and the 

JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERA

of the 

ARMED FORCES 


and the 

GENERAL COUNSEL 


of the 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUS

For the Period 


January I, 1975-December 31, 197

PROPERTY OF U.S. ARMY 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S S

LIBRARY 

and to the 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 


AND SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTA

and the 


SECRETARIES OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF 

ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORCE 


PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 

For the Period 


January I, 1975-December 31, 1975 


Contents 

JOINT REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITAR

AND THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL OF THE ARM

AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

TATION 

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY APPE

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE ARM

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAV

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE AIR F

REPORT OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT 

PORTATION (UNITED STATES COAST GUARD) 

and the 

JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL 


OF THE ARMED FORCES 


and the 

GENERAL COUNSEL 


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 


January 1, 1975-December 31, 1975 

As required by Article 67(g), Uniform Code of Military 

Judges of the United States Court of Military Appeals

Advocates General of the military departments, and t

Counsel of the Department of Transportation, constituti

Committee, submit their annual report on the opera

Uniform Code of Military Justice to the Committees 

Services of the United States Senate and House of Repr

and to the Secretaries of Defense, Transportation, Army

Air Force. 

During the year, the Joint Service Committee on Milit

a standing committee composed of representatives of e

services, continued its work on proposed changes to th

Code of Military Justice. This Committee's proposals, 

proposals, were discussed at meetings of the Code Commi

and October. Work continues on proposals for changes 

form Code. 

Exhibit A shows the number of courts-martial dur

stages of the military justice process during fiscal yea

number of courts-martial tried during the fiscal year d

6,585 from fiscal year 1974. The number of cases reviewed 

the Courts of Military Review in fiscal year 1975 incr

those reviewed in the previous fiscal year. While the num
The separate reports of the United States Cour

Appeals and of The Judge Advocates General of the va

which are included with this report, further expa

operation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice du

year. 

Respectfully subm

ALBERT B. FLETCHE

Chief Judge 

WILLIAM H. COOK, 

Associate Judge 

HOMER FERGUSON, 

Senior Judge 

WILTON B. PERSON

The Judge Advocate Ge

United States Army 

H. B. ROBERTSON, J

The Judge Advocate Ge

United States Navy 

HAROLD R. VAGUE

The Judge Advocate Ge

United States Air Force 

JOHN H. ELY, 

General Counsel 

Department of Transpo

2 
Army ....................................................................................................................

Navy .....................................................................................................................

Air Force..............................................................................................................

Coast Guard ........................................................................................................

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

Cases Docketed with U.S. Court ofMilitary Appeals 

Army ....................................................................................................................

Navy .....................................................................................................................

Air Force..............................................................................................................

Coast Guard ........................................................................................................

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

The Judges of the United States Court of Military Ap

their report on the administration of the Court and 

justice to the Committees on Armed Services of the U

Senate and House of Representatives and to the S

Defense, Transportation, Army, Navy, and Air Force, i

with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 67

§ 867(g). 

The Court's personnel and, indeed, everyone connect

tary justice were saddened by the death of Judge Rober

May 19, 1975. Judge Quinn had served this Court honor

inception until shortly before his death, for many ye

Judge. 

Albert B. Fletcher, Jr., of Kansas, was nominated 

Ford on March 13, 1975, as a Judge of this Court to fill t

term of Chief Judge Robert M. Duncan, for the term exp

1, 1986. He was confirmed by the Senate on April 14, 19

ChiefJudge by President Ford on April 16, 1975, and too

office on April 30, 1975. 

Matthew J. Perry, of South Carolina, was nominated 

Ford on December 10, 1975, to fill the unexpired te

Robert E. Quinn, said term to expire on May 1, 1

confirmed by the Senate on December 19, 1975, and too

office on February 18, 1976. 

This Court saw a significant increase in its caseload 

While 1,250 petitions for grant of review were docketed 

were docketed in 1975. Of these cases, 86 petitions wer

1974 and 378 were granted in 1975. In addition, the Jud

General certified 15 cases to the Court in 1974 and 26 

Court issued 89 opinions in 1974 and 144 in 1975. The ca

extraordinary writs area decreased slightly between 19

99 petitions for extraordinary relief being filed in 1974 

filed in 1975. 1 

I For additional statistics, see Appendix A. 
weigh the needs of the uniformed services in considerin

justice, place the Court in a unique position in Ameri

dence. 

Of particular significance, perhaps, in the case law a

areas: (1) following the guidance of the United States Su

in Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 US 103 (1975), the Court held th

and detached person must be involved in the decisio

member of the military in pretrial confinement; 2 (2) th

placed more responsibility upon the trial judge to in

accused receives a fair trial; 3 (3) on a number of occasio

was concerned with the ethical conduct of counsel app

courts-martial and of counsel working elsewhere in 

justice system; 4 and (4) the Court has often been ca

examine the relationship between the Uniform Code 

Justice and the Manual for Courts-Martial. 5 

The Court has also been concerned, on numerous oc

the applicability of the Uniform Code of Military Justic

title a uniform code for all services-to the variou

services that may often have varying needs and problem

has frequently sought amicus curiae briefs from service

one that is an immediate party to a case and has als

invited participation in a case by divisions of a Jud

General's offices other than the appellate divisions, e.g., 

tional law divisions. 

In 1974, Senior Judge Ferguson and Judge Cook i

Judge Advocates General that the Court intended to 

active role in Code revision in 1975. To this end, Cod

•Courtney v. Williams. 24 U.S.C.M.A. 87. 51 C.M.R. 260 (1976); Bouler v. Wood 23 U.S.C.M

(1975); Thomas v. United States. 23 U.S.C.M.A. 570. 50 C.M.R. 789 (1975); and Kelly v. United 

567.50 C.M.R. 786 (1975). 

'See. e.g.• United States v. Heflin. 23 U.S.C.M.A. 505. 50 C.M.R. 644 (1975); United States v. G

434.50 C.M.R. 393 (1975). 

• See. e.g.• United States v. Evans. 24 U.S.C.M.A. 14. 51 C.M.R. 64 (1975). 

• See. e.g.• United States v. Douglas, Docket No. 30,946 (March 19, 1976); Mangsen v. Snyde

51 C.M.R. 280 (1976); United States v. Ware, 24 U.S.C.M.A. 102, 51 C.M.R. 275 (1976). 

6 
military lawyers and the Court do not always coincid

views of lawyers elsewhere often differ-the Court ho

continuing dialogue between the Court and the milita

both make the military justice system the best syste

anywhere. 

ALBERT B. FLETCHE

Chief Judge 

WILLIAM H. COOK, 

Associate Judge 

HOMER FERGUSON, 

Associate Judge 
y y 

Total as of to to 

Total by Services June 30, 1973 June 30, 1974 June 30, 

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

Army .......................................... 14,488 720 1,

Navy ........................................... 7,392 469 4

Air Force .................................. 5,167 208 2

Coast Guard .............................. 60 2 

Total ...................................... 27,107 1,399 1,9

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

Army .......................................... 221 10 

Navy ........................................... 245 5 

Air Force .................................. 100 2 

Coast Guard .............................. 11 1 

Total ...................................... 577 18 

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

Army .......................................... 31 0 

Navy ........................................... 3 0 

Air Force .................................. 3 0 

Coast Guard .............................. 0 0 

Total ...................................... 37 0 

Total cases docketed ........... 27,721 1,417 1,9

See footnotes at end of table. 

8 
miss: 

With Opinion ................... 8 0 0 

Without Opinion .............. 51 5 13 

Disposed of by Order setting 

aside findings and sentence 6 0 2 

Remanded ................................. 209 1 6 

Court action due (30 days) , .. 97 127 162 

Awaiting replies' .................... 60 48 69 

Decision affirmed by Order ... 0 1 0 

Proceedings abated ................. 0 0 1 

Certificates (Art. 67(b)(2»: 

Opinions rendered .................. 553 21 12 

Opinions pending , .................. 6 1 4 

Withdrawn ................................ 8 0 0 

Remanded ................................. 4 0 0 

Disposed of by Order ............... 1 0 0 

Set for hearing , ....................... 0 0 0 

Ready for hearing' ................. 0 1 1 

Awaiting briefs , ...................... 0 2 2 

Leave to file denied ................. 2 0 0 

Motion to dismiss granted ..... 0 1 0 

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

Opinions rendered .................. 37 0 0 

Opinions pending ..................... 0 0 0 

Remanded ................................. 1 0 0 

Awaiting briefs' ...................... 0 0 0 

Opinions rendered: 

Petitions .................................... 2,747 85 79 

Motions to dismiss ................... 11 0 0 

Motions to stay proceedings .. 1 0 0 

Per Curiam grants .................. 57 0 1 

Certifica tes ................................ 484 17 12 

Certificates and Petitions ...... 66 4 0 

Mandatory ................................ 37 0 0 

Petitions remanded ................ 2 0 0 

Petitions for a new triaL....... 2 0 0 

Petitions for reconsideration 

of: 

Denial Order ..................... 10 0 0 

See footnotes at end of table. 
Miscellaneous Dockets ............ 80 9 

Order on Misc. Docket ............ 0 0 

Total ...................................... 3,509 115 

Completed cases: 

Petitions denied ....................... 23,349 1,273 1,6

Petitions dismissed .................. 24 6 

Charges dismissed by Order 2 1 

Petitions withdrawn ............... 431 4 

Certificates withdrawn .......... 8 0 

Certificates disposed of by Order .......................................... 1 0 

Opinions rendered .................. 3,420 106 

Disposed of on motion to dismiss: 

With Opinion ................... 8 0 

Without Opinion .............. 51 6 

Disposed of by Order setting 

aside findings and sentence 6 0 

Writ of error coram nobis by 

Order ...................................... 3 0 

Motion for bail denied ........... 1 0 

Remanded ................................. 212 1 

Decision affirmed by Order ... 0 1 

Proceedings abated ................. 0 0 

Total ...................................... 27,516 1,398 1,78

Miscellaneous Docket Nos. Assigned: 321 100 

(1967 to Present) 

Pending 5 ................................... 0 0 

Granted ..................................... 4 2 

Denied ........................................ 106 11 

Withdrawn ................................ 4 0 

Dismissed .................................. 127 75 

Issue moot ................................ 2 0 

Remanded ................................. 1 0 

See footnotes at end of table. 

10 
---------------

Total ...................................... 335 104 70 

Pending completion 

June 30,1973 June 30,1974 

Opinions pending ................................................. .. 17 12 

Set for hearing ........................................................ o o 

Ready for hearing .................................................. 3 11 

Petitions granted-awaiting briefs ................... . 9 6 

Petitions-Court action due (30 days) .............. .. 97 127 

Peititions-awaiting replies ................................ 60 48 

Certificates-awaiting briefs .............................. .. 3 o 

Mandatory-awaiting briefs .............................. .. o o 

Total ............................................................ . 189 204 

I 2 Flag officer cases; 1 Army and 1 Navy 

'30,486 cases actually assigned docket numbers. Overage due to multiple actions on the sa

3 As of June 30, 1973, 1974 and 1975. 

43,723 cases were disposed of by 3,633 published Opinions. 177 Opinions were rendered in 

Army officers, 38 Air Force officers, 24 Navy officers, 9 Marine Corp officers, 2 Cost Guard 

Point cadet. In addition 19 opinions were rendered in cases involving 20 civilians. The r

enlisted personnel. 

5 As of June 30, 1975. 

6Coverage due to multiple actions on the same cases. 
MILITARY JUSTICE ACTIONS 

During the past year the Office of The Judge Advo

continued to emphasize procedural improvements wh

accomplished by regulatory change rather than by stat

ment. However, the Army representatives to the Cod

and the Joint Service Committee on Military Justice 

participate in the process of reviewing both the Manu

Martial, United States, 1969 (Revised edition), and the U

of Military Justice, with a view towards amendment i

with the needs of the services and developments in the 

Joint Service Committee is expected to propose substan

to the Manual and Code during 1976, primarily for th

easing military justice administration. 

During 1975, 1200 recorded actions and many other m

actions affecting military justice were completed by the 

Judge Advocate General. These included evaluating 

legislation, regulations, and other publications perta

governance of the Army and the Department of Defens

the administration of military justice, including the 

continuing major projects; rendering opinions for the 

and reviewing various aspects of criminal cases for 

Army secretariat and staff. 

The military magistrate program, implemented at 

installations in 1974, was extended by Army regulatio

1975. The extended program, effective on 1 January 1

for the review of all pretrial confinement in the Army b

detached magistrates who are unconnected with law en

prosecutorial functions. The military magistrate, a m

Judge Advocate General's Corps, reviews all document

ally interviews each person in pretrial confinement 

days after confinement commences. In determining wh

confinement meets legal requirements and is necessary 

accused's presence at trial, the military magistrate 

12 
- -

cates, was established in the Office of The Judge Advoc

in order to assure fair and regular review of allegations 

conduct by Army judge advocates. The committee rend

and recommendations to The Judge Advocate General. 

violation is found, The Judge Advocate General's actio

from admonition or reprimand to suspension or decer

counsel. Opinions of the Committee are periodically publ

Army Lawyer for widespread dissemination. 

The first changes to the Manual for Courts-Martial, U

1969 (Revised edition) were signed by the President on 

1975 (E.O. 11835). These changes have two basic purpo

bring various portions of the Manual into conformity w

ofthe United States Court of Military Appeals and the U

Supreme Court; and second, to authorize the payme

expenses to civilian witnesses who testify at pretrial in

under Article 32, UCMJ. Change 16 to Army Regul

Military Justice, implemented the new provisions of th

regard to payment of witnesses. In addition, the regula

provided for the introduction of additional information 

the accused's character prior to sentencing, the use 

referral cards by defense counsel, new procedures for 

suspended sentences to confinement, and clarified proce

exercise of custody of U.S. military personnel subject to 

jurisdiction of foreign courts. 

Litigation against the Army during 1975 continued to 

on the form and direction of the administration of mili

In Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U.S. 738 (1975), t

Court reversed a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals f

Circuit in which the lower court had enjoined the court-

Army captain who was charged with off-post sale, tr

possession of marijuana. The Circuit Court held the char

"service-connected" under O'Callahanv. Parker, 395 U.

and thus that a court-martial was without jurisdiction. 

the Supreme Court did not reach the service-connectio

242-955 0 77 2 
May 1973. On 14 January 1974, District Judge Gerha

found that "[tJhe existing USAREUR drug plan is so int

constitutional difficulties that (USAREUR) Cir 600-85 m

drawn and cancelled along with all earlier related 

instructions." He specifically prohibited the use of a

resulting from a USAREUR drug inspection for any p

than an honorable discharge, precluded administrati

against drug abusers without a preliminary due process 

held that the prohibition against displaying items on ba

that constituted "a clear danger to military loyalty, d

morale"was too vague to be enforced. On 7 March 1974 

States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

execution of Judge Gesell's opinion pending appeal by t

On 2 September 1975 the Court of Appeals held the 

drug abuse program constitutional (Committee for G

Callaway, 518 F.2d 466 (D.C. Cir., 1975». In so doin

specifically approved unannounced, warrantless drug 

under the conditions and safeguards established by the 

Circular, the imposition of rehabilitative administrati

without prior hearings, and the USAREUR "poster" res

Court of Appeals made its specific rulings in the co

USAREUR experience with drug abuse and was gu

Supreme Court's observations that the fundamental 

quirement for obedience and discipline may render pe

the military actions forbidden in civilian society. Ju

decision was reversed on the merits in all regards. 

The celebrated case of Lieutenant William Calle

through the Federal courts during 1975. Following his c

general court-martial for mass murder in My Lai, 

Vietnam, and subsequent review by the U.S. Army Cour

Review and U.S. Court of Military Appeals, Calley was 

bail by a Federal District Judge on 27 February 1974. Th

ultimately reversed on appeal to the Fifth Circui

Callaway, 496 F.2d 701 (5th Cir. 1974». On the merits, 

14 
certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court.) 

Also brought under review during 1975 was the quest

a Court of Military Review's mandate "authorizing" 

rather than ordering one is defective, and whether a reh

be at the original location or may be held at Fort L

Kansas, the site of the United States Disciplinary B

Hamlin v. Callaway, Civil No. 1761 (S.D. Ga., 8 April 197

practice on both these matters was found to be proper. 

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS AND U.S. A

JUDICIARY ACTIVITIES 


a. A statistical summary of court-martial activities 

follows: 

The number of persons tried by courts-martial for fisc

(average Army strength, 790, 741) follows: 

Convicted Acquitted 

General .............................................................. . 1.462 173 

Special (VYIBCD's) .......................................... . 1,120 146 

Special (W10 BCD's) ....................................... . 8.304 955 

Summary ......................................................... . 3.727 391 

TOTAL .................................................... 14.613 1.665 

Records of triai by general and special (BCD) court

ceived by The Judge Advocate General during fiscal ye

For review under Article 66 (General)........................................................

For review under Article 66 (Specials W IBCD·s)......................................

For examination under Article 69 ..............................................................

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

I Figures in this section are baaed on records of trial as opposed to number accused involve

which more than one individual was tried, the figures in this section will be less than thooe 
General Courts-Martial .................................................................. . 

Special Courts-Martial (BCD)......................................................... . 

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

Miscellaneous Docket Matters: 

Denied........................................................................................................

Dismissed ..................................................................................................

Mooted ......................................................................................................

Actions taken during 1 July 74 thru 30 June 75 by A

Military Review: 

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

Findings affirmed, sentence modified .........................................................

Findings affirmed, sentence commuted ......................................................

Findings affirmed, no sentence affirmed....................................................

Findings affirmed, sentence reassessment or rehearing as to sentenc

ordered ..........................................................................................................

Findings partially disapproved, sentence affirmed ..................................

Findings partially disapproved, rehearing ordered .................................

Findings & sentence affirmed in part, disapproved in part ...................

Findings & sentence disapproved, rehearing ordered..............................

Findings & sentence disapproved, charges dismissed ..............................

Returned to field for new SJA & C/A action ............................................

Proceedings abated, death of accused .........................................................

Case returned to field for lack of jurisdiction by ACOMR .....................

Order for psychiatric examination ..............................................................

Returned to TJAG for a limited hearing before a different MJ ............

Motion for extraordinary relief denied .......................................................

Motion for appropriate relief denied...........................................................

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

Of 3,064 accused whose cases were reviewed by t

Military Review pursuant to Article 66 during the fisca

(88.0%) requested representation by appellate defense c

• This fIgUre includes 24 cases which were referred w the Army Court of Military Review p

Uniform Code of Military Justice; 3 cases referred after rehearing; and 31 cases referred fo

16 
Petitions Certification Mand

Affirmed Reversed Affirmed Reversed Affirmed 

13 26 4 4 o 

Applications for relief, Article 69: 

Pending 1 July 74 .................................................................................... . 

Received ............................................................................................. . 

Disposed of ........................................................................................ . 

Granted ...................................................................................... . 

Denied ......................................................................................... 

Field (action by SJA) ................................................................ 

No Jurisdiction .......................................................................... 

Withdrawn ................................................................................. 

Pending 1 July 1975 ................................................................................. 

The number of service personnel convicted of felon

and state courts during fiscal year 1975 follows: 

CONUS............................................................................................................

Overseas ..........................................................................................................

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

b. An analysis of the statistics discloses the following

1974 1975 

Strength of the Army ............................................ 799,301 790

Total courts-martial .............................................. . 21,987 16

GeMs ...................................................................... . 1,848 1

BCD Specials ......................................................... . 1,361 1

Specials ................................................................... . 13,453 9

Summaries.............................................................. . 5,325 4

c. The US Army Judiciary is an element of the US 

Services Agency. It consists of the US Army Cour

Review (a Chief Judge, 12 appellate military judges an

sioners), the Clerk of Court (one civilian attorney and 
vention at Montreal, Canada, the American Bar Associ

ence on Criminal Justice at Las Vegas, Nevada, and 

College of District Attorneys' Practical Problems Semi

do, Florida. 

f. Trials by military judges alone continued to represe

tial savings of manpower of line officers during FY 75 a

the following: 

FY 71 72 73 

GeM Trials by Judge Alone ............... 95% 66% 67% 

SPCM (BCD) Trials by Judge Alone. 84% 93% 88% 

g. As executive agent for the Department of Defense

ment of the Army (through the Office of The Jud

General) maintains and collates information concerning 

of foreign criminal jurisdiction over U.S. servicemen

period 1 December 1974-30 November 1975, out of 16,21

cases involving primary foreign but concurrent jurisdict

Army personnel, foreign authorities waived their ju

15,550 cases for a waiver rate of 95.9 percent. This com

waiver rate of 94.6 percent for the previous reporting p

EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

The Judge Advocate General's School, US Army, 

expand its educational activities on behalf of militar

calendar year 1975, providing resident instruction for 

students and conferees. 

COURSES OF INSTRUCTION 

In May 1975 the Judge Advocate Officer Advanced 

proved by the American Bar Association, graduated 

students (including 30 Army, 1 Navy, and 5 Marine jud

and 2 Allied Officers from Japan and the Republic of 

revised curriculum consists of 22 semester hours of co

elective, and 6 for the legal writing program. 

18 
, gp, g, 

federal labor relations. In all, The Judge Advocate Gene

courses were attended by 527 Active Army judge adv

Army Reserve and Army National Guard judge advocat

advocates of other services, and 189 government civilia

(approximately one-half of whom represented agencies 

the Department of Defense). In addition, the School wa

the annual worldwide Judge Advocate General's Conf

the Sixth Annual United States Army Reserve Judg

Conference. 

Annual training of the United States Army Reserve H

Teams in the Judge Advocate General's Service O

brought 85 officers, including warrant officers, and 76 e

to the School in June 1975, while the USAR Branch 

vanced Course and Reserve Component General S

brought 134 officers to the School for training in July. 

USAR School, Manchester, New Hampshire, administere

ing for the JAGSO Detachments and the 2093d US

Charleston, West Virginia, administered the BOAC and t

Staff Course. 

At the year's end, 1,655 students were enrolled in the S

separate correspondence courses, and 42,000 copies of 

dence course lessons had been provided to other Ar

schools for use in their own courses. 

In 1975 The Judge Advocate General's School conduc

through 22d Senior Officer Legal Orientations for insta

gade and battalion commanders. A similar course was p

an elective for US Army War College students headed fo

assignments. 

Paraprofessional training responsibilities are divided 

Judge Advocate General's School, US Army Institute of A

tion (Adjutant General SchooD, and the School of Na

Nineteen selected noncommissioned officers completin

Advanced Course attended a final, two-week phase condu
component judge advocate officers in 29 cities. On

si

criminal law, administrative and civil law, procurem

international law has improved the capability of unit 

reserve judge advocates for providing legal services to 

the event of mobilization. Additionally, it has increase

ity for expanding legal services in the Army during 

providing practical assistance to Army judge advoc

performing on-the-job reserve training in those offices. 

The training film, TF 27-4863, "Article 15, Nonjud

ment," was released with technical instruction from T

the training film, "Military Justice, UCMJ, Part II," w

and is pending final review before release. This film 

satisfy the requirements of Article 137, UCMJ. 

A new elective was offered to the Advanced Course

the Military Criminal Legal System." This course has b

by the University of Virginia, and Advanced Class 

University of Virginia students may take the cour

towards a J.D. or LL.M. degree at the University of Vi

A study on the utilization of videotape in law enfor

cies throughout the Army was undertaken during 1975 

U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command planning 

time. 

School publications during 1975 included 5 issues o

Law Review (including the Bicentennial issue), 12 issue

Lawyer, and 8 issues of the Judge Advocate Legal Servic

also published The Army Lawyer: A History of the Ju

General's Corps, 1775-1975. The latest edition of Mil

Evidence (DA Pam 27-22), was published in December 

tial changes to the Trial Procedure Pamphlet (DA Pam 

also completed. DA Pamphlet 27-174, Jurisdiction, 

during CY 1975 and is presently at the printer for pub

PERSONNEL 

The average strength of the Judge Advocate Ge

20 
It should result, however, to some degree, in increased 

opportunities for judge advocate officers over the next se

The Corps is entering a new era in personnel managem

of the need to insure that it·is only composed of top qua

to meet the new challenges and discharge its public res

All applicants, including recalls to active duty, must 

formal selection board, which meets twice a year. Afte

completes his initial three or four year obligation, he 

compete for career status (RA or Voluntary-Indefinite) 

other selection board composed ofsenior judge advocates, 

general officer. 

FORECAST 

As legal business does not conclude with the year's end

of activities begun in 1975 or even earlier will, it is hop

fruition in the next year. Refinements will be made in th

pretrial confinement. Amendments to the UCMJ suppo

Judge Advocates General will be presented for approval 

outside the military departments. Military adjective la

tinue to be examined to reveal and correct archaic or 

procedures. Litigation in civil courts will be conducted in 

recognition of the unique requirements within the milit

dered by the Supreme Court. 

WILTON B. PERSON

Major General, US

The Judge Advocat

United States Army 
pursuant to 

THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUST

for the period 

Jal'uary 1, 1975, to December 31, 197

Following the practice in recent years of having the C

tee Report reach the Armed Services Committee of Con

after the convening of each new session, this repo

embracing calendar year 1975, contains, unless otherw

statistical information covering fiscal year 1975. 

SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF 

JUSTICE. Complying with the requirements of article 

Code of Military Justice, the Judge Advocate Gen

Deputy Judge Advocate General continued to visit com

the United States, Europe, and the Far East in the supe

administration of military justice. 

COURT-MARTIAL WORKLOAD. a. There has been 

generally speaking, in the total number of courts-m

fiscal year 1975. (See Exhibit A attached to this report

b. During fiscal year 1975, the Navy Court of Mil

received for review 597 general courts-martial and 

courts-martial (total 3,516) as compared with 485 ge

martial and 2,115 special courts-martial (total 2,600) 

year 1974. Of 3,516 cases received by the Navy Cour

Review, 2,392 accused requested counsel (68 percent). 

NA VY-MARINE CORPS TRIAL JUDICIARY. 1975 

full calendar year of operation of the expanded Navy-

Trial Judiciary. Under the provisions of SECNAVIN

promulgated 18 June 1974 with an effective date of 1 J

Trial Judiciary provided military judge services for both 

special courts-martial. 

22 
special courts-martial were tried by courts constituted w

judge alone. This compares with 92 percent of the sp

martial tried by courts constituted with military judge 

1974. 

The present manning level of the Navy-Marine Corp

ciary is 18 general court-martial military judges, a dec

from the manning level at the close of calendar year 19

special court-martial military judges are assigned to 

Marine Corps Trial Judiciary, an increase of one from t

level at the close of calendar year 1974. 

Military judges ofthe Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judici

a variety of professional meetings and seminars duri

year 1975. Some 20 military judges attended the An

Advocate General's Conference held in Washington, D.C

ber to 3 October 1975. Two special court-martial mil

attended a special court judges seminar at the Nation

the State Judiciary, Reno, Nevada, 24-29 April 1975. 

court-martial military judge and one special court-mar

judge attended a regular four-week trial judges course 

tional College during the period 15 June-12 July 1975. 

court-martial military judges and three special court-m

tary judges attended a military judicial seminar at Fort 

nia, 3-7 December 1975. 

NAVAL LEGAL SERVICE. The Naval Legal Service 

sists of 18 Naval Legal Service Offices and 15 subordi

offices located throughout the world. The total manpow

authorization for the NLS includes 284 judge advocate

men, and 178 civilian employees. Navy judge advocates 

comprise approximately one-third of the Navy's total jud

strength. 

The NLS, under the direction of the Judge Advocate G

capacity as Director, Naval Legal Service, through con

available legal resources at locations with a high conc

naval commands, has been able to provide timely res
yg 

alike. 

ARTICLE 69, UCMJ, PETITIONS. There has been 

the number of petitions for relief submitted pursuan

Uniform Code of Military Justice, a provision whic

Judge Advocate General to act in court-martial cases 

been reviewed by the Navy Court of Military Review

year 1975, 86 petitions for relief were received by the Ju

General, as opposed to 65 petitions received in calen

Eighty petitions, including 14 pending from calendar y

reviewed during the year and relief was granted, in wh

in 14 of the petitions reviewed. 

NEW TRIAL PETITIONS. In calendar year 1975, te

new trials were submitted pursuant to article 73, Un

Military Justice. Two petitions were d~nied within th

Judge Advocate General, and one petition was pending 

conclusion of calendar year 1975. Of the remaining, 

were forwarded to the U.S. Court of Military App

petitions were forwarded to the Navy Court of Milita

appropriate consideration. 

NA VAL JUSTICE SCHOOL. Courses of instructio

law and related administrative matters were presente

Justice School during 1975 to 1,843 officers and enliste

the Armed Forces. Two hundred forty-four Navy and 

lawyers were trained for active-duty service as jud

Seventy-eight lawyer reservists of the Navy and Mari

provided basic or refresher training in military law. F

and Marine Corps judge advocates attended a course 

military judges. One hundred seventy-one Army, Na

Guard enlisted personnel were trained to perform le

court reporter duties. A total of 1,066 Navy, Marine Co

Guard officers received instruction designed for comm

tive officers at Newport, Rhode Island, and other loca

In addition to its basic courses of instruction, the 

School presented instruction on varied military justice 

24 
pertaining to the responsibilities of trial counsel, defe

military judges, and staff judge advocates. Addition

covered professional ethics; Freedom of Information 

Acts; environmental law; labor relations; international 

gations; admiralty; administrative discharge procedures; 

ance; taxes; library management; and physical evalu

procedures. 

b. This annual conference of judge advocates has 

demonstrated the tremendous benefit which can be de

judge advocates from all over the world have the op

participate in seminars concerning areas of mutual co

have arisen during the past year. The JAG Conference 

efforts on informing judge advocates in the field of curr

in the military-justice system and expected future change

now underway for a similar conference in October 1976. 

CERTIFICATION OF NCMR DECISIONS TO USCM

VIEW PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 67(b), UCMJ. Duri

year 1975, no cases were certified for review by USCMA 

article 67(b), UCMJ. 

ARTICLE 138 COMPLAINTS OF WRONGS. During ca

1975,111 article 138 complaints of wrongs were received 

of the Judge Advocate General for review and transm

Secretary of the Navy. 

JOINT-SERVICE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY JUS

Joint-Service Committee on Military Justice has as its p

the preparation and evaluation of proposed amend

changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice ahd the 

Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (Rev.). That Com

tinues to act as a forum for the exchange of ideas among 

The Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Milit

serves as the Navy member of the Joint-Service Co

Military Justice and a representative of the Judge Advoc

of the Navy serves as a full-time member of the working 

242-955 0 - 77 - 3 
the staff judge advocates pretrial advice; limiting an ac

to individual military counsel; removing the conveni

from posttrial review of findings; eliminating the staff 

cate's post-trial advice in cases reviewed by the Cour

Review; permitting early execution of sentence; institut

of discretionary appeals; and reducing the requiremen

tim records of trial in certain cases. 

CNO TASK GROUP ON THE NA VY CORRECTION

The Military Justice Division provided a full-time votin

the Chief of Naval Operations Task Group on the Navy 

System. This group, which held its first meeting on 

1975, was tasked to study and propose alternatives to 

corrections system. In furtherance of its assigned missio

held several sessions and reviewed the existing system o

The study commenced with a review of the Navy's re

screening policies and concluded with a study of the i

Navy's present administrative/disciplinary/criminal p

Judge Advocate General's representative chaired the s

on the disciplinary/criminal portion of the study. The T

report was submitted on 11 March 1975. It contained 

posals pertaining to Navy policies and procedures con

the enlistment of quality recruits and the timely 

personnel whose attitudes, professional performance, 

behavior are not compatible with a military environme

SECNA V TASK GROUP ON CRIME REPORTING. O

1975, the Secretary of the Navy established a SECNAV 

to study the present system utilized to report crim

within the naval service and to recommend procedures 

tion and standardization of crime reporting within the n

The Military Justice Division provided one full-time m

Task Group. The Task Group reviewed existing syste

reporting within all the services, and various civilian 

the FBI. It was determined that the FBI Uniform Crim

(UCR) system has been adopted as the basic standard b

26 
ypp

U.S. attorneys. This assistance included preparation of l

randums and litigation reports; preparation of briefs and 

conjunction with a U.S. attorney; preparation of U.S. a

oral arguments before all Federal courts, including th

preme Court; and assignment of judge advocates to 

arguments in U.S. district courts and courts of appeals. A 

more significant cases and issues involved are set forth 

.. a. Middendorf v. Henry. The issue presented in th

whether a summary court-martial could adjudge sentenc

confinement if the accused were not represented by co

issue had produced a split of authority in the circuits fo

Supreme Court's decision in Argersinger v. Hamlin. O

1976, the Supreme Court ruled, in an opinion by Justice 

that the Constitution does not require the appointment o

represent persons tried by summary courts-martial. 

b. Allison v. Saxbe. This case involves the proper scope 

court-martial convictions in Federal habeas corpus proce

petitioner was a seaman convicted of arson in a $7.5 

aboard USS FORRESTAL. After his escape from Portsm

Disciplinary Command, the petitioner was at liberty for 

before he surrendered to military authorities in October 

Francisco. Promptly thereafter Allison filed a petition 

corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Northern 

California. The District Court denied Allison's petition 

randum opinion of 5 September 1975. Allison has appe

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

c. Stahl v. Middendorf. This was a class action 

Secretary of the Navy which presented the issue of whet

counsel detailed to represent servicemen before courts-m

also be permitted to represent their accused clients 

district court in actions collaterally attacking the co

proceedings. The U.S. District Court for the Northern 

Illinois, in an unpublished opinion, held that the Unifo
reasonable under the fourth amendment are valid. T

tained the command-authorized search challenged in t

e. McDonald v. United States; Sanders v. United 

consolidated cases challenged the constitutionality of th

of multiple prosecutorial and judicial roles to convenin

under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. On 18 F

the U.S. Court of Claims rendered its opinion uphold

lenged provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Just

f. Priest v. Secretary of the Navy. This case involves 

freedom of the press under the first amendment a

members of the military. The U.S. District Court for t

Columbia granted the Government's motion for summ

The plaintiff has appealed to the U.S. Court of Ap

District of Columbia Circuit. 

28 

Reviewed in the field .................................... 

Total all courts-martial ............................. 


Navy Court of Military Review Actions 

On hand for review end last fiscal year ..... 

Received for review during fiscal year ....... 

Total on hand ............................................. 


Reviewed during fiscal year ................................. 


Pending review end current fiscal year ............. 


Total ............................................................. 

Findings modified or set aside by Navy Court 

of Military Review during fiscal year ............ 

Requests for appellate counsel before NCMR .. 

U.S. Court of Military Appeals Actions 

Petitions forwarded to USCMA .................. 

Cases certified to USCMA by JAG ............. 

Total cases docketed with USCMA ......... 


Petitions granted by USCMA .............................. 


Petitions denied by USCMA ............ : ................... 


Total petitions acted upon by USCMA ... 

8,706 

22,755 

261 

3,516 

3,777 

3,346 

431 

3,777 

122 

2,392 

491 

0 

491 

48 

435 

483 
old R. Vague, made staff visits to legal offices in the 

and overseas as required by the UCMJ, Article 6(a). Ac

Colonel C. Claude Teagarden, General Vague attend

States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) Judge Advoca

He attended the annual American Bar Associatio

Montreal, Canada and presented his annual report 

Advocates' Association there. General Vague and Colo

attended the Inter-American Bar Association meeting 

Columbia. General Vague also attended and particip

ings of civic, professional, and military organization

Advocate General hosted the Major Command Staff Ju

Executive Conference at the Forrestal Building, Washi

May, 1975 and the annual world-wide general courts-m

ing authority Staff Judge Advocate Conference at H

Force Base, Florida, in October 1975. . 

The Area Defense Counsel Program completed its o

wide test in June. Written evaluations, requested by G

The Judge Advocate General, were obtained from 

authorities, staff judge advocates, military judges, ch

fense counsel and area defense counsel to determine i

should be continued on a permanent basis. A board co

line officers and two judge advocates convened durin

23-27 June and evaluated the program. The board 

that the Area Defense Counsel Program be retained a

1975, the Chief of Staff authorized the program on 

basis. As mentioned in the 1974 report, the Area De

Program separates the defense function from both l

and judge advocate control. Area Defense Counsel 

directly to the Office of The Judge Advocate General, 

USAF. 

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

Judge Advocate General, for review pursuant to Arti

examination pursuant to Article 69, during fiscal year 

in the following table: 

30 
p

Cases on hand 30 June 1975 .................................................................. . 

c. During the fiscal year 86.4% of the accused whos

referred for review under Article 66 requested repre

Appellate Defense Counsel before the Court of Military 

d. The following table shows the number of cases 

the United States Court of Military Appeals pursuant 

subdivisions of Article 67(b); and the number of petit

during the period: 

Cases reviewed & dispatched by Court of Review ............................. . 

Number cases forwarded to USCMA ................................................... . 

Cases petitioned ............................................................................... . 

Cases certified .................................................................................. . 

Percent forwarded of total cases reviewed .......................................... . 

(Increase of 18.7% over FY 74) 

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

Percent grants of total petitioned ......................................................... . 

(Decrease of 1.3% over FY 74) 

Percent petitions granted of total cases reviewed by Court of 

Review .................................................................................................. . 

(Increase of 0.7% over FY 74) 

e. During the fiscal year, the following numbers of 

tried by courts-martial convened in the Air Force: 

General Courts-Martial ................................................................

Special Courts-Martial................................. ........ ........... ..............

Summary Courts-Martial..............................................................

Total .......................................................................:.........

The overall court-martial rate per 1,000 assigned perso

as compared to 4.3 in FY 1974, a rate decrease of 32.5%

'This represents a decrease of 23% from the number of cases received in FY 74 16701. 

"This represents a decrease of 12% from the number of cases reviewed during FY 74 (593
Airmen ................................................................................ . 

Extra Duties 

Airmen ................................................................................ . 

Reduction in Grade 

Airmen ................................................................................ . 

Forfeiture of Pay 

Officers ................................................................................ . 

Airmen ................................................................................ . 

Detention of Pay 

Officers ................................................................................ . 

Airmen ................................................................................. 

Written Reprimand 

Officers ................................................................................ . 

Airmen ................................................................................ . 

MITIGATING ACTIONS 

Appeals Taken 

Officers ................................................................................ . 

Airmen ................................................................................ . 

Appeals Granted 

Officers ............................................................................... .. 

Airmen ................................................................................ . 

Suspension of Punishment 

Officers ................................................................................ . 

Airmen ................................................................................. 

Other Action······ 

Officers ................................................................................ . 

Airmen ................................................................................ . 

1,

4,

•• "21,

20,

2,

17,

The overall Article 15 rate per 1,000 assigned perso

as compared to 54.3 in the previous fiscal year, a rate d

percent. 

4. During calendar year 1975 the Department's Pr

Program, begun in late 1974, was carried forward. De

••• The number of punishments imposed will not equal the number of cases as so

combination of punishments. 

•••• Of the reductions in grade, 73.3% were suspended at the time the punishment was 

••••• Of appeals taken . 

•••••• Includes mitigation. remission and set aside actions. 

32 
, 

American Bar Association. The Department won the 

Preventive Law Award for 1975. 

5. During the calendar year 1975, the Judge Advoca

Department provided continuing legal and general edu

tunities to 846 of its personnel. There are presently 

courses being taught at the Judge Advocate General'

University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. The ba

new and recently assigned judge advocates was the Jud

Staff Officer course. This six-week course was conduct

during 1975 and 176 judge advocates completed it. The 

Advocate Course is for newly appointed staff judge a

was conducted once during 1975. Fortyjudge advocates 

course. The Reserve and National Guard judge advocat

two week refresher course and 160 students graduated 

advance course for legal technicians was presented once 

and forty senior NCO legal technicians attended. (The D

enlisted personnel receive their training at a special 

cians' school at Keesler AFB, Mississippi. Eight courses 

1975 and 119 students were graduated.) In 1975, 25 offic

the one-week course for prosecuting attorneys and 2

officers attended the equal length course for defense at

at Northwestern University. Forty judge advocates also 

trial advocacy course held at Creighton University. F

court-martial judges and eight special court-martial jud

courses at the National College of State Trial Judges. 

week course held at the University of Nevada, Reno, Ne

the special court-martial judges attended the two-w

seminar taught by the National Academy at the U

Colorado. During 1975, five newly assigned judge adv

their first year as a judge advocate at Air Material A

learning the full ramifications of Air Force procur

program is in addition to the regular and continui
In 1975 selected Air Force officers participated in 

Legal Education Program (FLEP) and the Excess Lea

with 16 completing their law school requirements and d

judge advocates. During the summer these FLEP and E

Program students performed active duty in Air Force leg

legal interns. Selected individuals are given the opp

perform their summer training at various divisions in t

The Judge Advocate General, Headquarters, USAF. A

1975, the Judge Advocate General's Department educati

was expanded to include seminar programs which utiliz

presentations as a teaching aid. Topics covered by the

include the law of Federal labor management relations, 

responsibility, environmental law, trial advocacy and 

contracts. 

6. On December 31, 1975, there were 1,258 judge advoca

This is an increase of 27 over calendar year 1974. The 

has 91 colonels, 153 lieutenant colonels, 142 majors, and 

assigned. 

7. At the close of the period of this report, there were 5

exercising general court-martial jurisdiction. 

34 

The following is the annual report of the General Co

Department of Transportation submitted pursuant to Ar

the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Unless otherwis

figures given are for the fiscal year beginning July 

ending June 30, 1975. 

The table below shows the number of court-martial 

ceived and filed at Coast Guard Headquarters during th

and the four preceding years. 

1975 1974 1973 

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

Special courts-martial ............................. 189 190 206 

Summary courts-martial ........................ 267 212 307 

Total ............................................... 460 409 518 

All special courts-martial had lawyers for defense co

non-lawyer trial counsel was used only once. A militar

assigned in all of the trials. As has been noted in previo

full-time judiciary for special courts-martial has not been 

in the Coast Guard. Military judges are provided for sp

martial by use of the two full-time general court-ma

when available, and by the use of military judges assig

primary duties. Control over the detail of judges is cen

cised, and all requirements have been filled in timely fa

of the special courts-martial, trial was by military judge 

bers, one of which included enlisted members. In the re

cases, the defendant elected to be tried by military judg

In 25 of the cases, the sentence included a bad conduc

Ten of these were adjudged by military judge alone, and 

ing 15 were adjudged by a court with members. Of the 25

remitted or commuted by the convening authority, le

reach the Court of Military Review. ­