and

THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENE

of the

ARMED FORCES

and the

GENERAL COUNSEL

of the

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASU

PURSUANT TO THE 

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

For the Period 

January 1,1955, to December 31.1955 PROPERTY o f u. s. army THE JUD6E ADYOCATE GENER

LIBRARY

of the

SENATE AND OF THE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

and to the

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

and the

SECRETARIES OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF THE 

ARMY, NAVY, AIR FORCE, AND TREASURY

PURSUANT TO THE 

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

For the Period 

January 1,1955, to December 31,1955

Contents

JOINT REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY A

AND THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL OF THE ARMED 

AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT 

TREASURY

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY APPEA

ijg p P O R T 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 

TREASURY (UNITED STATES COAST GUARD)

Joint Report

of the

UNITED STATES COURT O F M IL IT A R Y APPE

and

THE JUDGE A D V O C A TE S G ENERAL

OF THE AR M ED FORCES

and

THE G EN ER AL COUNSEL O F THE

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

January 1, 1955, to December 31, 1955

qg

States Court of Military Appeals, the Judge Advocates Gene

Armed Forces, and the General Counsel of the Departme

Treasury to meet annually to survey the operations of the 

prepare a report to the Committees on Armed Services of t

and the House of Representatives, to the Secretary of Def

to the Secretaries of the Departments, as respects the status o

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

legislative enactment.

The Judges of the United States Court of Military App

Judge Advocates General, and the General Counsel of the De

^ of the Treasury, hereinafter referred to as the Code Commi

‘U p met and conferred during the period of this report. The C

mittee is not urging the consideration of additional recomm

at this time, other than those set out in the second annual r

the calendar year 1953, and reaffirmed in the third annual r

calendar year 1954. These recommendations are incorporat

bills advanced by the Department of Defense and identified 

and H. R. 6583, introduced on June 2,1955, and June 1, 195

tively. They are now pending before the present Congress. 

in those bills are proposals which were either not consider

acted upon by the members of the Code Committee because o

unanimity.

m
The Judge Advocate Ge

United State

I r a H . N u n n 

The Judge Advocate Ge

United State

R e g in a ld C . H a rm 

The Judge Advocate Ge

United States Ai

F red C . S cribner

General Co

Department of the T

4
pp

decisions of the Boards of 

Review were modified by 

USCMA • 226 72 59 

t 1 As of December 31; all military personnel on extended or continuous active duty. Data i

categories of such personnel, as follows: Nurses, Navy and Marine Corps Reservists associ

serve Activities and Officer Candidates. Retired personnel are excluded.

3 Total court-martial cases for calendar years 1951, 1852, and 1953.

* Total court-martial cases from May 31,1951 (effective date of the Uniform Code of Milita

December 31, 1953.

380225 B6 2

__________________ 

— 

Report

of the

UNITED STATES COURT OF M ILITA RY A P P E

January 1, 1955, to December 31, 1955

y 

of the work of the Court during the past year form the princ

ject of the report, certain observations of the Judges are inclu

It is with deep regret that we report the sudden and untime

of Judge Paul W . Brosman. He passed away on December 

at 3: 30 p. m., while working at his desk. He was a learned 

tinguished jurist; a hard-working and a most able colleague

contributions to military justice will forever be remembered

During the interval covered by this report, the Bar of th

has continued to increase steadily. By December 31, 1955, t

bership had reached 4,601 attorneys. In the previous re

majority of the members who had been admitted were on d

the Armed Forces, but presently fifty-five percent are civili

titioners, while forty-five percent are in uniform. The mem

of the Bar includes attorneys from the forty-eight States, th

tory of Hawaii, Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, th

pine Islands, Sweden, and Thailand. The number of lawye

far away localities is due, in part, to the timely efforts of the 

who have continued their policy of assisting their reserve co

attorneys to attend court sessions for the purpose of being adm

practice before this Court. We publicly express our apprec

the Services for their efforts in that regard and we comm

civilian practitioners, who have appeared for admission, f

interest in the field of military jurisprudence.

The Judges of the Court have continued their policy of fa

ing the civilian and military communities with the provision

Uniform Code of Military J ustice and the constructive contri

has made to uniformity and justice in military law. Althou

appearances have entailed additional time and work, the lec

military service schools, reserve officers’ associations, legal 

tions, bar associations, and civic associations have aided the p

better understand and the Services to better administer the U

Code of Military Justice.

-
tional modifications of the Code have been proposed by 

Advocates General. A number of those proposed modific

brace the seventeen recommendations of the Code Committe

above, however, others go much further. The reporting 

not favorably recommend any of the additional proposa

reasons advanced in previous reports, namely, that either th

them has not been demonstrated, or they are retrogressive i

seek to restore some parts of the previous systems and there

some of the substantial rights heretofore granted by C

persons subject to the Code. It is not deemed appropriate a

to set forth in detail the arguments to support the conclusi

above but as a general proposition it can be stated that t

versial recommendations are hostile to the beneficent purp

Uniform Code of Military Justice and contrary to the will o

It may well be that members of Congress will conclude 

with hearings on some, or all, of the additional proposed ch

if so, the members of the Court request that they be ex

privilege of presenting their individual views.

During the hearings on the Uniform Code of Military J

House Armed Services Committee reported that practic

witness who testified before the Committee had urged a sepa

Advocate General’s Corps for the Navy and the Air F

Committee, however, postponed any final determination 

Judges of the United States Court of Military Appeals had 

tunity to “review the comparative results of the Army wit

as against the Navy and the Air Force without such a co

now believed that the period of operation of the Code has 

a base for an intelligent appraisal of the merits of a Corp

Congress could profitably proceed with hearings on this co

subject.

The workload of the Court during the past year has co

be substantial but the Judges and the personnel of the Cour
gpg 

and one-half year period of operation, there has been pr

improvement in shortening the time required to decide cases o

There is other data considered of importance to Congress, bu

plify its presentation and to furnish a detailed analysis of t

of cases processed during the past years, an exhibit containing 

information is attached hereto, and made a part hereof.

Respectfully submitted,

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

G eorg e W . L a tim e r, Judge

■ %
Air Force 460 430 392 

Coast Guard 15 2 7 

Total 4, 092 1, 842 1, 868 

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

62 5 

Navy 86 9 15 

Air Force 9 4 3 

Coast Guard 3 2 

Total 160 20 18 

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

Army 17 6 6 

N a v y 0 0 0 

Air Force . 0 1 0 

Coast Guard . 0 0 0 

Total 17 7 6 

Total cases docketed . . 4,269 1, 869 1, 892 

COURT ACTION

Petitions (Art. 67 (b) (8)):

Granted 393 104 130 

Denied. 3, 488 1, 703 1, 687 

Dismissed 5 0 0 

Withdrawn. 

Disposed of on motion to dismiss:

66 37 28 

With opinion . . . 5 2 0 

Without opinion

Disposed of by Order setting

16 5 4 

aside findings and sentence. 

Remanded to Board of Re

2 0 0 

view . . 8 5 10 

Court action due (30 days)2. . 81 79 75 

Awaiting briefs2 43 32 52 

17,942 cases actually assigned Docket numbers. Fifty cases counted as both Petitions a

Three cases certified twice. Thirty-four cases submitted as Petitions for the second time. O

case filed twice.

» As of December 31,1963,1964, and 1966.

12

__ ______ _______ 

______________ 

________________ 

_____________________ 

_______________ 

_____________ 

________________ 

_____________________ 

---­---------------------­ _ 

_______________ 

_______ __ 

________________ 

___ ______ _______ 

_ _________ ____ __ 

_______ _______ 

______ _______ 

_____ 

________ 

­

__ __ _____ _ _ 

_____ _____ 
Set for hearing2 1 1 0 

Reading for hearing2 1 0 1 

Awaiting briefs2

O p in ion s rendered:

0 1 0 

Peititions 266 123 132 

Motions to Dismiss 5 2 0 

Per Curiam grants 18 3 0 

Certificates 110 36 13 

Certificates and Petitions 12 7 6 

M andatory

Remanded to Board of Re

14 7 4 

view 1 0 1 

Petition for a New Trial

Petition for Reconsideration

0 1 0 

of Petition for New T rial 0 1 0 

T otal ______—

C om pleted C ases:

426 180 156 

Petitions d e n ie d 3, 488 1,703 1, 687 

Petitions dismissed 5 0 0 

Petitions withdrawn 66 37 28 

Certificates withdrawn 3 1 0 

Opinions rendered 

Disposed of on M otion to dis

miss:

421 178 156 

With o p in io n s .. 5 2 0 

W ithout opinions

Disposed of by Order setting

16 5 4 

aside findings and sentence 

Remanded to Board of Re

2 0 0 

view 9 5 10 

Total

J As of December 31, 1953, 1964, am. 1955.

4,015 1,931 1,885 

380225 56 3 

_____________ 

------------­

_______ ______ 

____________________ 

__________ 

___________ 

___— -------------­

-----­

__________________ 

­

______ ________ _____ __ 

-------­

-­

____ 

-- __________ 

---------------­

-------------­

- _ - -

_ _______ 

­

_______ 

_______ 

-

­

_______ ________ — -

_______________ - -

— -----­

Report

° f

THE JUD G E A D V O C A T E G E N E R A L

of

THE A R M Y

January 1, 1955, to December 31,1955

Code of Military Justice. Most of these recommendations 

tained in the Annual Eeport of the United States Court o

Appeals and The Judge Advocates General of the Armed F

the General Counsel of the Department of the Treasury, for 

June 1, 1952, to December 31, 1953. It is recommended th

be speedily enacted.

In addition to the recommendations embodied in this bill

of further legislative suggestions were made in the Eepo

Judge Advocate General of the Army for the period Janua

to December 31,1954. Those recommendations were mainly 

amendments designed' to allow the Code to be adapted t

conditions by reducing further the time required for appell

increasing the authority of the commanding officer with 

nonjudicial punishment, increasing the power of inferi

martial, returning the law officer to the court as a voting m

the court, and simplifying the procedure for pretrial inv

Nothing has occurred in the administration of military just

the period covered by this report which would warrant any 

tion in these recommendations.

Finally, in November 1955, the United States Supreme 

United States ex rel Toth v. Quarles, 350 U. S. 11 (1955)

unconstitutional Article 3 (a), of the Uniform Code of Mil

tice. Amendatory legislation should be enacted which will 

United States district courts the jurisdiction lost to the s

virtue of that decision.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice is being constantly 

for necessary changes. Those which have heretofore been 

considered essential if the Armed Forces are to continue t

their primary mission of providing the sinews of American d

while maintaining a discipline based on law, justice, and r

the individual.
gram has been described by the Adviser to the Council of t

of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar of the Am

Association as “the outstanding specialized graduate law 

the nation.” Two three week courses in procurement la

military and civilian attorneys of the military establishme

ten-day course dealing in contract termination prob

conducted.

.The Nonresident Schools Department, being charged wit

responsibility for the training of Reserve and National Gua

not on active duty through the US A ll school and extens

programs, continued the evolution of plans and policies pe

the education of these military lawyers. With a view towa

ing reserve officers in less populous areas an opportunity t

their education in military law by participating in the sch

ther program combining certain features of Army extens

with the US AH school program was instituted during th

year as a prototype for other Army service schools. This re

development of several new extension courses and the revisio

in order that the instruction offered to reservists would pa

given at The Judge Advocate General’s School. The d

continued the preparation and distribution of legal texts 

instructional materials for use throughout the United St

138 courses being taught in 91 USAR schools with judg

departments, which had an average total enrollment of 1,62

sion course enrollment increased to 856.

The School prepared the 1955 United States Army C

Pocket Part to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United St

and Department of the Army Pamphlet No. 27 10, “The Tri

and The Defense Counsel,” a practical guide to assist pretr

gation counsel, trial counsel, and defense counsel in the pe

of their duties. It also prepared and distributed a series of 

martial law, a lesson outline entitled “Congressional Relat

-

-
pgy 

recorder reproducer device equipped with a stenomask. D

calendar year 1955, over 75 enlisted men were graduated from 

courses given and were awarded appropriate military occ

specialties.

c. Authority was granted to commission 50 officers in T

Advocate General’s Corps Reserve during fiscal year 1956 

during fiscal year 1957. The majority of those commission

this program have been young officers recently graduated 

school without previous military experience. To prepare th

erly for their duties as judge advocates, they are given a two 

course in basic military subjects at The Infantry School, Fort 

Georgia, followed by an eleven weeks’ course in basic milita

The Judge Advocate General’s School.

d. Pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Arti

The Judge Advocate General and senior members of his staff 

vision of the administration of military justice inspected 

headquarters and principal posts located within the continent

States. Also inspected were all commands in Europe, Pan

Puerto Rico in which general court-martial jurisdiction is be

cised over Army personnel.

3. ^Statistics:

a. The number of records of trial received in the Office o

Advocate General for review pursuant to Article 66 during th

covered by this report follows :

T otal 

1 This figure Includes 8 cases for which both review pursuant to Article 60 a

tion pursuant to A rticle 69 were required by the C od e; these cases are not refl

figures for Article 69, below.

'1

-

_______________________________________________________________
Referred for review 

Total 

Reviewed 

Pending at close of period 

Total 

c. From 1 January 1955 through 31 December 1955, 3218 

accused whose cases were forwarded for review by board

pursuant to Article 66 (39.9 percent) requested represe

appellate defense counsel before the boards of review.

d. The records in the cases of 1028 accused were forwar

this period to the United States Court of Military Appeals 

the three subdivisions of the Uniform Code of Military Just

67 (b ); this figure is 12.8 percent of 8039, the number of acc

cases were reviewed by boards of review during the period.

E ugene M. C af fe y ,

Major General, USA

The Judge Advocate 

%

20

_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________

_______________________________________________________
Report

o f

THE JUDGE A D V O C A T E G EN ER AL

o f

THE N A V Y

January 1, 1955, to December 31,1955

untimely death of Judge Paul W . Brosman of the Unite

Court of Military Appeals, who died on December 21,1955, a

of 56 and at the height of his brilliant judicial career. T

expression will serve to record their deep personal respect for 

their heartfelt appreciation for his guidance and his contri

the law and the administration of military justice.

During the fifth year of operation under the Uniform 

Military Justice, the major program for revision of the C

advanced with the introduction in the Congress of the Depar

Defense recommendations for amendment to the statute. T

posal was introduced in the Senate on June 2,1955, as S. 213

^ ^ th e House of Representatives on June 1, 1955, as H. R. 6583

bills embodied substantially the recommendations jointly ma

Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, 

eral Counsel of the Treasury Department and the Judges of th

States Court of Military Appeals in their Annual Report to 

mittees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Repres

for the period January 1, 1954, to December 31, 1954. The 

ment of the Navy urges favorable action on these bills wit

modifications submitted by the Judge Advocate General of t

which appear in his Annual Report for the calendar year 19

latter proposals go beyond those which appear in H. R. 

S. 2133 but on the whole have the same objective, which is 

unnecessary burdens imposed upon the services by the Cod

present form, and to increase the powers of officers who exer

mand to impose non judicial punishment.

On 2 November 1955, the Under Secretary of the Navy a

the action of the Judge Advocate General whereby two B

Review, constituted in the office of the Judge Advocate Gen

be located in the San Francisco area. The Judge Advocate 

effected this action in order to reduce the number of personn

 Washington, D. C., area and to facilitate more expeditious han

%

-
Courts-Martial. One factor inducing its establishment wa

duction of S. 2133 and H. R. 6583, 84th Congress proposing 

the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Those changes w

ously, necessitate Manual changes. The project was d

portant, however, even if Congress should at this time fa

changes to the Code. Decisions of the United States Court 

Appeals and experience under the Code since 1951 reflec

for many changes to the Manual under existing laws.

O f special interest and importance to Navy lawyers wa

and comprehensive plan for additional training for law 

completed by the Judge Advocate General, acting in conjun

Mr. Albert Pratt, Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Pers

Reserve Forces), and the Chief of Naval Personnel. Unde

gram newly commissioned law specialists will be sent to 

Candidate School, Newport, Rhode Island, and upon com

that course will be given instruction in basic military law 

the U. S. Naval School (Naval Justice), a seven weeks’ co

the junior course at the Judge Advocate General’s School 

by the Army at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville

a three months’ course. To supplement further the tra

experience of Navy law specialists, and to give the addition

naval background considered necessary for performance 

senior officers, particularly when serving with importan

number of law specialists will be sent each year to the Ge

School at Monterey, California, the Armed Forces Staff C

the Naval War College. This plan was in addition to a ne

already in operation under which five Navy law specialis

attending the senior course at the Judge Advocate Genera

conducted by the Army at the University of Virginia.

During 1955 four hundred and twenty-six naval rese

attorneys were brought to Washington, D. C., for group 

This three-day training tour included admission to practice 

Supreme Court of the United States and the United State
Code and Manual for CourtsMartial. 223 inactive reserv

were graduated from a two weeks’ active duty training cour

school during the period 20 August to 2 September 1955. A 

course for prospective commanding and executive officers was 

by 19 officers, and a short course of fifteen hours instruction w

to 107 senior officers attending the Naval War College at 

During September and November 1955, 111 senior officers a

short course for commanding officers and executive officers a

about to assume such commands. During 1955, 219 enlisted 

graduated from the CLOSED MICROPHONE COURT R

ING COURSE also conducted at the Naval School of Justice

b. Sixteen motion picture training films on the subject of 

justice were being distributed throughout the Naval Estab

throughout the calendar year of 1955.

c. Correspondence courses on military justice were used ex

during 1955. A single-assignment course on the provision

Code was completed by 6,184 officers and enlisted men during 

There are 3,111 persons currently enrolled in this course, and 

age of 687 applications for the course are being received mon

comprehensive 12 assignment course on military justice was c

by 11,887 officers and enlisted men during 1955. 15,749 pe

currently enrolled in this course, and an average of 1,795 app

for the course are being received monthly. Interest in this 

hensive course has been stimulated by the fact that promotion 

tions include military justice as an examination subject. O

correspondence courses which provides an exemption from p

examinations required in the case of Navy law specialists is a 

cer course instituted during the last quarter of 1955, entitl

Law Officer”. 79 officers were enrolled in this course during 

6 officers have completed the course. Officer lawyers of the N

now enrolling in this correspondence course at the rate of 30 pe

- 
During 1955, sixty three percent of the accused whose 

received in the Office of the Judge Advocate General for re

suant to Article 66 requested representation by appellate def

sel before Boards of Review. This increase in requests for 

tation by appellate defense counsel continues the trend whic

apparent in this respect during each of the past reporting pe

the Uniform Code of Military Justice has been in effect.

Based upon the number of cases reviewed by Boards of R

ing 1955, 6.7 percent were forwarded to the United States 

Military Appeals pursuant to the three subdivisions of Arti

Uniform Code of Military Justice.

As the result of further study it is proposed that the follow

graph of the legislation submitted by the Judge Advocate 

the Navy in his Annual Report for the calendar year 1954 

to read as follows:

Paragraph (mm)

“ (mm) Article 65 (c) is amended to read as follows :

‘ (c) All other special and summary court martial records shall b

to the officer exercising general court martial jurisdiction over th

or such other authority as may be designated by the Secretary of 

ment, for review by a judge advocate of the Army or Air Force, a la

of the Navy or commissioned officer of the Navy who is a lawy

specialist or lawyer of the Coast Guard or Treasury Department. 

to returning such records to the convening authority with a direct

tain action be taken, the officer exercising general court martial jur

the authority designated by the Secretary of the Department, may t

action with respect to such records as is authorized for the convenin

Such records shall be transmitted and disposed of as the Secretar

partment may prescribe by regulation.’ ”

Additional examination of the following paragraphs has 

further conclusion that the following amendments propo

1954 report are unnecessary at this time and accordingly 

graphs are withdrawn:

26

-

-

-

-


Report

of

THE JUDGE A D V O C A T E G EN ER AL

o f

THE A IR FORCE

January 1, 1955, to December 31, 1955

ppg

form Code of Military Justice. Continuous studies are b

in the operation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice t

its effectiveness and workability. We are still endeavorin

establish a system that would be workable in the event of a g

However, rather than propose any additional changes to th

this time, it is recommended that consideration be given tow

ing into law some of the previous proposals which would im

administration of military justice. Only after those cha

been made and evaluated should we consider any additiona

amendments to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

2. Habeas corpus cases of particular significance to the 

during the past year were as follows:

a. United States ex rel Audrey M. Toth v. Donald A. Quar

tary of the Air Force. This case was decided by the Uni

Supreme Court on 7 November 1955. The Supreme Cour

the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and held 

(a) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to be uncon

Article 3 (a) provided for the trial by court-martial, after 

of a person who committed a serious offense while a mem

armed forces if he could not be tried in a civil court of t

States. In other words, Congress enacted Article 3 (a) 

the situation that existed which permitted an honorable di

operate as a bar to a prosecution for murder or other seriou

There is presently being studied proposed legislation design

vide the means to prosecute in the District Courts of the Uni

any person who otherwise would have been tried by cou

under Article 3 (a) if that article had not been invalidated.

b. United States of America ex rel Clarice B. Covert v. Cu

A petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed in this case in 

States District Court for the District of Columbia on 17 

1955. It was alleged that even if Mrs. Covert had been 

court-martial jurisdiction under Article 2 (11) of the Unif
statement as to jurisdiction was filed with the Supreme Co

view to having that Court consider a direct appeal from th

of the District Court under the provisions of 28 USC 1252.

3. During the past year The Judge Advocate General, the 

Judge Advocate General, and other senior judge advocates 

frequent and extensive inspections in the field in supervis

administration of military justice pursuant to the requi

Article 6 (a) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In 

Major General Reginald C. Harmon, The Judge Advocat

United States Air Force, went to Geneva, Switzerland, as a m

the American Delegation to the First United Nations Congr

Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Prisoners which co

August 1955. After attending the United Nations Congres

extensive inspections of Air Force legal offices in the Europ

of interest.

Several field visits to installations in the United States an

were also made by the Assistant Judge Advocate General, M

eral Albert M. Ivuhfeld, during this period. In addition, h

the American Bar Association and the Judge Advocates’ A

in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and spoke at the Constitu

Observance in Madison, Wisconsin.

4. The primary source of lawyers for The Judge Advocate 

Department during the past year has been the Air Force R

gram. This program accounted for the input of approxim

young lawyers for duty in this department. In addition, a 

for the voluntary recall of approximately 30 reserve office

stituted. The officer experience level continues to be a pro

marily due to the large input of AFROTC graduates who 

committed for only 2 years of active duty. The experienc

was aggravated to some extent this past year by the addit

proximately 100 Air National Guard officers to the departm

AFROTC officers are generally available for overseas assign

32
sissippi; Pensacola, Florida; Rochester, New York; Roan

ginia; Long Beach, California; Ft. Wayne and South Bend

and Dayton, Ohio. The program for bringing all exist

Advocate General Reserve Training Flights to Washington

a three-day orientation and training exercise was continued

of 50 units has been airlifted to Washington since this pro

originated in October 1953.

The training of these units has been most successful in 

officers for immediate active duty in the event of a national 

by familiarizing them with the type of work they would 

event they were called to active duty. In addition, this tra

gram has proved highly successful as a morale booster to all 

participating in it.

6. As of 31 December 1955 there were 89 commands in the 

exercising general court-martial jurisdiction. During the 

period commanders of 9 commands were empowered to ex

eral court-martial jurisdiction. Authorization for the in

utilization of law officers and counsel was granted to 4 com

7. a. The number of records of trial received in the Off

Judge Advocate General for review pursuant to Article 66 

period covered by this report follows:

Total 

In addition, the number of records of trial received in th

The Judge Advocate General for examination pursuant to 

during the same period is as follows:

Total 

1 1,409 general courts m artial; 1,927 special courts martial.

_______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

- -
defense counsel before boards of review.

d. Based upon the number of cases reviewed by boards 

during this period, 12.2 percent were forwarded to the Un

Court of Military Appeals pursuant to the 3 subdivisions 

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

warded, all except 4 were based upon petition of the accuse

of review by the Court of Military Appeals. Four cases 

fied by The Judge Advocate General. Petitions were gran

Court of Military Appeals during the period in 4.9 percent 

which were petitioned or .6 percent of the total numbe

reviewed by the boards of review.

R e g i n a l d C. IIa rm on 

Major General, USAF

The Judge Advocate 

Vnited States Air For

34
Report

o f

THE G EN ER AL COUNSEL

of

THE DEPARTM ENT OF THE TREASUR

(UNITED STATES COAST G U A R D )

January 1, 1955, fo December 31,1955

«

y,

195

General courts martial 2

Special courts martial 15

Summary courts martial 48

Total 6

2. a. The records of trial received in the Office of t

Counsel of the Treasury Department for review by the B

view amounted to 58, of which 12 were general court-mart

the remainder special,courts-martial. There were 11 add

eral courts-martial examined in the Office of the Gene

pursuant to the provisions of Article 69 of the Code.

b. Board of Eeview action resulted in modification o

trial in 13 cases, in one of which a rehearing was ordered. 

the sentence was disapproved in part and in 4 cases the fi

modified but not the sentence. Forty four cases were 

approved on review below. In two of these latter the Gene

exercised residual clemency in respect to the sentence, i

following the Board of Eeview action. In sum, either the 

the sentence were changed in 26 percent of the cases wh

the Board of Eeview. Eight Board of Eeview decisions we

by the accused to the Court of Military Appeals pursuant t

of the Code. The Court granted leave to appeal in one an

petitions in the other cases. , The Court affirmed the dec

Board of Eeview in the single case which had been previou

to it by the General Counsel.

3. a. During the year work was commenced upon a rev

Coast Guard Supplement to the Manual for Courts-Mar

States, 1951. By the end of the year work had been com

the first chapter, which relates most directly to courts mar

b. At the close of the year there were 28 officers certifie

to perform the duties of law officer of a general court ma

additional 37 officers on active duty who had been certified 

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

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

- ____________________________________ 

__________________________________________________ 

-

-

-
U. S . GOVERNMENT PR1NT1R8 OFFlC