed a military justice handbook entitled “

Officer”, designed for use by law officers of general courts-m

presidents of special courts-martial, and the “JAG Chro

-
tice. The other four films, now in various stages of produ

“The Investigating Officer”, “The General Court-Martial”, “

mary Court-Martial”, and “Non-Judicial Punishment”.

c. The separate Judge Advocate’s promotion list was esta

the Congress to discourage command influence and to serve 

ducement to attract and retain highly qualified personnel in 

Advocate General’s Corps. Experience in the Navy and A

without separate promotion lists, indicates minimal relatio

tween separate promotion lists and command influence. 

the separate promotion list, with few exceptions, has stifl

tions in the Corps to a point where officers of the Judge Advo

eral’s Corps are promoted almost 3 years later than they w

been promoted had their names been carried on the Army 

list, with an ever-widening gap. This situation can be cure

corrective legislation. Accordingly, legislation has been 

which, if enacted, will transfer all officers on The Judge A

promotion list to the Army promotion list in the position t

have attained had they at all times remained on the Army 

d. In seeking means of solving the problem of court re

the Army, the electronic court reporting system has been dec

as a solution. This involves the use of the relatively new 

employed in conjunction with recorder reproducer mac

school for enlisted court reporters will be held at the Judge 

General’s School, University of Virginia, to train reporters 

of the adopted equipment and in matters of administratio

to court reporting. The first class is tentatively scheduled f

1954.

e. The Judge Advocate General was authorized to procur

cers by direct commission during fiscal year 1954. The b

officers obtaining direct commissions have been young lawyer

graduated from law school and without military e

Arrangements are being made with The Infantry School f

course in infantry training for future officers given direct co

and called to active duty without prior training.
1 Jun. 1952 

to 

31 Dec. 1952 

Total 1,490 

b. The following table shows the workload of the boa

during the same periods:

1 June 1958 1 Jan. 1

to to

SI D ec. 1958 SI D ec. 1

On hand at beginning of period 425 30

Referred for review 4, 332 4, 757 8, 5

Reviewed 4, 453 8,55

Pending at close of period 304 4,757 25

c. From 1 June to 31 December 1952, 74.8 percent of th

whose cases were received in the Office of The Judge Advo

eral for review pursuant to Article 66 requested represen

appellate defense counsel before boards of review. From 

to 31 December 1953, 69.7 percent of the accused requested r

tion by appellate defense counsel before boards of review.

d. Based upon the number of cases reviewed by boards 

during the two periods, 21.9 percent were forwarded to t

States Court of Military Appeals pursuant to the three su

of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 67 (b), fro

to 31 December 1952 and 17.3 percent were forwarded to 

from 1 January to 31 December 1953.

E. M. B ra n n o n

Major General, USA

The Judge Advocate 

31 December 1953

_________________________________________ 

-----------------------­

__________________________ 

_________ 

of

THE N A V Y

JUNE 1, 1952, to DECEMBER 31, 1953

committee of officers representing the various branches of t

Forces who have conducted a lengthy study of the Cod

operation during the past 2 years. Proposed legislation i

ing these recommendations has been drafted and will be 

to the Department of Defense for inclusion in the Depa

Defense Legislative Program for 1954. The Judge Advo

eral of the Navy urges favorable action on these recomm

and in addition recommends the following amendments to 

form Code of Military Justice:

a. An amendment to Article 15 to permit commanding 

impose 7 days’ confinement both ashore and afloat and, a

tional alternative punishment, to impose forfeiture of one

month’s pay upon enlisted persons. It is considered that 

and morale in the Navy have suffered under the present r

on non-judicial punishment. An increase in the non-judic

of commanding officers will enable them to deal effectively w

ful first offenders and thereby deter many of them from 

repeated offenders.

b. An amendment to Article 15 to permit an officer exerc

eral court-martial jurisdiction to impose on an officer or war

of his command forfeiture of one-half of his pay for 3 mon

of 1 month as now provided in the Code.

c. An amendment to Article 15 to permit reduction to 

inferior grade without requiring that the grade from whic

be established by the command or an equivalent command. 

command structure ashore differs inherently from the comm

ture afloat, and the command structure of the Marine Co

from that of the Navy. These differences in command stru

made it difficult to determine what is an equivalent comm

Navy. Removal of this requirement will enable the servic

separate regulations governing reduction in rate suited to 

vidual needs and the peculiarities of their command struct
2. In addition to participating in the aforementioned stu

Uniform Code of Military Justice, The Judge Advocate G

the Navy joined with The Judge Advocates .General of the A

Air Force and the General Counsel of the Treasury Depart

study of the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 

committee of officers representing the various branches of th

Forces and a representative of the United States Court of 

Appeals met in the early part of 1953 for this purpose and 

extensive recommendations for revising the Manual. It wa

however, that because of the cost involved, revision of th

should await action on the recommended changes to the C

3. During the period covered by this report, the Navy has 

its efforts to indoctrinate and train its members in the pro

the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual fo

Martial, United States, 1951. The result of these efforts 

increased familiarity with the Code and Manual and greatly 

administration of military justice throughout the Naval E

ment. Salient features of the Navy’s military justice trai

gram included the following actions, taken during the per

1 June 1952 to 31 December 1953:

a. The Navy Department has produced 11 motion pict

military justice and distributed them throughout the Navy

Corps, and Naval Reserve training units. Five of these fil

the operation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice 

commission of an offense to completion of appellate review

entitled: “The Code and You,” “Non-Judicial Punishmen

Summary Court-Martial,” “The Special Court-Martial,” a

General Court-Martial.” Six of these films are a series 

“This Is the Code,” which explain the Articles of the Co

Article 137 thereof requires must be explained to enlisted p

entering active duty, upon completion of 6 months’ active 

at the time of their reenlistment. Another series of four 

the subject of Evidence is now in production and will soon 

pleted and distributed, while still another film on the eff

bad conduct discharge has been planned.

-
in the Navy. As of 31 December 1953, 705 officers and enli

sons had completed this course, 3,867 are currently enrolled 

and an average of 363 applications for enrollment in this co

being received monthly. In addition to this comprehensiv

a single-assignment correspondence course on the Uniform 

Military Justice is being distributed to large numbers of na

sonnel who wish to study a brief summary of the Code’s pr

During the period of this report, 38,609 naval personnel co

this short course; there are 4,083 persons currently enrolled 

and an average of 1,766 applications for enrollment ar

received monthly.

d. “The JAG Journal” is published monthly by the Offic

Judge Advocate General of the Navy as an informal forum 

matters of current interest to the naval service. It is dis

throughout the Navy. During the period covered by thi

28 articles directly related to military justice were publishe

Journal in addition to numerous articles on legal matte

Journal is also used as a medium for expeditious Navy-wide 

nation of particularly important decisions of the Unite

Court of Military Appeals.

4. a. The number of records of trial received in the Of

Judge Advocate General for review pursuant to Article 66 du

two periods covered by this report follows:

1 June 1951 

to 

SI D ec. 19St 

Total.................................................. ............................ *4,376 

•General courts-martial 1,897; Special courts-martial 2,479.

••General courts-martial 4,632; Special courts-martial 5,010.

In addition, the following table shows the number of record

received in the Office of The Judge Advocate General for exa

pursuant to Article 69 during the same periods:

1 June m l 

to 

Si D ec. 1958 

Total................ ........................................................ — 
whose cases were received in the Office of The Judge Advoc

eral for review pursuant to Article 66 requested represen

appellate defense counsel before boards of review. From 1 

to 31 December 1953, 28.7 percent of the accused request

sentation by appellate defense counsel before boards of rev

d. Based upon the number of cases reviewed by boards 

during the two periods, 6.8 percent were forwarded to th

States Court of Military Appeals pursuant to the three sub

of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 67 (b), fro

to 31 December 1952, and 4.5 percent were forwarded to t

from 1 January to 31 December 1953.

I ka H. N u n n ,

Bear Admiral, USN,

The Judge Advocate G

of the Navy.
of

THE AIR FORCE

JUNE 1, 1952, to DECEMBER 31, 1953

Major General Reginald C. Harmon and senior members of 

have visited numerous Air Force installations in the Unit

and overseas during the period of this report.

b. A series of conferences of Air Force judge advocates 

during the spring of 1953 for the purpose of examining the 

tration of military justice in the Air Force and implementati

Uniform Code of Military Justice. A conference of all staff j

vocates of the major air commands (ZI) was held at Bolling A

Base, Washington, D. C. on 8 and 9 April 1953, followed by 

•

 conferences at Mitchel Air Force Base, New York, Rand

Force Base, Texas, and Hamilton Air Force Base, California

General Harmon and Brigadier General Albert M. Kuhf

Assistant Judge Advocate General, attended and participat

of the conferences.

c. An active program for the rehabilitation and restoratio

of members of the Air Force convicted by courts-martial ha

effect during the entire period of this report. Pursuant to 

gram, increased emphasis has been placed upon rehabilita

restoration training in all Air Force confinement facilities, 

ticularly in the 3320th Retraining Group, Amarillo Air Fo

Texas. This unit, a minimum-restraint facility, has been 

tion since February 1952, and during this period 635 individ

been restored to duty out of a total of 1,210 sent there for re

d. During the latter part of 1952 final action was taken t

rated judge advocates from flying status' or to assign them 

duties. This action resulted in a loss to the Judge Advocate 

Department of a total of 98 officers, including 22 lieutenant 

30 majors, 30 captains, 14 first lieutenants, and 2 second lie

Additional procurement action was necessary to replace the

Jlfc At the present time there are approximately 1,200 officers as

jHL the Department. Of this number, 505 attorneys are certifie

Judge Advocate General as competent to perform the dutie

officer, trial counsel, and defense counsel pursuant to the Unifo

_ 
ministration of military justice under the Uniform Code of 

Justice and to acquaint him with military-legal matters, a k

of which is necessary for him to perform his duties as legal a

his commander. During the period of this report 319 judge 

graduated from the Judge Advocate General’s Course.

/. At the close of the period there were 76 commands in 

Force exercising general court-martial jurisdiction. R

court-martial jurisdiction has been granted by the Secreta

fense to three commands, and general authorization for t

service utilization of law officers and counsel has been grante

commands.

2. a. The number of records of trial received in the O

Judge Advocate General for review pursuant to Article 66 d

two periods covered by this report follows:

1 June 1951 

to 

SI D ec. 1952 

Total............................. *2,318 

*612 general courts-martial; 1,706 special courts-martial.

**1,596 general courts-martial; 3,337 special courts-martial.

In addition, the following table shows the number of record

received in the Office of The Judge Advocate General for exa

pursuant to Article 69 during the same periods:

1 Jun e 195» 

to 

SI D ec. 195i 

Total .......... 207 

b. The following table shows the workload of the boar

during the same periods:

1 June 195t 1 Jan. 19

to to

SI D ec. 1911 SI D ec. 19

On hand at beginning of period 313 25

Referred for review 2, 318 2, 631 4, 93

Reviewed

Pending at close of period

2, 373 5, 03

258 2,631 15

___________________ 

________________ 
p

from 1 January to 31 December 1953. Of the total cases fo

all except four were based upon petitions of the accused for 

review by the Court of Military Appeals. Two cases dur

period were certified by The Judge Advocate General, and th

no mandatory reviews by the Court of Military Appeals. 

were granted by the Court of Military Appeals during the per

1 June to 31 December 1952 in 6.9 percent of the cases wh

petitioned, or 0.3 percent of the total number of cases review

Boards of Review. From 1 January to 31 December 1953 

were granted in 5.6 percent of the cases which were petit

0.3 percent of the total number of cases reviewed by the b

review.

R egin ald C. H a r m o n ,

Major General, USA

The Judge Advocate General, United States Air 

THE G EN ER A L COUNSEL

of

THE DEPARTMENT O F THE TREASURY

(UNITED STATES CO A ST GUARD)

JUNE 1, 1952, to DECEMBER 31, 1953

&

forth in an appendage to the preceding Joint Report. 

General Counsel expressed an objection to the original pr

authorizing one officer courts, he concurs with the pr

presently set forth in the Joint Report in view of the addit

guards incorporated therein.

2. During the period covered by this report a noticeab

in number of all types of courts-martial held in the Coast 

compared to the number of trials reported during the peri

by the previous report was observed.

3. On May 5, 1953, the General Counsel announced tha

thenceforth be the Department’s policy to remit punitive 

on probation in ordinary cases where the accused receive

such sentence and was not at the same time sentenced to su

ment as would afford him an opportunity to demonstrate t

worthy of restoration to duty.

4. The number of records of trial received in the Of

General Counsel of the Treasury Department for review 

to Article 66 during the two periods covered by this report 

1 June 1951 

to 

$1 D ee. 195$ 

T o ta l.. ...................... 47 

In addition, the following table shows the number of gene

martial records of trial received for examination pursuant 

69 during the same periods:

1 June 195% 

to 

SI D ee. 195t 

Total .................... 7 

5. The following table shows the workload of the Board 

during the same periods:

t June m 

to 

SI D ec. m 

On hand at beginning of period 6 

Referred for review 49 

Reviewed 55 

Pending at close of period 0 

-

________________________ 

____________________________________ 

______________________________________________ 

______________________________ 
findings and sentence in 12 cases. In 10 cases both findings 

tence were modified; in 19 cases the sentence alone was mod

4 cases the findings were modified but not the sentence. S

and six tenths percent of the cases reviewed by the Board o

were affirmed without correction. The Board of Review dis

or modified findings in 20.4 percent of all the cases it reviewe

approved or modified findings in 26.6 percent of the gener

martial cases. It may be noted that the incidence of error wa

higher for general courts-martial than for special courts-mar

far as Coast Guard trials are concerned, special courts-martia

fewer errors requiring corrective action than do genera

martial ; if remedial actions upon sentences were also consid

percentages would be still more favorable to special courts

In the Coast Guard our experience does not demonstrate tha

ercise by special courts-martial of the power to adjudge 

discharges has impaired the administration of military just

E lbert P. Tuttlb

General Counsel

Treasury Depart

0 8 G O V ERN M EN T P R N T N G O F F IC 

-

. . I I