ond the 


JUDGE IlDVOCATE GENERALS 

01 the 


ARMED FORCES 


ond the 


GENERAL COUNSEL 


ollhe 


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAT

PURSUANT TO TDE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTIC

For the Period 


October I, 1977-September 30, 1978 


PROPERlY OF U.S. AAMY ,. ~. T,HE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S SCHO

LIBRARY 

BOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 


ond to the 


SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 


AND SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATIO

ond the 


SECRETARIES OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF THE 

ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORCE 


PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 


For the Period 


October I, 1977-September 30, 1978 

Contents 

JOINT REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY A

AND THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERALS OF THE ARMED 

AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTME

TRANSPORTATION 

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY APPEAL

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE ARMY 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE AIR FO

REPORT OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

PORTATION (UNITED STATES COAST GUARD) 

and the 

JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL 


OF THE ARMED FORCES 


and the 


GENERAL COUNSEL, 


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 


October 1, 1977 to September 30, 1978 


The judges of the U.S. Court of Military Appeals, the Judg

vocates General of the military departments, and the General C

of the Department of Transportation submit their annual rep

the operation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice pursu

Article 67 (g) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

The Code Committee, consisting ofthe members designated 

continued its tradition of meeting quarterly during the fisca

Major accomplishments during the year included implementat

the new Shepard's Military Justice Citations, forwarding ofthe 

Services Committee legislative package to the Office of Manag

and Budget for final review before submission to the Congre

tablishment of priorities for future legislative recommendation

the initiation of the Federal Rules of Evidence project. 

During the fiscal year, the Code Committee devoted subs

efforts toward prioritizing legislative recommendations whic

viously had been proposed by the various Code Committee mem

It was agreed that the top priority of the Code Committee a

Joint Services Committee which supports it would go toward 

opment and drafting of a continuing jurisdiction proposal and 

mentation of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Next in prio

development of a sentencing-by-military-judge concept, and t

modification of Article 66(a) to conform the Court of Military R

en bane process to that utilized in federal courts. Fourth an

priorities were assigned to amendment of the procedure .for va
gp 

most of its efforts during the fiscal year to the Federal Rule

dence project. It is hoped that the evidentiary revision will 

pleted and effected by the end of the next fiscal year. 

Separate reports of the U.S. Court of Military Appeals 

individual services address further items of particular intere

Committees on Armed Services ofthe U.S. Senate and House 

resentatives and the Secretaries of Defense, Transportation

Navy, and Air Force. 

ALBERT B. FLETCHER, JR. 

Chief Judge. 

WILLIAM H. COOK, 

Associate Judge. 

MATTHEW J. PERRY, 

Associate Judge. 

WILTON B. PERSONS, JR. 

The Judge Advocate General, U.S. Army. 

WALTER D. REED, 

The Judge Advocate General, U.S. Air For

CHARLES E. McDOWELL, 

The Judge Advocate General, U.S. Navy. 

LINDA HELLER KAMM, 

General Counsel, Department of Transport

2 
October 1, 1977 to September 30, 1978 


The judges of the United States Court of Military Appeal

their FY 1978 report on the administration ofthe Court and 

justice to the Committees on Armed Services of the Unite

Senate and House of Representatives and the Secretaries of 

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

ticle 67 (g), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. Sec

THE BUSINESS OF THE COURT 

During the 1978 term, the Court acted on 1,814 petitions f

of review, granting review in 430 cases (24%). On the Maste

of mandatory appeals, certificates, and granted petitions, th

acted in 394 cases, affirming the Courts of Military Review 

of those cases. The Master Docket cases were decided in 67 

opinions, 12 per curiam opinions and 315 summary dispositi

Court also acted upon 98 cases on the Miscellaneous Docket g

relief in 2 cases. At the close of the term, 265 cases were pen

the Petition Docket and subject to the statutory 30-day revi

394 cases were pending on the Master Docket; and 10 cas

pending on the Miscellaneous Docket. A detailed analysis oft

ness of the Court for the 1978 term is attached. 

Compared with the most recently available workload sum

the United States Courts of Appeals (12-month period endi

30, 1978), the United States Court of Military Appeals had 

per judgeship backlog of pending appeals (131 cases vs. 17

no past due backlog on pending petitions for grant of review 

to the statutory 30-day review rule; higher perjudgeship term

(736 cases vs. 183, or 2208 vs. 549 when converted to 3-judge 

and higher per judgeship filings (690 cases vs. 195, or 2070 

when converted to 3-judge panels). An equal number ofmisce

filings, some 30 per judgeship, were handled in each court 

The National Center for State Courts has authorized re

certain confidential data which is part of a voluminous stud

uled for publication this spring entitled "State Court Casel
Courts ranked by number of judges, with per-judge filings and dispositions. 

Change in Filings Disp

Number Beginning Dis d End end pending Filed per 

Judges pending pose pending judge j

Number Percent 

Alabama 9 0 369 369 0 0 0 41 

Oklahoma-Supreme Court 9 963 992 771 1,182 219 22.7 130 

Texas-SupreTlU! Court 9 155 973 974 154 -1 -0.6 108 

Washington 9 233 504 500 237 4 1.8 56 

California 7 N/A 3,668 3,712 N/A N/A N/A 524 

Colorado 7 479 553 666 366 -113 -23.6 79 

Florida 7 N/A 1,846 1,454 N/A N/A N/A 264 

Georgia 7 N/A 1,313 N/A N/A N/A N/A 188 

Illinois 7 327 1,087 1,060 354 27 8.3 155 

Louisiana 7 N/A 1,606 1,535 N/A N/A N/A 229 

Maryland 7 20 756 751 25 5 25.0 108 

Massachusetts 7 N/A 744 685 N/A N/A N/A 106 

Michigan 7 380 952 936 396 16 4.2 136 

Missouri 7 259 439 533 165 -94 -36.3 63 

New Jersey 7 325 1,048 930 443 118 36.3 150 

New York 7 438 2,949 3,070 442 4 .9 NC 

North Carolina 7 40 520 457 103 N/A N/A 74 

Ohio 7 N/A 1,323 1,310 N/A N/A N/A 189 

Oregon 7 268 773 706 335 67 25.0 110 

Pennsylvania 7 N/A 1,696 N/A N/A N/A N/A 242 

Arizona 5 350 889 932 307 -43 -12.3 178 

Indiana 5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

New Mexico 5 173 500 505 168 -5 -2.9 100 

Tp.nnessee 5 N/A 953 809 N/A N/A N/A 191 

Texas-Court ofCriminal 

Appeals 5 491 2,472 2,510 723 232 47.3 548 ' 

Oklahoma-Court ofCriminal 

Appeals 3 220 814 790 244 24 10.9 271 

US Court of Mil Appeals- 3 N/A 1,739 1,876 673 N/A N/A 580 

*USCMA statistical figures reflect FY78 data. 

At the time of the report, there were 26 state courts of last r

in systems with intermediate appellate courts in addition to the 

Court ofMilitary Appeals. Ofthese 26 courts oflast resort, over t

fourths have seven or nine judges. All but one have at least five ju

in conformance with section 1.13(a) of the American Bar Associ

Standards Relating to Court Organization which provides that c

of last resort "should have not less than five nor more than 

members." 

4 
substantially over half of the Court's resources and time a

it should if the top appellate court is to function as anythi

than a rubber stamp. 

The purpose in briefly summarizing the structure, size a

ating procedures of these courts is primarily to emphasize 

U.S. Court of Military Appeals is one of only two courts of la

with intermediate appellate courts which has only three sittin

and which presently does not measure up to the American 

sociation's Standards. In spite of its size, however, the Cour

itary Appeals ranks fifth among these courts in total cases f

fourth in total cases disposed based upon our present statisti

In comparison to the other 26 state courts of last resort, th

of Military Appeals' present workload reflects the highest fi

a per judgeship basis and also the highest number of disp

Additionally, measuring our present activity against that 

by the National Center for State Courts, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals was one of only eight of the courts of last resort s

whiCh disposed of more cases than were filed. 

The only other three judge court had roughly half the nu

filings of our Court and barely one third the number of disp

Without a doubt, the U.S. Court of Military Appeals is, a

remain, one of the busiest courts of last resort in the entire 

This is understandable when one considers that the Court's 

tion extends to all active duty members ofthe Army, Navy, A

Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, as well as reservists, retire

bers, and cadets at the military academies. 

Until additional judgeships are authorized, the Court's only 

of attempting to keep current with this caseload has been to re

heavily upon automated equipment and very competent staff

theless, the Court's staffing level and its appropriation requ

remain quite modest in comparison with the present fundin

of the state courts of last resort across the country. The fo

tables summarize the annual budgets of a number of repres

state courts of last resort. 

The Court has continued to streamline its internal oper

assure that all ofthe Court's programs and objectives can.. be m

minimal personnel and resources. 
Okla Sup Ct ........... 53 $1.309 771 $1

US Ct of Mil Appeals ... 49 $2.033 1876 $1

* State court estimates are for FY79 in millions. USCMA is FY80 estimate

** Filing rates for the state courts are based upon National Center data wh

USCMA rates reflect FY78 statistical data. 

TABLE II 

Jurisdiction Authorized 

Personnel 

Current 

Budget* 

Total 

Filings** 

Cos

Fi

Alabama Sup Ct ........ 60 $1.523 369 $4

Calif. Sup Ct ........... 77 $3.261 3668 $ 

Florida Sup Ct ......... 60 $1.670 1846 $ 

Nevada Sup Ct ......... 36 $ .868 553 $1

NY Ct of Appeals ....... 112 $3.530 2949 $1

Ohio Sup Ct ............ 62 $1.763 1323 $1

Okla. Sup Ct ........... 53 $1.309 992 $1

US Ct of Mil Appeals ... 49 $2.033 1739 $1

* State court estimates are for FY79 in millions. USCMA is FY80 estimate

** Disposition rates for the state courts are based upon National Center data 

the USCMA rates reflect FY78 statistical data. 

BAR MEMBERSHIP 

Applications for membership in the bar of the Court were re

from 506 attorneys during 1978. Special ceremonies were held 

Old Colony House, Newport, Rhode Island, on July 10, 1978, 

conjunction with the Annual Meeting ofthe American Bar Asso

in New York, New York, on August 8, 1978. 

During the year honorary membership in the bar of the Cou

extended to several distinguished foreign visitors: Colonel Pet

beko, Director of Legal Services of the Armed Forces ofGhana; C

Frederic de Mulinen of Switzerland, a representative of the 

national Committee ofthe Red Cross and the Henry Durant In

and the Director of Military Courses at the International In

of Humanitarian Law, San Remo, Italy: Captain Hafiz Abdul 

Malik, Judge Advocate General of the Navy of Pakistan; and 

6 
Strom Thurmond of South Carolina spoke on the "Criminal L

form Act of 1978." Associate Justice Joseph R. Weisberger 

Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed recent criminal law 

opments in the United States Supreme Court. Henry B. Rot

Esquire, addressed the subject of "Oral Arguments in App

Courts." Frederick Bernays Wiener, Esquire, spoke on "Advoc

Military Law." 

The Chief Judges of the Courts of Military Review condu

panel discussion on the role of intermediate appellate court

Captain John S. Cooke ofthe Army Judge Advocate General's 

faculty again provided the conference with his perceptive vie

recent military justice developments. Professor Robinson O. E

ofDuke University Law School, who is Chairman ofthe ABA Sta

Committee on Military Law, discussed the relationship betwee

itary justice and the organized bar. 

Over 200 uniformed and civilian appellate lawyers practicing 

the Courts of Military Review and this Court, as well as the J

ofthe Courts of Military Review and this Court, the Judge Adv

General ofthe various services, and other scholars and commen

in the field of military justice, were in attendance at the confe

MILITARY JUSTICE RESEARCH MATERIALS 

The state oflegal research in the field ofmilitary justice was f

enhanced by the release of Shepard's Military Justice Citation

lished quarterly beginning in March 1978. The appearance 

publication completes the movement of military justice casela

the mainstream of American legal research materials. 

BOOKS AND ARTICLES ON THE U.S. COURT OF MILITARY APPE

Judge William H. Cook of the Court published a major a

Courts-Martial: The Third System in American Criminal La

pearing in the 1978 Southern Illinois University Law Journal. E

R. Fidell, Esquire, a private practitioner and member of the C

Bar, published a Guide to the Rules ofPractice and Procedure 

United States Court of Military Appeals (1978). This bookle
installations in an effort to familiarize themselves with the con

under which military justice is administered in the armed 

ChiefJudge Fletcher visited the Naval Base, Norfolk, Virginia

ley Air Force Base, Hampton, Virginia; the Judge Advocat

eral's School, U.S. Army, Charlottesville, Virginia; the Aer

Defense Command, Peterson Field, Colorado; the U.S. Air 

Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado; Lowry Air Force Base, D

Colorado; Barksdale Air Force Base, Shreveport, Louisana; a

Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina. Judg

visited Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Alabama; the 

Support Activity, New Orleans, Louisiana; the Naval Justice 

Newport, Rhode Island; Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland; 

Air Force Base, Omaha, Nebraska; and major Army, Navy, Ai

and Marine Corps installations in Hawaii, Okinawa, Korea, 

the Philippines and Guam. Judge Perry visited the Naval 

School, Newport, Rhode Island; Andrews Air Force Base, Ma

Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi; Vandenburg Air Force 

Lompox, California; March Air Force Base, Riverside, Californ

Marine Corps Base, Quantico, Virginia; and major Army, Na

Force and Marine Corps installations in Hawaii, Okinawa, 

.Japan, the Philippines and Guam. The Judges welcome th

portunities to meet with commanders, military lawyers, and 

involved in the administration of military justice to get thei

on the operation ofthe militaryjustice system and the need for c

in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

UNIONIZATION OF COURT EMPLOYEES 

On July 10, 1978, an election was held under the auspices 

United States Department of Labor to ascertain whether cert

retarial and clerical employees of the Court wished to be repre

by the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 

labor union failed to gain a majority vote for the bargaining 

the election thereby mooting the Court's contention that it w

subject to Executive Order 11491, which, by its terms, is lim

scope to executive agencies and departments of the governme

8 
its Employees" section of last year's Report, warrant the atte

the Congress at the earliest possible date. 

SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS AFFECTING THE ADMINISTRATION 

MILITARY JUSTICE WITHIN THE ARMED FORCES 


Appellate practice and procedure: limitations on post-trial review 

retroactivity of decisions and the miscellaneous docket 

The Court denied an appellate challenge to the adequacy o

judge advocate's post-trial review, reiterating that its purpos

tablishing the rule requiring service of the review on trial 

counsel and an opportunity to submit rebuttal, United States v. 

23 USCMA 367, 50 CMR 1 (1975), was to terminate the pra

litigating the adequacy ofa review on appeal ifthe defense has 

challenged it before the convening authority. United States v. 

3 M.J. 406 (C.M.A. 1977). 

The Court also had occasion to rule on the retroactivity 

prior decisions. The opinion in United States v. Booker, 5 M

(C.M.A. 1977), which held that summary court-martial con

could not be used to trigger the sentence escalation provision

Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1979 (Revised e

was held to apply only prospectively. Likewise, the decision in 

States v. Newcomb, supra, which held that a convening au

could not delegate to a subordinate the authority to appoint a m

judge and counsel to a court-martial, was held to apply on

spectively. United States v. Mixson, 5 M. J. 236 (C.M.A. 197

On the Miscellaneous Docket ofthe Court, there were two d

of interest. In Whitfield v. United States, 4 M.J. 289 (C.M.A

the Court ruled that once a servicemember has completed se

the term of confinement to which sentenced, the member m

released from all conditions ofretraining and restraint resulti

assignment to a retraining brigade. In Stewart v. Stevens, 5 M

(C.M.A. 1978), the Court declined to rule on a request to rev

imposition of nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ

was alleged to be defective for lack of service connection over 

base offense. 
potential jurors, leaving to subordinates the authority to sele

jurors to serve on specific panels. United States v. Ryan, 5 M

(C.M.A. 1978). These two cases underscored the principle that 

in the constitution of the court-martial defeat the jurisdic

courts-martial so convened. 

Court-martial jurisdiction over persons: coerced enlistments and 

retention for trial in lieu of discharge 

The Court declined to extend the doctrine of United States v. C

23 U.S.C.M.A. 142, 48 CMR 758 (1974), which denied court-m

jurisdiction over a youth who enlisted in the Army upon being o

by a juvenile court judge the choice between indeterminate det

for 5 years and military service. In United States v. Lightfoot, 

262 (C.M.A. 1978), the Court held that the Catlow defense w

available to a criminal defendant who, on the advice of couns

itiates the proposal of military service as an alternative cho

confinement for juvenile offenses. 

The Court also construed the meaning ofArticle 2(1), UCMJ, 

imposes court-martial jurisdiction upon persons "awaiting dis

after expiration of their terms of enlistment." In United Sta

Hutchinson, 4 M.J. 190 (C.M.J. 1978), the Court held that the 

expiration of a term of enlistment does not automatically term

court-martial jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction continues until th

malities of a discharge or release from active duty have been 

the person objects to his continued retention in the service 

reasonable time expires without appropriate action by the g

ment. To the extent that the service fails to comply with m

regulations which seem to mandate affirmative action to ret

risdiction, they are ineffective for a regulation cannot restrict 

diction in a manner contrary to the intent of Congress. 

In another case in which an accused had been given orders 

rating him from active duty which would be self-executing on 

effective date, the failure of the government to do more than 

charges before that date allowed court-martial jurisdiction 

minate. The Court held the government was obligated at some 

itive point in time to authoritatively signal its intent to impos

processes upon an individual. The examples contained in para

10 
Reviewing the opinion in United States v. Mosely, 1 M.J. 350 

1976), in which the Court prohibited the use ofthe general det

theory of sentencing, a divided Court narrowed the decision 

United States v. Varacalle, 4.M.J. 181 (C.M.A. 1978), affirme

tence imposed by a military judge who considered the deterr

others in sentencing an accused who had pleaded guilty in s

affirming opinions, Chief Judge Fletcher and Judge Perry in

that the military judge had achieved the proper goal ofindivid

sentencing notwithstanding his consideration of the genera

rence factor. 

After the decision in United States v. Courtney, I M.J. 438 

1976), which limited the maximum punishment in appropria

to the lesser of the Article 92 punishment or the Article 134 

ment when the criminal act violates both articles, the U.S. Ar

the U.S. Air Force rescinded their drug regulations. In Unite

v. Hoesing, 5 M.J. 355 (C.M.A. 1978), the Court rejected the ar

that extant Navy and Coast Guard drug regulations carryin

punishments causes Army and Air Force members to be dep

the equal protection of laws when their services prosecuted t

drug offenses under the general article with its greater pena

In reviewing a case tried after the decision in United S

Green, 1 M.J. 453 (C.M.A. 1976), the Court declined to adopt 

dard of appellate review which would have permitted the m

judge's inquiry into the existence of a plea bargain to be tested 

for substantial compliance. Unless the procedure outlined i

was strictly followed the appellate authorities were left w

record which satisfactorily demonstrates the absence of s

agreements. United States v. King, 3 M.J. 458 (C.M.A. 1977

An accused's right at a common trial, under certain circum

to withdraw a request for trial by military judge alone was a

by the Court in United States v. Wright, 5 M.J. 106 (C.M.A

Change oflitigation conditions, not merely change ofmind, aut

the revocation of the jury waiver. By refusing to rule on the 

sibility of pretrial statements at a preliminary session of th

and which at trial as both judge and fact finder the militar

would have later been required to redact as to each accused 

the other, the military judge erred, which, when coupled w
(), 

y 

to minor disciplinary matters. 

Courts of Military Review: power to suspend sentences and sente

reassessment obligations 

In reviewing a case in which the U.S. Navy Court ofMilitary 

had acted independently to suspend a bad-conduct dischar

Court refused to depart from a strict construction of Articles 

and 74, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. secs. 866, 871 and 874, by reading th

of suspension powers in these articles to others and the with

of it from the Courts of Military Review as an unequivocal d

such authority to the Courts of Military Review. United S

Darville, 5 M.J. 1 (C.M.A. 1978). In another case, the Court h

opportunity to review the action of a Court of Military Rev

reassessing a sentence on the basis of error found in the adm

at sentencing of certain nonjudicial punishments. The Court, 

ing its statutory obligation to review as a matter oflaw a reasse

of sentence in a Court of Military Review required by a fin

error in the sentencing procedures at trial, held that the U.S

Court of Military Review erred as a matter of law in reassess

affirming a sentence including a bad-conduct discharge on the g

that it was a relatively light sentence. The Court held that t

ishment was severe, and that it was inappropriate to view 

conduct discharge as a sign of lack of prejudice in sentencing 

face of acknowledged errors at trial. United States v. Dukes, 

71 (C. M.A. 1978). 

Right to confront witnesses: chain-of-custody forms, obligation t

depose, and general discovery 

The Court addressed several cases involving witnesses 

which are likely to have impact upon trial practice before 

martial. In United States v. Nault, 4 M.J. 318 (C.M.A. 197

Court prohibited the use as a business record of a chain-of-

form to account for the control offungible contraband evidence 

the time it is held in prosecutorial hands. Then, addressing th

to cross-examine prosecution witnesses at a pretrial invest

the Court held that the failure of the defense to exercise the 

tunity to depose two civilian witnesses who previously decl

12 
in the same case that not every failure to produce a material 

requires reversal of a conviction. Where the record on appe

onstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that such evidence w

have tipped the balance in favor ofthe accused and where the 

of guilt is so strong as to show no reasonable possibility of p

reversal is not mandated. 

Right to counsel: pretrial confinees, access to client, and conflict

interest procedure 

In the exercise of its general supervisory power over the a

tration of military justice, the Court ruled that an accuse

military justice system is entitled to the assignment of cou

representational purposes at the earliest possible moment a

fundamental fairness requires legal representation of those 

in pretrial confinement for more than a brief period of time. 

States v. Jackson, 5 M.J. 223 (C.M.A. 1978). The Court dec

extend to an accused a statutory right under Article 38, U

have the same attorney represent him at a rehearing at the tr

as had represented him on appeal pursuant to Article 70, UCM

appellate proceedings have terminated, if a rehearing is ord

assignment of a different defense lawyer does not constitute 

proper severing of any previous attorney-client relationship

States v. Kelker, 4 M.J. 323 (C.M.A. 1978). The Court also wa

to rule on the denial of access of a civilian attorney to his 

client who was being held for questioning on unrelated matter

the accused was unaware of the lawyer's presence nearby. Th

held that an incriminating statement secured from the accuse

these circumstances was in derogation of his Sixth Amendme

to counsel. In this case, the Court also held that there may 

cumstances when an accused can validly waive his rights to 

after having initially asserted them. United States v. Turner

148 (C.M.J. 1978). In a case involving an accused who was repr

by a lawyer who earlier had represented the principal pros

witness, the Court directed that a military judge follow a pr

similar to that prescribed by Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 with respect t

pleas when faced with a trial involving a potential danger o
valid based upon a commander's plenary search authority. Tu

to a gate search at a military base within the territorial limits 

United States, the Court held, in United States v. Harris, 5 M

(C.M.A. 1978), that the use of gate searches to deter person

introducing contraband onto a military installation is an emi

reasonable response to a serious problem affecting the mi

Nevertheless, for a gate search to be reasonable within the me

ofthe Fourth Amendment's provisions against unreasonable sea

the regulatory procedure must be prescribed in advance and 

eliminate the possibility that law enforcement personnel at th

can exercise selectivity and discretion concerning who or wha

be searched. In the third search case of the term the Court u

the search of an automobile parked on an Air Force base. Beca

automobile owner has no reasonable expectation of privacy 

odors emanating from it while parked in a public area, a tr

marijuana detection dog may be used to detect the presence o

ijuana inside a locked, parked automobile thereby supplying pro

cause to support a search ofthe vehicle. United States v. Grossk

5 M.J. 344 (C. M.A. 1978). 

Right to speedy trial 

The Court also construed Article 10, UCMJ, which require

immediate steps be taken once an accused is placed under arr

confinement to inform him of the accusations and to try him 

dismiss the charges and release him. In United States v. Nels

M.J. 189 (C.M.A. 1978), the Court held this codal article wa

violated where an accused was held in pretrial confinement for 

13 days after which he was released but not brought to trial fo

6 months. The Court ruled that this pretrial delay did not amo

a deprivation of the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial 

pertinent Supreme Court caselaw. 

Substantive offenses: Assimilative Crimes Act 

Faced with an argument that the provisions of Articles 12

130, UCMJ, have preempted prosecution by court-martial f

offense of burglary of an automobile, as proscribed by the Texas 

14 

cross-petition granted .................... 

Petitions for grant of review filed ........... 

Extraordinary writs sought ................ 

Reconsideration filings granted ............. 

TOTAL ................................... 


CUMULATIVE TERMINATIONS 

Master Docket ............................ 

Petition Docket ............................ 

Miscellaneous Docket ...................... 

TOTAL ................................... 


CUMULATIVE END PENDING 

Master Docket ............................ 

Petition Docket ............................ 

Miscellaneous Docket ...................... 

TOTAL.............. ...... ............... 


FIUNGS (MASTER DOCKET) 


Appeals filed .............................. 


Certificates filed ........................... 


Petitions granted .......................... 


Petitions granted w/certificate .............. 


Reconsideration granted ................... 


TOTAL....... ............... ...•......... 


TERMINATIONS (MASTER DOCKET) 


Findings and sentence affirmed ......... 204 


Reversed in whole or in part ........... 170 


Granted petitions vacated .............. 9 


Other disposition directed .............. -2!. 


TOTAL ............................... 394 


PENDING (MASTER DOCKET) 


Assigned opinons pending .................. 


Judges' conference pending ................. 


Oral argument pending .................... 


Preargument conference pending ........... 


Calendar committee pending ............... 


Final briefs pending ....................... 


TOTAL............................. ...... 


1 


1,627 


99 


4 


1,740 

394 


1,384 


98 


1,876 

394 


265 


14 


673 


0 


9 


429 


1 


4 


443 


Signed .....

Per curiam .

Mem opn/ord

TOTAL ....

235 


0 


22 


96 


5 


36 


394 


16 
g

Petitions for grant remanded .......... 15 


Petitions for grant withdrawn .........__6 


TOTAL ..............................1,384 


PENDING (PETITION DOCKET) 


Petition briefs pending ..................... 176 


Staff attorney action pending ............... 69 


Court action pending ...................... 20 


TOTAL............. ...................... 265 


FILINGS (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET) 


Writs of error coram nobis sought .......... 7 


Writs of habeas corpus sought .............. 24 


Writs of mandamus/prohibition sought ...... 40 


Other extraordinary writs sought ........... 28 


TOTAL................................... 99 


TERMINATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET) 


Petitions withdrawn .................... 4 


Petitions remanded ..................... 0 


Petitions granted ....................... 2 


Petitions denied ........................ 71 


Petitions dismissed ..................... 21 


TOTAL ................................ 98 


PENDING (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET) 


Briefs pending ............................ 1 


Action by Writs Counsel pending ........... 12 


Show cause action by Court pending ........ 0 


Show cause response pending ............... 1 


Temporary stay in effect ................... 0 


Other final action pending ................. 0 


TOTAL................................... 14 


Signed .......

Per curiam ...

Mem opn/order 

TOTAL ......

Signed .......

Per curiam ...

Mem opn/order 

TOTAL ......
MOTIONS 

Disposi tions Category Filings Pending Granted Rejected 

1078 34 788 257 

18 
OCTOBER 1, 1977 to SEPTEMBER 30, 1978 

During fiscal year 1978, the Office of The Judge Advocate 

continued to monitor the proceedings of courts-martial, to re

prepare military justice publications and regulations, and t

draft legislative changes for the UCMJ. 

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS AND U.S. ARMY JUDICIARY A

The military justice system continued to experience a decl

number of courts-martial Army-wide during fiscal year 1

total number of persons tried by all types of courts-martia

year 1978 declined by 7.1% from the year before, and those 

by 5.3%. The figures for fiscal year 1977 were a 21.1% d

persons tried, from the prior year, and a 23.3% decline in 

convicted. 

The total number of Article 15's imposed during fiscal y

decreased from that of fiscal year 1977 by 7.4%. In fiscal y

there were 154,410 Article 15's imposed, or approximately 2

the total number of courts-martial tried. In fiscal year 19

were 166,798 Article 15's imposed, also approximately 20.2 

total number of courts-martial tried during that year. 

A factor which contributed to the decline in the courts-ma

was the continued use ofadministrative procedures to separa

members who were in trouble or likely to come into con

military criminal law. Procedures under Chapter 10, Arm

tion 635-200, were used to separate soldiers facing court-m

an offense whose maximum punishment includes a pun

charge. Expeditious Discharge and Trainee Discharge Progr

used to identify and separate members who could not adjus

life. 
Overall decrease in persons tried over fiscal year 1977: 

* Not available 

b. 	 Punitive discharges approved (by GCM convening authority). 

General courts-martial: 

Dishonorable discharges: ...................................... 

Bad-conduct discharges: ....................................... 

Special courts-martial: 

Bad-conduct discharges: ....................................... 

c. 	 Records of trial received for: 

Review under Art. 66 (GCM): .................................. 

Review under Art. 66 (BCD SPCM): ........................... 

Examination under Art. 69 (GCM): ............................ 

d. 	 Workload of the Army Court of Military Review: 

Total cases on hand at beginning of fiscal year 1978: .............. 

GCM: ................................... 489 


BCD SPCM: ............................. 249 


Cases received for review: ....................................... 

GCM: ................................... 785 

BCD SPCM: ............................. 578 

Total cases reviewed: 

GCM: ................................... 962 

BCD SPCM: ............................. 639 

Total cases pending at close of fiscal year 1978: 

GeM: ......................... .......... 312 

BCD SPCM: ............................. 188 

Decrease over number of cases reviewed during fiscal year 1977 (percen

e. 	 Requests for appellate counsel in cases before the Army Court of 

Military Review: 

Number: ..................................................... 

Percentage: ................................................... 

f. 	 U.S. Court of Military Appeals actions (percentages): 

ACMR reviewed cases forwarded to USCMA: ....................... 

Increase over fiscal year 1977: ................................. 

Total petitions granted: ........................................... 

Increase over fiscal year 1977: ................................. 

Petitions granted of total cases reviewed by ACMR: ................. 

Increase over number of cases reviewed during fiscal year 1977: 

20 
BCDSPCM: .................................................

Trials by military judge with members: 

GeM: .......................................................

BCD SPCM: .................................................

i. Complaints under Article 138 received by OTJAG: .................

j. Army average active duty strength, fiscal year 1978: ...............

k. Nonjudicial punishment (Article 15). 

Number cases where nonjudicial punishment imposed: ..............

Rate per 1,000 average strength: ..................................

Decrease in rate per 1,000 average strength over fiscal year 1977: ...

The U.S. Army JudiCiary 

The U.S. Army Judiciary is an element of the U.S. Arm

Services Agency. It consists of the U.S. Army Court of Mi

view, the Clerk of Court, the Examinations and New Trials 

and the Trial Judiciary. 

The Agency also includes the Government Appellate Div

Defense Appellate Division, the Contract Appeals Division 

Regulatory Law Office. The latter two sections have no fun

lated to the U.S. Army Judiciary and its court-martial mis

represent the Army and the Department of Defense in cer

tractual disputes before regulatory commissions and boards

U.S. Army Trial Defense Service 

On 15 May 1978, with the approval of the Chief of Staff, t

began a one-year test of a new organization for military 

counsel, known as the U.S. Army Trial Defense Service (U

The test is being conducted at 16 installations. 

The primary mission of USATDS is to provide specified 

counsel services at the installation level. USATDS counsel r

soldiers at courts-martial, Article 32 investigations, and ce

ministrative actions in which counsel is required. They 

advice to soldiers offered Article 15 punishment and to sus

required by law. Secondary USATDS missions are aimed at im

the professionalism and efficiency of defense counsel. 
screened to ensure they possessed necessary background, expe

and professional and personal qualifications. For administrativ

poses, the testing installations have been grouped into thre

graphical regions. A field grade Regional Defense Counsel supe

operations within each region. The Assistant Judge Advocate G

for Civil Law exercises overall supervision over the program. P

mance ratings are accomplished in the defense chain, thereby 

inating allegations of unlawful command influence. 

USATDS field offices are satellited on the local SJA offices 

ministrative and logistical support. This is similar to the ar

ments now used to support the military trial judges. 

In addition to correcting perceptions concerning divided lo

of counsel, USATDS provides a responsive defense chain of su

sion, guidance, and evaluation. Staffjudge advocates now may 

an increasing share of their time to legal responsibilities wh

not relate to the administration of military justice. Converse

gional and Senior Defense Counsel have only one job, the d

function, and they can devote their full efforts to such duties. 

through supervision and management, the Army will be able 

hance the professionalism of counsel and, at the same time, pr

the most effective and efficient use of resources. 

During fiscal year 1978, experience with the test program w

vorable. It continues to be evaluated by commanders, staffjud

vocates, USATDS personnel, and others charged with the 

istration of military justice. 

SIGNIFICANT MILITARY JUSTICE ACTIONS 

Actions involving military justice handled by the Crimina

Division, OTJAG, included evaluating and drafting legislatio

ecutive Orders, pamphlets, and regUlations impacting on the 

tion of the Army and the Department of Defense; monitori

administration of military justice, including evaluation of on

major projects; rendering opinions for the Army staff; and rev

various aspects of criminal cases for action by the Army Secr

and staff. 

22 
Proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ); adding formulas f

mining maximum authorized monthly forfeitures and dete

pay under Article 15, UCMJ; updating the informational re

to various restrictions as to membership of courts-martial a

related military justice duties; conforming the Advice as to A

Rights and the Petition for Grant of Review forms to the curr

of the U.S. Court of Military Appeals; and providing an ind

figures and tables located in the regulation. 

FOREIGN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION 

As executive agent for DOD, DA (through OTJAG) maint

collates information concerning the exercise of foreign crim

risdiction over U.S. service members. During the period 1 D

1977 through 30 November 1978, out of 16,485 cases (wo

involving primary foreign concurrent jurisdiction of U.S. A

sonnel, foreign authorities waived their jurisdiction in 16,2

for a waiver rate of 98.6 percent. This compares with a wa

of 97.5 percent in the previous reporting period. 

LITIGATION 

Litigation involving the Army during fiscal year 1978 ha

limited impact upon military justice matters. 

In Curry v. Secretary of the Army, Civ. No. 77-07171 

1977), appeal docketed, No. 78-1031 (D.C. Cir. 1978), plain

lenged the constitutionality of the Uniform Code of Military 

in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleg

the convening authority was given authority which denied the 

-due process. In dismissing plaintiffs complaint, the district c

cluded that the referenced portions of the UCMJ did not vi

Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 

In Stidham v. TJAG, etal., Civ. No. TH 77-129-C (S.D. Ind

plaintiff, a military prisoner serving his sentence in a fede

tentiary, sought to have his sentence reduced by the amoun

he spent in pretrial confinement. In dismissing his action, 

District Court for the Southern District of Indiana conclu
U.S. Court of Claims, concluding that the latter court was the 

forum for disposition of plaintiff's action. 

Finally, in Mitchell v. United States, Civ. No. 78-4-Civ-3 

N.C., 1978), plaintiff challenged his court-martial conviction 

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District ofNorth Carolina, al

that the court-martial lacked jurisdiction over the offense in qu

Noting that plaintiff was serving a life sentence at the U.S. 

plinary Barracks, Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, the district cou

cluded that it lacked jurisdiction over plantiff's action an

missed it. 

EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

During fiscal year 1978, The Judge Advocate General's Sch

cated in Charlottesville, Virginia, provided legal education to l

of the military services and other Federal agencies. Forty-thr

ident courses were conducted with 2,102 students in atten

Courses were attended by 1,311 Army, 105 Navy and Marin

Air Force, 45 Coast Guard, 53 Army National Guard, 14 Air N

Guard, 447 civilian, and 9 foreign students. 

Courses of Instruction 

During fiscal year 1978, three Basic Classes, the 85-87th

conducted. A total of 213 officers (211 Army, one Coast Guar

one foreign) were graduated. 

The 27th Graduate Class began on 21 August 1978 with 52 

one Navy, five Marine, and three foreign officers in attendanc

During fiscal year 1978, the Criminal Law Division expan

continuing legal education offerings by presenting the 1st Cr

Law New Developments Course in October 1977. This cour

dresses a broad range of recent developments in the practice 

itary criminal law. 

The International Law Division developed a new course ofin

tion for the Law of War Workshop. The International Law f

focused on a substantial update of the law of war to include th

Protocols to the Geneva Conventions with emphasis on stude

ticipation. Course content has a substantial number of hours o

inar and practical exercises. 

24 
under the Charter of the International Military Tribunal; a

fessor W. Thomas Mallison ofthe George Washington Univer

Center. Their remarks are being prepared for publication in 

itary Law Review. 

A member of the International Law faculty was a particip

instructor in the Fifth International Course on Law ofWar for 

at San Remo, Italy, in September 1978. The course, sponsore

International Institute of Humanitarian Law, presents a gen

gram on the law ofwar, with special emphasis on practical app

of the rules of war. Although some lawyers are invited, the c

designed primarily for senior commanders and staffofficers wh

have occasion to apply the law of war in the performance 

duties. 

The 8th Procurement Attorneys' Advanced Course; 9-13 

1978, featured construction contracting in the Federal sec

phasis was placed on specification analysis, changes, diffe

conditions, delay, suspension and acceleration, inspection, ac

and warranties, and relationships of subcontractors with the

contractors. The week concluded with a simulated claims se

negotiation session at the contracting officer level and claim

aration and remedies at the agency boards of contract appea

The Administrative and Civil Law Division sponsored a 

of continuing legal education (CLE) courses in fiscal year 197

assistance, Government information practices, claims, Fede

relations, military administrative law developments, enviro

law and law office management were among the courses pr

In addition, the division sent an instructor to the NCO A

Course at Fort Benjamin Harrison to conduct courses in adm

tive and civil law subjects. 

In January 1978, the Administrative and Civil Law Divis

ducted the 1st Litigation Course. In attendance were 34 civi

military attorneys from all the services. General topics, such 

paring a litigation report and responsive pleadings, as well 

specialized areas, such as civil rights litigation and the Feder

of Civil Procedure, were discussed. Two guest speakers, M

Matthews (Civilian Attorney, Litigation Division, Office ofTh

Advocate General) and Mr. Anthony J. Steinmeyer (Appel
g

Major Projects 

In April 1978, the Director of the Judge Advocate Division, 

quarters, Marine Corps, Brigadier General James P. King, U

spoke to the Graduate Class on the role ofthe Marine Judge Adv

In May 1978, Lieutenant General Lawrence F. Snowden, USMC, 

of Staff, Headquarters, Marine Corps, addressed the Graduate 

on the role of the Marine Corps now and in the future. 

On 27 April 1978, the second Charles L. Decker Lecture i

ministrative and Civil Law was presented by Professor A. E

Howard, the White Burkett Miller Professor ofLawand Public M

at the University of Virginia. Professor Howard's topic was 

Bakke Case: The Supreme Court and the Promised Land." 

The Honorable Oliver Gasch, Judge, United States District 

for the District ofColumbia, delivered the Seventh Kenneth J. H

Lecture in Criminal Law on 10 March 1978. 

The Edward H. Young Lecture in Military Legal Educatio

presented by Professor John M. Hazard, Columbia University S

of Law, on 21 September 1978. 

The Judge Advocate General's School was the site of the 

Officers Advanced Course (BOAC) Phase IV (Administrativ

Civil Law) and the Judge Advocate Reserve Components Ge

Staff Course (resident phase) 18 June-l July 1978. One hundre

eighteen officers attended the BOAC course, and 41 field grade o

completed the General Staff course. 

The Reserve Components Technical Training (on-site) Pro

provided training to JAG reservists in 52 cities. School faculty 

bers made 24 on-site trips during academic year 1977-78. 

The School hosted the annual Worldwide JAG Conference 

October 1977. Judge advocates stationed throughout the U

States and at foreign commands conferred on themes of curre

terest to the military legal community. 

The Board of Visitors of The Judge Advocate General's Schoo

vened at the School for their annual meeting 20-22 March 

Members who attended were the Honorable Robert M. Duncan, 

Emerson G. Spies, Mr. Marion E. Harrison, Mr. James W. Curti

Dean Chapin D. Clark. Other members of the Board, Ms. Ruth 

26 
PERSONNEL, PLANS, AND POLICIES 

Excluding law students, the average strength of The Judg

vocate General's Corps for fiscal year 1978 was 1,440. Repres

minority groups were 51 Blacks, 11 Mexican-Americans, 11 Orie

7 Puerto Ricans, and 61 women. The fiscal year 1978 average str

compares with an average of 1,514 in fiscal year 1977, 1,588 in 

year 1976, 1,590 in fiscal year 1975, and 1,571 in fiscal year 

The average strength of the Corps has stabilized and should r

relatively constant for the foreseeable future. The grade distri

of the Corps at the end of the fiscal year was: 5 general offic

colonels, 141 lieutenant colonels, 209 majors, and 995 captains. 

were also 58 warrant officers. In addition, 74 officers were p

pating in the Funded Legal Education Program. 

To ensure that the best qualified candidates for initial commi

career status, and The Judge Advocate Officer Graduate Course 

selected, formal boards were convened under The Judge Adv

General's written instructions at several times during the yea

In February 1978 a selection board was convened to select 25 

duty commissioned officers to commence law school under the F

Legal Education Program. 

Notwithstanding recent trends toward a larger percentage of 

judge advocates, there is still a shortage of field grade office

noted in last year's report, on 9 February 1976 the Secretary 

Army approved, for purposes of temporary promotion, separate 

advocate promotion consideration through the grade of colone

deeper zones of consideration than on the Army Promotion List

policy has resulted in a decrease in the shortage of field grade o

in fiscal year 1978 and.ultimately will eliminate the shortage 

future. 

Sixty-one officers completed the following schools: 

U.S. Army War College ............... ,.................................

Industrial College of the Armed Forces ...................................

U.S. Army Command and G€neral Staff College...........................

Armed Forces Staff College ..............................................

The Judge Advocate Officer Graduate Course .............................
28 
THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY 

pursuant to 

THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 

for 

FISCAL YEAR 1978 

Supervision of the administration of military justice.-Comp

with the requirements of article 6 (a), Uniform Code of Militar

tice, the Judge Advocate General and the Deputy Judge Ad

General continued to visit commands within the United State

rope, and the Far East in the supervision of the administra

military justice. 

Court-martial workload.-a. There has been a decrease in th

number of courts-martial during FY 1978. (See Exhibit A at

to this report.) 

b. During FY 1978, the Navy Court of Military Review receiv

review 254 general courts-martial and 1,492 special courts-m

as compared with 295 general courts-martial and 1,840 special c

martial during FY 1977. Of 1,601 cases received by the Navy 

of Military Review, 1,416 accused requested counsel (88 perce

Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary.-The Navy-Marine 

Trial Judiciary provided military judges for 481 general court

tial during Fiscal Year 1978, a decrease of 1 case from Fisca

1977. In Fiscal Year 1977,61% of the general courts-martia

tried by courts constituted with military judge alone. This is 1% 

than general courts-martial tried by courts constituted without 

bers during Fiscal Year 1977. 

The Navy Marine Corps Trial Judiciary supplied military judg

4,940 special courts-martial trials during Fiscal Year 1978, an incr

163 cases from the Fiscal Year 1977 level of4,777. In Fiscal Year 

91 % ofthe special courts-martial were tried by courts constitute

military judge alone. This is 1 % higher than special courts-m

tried by courts constituted without members during Fiscal Year 

The present manning level of the Navy-Marine Corps Trial 
Judiciary, Reno, Nevada. Nine military judges attended a M

Judges Seminar at Coronado, California 28-29 October 1977

military judges attended a Military Judges Seminar at Qu

Virginia. 

Naval Legal Service.-The Naval Legal Service (NLS) ha

no new Naval Legal Service Offices or Branch Offices since 

report and still consists of 18 parent Naval Legal Service Off

16 Branch Offices which are located throughout the world. T

manpower strength authorization for the NLS includes 28

advocates, 5 warrant officers, 181legalmen, and for Fiscal Ye

158 civilian employees which includes 33 direct hire foreign na

and 8 indirect hire foreign nationals. Navy judge advocate

NLS comprise approximately one-third of the Navy's total ju

vocate strength. 

The NLS, under the direction of the Judge Advocate Gener

capacity as Director, Naval Legal Service, by consolidating a

legal resources at locations with a high concentration of nav

mands, continues to provide timely response to requests from 

ities requiring counsel and trial team services. The insul

defense counsel in their defense of court-martial accused has 

to be an ideal vehicle to remove any perception of command in

The NLS is providing an ever increasing amount of necessa

services to local commands. Periodic command inspections 

operation of each of the various Naval Legal Service Offi

Branch Offices has shown that most line commanders who 

upon the NLS for support are satisfied with the quality and tim

of services rendered. 

Article 69 Petitions.-The number of petitions filed under 

69, Uniform Code of Military Justice, pursuant to which th

Advocate General may vacate or modify the findings or sen

courts-martial which have been finally reviewed under Art

but have not been reviewed by the Navy Court of Military R

has remained relatively constant. 

In FY 1978, 78 petitions were received by the Judge A

General. Ninety-one petitions, including 38 from FY 1977, w

viewed during FY 1978 and relief was granted, in whole or 

in 23 of the petitions. Pending review at the close of FY 197

30 
g

conference heard addresses by the Secretary of the Navy, C

Naval Operations, and the Assistant Commandant of the M

Corps. The conference included presentations on various topic

trends in military justice, an update on the Military Magistra

gram and military law, Posse Comitatus, delivery of personnel 

authorities, Detainers' Act, conflict of interest, standards of c

law ofthe sea, law of armed conflict, and current litigation. In a

to these presentations, seminars were held which discussed 

sponsibilities of trial counsel, defense counsel, military judg

staff judge advocates. Additional seminars addressed the us

galmen in paralegal capacities, military personnel and financia

agement concerning the Naval Legal Service Office, civilian em

matters, Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts, environ

law, servicemen's unions, tort claims, garnishment, labor rel

affirmative claims, personnl claims, foreign criminal jurisdict

ternationallaw, wiretapping and electronic surveillance, inv

tions, admiralty, administrative discharge procedures, legal ass

and taxation, including income, gift, estate, federal, state, an

b. This annual conference ofjudge advocates has once agai

onstrated the tremendous benefit which can be derived when 

advocates from all over the world have the opportunity to part

in seminars concerning areas of mutual concern which have 

during the past year. Plans are already underway for a simil

ference in October 1978. 

Naval Justice School.-The Naval Justice School, in Ne

Rhode Island, with a teaching staff of twelve officers and six e

personnel, presented the following courses of instruction in m

law and related administrative and civil law matters to a t

1,763 students during Fiscal Year 1978. 

Lawyer Course: Five eight-week lawyer classes were present

ing the year. This course, designed to provide basic training in m

justice and military administrative and civil law matters to in

Navy and Marine Corps lawyers, includes 191 hours of cla

instruction and 127 hours of practical exercises, including moo

and various criminal law practical exercises. Training was pr

to 108 Navy lawyers and 58 Marine Corps lawyers. 
for naval and Marine Corps Reserve lawyers. The Basic Cours

as an introduction to military law for those lawyers withou

nificant active duty legal experience. The Refresher Course is d

for lawyers who have previously served on extended active 

a judge advocate or Marine lawyer, or those who previous

attended the Reserve Basic Course, and provides the student 

update on recent developments in military law. Training was p

to 45 Naval Reserve lawyers and 44 Marine Corps Reserve 

in Fiscal Year 1978. 

Senior Officer Course: Eighteen one-week classes were pr

during the year, reaching a total of 981 students. Five of the 

were presented in Newport. The other thirteen were prese

Norfolk, Virginia; Charleston, South Carolina; Jacksonville, 

San Diego, and San Francisco, California; Seattle, Washington

Pendleton, California; Amphibious Warfare School, and Co

and Staff College, Quantico, Virginia; Pearl Harbor, Hawai

Bay, Philippines; and Okinawa and Yokosuka, Japan. This c

designed primarily for commanding officers and executive 

and is intended to prepare these officers to handle the legal pr

normally faced by commanding and executive officers in the 

military justice and administrative and civil law. Training w

vided to 486 Navy officers, 444 Marine Corps officers, and 5

Guard officers during the fiscal year. 

Legal Clerk Course: Five three and one-half week classe

conducted during the year. This course is designed to train e

personnel to serve as legal yeomen or legal clerks at their res

commands. Graduation from this course, and from the followin

Reporting Course, is required for conversion to legalman in th

Training was provided to 135 Navy personnel and 17 Coast 

personnel. 

Court Reporting Course: Four five-and-one-half week class

presented during Fiscal Year 1978. The purpose of this cour

train enlisted personnel in the field of closed mask court rep

Training was provided to 43 Navy personnel, 31 Army personn

17 Coast Guard personnel. 

In addition to those formal courses of instruction listed abo

32 
Article 67 (b), UCMJ.During this reporting period, six cas

certified for review by the U. S. Court of Military Appeals pu

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

Article 138 Complaints.-In FY 1978, 110 complaints of 

were received in the office of the Judge Advocate Gener

hundred thirty-five complaints of wrongs, including 27 from F

were reviewed during FY 1978, leaving 2 pending review a

September 1978. 

Joint-Service Committee on Military Justice.-The primary f

ofthe Joint-Service Committee on Military Justice is the prep

and evaluation of proposed amendments and changes to the U

Code of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts-Martial, 

States, 1969 (Revised edition). It also serves as a forum for 

change of ideas relating to militaryjustice matters among the s

In the past, the Committee has mainly considered proposals an

generated within the services. In 1976, it was given responsib

commenting on matters that came from outside the services 

The proposed legislation on improving the efficiency ofthe m

justice system, noted in last year's report, continued on its 

Capitol Hill. During the period of this report, the draft bill was r

by the Department ofDefense to the Office of Management and 

for review and clearance by other Executive Departments a

It is expected that the draft bill will be submitted by the Depa

of Defense as part of its legislative program for the first sessio

96th Congress. 

Proposals concerning Government appeal, the President's au

to prescribe procedures for courts-martial, vacation proceedin

en banc rehearings by Courts of Military Review all were re

and then submitted to the Code Committee for its consideration

proposals are presently pending at the Code Committee. 

The working group of the Joint-Service Committee is also 

taking a thorough review of the rules of evidence contained 

Manual for Courts-Martial, 1969 (Revised edition), in light 

experience of the Federal courts with the new Federal Rules 

dence. It is anticipated that changes designed to more closel

military and civilian practice in this area will be recommend

Ethics.-Action was taken to maintain high ethical stand
ofthe Commandant ofthe Marine Corps; and the Executive A

to the Judge Advocate General who acts as recorder. Ap

action was taken under the provisions of section 0141 of the 

ofthe Judge Advocate General in three cases brought to the 

of the Judge Advocate General. 

Civil Litigation.-During FY 1978, the Judge Advocate 

worked closely with the Justice Department in several civil 

cases having potential impact on the military justice system

ence was provided to the Department and to various U. S. a

including preparation of legal memorandums and litigation 

preparation of briefs and motions in conjunction with a U. S. 

and preparation of U. S. attorneys for oral arguments befor

courts. Two of the more significant cases and issues involve

forth below: 

a. McLelland v. Claytor. This case involves a service memb

ing a writ ofmandamus to compel the Secretary ofthe Navy 

him from the United States Navy and to cause all applicable 

records to be corrected to show that he was never lawfully 

the jurisdiction and control of the United States Navy, es

because of a breach of contract. The service member allege

United States Navy guaranteed him a specific school but 

to him his enlistment agreement stated a school other tha

he believed he was guaranteed when he signed the cont

service member, therefore, asserts that his enlistment is 

result offraudulent misrepresentation, mistake as to a mat

and breach of a fiduciary duty. The case is currently in a 

status; the service member is presently in a deserter status

b.Ash v. Tarquin. This case involves the proper scope of no

punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Jus

case is a consolidation of several cases raising the issues of (1

service-connection is an element in nonjudicial punishment 

ings; and (2) whether service members who are permanently 

to a ship but are temporarily assigned to a shore activity 

embarked on or attached to a vessel for purposes of nonjudi

ishment. As to the first issue, the district court held that ser

nection is an element in nonjudicial punishment proceed

34 

PERCENTAGE OF COMR REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO useMA 27% 

.PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE/OECREASE OVER PREVIOUS 

REPORTING .."ERloe 29% XK~K~X«~

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 17% 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE/DECREASE OVER PREVIOUS 

REPORTINGP "O~D~______________________________~~____~5~%~____-r¥~~~~~~~~~X=~~~~

PERCENTAGE PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY COMR 5% 

36 
GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

PART 9 - COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 135 

PART 10 - STRENGTH 
OCTOBER 1,1977 TO SEPTEMBER 30,1978 

Major General Walter D. Reed, The Assistant Judge Advoca

eral, was named The Judge Advocate General on October 

succeeding Major General Harold R. Vague, who retired. Br

General James Taylor, Jr., Director of Civil Law, was· nam

Assistant Judge Advocate General. 

In compliance with the requirements of Article 6( a), Unifor

of Military Justice (UCMJ), Generals Reed and Taylor made 

staff visits to legal offices in the United States and oversea

also attended and participated in various bar association m

and addressed numerous civil, professional, and military organi

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS AND US AIR FORCE JUDICIA

ACTIVITIES 


During FY 1978, the Judiciary Directorate of the Office 

Judge Advocate General processed in excess of 1,671 actions in

military justice. The Directorate has the overall responsibilit

pervising the administration ofmilitaryjustice throughout the 

States Air Force from the trial level through the appellate 

process, pursuant to the provisions of the Manual for Courts-

1969 (Rev.) and the UCMJ. In addition, the Directorate had t

responsibility for the Office of The Judge Advocate General in 

Force military justice matters which arise in connection w

grams, special projects, studies and inquiries generated by 

Staff; Headquarters USAF; the Secretaries, Departments of D

Army, Navy, and Air Force; members of Congress; and othe

ested federal, state and civil agencies. Some of the Directora

tivities are discussed below: 

a. One Air Force Court of Military Review decision was c

by The Judge Advocate General to the Court of Military A

during fiscal year 1978. An opinion was requested on whet

action ofthe convening authority in stating that testimony to b

at any Article 32 investigation by dependent youths would 

used against them or their parents disqualified him from ac

the case. 

38 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL (SA LEVEL) 

NUMBER BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGES 

PART 3 - RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 - GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 - BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

PART 5 - APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE USAF COURT 

MILITARY REVIEW 

.:::"'~c:~"'::.:::.::.:.T-A-G-E----tI--9:-!:O"':'~..::~'-:%----1I.. :.•••••·i.......•..··.i ••••.•••.•••·••.·.•••.·...••.••••.• .. : 

pART 6 - U, S, COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS ACTIONS 

pERCENTAGE OF COMR REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO useMA 75

.PEI1CENTAGE OF INCREASE/OECREASE OVER PREVIOUS 

REPORTING PERIOD -19.5% INCREA

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 39/147 26.

pERCENTAGE OF INCREASE/DECREASE OVER PREVIOUS 

RE PORTI NG PER 100 -9.7% INCREA

PERCENTAGE 0 F PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY COMR 20.

40 
TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 

PART 9 - COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NU~19'£R 0;:­ COMPLAINTS I 33 

PART 10 - STRENGTH 
for implementation on 1 January 1980. The conversion to 

computer will enable processing MAJCOMs to design their o

plex inquiries against their respective data bases through the 

process referred to as Selective Inquiry System (SIS). This wi

the MAJCOMs to extract data from the data base and have it 

in particular formats that will satisfy their individual analy

sires and needs. Since the system was designed to act as an 

management tool as well as to provide a history of court-ma

Article 15 activity within the Air Force, this increased cap

expected to greatly enhance the potential of the system as 

At the headquarters level, over 150 special reports were p

during FY 78 to respond to various inquiries regarding militar

activities received from numerous sources both within and 

the Department of Defense. These special reports have includ

ies and surveys of such matters as comparative base surv

regard to courts-martial and Article 15 activities; non-of

Force offenses; most common offenses; A WOLldesertion rat

offense activities; and a host ofothers. In addition, data from A

was extracted to help compile reports to the Department of 

on criminal activity and disciplinary infractions; for the an

Force Posture Statement; the USAF Statistical Digest; the 

Disciplinary Trends Book; and the USAF Summary Digest

as many others. 

Trial Judiciary 

The Air Force Trial Judiciary began its year with 29 tria

located at 12 different locations throughout the world. In 

better manage its personnel resources, the trial judiciary c

reducing the number of its districts and consolidating them a

offices. During the year the RAF Mildenhall, England, Dis

closed and consolidated with the Sixth Circuit Office at Rhe

Air Base, Germany, on an experimental basis, and the O

Force Base District was closed and consolidated with the Fo

cuit Office at Lowry Air Force Base, Colorado. By the end of 

the number oftrialjudges was reduced to 27, stationed at 10 

locations. 

42 
Advocates entitled, Improving the Quality of Prosecutors in Co

Martial," Major General Walter D. Reed, The Judge Advocate 

eral, United States Air Force, announced his decision to imple

a program to expand the number ofCircuit Trial Counsel so that 

could "try or supervise the prosecution in the great bulk of tria

special courts-martial" and provide guidance and training to 

prosecutors. 

On 23 March 1978, 14 additional Circuit Trial Counsel wer

thorized and an additional officer position in Appellate Govern

Division was authorized to manage the program. At the same 

Appellate Government Division was renamed Government Tria

Appellate Counsel Division to recognize its dual functions. 

In a letter to All Staff Judge Advocates entitled "Up-Date," 

19 May 1978, The Judge Advocate General explained the expa

Circuit Trial Counsel program as follows: 

We have undertaken a program to improve the quality oftrial 

in the Air Force by enhancing the prosecution. I want to be ce

that everyone understands why we have done this, what ou

gram is, and what it is not. The Area Defense Counsel Pro

was our first step in up-grading trial practice in the Air Force

it has worked well. The accused member of the Air Force rec

representation second to none. The next step is obviously to a

that the government is equally well served. Declining discipl

rates have reduced the opportunities for trial experience, an

increasing number ofjudge advocate duties have reduced the 

available. We wanted a program that would allow judge advo

at base level to prosecute cases, and to have some skilled ba

while they are doing it. Our program entails the designation 

training of 14 additional circuit trial counsel (CTC)-not n

enough to appear in every special court-but certainly enou

provide an associate or advisor to whom the local trial counse

talk in preparing and presenting his cases. The CTC will pro

appear in the more complicated cases, and he should be the 

counsel, with the local judge advocate acting as his associa

addition to the availability ofthe circuit trial counsel, the enh

ment of the prosecution program will entail trial advocacy w
objective is to train as many qualified trial lawyers as p

given the workload and resources available. With your h

confidence this program will make Air Force trials model

vocacy skills. 

A number of favorable communications and other feedback 

the expanded CTC program has been very well received 

manders and staffjudge advocates and has filled a need for a

program to enhance the quality of prosecution in courts-mar

Confinement Facilities 

During fiscal year 1978, the United states Disciplinary B

at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, developed facilities for female p

at all levels of custody and the Air Force was notified that 

personnel sentenced to confinement by court-martial should 

to that institution under the same criteria as apply for men. A

Air Force 3320th Correction and Rehabilitation Squadron a

AFB, Colorado developed a suitable operating procedure wh

mits them to place female prisoners, selected as suitable pros

restoration to duty, in the same program as men. Both m

female prisoners in the Air Force not confined at the Unite

Disciplinary Barracks or selected for the rehabilitation S

would continue to be confined at the Army's Fort Riley, Kan

finement facility. 

UCMJ Legislative Package 

The Department of Defense's draft of proposed legislation to 

the UCMJ is presently awaiting clearance from the Office 

agement and Budget for submission to Congress. The amen

are designed to simplify and reduce the workload mandate

isting procedures. The changes include: (a) Appellate revi

where accused files timely notice of appeal and the sentenc

proved extends to dismissal, discharge, or confinement of one 

more; (b) Convening authority will determine only whether 

should be referred to trial and/or whether clemency is wa

rather than being required to make legal determinations rel

44 
education and information and its secondary objectives of educ

and informing Air Force members in such a way that the obje

of the law may be achieved largely by self discipline; persuadin

Force people to seek professional legal guidance in learning an

ercising their legal rights and obligations; and providing comma

and Air Force members a broad channel of communication o

subject of avoiding problems. 

EXECUTIVE AGENT FOR THE PRINTING OF CMR INDEX FOR VOLU

26-50 

During 1978, the Office of The Judge Advocate General on b

of all requiring agencies coordinated composition and page proof 

aration for the index to Volumes 26-50 ofthe Court-Martial Re

Publication is planned for 1979. 

EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

During calendar year 1978, The Judge Advocate General'

partment provided continuing legal and general education opp

nities to its personnel. 

The Air Force Judge Advocate General's School 

The Air Force Judge Advocatece-neral;s School, Air Unive

Maxwell AFB, Alabama taught the following resident courses: 

a. The Judge Advocate Staff Officer Course-This six week c

provides the basic educational tools for an attorney, new to th

Force, to practice military law. The course was conducted four 

during 1978, and 160 judge advocates completed it. 

b. The Staff Judge Advocate Course-This course was pres

once during 1978, and 40 judge advocates attended the course. 

c. The Military Judges' Seminar-This seminar was conducted 

during 1978, and 24 judge advocates, who are serving as mi

judges, participated. 

d. The Reserve and Air National Guard Refresher Course

Reserve and Air National Guardjudge advocates were graduated 

this course. 
Staff College, and three attended the Air War College at M

AFB, Alabama. Two officers attended the Armed Forces Staff

and one attended the National War College. 

Short Courses at Civilian Universities 

a. Prosecuting Attorney's Course at Northwestern Univer

judge advocates attended this five-day course in 1978. 

b. Defense Attorneys' Course at Northwestern Univer

judge advocates attended this five-day course in 1978. 

c. Trial Advocacy Course sponsored by Association ofTrial L

ofAmerica-18 judge advocates attended the five-day course 

d. National College of State Trial Judges at the Universit

vada. Fifteen judge advocates and one senior NCO, the Chi

Administrator, attended courses at the National College. 

Masters in Law Program 

During 1978 two judge advocates received their Master o

Labor Law; seven in Government Procurement Law; two i

national Law; and one in Environmental Law. 

Procurement Law Courses: U.S. Army JAG School 

Eighty judge advocates attended the basic procurement law 

and ten judge advocates attended the advanced procurem

course. 

TRIAL ADVOCACY COURSE 

The Judge Advocate General's Department developed and pr

a 5 112 day in-residence course for Judge Advocates active 

work. Thirty three judge advocates participated in t

presentation. 

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION SEMINARS USING VIDEOT

These seminar programs, specifically developed for C.L.E., 

a current course of study on subjects of special interest to 

partment. Written study and reference materials accompa

program. They are the most widely available source of c

mandatory state CLE programs, since the seminars are cond

Air Force bases around the world. Reserve Judge Advocates a

46 
hours of independent reading and 5 seminar hours, including a 

hour videotape presentation by Professor Abraham Dash, Univ

ofMaryland School of Law). This is ajoint production with The 

Advocate General of the Navy. 98 participants. 

e. Law of Armed Conflict and Aerial Warfare-a 16 hour c

(8 seminar hours, including the videotape showing and 8 ho

preparatory reading). The course covers the concepts of the l

armed conflict (with emphasis on air warfare) as established 

international law principles, agreements, and customs) 55 partici

f. Federal Income Tax-This course consists of four seminar 

including a two-hour videotape presentation followed by two 

ofseminar for discussion, questions, and answers. This course fo

on changes in the Federal Tax Law with emphasis on those ch

affecting the military taxpayer. All Judge Advocates required to 

the program. 

g. Environmental Law-This is a 7 -hour course with a two 

videotape and a minimum 20 hours of preparatory reading

course highlights the major federal law, executive orders, and a

directives bearing on ajudge advocate's "environmental law prac

69 participants. 

h. Government Contract Law-This is a 32 hour course (25 

ofindependent reading and 7 seminar hours). The four hour vide

portion of the seminar features Professor Ralph C. Nash, Jr.; Pro

John Cibinic, Jr., ofthe George Washington University Nationa

Center; and Judge Richard C. Solibakke, Chairman, Armed Se

Board of Contract Appeals. 150 participants. 

FEDERAL LEGAL INFORMATION THROUGH ELECTRONICS (FLI

The Office of The Judge Advocate General, USAF, continu

operate and expand one of the world's largest automated legal res

systems. Department of Defense users in 1978 included the 

Chiefs ofStaff, every uniformed service, the Court of Military Ap

and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. The num

non- DOD users included the Office of The President, Congress

Courts, the Departments of Justice, Energy, and HEW, and th

ternational Trade Commission. 
PERSONNEL 

This Department is authorized 8 generals, 112 colonels, 

tenant colonels, 248 majors, and 563 captains. As of 30 S

1978, there were 1,111 judge advocates on active duty (5 

officers, 90 colonels, 142 lieutenant colonels, 204 major 

captains). 

WALTER C. REED 

Major General, USAF 

The Judge Advocate Gene

United States Air Force 

48 
October 1, 1977 to September 30, 1978 


The table below shows the number ofcourt-martial records rece

and filed at Coast Guard Headquarters during FY-78 and the 

preceding years: 

78 77 76A 76 75 74 

General courts-martial .... 3 5 0 4 4 7 

Special courts-martial ..... 58 84 25 181 189 192 

Summary courts-martial ... 180 188 47 221 267 212 

241 277 72 406 460 411 

GENERAL/SPECIAL COURTS· MARTIAL 

All special courts-martial had lawyers for defense/trial cou

Military judges were assigned in all of the trials. Military Judge

provided for special courts-martial by use of one full-time gen

courts-martialjudge when available, and by the use ofmilitary ju

assigned to other primary duties. Control of the detail ofjudg

centrally exercised, and all requirements have been filled in a ti

fashion. 

In halfofthe special courts-martial (29), trial was by military j

with members, four of which included enlisted members. Three o

courts with members resulted in acquittal ofall charges and spec

tions. The other half were tried by military judge alone, and in t

these trials the only bad-conduct discharges for this fiscal year 

awarded. 

In FY-1977 confinement was imposed as a sentence 44 times 

convictions; 22 times each by judge alone and a court with mem

Maximum confinement of six months was imposed only once by j

alone, but four times by members. During this fiscal year confine

was imposed 25 times in 52 convictions; 17 by military judge a

and eight times by a court with members. The maximum ofsix mo

confinement was imposed only once by each type of court. 
Violation of the UCMJ, Article 

85 & 86 (desertion and AWOL) .....................................

87 (missing movement) .............................................

89 (disrespect to superior comm. officer) .............................

91 (willful disobedience or disrespect) ...............................

92 (violation of order or regulation) .................................

95 (resisting arrest) ................................................

107 (making a false statement) .....................................

108 (offenses against USCG property) ...............................

121 (larceny and wrongful appropriation) ............................

128 (assault) .......................................................

132 (false claim) ...................................................

134 (breaking restriction) ...........................................

134 or 92 (marijuana offenses) ......................................

134 or 92 (other controlled drug offenses) ............................

other offenses ......................................................

The following is a breakdown ofsentences awarded by th

judge alone in special courts-martial (29 convictions): 

bad-conduct discharge ............................ 2 

confinement at hard labor ........................ 17 

hard labor without confinement ..................-. 9 

reduction in rate ................................. 17 

restriction ...................................... . 11 

forfeiture of pay ................................ . 15 ($8,432 to

fine ............................................ . 2 ($500 tota

In 17 ofthese 29 convictions, the defendant pled guilty to a

and specifications. 

Sentences awarded by courts with members (23 convicti

confinement at hard labor ........................ 8 


hard labor without confinement ................... 3 


reduction in rate .........................•....... 11 


restriction ....................................... . 7 


forfei ture of pay ................................ . 13 ($9,320 to

fine ............................................ . 1 


others 6 


50 
Violation of the UCMJ, Article 

108 (offenses against USCG property) ...................................

121 (larceny and wrongful appropriation) ................................

128 (assault) ...........................................................

134 or 92 (marijuana offenses) ..........................................

134 (various) ..........................................................

other offenses ..........................................................

CONTINUING TRENDS 

Although active duty strength remained about the same in 

years 1977 and 1978, the number of courts-martial again de

This decrease (13%) may be linked to an increase in nonjudici

ishments imposed (up 8%) and an increase in the administrati

charge of individuals for marginal performance, unsuita

misconduct, and abuse of drugs/alcohol, which rose from 801 

1977 to 887 in FY-1978 (a 10% increase). 

CHIEFCOUNSEL ACTION UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ 

In addition to the reviews of courts-martial conducted as a 

ofa petition filed by defendants under Article 69, UCMJ, a grat

review is conducted under Article 69 of all courts-martial not re

to be reviewed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Nine A

69 actions were taken as a result ofthe gratuitous reviews, in ad

to those reported in Part 7 of Appendix A, as follows: 

Findings and sentence disapproved ......................................

Some findings disapproved; sentence reassessed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Irregularities in sentencing procedures; sentence reassessed ...............

Irregularities in post trial review and sentence disapproved ...............

PERSONNEL AND TRAINING 

The Coast Guard has 146 law specialists serving on active 

There are 114 in legal billets and 32 are serving in genera

billets. The junior officers serving at district offices act as tri
ties, and the Articles of the Code most frequently litigated w

of the areas covered. Each student was given an opportunity 

onstrate recently acquired knowledge and skills in moot cou

course was concluded with addresses by the General Couns

Department of Transportation and the Chief Counsel of th

Guard. 

ADDITIONAL MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Appendix A contains additional basic military justice stati

the reporting period and reflects the increase/decrease ofthe w

in various categories. 

LINDA HELLER KAMM 

General Counsel 

Department of Transportat

52 
October 1, 1977 to September 30, 1978 


(FY-1978) 

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

PART 5 - APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE COAST GUARD COURT O

REVIEW 

PART 6 - U. S. COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS ACTIONS 

PERCENTAGE OF COMA REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCMA 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE I-I OVEA PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)lDECREASE I ) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY COMR 

RATE OF INCREAse (+)/OECREASE I-lOVER THE NUMBEA OF CASES REVIEWED DURING 

LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

PAGE 1 OF 2 

54 
PART 9 - COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS I 8 

PART 10 - STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTive DUTY STRENGTH 

PAGE20F2 

*Part 3 - Includes one case not tried this FY, but received f

review under a new CA action. 

**Part 10-Average active duty strength is that of enlisted on

'Ir U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-296-221