and 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE

GENERAL 
 

01 the 

ARMED FORCES 

PURSUANT TO THE 
 

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JU

For the Period 
 

May 31, 1951 10 May 31, 195

PROPERTY or: u. s. ARMY 
 

1I'HE JUDG£; ADVOCATE GENE

i~SRARY 

SENATE AND OF TH

HOUSE OF 
 

REPRESENTATIVES 

ond to the 

SECRETARY OF DEFEN

ond the "e' SECRETARIES OF THE 

DEPARTMENTS OF THE 
 

ARMY, NAVY, AIR FORCE AN

TREASURY 
 

PURSUANT TO THE 
 

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JU

For the Period 
 

Moy 31, 1951 to Moy 31, 195

UNITED STATES 
 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
 

WASHINGTON = 1952 
 

Contents 

INTRODUCTION 

JOINT REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITA

AND THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL OF THE AR

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY AP

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE 'ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

·9PORT OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTM

TREASURY (UNITED STATES COAST ,GUARD) 

the purpose of making a survey of the operation of the Co

nishing a report to the Armed Services Committees of the 

the House of Representatives and to the Secretary of Defe

Secretaries of the Departments, concerning the number an

pending cases and for the purpose of submitting such re

tions as the Court and the Judge Advocates General deem a

Pursuant to this directive, the Judges of the Court and 

Judge Advocates General have· met from time to time thro

year, initiated surveys of the operation of the Code, discu

lems common to the Court and to the Services, considered 

improvements to the Code, and herewith submit their fi

·j~_eport. 

, . An Interim Report was filed by the Judges of the Un

Court of Military Appeals for the period May 31, 1951, t

11:)52, in which the operations of the Court for that period 

outlined. In addition, reference was made to certain pro

sented relative to the administration of military justice and 

taken to resolve these issues. Portions of that report are 

included herein. 

For the purposes of clarity this report is divided into s

first of which deals with the matters considered import

operation of the Code and the conclusions and recommend

cerning them .. The remaining sections contain the statisti

of the number and status of pending cases of the Court and 

services. These latter sections also contain references to s

problems peculiar to the Court and the particular service

tion as to the methods being used by the Court and the 

familiarize service personnel and the public with the Co

amples of the implementation and administration of the Cod

to carry out the intent of the Congress. 

Joint Report 
 

of the 
 

UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY A

and 
 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL O

ARMED FORCES 
 

May 31, 1951 to May 31, 1952 

improvements to the present military code: A proced

priate appellate review in the event of the increased wo

would result from a war or national emergency; the 

separate Judge Advocate General's Corps for the Navy 

or the abolition of the separate promotion list of the Ju

General's Corps of the Army and restoration of Arm

cates to their proper positions on the Army promotion 

priate non-command channel for processing efficiency o

reports; the convening of courts by others than comma

a further limitation on command control over the adm

military justice; a return to the prior law member proc

tation on the jurisdiction of special courts-martial to ad

discharges; a provision for the Court to review questio

authorization for the Court to reduce sentences when 

sidered excessive as a matter of fact or when a part o

only are affirmed; revision of service personnel regulat

elimination of time-consuming and costly procedures 

material to the substantial rights of an accused person. 

It is well known to those familiar with the histo

justice that the items above enumerated have, for the m

the subject of intense controversy for many years. 

exceptions all were argued before Congressional Com

the consideration of the present Uniform Code of Mi

Those which are outlined and presented to the Cong

adopted. Undoubtedly, action on some of them was res

a recommendation by this Committee. Some of the m

Committee testified during the Congressional heari

opinions as to the merits of suggested changes. How

culty presently encountered is that the Judges of the Co

sufficient facts to sustain well considered recommendatio

of information springs principally from the short period 

operation and its volume of work. The former has no

219651-52--2 
have encountered some other difficulties in readjustin

dures to comply with the Code, but many of the probl

corrected by the decisions of the Court, The Judge Advo

and the boards of review. More readjustments shou

plished in the future and the corrective measures ta

sufficient to avoid the necessity of legislation by the Con

For the foregoing reasons we now make only three 

tions: (1) that legislation be enacted prohibiting s

martial from adjudging bad conduct discharges; (2) 

take no legislative action on the other items herein e

this time; and (3) that this Committee be authorized to 

report at the close of each calendar year. 

In support of the first recommendation we offer 

reasons. Experience has shown that the exercise of 

adjudge punitive discharges by special courts has imp

cient administration of military justice. This impairm

two main categories, namely; considerable expense t

States not commensurate with the results obtained, a

protection of the rights of both the United States and 

the trial level. Specific impediments to proper admin

(1) Unavailability of and lack of requirement for l

personnel as court members or counsel. The absen

trained personnel from the trial of cases results in a hi

of records replete with error requiring reversals, rehear

ings in revision and other corrective action. The trial st

should be required before a punitive discharge pena

cannot be reached in the absence of attorneys and coun

(2) The paucity of court reporters, particularly in over

-This results in expensive time lags in the processing 

Before special court-martial sentences involving bad 

charges may be carried into execution the same appell

required for general court-martial cases must be acco

in addition the action of another headquarters is inv
of business on May 31, 1952. This annual date seems t

priate with the terms of Congress since the Jeports al

mitted during recess periods. It is believed by membe

Committee that the reports would be of more value to th

they were submitted so as to reach the Armed Servic

early in each session. For this reason, it is believed t

mittee should be authorized to submit its report as of 

of future calendar years. 

The Judges of the Court and The Judge Advocat

the Army and Air Force are in agreement on all three 

.mendations. However, the Department of the Navy and 

"Department disagree with the first recommendation s

thorities believe that special courts-martial with puni

powers are necessary to the seagoing services. 

Respectfully submitted. 

ROBERT E. QUINN, 

Ohief Judge. 

GEORGE "\V. LATll\IE

Judge. 

PAUL "\V. BROSMA

Judge. 

E. M. BRANNON, 

The Judge Advoca

United State8 Arm

GEORGE L. RUSSELL

The Judge Advoca

United State8 Nav

REGINALD C. HARM

The Judge Advoca

UnitedState8 Air F

THOMAS J. LYNCH

General Oounsel, U

State8 Treasury De

p

01 the 

UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY AP

'~ May 31, 1951 to May 31, 1952 

As previously reported to Congress, the Judges we

by the Senate on June 19, 1951. Immediately thereaft

established, personnel employed, temporary quarters o

the processing of cases started. Details concerning th

are mentioned in detail in the Interim Report. Since the 

report, the monthly number of petitions and certificate

larger and, while the month of June is not included in th

case load for that month reached 178 and information r

the services indicates the probability of an increasing m

load. 

. . Article 67 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice 

~certain mandatory appeals and these records must be rev

ments heard, and decisions rendered thereon. The arti

permits the Court to exercise its discretion in granting p

mitted by the accused. The Court has disposed of a larg

of these cases by denying the petitions because good cau

has not been shown. This is a final decision, so far as t

concerned, and so the Judges must review with care the re

in every case. This requires that the Court use good cau

rial prejudice as the principal standards of review. 

Because of the volume of work there may be certain 

involve some errors of law which are not considered suf

judicial or of sufficient importance to justify a hearing 

decision. In order to consider properly the cases involv

tial prejudice and important principles of law, the Court 

some degree of selectivity. The Court has, of course, es

policy of resolving all doubts concerning the merits of a g

for review in favor of the accused. It is believed that 

have ensured review of every deserving appeal, while n

the Court with an excessive number of cases containing n

error which if made the subject of an opinion would n

__the accused nor add to a proper delineation of concept

·.,criminallaw. 
the Court. 

One obstacle to the proper functioning of the Cou

mentioned in the previous report and which has not yet 

is the lack of adequate office space and quartering facilit

members of the Court and its staff are required to work u

office conditions and because the courtroom of the United 

of Customs and Patent Appeals is only available on a p

the arguments on and final disposition of some cases has 

delayed. The difficulties will be increased during the 

this year unless the courthouse of the United States Cou

for the District of Columbia, which has been assigned to 

made available prior to the fall term. Present plans c

by September 15, 1952, but it is hoped that this time can 

ward. Every effort is being exerted by personnel of 

expedite the move. 

The Congress has, by Article 67 (c) of the Code, req

Court act upon a petition within 30 days after receipt th

. 	 the present time, the Court has been able to meet this re

not without difficulty. In order to do so under the pr

working conditions, the Court and its staff have been ca

heavy burden. 

The opinions so far rendered by the Court have de

the problems plaguing the Services and a framework of m

being erected. Distribution of the Court's opinions ha

wide and every reasonable effort is being made to channe

military and civilian circles. Arrangements have been 

lish the opinions in permanent volumes so they will b

all. 
 

The bar of the Court now consists of 619 members. 

ber 428 are associated with the military and the rema

civilians. Civilian participation is on the increase. T

the Court have been active in helping the personnel of th

interested civilians to become familiar with the benefi

Code. They have responded to requests to become in
representing the services and the public is being appoin

Court in arriving at appropriate recommendations. 

Printed copies of opinions of the Court rendered pr

1952, have already been furnished members of the Arm

mittees of the Senate and the House of Representati

respective secretaries of the several Departments. C

released subsequent to that time and up to and including 

reporting period are forwarded herewith. A perusa

inform the Members of Congress of the many leg

presented to the Court and the manner in which the i

decided . 

.~ From the experience gained during the first year's 

bers of the Court are convinced that when Congre

Uniform Code of Military Justice it passed legislation w

benefited the cause of the serviceman. While giving a

eration to the practical military conditions under which 

be administered, it is believed that our administratio

keeping with the expectations of those who champione

The following statistics reflect the number, status, 

of cases processed during the year: 

CASES DOCKETED_________________________________

Tota·l by months 

1951--August__________________ 44 September_______________ 41

October _________________ 100 . November _______________ 77 December _______________ 59 1952--January_________________ 96 February________________ 67 lfarch___________________ 109 ApriL_________________.:._ 95 :May ____________________ 126 

814 

1 Docket Nos. 372 and 456 include Petition and Certificate. Docket No

219651-52-3 
Arrny---------------------------------------­

~avy---------------------------------------- Air Force_______________________________._____ 

Coast Guard__________________________________ 

Article 67 (b) (1) 

J1andato,'Y _____________.:.______ _____________________ __

Army ________________________________________ 

~avy---------------------------------------- Air Force_________________________ .. __________ 

Coast Guard__________________________________ 

Court Action 

Petitions_____________________________________________

Granted______________________________________ 

])enied_______________________________________ 

])isrrdssed____________________________________ 

VVithdra~n___________________________________ 

])isposed on rnotion___________________________ 

Court action due (30 days)-------------------­ Awaiting briefs_______________________________ 

1

4

1

Cer(ificatcs _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ___ __ __ ____ ___ ___ ______ _ _ __ _____ __

Heard _______________________________________ 

Set for hearing_______________________________ 

Awaiting briefs_______________________________ 

= 

J1 andatory ___________________________________________

Heard _________ •__ .. __________________________ 

Set for hearing _________________________.._____ 

Awaiting briefs_______________________________ 
Pending cOrll,plctio1l_____________ _______________ ___ _____

Opinions pending___________________________ __ 4

Petitions granted-awaiting briefs_____________ 2

Petitions-court action due (30 days}__________ 13

Petitions-awaiting briefs_____________________ 3

Certificates-awaiting briefs___________________ 1

Mandatory-awaiting brief"'___________________ 

ROBERT E. 

Ohief Jud

GEORGE ·w

Judge. 

PAUL 'V. B

Judge. 

,".


'-. 
 

Report 

of 
 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERA

of 
 

THE ARMY 
 

.~ May 31, 1951 to May 31, 1952 

was assigned the main responsibility for the drafting o

in conjunction with representatives from the other servic

sponsibility also extended to the conference of senior jud

who were briefed on the new Manual prior to its actua

in order that they could, in turn, brief the necessary per

units of all the services. In addition to this briefing, c

struction on military justice matters for every member 

were ordered by the Secretary in Department of the Ar

Circular No. 12, 16 April 1951. The effect of this direc

that every member of the Army, officer and enlisted, 

training under the Uniform Code during the year cover

port. More intensive training of lawyers has been con

Judge Advocate General's School in which a basic cour

qualified Army personnel. The school also conducts i

respondence courses and produces and distributes a we

tion dealing with current cases of the boards of review a

of Military Appeals and problems of military justice. 

training in the form of lectures, conferences, and course

justice has been afforded Army personnel on active du

personnel of reserve groups by the Office of The Jud

General and by judge advocates in the field. 

b. During the period reported upon The Judge Ad

eral and the senior members of his staff have visited 

Army command in the world. These inspections and 

have been of mutual aid to the field commanders and 

of The Judge Advocate General in the administration of 

the Code. Publication of additional legal materials ha

and distribution of all items to the field has been material

The field libraries have been expanded by volumes prepar

fice of The Judge Advocate General such as Memorand

of The Judge Advocate General, which deal with opini

on petitions for new trial, and Military Jurisprudence

tains caSes of civilian tribunals deciding matters not onl

to military justice but also to the broad subject of m
c. Observations of the impact of the Code on th

during the first year of operation reveal that the chie

law has been on the requirement. for an increased num

personnel and the prohibition against ordering senten

tion prior to the expiration of certain statutory time 

Relative to personnel the requirements for three la

every general court-martial has made it necessary to 

rially the staff of every Army unit judge advocate. 

made possible by a space increase in the Judge Ady

Corps. However, the mounting case load indicates tha

increase will be necessary. Such a further increase, 

augmenting the legal requirement for lawyers, migh

crease the disparity in the ranks held by officers of the J

General's Corps and the officers of the Army promoti

present time there are approximately 1,200 officers in 

vocate General's Corps. Of this number about 750 d

time to the administration of military justice. 

Another personnel problem has arisen in a sho

reporters. This shortage is acute in oversea command

reporters are not available. Since 1949, when authoriz

pay to enlisted persons serving as court reporters was 

has become increasingly difficult to obtain Army per

qualified reporters. 

Concerning the time involved in ordering senten

tion, the Army has maintained complete statistics o

volved in each step of a court-martial case from the tria

(order of execution) and file. A brief general sum

figures is considered pertinent for reporting purposes. 

Total average time elapsed from trial to final orders: 

a. 	 Cases in which counsel was not required, before the b

view_______________________________________________

b. 	 Cases in which counsel appeareu before the board of rev

petition was filed in the Court of Military Appeals_____
In addition, there have been 1,831 cases processed pursu

69, Uniform Code of Military Justice, by The Judge A

eral's Office, during the period May 31, 1951, through M

3. The following chart shows the status at the close 

of the 7,261 cases received for.review by a board of revi

a. Pending before the Boards of Review_________________

b. 	 Completed by Boards of Review, awaiting action and d

TJAG______________________________________________

c. 	 Decisions of the Boards of Review dispatched___________

Awaiting election of accused as to petition of USC~IA

Pending before USC:MA___________________________

Decided by USC~IA awaiting supplementary orders___

Closed (final orders examined and approved) ________

Total__________________________________________

4. During the period involved, 595 cases were for

United States Court of Military Appeals: 

a. By petition of accusro__________________________._____

(~led_________________________________________ 5

(In transit____________________________________ 

Decision rendered___________________________________

No decision rendered on petition______________________

Petition denied_____________________________________

Petition granted, decision on merits pelldillg"__________

b. 	 Ordered forwarded hy TJAG___________________________

Decision ·rendered___________________________________

Decision pending"___ __ _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ __ _ ____ ____ _ _ ___ _____ 

c. Mandatory review____________________________________

Decision rendererL__________________________________

Decision llelllling_ ___ ___ ___ __ ___ ___ ______ _ _ ____ __ ____

Total____________________________________________

5. The 7,261 cases shown in paragraph 1 involved a 

accused. Of the accused whose cases were reviewed 

review 68.5 percent requested representation by app

:'t counsel. From the experience gained it is a fair assum

Report 

01 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERA

01 

THE NAVY 

May 31, 1951 to May 31, 1952 

jy g

every command in the Naval Establishment to particip

£eminar conducted in Washington, D. C., by the writers 

b. Prior to the effective date of the Code and dur

from April 1951 until May 31, 1951, The Judge Adv

of the Navy provided teams of law specialists to condu

the provisions of the Code and of the Manual for the 

entire Naval Establishment. These teams conducted 3

at central points throughout the world. They were atte

and enlisted persons from the surrounding areas inclu

from the operating fleet. It is estimated that 25,000 p

.• from flag and general officers to enlisted petty office

., in these seminars. In turn, many officers participatin

inars conducted similar training periods in their own 

c. During the period from June 1, 1951, until Ma

Judge Advocate General conducted inspections in sup

administration of military justice in naval comman

the world in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 

Code of Military Justice. These inspections extende

to French Morocco. During these inspections, addi

and instruction in the requirements of the Code and 

were given with particular attention to those perso

charged with the administration of military justice. 

d. During the period from May 31, 1951, to Ma

U. S. Naval School (Naval Justice), U. S. Naval B

Rhode Island, graduated 1,300 officers and 587 enliste

its 7-week intensive course on the provisions of the C

Manual. 

e. "The JAG Journal" is published monthly by Th

cate General to promote legal forehandedness among n

charged with the administration of military law. T

a medium of instruction and review for naval personn

;_ laws governing Navy life and of the rights and oblig

,,. personnel. Itis distributed throughout the Navy. Du
p, , 

will conduct) courses in military law for the student

Naval Reserve Officers Training at the colleges and 

throughout the United States. Another officer will be s

the seminar tIus July. In this same connection the 

Judge Advocate General prepared a series of twelve 

used by the professors of Naval Science in teaching 

Those lectures are also used in connection with teaching 

at the United States Naval Academy, all Officer Candid

the Navy, the members of the Naval and Coast Guard 

and the Merchant Marine Academies. 

g. The Office of The Judge Advocate General pre

phlet setting forth the explanation of certain articles 

which Article 137 thereof requires must be given to en

on entering active duty, upon completion of 6 months' ac

at the time of their reenlistment. This pamphlet has be

to every command in the Navy. In addition, a motio

senting this same material is now being produced by the 

ment for use throughout the Navy. 

h. A single-assignment correspondence course on 

Code of Military Justice was prepared and distributed 

of Naval Personnel. During the period from May 31

31, 1952, a total of 60,000 officers and enlisted person

completed this course. Nine thousand persons are pres

therein and 3,000 applications for enrollment in the cour

monthly. 

i. During the period here discussed, the Bureau 

sonnel has drafted a definitive twelve-assignment c

course on the provisions of the Code and of the Man

been edited by the Office of The Judge Advocate General

in this course is expected to commence in July. 
 

j. The Navy Department has produced a series o

pictures depicting the administration of military justice 

mission of an offense through appellate review by the 
SpCM_______ _ 2,406 SCM(BCD)_ 4,468 SCM

SCM(BCD) __ _ 285 

In addition, there have been 530 cases processed pursu

69, Uniform Code of Military Justice, by The Judge A

eral's Office, of which 14 cases were subsequently refer

of review. 

3. The following chart shows the status at the clos

of the 4,661 cases received for review by a board of rev

a. Pending before the Boards of Review_________________

b. Completed by Boards of Review, awaiting action and d

JAG _______________________________________________

c. 	 Decisions of the Boards of Review dispatched___________

Awaiting election of accused as to petition to USCMA_

Pending before USCMA____________________________

Decided by USCMA, awaiting supplementary orders_

Closed (final orders examined and approved) _______

Total__________________________________________

4. During the period, 139 cases were forwarded 

States Court of Military Appeals: 

a. 	 By petition of accused________________________________

Decisions rendered__________________________________

No decision rendered on petition______________________

Petitions denied_____________________________________

Petitions dismissed__________________________________

Petitions granted, decision on merits pending_________

b. Ordered forwarded by JAG___________________________

Decisions rendered__________________________________

Decisions pending__ ~________________________________

c. Mandatory review (death sentence-general or flag offi

Total 	 ____________________________________________

5. The 4,661 board of review cases shown in paragr

a total of 4,722 accused. Of the accused whose cases 

by a board of review 15.8 percent requested representatio
0/ the Navy. 
p

of 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENER

of 

THE AIR FORCE 

May 31, 1951 to May 31, 195

the close of this meeting, judge advocates representing ev

general court-martial jurisdiction met with The Judge A

eral of the Air Force for two additional days at Bolling A

in further educational conferences and seminars. The

tives returned to their commands in time to give professi

and instruction in the operation of the new Code and M

judge advocates not able to attend the conferences, and t

doctrination training for all Air Force personnel before 

During the year, the educational program thus begun 

tinued and augmented in order that all members of t

receive instructions in the Uniform Code of Military J

operation. This training included the intensive profes

tion of qualified attorneys recently entering the military 

Judge Advocate General's School, Air University, w

mately one-half the curriculum is devoted to the Uni

Military Justice; group training in reserve units of ju

not on active duty; and indoctrination and correspon

available to all members of the Air Force, both on activ

Reserve components. Constant effort is being exerted 

defense counsel appointed by The Judge Advocate Ge

counsel in the field, and by all interested agencies to adv

of his right of representation by legal counsel before the 

view and the United States Court of Military Appeals 

the utmost assistance in preparing assignments of erro

arguments. 

b. During the period the Air Force has increased th

facilities available to its judge advocates in the field. 

Judge Advocate General instituted a system of report

court-martial decisions in bound volumes comparable to 

civilian appellate courts. Under the Uniform Code of 

tice a similar publication, incorporating the decisions 

_ States Court of Military Appeals and the boards of rev

'.eral services in a single series, has been adopted by 
commanders and judge advocates in meeting current 

sistance in problems of general concern, as for exampl

dural innovations of the Uniform Code of Military J

provided through the special purchase and distribut

civilian legal publications, the promulgation of legal 

special distribution of important civil and military d

e. The Judge Advocate General, together with t

priate agencies of the Air Force, has taken an ac

revitalization and improvement of the Air Force p

rehabilitation and restoration to duty of members o

convicted by courts-martial. Pursuant to this pro

emphasis has been placed upon rehabilitation and rest

in all Air Force confinement facilities, and a retrai

first of several encompassed in the plan, has begun 

unit, a minimum-restraint facility operated in all p

as an ordinary Air Force unit, has already effected th

duty of a considerable number of young men whos

otherwise have been lost to the Country. 

d. The achievements of improvements in the lega

the Air Force and the administration of military ju

period have been made possible, as in past years, b

interest and enthusiastic support of the Secretary o

the Chief of Staff, and the commanders in the fiel

conjunction with the high professional qualificatio

morale of the Air Force officers performing legal duti

of the period, 506 attorneys were certified by The 

General as competent to perform the duties of law offi

and defense counsel pursuant to the Uniform Code of 

Articles 26 and 27, and an additional 584 were certif

to perform the duties of trial and defense counsel pur

27. Of these 1,090 attorneys, 818 were designated ju

the Air Force pursuant to the Act of September 19, 19

10 USC 1837 [a]). 
to Article 61. 

3. The following chart shows the status at the close o

of the 2,504 cases received for review by a board of review

a. Pending before the boards of revievv____________________

b. 	 Completed by boards of revievv, avvaiting action and disp

TJAG _______________________________________________

c. Decisions of the boards of revievv dispatched_____________

Avvaiting election of accused as to petition to USCMA___

Pending before USCMA________________________________

Decided by USCMA, avvaiting supplementary court-marti

orders ____________________________________________

Closed (final court-martial orders examined and approved) 

Total______________________________________________

4. During the period, 80 cases were forwarded to 

States Court of Military Appeals: 

a. 	 By petition of accused__________________________________

Decisions rendered____________________________________

Decisions on petitions pending________________________

Petitions denied___________________________________ ____

Petition dismissed____________________________________

Petition vvithdravvn___________________________________

Petitions granted, decision on merits pending___________

b. Ordered forvvarded by TJAG____________________________

Decisions rendered____________________________________

Pending __~__________________________________________

c. Mandatory revievv______________________________________

Total______________________________________________

5. The 2,822 cases shown in paragraph 1 involved a t

accused. Of the accused persons whose cases were reviewe

of review 55 percent requested representation by appe

counsel. From the experience gained it is a fair assump

percentage shown will increase. In every case appealed t

States Court of Military Appeals The Judge Advocate 

~en required to furnish counsel for the accused and the 

Report 

01 

THE GENERAL COUNSEL 

01 

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASU

(UNITED STATES COAST GUARD) 

Mav 31, 1951 to Mav 31, 1952 

structional courses where it was not feasible for per

the 3-day Navy seminars. The Coast Guard has uti

School of Military Justice for the purpose of train

other personnel in the performance of duty in con

Code; it is planned to continue this practice and enla

personnel attending when feasible. The Coast Guar

law bulletin has kept legal officers in the field advised 

in the administration of military justice under the 

continually pointing out types of errors which rec

martial and disciplinary work. "The JAG Journa

the Navy Department, has been included on the dis

all the units of the Coast Guard which are of sufficie

special courts-martial. To assist in the efficient a

military justice inspections have been made in the 

resulted in amended practices as well as certain chan

2. The number of records (board of review cases

Office of the General Counsel of the Tr~asury Depart

period May 31, 1951, through May 30, 1952, was 124. 

It is not possible to furnish comparative figure

years since prior to the effective date of the Uniform 

Justice, no distinction similar to that now in effect a

of review and nonboard of review cases existed. 

In addition to the 124 board of review cases, th

general court-martial cases processed pursuant to Art

Code of Military Justice. 

3. The following chart shows the status at the cl

of the 124 cases received for review by the board of r

a. Pending __________________________________________

b. Awaiting action and dispatch by the General Counse

c. Decisions of the board of review dispatched__________

Awaiting election of accused as to petition to USCM

Pending before USCMA___________________________

Closed___________________________________________

Total__________________________________________
percent of these cases the accused requested representation 

defense counsel. Of the cases decided by the board o

percent were brought before the United States Court 

Appeals. 

TnmIAs J. 

Generril 0 o

TreMury D

o