and 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GEN

of the 
 

ARMED FORCES 
 

and Ihe 

GENERAL COUNSEL 
 

of Ihe 
 

DEPARTMENT OF THE 

TREASURY 
 

. 

PURSUANT TO THE 
 

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUST

For Ihe Period 
 

January I, 1962, 10 December 31, 
of the 
 

SENATE AND OF THE 
 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 

ond 10 the 
 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND SECRE

OF THE TREASURY 
 

and the 
 

SECRETARIES OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF TH

ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORCE 
 

PURSUANT TO THE 
 

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 
 

For the Period 
 

January I, 1962 to December 31, 1962 
 
Contents 

JOINT REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILI

AND THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL OF THE A

AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPART

TREASURY 

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE A

'REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENER~L OF THE 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE A

REPORT OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPART

TREASURY (UNITED STATES COAST GUARD) 
of the 
 

UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY 

and 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERA

OF THE ARMED FORCES 
 

and 

THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF TH

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASUR

January 1, 1962 to December 31, 19
the Armed Forces, and the General Counsel of the De

the Treasury to meet annually to survey the operations 

and to prepare a report to the Committees on Armed Ser

Senate and of the House of Representatives, to the S

Defense and the Secretary of the Treasury, and to the Se

the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force wi

the status of military justice and to the manner and mea

it can be improved by legislative enactment. 

The Chief Judge and the Judges of the United Stat

Military Appeals, The Judge Advocates General of the A

and Air Force, and the General Counsel of the Depart

Treasury, hereinafter referred to as the Code Committe

and conferred at the call of the Chief Judge several time

period of this report. These conferences included a ful

tion of legislative amendments to the Uniform Code 

Justice consistent with the policy and purpose of this Co

Because of the press of legislative business in the Con

been determined that the so-called Omnibus Bill, discu

reports for the years 1959 and 1961, which encompas

legislative changes to the Uniform Code of Military Ju

not be considered by the Congress in that form. Conson

suggestion made to the Code Committee that short ind

embodying the legislative changes deemed of primary im

the administration of justice be submitted for the cons

the Congress, individual bills have been drafted and seri

for reference purposes. Each of these proposals deal

with a single aspect of the amendments this Committee ha

recommended. 

Two of these legislative proposals were enacted by 

seventh Congress. Public Law 87-385, which proscribes 

drawing, or uttering of checks, drafts, or orders witho

funds, became an effective part of the Code as Artic

March 1, 1962. Public Law 87-648, which provides increas
ppy pp

establish courts in which an accused person may, subjec

priate safeguards, waive his hearing before members of 

and be tried by the law officer alone. This procedure, com

that provided in the Federal courts by the Federal Rules o

Procedure, will both speed and improve the administration 

The bill includes the procedural changes necessary to the f

of such courts, and also eliminates the present anomalous 

which the law officer's rulings on certain questions of law m

turned by the legally untrained members of the court. 

The "D" bill permits the simplification of court-martia

providing for the holding of pretrial sessions by a law off

the members are assembled, to consider and dispose of in

questions and other procedural matters. Pretrial disp

motions raising defenses and objections in the Federal crim

is authorized by the Federal Rules of Criminal Proc

adopting a similar provision for courts-martial, the contin

proceedings before the court members will be improve

comitant saving of time and manpower wiII result, as th

will no longer be required to stand by while questions for 

solely by the law officer are litigated. The bill includes th

technical amendments to clarify the status of the law offi

proceedings, and related administrative provisions. 

The "F" bill provides authority for convening authoriti

the forfeiture and confinement portions of certain sentenc

cution upon approval, and clarification of the lesser p

included in a death sentence. Under the present law, man

complete service of confinement before their cases have b

reviewed. As such a prisoner, while in confinement, is 

to the same treatment as a sentenced prisoner, the admin

confinement facilities is unduly complicated. In some 

complex administrative problems and loss of morale hav

ConsequentlY1 the proposed legislation provides that at t

approves a sentence, a convening authority may order e

2 
. a. The system of trying an accused before a law 

should not be instituted unless the Army's field judic

is made statutory and extended to all the Armed Forc

wise, the local appointment of any certified law officer 

the dangers occurring under the law member system of 

of'Var. Single-officer courts should also be required to 

ten findings of fact and Jaw in support of any finding o

order to provide an appropriate basis for appell

Finally, neither consent by the convening authority no

tion of the law officer to the accused in advance shou

conditions of his election to be tried before a single-o

These considerations detract from the law officer's judi

and will lead inevitably to bargaining between an acc

convening authority over the reference of his case to a 

judge. 

b. 'Vhile Judge Ferguson favors the institution of pr

ings before the law officer in general courts-martial, t

be expressly limited by Congress in scope to the comp

stitutional practice in the United States district court

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, with the law o

afforded the full stature and responsibility of a judicia

c. Congress should retain the present system of exe

tences. Most of the delay in appellate processes is attr

the armed services rather than the accused, who is also 

remedy of bail. Moreover, there has been no demon

complications in the present administration of confin

tems which justify execution of a sentence despite th

the case may later be reversed or the nature of the punis

pletely altered at appellate levels. Finally, it is contra

experience in the administration of military justice to 

accused to undergo the rigors of the adjudged sentence 

eliminate any real relief to him in the event of reve

is a matter which was fully considered by the Congres

Code was enacted, and the system now in effect refle
seems to be no reason why these pro('~edings cannot ta

open court and in the presence of the accused. 

The sectional reports of the Court and of the individ

outline the volume of court-martial cases subject to appe

during the reporting period. Exhibit D is attached to 

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

world, the number of such cases which are reviewed by th

Review, and the number ultimately reviewed by the Un

Court of Military Appeals. 

Respectfully submitted, 
 

ROBERT E. QUINN, 
 

Oh

HOllIER FERGUSON, 

PAUL J. KILDAY, 

CHARLES L. DECKER, 

The Judge AdlJocate Ge

United Sta

'WILLIAM C. Morl', 

The Ju,dge Advocate Ge

United Sta

ALBERT M. KUHFELD, 

The Judge Advocate Ge

United State8 

G. D'ANDELOT BELIN

General Oo

Department 01 the 
EXHIBIT A 
 

tial, and for other purposes. 

Section 1 (1) amends article 1 (10), the definition of a 

to include an official of a special court-martial detailed 

with article 26 as well as such an official of a general 

This reflects the amendment of article 16 (section 1(2» 

ates special courts-martial consisting of a law officer 

or just a law officer. 

Section 1 (2) amends article 16 to provide that a gene

court-martial shall consist of only a law officer if the a

the court is convened, so requests in writing and the conv

ity consents thereto. However, before he makes such 

accused is entitled to know the identity of the law offic

the advice of counsel. Although such a procedure has n

b~n available in any of the armed forces, an analogo

disposition of criminal cases is provided in the Federal c

23 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which p

"Cases required to be tried by a jury shall be so tried un

fendant waives a jury trial in writing with the approval o

and the consent of the Government." 

The adoption of such a procedure will result in an appr

tion in both time and manpower normally expended in tri

martial. The vast majority of cases in which an accused 

would probably be tried by a single-officer court. It sh

that the convening authority is not required to estab

officer court-martial but may, in his discretion, refer cas

martial with members either because, with respect to s

martial, of a shortage of legally trained personnel av

command or for other reasons. 

Article 16 is further amended by providing for a 

martial consisting of a law officer and not less than th

The special court-martial with a law officer and membe

primarily for the trial of cases involving factual and le
must be certified to be qualified for duty as a single

off

court-martial by The Judge Advocate General. 

The amendment also provides that a commissioned 

is certified to be qualified for duty as a law officer of a ge

martial is also qualified for duty as a law officer of a sing

other special court-martial. A commissioned officer who 

to be qualified for duty as a law officer of a special cour

qualified for duty as a law officer of any kind of special co

The amendment will permit the establishment of a special 

viduals certified to be qualified to act as special court-mar

cers, thus making the opportunity to act in this capaci

to the younger judge advocates or legal specialists and 

training ground for future general court-martial law offic

Section 1 (6) amends article 29 by specifically excepti

operation of subsections (b) and (c) single-officer general 

courts-martial. 

Subsection (d) is added to article 29 to provide for tho

in which the law officer of a single-officer general or sp

martial is absent, whether because of physical disability

or other good cause, and a new law officer is detailed. Ju

case of absent court members, the trial shall proceed as if 

had previously been introduced unless a verbatim record 

mony of witnesses previously examined at the trial or a 

thereof is read in court in the presence of the new; law of

cused, and counsel. The accused, knowing the identity o

detailed law officer and after consultation with counsel, m

.in writing that the new single-officer court try his case (

(2) ) . Otherwise, the charges must be returned to the 

authority for reference to a court-martial which includ

.or forother disposition. ' . 

Section 1 (7) amends article 38 by providing in subsecti

if the accused who has individual counsel does not desire t

counsel act in his behalf as associate counsel, det~iled c

be excused by the law officer instead 'of by thepreside

8 
the relevancy and validity of challenges. The effect of 

ment is to conform procedures before courts-martial t

in the district courts in which the trial judge rules upo

for cause against a juror. 

Section 1 (10) amends article 51 to reflect the amendm

41 which provides that, when a court-martial includes 

he is the person who rules upon all challenges for caus

clude specifically in subsection (c) the duty of the law 

special court-martial to instruct members of the court. 

further amends article 51 to provide that rulings of the 

a special, as well as a general, court-martial on all que

and all interlocutory questions other than the accused

sponsibility are final and that rulings of the presiden

court-martial without a law officer on questions of law 

motion for a finding of not guilty are also final. The p

the law officer by this amendment is in accordance 

practice, and the power given to the president of a 

martial to rule finally on questions of law is implicit in 

of the United States Court of Military Appeals in Un

Bridges (12 USCMA 96, 30 CMR 96). 

Article 51 is further amended to provide that an off

tailed as a single-officer court-martial shall determine al

law and fact arising during the proceedings and, if t

convicted, adjudge an appropriate sentence. 

Section 1 (11) amends article 54(a) to provide for a

of a record of trial by general court-martial by the sig

law officer. Under the present law, the record must be 

by the signature of both the law officer and the preside

are unavailable for one of the reasons specified in the a

members. However, neither the president nor other mem

ent during the many hearings held out of their presen

present practice, and thus actually are unable to certi

rectness of a transcription of those proceedings. The s

provides that if the law officer cannot, for one of the spe
10 
pg 

p

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Represe

2 of the United States of America in Oongress assemb

3 chapter 47 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) of titl

4 United States Code, is amended as follows: 

5 (1) Section801(10) (article1(10» is amended b

6 inserting the words "or special" after the word "ge

7 (2) Section 816 (article 16) is amended to read a

8 follows: 

!) "§ 816. Art. 16. Oourts-martial classified 

10 "The three kinds of courts-martial in each of 

11 the armed forces are12 "(1) general courts-martial, consisting of13 "(A) a law officer and not less than five 

14 members; or 

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

16 court is convened the accused, knowing th

17 identity of the law officer and after consu

18 tation with counsel, requests in writing a 

19 court composed only of a law officer and 

20 convening authority consents thereto; 

619016-&3-2 
10 

15 

20 

25 

6 conditions as those prescribed in clause (1) (

7 and 
 

8 "(3) summary courts-martial, consisting of 

9 commissioned officer." 
 

(3) Section 818 (article 18) is amended by add

11 following sentence at the end thereof: 

12 "However, a general court-martial of the kind s

13 in section 816(1) (B) of this title (article 16(1) 

14 may not adjudge the penalty of death." 

(4) Subchapter V is amended by striking out th

16 ing item in the· analysis: 

17 "826. 26. Law officer of a general court-martia

18 and inserting the follo\ving item in place thereof: 

19 "826. 26. Law officer of a general or special c

martial." 

(5) The catchline and subsection (a) of section 

21 (article 26) are amended to read as follows: 

22 "§ 826. Art. ~6. Law officer of a generaZ or 8p

court-martial 

23 "(a) The authority convening a general court

24 martial shall, and the authority convening a spe

court-martial may, detail as law officer thereof a 

12 
10 

15 

20 

25 

6 to be qualified for duty as a law officer of a genera

7 court-martial is also qualified for duty as a law 

8 officer of a single-officer or other special court9 martial. A commissioned officer who is certified 

be qualified for duty as a law officer of a specia

11 court-martial is qualified for duty as a law office

12 .of any kind of special court-martial. However, 

13 person may act as a law officer of a single-office

14 general court-martial unless he is specially certi

to be qualified for that duty. No person is elig

16 to act as law officer in a case if he is the accuser 

17 or a witness for the prosecution or has acted as 

18 investigating officer or as counsel in the same ca

19 (6) Section 829 is amended­

(A) by inserting the words ", other than a s

21 officer general court-martial," after the word "c

22 martial" in the first sentence of subsection (b) j 

22 . (B) by inserting the words ", other than a s

23 officer special court-martial," after the word "c

24 _ martial" in the first sentence, and inserting the 

"the law officer, if .any," after the words "prese

26 jn the· last sentence of subsection (c) j . 
6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

challenge, or for other good cause, the trial sh

proceed, subject to any applicable conditions of 

section 816(1) (B) or (2) (C) of this title (ar

16(1) (B) or (2) (C», after the detail of a ne

law officer as if no evidence had previously be

introduced, unless a verbatim record of the te

mony of previously examined witnesses or a s

tion thereof is read in court in the presence o

the new law officer, the accused, and counsel." 

(7) Section 838 (b) (article 38 (b» is amended 

striking out the words "president of the court" in 

last sentence and inserting the words "law officer 

by the president of a cOUlt-martial without a law offic

in place thereof. 

(8) Section 839 (article 39) is amended to read 

follows: 

"§ 839. Art. 39 Se88ions 

"When the members of a court-martial deliber

vote, only the members may be present. After 

members of a court-martial which includes a law 

and members have finally voted on the findings, 

president of the court may request the law offic

14 
6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

a part of the record and shall be in the presenc

the accused, the defense counsel, the trial counse

and, in cases in which a law officer has been de

to the court, the law officer." 

(9) Section 841(a) (article 41(a» is amended

(A) by amending the first sentence to read a

follows: 

"The law officer and members of a general or 

special court-martial may be challenged by th

accused or the trial counsel for cause stated 

to the court."; and 

(B) by striking out the word "court" in the 

sentence and inserting the words "law officer or, 

none, the court" in place thereof. 

(10) Section 851 (article 51) is amended­

(A) by amending the first sentence of subsec

(a) .to read as follows: 

"Voting by members of a general or special c

martial on the findings and on the sentence, and 

by members of a court-martial without a law 
7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

without a law officer shall rule upon all ques­


. tions 	 of law and all interlocutory questions' 

arising during the proceedings. Any such rul

made by the law officer upon any question of 

or any interlocutory question other than the m

responsibility of the accused, or by the presid

of a court-martial without a law officer upon 

question of law other than a motion for a fin

of not guilty, is final and constitutes the 

ruling of the court."; 

(C) by striking out the words "of a general 

martial and the president of a special court-ma

shall, in the presence of the accused and counse

instruct the court as to the elements of the offe

and charge the court" in the first sentence of su

section (c) and inserting the words "and the pr

of a court-martial without a law officer shall, in 

presence of the accused and counsel, instruct the 

bers of the court as to the elements of the offen

. charge them" in place thereof; and 

16 
7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

q

of law and fact arising during the proceeding

and, if the accused is convicted, adjudge an 

appropriate sentence." 

(11) Section 854(a) (article 54(a» is amended 

as follows: 

"(a) Each general court-martial shall keep a 

separate record of the proceedings in each case 

before it, and the record shall be authenticated 

the signature of the law officer. If the record 

cannot be authenticated by the law officer by re

of his death, disability, or absence, it shall be 

authenticated by the signature of the trial coun

or a member." 

SEC. 2. This Act becomes effective on the first 

the tenth month following the month in which it 

EXHIBIT B 
 

Section 1(1) amends article 25 to provide in subsec

that an accused who desires that enlisted members serve o

martial shall make such a request before the conclusion 

called by the law officer under article 39 (a) prior to tri

absence of such a session before the court is assembled 

of the accused. One of the purposes of the proposed am

article 39, infra, is to insure that the trial of the genera

not be delayed after the assembly of the members. Un

practice, an accused can postpone his request for enlist

until the appointed members of the court have gathe

enlisted persons are not then on the court, the court wou

to adjourn until enlisted members are obtained and s

officer members relieved. 

The request for enlisted personnel may be made at an

to the conclusion of a session called prior to trial purs

amendment to article 39. Only one pre-trial session wou

in any particular case, although that session may continue 

as may be necessary and may be recessed, postponed, c

reconvened. A reconvened pre-trial session does not 

second such session, but rather a continuation of the 

called. If no pre-trial hearing is held, the procedure fo

enlisted persons will be substantially the same as the pro

used. 

Article 25 is further amended by substituting the w

bled" for the word "convened" in subsection (c) (1). Th

vened" as used in the present subsection (c) (1) has been 

to be a term of art which has reference to that time i

martial proceedings when the members, the law officer, 

are sworn. The amendment to article 42 contemplates 

hlitted by regulations of the Secretary concerned, the abo

will be sworn at some time before their gathering in the 

Accordingly, the term "convened" as used in the above 

have no application under the amended procedure. F
y 

reference in subsections (b) and (c) to the oaths of the 

as to make it clear that it is not required that new memb

oaths at the trial. The amendment to article 42 requires 

must be taken at some time before a member may perfor

The words "at the trial" have been added in the last sen

sections (b) and (c) so that only that testimony which h

before the assembled court must be read to a court to whi

bers have been detailed. 

Section 1(4) amends article 38 by providing in subsect

if the accused who has individual counsel does not desire 

counsel act in his behalf as associate counsel, detailed 

be excused by the law officer instead of by the president w

is by a court-martial which includes a law officer. This ch

necessary by the amendment to article 39 which permits t

to call the court into session without the presence of the m

the absence of the amendment to article 39(b), the law 

not be empowered to excuse counsel at the session. 

Section 1(5) amends article 39 to provide that the law 

court composed of a law officer and members may call t

session without the attendance of members for the pur

posing of interlocutory motions raising defenses and objec

upon other matters that may legally be ruled upon by th

holding the arraignment and receiving the pleas of the ac

mitted by regulations of the Secretary concerned, and 

other procedural functions which do not require the pres

members. The effect of the amendment, generally, is to c

itary criminal procedure with the rules of criminal proced

ble in the United States district courts and otherwise to g

sanction to pre-trial and other hearings without the pre

members concerning those matters which are amenable t

on either a tentative or final basis by the law officer. T

disposition of motions raising defenses and objections is i

with Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Proced

procedural and interlocutory matters will be presented f

22 
the members of the court are excluded although they must 

in attendance. By permitting the law officer to rule on t

before the members of the court have assembled, the mem

required to spend considerable time merely waiting for a 

the law officer. If he sustains the objection, the issue is r

the facts and innuendoes surrounding the making of th

will not reach the members by inference or otherwise. 

officer determines to admit the confession, the issue of v

will normally, under civilian and military Federal practi

gated before the full court. 

This amendment merely provides a grant of authorit

officer to hold sessions without the attendance of the mem

court for the purposes designated in the amendment a

attempt to formulate rules for the conduct of these ses

determining whether or not particular matters not raised t

be considered as waived. These are questions more appro

solved under the authority given to the President in articl

rules governing the procedure before courts-martial. Th

now prescribes rules as to motions raising defenses and o

court-martial trials in Chapter XII of the Manual for Cou

as does the Supreme Court for Federal criminal trials in 

the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

Section 1(6) amends article 40 by making it clear th

court includes a law officer that official will decide whet

continuance will be granted. This has actually been the pr

the Code. 

Sectwn 1(7) amends article 41(a) to provide that wh

martial includes a law officer, he, rather than the membe

termine the relevancy and validity of challenges. The e

amendment is to conform procedures before courts-mar

cedures in the district courts in which the trial judge r

challenge for cause against a juror. 

Seotion 1(8) amends article 42(a) by omitting the 

that the oath given to court-martial personnel be taken in 
acceptance of a plea of guilty without the necessity of vo

findings. At common law and under the practice in the U

district courts, the court may enter judgment upon a ple

without a formal finding of guilty and the record of judgm

on such a plea constitutes a judicial determination of 

amendment is intended to conform military criminal pro

that in civilian jurisdictions, and to delete from milita

the merely ritualistic formality of requiring the assemb

vote on the findings. The section also deletes reference i

(a) to "arraignment before a court-martial" to confor

changed article 39. 

Section 1 (10) amends article 49(a) to provide that, w

is being heard, the law officer or court-martial without a l

the appropriate authority to forbid the taking of a de

good cause. The intent and purpose of this change is to 

law officer, or in the court-martial if it does not include a 

the authority to rule on this interlocutory matter aft

begun. 

Section 1 (11) amends article 51 to reflect the amendme

41 which provides that, when a court-martial includes a 

he is the person who rules upon all challenges for cause, 

flpecifically in subsection (c) that instructions are given 

bers of the court. This section further amends article 5

that rulings of the law officer on all questions of law and a

tory questions other than the accused's mental responsibi

and that rulings of the president of a court-martial wi

officer on questions of law other than a motion for a fin

guilty are also final. The power given to the law off

amendment is in accordance with Federal practice, and the 

to the president of a special court-martial to rule finally 

of law is implicit in the decision of the United States Co

tary Appeals in United States v. Bridges, 12 USCMA 96, 

Section 1 (12) amends article 52 to conform with the 

to article 45 by inserting a provision in subsection (a) (

24 
under the present practice, and thus actually are unable t

the correctness of a transcription of those proceedings. 

ment further provides that if the law officer cannot, for 

specified reasons, authenticate the record, it shall be authe

the signature of the trial counselor a member. Certifi

member in this latter case may be a practical necessity 

absence from hearings conducted by the law officer. This 

ther amends article 54 by permitting the president to 

summarized records of trial in general court-martial cas

in acquittal of all charges and specifications or, if they d

a general or flag officer, in sentences not involving a di

not in excess of a sentence. that can otherwise be adjudge

courts-martial. This amendment corrects an inconsistenc

heretofore existed, since the use of a summarized record 

now permitted in special court-martial cases if the senten

extend to a bad-conduct discharge. The reasons which 

employment of summarized records of trial in special c

cases are equally applicable to the class of general court-m

affected by this amendment, that is, the time, effort, and 

preparing a verbatim transcript is not justified. It is re

course, that the general court-martial case will have to 

ported in the first instance, and the amendment deals only 

aration of the record after trial. 

Seotion 13 provides that these amendments become effe

first day of the tenth month following the month in wh
ings and other procedural changes, and for other pu

1 Be it enaeted by the Senate and House of Represent

·2 of the United States of America in Oongressa8semble

3 chapter 47 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) of titl

4 United States Code, is amended as follows: 

5 (1) Section 825 (c) (1) is amended6 (A) by striking out the words "before the conv

7 of the court," in the first sentence and inserting 

8 the words "before the conclusion of a session calle

9 by the law officer under section 839 ( a) of this 

10 title (article 39 (a» prior to trial or, in the 

11 absence of such a session, before the court is 

12 assembled for the trial of the accused," in place 

13 thereof; and 

14 (B) by striking out the word "convened" in the 

15 last sentence and inserting the word "assembled" 

16 in place thereof. 

17 (2) Section 826 (b) (article 26 (b) ) is amended b

18 striking out the figures "839" and "39" and inserting 

19 the figures "839 (b)" and "39 (b)", respectively, in 

20 place thereof. 

21 (3) Section 829 is amended26 
6 to read as follows: 

7 "The trial may proceed with the new members 

8 present after the recorded testimony of each 

9 witness previously examined at the trial has 

10 been read to the court in the presence of the 

11 law officer, the accused, and counsel."; and 

12 (C) by amending the last sentence of subsection (c

13 to read as follows: 

14 "The trial shall proceed with the new members 

15 present as if no evidellce had previously been 

16 introduced at the trial, unless a verbatim record 

17 of the testimony of witnesses pI;eviously examined 

18 at the trial or a stipulation thereof is read to 

19 the court in the presence of the accused and 

20 counsel." 

21 (4) Section 838 (b) (article 38 (b) ) is amended by 

22 striking out the words "president of the court" in the 

23 last sentence and inserting the words "law officer or 

24 by the president of a court-martial without a law 

25 officer" in place thereof. 

(J7()016-63-3 
7 law officer may call the court into session withou

8 the presence of the members for the purpose of

9 "(1) hearing and determining motions 

10 raising defenses or objections which are 

11 capable of determination without trial of the 

12 issues raised by a plea of not guilty; 

13 "(2) hearing and ruling upon any matter 

14 which may be ruled upon by the law officer un

15 this chapter, whether or not the matter is app

16 priate for later consideration or decision by 

17 the members of the court; 

18 "(3) if permitted by regulations of the 

HI Secretary concerned, holding the arraignmen

20 and receiving the pleas of the accused; and 

21 "(4) performing any otherprocedural fun

22 tion which may be performed by the law offic

23 under this chapter or under rules prescribed 

24 pursuant to section 836 of this title (article 3

28 
10 

15 

20 

25 

7 erate or vote, only the members may be present. Af

8 the members of a court-martial which includes a law 

9 officer and members have finally voted on the finding

the president of the court may request the law offiII cer and the reporter, if any, to appear before the 

12 members to put the findings in proper form, and 

13 these proceedings shall be on the record. All 

14 other proceedings, including any other consultation 

of the members of the court with counselor the law 

16 officer, shall be made a part of the record and shall 

17 be in the presence of the accused, the defense 

18 counsel, the trial counsel, and, in cases in which 

19 a law officer has been detailed to the court, the 

law officer." 

21 (6) Section 840 (article 40) is amended to read as 

22 follows: 

23 "§ 840. Art.~. Oontinuance8 

24 "The law officer or a court-martial without a 

law officer may, for reasonable cause, grant a COl1­

26 tinuance to any party for such time, and as often, 

27 as may appear to be just." 
7 "(a) Before performing their respective dut

8 law officers, members of general and special cou

1) martial, trial counsel, assistant trial counsel, 


10 defense counsel, assistant defense counsel, repor

11 and interpreters shall take an oath to perform t

12 duties faithfully. The form of the oath, the tim

13 and place of the taking thereof, the manner of 

:14 recording the same, and whether the oath shall 

:15 taken for all cases in which these duties are to 

:16 be performed or for a particular case, shall be a

17 prescribed in regulations of the Secretary conce

" 18 These regulations may provide that an oath to p

1.9 faithfully duties as alaw officer, trial counsel, 

:20 assistant trial counsel, defense counsel, or assist

:21 ant defense counsel may be taken at any time by 

:22 judge advocate, law specialist, or other person 

:23 certified to be qualified or competent for the dut

'24 and if such an oath is taken it need not again be 

:25 taken at the time the judge advocate, law sp~cial

:26 or other person is detailed to that duty." 
7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

be received to any charge or specification alleging 

an offense for which the death penalty may be adjudged. 'Vith respect to any other charge or 

specification to which a plea of guilty has been 

made by the accused and accepted by the law officer or by a court-martial without a law officer, 

a finding of guilty of the charge or specification 

may, if permitted by regulations of the Secretary 

concerned, be entered immediately without vote. 

This finding shall constitute the finding of the 

court unless the plea of guilty is withdrawn 

prior to announcement of the sentence, in which 

event the proceedings shall continue as though 

the accused had pleaded not guilty." 

(10) Section 849 (a) (article49(a)) is amended by 

inserting after the word "unless" the words "the 

law officer or court-martial without a law officer 

hearing the case or, if the case is not being heard.". 
8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

pq

gy 

written ballot."; 

(B) by amending the first two sentences of 

subsection (b) to read as follows: 

"The law officer and, except for questions of 

challenge, the president of a court-martial 

without a law officer shall rule upon all 

questions of law and all interlocutory questio

arising during the proceedings. Any such ru

made by the law officer upon any question of l

or any interlocutory question other than the 

mental responsibility of the accused, or by the 

president of a court-martial "without a law 

officer upon any question of law other than a 

motion for a finding of not guilty, is final 

and constitutes the ruling of the court."; and 

(C) by striking out the words "of a general 

court-martial and the president of a special cou

martial shall, in the presence of the accused and 

32 
7 to the elements of the offense and charge them" 

8 in place thereof. 

9 (12) Section 852 (article 52) is amended by insertin

10 the words "as provided in section 845 (b) of this title 

11 ( article 45 (b) ) or" after the word "except" in subsec12 tion (a) (2). 

13 (13) Section854(a) (article54(a» is amended to 

14 read as follows: 

15 "( a) Each general court-martial shall keep a 

16 separate record of the proceedings in each case 

17 brought before it, and the record shall be authenti18 cated by the signature ofthelaw officer. Hthe 

19 record cannot be authenticated by the law officer by 

20 reason of his death, disability, or absence, it shall 

21 be authenticated by the signature of the trial 

22 counselor a member. H the proceedings have re23 suIted in an acquittal of all charges and specifi­

:24 cations or, if not affecting a general or flag 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

officer, in a sentence not including discharge 

and not in excess of that "Which may otherwise 

be adjudged by a special court-martial, the 

record shall contain such matters as may be 

prescribed by regulations of the President." 

SEC. 2. This Act becomes effective on the first d

of the tenth month following the month in which i

enacted. 

34 
EXHIBIT C 
 

Section 1(1) amends subchapter VIII to amplify the 

reflect the amendment of article 56 proposed in section 1

Section 1(93) amends article 56 by specifying in sub

thereof that a sentence to death includes a dishonorable d

dismissal, total forfeitures, and life imprisonment. This 

will allow forfeitures to be executed in accordance with 

ment to article 71 proposed in section 1 (4), provide specif

for confinement pending appellate review in death case

it clear that a death sentence may be mitigated to disho

charge, or dismissal, and life imprisonment or a lesser t

finement (see United States v. Russo, 11 USCMA 352,29 

Section 1 (3) amends article 57 to delete the reference 

forfeitures to payor allowances becoming due on or af

the sentence is approved by the convening authority in ca

the approved sentence includes confinement not suspend

the amendment to article 71 proposed in section 1 ( 4), th

will no longer be necessary, for the convening authority 

to order the forfeiture portion of a sentence (not involvin

or flag officer) into execution when approved by him. A 

sion has been added, however, to indicate that forfeitur

extend to payor allowances accrued before the date the f

ordered executed. 

Section 1(4) amends article 71 (a) to provide that app

President is required only with respect to execution o

penalty portion of a court-martial sentence and execu

court-martial sentence involving a general or flag officer. 

The section also amends article 71 (b) to provide th

by the Secretary concerned, or certain officials designated 

required in officer cases only with respect to execution of 

the sentence providing for an un suspended dismissal. A

other portions of the sentence are not transmitted to him f

under this article, he may, when he acts on the dismissal, a
confinement based upon whether or not their sentences, 

confinement portion thereof, have been ordered executed

sentences with which these amendments deal cannot no

executed either in whole or, with the exception of appli

feitures, in part until after lengthy appellate review. 

Article 71 ( d) is amended to conform that article w

amendments. 

Section 13 provides that these amendments become ef

first day of the fifth month following the month in wh

38 
To amend chapter 47 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) 

United States Code, by permitting timely execution 

court-martial sentences. 

1 Be it e1Ulcted by the Se1Ulte and House of Representa

2 of the United States of Amerwain Oongress assembled

3 chapter47 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) oftitle

4 United States Code, is amended as follows: 
 

5 (1) Subchapter VIII is amended by striking o

6 following item in the analysis: 
 

7 "856. 56. Maximum limits." 
 

8 and inserting the following item in place thereof

9 "856. 56. Maximum limits; sentences included 

death sentence." 

10 (2) Section 856 (article 56) is amended to read 

11 follows: 

12 "§ 856. Art. 56. jJ{aximum limits j sentences 

included in death sentence 

13 "(a) The punishment which a court-martial 

14 direct for an offense may not exceed such limit

15 the President may prescribe for that offense. 

16 "(b) A sentence to death includes dishonorab

17 discharge or dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and 

18 allowances, and life imprisonment." 

19 (3) Section 857 (article 57) is amended to read a

20 follows: 
7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

confinement. 

"(b) All other court-martial sentences and 

thereof are effective on the date ordered exe

No forfeiture may extend to any payor allo

accrued before the date the forfeiture is ord

executed." 

(4) Section 871 (article 71) is amended­

(A) by striking out the first sentence in s

section (a) and inserting the following in pl

thereof: 

"A court-martial sentence involving a gen

or flag officer and that part of a court-ma

sentence providing for death may not be e

until approved by the President."; 

(B) by striking out the first two sentence

subsection (b) and inserting the following i

thereof: 

"That part of a sentence providing for th

missal, unsuspended, of a commissioned of

40 
7 execution of the dismissal as approved by him

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

9 follows: 

10 "(c) That part of a sentence providing for, 

11 unsuspended, a dishonorable or bad-conduct 

12 discharge may not be executed until affirmed b

13 a board of review and, in cases reviewed by it, 

14 the Court of Military Appeals."; and 

15 (D) by amending subsection (d) to read as 

16 follows: 

17 "(d) All other court-martial sentences and 

18 parts thereof, unless suspended, may be ordere

19 executed by the convening authority when app

20 by him. The convening authority may suspen

21 execution of any sentence or palt thereof, exc

22 a death sentence." 

.23 SEC. 2. This Act becomes effective on the first day 

-24 the fifth month following the month in which it i

EXHIBIT 0 

679016---63-4 

_______________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

~avy _______________________________________________________

Air Force___________________________________________________

,Coast Guard_________________________________________________

~otal _________________________________________________

Cases Reviewed by Boards of Review 

Army _______________________________________________________

~avy 

Air Force ____________________________________________________

Coast Guard _________________________________________________

~otal 

Cases Docketed With U.S. Court of Military Appeal

Army _______________________________________________________

~avy _______________________________________________________

Air Force____________________________________________________

Coast Guard_________________________________________________

~otal _________________________________________________

For the Period 

July 1, 1961, to June 30, 1962 

.Report 

of the 

UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY APP

January 1, 1962 to December 31, 196

submitted to the Court upon petition of the accused filed i

with Article 67 (b) (3), 17 were certified to the Court by 

Judge Advocates General in accordance with Article 67(b

mandatory cases were filed under Article 67 (b) (1) of 

Code of Military Justice. 

II 

Chief Judge Robert E. Quinn and Associate J ud

Ferguson and Paul J. Kilday continued their practic

appearances before bar associations, civic organizati

schools, and similar organizations to acquaint them with 

of the Code and of the Court. In addition, in August 1962 

Quinn visited military installations in the State of lIaw

and discussing the progress of military justice with Ad

Felt, USN, CINCPAC, Lieutenant General C. A. Rob

CG Fl\IFPAC, Admiral J. H. Sides, USN, CIN"CPACF

J. F. Collins, USA, CINCUSARPAC, Major General C

son, USA, CG USARHAW, Major General E. F. Easter

CG, 25th In£. Div., General E. O'Donnell, Jr., USAF, CI

Brigadier General J. A. Rouse, USAF, CO:;VIPACAF 

marid, and Admiral C. A. Buchanan, USN, Commandan

District. In September 1962, Associate Judge Ferguson 

ous military installations in Great Britain and German

III 

On February 21, 1962, Chief Judge Quinn and Asso

Ferguson and Kilday testified before the Subcommitte

tutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary, U

Senate. The Subcommittee under the Chairmanship of 

J. Ervin, Jr. (North Carolina) held extensive hearings

S. Res. 260, 87th Congress, 2d Session, on the constitu

of military personnel in the administration of military j

responden(',e between Senator Ervin and Chief .rudge Q

ing the Court's cooperation in the study dealing with 

military personnel in courts-martial and discharge p

set out as follows: 
United States Court of Military Appeals 
 

5th and E Streets, N.W. 
 

Washington, D.C. 
 

Dear Judge Quinn: 
 

The Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights has been 

deSirability of a study and possibly later some hearings concern

tion of the constitutional rights of service personnel. There are 

for our interest in this field at the present time. First, the cur

military personnel signifies that the rights of service personnel 

importance to an evergrowing number of American citizens. 

seems today to be an enhanced recognition of the constitution

serviceman-including such recognition in the opinions of your C

we have become aware of some recent Court of Claims decisions 

some of the protections of the Uniform Code of Military Justice

instances parallel protections furnished by the Bill of Rights, ha

vented through the use of administrative procedures. 

Through your judicial opinions, as well as through certain ar

legal periodicals, we have been made aware of your strong view t

man is entitled to constitutional rights and of your efforts to 

rights. Also, we have been referred to legislative hearings wh

indicated your concern about the use of administrative proced

trials by court-martial. Therefore, we thought it appropriate 

expression of views from you as to the desirability of any inqu

committee at the present time in regard to the constitutional r

personnel. We would also appreciate your comments with resp

stitutional rights of service personnel and especially with re

a.dministrative discharge problem (including perhaps copies of 

have made on the subject.) 

In the event the Subcommittee should go further in its study 

will seek from you a more detailed expression of your views. H

present time, a preliminary statement of your views would 

helpful to us. 

With all kind wishes, I am 

Sincerely 

[sJ Sam J. Er

SAM J. E

Chairman 

SJE:em 

50 
United States Senate 

Washington 25, D.C. 

Dear Senator Ervin: 

I have your letter of September 15 requesting a "preliminary 

my views on the constitutional rights of persons in the armed fo

glad to comply therewith. 

'Without attempting to analyze the basis of my conviction whi

study of the opinions, old and recent of the United States Sup

firmly believe that accused persons in the military services "are 

rights and privileges secured to all under the Constitution of the 

unless excluded directly or by necessary implication, by the provisio

stitution itself." I set out that view as a controlling principle o

conduct in my dissent in United States v. Sutton, 3 USCMA 220, 

220. More recently, writing not as a judge but merely as a memb

confraternity of the legal profession, I said: "it is anomalous to s

residing in the United States are entitled to constitutional guaran

citizens of the L"nited States in the service of their country are dep

rights simply because they wear the uniform of one of its military 

The -enited States Court of Military Appeals and Individual Righ

tary Service, 35 Notre Dame Lawyer 491, 493 (August lOGO). To 

add the question: "If sentenced felons are not deprived of consti

and protection (see Fulwood v. Clemmer, Court of Appeals, D.C. C

1, 1961) surely the men and women wearing the uniform in d

United States are not deprived of those rights and protections?" 

Should you decide to conduct hearings on the matters raised in 

shall be glad to submit to your subcommittee a compilation of pe

States Court of Military Appeals opinions and other of my public 

those matters. 

With every good wish for continued physical and spiritual st

discharge of your monumental responsibilities In these difficult tim

Very sincere

[1'1] 	 Robert E. Q

ROBF~RT E

Chief Judge 
Q

Chief Judge 

U.S. Court of Military Appeals 

5th and E Streets, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 

Dear Chief Judge Quinn: 

As you know, this Subcommittee has been studying military disc

tary justice generally. With a considerable number of American

Services, it seems especially important at the present time to pr

of military personnel. 

In light of your unique experience and your interest in this 

you to testify at the hearings on military justice which we pl

this month or in early February. If you are able to appear, I s

at an early date of the exact time set for the hearings. 

We have found in the past that frequently it is easier for the 

members to follow the testimony and ask meaningful questions i

furnish us a written statement a few days before he appears. 

convenient for you, we would be pleased to receive such a sta

your testifying. 

To give you an idea of some of the points to which the Subco

tion is being directed, I enclose a copy of a questionnaire which w

to Secretary McNamara. 

We are very grateful for your assistance in our study. 

With all kind wishes, I am 

SJE:eg 

Enc. 

[s] 

Sincerely 

Sam J. Er

SAM J. E

Chairman 

52 
discharge procedures? 

5. 	 What are the criteria in each Armed Service for issuance o

charge instead of an honorable discharge? 

6. 	 'What inducements, if any, are given to a serviceman to pe

waive a board hearing with reference to a projected discharg

reason to anticipate more favorable action if he waives a bo

1. 	 In instances where board hearings are held with respect t

charge or revocation of an officer's commission, to what e

action ultimately taken by the Service generally conform to th

tions of the Board? 

8. 	 To what extent are lawyers made available to represent 

board hearings on discharge? 

9. 	 What is the workload of the Discharge Review Boards a

for the Correction of Military (or Naval) Records? What 

or median time for review of cases by these Boards? 

10. 	 In what percentage of cases do these Boards grant relief to 

And in what percentage of cases does a Board for Correcti

Records provide relief previously denied by a Discharge Re

11. 	 What is the procedure utilized by each Service in requiring of

cause" why they should be retained in the Service or shou

commission? 

12. 	 To what extent have undesirable discharges been based o

conduct for which a serviceman has requested, but been den

court-martial? Is there any provision for allowing a service

a court-martial to vindicate himself with respect to alleg

which he anticipates will be made the basis of proceedings lea

desirable discharge? 

13. Could the Subcommittee be furnished with brief summaries o

. legal issues involved in some of the typical cases from each S

spect to the validity or legality of administrative discharges? 

14. 	 To what extent does the Army utilize a soldier's conviction b

martial as the basis for a subsequent undesirable discharge? 

tent does the Army make counsel available to an accused sold

has been referred to a special court-martial? 

15. 	 To what extent are legally-trained counsel made available to a

men whose cases are referred to summary or special cou

16. 	 What are the effects ona serviceman's career of conviction b

special court-martial? 

11. 	 To what extent has the Navy, by use of dockside courts and o

to provide for the use of lawyers as trial and defense counse

courts-martial? 
successful? Ifso, why is it not used by the Air Force? 

23. 	 What are the percentages of guilty pleas for each type of court-

mary, special and general-for each Service for each year sinc

24. 	 What are the percentages of convictions for each type of court-

mary, special, and general-for each Service for each year since 

25. 	 What are typical or "average" sentences in each Service for som

frequent violations of the Uniform Code, such as unauthorized a

tion, failure to obey, larceny, and assault? 

26. 	 To what extent are civilians used on the Boards of Review op

the Uniform Code of Military Justice? 

27. 	 What is the average tour of duty on these boards and what pro

is made to assure the independence of these Boards? 

28. 	 With respect to each Service and for each year since 1951, w

centage of cases in which Boards of Review have disapproved 

what percentage of cases have they reduced the sentence? 

29. 	 To what extent have convening authorities and/or the offic

general court jurisdiction acted either to disapprove findings o

tences in cases which they reviewed? 

30. 	 Has the Air Forces's Amarillo Retraining Group been succe

have the other Services undertaken similar retraining projects? 

capacity at Amarillo feasibly be used for rehabilitation of perso

other Services? 

31. 	 In view of the unavailability of a bail procedure under milit

steps have been taken by the three Services to minimize pretria

32. 	 When a serviceman is subject to trial in either a Federal Dis

a court-martial, what are the criteria for determining which co

cise jurisdiction? Are these criteria satisfactory? 

33. 	 Under circumstances where a serviceman's alleged misconduct 

the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the law of some Sta

circumstances, if any, is the serviceman tried by court-martia

ready been tried by a State court? 

34. 	 In situations where State authorities have indicated their wil

linquish jurisdiction over a serviceman if the Armed Services 

him, under what circumstances is prosecution undertaken b

Services? 

S5. 	 Is legislation needed to give the Federal District Courts jur

misconduct overseas by civilian dependents and employees acco

Armed Services in peacetime? 

36. 	 Is jurisdiction needed to give the District Courts jurisdiction o

of the Uniform Code by ex-servicemen while they were on activ

54 
UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY APPEA

WASHINGTON 25, D.C. 

Janu

Honorable Sam J. Ervin, Jr. 

Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Constitutional Rights 

United States Senate 

Washington 25, D.C. 

Dear Senator Ervin: 

Thank you for your letter of January 5, 1962 regarding the pr

by the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights on military 

military justice. 

To assist the Subcommittee in its important work, I will be pl

in advance of the hearings a statement of cases of the United 

Military Appeals and my personal views on some aspects of the 

inquiry and to appear as a witness. 

With warm regards, I am 

Sincerely y

[8] Robert E. 

ROBERT 

Chief Judg
Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights 

(Pursuant to S. Res. 53, 87th Congress) 

January 23, 1962 

Honorable Robert E. Quinn 

Chief Judge 

U.S. Court of Military Appeals 
 

5th and E Streets, N.W. 
 

Washington, D.C. 
 

Dear Chief Judge Quinn : 
 

In continuation of my letter of January 5, concerning the heari

Subcommittee will hold on military discharges and military jus

I should like to renew the Subcommittee's invitation to you t

witness. 

The hearings will take place during the entire week of Febru

Room 357 of the Senate Office Building. Subject to your conven

reserved the afternoon session of Tuesday, February 6, to hear t

you and your two colleagues on the Court. I shall appreciate yo

if this time will be satisfactory for you. 

With all kind wishes, I am 

Sincerely y

[s] Sam J. Erv

SAM J. ER

Chairman 

SJE:eg 

56 
eXITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY APPEA

WASHIXGTON 25, D.C. 

Janua

Honorable Sam J. Ervin, Jr. 

Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Constitutional Rights 

United States Senate 

Washington 25, D.C. 

Dear Senator Ervin: 

Referring to your notification of January 23d of the hearings 

committee on Constitutional Rights on l<~ebruary 6th, plea~e be 

be present at the time and place -indicated. 

In accordance with my letter of January 9, 1962, I am enclosin

decided by the United States Court of Military Appeals, whkh the 

might find helpful. The essence of my personal views on SOlle 

under inquiry by the Subcommittee is set out in my letter of Sept

I shall be pleased to enlarge upon them in direct testimony b

committee. 

In anticipation of our early meeting, I am 

Sincerely y

[s] 	 Robert E. Q

ROBERT E

Chief Judg

Enclosure 
y ppgy p

silence on his subordinates is not absolute. In part, the 

ion by Chief Judge Quinn is as follows: 

"Plainly AR 360-5 imposes restrictions on the f

of ideas by Army personnel. The question then is 

limitations set out in the regulation constitute an ill

from the Constitutional prohibition on legislation 

freedom of speech,' which is contained in the First Am

"The right to free speech is not au indiscriminate ri

it is qualified by the requirements of reasonableness 

time, place, and circumstance. Schenck v. United S

47,63 L ed 470, 39 S Ct 247. Thus, there is no doubt 

which reasonably protect the national interest do n

Constitutional right of free speech. See Dennis v. 

341 US 494, 95 L ed 1137, 71 S ct 8m. With these prin

frame of reference, we proceed to inquire into the l

regulation." 

(2) 	 United States v. Wysong, 9 USCMA 249, 26 CMR 29. 

Military Appeals held that an order by a commandin

subordinate to refrain from talking to other persons und

circumstances for an indefinite period of time waS an i

enforceable restraint on the subordinate's freedom of spee

B. Right of Privacy 

(1) 	 United States v. Adams, 5 USCMA 563, 18 C:\IR 187. 

Military Appeals defined the nature of a serviceman's "ho

in which he had a right to be free from the uninvited and 

intrusion of others. 

"A dwelling house is not a mere phYSical structure o

kind; it is a place in which human beings live. It m

room, an apartment, an entire building, as in the ca

family residence, or a tent. State v. Holbrook 98 Or

947. Cf. United States v. Love, 4 USCMA 260, 

Generally a military person's place of abode is the p

bunks and keeps his few private possessions. His 

particular place where the necessities of the service 

live. This may be a barracks, a tent, or even a foxho

the name of his place of abode, it is his sanctuary aga

intrusion; it is his castle.' And he is there entitled 

ground against a trespasser to the same extent tha

entitled to stand fast in his civilian home. No reaso

or military necessity justifies depriving the men and 

58 
is concerned. In that area they are human beings end

legal and personal rights which are not subject to mil

Congress left no room for doubt about that. It did not 

violation of any order was punishable by court-martia

that the violation of a lawful order was. Article 92, Un

of Military Justice, 10 USC § 892." 

.c. Military Due Process 

(1) 	 The Right to Confrontation of Witnesses. 

United States v. Jacoby, 11 USCMA 428, 20 CMR 244. Th

Military Appeals held that a deposition could not be admitt

dence against an accused over his objection if he, 01." his c

not accorded the opportunity to cross-examine orally the wi

time of the taking of the deposition. 

(2) 	 Right to a Fair Hearing. 

United States v. Littrice, 3 USCl\L\ 487, 13 C~.IR 43. Th

Military Appeals condemned a lecture to court-martial mem

trial as constituting an attempt to influence their decision. 

United States v. Rinehart, 8 USCMA 402,24 CMR 212; Unit

Kitchens, 12 USCMA 589, 31 CMR 175. 

{3) 	 Right to Counsel. 

United States v. Gunnels, 8 USCMA 130, 23 CMR 354. Th

Military Appeals held that an accused could not be depr

right to consult a lawyer when he is held for interrogat

~nforcement agents. 

'679016-63--5 
UNITED STATES SENATE 

Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights 

(Pursuant to S. Res. 53, 87th Congress) 

February 8, 1962 

Honorable Robert Quinn 

Chief Judge 

U.S. Court of Military Appeals 
 

5th and E Streets, N.W. 
 

Washington, D.C. 
 

Dear Judge Quinn : 
 

The Subcommittee has rescheduled its hearings on the Cons

of Military Personnel for February 20 and 21, and March 1,2, and 

Subject to your convenience, the Subcommittee invites you 

witness at 2:00 p.m., Wednesday, February 21, 1962, in Room 

Office Building, Washington, D.C. If it is not convenient for y

at this time, please advise us. 

With all kind wishes, I am 
 

Sincerel

[8] 	 Sam J. E

SAM J. 

Chairma

SJE:grl 

60. 
UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS 

WASHINGTON 25, D.O. 

}'ebruary 

Honorable Sam J. Ervin, Jr. 

Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Constitutional Rights 

United States Senate 

Washington 25, D.C. 

Dear Senator Ervin: 

The rescheduling date of February 21st is IJIO!!t snt.isfactMY H

pleased to appear before your Subcommittee at 2:00 p.m. in Ro

Senate Office BUilding, on that date. 

With warm regards, I am 

[8J 

Sincerely you

Robert E. QuI

ROmmT E. 

Cbief Judge 
The hearings have been printed and are available from 

Lendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Off

ton 25, D.C. 

IV 

On March 5, 1962, Chief Judge Quinn testified bef

Subcommittee of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, H

resentatives, on ILR. 84:9, 87th Congress, 1st Session, at 

of Honorable Horace R. Kornegay, Chairman of the S

Correspondence between the Chairman and the Chief Ju

as follows: 

61 
We have scheduled your appearance for Monday, March 5, at 10:00 a

call you as the first witness so that it will not be necessary for you 

tlisposition of other witnesses. 

The Committee has engaged in a rather extensive study of this p

period of several years. In the 86th Congress, a bill was reported 

Committee, but was not considered on the Floor. I am enclosing a 

report of the Committee which explains the viewpoint of the Comm

time. I believe you will find the portion of the report, under the head

ground of the Bill", contains a rather clear explanation of the pr

which we are confronted. I am also enclosing a copy of II.R. 775 by 

of Pennsylvania and a copy of II.R. 849 by Mr. Teague of Texas, th

of the Full Committee. For all practical purposes, these bills are i

conform to the views expressed by 'the Committee in the 86th Cong

are other bills on this subject pending in the 'Committee which wo

for judicial review in the existing Federal Court system. The Com

viously concluded that the volume of claims is so great that judic

existing Federal Courts would be impossible, and this view has be

by the Judicial Conference of the United States. It, therefore, app

special court must be established if judicial review is to be provided. 

My knowledge of the history of the Court of Military Appeals is q

but I believe objections made at the time of its establishment were 

that civilian judges should not interfere in the administration of mili

I believe many of the objections now being made to the establishmen

of Veterans' Appeals are similar to objections made at the time the C

tary Appeals was established. It, therefore, appears that it would b

the Committee if you could cover in your testimony this aspect of th

your Court. I shall also appreciate it if you can provide our Com

statistical information for the most recent year available as to the 

cases reversed or affirmed on appeal, together with the number of 

opinions, specially concurring opinions, and dissenting opinions. 

Thank you again for accepting our invitation and if you require 

formation, please contact Mr. Downer of the Committee staff on 

tension 3527. 

Respectfully yours, 

[s] 	 Horace R. Kornegay 

HORACE R. KORNEGAY, Ch

Special Subcommittee for J

Review 
House of Representatives 

Washington 25, D.C. 

Dear Congressman Kornegay: . 

At your request, I am pleased to forward the following enclo

ment the statement of Chief Judge Robert E. Quinn, who appea

subcommittee this morning in conjunction with the hearings bein

H.R. 849 and companion bills: .... 

(1) 	 Ten Year Chronology. of the United States 'Court of M

. (1951-1961).· 

(2) 	 Status of cases filed with the United ,States Court of M

since. its establishment in 1951 through Fiscal Year 196

Note: Of the 1,727 published opinions contained in 12 V

--approximately 45% were decided by the Court t

the accused. 

(3) Breakdown of 	 the 133 opinions published during Fisca

dicating the individual actions taken by the three Judges

(4) Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Court, revised a

1962. 

(5) Copy of the Annual Report of the Court 'and The Judge 

eral of the Armed Forces and the General Counsel of 

of the Treasury submitted to the Congress for the pe

1960 to December 31, 1960. The 1961 Annual Report is n

of the printer. 

If the Court can be of further assistance in this or in any othe

do not hesitate to call upon us. 

With kindest personal regards. 

Sincerely, 

[s] 	 Alfred C. Pr

ALFRED C

Clerk of the 

ACP:vbs 

64 
V 

In August 1962, Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Ferguso

the Annual Meeting of the American Bar Association in 

cisco, California. In conjunction with this Annual Meetin

admission session was held in a courtroom of the United 

trict Court in San Francisco for the purpose of admitting 

and military lawyers in the West Coast area. The bar o

now consists of 9,762 members, who come from every S

Union. 

VI 

On January 1, 1962, the latest revision of the Rules of P

Procedure was promulgated: 

PRACTICE AN

PROCEDURE 

Revised January 1, 1962 

UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY 

APPEALS 
 

CIDEF JUDGE 
 

HON. ROBERT E. QUINN 

ASSOCIATE JUDGES 

HON. HOMER FERGUSON 
 

HON. PAUL J. KILDAY 
 

CLERK 
 

ALFRED C. PROULX 
 

Fifth and E Streets NW. 
 

WASHINGTON 25, D.C. 
 

UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY APPEA

RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 
 

These RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 

'Pursuant to Article 67 of the Uniform Code of Military J

of May 5,1950 (64 Stat. 129,10 U.S.C. 801), to which Cod

should be made for all Articles cited herein, issued Jul

revised March 1, 1952, May 31, 1953, and January 1, 1959, 

further revised as of January 1, 1962. 

CLERK'S OFFICE 
 

8 Clerk__________________________________________________

9 Docket_________________________________________________

ADl\USSIOXS 
 

10 Professional Requirements___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ __ __ _

11 Application Form_____ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ ___

13 Oath 

12 Certificate_ ____ ______ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ ___ _

____________________________ ~______________________

J.4 Motions __________________________________ ._____________

APPEARANCE AND ASSIG~MEXT OF COUNSE

15 Entry of Appearance by CounscL_________________________

16 Assignment of CounseL ______________________________ .____

APPEALS 
 

17 Methods of AppeaL __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

18 Form of Petition for Grant of Review______________________

19 Form of Certificate of Review ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 

'20 Form of Assignment of Errors in Mandatory Cases_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

21 Reply to Petition for Grant of Review_____________________

22 Reply to Certificate for Review ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

:23 Reply to Assignment of Errors in Mandatory Cases__________

TIME REQUIREMENTS FOR FILING APPEALS

PLEADINGS OR OTHER PAPERS 
 

24 Petition for Grant of Review (Article 67(b) (3) cases)_________

25 Certificate for Review (Article 67(b)(2) cases)_______________

26 Assignment of Errors (Article 67(b)(l) cases)________________

27 Pleadings or Other Papers_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _____ _ 

'28 Computation of Time____________________________________

'29 Enlargement_____ _ _ ____ _ _ _____ _____ ____ __ __ _____________ 

·30 Motions_____ - ___ ____ ______ _ _ ____ ___ ___ _ _ ____ _________ __

31 Additional Time when Service is by MaiL__________________

32 Continuances and Interlocutory Matters___________________
cases)_______________________________________________

41 Brief in Support of Certificate for Review (Article 67(b)(2) ca

42 Brief in Support of Assignment of Errors (Article 67(b) (1) cas

43 Brief in Support of Petition Granted______________________

44 Amicus Curiae BrieL___________________________________

HEARINGS 
 

45 Petition for Grant of Review_____________________________

46 l1otions_______________________________________________

47 Oral Argument_____ _______ ______ _____ __ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ 

48 Notice of Hearing_ _ ____________________________________

PETITION FOR REHEARING, 110DlFICATION, 

RECONSIDERATION 
 

49 Filing_________________________________________________

50 Contents______________________________________________

51 Oral Argument______ ______ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _______ _ _ _ __ ___

PETITION FOR NEW TRIAL 
 

52 Filing_________________________________________________

53 Notice of Reference____ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______ _ _ _ _ _ ________ _ _ __ 

54 Additional Investigation____ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _____ _ _ _ _ ____ _

55 Answer________________________________________________

56 Briefs_______________________________________ ~ _____ _ _ __ 

57 Oral Argument_________________________________________

l1ANDATES 
 

58 Issuance_______________________________________________

59 Petition Denied_ _ ___ ___ _____________ __ ____ _ _ _ _____ ___ __

OPINIONS 
 

60 Filing__ ____ ______ ______ __ ___ _____ _____ ____ _ _ _ _ _ ___ __ __

61 Reproduction and Distribution_ _ _ ________________________

[74 ] 
 

viii 
pair of silver scales, encircled by an open wreath of oak leav

gold acorns; all on a grey blue background and within a dark b

in gold and inscribed "UNITED STATES COURT OF M

PEALS" in gold letters. (E.O. 10295, September 28, 1951, 16 

CFR 1951 Supp.) 

Rule 3. Jurisdiction 

The Court will review the record in the following case

(a) General or flag officers/ death sentences. All cases 

sentence, as affirmed by a board of review, affects a gener

cer, or extends to death; 

(b) Oertified by The Judge Advocate General. All ca

by a board of review which The Judge Advocate General 

Certificate for Review to the Court; and, 

(c) Petitioned by the accWled. All cases reviewed b

review in which, upon petition of the accused and on 

shown, the Court has granted a review, except those rev

Article 69. 

Rule 4. Scope of Review 

The Court will act only with respect to the findings an

approved by the convening or reviewing authority, and a

as set aside as incorrect in law by a board of review. I

which The Judge Advocate General forwards to the Cou

cate For Review, action need be taken only with respect 

raised by him. In a case reviewed upon petition of the ac

need be taken only with respect to issues specified by the 

grant of review. The Court may, in any case, however, 

matters of law which materially affect the rights of the p

points raised in the Court will involve only errors in law. 

Rule 5. Quorum 

Two of the judges shall constitute a quorum. The co

two judges shall be required for the rendition of a final de

679016-63-6 
Rule 7. Parties 

The accused will be deemed to be the appellant in all c

those in which The Judge Advocate General has certifie

of a board of review in which a finding of guilty is set asid

cases, the United States shall be deemed the appellant. 

CLERK'S OFFICE 

Rule 8. Clerk 

(a) Location of office. The Clerk of the Court shall ke

at the seat of the National Government, "\Vashington, D.

(b) Re8triction on incumbent. He shall not practice as 

counsellor in any court while he continues in office. 

(a) 0 ath of offiae. Before he enters on the execution 

he shall take an oath in the form prescribed by 28 U.S.C

reads: 

"I, • • ., having been appointed • • ., do solemnly swear (o

I will truly and faithfully enter and record aU orders, decrees, ju

proceedings of such Court, and will faithfully and impartially 

other duties of my office according to the best of my abilities an

ing. So help me God." 

(d) OU8todian of ream'd8. He shall not permit an orig

pleading, or other paper relative to a case to be taken fro

room or from the office without an order from a judge of t

(e) H onr8. The office of the Clerk will be open from 

p.m. every week-day except holidays and Saturdays. 

Rule 9. Docket 

(a) Maintenanee of doaket. The Clerk shall maintain 

a docket, in which shall be entered the receipt of all pleadi

papers filed, and any action by the Court relative to a ca

in the docket shall be noted chronologically on the page 

signed to the case, showing briefly the date, the nature of 

ing or other paper filed, and the substance of any action b

[ 76 ] 

2 
It shall be requisite to the admission of an attorney or co

practice in this Court that he be a member of the bar of 

court or of the highest court of a State, Territory, Commo

Possession. 

Rule 11. Application Form 

In order to appear before the Court, an application sh

with the Clerk on a form supplied by him, which for

available upon request. 

Rule 12. Certificate 

(a) Of good standing. Together with the application 

applicant shall file a certificate from the presiding judge 

the proper court that the applicant is a member of the ba

his private and professional character appear to be good. 

(b) Original and C1trrent. The certificate of good stan

be an original and current, dated within 1 year of th

application. 

(c) Member of an Armed Service. A member of an Ar

ice need not submit a certificate of good standing if the 

form is certified by The Judge Advocate General of his 

service. 

Rule 13. Oath 

Upon being admitted, each applicant shall take in ope

following oath or affirmation, viz: 

"I, * * *, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the 

of the United States; and, that I will demean myself, as an 

counsellor of this Court, uprightly, and according to law." 

Rule 14. Motions 

Admissions will be granted upon motion of the Court o

motion by a person admitted to practice before the Court, 

the Court holds a regular session. No motion for admis

sentia will be entertained. 
y gpp

ernment counsel, and shall immediately designate appella

counsel, unless he has been notified that the accused de

represented before the Court by civilian counsel. 

APPEALS 

Rule 17. Methods of Appeal 

Cases shall be appealed to the Court by one of the 

methods: 

(a) Oases unde'J' Article 67(b) (3). All cases und

67(b) (3) shall be appealed by a Petition for Grant of R

such petition shall be substantially in the form provided i

(b) Oases unde'J' Article 67(b) (2). All cases und

67(b) (2) shall be forwarded by The Judge Advocate Ge

Certificate for Review, and such certificate shall be subst

the form provided in Rule 19. 

(0) Oases unde'J' Article 67(b) (1). All cases und

67(b) (1) shall be forwarded by The Judge Advocate Gene

panied by an Assignment of Errors urged by appellate c

the accused substantially in the form provided in Rule 2

Rule 18. Form of Petition for Grant of Review 

The Petition for Grant of Review under Article 67 (b) (

substantially in the following form: 

IN THE UNITED STATES 

COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS 

UNITED STATES, 

Appellee PETITION FOR GRANT O

v. Board of Review No. _____._ 

--------------, } Docket No. ___________ 

Appellant 

[78 ] 

4 
------------------------------------

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

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

Review, and during the review, if the same be granted by the 

Oourt of Military Appeals." 

(B) (If accused desires to retain other counsel) 

"The accused requests appellate defense counsel be designated 

Advocate General to represent him, in association with his priv

-counsel, llIimed below, to the extent such privately retained coun

Name and address of privately retained counsel ______________

.----------_... _-------------------------------------" 

3. The accused claims error on the following questions of law: (

separately and particularly each error assigned upon which accu

cluding such points and authorities as may be desired.) 

Note. Claim of "Insufficiency of the evidence" as an assigned error sh

particularity exactly in what respect the evidence is. lacking with reco

available. - "- " " ­

4. The accused was notified of the decision of the Board of R

_______ day of ____________ , 19 ____, and placed his request to pet

in military channels or in the mail on the ______ day of _________

(Accused) or (Appellate Counsel fo

Address 

Petition was received in the Office of The Judge Advocate G

__________ , on the ______ day of ______________ , 19 ______• 

CERTIFIOATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed or delivere

Government Counsel on the ______ day of ____________ , 19 _____

Name 

Address 

Rule 19. Form of Certificate for Review 

The Certificate for Review under Article 67(b) (2) s

stantially in the following form: 
record of trial, and decision of the Board of Review, United Sta

in the above-entitled case, are forwarded for review. 

2. The accused was found guilty of a violation of the Uniform 

tary Justice, Article ______ , was sentenced to ________ , on ______

by ____________ . The sentence was approved by the convening a

affirmed by a Board of Review on the ______ day of ________ , 19__

3. It is requested that action be taken with respect to the follow

The Judge Advocate General 

Received a copy of the foregoing Certificate for Review this _

__________ , 19 ____. 

Appellate Government Counsel 

Address 

Appellate Defense Counsel 

Address 

Rule 20. Form 01 Assignment 01 Errors in Mandatory C

The assignment of Errors under Article 67(b) (1) sh

stantially in the following form. 

IN THE UNITED STATES 
 

COURT· OF MILITARY APPEALS 
 

TO 	 THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF THE UNITED STA

OF MILITARY APPEALS: 

1. The accused having been found guilty of a yiolation of the U

of Military Justice, Article ______, and having been sentenced to _

----------, at ------, by --__________ , and said sentence having b

[ 80] 

6 
(Appellate Counsel for Accused) or A

:Address 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed or delivere

Government Counsel on the ______ day of __________ • 19 ____• 

Name 

Address 

Rule 21. Reply 10 Petition lor Grant of Review 

(a) Time requirement. Within 15 days after the filin

tion for Grant of Review by an accused under Articl

appellate Government counsel shall file a reply to the Pet

his views with respect to the merits of the errors of law 

Petition and why he believes the Petition should not be g

(b ) Form. This reply shall be similar in form to the P

brief of the accused, should one be filed, except that if t

Government counsel disagrees with the statement of fac

to supplement it with additional facts, he shall start hi

new information. If a claim of insufficiency of evidence 

the reply shall set forth affirmatively, with particularity, 

claimed the evidence is sufficient, with record reference

Rule 40. 

Rule 22. Reply to Certificate for Review 

See Rule 41. 

Rule 23. Reply to Assignment of Errors in Mandatory C

See Rule 42. 
(c) Forwarded through The Judge Advocate General. 

tion for Grant of Review may be forwarded through T

Advocate General of the service concerned, and such Judge 

General will thereafter cause the same to be filed with 

within 30 days of receipt thereof. 

Rule 25. Certificate lor Review (Article 67(b)(2) Cases) 

The Judge Advocate General shall file a Certificate fo

within 30 days after receipt of the decision of a board of 

cases forwarded to the Court under Article 67 (b) (2). 

Rule 26. Assignment of Errors (Article 67(b)(7) Cases) 

The accused or his appellate counsel shall file an Assig

Errors within 30 days after receipt of the decision of a bo

view in cases forwarded to the Court under Article 67(b) 

Rule 27. Pleadings or Other Papers 

All pleadings or other papers relative to a case, trans

mail or other means for filing in the office of the Clerk, sh

deemed to have been filed until received in his office. (For 

relative to the filing of a Petition for Grant of Review see R

Rule 28. Computation of Time 

In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed 

Rules, by order of Court, or by any applicable statute, the 

act, event or default after which the designated period of ti

to run is not to be included. The last day of the period so 

is to be included, unless it is a Saturday, Sunday or legal h

which event the period runs until the end of the next day 

neither a. Saturday, Sunday nor a holiday. When the peri

prescribed or allowed is less than 7 days, intermediate S

Sundays and holidays shall be excluded in the computation

Rule 29. Enlargement 

When by these Rules or by notice given thereunder, or b

Court, an act is required or allowed to be done at or within 

time, the Court for cause shown may at any time in its discr

[ 82 ) 

8 
(a) Must state relief sought and grounds therefor. A

unless made during the course of a hearing, shall state w

larity the relief sought and the grounds therefor. 

(b) Opposition. Any opposition to a motion shall be 

5 days after receipt by the opposing party of service of th

(a) For leave to file. Any pleading not required by 

shall be accompanied by a motion for leave to file such pl

Rule 37. Additional Time When Service Is by Mail 

Whenever a party has the right or is required to do some 

some proceedings within a prescribed period after the s

notice, pleading, or other paper relative to a case when s

is made upon him by mail, 3 days shall be added to the 

period if the party upon whom the service is made is wit

tinentallimits of the United States, and 15 days shall be ad

if the party is located outside those limits. 

Rule 32. Continuances and Interlocutory Malters 

The Court may extend any times prescribed by these 

grant continuances and postponements from time to tim

take such other action the Court considers necessary for 

and expeditious disposition of a case. 

PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO PLEADINGS OR 

PAPERS FILED 
 

Rule 33. Filing 

All pleadings or other papers relative to a case shall be 

office of the Clerk. 

Rule 34. Copies 

An original and four legible copies of all pleadings or o

relative to a case shall be filed. 

Rule 35. Style 

All pleadings or other papers relative to a case shall b

typewritten. 
------------------------------------

signs the paper. Such signature shall constitute a certifica

statements made therein are true and correct to the best of 

edge, information, and belief of the person signing the p

paper, and that the pleading or paper is filed in good fai

for the purpose of unnecessary delay. 

Rule 38. Service 

(a) In general. Prior to the filing of any pleading or o

relative to a case in the office of the Clerk, service of a c

same shall be made on all counsel of record. In the case o

cate for Review, service of a copy thereof shall be made o

Government counsel and the accused or his appellate couns

(b) By mail. Any pleading or other paper filed relativ

may be served on all counsel of record by mail. 'Vhen serv

is used a certificate shall be included in the original pleadi

paper filed substantially in the following form: 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON ALL COUNSEL OF RE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed to all counsel 

the ______ day of __________ , 19 ____ . 

Name 

Address 

BRIEFS 

Rule 39. Form of Brief 

All briefs shall be substantially in the following form: 

IN THE UNITED STATES 
 

COURT OF l\IILITARY APPEALS 
 

UNITED STATES, ) BRIEF ON BEHALF OF 

(Appellant) (Appellee) (ACCUSED) (UNITED S

v. Board of Review No. _____

(Appellee) (Appellant) Docket No. __________ 

t 84 ] 

10 
,or each issue raised in the Certificate for Review, or each error 

:the Assignment of Errors, or each issue specified by the Court.) 

Argument 

(Discuss briefly the pOints of law presented, citing and quoting suc

.as are deemed pertinent.) 

Conclusion 

Insert (A), (B) or (C), whichever is applicable: 

,(A) "For the reasons stated the accused is entitled to a grant of 

the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Artic

\(B) "This brief is submitted under the provisions of the Unif

Military Justice, Article 67(b) (2)." 

\(C) "This brief is submitted under the provisions of the Unif

Military Justice, Article 67(b) (1)." 

SIgnature of Coun

Address 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed or delivered 

t(Defense) (Government) counsel on the __________ day of ________

Name 

Address 

Rule 40. Brief in Support of Petition for Grant of Revie

67(bJl3) Cases) 
 

(a) By appellant. If desired, a brief may be filed in s

Petition for Grant of Review. If a brief is to be filed, it s

pany the Petition. 

(b) By appellee. Appellee's brief shall be filed within 

the filing of appellant's brief. 

Rule 41. Brief in Support of Certificate for Review (Artic

Cases) 
 

(a) By appellant. A brief shall be filed by appellant 

·of a Certificate for Review within 20 days of the filing o

tificate. 
g pppp

may file his brief within 20 days after expiration of the t

for the filing of appellant's brief. 

Rule 43. Brief in Support of Petition Granted 

A brief in support of a petition granted shall be file

raised by parties or specified by the Court, unless said bri

by the Court. 

(a) By appellant. A brief shall be filed by appellan

days of the entry of the order of the Court granting revie

(b) By appellee. Appellee's brief shall be filed within 

filing of appellant's brief. If appellant fails to file a bri

may file his brief within 20 days after expiration of the t

for the filing of appellant's brief. 

Rule 44. Amicus Curiae Brief 

A brief of an amicus curiae may be filed only by permi

Court. 

HEARINGS 

Rule 45. Petition for Grant of Review 

Except when ordered by the Court, oral argument will 

mitted on a Petition for Grant of Review. 

Rule 46. lv1otions 

Except when ordered by the Court, oral argument will 

mitted on motions. 

Rule 47. Oral Argument 

Oral argument will be heard after briefs have been file

ance with Rules 41, 42 or 43. 

(a) Presentation. The appellant shall be entitled to op

the argument; in the event both parties desire a review o

of a board of review, the accused shall be entitled to open 

(b) Number of counsel. Not more than two counsel f

shall be heard in oral argument unless the Court otherwise 

[ 86 ) 

12 
without oral argument with permission of the Court. 

Rule 48. Notice of Hearing 

The Clerk shall give at least 10 days' notice in writing 

and place for any hearing. 

PETITION FOR REHEARING, MODIFICATION

RECONSIDERATION 
 

Rule 49. Filing 

(a) Time requirement. A petition for rehearing, mod

reconsideration shall be filed within 5 days from receipt 

entry of an order, decision, or opinion by the Court. 

(b) Reply. Any reply to a petition shall be filed by t

party within 5 days after receipt of service of the petition

Rule 50. Contents 

The petition for rehearing, modification, or reconside

state briefly and directly its grounds and be supported by 

of counsel to the effect that it is presented in good faith 

delay. 

Rule 5J. Oral Argument 

Except when ordered by the Court, oral argument will 

mitted on a petition for rehearing, modification, or reconsi

PETITION FOR NEW TRIAL 

Rule 52. Filing 

A petition for new trial shall be filed with The Judg

General of the service concerned. 

Rule 53. Notice of Reference 

Upon receipt from The Judge Advocate General of a 

new trial (original and four copies) in a case pending 

Court, the Clerk shall notify all counsel of record of such 
() y ppy ppp

shall be filed within 10 days of appellee's answer. If appe

file an answer, appellant may file a brief within 10 day

expiration of the time allowed for the filing of appellee's a

(b) By appellee. Appellee's brief shall be filed within 

filing of appellant's brief. If appellant fails to file a brie

may file his brief within 10 days after the expiration o

allowed for the filing of appellant's brief. 

Rule 57. Oral Argument 

Except when ordered by the Court oral argument w

permitted on a petition for new trial. 

MANDATES 

Rule 58. Issuance 

Mandates shall issue after the expiration of 12 days fr

the opinion of the Court is filed with the Clerk, unless a 

rehearing, modification or reconsideration is filed, or 

shortened or enlarged by order of the Court, or unless 

stipulate that it be issued sooner. 

Rule 59. Petition Denied 

No mandate shall issue upon the denial of a Petition fo

Review. Whenever a Petition for Grant of Review is 

Clerk shall enter an order to that effect and shall forthw

The Judge Advocate General of the service concerned a

of record. 

OPINIONS 

Rule 60. filing 

All opinions of the Court shall be filed with the 

preservation. 

Rule 61. Reproduction and Distribution 

The reproduction, printing and distribution of all op

be pursuant to the direction of and under the supervision o

[ 88 ] 

14 
VII 

There is attached to this report a detailed analysis of t

cases processed by the Court since it began operating in 1

Respectfully submitted, 

ROBERT E. QU

Gh

HOMER FERGU

PAUL J. KILDA

EXHIBIT A 
 

67001~7 

1960 

1961 

196! 

Petitions (Art. 67(b)(3»: 

Arrny--------------------­

~avy-------------------- Air Force __________________ 

Coast Guard _______________ 

8,099 

2,745 

3, 196 

39 

371 

330 

252 

1 

431 

323 

193 

1 

TotaL __________________ 14,079 954 !)48 

Certificates (Art. 67(b)(2»: 

Arrny--------------------- 111 11 7 

~avy--------------------- 174 7 6 

Air Force__________________ 43 6 4 

Coast Guard _______________ 6 

° ° Total___________________ 334 24 17 

Mandatory (Art. 67(b)(1»: 

Arrny--------------------­ 31 

~avy--------------------- 3 ° ° 

Air Force__________________ 2 

°

1 ° 

Coast Guard _______________ ° ° ° ° 

TotaL __________________ 36 1 

° 

Total cases docketed______ 14,449 979 965 

12 Flag officer cases; 1 Army and 1 Navy. 

J 16,131 cases actually assigned docket numbers. 110 cases counted as both Petitions a

5 cases Certified twice. 137 cases submitted as Petitions twice. 2 Mandatory cases filed tw

tory cases filed as Petitions after second Board or Review Opinion. 2 cases submitted as 

third time. 
g

3 o 

Remanded to Board of Review______ _ 115 23 

Court action due (30 days) 3 ________ _ 77 57 

Awaiting briefs 1___________________ _ 19 25 

Certificates (Art. 67(b)(2»: 

Opinions rendered _________________ _ 311 37 

Opinions pending 3 _________________ _ 10 2 

withdrawn _______________________ _ 

Remanded_______________________ ~_ 

6 

1 

o 

o 

Set for hearing 3___________________ _ o o 

Ready for hearing 3 ________________ _ 1 1 

Awaiting briefs 3___________________ _ 6 1 

Mandatory (Art. 67(b) (1»:

Opinions rendered_________________ _ 35 1 

Opinions pending 3_________________ _ 

Remanded________________________ _ 1 

1 

o 

o 

Awaiting briefs 3 ___________________ _ o 1 

Opinions rendered: 

Petitions _________________________ _ 

Motions to Dismiss________________ _ 1,228 

10 

91 

1 

Motion to Stay Proceedings_________ _ 1 o 

Per Curiam grants_________________ _ 22 4 

Certificates _______________________ _ 272 34 

Certificates and Petitions___________ _ Mandatory _______________________ _ 

Remanded________________________ _ 

37 

35 

2 

3 

1 

o 

Petition for a New Trial____________ _ 1 o 

Petition for Reconsideration of Petition 

for New Trial___________________ _ 1 o 

Motion to Reopen _________________ _ 1 o 

Total__________________________ _ 1,610 134 1

= 

I As of lune 30, 1960, 1961, and 1962• 

• 1,858 cases were disposed of by 1,841 published OPinions. 101 opinions were rendered I

60 Army officers, 21 Air Force officel'!l, 14 Navy officers, 3 Manne Corps officers, 2 Coa

and 1 West Point Cadet. In addition 19 opinions were rendered In cases involving 2

remainder concerned enlisted personnel. 

94 
findings and sentence ____________ _ 

Remanded to Board of Review______ _ 

Total __________________________ _ 

Opinions pending________________________ _ 

Set for hearing __________________________ _ 

Ready for hearing _______________________ _ 

Petitions granted-awaiting briefs _________ _ 

Petitions-Court action due 30 days _______ _ 

Petitions-awaiting briefs ________________ _ 

·Certificates-awaiting briefs ______________ _ 

Mandatory-awaiting briefs ______________ _ 

Tdtal ____________________________ _ 

3 o 

115 23 

14,290 1,010 

9

Pending compldim 

June SO, 1960 June 30,100

38 16 

10

o 1 

9 17 

77 57 

19 25 

61

01

150 118 

679016-63--8 

Report 

01 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 
 

of 
 

THE ARMY 
 

January 1, 1962 to December 31, 1962 

g

trials for fiscal year 1962 (Average Strength-Total Arm

706) follows: 

Oonvicted (}eneral -_______________________________ ~762 

Spe<1al ________________________________ 25,254 

Surnrnary ______________________________ 41,694 

Acquttted 

114 

1,353 

1,848 

Total-All courts-martiaL_____________ 68, 710 3,315 

Records of trial by general court-martial received by T

Advocate General during fiscal year 1962: 

For review under Article 66___________________________________

For examination under Article 69_____________________________

Total _____________________________________________________

Workload of the Army Boards of review during the same 

On hand at the beginning of period.___________________________

Iteferred for review__________________________________________

Total _____________________________________________________

Iteviewed ___________________________________________________

Pending at close of period____________________________________

Total _____________________________________________________

-This figure includes 11 cases which were referred to bQards ot review tor 

under Article 69, Unltorm Code of MU1tary Justice. 

Actions taken during period 1 July 1961 through 30 Jun

boards of review: 

AJHrnaed ____________________________________________________

Sentence ~odified ____________________________________________

Itehearing Ordered___________________________________________

Charges ])ism~ed___________________________________________

Findings ])isapproved in part/sentence approved ______________

FindingS and/or sentence disapproved in parL_________________

Total______________________________________________________
for fiscal year 1962 was as follows: 

Petitions denied___________________________________________

Petitions granted____________________________________..:______

Certified cases affirmed____________________________________

Certified cases reversed____________________________ ~________

Total ____ ~ ___________.,; _________________________.-----.-_

_ During the past year, Congress enacted Public Law 87

amended Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Jus

vide commanders with more effective nonjudicial punishm

ity. This represents only tIle third amendment to the Co

years of operation-the other 2 consisting of insertions of 

cles, Article 58a and Article 123a, the so-called "bad che

As I indicated in my last report, I am convinced that furt

ments to the Code are not only vital to th~ effective oper

Army in wartime but are essential to the proper admin

military justice at the present time. 

At the request of the Code Committee, established to prep

mendations for amendments to the Code under Article 67

has drafted legislative proposals to amend the Code for p

to the 88th Congress. These proposals include substant

the provisions of the "B" Bill, drafted in April of 1961 an

the Annual Report of the United States Court of Militar

The Judge Advocates General, and the General Counsel of 

ment of the Treasury for the period 1 January 1961 to 3

1961. Its purpose is to revise the court structure under th

Code of Military Justice to provide for single-officer cou

in certain cases, and to provide for appointment, under ce

tions, of a law officer to a special court-martial. Unlike 

"B~' Bill, the new draft does not abolish the summary co

Additional amendments which my office has drafted wou

specific statutory authority for pretrial sessions and for oth

in court-martial procedures, waiver of review by a board o

,cases in which the accused has pleaded guilty to all offens

100 
any subsequent trial. An advantage of this procedure is th

ity of the investigating officer and the defense counsel w

tute, in large measure, their preparation for trial. Such 

would be expeditious, efficient, and equitable and promo

ests of justice and discipline. 

On 1 October 1962, the reorganization of the Field Ju

vision as the United States Army Judiciary, a Class II ac

-office, was announced. This isa further step in the ev

completely independent Army judicial system which be

with the establishment of the Field Judiciary. The Fiel

now designated the Trial Judiciary, consists of 23 speci

judicial officers who perform as law officer for cases tried 

court-martial. In this recent step, I have provided tha

Judiciary embrace not only law officers and board of r

,bers, but also appellate counsel, both for the Government 

accused. The new organization includes also the Exam

New Trial Branch, formerly a part of the Military Justi

_where appellate review of general court-martial cases 

Article 69 is provided and certain petitions for new trial ar

,The Assistant Judge Advocate General has been designa

,ordinator of the United States Army Judiciary and made 

for its 'activities. The Chief Judicial Officer, who report

the Assistant Judge Advocate General, serves as the adm

the United States Army Judiciary, with overall responsib

-organization and functioning. 

The administration of the Army's military justice syst

execution of other military legal responsibilities of the Ju

cate General's Corps, continue to make the o~-erall attritio

enced judge advocates a matter of primary interest. T

Buildup," the "Cuban Crisis," and the reorganization of 

ment of the Army have intensified the need for experie

.advocates and, as well, demonstrated the talent, experienc

cation which the uniformed lawyer brings to his job. The

have marked the performance of the Corps and have m
the Reserve training program long conducted by this Corp

The increased need for capable career officers, induced 

by the activities of this past year, has served to heighten 

tainty of our ability to meet our personnel needs and reliev

to the capability of the Corps to accomplish its mission. 

proximately 1,100 judge advocates now on active duty, 520 

Anuy officers and 86 are Reserve officers who are making 

military service. The remainder are young Reserve offic

graduated from law school and obligated to serve a rela

period of active duty before returning to civilian life. T

ized Regular Army strength of the Corps is 786, or som

than the actual number of Regular Army officers on d

about 55 percent of the officers of the Corps have legal ex

more than 3 years. In 1962, about 250 officers, or more tha

of the Corps' total strength, were commissioned and enter

duty for the first time. The need for career officers, then

I have long since recognized this problem area. Antic

mandatory losses of experienced officers within the nex

every reasonable solution has been explored and every effo

to increase the Regular Army input, retention rate, and 

level of the Corps. There are certain solutions which I be

provide adequate incentives to qualified attorneys to rema

duty with the Corps. However, none of these have been p

fect, although the problem area was recognized and ince

recommended by a Board of General Officers and the Secr

Anuy as long ago as 1960. It has not been possible thus f

extra pay on any of the various bases suggested, and C

thus far continued to prohibit legal training of career offi

ernment expense, although experience factors indicate this 

vides the highest quality of legal services at the lowest ov

the Government. 

The Corps again this year expended every effort to solv

nel needs. Extensive recruiting effort brought 27 officers i

lar Anuy during fiscal year 1962, but losses through retire

102 
expense, is from among the many (about 180 per year) y

called to duty to perform obligated service. In fiscal yea

were about 25 young officers from this source. The conti

and out of the service of such large numbers of officers is a

method of obtaining trained military lawyers. 

It is my opinion that immediate action is needed to 

('xperience level of Army lawyers, to reduce the annual 

penditures, and to insure the Corps adequate experience

to fulfill its missions in war or peace. I am of the opin

be most effectively and economically achieved by making 

ing at Government expense available for career officers. 

During the calendar year 1962, The Judge Advocat

School, United States Army, provided resident instructi

military lawyers and civilians employed by the Governm

Procurement Courses, two International Law Courses, two 

vocate Refresher Courses, a Civil Affairs Course, a Mili

Course, a Military Justice Course, a Contract Terminat

and a Law Officers' Seminar were conducted. 

The. School conducted two cycles of the 10 week Spe

Among the 251 military lawyer graduates of these courses 

from Thailand, Vietnam, and Korea. 

The Tenth Judge Advocate Career Officers' Course, o

training duration, had 18 members, incl uding one Navy leg

and one officer from Burma,and was completed on 25 May 

Eleventh Career Officers' Course, now in residence, began 

on 10 September 1962. This class includes 15 Army jud

officers, one Navy legal specialist, and one Turkish militar

The following texts were prepared and published as 

of the Army Pamphlets: Claims; Military Justice-Init

International Law, Volume 2-The Law of War; and Se

and Materials on the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Ac

During 1962, the School provided nonresident training 

justice and other military legal subjects for more than 

judge advocate Reserve officers. The School continued it
topics. 

Four issues of the Military Law Review were published 

period. These volumes contained articles, comments, s

book reviews of interest to judge advocates. The Octobe

was devoted entirely to procurement law and featured arti

civilian and military experts in the field of governmen

The annual survey of decisions of the Court of Military A

peared in the April 1962 issue. 

Twenty-eight issues of the Judge Advocate Legal S

published, insuring a rapid dissemination to the field of th

velopments in military law and allied subjects. 

'A new training film entitled "Legal Assistance" was com

ing this period. It is designed to infonn Anny command

sonnel of the legal assistance services that are available t

my opinion the preventive law aspects of the Legal Ass

gram enhance morale and promote discipline and good 

script for a new training film to be entitled "Nonjudic

ment," explaining Public Law 87-648, was also prepared . 

. A 4-hour common subject course of instruction on the l

of counterinsurgency was developed for incorporation in

ricula of career courses of all other Anny service schools. 

officers from The Judge Advocate General's School pre

instruction to selected groups for evaluation at the Qu

School, the Special Warfare School, the Infantry Schoo

Provost Marshal General's School. 

In accordance with Article 6a, The Assistant Judge Ad

eral and I inspected judge advocate offices in the United 

overseas. These inspections, together with the informati

during the annual Judge Advocate General's Conference

vinced me that, although certain amendments to the Cod

sary, Anny judge advocates and their commanders are c

their military justice duties in an exemplary manner. 

remiss in my responsibility if I failed to mention the consi

104 
The Judge Advocate 

Report 

of 
 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 
 

of 

THE NAVY 

January 1, 1962 to December 31, 1962 

statistical information covering fiscal year 1962. 

Courts-martial of all types convened within the Navy 

Corps charging servicemen with offenses-military an

demeanor and felony-totaled 45,529 in fiscal year 19G2 

to 45,042 in fiscal year 1961, an overall increase of 487 ca

. courts-martial for fiscal year 1962 totaled 495 cases, as 

500 cases in fiscal year 1961. In last year's report, I n

away from the general courts-martial in favor of the l

martial. This trend seems to have continued into the y

inasmuch as special and summary courts-martial accounte

,case increase in workload. 'Ve expect a downward trend 

all 1963 caseload due to the increased nonjudicial punish

itY'resulting from Public Law 87-648. Special court

fiscal year 1962 totaled 15,782 as compared to 15,589 in fis

Summary courts-martial totaled 29,252 in fiscal year 1962 

,to 28,953 in fiscal year 19G1. A n1.ore detailed statisti

attached as enclosure (1). 

Navy Boards of Review during fiscal year 1962 receive

386 general courts-martial and 2,783 special courts-m

pending cases at the end of the fiscal year were 93 as com

at the commencement of the year. Boards modified fi

cases reviewed, and modified the sentences in 336 cases

. percent of the accused whose cases were received for revie

·of Review requested representation by appellate defe

During the fiscal year 315 petitions were acted upon b

States Court of Military Appeals. Of this total 277 p

denied, and review was granted in 38 cases. The Jud

General certified seven cases to the Court during this per

Public Law 87-648, amending Article 15, UCl\fJ, was 

law during the year with an effective date of 1 Februa

Executive Order, drafted by the service JAG's after cons

.their respective services and after consultation with the C
other things, promulgation of the Navy's new "United S

Leadership Manual"-thus reflecting converging Navy 

signed to improve leadership programs, discipline, m

"esprit". 

The Assistant Judge Advocate General (Military Ju

tinues to issue, periodically, an informal communication 

law specialists advising them of new developments in the 

their attention to errors frequently committed, and point

falls that are apt to be encountered. It was of significan

to the field in providing advance information on the dev

the new Article 15. 

The JAG Task Forces (East and West Coast), althou

in strength, continued, within their numerical capabilities

to requests for special services whenever and whereve

Since the Task Force units are now so small, it has been n

occasion, to utilize the services of officers assigned permane

other units of the office. Be it as counsel for a court of in

party, as trial or defense counsel, or special lecturer 

justice, they were available. 

Last year I reported on the Navy's pilot judiciary prog

pleased to report that in May 1962, the Secretary of the N

ized the establishment of the judiciary program on a servic

A headquarters office has been activated at 'Vashington, D.

offices have been established at Norfolk, Va.; Camp Lej

Great Lakes, Ill.; San Diego, Camp Pendleton, and San Br

Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; and Yokosuka, Japan. Each off

law officer services to all GCM convening authorities 

Marine Corps) within its assigned geographic area. Co

and per diem are borne by my office. The employme

seasoned and experienced law officers in all general courts-

not help but improve the quality of judicial proceedings. 

. The Military Justice Division of my office has devel

special court-martial trial guide, which is now being is

field. The purpose of this guide is to provide assistance to 

110 
y q

p

the accused. Concomitant therewith, some of the cou

cedures need modernization. A form of pretrial confe

preliminary motions and pleas can be acted upon without 

of requiring the presence of the court members would p

more orderly trial. Such a legislative proposal is now 

consideration by the service JAG's. Additionally, there 

ing and pressing need to enact other provisions of the Omn

ments previously forwarded to the Congress as part 

legislative program. Legislative proposals designed to e

orderly administration of military justice are under activ

tion by the service JAG's. 

I have previously spoken on the need to rewrite the M

changes brought about by Article 123A enacted last year; 

in the immediate offing by virtue of the new Article 

changes brought about by decisional law all attest to the 

write the Manual-in a loose-leaf form, I hope. 'Ve ca

delay this important task. I am pleased to report that s

JAG's have agreed to a feasibility study as a first step. 

While on the subject of rewritting the Manual, I hav

concerned with the outmoded presentencing procedures 

military. At the present time the Manual limits the 

to records of previous convictions and to matters in aggrav

offense involved. On the other hand, the accused may of

terial in mitigation or extenuation and, where he makes 

statement, he is not subject to cross-examination. In civil

trials a full presentencing report is made available to the c

cial decisions, such as the Supreme Court case, William8 v

358 US 576, have indicated that punishment is individual

be fitted not only to the offense but also to the offender. 

Therefore, for the court to arrive at an appropriate 

should have available to it the "whole picture", not just p

then and only then can a sentence be meaningful. I, the

that immediate steps be taken to amend the Manual in ord

679016-63-9 
future. 

The U.S. Naval Justice School, which is under the tech

vision of the .TAG, continues to offer intensive courses o

in the fundamental principles of military justice and proce

UCMJ. In October, the graduation of the 100th class wa

appropriate ceremony. 

"While the primary mission of the school is to train li

corps officers of the Navy and Marine Corps, newly c

Navy lawyers secure their training in military justice an

at the school. As a secondary mission and as part of th

program for common specialist training of armed forces p

school trains enlisted personnel of the Army, Navy, Ai

Coast Guard in closed microphone court reporting and mil

The school's faculty, while predominantly Navy, has Ma

and Air Force personnel assigned. During fiscal year 

students were graduated. Additionally, 448 military p

ceived special lectures. 

Last year I reported on the status of the DoD sponsored 

legislation. Unfortunately, the Bill (R.R. 12347-87th

referred to subCommittee for hearings and, with the end 

Session it expired. The need to establish a JAG Corps 

remains acute. The Navy needs an organizational enve

lawyers-not only to identify them but to provide them 

fessional prestige and status. 

""v. C. M:O'IT, 

Rear Admiral, 

Judge Advocat

112 
.Special courts-martial: 

Received for review under Article 66_____________________ 

Received for review under Article 650___________________ 

Reviewed in the field___________________________________ 

Total__________________________________________________

'summary courts-martial: 

Received for review under Article 65c____________________ 

Reviewed in the field___________________________________ 

Total__________________________________________________

Total all courts-martiaL_______________________________

Board of review actions: 

On hand for review 1 July 196L_________________________ 

Received for review during FY 1962____________________ 

Total on hand_________________________________________

Reviewed during FY 1962______________________________ 

Pending review on 30 June 1962_________________________ 

TotaL_______________________________________________

Supplemental reviews, such as petitions for reconsideration, CHC~IA mandates, rehearing, interlocutory 

decisions, etc______________________________________ 

Findings modified by boards of review during FY 1962__ 

Requests for appellate counseL_______________________ 

U.S. Court of Military Appeals actions: 

Petitions granted______________________________________ 

Petitions denied________________________________________ 

Total petitions acted upon______________________________

Cases certified to USCMA by JAG_________________________

Report 

of 
 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 
 

of 

THE AIR FORCE 

January 1, 1962 to December 31, 196

p_________

General Court-Martial records________________________ 2

Special Court-Martial records _________________________ 6

Examined pursuant to Article 69____________________________

~he Boards of Review modified findings of guilty in 44 cases. 

b. The following table shows the workload of the Board

during the period: 

On hand 30 June 196L___________________________________ 

Referred for review ______________________________________ 9

Reviewed and dispatched________________________________ 9

Pending 30 June 1962 ___________________________ ~________ 

c.From 1 July 1961 through 30 June 1962, 59 percen

cused whose cases were reviewed in the Office of The Judg

General, pursuant to Article 66, requested representation 

late Defense Counsel before Boards of Review. 

d. The following table shows the number of cases forwa

United States Court of Military Appeals pursuant to the 

divisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Arti

and the number of petitions granted during the period: 

Cases reviewed and dispatched by Boards of Review_________

Cases forwarded to USCl\IA________________________________

Number cases based on petitions______________________ 1

Number cases certified by ~JAG______________________ 

Percent total forwarded of total cases reviewed______________

Petitions granted__________________________________________

Percent petitions granted of total petitioned__________________

Percent petitions granted of total cases reviewed by ~rds of Review _______________________________________

e. During the period of this report, the following numbe

martial were convened in the Air Force: 

General Courts-~IartiaL_______________________________ 4

Special Courts-l\IartiaL________________________________ 3,25

Summary Courts-l\IartlaL_____________________________ 11, 6

~otal_______________________________________________ 15,4
appoint Air Force officers as law officers in two trial

courts-martial of the Navy. 

3. Legislation increasing the authority of designated 

under Article 15 was introduced in the 87th Congress a

Following hearings in the House of Representatives, 

(H.R. 11257) was introduced and subsequently enacted a

87-648 on 7 September 1962. This Act will become e

February 1963. 

4. During the calendar year period, Major Genera

Kuhfeld, The Judge Advocate General, and Major G

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

to approximately 75 legal offices in the United States an

required by Article 6(a) of the Uniform Code of Mil

Generals Kuhfeld and Tidwell also attended various ba

meetings and spoke before numerous civic, professional 

organizations. 

5. On 1 January 1962 there were 1,343 judge advoca

duty in the United States Air Force; on 31 December 19

approximately, 1,316 judge advocates on active duty. 

in the overall strength of The Judge Advocate General's 

reflects a loss of 167 judge advocates by reason of compl

gated tours of duty, retirements, and resignations; and 

judge advocates from ROTC, direct appointments, and r

Approximately 21 judge advocates were recalled with t

units during the "Cuban build-up" and served about o

extended active duty prior to release. 

6. During this period two motion pictures were produ

tributed. One, "The General Court-Martial," is a basic 

and illustration of court-martial procedures. The other

in Uniform," serves to inform all members of the Air 

legal services available to them, and to acquaint person

Air Force with some of the varied facets of the judge adv

Production has been nearly completed on an additiona

form Code of Military Justice-Financial Responsibility

118 
.ALBERT M. KUHFELD

Major General, USAF

The Judge Advocate 

United State8 Air Fo

Report 

of 

THE GENERAL COUNSEL 
 

of 
 

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 
 

(UNITED STATES COAST GUARD) 
 

January: 1, 1962 to December 31, ,196

Code of Military Justice, 10 USC 867(g). 

l,i,Th~ number of court-martial records received for appel

<>r filing during the fiscal year 1962 was moderately higher 

previous year, but only slightly more than the number rece

t,WQ', preceding fiscal years. The following table shows th

number ,of courts-martial for each year since 1959, when the 

l?ethod of reporting was adopted. 

1968 1961 1960 

General 'courts-martiaL__________ 4 4 6 

Special courtB-p1artiaL __________ 148 162 158 

Summary courts-martiaL________ 683 586 ,666 

, " . Total..:_~.:_;". ___ __ ________ 835 752 830 

It may be 'riot~d that the one-officer summary court-marti

entirely for the current increase in volume. This is of so

because, after February 1, 1963, when the new Article 15 bec

tive and commanding officers will be able to exercise punis

approximately equivalent to that of a summary court, the 

such courts should decline markedly. Since summary co

tute about 80 percent of the total volume in the Coast Guard

in the total may also be expected. 

The number of special courts-martial was the smallest s

ception of these reports. Of the 148 special courts-marti

reviewed and acted upon in the field by an officer exercis

court-martial jurisdiction as supervisory authority, and 

when received. The General Counsel of the Treasury D

acted as supervisory authority for 31 other special cou

The remaining 23 were referred to the Board of Review p

the requirements of Article 65 (b) of the Code. 

The Board of Review, in addition to its 23 special co

cases, also reviewed 4 general courts-martial. In all but o

cases, appellate review by a Board of Review was mandat

the sentence as approved by an officer exercising general co

~" :. : 
Hoard commuted the bad conduct discharge to a pay for

summary, of the 26 punitive discharges adjudged, only 12 

appellate process unsuspended. 

. The sentences in all but three of the Board of Review ca

a term of confinement. The average special court-martial 

adjudged was 4.85 months; the average general court~

finement was 11.5 months. The periods of confinement 

four of the summary courts-martial and in three of the ge

martial were subsequently reduced either by the convenin

or by the Board of Review. The Board of Review set as

ings and the sentence and ordered a rehearing in one ge

martial case. The charges in this case were subsequentl

pursuant to Article 66 ( e) of the Code. 

G. D'ANDEL

General Oou

Treasury De

124 U.s, GOVERNMENT PRINTING O