and the 

JUDGE ADVOCATES GENE

of the 

ARMED FORCES 


and the 

GENERAL COUNSEL 

of the 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR

PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUS

For the Period 


October 1, 1980-September 30, 1

PROPERlY OF U.S. AA 

T~EJUDGEADVOCATEGENERAL~SC

LIBRARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIV

and to the 


SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 


AND SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTAT

and the 


SECRETARIES OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF T

ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORCE 

PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 


For the Period 


October 1, 1980-September 30, 1981 

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY A

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE A

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE N

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE A

REPORT OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMEN

PORTATION (UNITED STATES COAST GUARD) 
and the 

JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL 


OF THE ARMED FORCES 


and the 

GENERAL COUNSEL 


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 


October 1, 1980 to September 30, 1981 

The Judges of the United States Court of Military 

Judge Advocates General of the Armed Forces, and 

Counsel of the Department of Transportation submit t

Report on the operation of the Uniform Code of Mili

pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 867(g). 

The Code Committee, composed of the Judges of the U

Court of Military Appeals, the Judge Advocates Gene

General Counsel of the Department of Transportati

several occasions during fiscal year 1981, to consider var

als for the improvement of the military justice system. A

proposals, the Code Committee approved the recomm

the Joint Service Committee that 10 U.S.C. § 866(a) be 

authorize reconsideration of a panel decision by the en

Military Review of the service involved. Additionally, 

another proposal by the Joint Service Committee th

Military Rules of Evidence, be amended to specifically a

use of banking notations as evidence. During fiscal ye

Code Committee also reviewed the progress of a wo

which had been established during fiscal year 1980 t

recommendations for revisions in the Manual for Co
ROBINSON O. EVERETT 

Chief Judge. 

WILLIAM H. COOK 

Associate Judge. 

ALBERT B. FLETCHER, Jr. 

Associate Judge. 

HUGH J. CLAUSEN 

The Judge Advocate General, U.S. Ar

JOHN S. JENKINS 

The Judge Advocate General, U.S. Na

THOMAS B. BRUTON 

The Judge Advocate General, U.S. Ai

. JOHN M. FOWLER 

General Counsel, Department ofTrans

2 
The Judges of the United States Court of Military A

their fiscal year 1981 report on the administration of 

military justice to the Committees on Armed Services 

States Senate and House of Representatives and the 

Defense, Transportation, Army, Navy, and Air Force 

with Article 67(g), Uniform Code of Military Justi

§ 867(g). 

THE BUSINESS OF THE COURT 

During the fiscal year 1981 term, the Court acted on 

for grant of review, an increase of 22 percent over t

1980 term. The Court granted further review in 151 o

percent of the cases considered). On the master docket 

appeals, certificates, and granted petitions, the Court d

cases, an increase of 82 percent over fiscal year 1980. A

81 percent of the Court's actions on master docket case

Courts of Military Review. These cases were decided 

opinions (an increase of 55 percent over fiscal year 

curiam opinions (an increase of 94 percent over fiscal y

228 summary dispositions (an increase of 93 percent o

1980). The Court also acted upon 55 cases on the 

docket, issuing signed opinions in 3 cases and granting 

relief in 2 cases. At the close of the term, 427 cases we

the petition docket subject to the statutory 30-day re

cases were pending on the master docket; and 7 cases 

on the miscellaneous docket. As a result of the 82 perc

the Court's final dispositions on the master docket ov

ing year, the number of cases pending on the master d

in half. The increase in the number of cases pending o

docket over fiscal year 1980 was attributed to the signi

of approximately 26 percent in the number of petitions 

Court during fiscal year 1981. Filings of petitions for 

relief were also up by 26 percent and the motion prac

by 13 percent over the previous fi~cal year. 
pp, 

p

which was experienced during fiscal year 1981 to conti

fiscal year 1982. 

The Court admitted 643 attorneys to practice before its 

the fiscal year 1981 term, bringing the cumulative tota

sions before the Bar of the Court to 23,302. 

JUDICIAL VISITATIONS 

As in preceding years, the Judges of the Court continue

to military communities throughout the world to develo

appreciation of the operational problems in the vario

Services. Such problems must be considered by the Judge

istering the military justice system in a responsive man

Judge Everett visited the United States Military Acad

Point, New York; the Air Force Academy, Peterson Air F

and Fort Carson, Colorado; Camp Lejeune, North Carolina

Houston, Texas; Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska; milita

tions in Japan, Korea, Okinawa, the Philippines and T

the Army's Judge Advocate General's School, Charlotte

ginia. Judge Cook traveled to Maxwell Air Force Base

Fort Lewis, Washington; and Fort Sill, Oklahoma. Judg

visited numerous military installations in the Far East 

spring of 1981. 

In addition to these visits, the Judges of the Court part

numerous conferences, seminars and similar projects to im

professional legal education of military lawyers and to m

personnel and the general public aware of the safeguard

by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Court

interpreting the Code. 

APPELLATE ADVOCACY CONFERENCE 

On May 20-22, 1981, the Sixth Annual Homer Fergus

ence on Appellate Advocacy was held at The American U

This annual conference, which, since its inception in 1976

4 
United States District Court for the Southern District 

formerly Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Military Appea

General Wayne E. Alley, U.S. Army, Judge Advocate, H

U.S. Army Europe and Seventh Army (formerly Judg

Court of Military Review); Professor Eugene Gressma

of North Carolina; Lieutenant Commander Ronald J. B

Instructor, U.S. Naval Justice School; and several me

Court's staff. Numerous uniformed and civilian lawye

practicing before Courts of Military Review and the U

Court of Military Appeals, as well as the Judges of 

Military Review, and other scholars and commentators 

military justice were in attendance at the conference. 

USCMA MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYST

During fiscal year 1981 the Court began to program 

system to accept all docket entries. When the "phase 

completed, the Court will have a totally electronic doc

which will result in significant reductions in the cost 

and retaining the Court's recorded docket entries 

Additionally, the new system will provide instantaneou

Court actions regarding briefs, motions and other m

with the Court. The Court anticipates that the compute

docketing system, which was commenced in fiscal year 

completed in fiscal year 1982. 

SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS AFFECTING THE ADMINIS

MILITARY JUSTICE WITHIN THE ARMED FOR

Court-Martial Jurisdiction Over Persons and Offenses 

During the fiscal year 1981 term the Court rende

significant ruling on the issue of military jurisdicti

·This section of the Court's Annual Report is prepared solely as an i

by the staff of the Court. It is included for the convenience of the r

easily locating cases of particular interest during the term. The case 

no precedential value and should not be cited in briefs filed with th
recruiter involved in his enlistment engaged in some form 

duct by knowingly enlisting him contrary to service regu

Court distinguished United States v. Russo, 1 M.J. 134 (C

and its progeny on the basis that a regulatory violation a

not defeat court-martial jurisdiction. Rather, the Cour

prior case law also required a regulatory impediment 

nonwaivable. 

Applicability of Article 31 and Right to Counsel 

The Court resolved numerous issues during the FY 

which questioned the applicability of Article 31, Unifo

Military Justice, and the right to counsel. In Unite

Armstrong, 9 M.J. 374 (C.M.A. 1980), the Court held tha

was not applicable to the extraction of bodily fluid and th

of a blood test was admissible, even though the accused w

Article 31(b) warnings prior to the extraction of the bloo

The failure of a company commander to readvise an acc

Article 31(b) approximately 12 days after he was initially 

his rights under that Article rendered the accused's 

inadmissible in United States v. Dowen 10 M.J. 36 (C.

where the accused was also placed in pretrial confin

Court rejected the Government's claim that no war

required because the only purpose for interviewing the a

to inform him of an additional charge. Rather, the Cou

the circumstances involved in the case could foreseeably 

incriminating statement. Additionally, the Court observ

company commander, who knew that the accused was r

by counsel, was required to notify counsel prior to inf

client of the additional charge under circumstances whi

functional equivalent of an interrogation. 

As with blood samples, the Court held in United States 

M.J. 172 (C.M.A. 1981), that Article 31(b) warnings were n

prior to requesting a handwriting sample from a suspect

The Court held in United States v. Duga, 10 M.J. 206 (C

that the requirement for Article 31(b) warnings was only 

6 
The Court reaffirmed in United States v. Muldoon, 

(C.M.A. 1981), its earlier ruling that a suspect's request 

must be scrupulously honored by investigators. Thus, the 

in Muldoon that the accused's confession was inadmissib

request for counsel was not complied with by invest

placed him in confinement and informed him two hours 

of an "interrogation technique" that he had been im

someone else. 

The Court's concern for an accused's right to counsel 

sized again in United States v. Breese, 11 M.J. 17 (C.M.A. 

the Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction by es

rebuttable presumption of a conflict of interest by defens

cases of multiple representation by the same counsel unl

judge conducts an appropriate inquiry into the matter. 

Search and Seizure 

As in previous terms, the fiscal year 1981 term resulte

ous case decisions involving search and seizure question

States v. Rivera, 10 M.J. 55 (C.M.A. 1980), the Court ob

the doctrine that an officer who authorizes a search or s

be neutral and detached, as set forth in United States v. 

307 (C.M.A. 1979), merely reaffirmed existing law and, th

case was not limited to prospective application. Thus

reversed the conviction in Rivera because the comm

authorized the search had, prior to the release of the Co

in Ezell, become personally involved in the investigation 

The Court observed in United States v. Middleton, 

(C.M.A. 1981), that a commander's mere presence in th

search did not compromise his neutrality. In addition, 

the commander was upheld in Middleton to conduct a 

welfare inspection, to use a trained drug detection dog 

inspection, and to use the information obtained during 

tion to establish probable cause for a subsequent search. 

United States v. Hayes, 11 M.J. 249 (C.M.A. 1981), the C

sized that the Government's authority to conduct a mil
ningham, 11 M.J. 210 (C.M.A. 1981), also involved a se

ultimately detected criminal activity by an accused. The

held that the sergeant's smell of marijuana justified his 

barracks room wherein he observed additional crimi

Thus, the Court upheld the subsequent search of the 

produced incriminating evidence. 

The Court also upheld the right of the Governmen

under the seat of an automobile as incident to a valid a

accused in United States v. Cordero, 11 M.J. 210 (C.M.A

The Court rejected a claim in United States v. Kalsche

373 (C.M.A. 1981), that a military commander's power to 

search was inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment. 

Court held that the responsibilities of a commander re

power consistent with the Fourth Amendment. As the 

derived from these responsibilities, the Court further 

the practice of delegating the power to authorize searche

nates who were neither military judges nor military ma

Military Service Records 

In United States v. Mack, 9 M.J. 300 (C.M.A. 1980), the 

that a military form reflecting the imposition of punish

the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, was admissible 

sentencing portion of an accused's court-martial witho

recital on the form that the accused had consulted wit

had declined to do so. The comments of the author j

principal opinion in Mack indicating that a record of 

court-martial conviction was not admissible for the 

impeaching an accused commanded a majority vote in 

later decision in United States v. Cofield, 11 M.J. 422 (C

wherein the Court ruled that such a record was inadmis

purpose. 

Another issue concerning the admissibility of military 

decided in United States v. Cook, 10 M.J. 138 (C.M.A. 19

the Court held that the records of a civilian crimina

8 
were required, even if defense counsel requested their 

the duty to instruct the court members belonged to th

rather than to counsel. 

Rejecting an argument that an accused has more ri

proceeding to vacate a suspension of punishment impo

provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, than during the init

proceeding itself, the Court held in United States v. 

M.J. 64 (C.M.A. 1980), that the probationer was onl

notice of the intended action and to an opportunity t

contentions in opposition to this action. The Court h

notice could be written or oral and that the opportunit

not require a personal appearance before the comman

The question of whether an accused's officer sta

considered by a commander in referring a case to trial 

by the Court in United States v. Means, 10 M.J. 162 (

Rejecting a defense argument that such status was ir

Court held that a commander could consider such s

commissioned officers occupy a special position of trus

the Armed Services. Additionally, the Court held th

dent's restriction on a special court-martial which pre

tence to confinement in the case of an officer was not 

it rejected the accused's claim that this restrictio

required referral to a general court-martial if a comma

ed that confinement of an officer should be consi

sentencing authority. 

After criticizing the practice of equating "reasonable 

. "substantial doubt" in United States v. Salley, 9 M.J

1980), the Court held that such an instruction constitut

error in United States v. Cotten, 10 M.J. 260 (C.M.A

decision was thereafter given retroactive applicatio

States v. Brooks, 11 M.J. 420 (C.M.A. 1981). 

Reviewing the prerogatives of a convening authori

sentence to confinement, the Court held in Pearson v. 

317 (C.M.A. 1981), that a convening authority could imp

restriction in conjunction with the deferment of a 
Noting the distinction between the burden of producti

burden of persuasion, the Court held in United States v

M.J. 381 (C.M.A. 1981), that an accused could be held acco

the burden of production. Thus, the Court held that the G

did not have to prove affirmatively that the accused was 

an exception to a proscriptive regulation where the accu

raise an issue as to the exception. 

In United States v. Cofield, 11 M.J. 422 (C.M.A. 1981)

specifically adopted the practice of presenting motions i

the trial judge. However, the Court observed that "a 

should be granted considerable discretion to defer rulings 

in limine". 

Extraordinary Relief 

Expanding its earlier holding in Dettinger v. United Sta

216 (C.M.A. 1979), that the Government may seek ext

relief from a Court of Military Review, the Court held 

States v. Redding, 11 M.J. 100 (C.M.A. 1981), that a Judg

General may certify to the United States Court of Milita

the correctness of a Court of Military Review decision on 

tion for extraordinary relief. Additionally, relying on i

Practice and Procedure, the Court held that the Gover

appeal an adverse decision by the Court of Military R

Court ruled in reaching this decision that a final action by 

Military Review on an application for extraordinary r

"case" within the meaning of Article 67, UCMJ. 

The Court in Vorbeck v. Commanding Officer, 11 M.J. 

1981), refused to resolve the merits of a petition for ex

relief because the accused had not applied for relief to th

ate Judge Advocate General under the provisions of 

UCMJ., The Court noted that, under the statutory rev

enacted by Congress, the Judge Advocates General had be

ered to review cases where the sentence did not extend to 

discharge or to confinement for one year or more. 

10 
held that a provision in a pretrial agreement whereby 

agreed that he would not violate the Uniform Code 

Justice was too vague to be enforceable. 

A withdrawal of a pretrial agreement by a conveni

prior to trial was upheld in United States v. Kazena

(C.M.A. 1981), where the convening authority learned o

al charge after he signed the pretrial agreement. 

ROBINSON O. 

Chief Judge. 

WILLIAM H. C

Judge. 

ALBERT B. FLE

Judge. 
TOTAL.............................................................. 710 


CUMULATIVE FILINGS 

Master Docket 

Certificates filed .................................... .. 9 

Reconsiderations granted .................... . 3 

Petition Docket 

Petitions for grant filed ........................ 2,173 

Cross-petitions for grant filed .............. . 6 

Petitions for new trial filed ................ .. 1 

Miscellaneous Docket .................................. .. 59 


TOTAL .............................................................. 2,251 


CUMULATIVE TERMINATIONS 

Master Docket ................................................ 354 

Petition Docket ............................................... 2,073 

Miscellaneous Docket .................................... ~ 

TOTAL .............................................................. 2,482 


CUMULATIVE END PENDING 

Master Docket ................................................ 196 

Petition Docket ............................................... 427 

Miscellaneous Docket .................................... __7 

TOTAL.............................................................. 630 


OPINION SUMMARY 

CATEGORY SIGNED PER CURIAM 

Master Docket ................................. 93 33 

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

Miscellaneous Docket .................... ° 3 ° ° 

MEM/ORDE

228 

2,073 

52 

TOTAL .............................................. 96 33 2,353 

12 
PENDING (MASTER DOCKET) 


Assigned Opinions pending .......................... 24 


Judges' conference pending ......................... 1 


Oral argument pending ................................. 34 


Preargument conference pending ............... 17 


Calendar committee pending ....................... 100 


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

TOTAL.............................................................. 196 


FILINGS (PETITION DOCKET) 

Petitions for grant ofreview filed ............... 2,173 

Petitions for grant/new trial filed .............. 1 

Cross-petitions for grant filed ...................... __6 

TOTAL .............................................................. 2,180 


TERMINATIONS (PETITION DOCKET) 


Petitions for grant dismissed ....................... 33 


Petitions for grant denied ............................. 1,871 


Petitions for grant granted........................... 151 


Petitions for grant remanded....................... 9 


Petitions for grant withdrawn ....................__9 


TOTAL .............................................................. 2,073 


PENDING (PETITION DOCKET) 

Petition briefs pending ................................. 186 

Staff attorney action pending ...................... 185 

Court action pending ..................................... ~ 

TOTAL.............................................................. 427 


Signed......

Per curiam 

Mem/ord

TOTAL ...

• In approximately 30 percent of these cases, the Court specified issues which were not raise
Petitions denied ............................................. . 41 Per curiam..

Petitions dismissed ........................................ . 9 Mem/order 

TOTAL ............................................................. . 55 TOTAL .......

PENDING (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET) 


Briefs pending ................................................ 0 


Action by Writs Counsel pending................ 0 


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


Show cause response pending ...................... 3 


Other final action pending ........................... __4 


TOTAL.............................................................. 7 


RECONSIDERATIONS AND REHEARINGS 

CATEGORY FILINGS PENDING DISPOS

Granted Rejec

Master Docket ................................. 2 1 0 1 

Petition Docket ............................... 7 2 0 5 

Miscellaneous Docket .................... 1 0 0 1 

TOTAL .............................................. 10 3 0 7 

MOTIONS ACTIVITY 

BEGIN END 

CATEGORY PENDING FILINGS PENDING DISPOS

Granted Rejec

All motions ................. . 36 823 69 686 104 

14 
In fiscal year 1981, Major General Hugh J. Clausen 

duties of The Judge Advocate General while Major Gen

Overholt became The Assistant Judge Advocate Gener

During fiscal year 1981 the Office of the Judge Adv

continued to monitor the proceedings of courts-mart

and prepare military justice publications and regula

develop draft legislative changes for the UCMJ. 

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 


AND U.S. ARMY JUDICIARY ACTIVITIES 

During fiscal year 1981 the court-martial rates cont

an increase in the Army-wide number of courts-mart

numbers of persons tried by all types of courts-martial 

1981 were 12.6 percent higher than the year before

increase reflects primarily a 29.4 percent rise in s

martial authorized to adjudge a bad conduct dischar

percent increase in summary courts-martial. The over

rate for fiscal year 1981 was 91 percent, the same 

reported for the fiscal year 1980. 

THE U.S. ARMY JUDICIARY 

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

Services Agency. It consists of the U.S. Army Cour

Review, the Clerk of Court, the Examinations and 

Divisions, and the Trial Judiciary. 

The Agency also includes the Government Appellate 

Defense Appellate Division, the Trial Defense Serv

Appeals Division, the Regulatory Law Office, and the 

Recruiting Office. The latter three sections have no fu

to the U.S. Army Judiciary and its court-martial 
throughout the Army. USATDS will continue to be organ

activity of the U.S. Army Legal Services Agency, a field 

agency of The Judge Advocate General. 

On 15 September 1981 the Army issued a new Chapte

Regulation 27-10, Military Justice, which provides regu

thority for USATDS. By 30 September 1981 approximatel

advocates were assigned to USATDS. These counsel wer

in field offices which serve commands throughout the Ar

During fiscal year 1981 USATDS continued to develop i

ty to support combat and combat support units. USAT

participated in many local field exercises, deployment e

Fort Irwin, California, and in a major REFORGER exerci

1st and the 4th Infantry Divisions in Germany. The new 

tion also expanded its coordination with reserve unit

defense counsel teams performed their two-weeks active 

ing under the supervision of Senior Defense Counsel a

throughout the continental United States. These teams 

the field offices to which they were assigned and we

function as defense counsel in administrative, nonjudicia

cial areas. 

SIGNIFICANT MILITARY JUSTICE ACTIONS 

Actions involving military justice handled by the Cr

Division, OTJAG, included evaluating and drafting legi

ecutive Orders, pamphlets, and regulations impacting o

ation of the Army and the Department of Defense; mon

administration of military justice, including evaluation 

major projects; rendering opinions for the Army staff; an

various aspects of criminal cases for action by the Army 

and staff. 

Change to Military Justice Regulation 

Change 21, Army Regulation 27-10, Military Justice

lished on 15 September 1981. Some significant chang

implementation of the U.S. Army Trial Defense Service; c

16 
y 

by the Judge Advocates General and the General Cou

Department of Transportation on 17 August 1972. Repr

are provided by the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Cor

ment of Transportation (Coast Guard), and a nonvoting 

tive is provided by the U.S. Court of Military Appeals. T

function of the Joint Service Committee on Military Ju

preparation and evaluation of proposed amendments and 

the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual 

Martial. It also serves as a forum for the exchange of id

to military justice matters among the services. In th

Committee has mainly considered proposals and ideas 

within the military services. In 1976, it was given the 

responsibility for commenting on military justice concer

ing from outside the military services. 

The Joint Service Committee considered proposals wh

in the Military Justice Amendments of 1981. This legisl

require servicemembers to take leave pending review 

court-martial convictions; would amend Article 13 o

entirely eliminating the distinction between sentenced an

prisoners; would amend Article 38(b) to allow the service 

to define "reasonably available" in relation to requests fo

military counsel; would provide for constructive service 

of the Courts of Military Review by amending Article 

would amend Article 69 by creating a two year statute of 

on requests for review of certain courts-martial to The J

cate General. Favorable action on this legislation is expec

year 1982. 

The Joint Service Committee completed action on two 

the Manual for Courts-Martial resulting in revision of M

of Evidence 410 and paragraph 75 of the Manual dealin

sentencing portion of a court-martial. At present time, th

tee is continuing the process of revising the Manual 

Martial, a project which is expected to take two mo

complete. 
foreign authorities released 1,315 of the exclusive foreign 

offenses to United States military authorities for admin

other appropriate disposition. 

The rest of the military offenses subject to foreign 

totaling 19,814 offenses, were concurrent jurisdiction offe

ing alleged violations of both United States military law 

law, over which the foreign country had the prima

exercise jurisdiction. United States military authorities 

waiver of primary foreign jurisdiction in 16,722 of these i

a world-wide waiver rate. of 84.4 percent. 

Thus, during the current reporting period, foreign 

reserved for their disposition a total of 53,045 offens

committed by military personnel. A total of 49,953 of th

were relatively minor charges which were not punish

United States military law, and were therefore subject t

sive jurisdiction of foreign authorities. It is significant 

50,231 of the military offenses reserved for disposition 

authorities, or 94.7 percent of the total offenses so reserv

traffic violations. 

A total of 7,669 civilian employees and dependents w

with offenses subject to foreign jurisdiction. As civili

subjects to trial by court-martial in peacetime, the Unite

no effective jurisdiction over these offenses. Nonethe

authorities released 343 of these offenses, or 4.5 percent 

to United States military authorities for administrati

appropriate disposition. 

During the current reporting period, there were 

results of trials (Le., final acquittals and final convicti

number, 189, or about .4 percent of the final results, wer

The vast majority of United States personnel who were 

52,921 (Le., 98.8 percent)-received only a sentence to f

mand. The remainder of the final results of trial con

suspended sentences to confinement and 138 unsuspend

to confinement. 

18 
EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

During fiscal year 1981, The Judge Advocate Gen

located in Charlottesville, Virginia, provided legal 

lawyers of the military services and other Federal age

seven resident courses were conducted with 2,200 stude

ance. Courses were attended by 1,315 Army, 212 Navy 

103 Air Force, 37 Coast Guard, 32 Army Nationa

civilians, and 6 foreign students. 

During fiscal year 1981, three Basic classes, the 94

96th were conducted. A total of 310 officers (308 Army 

were graduated. The 29th Graduate Course graduate

1981. The 30th Graduate Course began on 17 August 

Army, one Navy, five Marine and three foreign offic

ance. 

The Criminal Law Division sponsored five reside

legal education (CLE) courses in fiscal year 1981, inclu

Advocacy courses. The advocacy courses combine instr

developments in criminal law, seminars, and videotap

to improve and polish the experienced trial attorn

skills. The major portion of these offerings is devote

participation workshops and exercises designed to ena

neys to refine their courtroom skills and the techniq

sion. The courses are accredited by all states having m

requirements. Additionally, the Division presented t

dent courses in Germany for counsel assigned in that t

included two general criminal law seminars and on

responsibility seminar. 

The International Law Division sponsored three one

on the Law of Armed Conflict and one 21/2 day course 

Aspects of Terrorism. Additionally, the Division provi

support for a one-week course on the Law of Armed 

sored by USAREUR. All courses were designed for an

both judge advocates and operational staff officers. In 
5-9 January 1981, featured recent and proposed change

Government contract law. Among the topics cove

contracting under Public Law 95-507, contracting for c

and industrial type activities (CITA), Contract Disputes A

and a look at Standards of Contract Problems in G

Contracting. In addition to presenting the Fiscal Law Cour

TJAGSA, Division instructors presented the course at o

tions: Seoul, Korea; Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana; 

Monroe, Virginia. 

The Administrative and Civil Law Division sponsored a 

continuing legal education courses in fiscal year 1981. Le

ance, Government Information Practices, Federal Labor 

Military Administrative Law Developments, Environme

and Law Office Management were among the courses pres

Division also conducted the 3d U.s. Magistrate Court 

where students discussed actual problems encountered in 

In addition, the Division developed and taught for the fir

Administrative Law for Military Installations course. Thi

course combines the military installation aspects of severa

separate courses, thereby allowing installation administr

yers to obtain necessary information and also save both 

travel money. During the summer of 1981, the Division wa

ble for teaching two major resident courses for reserve c

judge advocates: The Judge Advocate General's Service 

tions Team Training, and the Branch Officer Advanc

(Phase IV). 

Six resident classes of the Senior Officers Legal O

Course were conducted at TJAGSA for 194 senior field g

mand and staff officers. The school also continued to co

SOLO Course at the U.S. Army War College, Carlisle 

where 26 students received instruction (6-9 May 1981). Ad

a record number of 23 general officers attended Gene

Legal Orientation (GOLO) courses. The Division also p

special military law orientation course for the newly appo

General Counsel on 15 April 1981. A new course institu

20 
Additionally, at the U.S. Army Europe Administrativ

ence from 11-15 May 1981, two members of this Div

principal instructors and covered a wide range of adm

topics. 

The Administrative and Civil Law Division also 

mission during fiscal year 1981 when the Legal Ass

was created within the Division and staffed with two 

Legal Assistance Branch is charged with studying, 

improving legal assistance Army-wide. In its initia

ation, the Branch has expanded legal assistance 

TJAGSA, conducted a survey of legal assistance offic

and prepared and published research literature fo

assistance officers. 

MAJOR PROJECTS 

In April 1981, The Judge Advocate General's Scho

was visited by a site inspection team of the Sec

Education and Admissions to The Bar of the Americ

ation. The team members visited classes; met with sta

students; and examined the facilities and programs 

The Accreditation Committee of the Section on Legal 

Admissions to The Bar considered the team's repor

meeting and adopted a motion noting the unique op

School and continuing the approval of the School's J

Officer Resident Graduate Course offering a specia

beyond the first degree in law. 

On 20 March 1981, the fifth Charles L. Decker Lectu

trative and Civil Law was presented by Major Gene

rence H. Williams, formerly The Assistant Judge Ad

of the Army. General Williams' topic was, "Advice t

Judge Advocates." 

Professor Stephen A. Saltzburg, University of Virg

Law, delivered the Tenth Kenneth J. Hodson Lectu

Law on 26 March 1981. 
The Reserve Components Technical (On-Site) Training 

were conducted at 42 different locations throughout th

States, including Hawaii and Puerto Rico, during acade

1980-1981. Over 1,600 personnel attended these training 

While the vast majority of people were judge advocates of t

the training was also attended by over 420 judge advoca

Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, National Guard and civi

neys. Reserve judge advocates assigned to USAR troop 

units provided more than 90,000 hours of mutual suppo

active Army. The Special Legal Assistance Officer Prog

increased to provide more assistance to qualified recipient

The Judge Advocate General's Mobilization Designation 

administered by the Reserve Affairs Department of TJA

leveled off at approximately 614 positions CONUS-wide

transferring from Troop Program Units to the Individu

Reserve are seeking Mobilization Designation vacancies, a

component Staff Judge Advocates continue to rely on the 

their MOBDES officers. Mobilization designees serve at a

ponent stations throughout the country. They also serve o

Army Court of Military Review, at Government and Defen

late Divisions, Examination & New Trials Division, and th

The Judge Advocate General. 

The School hosted the 1980 Worldwide JAG Conferen

October 1980. Over 200 senior judge advocates from all 

world conferred on areas of interest and discussed recen

ments in all areas of military law. 

New editions of several DA publications for which T

responsible were issued during fiscal year 1981. These were

Legal Guide for the Commander; AR 27-4, Legal Servic

Advocate General Service Organizations: Organization, 

Employment and Administration; DA Pam 27-166, Sol

Sailors' Civil Relief Act; and ROTC Manual 145-85, Funda

Military Law. Changes issued were C5, DA Pam 27-21

Administrative Law Handbook; and C2, DA Pam 27-174

Justice: Jurisdiction of Courts-Martial. Rescission action 

22 
Rules of Evidence. 

The Combat Developments Office provided JAGC plan

entire range of Army '86 studies with most emphasis on 

role of J AGC personnel in the next generation of Arm

Division 86. Planning began on the concept of the Air/

2000 and a complete review of the JAGC Manpower A

Criteria (MACRIT), found in AR 570-2, was begun. TOE 

implemented and the JAGC portions of FM 101-5, FM 

100-10, and FM 63-3 were reviewed and revised. 

On 31 March 1981 Colonel William K. Suter succeeded 

Colonel David L. Minton as Commandant of the Schoo

1981, Colonel Robert E. Murray became Director of th

Department. 

PERSONNEL, PLANS, AND POLICIES 

With the inclusion of law students participating in 

Legal Education Program, the strength of The Judg

General's Corps at the end of fiscal year 1981 was 1,781

ing minority groups were 74 Blacks, 25 Hispanics, 18 

Native Americans, and 127 women. The fiscal year 1981 

compares with an end strength of 1,501 in fiscal year 1

fiscal year 1979, and 1,425 in fiscal year 1978. The grade 

of the Corps at the end of the fiscal year was: 5 genera

colonels, 150 lieutenant colonels, 335 majors, 1,192 cap

first lieutenants. There were 66 officers (57 captains 

lieutenants) participating in the Funded Legal Educati

There were also 65 warrant officers. 

To ensure that the best qualified candidates for initial 

career status, and The Judge Advocate Officer Grad

were selected, formal boards were convened under The 

cate General's written instructions several times during 

In February 1981 a selection board was convened to sel

duty commissioned officers to commence law schoo

Funded Legal Education Program. 
and that the JAGC, as a separate competitive categor

select and promote its officers based on JAGC grade v

they occur. 

HUGH J. CLAUSEN 

Major General, US

The Judge Advocat

24 
SUMMAAY 4418 4070 OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE {·)fOECAEASE I-lOVER LAST REPORT 

PART 2· DISCHARGES APPROVED ** 

PART 3· RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEw L'NDER ':'P~:CLE 66 GE~EAAL COURTS-MARTIA\.. 1030 

FOR REVIEW '..J"IOEFI. A~TICLE 66 BCD SPECIAL. COURTS-MARTIAL 1374 

FOR eXAMn",.ATION U_~~E_H AFi.TICLE 69.:.~OUATS.MAATIAL 334 

COURT OF MILITARY REV

FtEVI£WEO DURING LAST REPORTING I'EAIOO 

PART 5· APPELLATE COUNSEL REOUESTS BEFORE 

REVIEW 

PART 6· U, S, COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS ACTIONS 

GE NE :~~~~~:TFS:;:';~:LA~:L~E~:~~AAGES 367 

-sP-.-c-"c.:. N,l'::'''''-~O.::.Bu'::'<:"-T-=~"-'M..:B:';'AA:.::,-,c:c,~:"~"'"~'"'s~,",C'"':"';ED=-v''::':'::'~JM''';Ac.:."''';G=-,:..:s'---------+-----

NUV8E R OF BAD CQNDJCT DISCHARGES 1220 

COU

PERCENTA.GE OF COMR REVIEWED CA.SES FORWARDED TO USCMA 

PERCENTAGE OF {DECREASE { • OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWEO BY COMR 

I'ERCENTAGE OF 'DECREASE I lOVER 'REVIOUS REflORTING PERIOD 

RATE OF JDECREASE I-lOVER THE NUMBER OF CASES REVIEWED DURING 

LAST REPORTING PE RiOD 

PAGE10F2 

• Based on the date cases were tried during Fiscal Year• 

• * Based on the date cases were received during Fiscal Year. 
PART 9· COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMBEiI=t OF COMPLAINTS I 

PART 10· STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STAENGTH 

PAGE20F2 

26 
pursuant to 

THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 

for 

FISCAL YEAR 1981 

Courts-Martial Workload. 

a. There has been an increase in the total numb

martial during fiscal year 1981. (See Exhibit A, atta

report.) 

b. During fiscal year 1981, the U.S. Navy-Marine C

Military Review received for review 3,467 new court-m

consisting of 328 general courts-martial and 3,139 sp

martial, as compared with 2,877 courts-martial, cons

general courts-martial and 2,654 special courts-martial 

year 1980. Of the 3,467 new cases received by the U.s. 

. Corps 	Court of Military Review in fiscal year 1981, 3

requested counsel (89 percent). 

Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary. 

The Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary provided m

for 438 general courts-martial during fiscal year 1981, a

84 cases from the 1980 level of 354 general courts-mar

year 1981, 57 percent of the general courts-martial w

courts constituted with military judge alone. This re

same percentage of general courts-martial constituted w

bers during fiscal year 1980. 

The Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary supplied m

for 9,218 special courts-martial trials during fiscal y

increase of 1,119 cases above the fiscal year 1980 level. 
gjgy g

Army Judge Advocate General's School in Charlottesv

Three military judges attended the Seventh Interser

Trial Judge's Seminar at Maxwell Air Force Base, Al

April 1981. Seven military judges from WESTPAC 

WESTPAC SOUTH Judicial Circuits attended the ML

1981 Seminar in Okinawa, Japan, 5-8 April 1981. Th

attended the Army Judge Advocate General's Schoo

ville, Virginia, 4-5 June 1981, to present the administr

to the faculty and students, including the military 

Deputy Chief attended the Army Judge Advocate Gen

5-6 August 1981, to present the administrative briefing

In an effort to further reduce travel expenses th

judiciary, the circuits have been realigned to show m

geographical limitations. 

Due to the increase in personnel and consequen

courts-martial in the Mayport, Florida, Great Lakes, 

New London, Connecticut, areas, one military judge 

signed to each of the aforementioned areas. 

Naval Legal Service Command. 

The Naval Legal Service Command at present consis

naval legal service offices and seventeen detachmen

located in areas of naval concentration throughout th

total manpower strength authorization for the Naval 

Command includes 394 judge advocates, ten warrant 

legalmen, 62 yeoman, and for fiscal year 1981, 212 civili

(including 33 direct-hire foreign nationals and seven 

foreign nationals). Navy judge advocates in the Naval 

Command comprise approximately 40 percent of the 

judge advocate strength. 

The Naval Legal Service Command has undergone 

changes during the past year: 

a. The Naval Legal Service Office Detachment at A

was established effective 1 March 1981. 

28 
justice process. The demand for support has increased 

year 1978 when an average of 13 general courts-mart

special courts-martial were processed each month by 

service offices and detachments. The monthly average fo

1981 was 22 general courts-martial and 447 special cou

Periodic command inspections into the operations of 

various naval legal service offices and detachments have 

most line commanders who depend upon the Naval L

Command for support are satisfied with the quality and t

services received. 

Article 69, UCMJ, Petitions. a. The number of pe

pursuant to Article 69, Uniform Code of Military Ju

which the Judge Advocate General may vacate or mod

ings or sentence of courts-martial which have been fina

under Article 76, but have not been reviewed by the 

Marine Corps Court of Military Review, increased durin

1981. 

b. In fiscal year 1981, 85 petitions were received b

Advocate General. Fifteen petitions were pending from 

Ofthese 100 cases, 97 were reviewed during fiscal year 19

petitions reviewed, 96 petitions were denied, while relie

ed, in whole or in part, in 1 of the petitions. Three 

pending review at the close of fiscal year 1981. 

c. In addition, in fiscal year 1981, 99 general court-m

which were not statutorily eligible for automatic review 

Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review, were revi

Judge Advocate General. 

Article, 73, UCMJ, Petitions. In fiscal year 1981, five 

new trials were submitted, one of which was referred 

Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review pursuant t

Uniform Code of Military Justice. Three petitions were 

petition was pending at the close of fiscal year 1981. 

Article, 74, UCMJ, Petitions. Seven new petitions wer

requesting the substitution of an administrative disc

punitive discharge awarded as part of a sentence by co
ing, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts, ap

tice, security assistance, the Military Rules of Eviden

support in Federal tort claim cases, Merit System Pro

practice, taxation, and admiralty. 

Panel discussions were conducted on various subje

post-trial clemency, recent developments in military 

Ethics in Government Act, claims practice, Navy a

discharge procedures and policies, environmental law, 

the military community, labor and management r

productivity reports. 

Continuing-Iegal-education-videotape presentations 

on conflicts of interest, standards of conduct, consum

new Federal Bankruptcy Act, recent developments i

environmental law, the role of the U.S. Attorney in c

and current cases of interest in the Department of Def

malpractice claims, trial tactics in the prosecution of c

oral advocacy, recent developments in family law, the t

ments of cross-examination, setting goals in crimin

ethics, trial before members as opposed to trial before m

alone, and military criminal law horizons facing the C

tary Appeals. 

Seminars were conducted by various groups of con

following topics: matters relating to the prosecution o

tial; concerns of trial defense counsel; the Law of Ar

legal assistance; recruiting new legalmen, manning, 

and the evaluation and advancement system; Law of th

Corps policy research update; and Board for Correc

Records procedures. 

This annual conference of judge advocates and le

again demonstrated the tremendous benefit derived 

advocates and legalmen from all over the world have th

to attend lectures and participate in seminars concerni

areas of mutual concern. 

Naval Justice School. 

1. The Naval Justice School in Newport, Rhode I

30 
py y, p

civilian lawyers. 

Legal Officer Course. Seven five-week classes were p

ing the year. This course is designed for nonlawyer j

about to assume duties as a legal officer for a ship, st

military unit with no military lawyer assigned. Inc

course curriculum are 150 classroom hours and 44 hou

exercises and seminars. Training was provided to 251 

61 Marine Corps officers, and two Coast Guard officers

Naval-Marine Corps Reserve Officer Basic and Refr

These two-week courses of instruction are offered once 

for Naval Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve lawye

Course serves as an introduction to military law for 

without significant active duty legal experience. T

Course is designed to provide an update in recent dev

military law for lawyers who previously served on ex

duty as judge advocates, or who have previously 

Reserve Officer Basic Course. Training was provided 

Reserve lawyers and six Marine Corps Reserve lawyer

Court Reporter Reserve Course. This two-week course 

is offered once each summer for enlisted personnel i

reserve who are in an in-training status for the legalm

course is broken down into two phases, only one phas

by a person during a single tour of active duty for train

an introduction to legal-clerk matters and a brief in

court reporting equipment. Phase II is advance trai

matters as legal assistance, claims and use of court re

ment. Training was provided to 17 students in Phase I a

in Phase II. 

Senior Officer Course. Twenty-nine one-week classes 

ed during the year, reaching a total of 1,730 students. 

210 students trained in the six classes which were 

Newport, Rhode Island. The others were presented in 

Florida; Charleston, South Carolina; Norfolk, Virgi

Island and Bremerton, Washington; San Francisco an

California; Camp Pendleton, California; Rota, Spain; 
Legal Clerk Course. Five three and one-half week 

conducted during the year. This course is designed to t

personnel to serve as legal yeoman or legal clerks at the

commands. Graduation from this course, and from t

Court Reporter Course, is required for conversion to leg

Navy. Training was provided to 224 Navy personnel a

Guard personnel. 

Court Reporter Course. Four five-and-one-half-week 

presented during fiscal year 1981. The purpose of this 

train enlisted personnel in the field of closed-mask cou

Training was provided to 81 Navy personnel, 25 Arm

and 12 Coast Guard personnel. 

In addition to those formal courses of instruction liste

Naval Justice School also presented nearly 336 lectu

instruction in the areas of search and seizure, con

admissions, nonjudicial punishment, investigations, ad

discharges, and command relations with civil authorit

students at the Surface Warfare Officers School, Chapl

Officer Indoctrination School, Naval War College, and N

my Preparatory School in Newport, Rhode Island, and 

Submarine School in New London, Connecticut. 

Ethics. Action was taken to maintain high ethical s

counsel and judges who participate in courts-martial. 

cates, prior to commencing lawyer duties, received instr

Naval Justice School on the ABA Code of Professional R

and Canons of Judicial Ethics, and the ABA Stand

Administration of Criminal Justice. The JAG Ethics Co

established by section 0141, Manual of the Judge Advoc

to consider ethical questions and make appropriate r

tions to the Judge Advocate General. It is comprised of t

Judge Advocate General (Civil Law); the Assistant Jud

General (Military Law); the Assistant Judge Advocate G

tary Personnel and Management); a representative of t

dant of the Marine Corps; and the Executive Assistant 

Advocate General, who acts as recorder. None of the ma

32 
PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS 

GENERAL 438 409 29 

BCD SPECIAL 3585 3585 

NON-BCD SPE CIAL 5633 5288 345 

SUMMARY 7747 7459 288 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/OECREASE (-lOVER LAST REPORT 

PART 2 - DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COUATS-MARTIAL leA LEVEL) 

NUMBEAO~~~~?~A~A~B~L=E~D~IS=C~H~A~A~G~E~S______________1-____~rr------1:::

____NUMBEROFBAO~~~U=C~T~D~I~SC~H~A~A~G~E~S~______________~----__________ 

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PEAIOD 

PART 5 - APPELLATE COUNSEL REOUESTS BEFORE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COU

REVIEW 

NUMBER -+--'~n~~Il--%-----jl::.. '.:... :.::>:.:>.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.:.:.:::: ...::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::-:..... ---~ '::: ...... :::::::::::::::::::::.:.:.... . PERCENTAGE :::::'::::::::::::::::{.,,"::::=:;;;;;;:::

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

PERCENTAGE OF COMR REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCMA 

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

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 

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

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTEO OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY COMR 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/OECREASE (-) OVER THE NUMBER OF CASES REVIEWED DURING 

LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

PAGEIOF2 
SPEC1AL COU 

PART 9 - COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS ====",,1==""1.. 24~===",1,,,,::;;,;:::::""::",,,,: .. ;;,;'.""... "" ...===="""':;,

PART 10 - STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTV STRENGTH 

PAGE 20F 2 

34 
In compliance with the requirements of Article 6(a), U

of Military Justice (UCMJ), Major General Thomas B. 

Judge Advocate General, and Major General James Ta

Assistant Judge Advocate General, made official staff v

offices in the United States and overseas. They also a

participated in various bar association meetings an

numerous civil, professional, and military organizations

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS AND 

US AIR FORCE JUDICIARY ACTIVITIES 

During fiscal year 1981, the Judiciary Directorate of 

The Judge Advocate General processed over 2,419 actio

military justice. The Directorate has the overall resp

supervising the administration of military justice thr

United States Air Force from the trial level through t

review process, under the provisions of the Manual 

Martial 1969 (Rev.) and the UCMJ. In addition, the Dir

the staff responsibility for the Office of The Judge Advo

in all Air Force military justice matters which arise in 

with programs, special projects, studies and inquiries g

the Air Staff; Headquarters USAF; the Secretaries, Dep

Defense, Army, Navy, and Air Force; members of Co

other interested federal, state and civil agencies. Some 

torate's activities are discussed below. 

a. The Judiciary Directorate also serves as the actio

the review of military justice issues in applications subm

Board for Correction of Military Records. There were 

opinions provided the Secretary of the Air Force conc

applications. 

b. The Directorate also received 1,266 inquiries in s

requiring either formal written replies or telephonic rep

executive officials, including the President, or to mem

gress. 
aspects of military justice administration, as require

and other governmental agencies, and for internal 

purposes. 

During fiscal year 1981, the system produced app

standard reports on a monthly basis and an additiona

a quarterly basis. The system was also used to ans

individual requests for particular statistical informati

cial requests were received from such activities as 

Accounting Office, the Senate Armed Services Commi

Security Police and the Air Force Military Personnel 

The conversion of AMJAMS to the Honeywell H-6

took place on 1 January 1981. Earlier difficulties re

gramming errors have been overcome. The conversio

plete, with only minor programming difficulties rema

Trial Judiciary 

The Air Force Trial Judiciary had an average of 31 

judges assigned at 10 locations. The program for joint 

trial judges between the Army and Air Force in Alask

ed to Hawaii and continued with substantial savin

similar program with the Navy in Iceland also contin

Circuit Trial Counsel Program 

The 21 circuit trial counsel stationed at nine locatio

seven judicial circuits worldwide continued a busy sch

ecuting general courts-martial and selected special cou

1979, circuit trial counsel tried 229 general courts (95 

total) and 292 special courts (27 percent of the total). 

tried 345 general courts (92 percent of the total) an

courts (17 percent of the total). In 1981, they tried 90 

general courts and about 16 percent of all special cou

A recent survey of base staffjudge advocates throug

showed that circuit trial counsel continue to provid

36 
tion Squadron, Lowry Air Force Base, has been increased 

and now serves a population of approximately one hu

operation continues its long-time record of successful

over fifty per cent of those who enter the program 

regular service. 

PREVENTIVE LAW AND LEGAL ASSISTANCE PROG

In 1981, Air Force attorneys provided legal assistance 

cases. The number of clients served was 473,864. In numb

served, the Legal Assistance Program is by far the la

Departmental activities. The importance of this program 

the premise that a service member whose concern abo

civil legal problems has been alleviated is much more 

perform those military duties essential to mission acco

The Preventive Law Program complements other Depart

ties by stressing, through educational means, the im

problem avoidance rather than mere problem solving. 

discipline is much improved when people understand th

more than orders backed by threats, and that they have 

mold their personal legal relationships. These progra

another example of the efforts being made to further the 

ment of the Air Force mission. 

EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

During fiscal year 1981, The Judge Advocate Gener

ment provided many continuing legal and general educ

tunities to its personnel. 

The Air Force Judge Advocate General's School 

The Air Force Judge Advocate General's School, Air 

Maxwell AFB, Alabama, taught the following resident c

a. The Judge Advocate Staff Officer Course-This 
ed once during fiscal year 1981 and 40 Air Force NCO 

cians were graduated. The Department's enlisted perso

their basic paralegal training at.a special legal technicia

Keesler AFB, Mississippi. Twelve sessions of the course 

fiscal year 1981, and 170 students were graduated. 

e. The Claims and Tort Litigation Course-During fisc

this course was held twice. A total of 54 judge advocate

attorneys, 44 NCOs and 16 civilian paralegals attended. 

f. The Federal Labor Relations and Equal Opportun

Two sessions of this course were held in fiscal year 19

attended by 92 judge advocates and 8 civilian attorneys 

the Department. 

g. Military Judges Seminar-This is a joint services 

once a year. In fiscal year 1981, 24 Air Force military ju

judges from the other Armed Services attended. 

Professional Military Training 

During fiscal year 1981, five judge advocates atten

Command and Staff College, and two attended the Air 

at Maxwell AFB, Alabama. Two officers attended the A

Staff College, and one attended the N ational War Colle

Short Courses at Civilian Universities 

a. Prosecuting Attorney's Course at Northwestern 

Twenty-five judge advocates attended this five-day cou

year 1981. 

b. Defense Attorney's Course at Northwestern Unive

ty-five judge advocates attended this five-day course i

1981. 

c. National College of State Trial Judges at the U

Nevada-Twelve judge advocates and one senior NC

courses at the college during fiscal year 1981. 

38 
g y

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION SEMINARS USING VI

These seminar programs, specifically developed for CLE

current course of study on subjects of special interest to 

ment. Written study and reference materials accompan

gram. They are the most widely available source of 

mandatory state CLE programs, since the seminars are c

Air Force bases around the world. Reserve judge advocate

advocates of the Army and Navy have also participated

now available and the number of credit hours availa

follows: 

Law of Federal Labor/Management Relations ....................................

Government Lawyer and Professional Responsibility........................

Trial Techniques .........................................................................................

International Law-Conduct of Armed Conflict .................................

Federal Income Tax ..................................................................... .............

Supreme Court Trends in Criminal Law ..............................................

Appellate Commentary ............................................................................

Environmental Law ...................................................................................

Government Contract Law .......................................................................

Computer Assisted Legal Research.........................................................

Estate Planning ..........................................................................................

THE REPORTER, AFRP 110-2 

Interest in our law journal, the Reporter, continues to g

law schools are making it a part of their federal docum

tory program. Other subscribers include government ag

private and public libraries. Topics with special empha

included the powers of the President, military jurisdicti

base offenses, fraternization, and environmental law. The 

praised by government lawyers, both military and civi

extremely valuable communications media that shares s

procedures and lessons learned, promotes cross feed, and 
Chiefs of Staff, every uniformed service, the Court 

Appeals and the Armed Services Board of Contract A

numerous non-DOD users included the Office of th

Congress, U.S. courts, the Departments of Justice, Ene

International Trade Commission. 

PERSONNEL 

This department is authorized 9 generals, 110 colonels

ant colonels, 243 majors, and 623 captains. As of 30 Sep

there were 1,208 judge advocates on active duty (5 g

colonels, 180 lieutenant colonels, 207 majors, and 714 c

40 
NON-BCD SPECIAL 

1 063 

951 112 

SUMMARY 52 31 21 

oveRALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/OECREASE I-lOVER LAST REPOAl 

GENERAL 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE I-lOVER NUMBER OF CASES 

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

PART 5· APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

REVIEW 

PART 2· DISCHARGES APPROVED 

COU

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

PERCENTAGE OF COMA REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCMA 386/677 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/OECREASE I-lOVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 57/397 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECAEASE I-lOVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY COMR 57/677 

RATE OF INCREASE {+)/DECREASE (-) OVER THE NUMBER OF CASES REVIEWED DURING 

LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

PAGE]OF2 
PART 9 - COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS I 46 

PART 10 - STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE OUT'y STRENGTH 

PAGE20F2 

42 
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 


(U.S. COAST GUARD) 


October 1, 1980 to September 30, 1981 

The table below shows the number of courts-ma

received and filed at Coast Guard Headquarters during 

the five preceding years. 

Fiscal Year 81 80 79 78 

General Courts-Martial ............................. 2 3 2 3 

Special Courts-Martial .............................. 58 67 47 58 

Summary Courts-Martial .......................... 192 169 122 180 

Total .................................................. 252 239 171 241 2

COURTS-MARTIAL 

Counsel and military judges are detailed to all sp

martial. For most cases, the presiding judge was t

general courts-martial judge. When he was unavailab

judges with other primary duties were utilized. Control 

of judges is centrally exercised, and all requirements ha

in a timely fashion. 

General Courts-Martial 

Charges referred to the two general courts-martial c

year included specifications alleging violations of Artic

125, 128, and 134 (none involved marijuana or othe

drugs). Neither accused requested trial by the military 

and one received a sentence which included a bad-condu
officers (pay grades E-4 through E-6). 

The following table shows the distribution of the 224 s

referred to special courts-martial. 

Violation of the UCMJ, Article 

80 (attempts) .....................................................................................................

85 and 86 (desertion and UA) ........................................................................

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

89 (disrespect toward superior commissioned officer) .............................

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

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

107 (false official statement) ..........................................................................

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

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

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

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

134 (miscellaneous) .........................................................................................

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

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

Other offenses ..................................................................................................

The following is a breakdown of sentences awarded by 

judge alone in special courts-martial (22 convictions). 

Sentence 

Bad-conduct discharge....................................................................................

Confinement at hard labor (one maximum) ..............................................

Hard labor without confinement .................................................................

Reduction in rate ............................................................................................

Restriction ................................................................................................. .......

Forfeiture of pay ($11,950 total) ...................................................................

Others................................................................................................................

In 11 of these 22 convictions, the accused pled guilty t

and specifications. 

44 
In 10 of these 33 convictions, the accused pled guilty to 

and specifications. 

The following indicates the three sentences impos

special courts-martial in the past three fiscal years. 

Number of 

FY Convictions Forfeitures Confinement 

81 

80 

79 

55 

64 

42 

41 (75%) 

45(70%) 

30(71%) 

34 (62%) 

37 (58%) 

24 (57%) 

Average % for 3 yrs: 72% 59% 

Summation 

One of the two general courts-martial, both with m

judged a sentence which included a bad-conduct discha

eight percent of the accused tried by special court-martia

by military judge alone, and one-half of them pled g

charges and specifications. Twenty-eight percent of the a

by special court-martial with members pled guilty to all 

specifications. Only two of the five bad-conduct discharg

this fiscal year were approved by the convening and 

authorities. The five percent increase in total courts-

fiscal year is attributed to the increase in summary cou

since the others remained about the same. 

CHIEF COUNSEL ACTION UNDER ARTICLE 69, U

In addition to the required reviews of courts-martial c

a result of petitions filed by accused under Article 69

review is conducted under Article 69 of all courts-martia

ing appellate review. Six Article 69 actions were taken a
One hundred and twenty

two are serving in a legal cap

are serving in general duty billets. The junior law specia

at district offices perform most trial and defense coun

Senior law specialists, most serving as district legal offic

as military judges when required. 

The Sixth Coast Guard Basic Law Specialist Course w

Coast Guard Reserve Training Center, Yorktown, Virgi

September 1981 through 13 November 1981. The eight-

introduced both the direct commissioned lawyers and 

officers, just completing law school, to the many duties 

soon perform as Coast Guard law specialists. One-half o

was devoted to military justice. Nonjudicial punishme

tion, professional responsibility and ethics, court 

trial/defense counsel duties, and the Articles of the Co

quently litigated were some of the areas covered. Each 

given an opportunity to demonstrate recently acquire

and skills in moot courts. 

DATA GATHERING METHODS 

Military justice statistics have been in the past pr

tabulated almost entirely by hand. As such, some 

inevitable, especially in accumulating the data on nonj

ishment (NJP). While the figures for courts-martial we

only by personnel in the Office ofthe Chief Counsel from 

of trial, the NJP figures were tabulated from the da

Guard Form CG-4910s submitted by every unit in the C

which were sometimes completed by individuals unfa

military justice matters. The Form CG-4910 is a recor

ment promulgated pursuant to paragraph 133c, Manua

Martial, and has been used to inform commanding office

duct at their units. The large majority of errors in the N

can probably be attributed to incorrectly completed Form 

principally where several Form CG-4910s were used 

46 
p

g

er should produce more accurate data. Only the NJP st

supplied by the JUMPS computer for this report. This ne

data gathering explains the reduction in NJP figures ov

as reported in Part 11 of Appendix A. Because of the a

errors, a rate of increase or decrease was not calculated 

the future almost this entire report will be written 

furnished by this system. 

ADDITIONAL MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Appendix A contains additional basic military justice 

the reporting period and reflects the increase/decrease 

load in various categories. 

JOHN M. FOWLER 

General Counsel 


Department of Tran
OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)!DECREASE 1-) OVER LAST REPORT 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREAse (-) OVER NUMBER OF CASES 

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

PART 5 - APPELLATE COUNSEL REOUESTS BEFORE CXlAST GUARD COUR

REVIEW 

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

PERCENTAGE OF COMA REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCMA 

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

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 

PERCENTAGE Of INCREASE (+'/OECREASE 1-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY COMR 

RATE OF INCREASE (+,/DECREASE (-, OVER THE NUMBER OF CASES REVIEWED DURING 

LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

PAGEl OF] 

48 
DENIED 6 

NO JURISDICTION 0 

WITHDRAWN 0 

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD I>i·:· ':': ....:.. :.:::::: 0 

PART 8· ORGANIZATION OF COURT 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGe AI..ONE 

GENERAL COURTS·MARTIAL 0 

SPECIAL COURTS MARTIAL 22 

TRIALS BY MILITARY' JUOGe WITH MEMBERS 

GENERAL COURTS MARTIAL 2 

SPECIAL COURTS MARTIAL 36 

PART 9· COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS I 8 

PART 10· STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 39,602 

PART 11 . NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUOICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 1,635 

RATE PER 1,000 50.68 RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE I-loveR PREVIOUS PERIOD See footnote 3 

PAGE ]OF] 

1

A convening authority withdrew all charges from one trial before 

2Fran 0 to 2. 

~t calculated. See section entitled "DATA GATHLRING ME:I'HODS" o

*u.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 198