and the 

JUDGE ADVOCATES GEN

of the 

ARMED FORCES 

and the 

GENERAL COUNSEL 

of the 

DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPOR

PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JU

For the Period 


October 1, 1981-September 30, 

PROPERTY OF U.S. ARMY 

THE JUDGEADVOCATE GENERAL'S 

LIBRARY 

SENATE AND OF TH

HOUSE OF REPRESENTA

and to the 


SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

AND SECRETARY OF TRANSPOR

and the 


SECRETARIES OF THE DEPARTMENTS 

ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORCE 

PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUS

For the Period 


October 1, 1981-September 30, 19
REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

REPORT OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPAR

PORTATION (UNITED STATES COAST GUARD) 
and the 

JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL 


OF THE ARMED FORCES 


and the 

GENERAL COUNSEL 


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 


October 1, 1981 to September 30, 1982 

The Judges of the United States Court of Milita

Judge Advocates General of the Armed Forces, a

Counsel ofthe Department ofTransportation subm

Report on the operation of the Uniform Code of M

pursuant to 10 U.S.C. §867(g). 

The Code Committee, composed of the Judges 

States Court of Military Appeals, the Judge Adv

and the ChiefCounsel ofthe Coast Guard represent

Counsel ofthe Department ofTransportation, met 

sions during fiscal year 1982 to consider various p

improvement of the military justice system. The C

approved a recommendation submitted by the Join

mittee on Military Justice that 10 U.S.C. §866(a) 

authorize en bane reconsideration ofa previous dec

of the Court of Military Review concerned. A pro

extensively discussed and approved which was su

Joint-Service Committee suggesting that 10 U

amended to permit appeals by the Government. A

Code Committee recommended that the Manual for 
vices Commitee in September 1982. 

Separate reports of the U.S. Court of Military App

individual services address further items of special i

Committee on Armed Services of the U.S. Senate a

Representatives as well as the Secretaries of Defense

tion, Army, Navy, and Air Force. 

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. 

JAMES J. MCHUGH 

The Judge Advocate General, U.S. 

THOMAS B. BRUTON 

The Judge Advocate General, U.S. 

JOHN M. FOWLER 

General Counsel, Department of T
The Judges of the United States Court of Milit

mit their fiscal year 1982 report on the administra

and military justice to the Committees on Arme

United States Senate and House of Representativ

taries of Defense, Transportation, Army, Navy, 

accordance with Article 67(g), Uniform Code ofM

U.S.C. §867(g). 

THE BUSINESS OF THE COURT 

The rapid increase in the number of cases whic

and disposed of by the Court during the previou

continued into the fiscal year 1982 term. Durin

1982 term 2730 petitions for grant of review, ma

certificates, cross-petitions, and petitions for new 

with the Court. This was the highest number of s

the creation ofthe Court by Congress and represe

24 percent over fiscal year 1981 and an increase o

fiscal year 1980. In addition, the Court reviewed a

petitions for grant of review during fiscal year 19

increase in such review actions of 24 percent ove

and 52 percent over fiscal year 1980. The Court 

review in 180 ofthese cases (7 percent ofthe cases 

in 34 percent of these granted cases, the Court 

which were not raised by the appellant. On the 

mandatory appeals, certificates, and granted pe

disposed of 250 cases, a decrease of 30 percent ove

Approximately 67 percent ofthe Court's actions 

cases affirmed the decisions of the Courts of M

These cases were decided in 100 signed opinion

opinions, and 139 summary disposition orders. T

decrease in the number of final dispositions on t

was directly attributed to the reduction in the case
Court disposed of 49 extraordinary relief cases duri

year, issuing signed opinions in 5 cases and granti

nary relief in 2 cases. 

Reports from the Courts of Military Review indi

increase in the number of filings with the Court will 

the fiscal year 1983 term since the intermediate ap

have experienced an increase in their respective cas

inevitably results in an increase in the number offil

Court. 

In addition to its case review workload, the Court 

attorneys to practice before its Bar during the fiscal y

bringing the cumulative total of admissions before 

Court to 23,845. 

JUDICIAL VISITATIONS 

The visits ofthe Judges to military installations ha

to a better understanding ofthe Court's role in the m

system. In addition, the Court has attempted to main

ications with civilian organizations concerned with 

justice system. 

Chief Judge Everett participated in a number of 

civilian conferences relating to the military justice sy

ing the United States Air Force Conference, Homest

Base, Florida; a meeting of the Military Law Com

General Practice Section, American Bar Association

Illinois; the Third Annual JAGC Training Scho

Seminar, University of South Carolina Law Schoo

South Carolina; a conference of Military Judges at 

Force Base, Alabama; a meeting ofthe Kiwanis Clu

North Carolina; a meeting ofthe Courts ofMilitary R

at Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, D.C.; the Na

Judge Advocates Conference, Reston, Virginia; and 

the Judge Advocates Association in San Francisco, 

addition, ChiefJudge Everett accepted invitations to 

4 
The visits and speeches of the Judges have pr

change of ideas which have benefited both the 

military community in general. 

TRIBUTE TO SENIOR JUDGE HOMER FERGU

The Court regrets to inform the Congress tha

Homer Ferguson passed away on December 17, 19

appointment to the Court, Judge Ferguson serve

States Senate and was the United States Amb

Republic ofthe Philippines. The loss ofJudge Fer

an emptiness in the Court's history which will oe 

come. His legacy to the Court includes his num

which gave a breath oflife to the military justice sy

formative years, and his ability to comprehend 

spirit of that system. This legacy will continue to 

its resolution of issues which it will confront in fu

APPElLATE ADVOCACY CONFERENCE 

The Court, in conjunction with the Military La

sponsored the Homer Ferguson Conference on A

cacy each year since 1976. This conference is name

late Senior Judge Ferguson and is a tribute to th

Judge Ferguson left to the Court. On May 25-26,19

Annual Conference was held at George Washing

As in prior years, this year's conference was d

military and civilian practitioners an opportunity 

maintain the skills necessary for practice before 

and was certified for credit to meet the continuing 

requirements of various State Bars. This year's sp

Honorable Tim Murphy, Judge, Superior Court o

1Although Senior Judge Ferguson passed away after the exp

year 1982 term, the Court felt that the Congress should be info

opportunity. 
Corps; Mr. Andrew S. Effron, Assistant General Co

ment of Defense; Mr. William H. Hogan, Jr., Ge

House Armed Services Committee; Mr. Anthony J. P

sel, Senate Armed Services Committee; Professor 

University ofNorth Carolina School ofLaw; Rear A

Jenkins, Judge Advocate General, United State

Admiral Edwin H. Daniels, Chief Counsel, United 

Guard; Professor Paul F. Rothstein, Georgetown U

Center; General Lew Allen, Jr., Chief of Staff ofthe 

Air Force; Colonel Walter L. Lewis, United States A

and the Judges and staff of the Court. Numerous u

civilian la wyers involved in practicing before military 

as the Judges of the Courts of Military Review and oth

commentators in the field of military justice were in 

the conference. 

USCMA MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTE

The project to convert the Court's docketing syst

electronic computerized system which was begun 

1981 was completed in fiscal year 1982. As a result 

tion of this project, the Court has been able to main

docket without the addition of authorized personne

the number of case filings has been increasing dra

ing the past two years. In addition, the Judges and s

now have instantaneous access to all of the Cou

records and are experiencing a significant reducti

needed to acquire case docketing data during each 

2 Judge Friedman is now a Circuit Judge of the United States 

Federal Circuit. 

6 
v. Ginyard,U.S.C.M.A. 512, 37 C.M.R.132 (1967), an

States v. Clardy, 13 M.J. 308 (C.M.A.1982), that mili

was not terminated by the discharge. 

Addressing the question of jurisdiction to try a 

Army National Guard, the Court observed in Unite

13 M.J. 132 (C.M.A. 1982), that the retention of a n

man was not authorized unless the state authoriti

such retention. However, the Court further noted 

authorities consented to the member's initial call 

they must be deemed to have consented to his exte

to statutes and regulations then in effect. Thus, the 

where the United States Army had taken sufficien

court-martial jurisdiction attached prior to the ex

accused's term of active duty, his retention beyon

consistent with the consent of the state authoritie

Article 31 and the Right to Remain Silent 

The Court refused to extend the protection ofArt

Code of Military Justice, to shield an accused fro

conduct resulting from the manner in which he 

tions that were asked by a commissioned officer_ 

the Court held in United States v. Lewis, 12 M.J. 20

that while a statement was inadmissible as evid

preexisting offense where the accused was a susp

advised of his Article 31 rights prior to respon

questions, Article 31 did not bar such responses fro

ted into evidence at a court-martial for the purpose 

the offense of disrespect to a superior commission

the disrespectful conduct was a distinct and sepa

3 This section of the Court's Annual Report is prepared soley 

tool by the staffofthe Court. Itis included for the convenience o

in easily locating cases of particular interest during the term. T

are no precedential value and should not be cited in briefs filed 
was advised of his rights and formally waived them 

second confession. 

Noting that a plea of guilty waived only the righ

incrimination as to the offense for which the accused 

Court held in United States v. Nichols, 13 M.J. 154 (

that the military judge erred to the prejudice of th

implying that the accused should explain the offe

records pertaining to punishment imposed pursuant 

UCMJ. 

Arrest and Apprehension 

Distinguishing Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 5

Court held in United States v. Phinizy, 12 M.J. 40 (

that the arrest of the accused in a military barracks 

without a formal warrant. The Court emphasized 

that the police official's action was reasonable be

ample cause to believe that the accused had distribu

had marked money in his possession. As the record 

strated that the official had reason to believe that th

involved in an on·going drug operation, the Court fur

that the immediate arrest ofthe accused was necessa

the marked money as evidence. Thus, the Court hel

was inapplicable to the exigent circumstances whi

the police officer involved in Phinizy. 

The question of whether mere obedience to milita

stitutes an arrest or custodial interrogation was add

Court in United States v. Sanford, 12 M.J. 170 (

Noting that a service member was not free to igno

commands of his superior, the Court held that an ord

the battery commander's office could not be objectiv

by itself, as a seizure for law enforcement purposes 

realities ofmilitary life. Thus, the Court held that cer

seized shortly after this order was not tainted as ther

seizure of the accused when he complied with the or

8 
judge's ruling that the evidence derived from this s

theless admissible because exigent circumstanc

immediate search of the accused's wall locker sin

the search-a matchbox, its contents, and certain m

could easily be concealed or destroyed in view ofth

accused's roommate. In United .States v. Sanfo

(C.M.A. 1981), the Court held that .the contents of 

seized from a third party were admissible where 

transferred the leather pouch to the'third party u

circumstances constituting a precipitous bailment 

realistically provide any expectation that the 

remain private and secure. The Court further ob

accused assumed the risk that the third party w

contents of the pouch or give it to government off

tion. In United States v. Miller, 13 M.J. 75 (C.M.A. 

held that the accused had abandoned any legitima

privacy in the contents of his jacket by leaving it 

son's unattented, unsecured automobile. No violati

Amendment occurred when command officials sea

pursuant to the permission of the owner of the au

After examining civilian precedents and the re

the Military Rules of Evidence, the Court held in 

Morrison, 12 M.J. 272 (C.M.A. 1982), that the m

American officials during a search conducted by 

in a foreign country did not constitute participatio

can officials in the foreign search. The Court e

there was no longer any need for the contrary p

which had been set forth in United States v. Jor

(C.M.A. 1976), and that since there were valid 

presence of American officials during such searc

their participation therein, each case must be ex

mine whether or not the presence ofAmerican offi

a scheme to evade the Fourth Amendment. 

The question of whether the Court would adop
wtbotte aea ad te pupose osucspecto

the Court held that the search and seizure of some 

which were wrapped in a piece of paper located in t

jacket hanging in his wall locker were inconsistent wi

tion for the purpose of ensuring that no members of 

unit had any type of ammunition or other danger

Holding the seizure was illegal, the Court noted that a

for this purpose would not lead the person conductin

tion into a folded piece of paper. 

Pretrial Confinement 

In United States u. Burrell, 13 M.J. 437 (C.M.A

accused was "restricted" to a hospital, except when e

he was injured in the incident which led to charges be

against him. When his condition improved sufficien

release from the hospital, he was promptly incarcer

trial. The Court held that, for speedy trial purposes, th

of restriction to the hospital were not such as to c

equivalent of arrest or confinement. 

Treaties, International Agreements and Individual Rights 

In United States u. Stokes, 12 M.J. 229 (C.M.A. 198

examined the Treaty of Friendship and Coopera

Spain and the United States and held that the dou

guarantees set forth therein were binding in the court

of an American serviceman. However, the Court furt

this treaty did not bar the accused's court-martial o

wrongful sale and conspiracy to sell hashish even th

previously been convicted and fined by the Spanish 

Court for a customs offense as a result of the poss

hashish. The Court ruled in this regard that a proc

Spanish Contraband Court was not a criminal tria

meaning of the treaty provision which prohibited cr

10 
individual right. Thus, the Court rejected a defen

any evidence obtained in a manner contrary to 

the agreement could not be introduced as evid

martial. Similar arguments were rejected in Unit

ris, 12 M.J. 262 (C.M.A.1982), and United States v

331 (C.M.A. 1982), as to the applicability of a r

United States Army implementing the same agr

I" 

I 

\ 

Documentary Evidence and Military Records \ 

Citing its earlier decision in United States v. V

(C.M.A. 1980), the Court held in United States v. P

(C.M.A. 1981), that a laboratory report identifyin

marijuana could be properly admitted into evid

testimony of a person who worked at the labora

that judicial notice could be taken ofthe normal b

laboratory. 

Noting the requirements of paragraph 75b(2), M

Martial, 1969 (Revised edition), the Court held in 

Krewson, 12 M.J. 157 (C.M.A. 1981), that a rec

conviction was inadmissible as evidence becaus

and because the civilian offense postdated the of

by court-martial. The Court also held in United S

M.J. 64 (C.M.A. 1982), that military personnel 

admissible during the sentencing hearing unles

tained in accordance with applicable service reg

Extraordinary Relief 

In denying a petition for extraordinary relie

Haebel, 12 M.J. 27 (C.M.A. 1981), the Court o

accused had failed to show a clear abuse of d

convening authority when the latter rejected 

request for deferment of his sentence to confinem

the Government had the right to file an orig
became aware of the accused's misunderstanding 

ment; and that the Government accepted the b

accused's performance of the agreement. 

Military Practice and Procedure 

The question as to appellate defense counsel's re

regarding issues raised by an accused was answe

States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), whe

held that unless the accused consented to a with

abandonment of such issues, the appellate counsel 

them or invite the appellate court's attention to them

that issues raised by an accused may be frivolo

observed that a counsel should not be criticized for co

such a procedure. 

Noting the distinction between the enforcement ju

the prescriptive jurisdiction ofthe United States, the 

United States v. Bennett, 12 M.J. 463 (C.M.A. 1982), 

Statescitizen located in the United States could not b

to testify before a general court-martial conducted 

country. 

In United States v. Warren, 13 M.J. 278 (C.M.A.19

held that an accused's false testimony during his 

may be considered by the sentencing authority as to 

potential for rehabilitation. However, the Court e

United States v. Cabebe, 13 M.J. 303 (C.M.A. 19

testimony could not be used as a basis for additiona

since any punishing for perjury should be determin

rate prosecution for that offense. 

The issue ofwhether the defense ofinsanity should 

other than a full defense to the charged offense was 

the Court in United States v. Cortes-Crespo, 13 M.

1982). The Court held. that because the defense was 

the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manu

Martial, any modification must be made by the Con

12 
to expand the required providency inquiry to obli

to ascertain and explain, on his own motion, the 

quences of a conviction by a court-martial. In 

Cook, 12 M.J. 448 (C.M.A. 1982), the Court found n

an accused where charges which had been previo

from a court-martial pursuant to a pretrial agreem

quently reinstated after the accused's plea of gu

aside as improvident upon appellate review. Ho

noted that such a subsequent prosecution may be 

be basically unfair to an accused because ofthe lo

a finding of prosecutional vindictiveness.. _ 

In United States v. Bethke, 13 M.J. 71 (C.M.A. 

held that a trial judge erred by implying that 

entered a pretrial agreement for a limitation of a

tence was risking the loss of the bargained-for l

sentence by persisting in pre-plea motions to supp

United States v. Pretlow, 13 M.J. 85 (C.M.A. 1982), 

with the intermediate appellate court that the a

guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery was impro

military judge failed to explain to the accused any 

of robbery. 

ROBINSO

Chief Jud

WILLIAM 

Judge 

ALBERT B

Judge 
TOTAL................................. 630 


CUMULATIVE FIUNGS 

Master Docket 

Appeals filed ......................... 1 

Certificates filed ...................... 16 

Reconsiderations granted ............... 2 

Petition Docket 

Petitions for grant filed ................. 2,702 

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

Petitions for new trial filed .............. 3 

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

TOTAL ................................. 2,782 


CUMULATIVE TERMINATIONS 

Master Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 

Petition Docket ........................... 2,568 

Miscellaneous Docket ...................... -----.A9. 

TOTAL ................................. 2,867 


CUMULATIVE END PENDING 

Master Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 

Petition Docket ........................... 570 

Miscellaneous Docket ..................... ---.1Q 

TOTAL 725 

OPINION SUMMARY 

CATEGORY SIGNED PER CURIAM 

Master Docket .............. 100 11 

Petition Docket .............. 0 0 

Miscellaneous Docket ........ 5 0 

MEM/O

13

2,56

4

TOTAL .................... 105 11 2,75

14 
TOTAL ........................... . 250 TOT

PENDING (MASTER DOCKET) 


Assigned Opinions pending ........... 49 


Judges' conference pending

Final briefs pending .............. .(\ . ~ 

. . . . . . . . . . . . 2 


Oral argument pending ..... . . . . . . . . . . 38 


Preargument conference pending ....... 16 


Calendar committee pending ........ ;. 19 


TOTAL ........................•.. ·, 145 


FILINGS (PETITION DOCKET) 


Petitions for grant of review filed ....... 2,702 '-..- ~ 

Petitions for grant/new trial filed 3 


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


TOTAL ............................ 2,711 


TERMINATIONS (PETITION DOCKET) 


Petitions for grant dismissed . . . . . . . . . . . 34 


Petitions for grant denied ............. 2,321 


Petitions for grant granted ............ 180 Sign

Petitions for grant remanded .......... 20 Per 

Petitions for grant withdrawn .......... ~ Mem

TOTAL ............................ 2,568 TOT

PENDING (PETITION DOCKET) 


Petition briefs pending ............... 366 


Staff attorney action pending 

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

.......... 139 


TOTAL............................ 570 


'In 34 percent of these cases, the Court specified issues which were not raised by 
Petitions dismissed .................. ~ Mem/or

TOTAL ........................... . 49 TOTAL 

PENDING (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET) 

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

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

Show cause action by Court pending .... 0 

Show cause response pending .. . . . . . . . . 0 

Other final action pending ............ -1Q 

TOTAL............................ 10 


RECONSIDERATIONS &REHEARINGS 

CATEGORY FILINGS PENDING DISP

Granted 

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

Petition Docket .............. 15 6 4 

Miscellaneous Docket ......... 2 0 0 

TOTAL ................ 19 6 4 

MOTIONS ACTIVITY 

BEGIN END 

CATEGORY PENDING FILINGS PENDING DIS

Granted 

All motions 69 873 100 679 

16 
assumed the duties of Commander, U.S. Army 

Agency and Chief Judge, U.S. Army Court of Mil

During fiscal year 1982 the Office of The Judge 

eral continued to monitor the proceedings of co

review and prepare military justice publications 

and to develop draft legislative changes for the U

/

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 


AND U.S. ARMY JUDICIARY ACTIVITIES 

During fiscal year 1982, the court-martial rates 

wide decrease in the number of courts-martial. The 

persons tried by all types of courts-martial in fis

5.6% lower than the year before. This overall d

primarily a 41.2% decrease in special courts-mar

ered to adjudge a bad conduct discharge and a 

summary courts-martial. As in previous years, ther

in the number of general courts-martial and the n

courts-martial empowered to adjudge a bad conduc

overall conviction rate for fiscal year 1982 was 9

slight rise from the 91% conviction rate for the tw

years. 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY, FISCAL YEAR 1

(see table insert attached) 

THE U.S. ARMY JUDICIARY 

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

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

Review, the Clerk of Court, the Examinations a

Division, and the Trial Judiciary. 

The U.S. Army Legal Services Agency also inclu

ment Appellate Division, the Defense Appellate Di
During fiscal year 1982 the United States Army 

Service continued to develop its deployment capabi

gration ofthe reserve components into mission perfo

Defense Service counsel deployed to the Sinai in s

Multi-National Force and Observers, to USAREUR 

REFORGER, and to Korea. Twenty-seven reserve de

teams trained with active Army defense counsel 

administrative law and nonjudicial matters and ser

sel before courts-martial. 

SIGNIFICANT MILITARY JUSTICE ACTIONS 

Actions involving military justice handled by the C

Division, OTJAG, included evaluating and draftin

Executive Orders, pamphlets, and regulations imp

operation ofthe Army and the Department ofDefens

the administration of military justice, including eva

going major projects; rendering opinions for the Ar

reviewing various aspects of criminal cases for action 

Secretariat and staff. 

REVISION OF MILITARY JUSTICE REGULATION 

A revision of Army Regulation 27-)0, Military 

published September 1,1982, with an effective date o

1982. The revision incorporates some 21 permanent 

numerous interim changes to the 1968 edition. In

revision are major changes in the administration o

punishment and the filing ofthese records in the ser

personnel files. 

JOINT SERVICE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY JUST

The Joint Service Committee on Military Justic

lished by the Judge Advocates General and the Gener

18 
y 

amending Articles 25, 26, 27, and 29 to modify 

ments that the convening authority personally 

court members and personally detail the military 

sel, and amending Article 62 to provide for appeal

ment ofcertain rulings by the military judge. Thes

approved by the Code Committee, and included 

previously prepared by the Department of Defen

tion was the subject of hearings before the Subcom

power and Personnel of the Senate Armed Servic

September 9 and 16,1982. 

Following the enactment ofthe Military Justice 

1981 in November 1981, the Joint Service Com

implementing changes to the Manual for Court

concerned the standards and procedures for actin

individual military counsel, treatment of post-tria

ice of decisions of the Courts of Military Review, 

the Judge Advocates General under Article 69. The

signed by the President on January 20,1982. 

The Joint Service Committee also prepared an 

paragraphs 127c, 213, and Appendix 6c of the Ma

Martial concerning pleadings, proof, and punish

band drug offenses. A draft ofthis proposal was m

comment by the public before submission to the P

ant to a policy adopted by the Department of Def

Reg. 3401 (Jan 25,1982). The amendment was sig

dent on September 23, 1982, and became effecti

1982. 

The Joint Service Committee continued its wo

hensive revision of the Manual for Courts-Marti

substantially completed by the end of the fiscal y

FOREIGN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION 

As executive agent for DOD and DA, OTJAG 
y jg

totaling 24,995 offenses, were concurrent jurisdic

involving alleged violations of both U.S. military la

law, over which the foreign country had the primary 

cise jurisdiction. U.S. military authorities obtaine

primary foreign jurisdiction in 21,521 of these in

world-wide waiver rate of 86.1 percent. 

Thus, during the current reporting period, foreig

reserved for their disposition a total of 41,586 offen

committed by military personnel. A total of39, 787 of

were relatively minor charges which were not pun

U.S. military law, and were therefore subject to the e

diction offoreign authorities. Itis significant to note 

the military offenses reserved for disposition by fo

ties, or 92.7 percent of the total offenses so reserv

traffic violations. 

A total of6,752 civilian employees and dependents 

with offenses subject to foreign jurisdiction. As civ

subject to trial by court-martial in peacetime, the 

effective jurisdiction over these offenses. Nonethe

authorities released 331 ofthese offenses, or 4.9 perce

to U.S. military authorities for administrative or othe

disposition. 

During the current reporting period, there were 

results oftrial (i.e., final acquittals and final convic

number, 382, or about .9 percent of the final results

tals. The vast majority of U.S. personnel who wer

43,187 or 98.2 percent-received only a sentence to 

mand. The remainder of the final results of trial co

suspended sentences to confinement and 171 unsu

tences to confinement. 

LITIGATION 

The following litigation involving the Army durin

1982 had impact upon military justice matters: In 

20 
(), 

, g

education to lawyers of the military services a

agencies. Thirty-seven resident courses were cond

students in attendance. Courses were attended b

Navy, 86 Marine, 150 Air Force, 34 Coast Guard, 3

Guard, 435 civilian, and 18 foreign students. 

During fiscal year 1982, two Basic Classes, th

were conducted. A total of 186 Army officers grad

The 30th Graduate Course, witJl an enrollmen

graduated on May 21, 1982. In addition to 60 A

cates, the class had five Marines, one Navy, an

officers in attendance. The 31st Graduate Course 

16, 1982. This class, larger than previous clas

Army, five Marines, one Navy, and three foreign o

major revision ofthe Graduate Course curriculum 

accomplished during fiscal year 1982. This new 

implemented with the 31st Graduate Course. The c

of its core subjects during the first two quarters 

jects during the last two quarters. 

During fiscal year 1982, TJAGSA continued t

officers with a legal orientation prior to their ass

mand. Sixteen general officers attended Gener

Orientation (GOLO) Courses, and 208 battalion a

mand designees attended five resident Senior Off

tation (SOLO) Courses. Additionally, 49 Army W

dents attended a special SOLO Course condu

Barracks, Pennsylvania, on April 19-22, 1982, and 

TJAGSA participated in 10 Pre-Command Cour

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, for battalion and br

designees. 

The Administrative and Civil Law Division exp

ance to the field in several areas. Seven continuing 

courses presented by the division included the Fed

tions Course, two presentations of the Legal As

the Claims Course, the Law Office Management 
astic response from the field has led to the preparat

additional All States Guides. The branch has also pr

tapes on powers of attorney, wills, and the Soldiers

Civil Relief Act for use in legal assistance waiting roo

clients for the interview with an attorney. To furthe

Army's legal assistance program, the governing r

been rewritten to maximize the program's value to o

soldier and his or her family. 

The Criminal Law Division sponsored six reside

legal education courses in fiscal year 1982. New De

Criminal Law was taught once, the three-week M

Course was presented twice and the Trial Advocac

presented three times. The advocacy courses combi

on new developments in criminal trial practice, s

videotaped workshops to improve and polish the exp

attorney's advocacy skills. The major portion of the

devoted to student-participation workshops and exe

the attorney's courtroom skills and their techniques 

Additionally, the division presented three nonresid

Germany for counsel assigned in that theater. These 

general criminal law seminars and one professional 

seminar. 

The Contract Law Division sponsored seven con

education courses covering areas from fiscal law t

ment's "contracting out" policies. The 1982 Governm

Law Symposium, January 11-15, 1982, featured re

posed changes affecting government contract law, p

the area ofdisputes, debarment and suspension ofco

labor standards. In addition to this instruction, the 

provided extensive resident training in governmen

to Reserve Component judge advocates and units. 

presented the Fiscal Law Course away from T J AGSA

Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana; Fort Benning, 

Fort Monroe, Virginia. 

The International Law Division sponsored th

22 
ponent judge advocates with international law 

were present atT J AGSA for their triennial trainin

rials and exercises were presented helping insure 

and reserve forces are prepared to provide timel

advice on military operations. 

During the period June 21-July 2, 1982, The 

General's School presented. Phase VI of the 

Officer Advanced Course to Reser~e Component 

VI involved instruction in contract law, claims, a

law. Concurrently, training was conducted for 

General's Service Organization units specializing 

law and contract law. Approximately 210 judge a

pated in this instruction. The 115th USAR Schoo

Jersey, acted as the host unit for administration 

The Reserve Components Technical (On-Site) T

was conducted at 42 different locations throug

States, including Hawaii and Puerto Rico, durin

1981-1982. More than 1,700 personnel attended th

sions, including 357 from the active and Reserv

the other services and 86 civilian attorneys. 

MAJOR PROJECTS 

On March 26,1982, the eleventh Kenneth J. H

Criminal Law was presented by Professor Pet

University of Michigan Law School. His topic 

Plea Bargaining." 

Professor Richard C. Wydick of the University 

Davis School ofLaw delivered the sixth Charles L

in Administrative and Civil Law on April 30, 19

"Lawyers: Let Thy Words Be Few." 

The Edward H. Young Lecture in Military Lega

presented by LTG Richard G. Trefry, The Inspect

Army, on September 2,1982. 

The School hosted the 1981 Worldwide JAG Con
Defense Technical Information Center. Articles of 

interest continued to be distributed to the field thr

Pam 27-100 series, Military Law Review, and the D

series, The Army Lawyer. 

The Combat Development Office provided JAGC 

the entire range of Army 86 studies with emphasis 

JAGC personnel in the next generation of the Ar

includes Heavy Division 86, Air Assault!Airborne 

High Technology Light Division, Corps Operation

tions in Echelons Above Corps. Studies continued on 

Air/Land Battle 2000. The revision of the JAG

Authorization Criteria (MACRIT), found in AR-570

The following publications were reviewed and revi

Wartime Strength Accounting; AR 310-25, Dictionar

Terms (partial review); FM 5-100, Engineer Comba

US Army Operational Concept for Civil Affairs. 

The Army Law Library Service (ALLS), operating 

of $1.2 million, provided legal publications to over 

One library was closed and two new libraries wer

Special emphasis was placed on expanding the le

available to several existing libraries and providi

resource material dealing with procurement law. 

The strength ofthe Reserve Components ofthe Ju

General's Corps remained constant at approximately 

out FY 1982. The Individual Mobilization Augmen

(formerly called Mobilization Designee or MOB DES

be administered by the TJAGSA Reserve Affairs Dep

number of positions available in thIS program incre

to 719 during 1982, and posItions continued to be f

advocates released from active duty, new accessions 

and officers transferring from Troop Program Units

PERSONNEL, PLANS, AND POLICIES 

With the inclusion of law students participating 

24 
sion, career status, and the Judge Advocate 

Course were selected, formal boards were con

Judge Advocate General's written instructions s

ing the year. 

Eighty judge advocate officers completed the f

u.s. Army War College .............. L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Industrial College of the Armed Forces .. '\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

U.S. Army Command and General Staff College... 

Armed Forces Staff College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

The Judge Advocate Officer Graduate Course .......•....

As a result of the Defense Officer Personnel M

(DOPMA), which became effective on Septembe

appointed JAG officers accessed for the October 1

were commissioned as first lieutenants. The J AG

competitive category, selects and promotes its 

JAGC grade vacancies as they occur. 

HUGHJ. CLAU

Major General, 

The Judge Adv
Nua,,".aEF OF DISHONORABLE DISCKARGES 463

:':~;::.,,":,.:::'.'=',R:....::O'-F..::."'A::.:O.:.:C::.:O:.:~::.:·O.:.::;"'CT=D-""'SC=.H"'A.::R:.:G.:.:E"'S"'--------+---.,InO"5::-4iT----

SPEc::~~,~~:T:;M.AA:T~~~DUC7 O'SCHARGES 1500 

CO

OVER Hill1BER OF 

PART 5· APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE ARMY 

REVIEW 

N U".'" 2M 31 I.·... :.·.:::.,.,'.·.,':'.','.'. ":':"::::\"'.'\ ,',',;.',',',',',',",,',',',',',,',}';;,;.;... . :.:.~:A':':C:::'':'~':::'T~~~G~E----i----'''-''-,9;''31-.-=-3-=%--1: ..... ":-:':':':':-:-:':';':"':':-:':':"':';':",:,:.:.:...::::::;.:.... . 

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

PE~CE!'\~.t:..C;!! OF.A.C·~R REVIEwED CA.SES FOP:WAROEOTO USCMA 

DeCREASE I_lOVER PREVIOUS A'!!PORTING ItERfOD 

DEeRcAS!! I-lOVER THE NUMeER OF CASES Ri;:VIEwEO DUAING 

;"~~~2-="~~":"I".'r-.;,G=O;,'''''.;;;'C;;;''~===================__=

26 

PART 9· COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NU"MBER OF COMPLAINTS REC'D BY OTJAGI 

PART 10· STRENGTH 

"AVERAGE ACTIVE OUTV STRENGTH 790,849 

PART 11 . NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15) 
pursuant to 

THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTIC

for 

FISCAL YEAR 1982 

Supervision of the Administration of Military Ju

Complying with the requirement ofArticle 6(a), U

Military Justice, the Judge Advocate General a

Judge Advocate General continued to visit comm

United States, Europe and the Far East in the sup

administration of military justice. 

Courts-Martial Workload. 

a. There has been a slight decrease in the total nu

martial during fiscal year 1982. (See Exhibit A, a

report.) It should be noted, however, that this decr

within the area of non-BCD special courts-martia

courts-martial and that there has been a 4 percent 

number ofBCD special courts-martial and a 25 per

the number of general courts-martial. 

b. During fiscal year 1982, the U. S. N a vy-Marine 

Military Review received for review 5,169 new 

cases, consisting of 552 general courts-martial an

courts-martial, as compared with 3,467 courts-mar

of328 general courts-martial and 3,139 special cou

ing fiscal year 1981. Of the 5,169 new cases receiv

Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review in f

5,052 accused requested counsel (98 percent). 

Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary. 

The Navy-Marine CorpsTrial Judiciary provided 

for 546 general courts-martial during fiscal year 19

28 
g y

During fiscal year 1982, military judges attende

courses/seminars: 

Three military judges attended the Criminal Evi

the National Judicial College, Reno, Nevada, du

11-16 October 1981. One military judge attended 

workshop at the Naval Justice School during the p

ary 1982. Ten military judges attepded the Eigh

Military Trial Judges' Seminar at Maxwell Air Fo

the period 5-9 April 1982. Five military judges at

eral Jurisdiction Course at the National Judicial 

during tile period 25 April-17 May 1982. Two 

attended the Criminal Evidence Course at Reno d

9-14 May 1982. Si~ military judges attended the M

Course at the Army Judge Advocate General's Scho

ville, Virginia, during the period 17 May-4 June 19

nine military judges attended the course durin

July-6 August 1982. One military judge attende

Evidence Course at Reno during the period 1-5 A

military judgein the TRANSATLANTIC Judicial 

Senior Officer's Course in Military Justice at the 

tion, Sigonella, Italy, on 3 and 4 March 1982. 

The ChiefJudge, N avy-Marine Corps Trial Judic

the administrative briefings at the Army Judge A

al's School, Charlottesville, Virginia, on 3 and 4 

again on 4 and 5 August 1982. The Chief Judg

several civilian judges as part of an official 1982 W

Advocacy Team during the period 14 March-9 Apr

took them to the circuits located at Pearl Harbor

Bay, Philippines; Okinawa, Japan, as well as Se

Seattle, Washington. The ChiefJudge also paid a 

the TIDEWATER, PIEDMONT, MIDSOUTH and 

Circuits during the period 10-19 August 1982. This 

get-acquainted trip that proved beneficial to the j

as the convening authorities in the areas visited. 
military judges have been assigned to the TIDEWA

WEST, ISLAND and TRANSATLANTIC Circ

increased caseloads. 

During this past fiscal year, the trial judiciary 

court over 18,000 hours, almost 2,000 more hours th

high of 16,215 in fiscal year 1981. 

The use oftrial teams which include a military jud

with greater freq uency during this period. Teams fr

ships across the Atlantic and return on the reliev

The same procedure is being utilized in Subic Ba

Indian Ocean on a trial basis. The trial teams in th

deploy for three months at a time and have met w

the line commanders. 

Naval Legal Service Command. 

The Naval Legal Service Command at presen

Naval Legal Service Offices and 18 Naval Legal 

Detachments, which are located in areas of nava

throughout the world. The total manpower strengt

for the Naval Legal Service Command includes 4

cates, 8 warrant officers, 182 legalmen, 18 yeomen

year 1982, 233 civilian employees (including 33 dir

nationals and seven indirect hire foreign national

advocates in the Naval Legal Service Command co

imately 44 percent of the Navy's total judge advoc

The Naval Legal Service Command has undergo

changes during the past year: 

a. The Naval Legal Service Office Detachmen

Florida, and New London, Connecticut, were di

1 October 1982, and immediately reestablished a

Service Office, Mayport, Florida, and Naval Lega

Groton, Connecticut. 

b. The Naval Legal Service Office Detachmen

was established on 1 October 1982. 

The Naval Legal Service Command under the 

30 
pp

operation of each ofthe various Naval Legal Ser

Detachments have shown that most line comman

upon the Naval Legal Service Command for supp

satisfied with the quality and timeliness of servic

Article 69, UCMJ, Petitions. a. The number o

pursuant to Article 69, Uniform Code of Militar

which the Judge Advocate General may vacat

findings or sentence of courts-martial which hav

the sense of Article 76, but have not been review

Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review, d

fiscal year 1982. 

b. In fiscal year 1982, 72 petitions were receiv

Advocate General. Ten petitions were pending fro

these 82 cases, 64 were reviewed during fiscal ye

petitions reviewed, 52 petitions were denied, w

granted, in whole or in part, in 12 of the petition

were returned for compliance with JAGMAN 0

were pending review at the close of fiscal year 19

c. In addition, in fiscal year 1982, 98 genera

cases, which were not statutorily eligible for auto

the U. S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Militar

reviewed by the Judge Advocate General. 

Article 73, UCMJ, Petitions. In fiscal year 1982, 

new trials were submitted and one petition was pen

year 1981 for review pursuant to Article 73, Unifo

itary Justice. All three petitions were denied. 

Article 74(b), UCMJ, Petitions. Nine new petit

ted requesting the substitution of an administrati

a punitive discharge awarded as part of a sen

martial. One case was pending from the prior fisca

petitions, one was granted and two were denied

were returned for procedural compliance. Three c

ing review. 
Career patterns and professional developme

Reserve, enlisted and civilian personnel 

Naval Justice School 

Flag billets and procurement potpourri 

Technology and information management 

Claims processing 

Military justice problems 

Budget fiscal management problems 

Law office management and leadership 

Service to the fleet 

Personnel matters 

Naval Justice School. 

The Naval Justice School, in Newport, Rhode 

teaching staff of fourteen officers and five enlisted 

sented the following courses of instruction in m

related administrative and civil law matters to 

students during fiscal year 1982. 

Lawyer Course. Five eight-week lawyer classes 

during the year. This course, designed to provide b

military justice and military administrative and c

to incoming Navy and Marine Corps lawyers, inclu

classroom instruction and 127 hours of practical e

ing moot courts and various trial advocacy prac

Training was provided to 139 Navy Lawyers and 4

lawyers. 

Legal Officer Course. Seven five-week classes 

during the year. This course is designed for nonlaw

ers about to assume duties as a legal officer for a 

other military unit with no military lawyer assig

the course curriculum are 150 classroom hours 

practical exercises and seminars. Training was 

Navy officers, 44 Marine Corps officers and thr

officers. 

Naval-Marine Corps Reserve Officer Basic 

32 
tion is offered once each summer for enlisted p

inactive reserve who are in an in-training status 

rate. The course is broken down into two phase

alternate years. Phase I is an introduction to leg

and a brief introduction to court reporting equipm

advance training on such matters as legal assista

use of court reporting equipment.iTraining was 

students in a specially constructed Phase II cour

Senior Officer Course. Thirty one-week classes 

during the year, reaching a total of 1,410 studen

143 students trained in the six classes which w

Newport. The others were presented in Jacksonv

Charleston, South Carolina (2); Norfolk, Virgin

Island and Bremerton, Washington; San Fran

Diego, California (2); Camp Pendleton, Califo

Italy; Pearl Harbor, Hawaii (2); Subic Bay, Philipp

Japan; Parris Island. South Carolina; Cherry Po

lina; Amphibious Warfare School, and Comman

lege, Quantico, Virginia; Naval Academy at Annap

and New London, Connecticut. This course is de

for commanding officers and executive officers, a

prepare these officers to handle the legal problem

by commanding and executive officers in the a

justice and administrative and civil law. Training 

officers as follows: 

Navy-818 


USMC-475 


USCG- 87 


USAF- 3 


USA - 19 


Others-8 


Legal Clerk Course. Five three-and-one-half w

conducted during the year. This course is designed 

personnel to serve as legal yeomen or legal clerk
admissions, nonjudicial punishment, investigatio

tive discharges, and command relations with civi

2,100 students at the Surface Warfare Officers Sch

School, Officer Indoctrination School, Senior Enl

Naval War College, and Naval Academy Prepar

Newport, Rhode Island, and at the Naval Subm

New London, Connecticut. 

Ethics. Action was taken to maintain high eth

for counsel and judges who participate in courts

advocates, prior to commencing lawyer duties, rece

at the Naval Justice School on the ABA Code 

Responsibility and Canons of Judicial Ethics, 

Standards for the Administration of Criminal Ju

Ethics Committee was established by section 0141

Judge Advocate General, to consider ethical ques

appropriate recommendations to the Judge Advoca

comprised of the Assistant Judge Advocate Gene

the Assistant Judge Advocate General (Military L

ant Judge Advocate General (Military Personne

ment); a representative of the Commandant of the 

and the Executive Assistant to the Judge Advoca

acts as recorder. None ofthe matters considered by 

Committee during fiscal year 1982 were found to co

cal conduct or malpractice by any service judge ad

34 
REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

PART 5· APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE C

REVIEW 

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

PERCENTAGE OF COMA REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCMA 

PEACENTAGE OF INCREASE (.'/DECREASE {-, OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (.)lDECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY COMA 

"ATE OF INCREASE (+)/OECREASE C-) OVER THE NUMBER OF CASES REVIEWEO DURING 

LAST AEPORTING PERIOO 

PAGE10F2 

NOTE; *Manual figures for 4th Quarter FY 82 (1 Sep - 30 Oct 82
TRIALS BY MILrTARV JUOGE ALONE 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

PART 9· COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 


NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS I 110 


PART 10· STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 

PAGE2QF2 

36 
In compliance with the requirements of Article 

Code of Military Justice (U.C.M.J), Major Gene

Bruton, The Judge Advocate General, and Major 

Taylor, Jr., Deputy Judge Advocate General, ma

visits to legal offices in the United States and over

attended and participated in various bar associatio

addressed many civil, professional, and military o

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS AND 

US AIR FORCE JUDICIARY ACTIVITIES 

During fiscal year 1982, the Judiciary Directorate 

The Judge Advocate General processed over 2769 

ing military justice. The Directorate has the overal

of supervising the administration of military just

the United States Air Force, from the trial level thr

late review process. In addition, the Directorat

responsibility for the Office ofThe Judge Advocat

Air Force military justice matters which arise in c

programs, special projects, studies and inquiries g

Air Staff; Headquarters USAF; the Secretaries, D

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

otherinterested federal, state and civil agencies. So

torate's activities are discussed below. 

a. The Judiciary Directorate serves as the action 

review of military justice issues in applications su

Air Force Board for Correction ofMilitary Records. 

formal opinions provided the Secretary ofthe Air Fo

those applications. 

b. The Directorate received 876 inquiries in speci

ing either formal written replies or telephonic re

executive officials, including the President, or 

Congress. 
as required by Congress and other governmental a

internal management purposes. 

During fiscal year 1982, the system produced ap

standard reports on a monthly basis and other 

quarterly basis. The system was also used to ans

vidual requests for particular statistical informat

cial requests were received from such activities 

Accounting Office, the Senate Armed Services C

Force Security Police and the Air Force Military Pe

Trial Judicary 

The Air Force Trial Judiciary had an a verage of3

judges assigned at 10 locations worldwide. The

handled the continuing upward trend in courts-m

increase in personnel except that, at year's end, a 

additional judge for the Fifth Circuit at Travis A

California, was pending. 

Circuit Trial. Counsel Program 

The 20 circuit trial counsel stationed at nine locat

seven judicial circuits worldwide continued a bu

prosecuting general courts-martial and selected 

martial. In fiscal year 1979, circuit trial counsel tr

courts (95% ofthe total) and 292 special courts (27% 

fiscal year 1980, they tried 345 general courts (92% o

229 special courts (17% ofthe total). In fiscal year 

323 general courts (90% of the total) and 219 specia

the total). In fiscal year 1982, circuit trial counsel tr

courts (88% of the total) and 119 special courts (9% 

Area Defense Counsel Program 

The worldwide Area Defense Counsel program 

38 
military legal advisor; and other adverse actions i

for an individual is required or authorized. Case a

made by the chiefcircuit defense counsel. Training 

for area defense counsel are provided by the chie

counsel and circuit defense counsel, who in all 

rienced trial advocates. The program is designed to

perceived to, increase the overall stature of defense 

quality of judicial functions through6ut the Air F

Appellate Counsel 

The appellate defense function of Defense Servi

expanded the role of judge advocate reservists 

division by assigning to them increasingly mor

and issues for presentation to the Air Force C

Review and the United States Court of Military 

different reservists argued eight cases before the C

Appeals on issues granted review by the court, a

argued before the Air Force Court ofMilitary Revie

reservist from the Government Trial and Appella

sion argued before the Air Force Court of Militar

plex manslaughter case resulting from child abus

Confinement Facilities 

Air Force prisoners with sentences ofover 3 mon

continue to be housed primarily at the United Sta

Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and the con

ties at Fort Riley, Kansas, and Lowry Air Force 

The rehabilitation program at the 3320th Correcti

tation Squadron, Lowry Air Force Base, has be

capacity and now serves a population of app

hundred. This operation continues its long-time re

fully restoring over fifty percent ofthose who ente

effective regular service. Plans call for use of F
Management Development Center, Maxwell 

Alabama, provided instruction in basic and cont

cation (CLE) to active duty, Air Force Reserve a

Guard judge advocates, noncommissioned office

during fiscal year 1982. The following courses w

the school: 

a. Judge Advocate Staff Officer Course-The 

judge advocates with a foundation in the princip

of military law while preparing them for certifica

defense counsel. Four 7-week classes were conduc

1982, with 134 judge advocates, six reservists, 

Guardsmen, and one foreign officer completing t

b. StaffJudge Advocate Course-This course 

in fiscal year 1982 for officers in rank of captain 

serving or selected to serve as staff judge advoca

advoates and five reservists attended the course. 

c. Reserve Forces Judge Advocate Course-Tw

were held during fiscal year 1982 to provide re

National Guard judge advocates with informatio

opments in military law. One hundred twenty-ni

nineteen Air National Guardsmen completed the 

d. Interservice Military Judges' Seminar-Thi

was conducted once during fiscal year 1982. Twe

judges and twenty-three military jduges from th

attended. 

e. Claims andTort Litigation Course-This cou

sions in fiscal year 1982. Fifty-five officers in the 

through lieutenant colonel, and two civilians 

through GS-13 attended the lawyer course. The pa

ers course had 43 NCOs and 17 civilian paralega

f. Legal Service Advance Course-This cours

once during fiscal year 1982. A total of 47 NC

class-43 Air Force, two Army, and two Navy. Tw

attended the course. Air Force enlisted personn

paralegal training in the Legal Services Spec

40 
at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. Two offic

Armed Forces Staff College, and one attended th

College. 

Short Courses at Civilian Universities 

a. Prosecuting Attorney's Course at Northwes

Twenty-five judge advocates attended this 5-day 

year 1982. 

b. Defense Attorney's Course at Northweste

Twenty-five judge advocates attended this 5-day 

year 1982. 

c. National Judicial College at the Universi

Thirteen judge advocates and one senior NCO atte

the college during fiscal year 1982. 

Masters in law Program 

During fiscal year 1982, three judge advocate

Master of Law in labor law, six in government pr

one in international law, and two in environment

Procurement Law and Military Judge Courses: US Army JAG Schoo

Sixty-eight judge advocates attended the basic p

course, and fifteen judge advocates attended the 

curement law course. Seven judge advocates atten

judge course during fiscal year 1982. 

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION (CLE) 

The adminisration of the continuing legal edu

was transferred to the Air Force Judge Advocate 

during fiscal year 1982. The faculty began revisin

five of the eleven courses. One new course, expe
Environmental Law .................................

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

Computer Assisted Legal Research I. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 

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

Expert Witness ......................................

PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS 

Interest in our professional publications, The 

Review and The Reporter, continues to grow. Many 

making them a part of their Federal documents 

gram. Other subscribers include government age

public and private libraries. Topics with special em

included: Juvenile Misconduct, The Equal Access 

International Agreements, Claims against Bank

Carriers and The Residual Hearsay Rule. They 

government lawyers, both military and civilian, as 

uable communications media that share streamli

and lessons learned, promote crossfeed and a bette

better prepared Department. 

FEDERAL lEGAL INFORMATION 

THROUGH ElECTRONICS (FlITEJ 

The Office ofThe Judge Advocate General conti

and expand one of the world's largest automnted 

systems. Department of Defense users in fiscal yea

the Joint Chiefs of Staff, every uniformed servic

Military Appeals and the Armed Services Boa

Appeals. The many non-DOD users included th

President, Congress, U.S. courts, the Department 

the International Trade Commission. 

42 

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

PART 2· DISCHARGES APPROVED 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

PART 5· APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE FORCE 

REVIEW 

NUMS E A '9371% I':::':::::':::.::::::'::"::' :::::::::;:::.: :.:.:.:..... :::: •.•:-'. ;::.::.:::>::.... 

. ................................ 

PE ACE NT AG E ::;;;::::::::::{:~:::}::::::::::;: }::::{~{{ .::: :;:::;:::::::;:::::::::::;:

PART 6· U_ S_ COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS ACTIONS 

PERCENTAGE OF COMR REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCMA 408/702 

~PE~A~C~E~N~T~A~G~E~O~F~'~N~r.~R~EA~S~E~(~.~}/~D~EC~R~E~A~S~E~(~-~}O~V~E~A~PR~E~V~'~O~U~S~A=E-PO~A~T~'~N~G~P~E~

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 55/408 

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

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY COMR 55/702 

RATE OF INCREASE (+I/OF.CREASE (-) OVER THE NUMBER OF CASES REVIEWED DURING 

LA.ST REPORTING PERIOO 

PAGEl OF:! 

44 
PART 9 - COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS I 

PART 10 - STRENGTH 

AVEFIAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 562,943 

PART 11 - NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15) 

PAGE20F2 
(U.S. COAST GUARD) 


October 1, 1981 to September 30, 198

The table below shows the number of court-m

received and filed at Coast Guard Headquarters du

the five preceding years. 

Fiscal Year 82 81 80 

General Courts-Martial ........... 9 2 3 

Special Courts-Martial ............ 79 58 67 

Summary Courts-Martial ......... 151 192 169 

Total ...................... 239 252 239 

COURTS-MARTIAL 

Counsel and military judges are detailed to all 

martial. For most cases, the presiding judge w

general courts-martial judge. When he was unava

judges with other primary duties were utilized. Con

of judges is centrally exercised, and all requirem

met in a timely fashion. 

General Courts-Martial 

Charges referred to the nine general courts-m

this year included specifications alleging violation

81, 92, 121, 126, 128, and 134 (eight of the nine 

marijuana or other controlled drugs). Six accused 

by military judge alone. Two of the six received a 

included a bad conduct discharge. Both cases invo

46 
gpg

tions withdrawn by the convening authority prior 

conduct discharges were a warded to four accused t

judge alone and five accused tried by courts with 

these punitive discharges were approved by the co

ity and when applicable the supervisory author

punitive discharges was suspended for a period of 

convening authority. Fifty of the accused whos

referred to special courts-martial were nonrated 

thru E-3), twenty-six were petty officers (pay grad

two were chief petty officers (pay gade E-7) and on

(pay grade W-3). In the one special court-marti

officer, the Officer Exercising General Court-Mar

(supervisory authority) set aside the conviction b

was not legally constituted and lacked jurisdiction 

and the accused. 

The following table shows the distribution of th

tions referred to special courts-martial. 

Violation of the UCMJ, Article 

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

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

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

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

91 (willfu 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 or 92 (marijuana offenses) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

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

other offenses ................................. . . . . . . . 

The following is a breakdown of sentences awar

itary judge alone in special courts-martial (27 conv
charges and specifications. 

The following is a breakdown of sentences award

courts-martial with members (47 convictions). 

Sentence 

bad conduct discharge ...................................

confinement at hard labor (3 maximum) ..........".........

hard labor without confinement ..........................

reduction in rate ........................................

restriction ..............................................

forfeiture of pay ($31,571 total) ............................

fine ($3,629 total) ........................................

others .................................................

In 19 of these 47 convictions, the accused pled 

charges and specifications. 

The following indicates the three sentences imp

special courts-martial in the past three fiscal years. 

Number of 

FY Convictions Forfeitures Confinemen

82 74 48 (65%) 41 (55%) 

81 55 41 (75%) 34 (62%) 

80 64 45 (70%) 37 (58%) 

average % for 3 yrs: 70% 58% 

Summation 

Four of the nine general courts-martial, two with 

two with military judge alone, adjudged a sentence w

a bad conduct discharge. Thirty-seven percent ofthe 

by special court-martial were tried by military jud

thirty-four percent ofthem pled guilty to all charges 

48 
In addition to the required reviews of courts-m

as a result of petitions filed by accused under Arti

review is conducted under Article 69 of all cou

requiring appellate review. Three Article 69 actions 

result of these reviews, in addition to those repor

Appendix A, as follows: 

Action of the Officer Exercising General Court-M

Jurisdiction set aside, record of trial forwarded 

officer exercising GCM jurisdiction for review p

Article 65(c), UCMJ ..................... . . . . . . . . 

Findings and sentence set aside and charges dism

Findings of guilty of one of the charges or specifi

aside, and sentence as reassessed found to be ap

PERSONNEL AND TRAINING 

The Coast Guard has 153 law specialists serving 

One hundred and twenty are serving in a legal capa

three are serving in general duty billets. The junio

serving at district office perform most trial and 

services. Senior law specialists, most serving as d

cers, are used as military judges when required. 

The Seventh Coast Guard Basic Law Specialist C

at the Coast Guard Reserve Training Center, York

from 20 September 1982 through 1 November 198

course normally introduces both the direct commi

and the regular officers, just completing law scho

duties they would soon perform as Coast Guard 

One-half ofthe course was devoted to military just

punishment, jurisdiction, professional responsibi

court procedures, trial/defense counsel duties, and 

the Code most frequently litigated were some of th

Each student was given an opportunity to demo
JOHN M. FOWLER 

General Counsel 


Department of Tran

Appendix A: 	 U.S. Coast Guard Courts-MartiallN

for October 1,1981 to September 30

Year 1982) 

50 
OVERALL ~ATE OF INCREASE (+!lDECREASE 1- OVER LAST REPORT 

PART 2· DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GEN 

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

PART 5· APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE C

REVIEW 

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 (""/DECREASE I-lOVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY COMR 

RATE OF INCREASE (.'/OECREASE I-lOVER THE NUMBER OF CASES REVIEWED DURING 

LAST REPORTING PERIO~ 

PAGEl OF:! 
PART 9· COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 k ::"'::':::::::::.:..............

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS I 04 

PART 10· STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY 3.AENGTH 

PART 11· NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT 

PAGE20F2 

Military judges are assigned to all cases referred 

courts-martial. The Coast Guard, therefore, cons

special courts-martial potential BCD cases. 

2 	 The convening authority withdrew all charges from 

court-martial prior to findings. 

3 	 This figure includes one bad-conduct discharge th

by the convening authority but suspended by him f

one year. 

52