ANNUAL REPORT

of the

CODE COMMITTEE

on

MILITARY JUSTICE

INCLUDING SEPARATE REPORTS

of the

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES,

THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL

OF THE U.S. ARMED FORCES,

AND THE CHIEF COUNSEL

OF THE U.S. COAST GUARD

For the Period

October 1, 1999 to September 30, 2000
ANNUAL REPORT

SUBMITTED TO THE

COMMITTEES ON ARMED SERVICES

of the

United States Senate

and the

United States House of Representatives

and to the

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION,

and

SECRETARIES OF THE

ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORCE

PURSUANT TO THE

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

For the Period

October 1, 1999 to September 30, 2000
CONTENTS

Section 1: JOINT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CODE COMMITTEE

Section 2: REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ARMED FORCES

Section 3: REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE ARMY

Section 4: REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY

Section 5: REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE AIR FORCE

Section 6: REPORT OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL OF THE COAST GUARD
JOINT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE

CODE COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO THE

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

October 1, 1999 to September 30, 2000

The Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the

Armed Forces; the Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, and

Air Force; the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard; the Director,

Judge Advocate Division, Headquarters, United States Marine

Corps; Professor Lee D. Schinasi, and United States Magistrate

Judge Jacob Hagopian, Public Members appointed by the Secretary

of Defense, submit their annual report on the operation of the

Uniform Code of Military Justice pursuant to Article 146, Uniform

Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 946.

The Code Committee met during fiscal year 2000 to consider

various matters pertaining to the administration of military

justice. As in previous years, the meeting was open to the

public as duly noted in the Federal Register. Reports were

submitted and discussions also took place at the meeting

concerning the status and content of various pending proposals to

amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for

Courts-Martial including consideration of a report from the

Chairman of the Joint-Service Committee on Military Justice which

included discussion of legislative proposals to amend Articles

54, 56a, 71, and 74 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
2

Additionally, the Chairman of that committee discussed various

proposals to change Rules for Courts-Martial 701, 707, 1003 and

1107 of the Manual for Courts-Martial. Also, discussions were

conducted on a study concerning the administration of nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military

Justice; continuing studies on an independent military judiciary;

and technology use in the military justice system. The Chairman

also noted that the committee had been requested to study a

number of military justice issues, to include convening

authorities for joint commands, court-martial composition, posttrial matters, and Article 15 issues.

The Code Committee also received a report from a member of

the committee concerning the celebration of the 50th anniversary

of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The report noted that a

symposium on military justice had been conducted on February 25

and 26, 1999, at William and Mary School of Law; an anniversary

dinner at which the Chief Justice of the United States was the

guest of honor had been held on October 21, 1999, at Fort Myer,

Virginia; a ceremonial session of the United States Court of

Appeals for the Armed Forces, marking the occasion of President

Truman’s signing the legislation creating the Uniform Code of

Military Justice, was held on May 5, 2000, with the Honorable

Strom Thurmond, President Pro Tempore, United States Senate; and

various commemorative activities conducted by the United States

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the United States Army,

the United States Air Force, and the United States Navy.
3

Additionally, the 50th anniversary of the Code was recognized by

Congress in the 2000 Authorization Act, and by the President in a

Proclamation. (See Appendices L and M.)

Separate reports of the United States Court of Appeals for

the Armed Forces and the individual Armed Forces address further

items of special interest to the Committees on Armed Services of

the United States Senate and the United States House of

Representatives, as well as the Secretaries of Defense,

Transportation, Army, Navy, and Air Force.

SUSAN J. CRAWFORD

Chief Judge

EUGENE R. SULLIVAN

Associate Judge

H. F. “SPARKY” GIERKE

Associate Judge

ANDREW S. EFFRON

Associate Judge

JAMES E. BAKER

Associate Judge

Major General WALTER B. HUFFMAN, USA

The Judge Advocate of General of the Army

Rear Admiral DONALD J. GUTER, USN

The Judge Advocate of General of the Navy

Major General WILLIAM A. MOORMAN, USAF

The Judge Advocate of General of the Air Force

Rear Admiral J. S. CARMICHAEL, USCG

Chief Counsel, U.S. Coast Guard

Brigadier General JOSEPH COMPOSTO, USMC

Director, Judge Advocate Division

Headquarters, United States Marine Corps
4

Professor Lee D. Schinasi

Public Member

Magistrate Judge JACOB HAGOPIAN

Public Member
REPORT OF THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ARMED FORCES

October 1, 1999 to September 30, 2000

The Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for

the Armed Forces submit their annual report on the

administration of the Court and military justice during the

2000 Term of the Court to the Committee on Armed Services

of the United States Senate and the United States House of

Representatives, and to the Secretaries of Defense,

Transportation, Army, Navy, and Air Force in accordance

with Article 146, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC

§ 946.

THE BUSINESS OF THE COURT

The number of cases carried over on the Court’s

Petition Docket at the end of the 2000 Term of Court

reflected a decrease of 33% from the number of cases

pending at the end of the prior reporting period. (See

Appendix A.) The number of cases carried over on the

Master Docket decreased by 9% during the same period. (See

Appendix B.)

During the 2000 Term of the Court, the number of

petitions for grant of review filed with the Court

decreased by 28% compared with the prior reporting period.

(See Appendix J.) The number of oral arguments remained

fairly constant during the 2000 Term of Court, and the

number of opinions released by the Court decreased by 11%.

(See Appendices C and D.)*

_________

* Although not part of the business of the Court, it is noted that

during its 2000 Term, 19 petitions for writ of certiorari were filed

with the Supreme Court of the United States, and 2 others were carried

forward from the prior year. Of these, 14 petitions were denied this

Term, leaving 7 petitions pending at the end of the Term.
2

The overall average processing time from filing to

final decision in all cases during the 2000 Term of Court

decreased 7% compared with the prior reporting period.

(See Appendix I.) The average processing time from the

date of filing a petition to the date of grant by this

Court decreased by 23% compared with the prior reporting

period. (See Appendix E.) The processing time from the

date of grant to the date of oral argument decreased by 11%

when compared with this average during the prior Term of

the Court. (See Appendix F.) The average processing time

from the date of oral argument to final decision decreased

by 7% when compared with the prior reporting period. (See

Appendix G.) The average processing time from the filing

of a petition to final decision on the Petition Docket

decreased by 18%, and the same overall average on the

Master Docket decreased by 11%. (See Appendix H.)

The Chief Justice of the United States acting pursuant

to Article 142(f), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC

§ 942(f), designated the Honorable H. Robert Mayer, United

States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; the

Honorable David M. Ebel, United States Court of Appeals for

the Tenth Circuit; the Honorable James M. Fitzgerald,

United States District Court for the District of Alaska;

the Honorable Howard B. Turrentine, United States District

Court for the Southern District of California; and the

Honorable Daniel B. Sparr, United States District Court for

the District of Colorado to sit with the United States

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces during the 2000 Term

of Court.

Senior Judge Walter T. Cox, III was recalled for the

entire Term of Court, and Senior Judge Robinson O. Everett

was recalled and participated in the review and decision of

several cases during the 2000 Term of Court.

During fiscal year 2000, the Court admitted 262

attorneys to practice before its Bar, bringing the

cumulative total of admissions before the Bar of the Court

to 31,969.
3

PUBLIC AWARENESS PROJECT

(PROJECT OUTREACH)

In furtherance of a practice established in 1987, the

Court scheduled several special sessions and heard oral

arguments in selected cases outside its permanent

Courthouse in Washington, D.C., during the 2000 Term of

Court. This practice, known as “Project Outreach,” was

developed as part of a public awareness program to

demonstrate the operation of a Federal Court of Appeals,

and the quality of the military’s criminal justice system.

The Court conducted hearings during this period, without

objection of the parties at Catholic University of America,

Columbus School of Law, Washington, D.C.; University of San

Diego Law School, San Diego, California; United States Air

Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado; and the

Association of the Bar of the City of New York, New York,

New York.

“Project Outreach” has continued to promote an

increased public awareness of the fundamental fairness of

the military criminal justice system and the role of the

Court in the overall administration of military justice

throughout the world. The Court hopes that those who

attend these hearings from both military and civilian

communities will realize that the United States is a

democracy that can maintain an armed force instilled with

the appropriate discipline to make it a world power, while

affording all its members the full protection of the

Constitution of the United States and federal law.

JUDICIAL VISITATIONS

During the 2000 Term of Court, the Judges of the

Court, consistent with past practice and their ethical

responsibility to oversee and improve the entire military

criminal justice system, participated in professional

training programs for military and civilian lawyers, spoke

to professional groups of judges and lawyers, and visited

with judge advocates and other military personnel at

various military installations throughout the world.
4

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE

On June 12 and 13, 2000, the Court held its annual

Judicial Conference at the Catholic University of America,

Columbus School of Law, Washington, D.C. The program for

this Judicial Conference was certified for credit to meet

the continuing legal education requirements of numerous

State Bars throughout the United States. The Conference

opened with welcoming remarks and a presentation by the

Honorable Susan J. Crawford, Chief Judge, United States

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The following

speakers participated in this year’s Conference: Professor

Jonathan R. Turley, George Washington University Law

School; Professor Paul Butler, George Washington University

Law School; Colonel William R. Hagan, USA (Ret.); Mr.

Thomas Booth, Attorney, Appellate Section, Criminal

Division, Department of Justice; Colonel Charles R. Myers;

USAF, Former Professor, United States Air Force Academy;

Colonel William Colwell, USAF (Ret.), President, Judge

Advocates Association; Professor Stephen A. Saltzburg,

George Washington University Law School; Major David

Benedek, USA, Chief, Psychiatry Clinic, Walter Reed Army

Medical Center; Colonel James Young, USAF, United States

Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals; Major Victor M.

Hansen, USA, Professor, Criminal Law Division, The Judge

Advocate General’s School, United States Army; Major Edward

J. O’Brien, USA, Professor, Criminal Law Division, The

Judge Advocate General’s School, United States Army; and

Major Jon W. Shelburne, USMC, Assistant Procedure Division

Officer, Naval Justice School, United States Navy.

SUSAN J. CRAWFORD

Chief Judge

EUGENE R. SULLIVAN

Associate Judge

H.F. “SPARKY” GIERKE

Associate Judge

ANDREW S. EFFRON

Associate Judge

JAMES A. BAKER

Associate Judge
5

USCA STATISTICAL REPORT

2000 TERM OF COURT

CUMULATIVE SUMMARY

CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 1, 1999

Master Docket .............................. 77

Petition Docket ............................ 226

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

TOTAL ...................................... 306

CUMULATIVE FILINGS

Master Docket .............................. 157

Petition Docket ............................ 753

Miscellaneous Docket ....................... 23

TOTAL ...................................... 933

CUMULATIVE TERMINATIONS

Master Docket .............................. 164

Petition Docket ............................ 827

Miscellaneous Docket ....................... 23

TOTAL ......................................1014

CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 1, 2000

Master Docket .............................. 70

Petition Docket ............................ 152

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

TOTAL ...................................... 225

OPINION SUMMARY

CATEGORY SIGNED PER CURIAM MEM/ORDER TOTAL

Master Docket ........... 107 3 54 164

Petition Docket ......... 0 0 827 827

Miscellaneous Docket .... 0 0 23 23

TOTAL ................... 107 3 904 1014
6

FILINGS (MASTER DOCKET)

 Remanded from Supreme Court ............... 0

 Returned from Court of Criminal Appeals.... 3

 Mandatory appeals filed ................... 0

 Certificates filed ........................ 12

 Reconsideration granted ................... 0

 Petitions granted (from Petition Docket)... 142

 TOTAL ..................................... 157

TERMINATIONS (MASTER DOCKET)

 Findings & sentence affirmed .............. 127

 Reversed in whole or in part .............. 31 Signed .... 107

 Granted petitions vacated ................. 1 Per curiam .. 3

 Other disposition directed ................ 5 Mem/order .. 54

 TOTAL ..................................... 164 TOTAL ...... 164

PENDING (MASTER DOCKET)

 Awaiting briefs ........................... 12

 Awaiting oral argument .................... 37

 Awaiting lead case decision (trailer cases) 18

 Awaiting final action ..................... 3

 TOTAL ..................................... 70

FILINGS (PETITION DOCKET)

 Petitions for grant of review filed ....... 750

 Petitions for new trial filed ............. 0

 Cross-petitions for grant filed ........... 2

 Petitions for reconsideration granted ..... 1

 Returned from Court of Criminal Appeals ... 0

 TOTAL ..................................... 753

TERMINATIONS (PETITION DOCKET)

 Petitions for grant dismissed ............. 4

 Petitions for grant denied ................ 661

 Petitions for grant granted ............... 142

 Petitions for grant remanded .............. 5 Signed ...... 0

 Petitions for grant withdrawn ............. 13 Per curiam .. 0

 Other ..................................... 2 Mem/order.. 827

 TOTAL ..................................... 827 TOTAL .... 827

PENDING (PETITION DOCKET)

 Awaiting briefs ........................... 73

 Awaiting Central Legal Staff review ....... 20

 Awaiting final action ..................... 59

 TOTAL ..................................... 152
7

FILINGS (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET)

 Remanded from Supreme Court ................. 0

 Writs of error coram nobis sought ........... 1

 Writs of habeas corpus sought ............... 0

 Other extraordinary relief sought ........... 9

 Writ appeals sought ......................... 13

 TOTAL ....................................... 23

TERMINATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET)

 Petitions withdrawn ......................... 0

 Petitions remanded .......................... 1

 Petitions granted ........................... 0

 Petitions denied ............................ 22 Signed .... 0

 Petitions dismissed ......................... 0 Per curiam. 0

 Other ....................................... 0 Mem/order.. 23

 TOTAL ....................................... 23 TOTAL ..... 23

PENDING (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET)

 Awaiting briefs ............................. 1

 Awaiting Writs Counsel review ............... 1

 Awaiting final action ....................... 1

 TOTAL ....................................... 3

RECONSIDERATIONS & REHEARINGS

 BEGIN END DISPOSITIONS

CATEGORY PENDING FILINGS PENDING Granted Denied Total

Master Docket .... 3 20 2 0 21 21

Petition Docket .. 2 9 2 0 9 9

Misc. Docket ..... 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL ............ 5 29 4 0 30 30

MOTIONS ACTIVITY

 BEGIN END DISPOSITIONS

CATEGORY PENDING FILINGS PENDING Granted Denied Other Total

All motions ..... 12 537 12 460 77 0 537
Petition Docket Year End Pe

212

326

353

291 295

379

235

290

226

0

100200300400500

FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 

 APPENDIX A
Master Docket Year End Pen

69

95

152

119

105

73

156

105

77

0

50

100150200

FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 

 APPENDIX B

1/ This figure does not include 16 trailer cases to United States v. Watson, No. 68206/MC,, and 8 trailer cases to Un

Weiss, No. 67869/MC.

2/ This figure does not include 87 trailer cases to United States v. Mitchell, No. 93-1044/NA, and 9 trailer cases to U

Rexroat, No. 93-5007/AR.

3/ This figure does not include 133 trailer cases to United States v. Gorski, No. 97-0034/AF.

1/

2/ 3/
Oral Arguments Per Year

112

124 122

144

112 116 115

131

116 

0

255075

100125150

FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 

 APPENDIX C
Total Opinions Per Year

64

125

95

129

112

129

101

144

95

111

117118

107

113

104

129

102

12

0

255075

100125150

FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 

TOTAL SEPARATE OPINIONS (CONCUR, CONCUR IN THE RESULT, ANTOTAL COURT OPINIONS

 APPENDIX D
Days from Petition Filing to 

96

114 113 109

151

143 140 145

168

0

255075

100125150175200

FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 

 APPENDIX E
Days from Petition Grant

 to Oral Argument

143 151

188

244

276

213

161

189

166

0

50

100150200250300

FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 

 APPENDIX F
Days from Oral Argument

 to Final Decision

141

151 159 166 169

194

163 165

182

0

50

100150200250

FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 

 APPENDIX G
Days from Petition Filin

to Final Decision

57

324

69

347

90

258

92

312

90

473

75

486

99

380

82

371

85

42

0

50

100150200250300350400450500550

FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 

PETITION DOCKET (DENIAL/DISMISSAL/WITHDRAWALMASTER DOCKET (GRANTED/CERTIFIED/DEATH CASES)

 APPENDIX H
Days from Filing to

Final Decision in All Cas

82

108

145

178

138

120

139

166

139

0

20406080

100120140160180

FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 

 APPENDIX I
Total Petitions Filed Per 

1813

1291

1610

1514

1251

1435

1234 1197

1051

0

250500750

1000125015001750200022502500

FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 

 APPENDIX J
 APPENDIX K

OPINIONS

 

2000 Term of Court

(Oct 1, 1999 - Sep 30, 2000)

The following opinions are available in HyperText Markup Language (HTML).

CASE NAME DOCKET # OPINION DATE MJ CITATION

U.S. v. Cardreon 98-1118/NA Dec 9, 1999 52 MJ 213

U.S. v. Williams 99-0052/NA Jan 20, 2000 52 MJ 218

U.S. v. Burton 99-0242/MC Jan 21, 2000 52 MJ 223

U.S. v. Tualla 99-5002/CG Jan 31, 2000 52 MJ 228

U.S. v. Spriggs 98-0940/AR Feb 17, 2000 52 MJ 235

U.S. v. Najera 99-0300/MC Feb 18, 2000 52 MJ 247

U.S. v. Diggs 99-0040/AR Feb 23, 2000 52 MJ 251

U.S. v. George 99-0091/NA Mar 3, 2000 52 MJ 259 

U.S. v. Heryford 99-0546/AF Mar 3, 2000 52 MJ 265

U.S. v. Phillips 99-0313/NA Mar 6, 2000 52 MJ 268

U.S. v Townes 99-5004/MC Mar 8, 2000 52 MJ 275

U.S. v Hughes 98-1129/AF Mar 10, 2000 52 MJ 278

U.S. v. Grigoruk 98-1089/AR Mar 13, 2000 52 MJ 312

U.S. v. Guzman 99-0069/NA Mar 13, 2000 52 MJ 318
U.S. v. Ramsey 99-0271/MC Mar 13, 2000 52 MJ 322

U.S. v. Monroe 99-0536/AF Mar 13, 2000 52 MJ 326

U.S. v. Roberts 98-1039/NA Mar 14, 2000 52 MJ 333

U.S. v. Smith 99-0288/AF Mar 14, 2000 52 MJ 337

U.S. v. Campbell 97-0149/AR Mar 22, 2000 52 MJ 386

U.S. v. Hensley 99-0111/NA Mar 22, 2000 52 MJ 391

U.S. v. Murray 99-0303/AF Apr 6, 2000 52 MJ 423

U.S. v. Robbins 99-0421/NA Apr 7, 2000 52 MJ 455

U.S. v. Avery 96-1157/AR April 14, 2000 52 MJ 496

U.S. v. Melanson 99-0619/AR April 24, 2000 53 MJ 1

U.S. v. Kirkland 99-0651/AF May 1, 2000 53 MJ 22

U.S. v. Stoffer 99-0292/MC May 3, 2000 53 MJ 26

U.S. v. Grier 99-0547/AR May 12, 2000 53 MJ 30

U.S. v. Byrd 99-5003/NA May 17, 2000 53 MJ 35

U.S. v. Burns 99-0474/AF May 18, 2000 53 MJ 42

U.S. v. Golston 99-0286/AR May 25, 2000 53 MJ 61

U.S. v. Cherukuri 99-0511/AR May 26, 2000 53 MJ 68

U.S. v. Armstrong 99-0256/AR Jun 1, 2000 53 MJ 76

U.S. v. Harris 99-0731/AR Jun 5, 2000 53 MJ 86

U.S. v. Sapp 99-0260/AF Jun 9, 2000 53 MJ 90

U.S. v. Augustine 98-5026/AF Jun 9, 2000 53 MJ 95

U.S. v. Avila 99-0399/MC Jun 9, 2000 53 MJ 99

U.S. v. Guthrie 99-0306/MC Jun 12, 2000 53 MJ 103

U.S. v. Henry 98-1023/AR Jun 21, 2000 53 MJ 108

U.S. v. Eversole 98-0999/AR Jun 29, 2000 53 MJ 132
U.S. v. Garren 99-0418/AR Jun 29, 2000 53 MJ 142

U.S. v. Yunk 99-0695/MC Jun 29, 2000 53 MJ 145

U.S. v. Fricke 98-0783/NA Jul 5, 2000 53 MJ 149

U.S. v. Pfister 99-0311/AR Jul 5, 2000 53 MJ 158

U.S. v. Napolitano 99-0365/MC Jul 5, 2000 53 MJ 162

U.S. v. Smith, Jr 99-0932/AF Jul 5, 2000 53 MJ 168

U.S. v. Moolick 99-0301/NA Jul 14, 2000 53 MJ 174

U.S. v. Latorre 99-0499/AF Jul 14, 2000 53 MJ 179

U.S. v. Pereira 99-1001/MC Jul 14, 2000 53 MJ 183

U.S. v. Rolle 98-0656/AR Jul 17, 2000 53 MJ 187

U.S. v. Taylor 98-1140/MC Jul 19, 2000 53 MJ 195

U.S. V. Davis 99-0764/NA Jul 19, 2000 53 MJ 202

U.S. v. Becker 96-0659/AR Jul 24, 2000 53 MJ 229

U.S. v. Baer 99-0872/MC Jul 26, 2000 53 MJ 235

U.S. v. Stevenson 00-6001/NA Aug 2, 2000 53 MJ 257

U.S. v. Norfleet 98-1131/AF Aug 16, 2000 53 MJ 262

U.S. v. Steele 99-0314/MC Aug 16, 2000 53 MJ 274

U.S. v. Clark 99-0545/AF Aug 16, 2000 53 MJ 280

U.S. v. Alves 99-0724/MC Aug 16, 2000 53 MJ 286

U.S. v. Williams 99-0409/NA Aug 18, 2000 53 MJ 293

U.S. v. Hardcastle 99-0632/MC Aug 18, 2000 53 MJ 299

U.S. v. Cobia 99-0073/AR Aug 24, 2000 53 MJ 305

U.S. v. Tittel 99-0571/NA Aug 24,2000 53 MJ 313

U.S. v. Williams 99-0973/MC Aug 24, 2000 53 MJ 316

U.S. v. Nelson 00-0010/NA Aug 24, 2000 53 MJ 319
U.S. v. Wilson 99-0120/AF Aug 25, 2000 53 MJ 327

U.S. v. Langston 99-0419/AR Aug 25, 2000 53 MJ 335

U.S. v. Knight 99-0582/AF Aug 25, 2000 53 MJ 340

U.S. v. Rosendahl 99-0584/NA Aug 25, 2000 53 MJ 344

U.S. v. Littlewood 99-0604/AF Aug 25, 2000 53 MJ 349

U.S. v. Pablo 99-0681/AR Aug 25, 2000 53 MJ 356

U.S. v. Glover 99-0703/NA Aug 25, 2000 53 MJ 366

U.S. v. Huberty 99-0778/AF Aug 25, 2000 53 MJ 369

U.S. v. Anderson 99-0911/MC Aug 25, 2000 53 MJ 374

U.S. v. Starr 99-0999/AF Aug 25, 2000 53 MJ 380

U.S. v. Chaney 00-0109/AF Aug 25, 2000 53 MJ 383

U.S. v. Shelton 99-0595/AR Aug 30, 2000 53 MJ 387

U.S. v. Sanchez 99-0761/AF Aug 30, 2000 53 MJ 393

U.S. v. Allen 99-0788/AF Aug 30, 2000 53 MJ 402

U.S. v. Southwick 99-0832/AF Aug 30, 2000 53 MJ 412

U.S. v. Swift 98-5012/AF Aug 31, 2000 53 MJ 439

U.S. v. Johnson 99-0092/AR Aug 31, 2000 53 MJ 459

U.S. v. Matthews 99-0487/AF Aug 31, 2000 53 MJ 465

U.S. v. Wright 99-0318/AF Aug 31, 2000 53 MJ 476

U.S. v. Henley 99-0094/AF Aug 31, 2000 53 MJ 488

U.S. v. Duncan 99-0109/MC Aug 31, 2000 53 MJ 494

U.S. v. Browning 99-0417/AR Aug 31, 2000 54 MJ 1

U.S. v. Jenkins 99-0631/MC Aug 31, 2000 54 MJ 12

U.S. v. Thompson 99-0656/AR Aug 31, 2000 54 MJ 26

U.S. v. Johnson 96-0669/NA Aug 31, 2000 54 MJ 32
U.S. v. Reed 99-0811/MC Aug 31, 2000 54 MJ 37

U.S. v. Pritt 99-0912/NA Aug 31, 2000 54 MJ 47

U.S. v. Armstrong 00-5002/CG Aug 31, 2000 54 MJ 51

U.S. v. Wilson 99-0202/NA Sep 1, 2000 54 MJ 57

U.S. v. Kho 99-0925/MC Sep 1, 2000 54 MJ 63

U.S. v. Johnson 99-0556/AR Sep 7, 2000 54 MJ 67

U.S. v. Patterson 99-0901/AR Sep 8, 2000 54 MJ 74

U.S. v. Tollinchi 99-0965/MC Sep 11, 2000 54 MJ 80

U.S. v. Ayers 99-0944/AR Sep 11, 2000 54 MJ 85

U.S. v. Baumann 00-0076/AR Sept 11, 2000 54 MJ 100

U.S. v. Fuller 00-0095/AR Sep 11, 2000 54 MJ 107

U.S. v. Scalarone 00-5001/MC Sep 11. 2000 54 MJ 114

U.S. v. McElhaney 99-0940/AF Sep 14, 2000 54 MJ 120

U.S. v. Ruiz 99-0509/AF Sep 18, 2000 54 MJ 138

U.S. v. Diffoot 99-0570/MC Sep 20, 2000 54 MJ 149

U.S. v. Rodriguez 99-0224/AR Sep 25, 2000 54 MJ 156

U.S. v. Manns 99-0853/NA Sep 25, 2000 54 MJ 164

U.S. v. Tanksley 99-0666/NA Sep 25, 2000 54 MJ 169

U.S. v. Paaluhi 99-0844/MC Sep 25, 2000 54 MJ 181

U.S. v. Valigura 99-5005/AR Sep 25, 2000 54 MJ 187

U.S. v. Lynn 99-0560/NA Sep 29, 2000 54 MJ 202

Home Page (http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov)
REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE ARMY

OCTOBER 1, 1999, TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2000

During fiscal year 2000 (FY 00) and in compliance with Article

6(a), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), The Judge Advocate

General and senior members of his staff made 25 official visits of

field legal offices in the United States and overseas. In addition,

the Office of The Judge Advocate General (OTJAG) continued to monitor

courts-martial, review and prepare military publications and

regulations, and develop and draft changes to the Manual for

Courts-Martial (MCM) and the UCMJ. Through its Field Operating

Agencies, OTJAG provided judicial and appellate services, advice,

assistance, and professional education to ensure the efficient

administration of military justice. Numbers in this report are based

on an Army end strength of 482,170 in FY 00. The Army end strength

was 479,426 in FY 99.

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

STATISTICAL SUMMARY: FY 00

(See table insert, attached)

U.S. ARMY LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY

The U.S. Army Legal Services Agency, a field operating agency of

OTJAG, includes the following organizations involved in the

administration of military justice: the U.S. Army Judiciary, the

Government Appellate Division, the Defense Appellate Division, the

Trial Defense Service, and the Trial Counsel Assistance Program.

U.S. ARMY JUDICIARY

The U.S. Army Judiciary consists of the U.S. Army Court of

Criminal Appeals, the Clerk of Court, the Examination and New Trials

Division, and the Trial Judiciary.

U.S. ARMY TRIAL DEFENSE SERVICE

The U.S. Army Trial Defense Service (USATDS), a defense service

consisting of approximately 130 attorneys, provided high quality,

professional defense services to soldiers throughout the Army from 54

offices worldwide. USATDS counsel defended soldiers facing the entire

range of allegations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
2

USATDS counsel workload from FY 97 through FY 00 is displayed below.

FY 98 FY 99 FY 00

General Courts-Martial 694 722 733

Special Courts-Martial 286 331 392

Administrative Boards 597 698 597

Nonjudicial Punishment 32,181 31,595 30,633

Consultations 28,668 26,794 24,051

USATDS provided defense services to deployed forces around the

world, including Southwest Asia, Macedonia, Haiti, Kuwait, Hungary,

Bosnia, and Kosovo. Its highest profile case was a potential capital

case involving the kidnapping, rape, and murder of a Kosovar girl in

Kosovo. Success in negotiating a decision to refer the case as a noncapital one in exchange for a guilty plea was the result of tireless

efforts by the TDS team. At some locations, USATDS maintained interservice agreements to provide defense services to military personnel

of sister services. TDS continued to support soldiers in Physical

Evaluation Boards (PEB) at selected locations.

TDS continued attempts to leverage distance technology in

providing services to clients who were not located with TDS counsel.

Although the technology suffers from many flaws, it has proven

valuable, particularly to deployed soldiers or those at remote

locations and with counseling on Article 15s. TDS offices around the

world completed surveys outlining facilities and resources, complete

with digital photographs. This survey will be publicly posted to

enhance awareness of TDS offices.

TDS has instituted new policies and procedures for enlisted

support, rehearings ordered by appellate courts, and the new Reserve

Component Trial Defense Service Legal Support Organizations (TDSLSO).

Although TDS has no intrinsic enlisted support, instead relying on

OSJA personnel assigned to TDS on a rotating basis, TDS expanded its

operating procedures to encompass the training and assignment of

enlisted personnel. TDS has also begun to work formal cooperative

arrangements with the Defense Appellate Division (DAD). There is now

a formal mechanism for the early transfer from appellate counsel to

trial defense counsel of cases in which a rehearing on findings or

sentence has been ordered, and a Memorandum of Understanding between

DAD and TDS is currently under development. For RC soldiers, the new

154th TDSLSO will service the eastern half of CONUS and Europe, while

the 22d TDSLSO will service the western half CONUS. The TDSLSOs were

activated effective 16 September 2000. Active Component TDS roles

with the new TDSLSOs are set forth in the FY00 Memorandum of

Understanding between OTC, TDS, and the Defense LSOs.
3

Continuing Legal Education (CLE) training for TDS counsel was

conducted in weeklong, consolidated regional conferences twice a year,

attended by active duty TDS counsel and open to reserve TDS counsel as

well. The FY 00 CLEs were conducted at Hunter Army Airfield, GA; Fort

Carson, CO; Randolph Air Force Base, TX; and Garmisch, Germany. The

multi-region approach to the CLEs results in more productive and

informative CLEs, benefiting all attendees.

TRIAL COUNSEL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

The U.S. Army's Trial Counsel Assistance Program (TCAP) composed

of three Army judge advocates supported by a civilian paralegal,

fulfilled its mission of providing information, advice, training, and

trial assistance to military prosecutors worldwide. In addition to

services provided to Army attorneys, TCAP had an expanded constituency

among prosecutors in the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast

Guard. TCAP provided four basic categories of services during FY

2000: (1) telephone/e-mail inquiry assistance; (2) advocacy training

courses; (3) publications; and (4) trial assistance. TCAP personnel

accomplished the following: responded to more than 200 telephonic and

175+ e-mail requests for assistance; conducted 11 three-day advocacy

training courses in the United States, Korea, and Germany, providing

237 hours of continuing legal education to 155 judge advocates from

all services at a cost of $24,163.00 or $155.89 per judge advocate

trained; and sent out materials 68 times in response to requests. The

Website is readily accessible via the Lotus Notes system or the World

Wide Web (WWW). There were 536 applications for access from the WWW,

which has reduced direct requests for assistance. Reservists,

National Guard, and sister services continue to request access at a

pace roughly equal to requests from Army personnel.

TCAP created and began using a new practical exercise scenario.

Beginning with the trip to Fort Stewart, GA in September 2000, TCAP

used a sexual misconduct scenario specifically created to address

identified weaknesses in prosecuting this complex and difficult area.

To date, the scenario has been highly rated by all attendees.

Beyond this extensive support to trial counsel, TCAP attorneys

prepared 13 answers and returns to habeas corpus petitions filed with

the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Kansas or the

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. TCAP reviewed,

monitored, and responded to 21 extraordinary writs filed in either the

Army Court of Criminal Appeals or the Court of Appeals for the Armed

Forces (CAAF) and handled five government appeals. Finally, they

prepared briefs and presented oral argument before the Army Court of

Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in

assistance to other branches of the Government Appellate Division.
4

SIGNIFICANT MILITARY JUSTICE ACTIONS

Criminal Law Division, OTJAG, advises The Judge Advocate General

on military justice policy, legislation, opinions, and related

criminal law actions. Specific responsibilities include: promulgating

military justice regulations and reviewing Army regulations for legal

sufficiency, military corrections, the Army's drug testing program,

federal felony and magistrate court prosecutions, legal opinions for

the Army Staff, statistical analysis and evaluation, and congressional

inquiries.

Criminal Law Division workload data for the last three fiscal

years is displayed below:

FY 98 FY 99 FY 00

White House inquiries 88 111 163

Congressional and other inquiries 297 330 312

Clemency Petitions, Art. 74, UCMJ 8 8 13

Officer Dismissals 16 14 23

Freedom of Information

Act/Privacy Act

 25 63 54

At the request of Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland) and at the

direction of Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera, the Army established

a multidisciplinary Process Action Team (PAT) Joint Council for Sexual

Misconduct Initiatives to recommend improvements for investigating and

prosecuting sexual offenses and for providing services to sexual

offense victims. The PAT, comprised of military and civilian experts

from a variety of fields including investigative, medical/psychiatric,

legal, social services, and automation, critically examined how the

Army processes sexual misconduct cases, from sexual harassment to

rape. The Army Chief of Staff, General Eric K. Shinseki approved

recommendations from the PAT to: increase interdisciplinary training

and communication among medical, law enforcement, and legal

disciplines; assign and train more forensic experts; expand physician

training on physical examination, documentation, handling of victims,

and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; expand and establish Internet

distance learning training programs for prosecutors and for victim

assistance liaisons; appoint full-time headquarters and regional

victim coordinators; implement regional training conferences; and

expand the Victim Information and Notification Everyday (VINE)

Program. The Criminal Law Division has the responsibility to

supervise the implementation of these recommendations.

JOINT SERVICE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY JUSTICE

The Army is the Executive Agent for the Joint Service Committee

on Military Justice (JSC). The JSC was originally established by the
5

Judge Advocates General and the Secretary of Transportation (Coast

Guard) on August 17, 1972. It conducts an annual review of the Manual

for Courts-Martial (MCM) as required by Executive Order 12473 and DOD

Directive 5500.17. The JSC proposes and evaluates amendments to the

UCMJ, MCM, and serves as a forum for exchanging military justice

information among the services.

The Army is also the Executive Agent for publication of the MCM.

The 2000 edition of the MCM commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the

Uniform Code of Military Justice was published in FY 00. It is

available in hardcopy from the Government Printing Office at

http://www.gpo.gov/ or by telephone at (202) 512-1800; fax (202) 512-

2250. The 2000 edition of the MCM is also available electronically to

the public at the following web sites:

ftp://pubs.army.mil/pub/epubs/pdf/mcm2000.pdf

 http://www.usapa.army.mil.

During FY 00, the JSC completed its sixteenth annual review of

the MCM. This review was published in the Federal Register for public

comment 15 May 2000 and a public meeting was held on 28 June 2000 to

receive comments from interested parties. Highlights of the annual

review’s proposed changes include: references to MRE 513

(psychotherapist-patient privilege) in discovery rules; explanation in

the analysis to RCM 707 that "reasonable diligence" is the standard

applied by CAAF to determine whether the prosecution's progress toward

trial for a confined accused is sufficient to satisfy the speedy trial

requirement of Article 10, UCMJ; clarification of summary and special

courts-martial authority to adjudge, and the convening authority to

approve, a combination of both a fine and forfeitures at summary and

special courts-martial; and clarification of the limitations on the

imposition and approval of summary and special courts-martial

sentences consisting of both a fine and forfeitures.

The JSC also drafted a stand alone executive order (EO) to amend

the MCM to implement a 1999 amendment to Article 19, UCMJ, that

authorized an increase in sentencing authority of special courtsmartial by allowing such courts to impose confinement or forfeiture of

two thirds pay per month up to one year. The increase in sentencing

jurisdiction authorized by Congress will not take effect until the

President signs this EO. The EO proposes to rescind the six month

limitation on confinement/forfeitures for special courts-martial,

require a verbatim record of trial and military judge authentication

for SPCM with sentences of confinement or forfeitures greater than six

months, and require the same vacation, staff judge advocate

recommendation, and appeal procedures for special courts-martial with

approved confinement for one year as for special courts-martial with
6

an approved bad-conduct discharge. The EO was published in the

Federal Register for public comment on 4 April 2000. A public meeting
7

was held on 18 April 2000. It was incorporated into EO 1999b (1999

annual review) on 30 June 2000. EOs 1999b and 1999a (1998 annual

review) were pending at the Office of Management and Budget at the end

of FY 00.

A JSC ad hoc working group completed an Independent Judiciary

study. Ongoing studies by the JSC include joint military justice,

Article 15, and use of technology in courts-martial.

FOREIGN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

As Executive Agent for foreign criminal jurisdiction, the Army,

through the International and Operational Law Division, OTJAG,

compiles information concerning the exercise of foreign criminal

jurisdiction over U.S. personnel.

The data below, while not drawn from precisely the same reporting

period used in other parts of this Report, provides an accurate

picture of the exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction during this

reporting period:

1 Dec 1997 1 Dec 1998

 to to

30 Nov 1998 30 Nov 1999

Foreign Offense Citations 5,092 5,233

Total Civilian 1,498 1,346

Total Military 3,594 3,887

Exclusive Foreign Jurisdiction 192 183

Concurrent Jurisdiction 3,402 3,704

Traffic/Other Minor Offenses 335 430

Foreign Jurisdiction Recalls 546 708

With the exception of Total Civilian and Exclusive Foreign

Jurisdiction, there was an increase in all categories. This increase

was proportional across all categories in certain major offenses, such

as robbery, larceny, aggravated assault, simple assault, and drug

offenses.

This year, foreign authorities released to U.S. authorities 35 of

the 183 exclusive foreign jurisdiction cases involving military

personnel. In concurrent jurisdiction cases in which the foreign

countries had the authority to assert primary jurisdiction, U.S.

military authorities were able to obtain waivers of the exercise of

this jurisdiction in 3,144 cases. Overall, waivers were obtained by

the U.S. in 84.8 % of all exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction cases.

This figure reflects a 2.5% decrease in such waivers from 1997-1998,

when the relevant figure was 87.3 %.
8

During the last reporting period, civilian employees and

dependents were involved in 1,498 offenses. Foreign authorities

released 246 of these cases (16.4 % of this total) to U.S. military

authorities for administrative action or some other form of

disposition. This year, civilian employees and dependents were

involved in 1,346 offenses. The foreign authorities released 254 of

these cases (18.9 % of the current total).

Foreign authorities tried a total of 1,256 cases. Twenty-one

trials, or 1.7 %, resulted in acquittals. Those convicted were

sentenced as follows: 10 cases resulted in executed confinement; 37

cases resulted in suspended confinement; and 1,188 cases (94.6 % of

the total trials) resulted in only fines or reprimands.

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

The Standards of Conduct Office (SOCO) manages TJAG’s

professional responsibility program. This program includes tasking

judge advocates for field inquiries into allegations of professional

misconduct, reviewing reports of inquiry, and advising TJAG on

appropriate resolution of ethics cases. SOCO oversees the operation

of TJAG’s Professional Responsibility Committee and its issuance of

advisory ethics opinions. SOCO also oversees professional

responsibility training within the Army. Working closely with The

Judge Advocate General’s School, SOCO assists judge advocates in

implementing training programs in their commands and offices.

During FY 00, 20 professional conduct inquiries were conducted and

closed, the same as FY 99. Of the 20 cases closed in FY 00, 7 cases

resulted in a finding of attorney misconduct. Of the seven founded cases,

two had only minor violations of ethics rules.

The remaining five cases were serious, resulting in a military

reprimand, state suspensions and reprimands, and criminal diversion and

conviction.

Active Duty Case

1. Reprimand of military organization’s chief attorney for conflicts of

interest by communicating with and advising an alleged rapist and

victim, both of whom the attorney personally knew.

Reserve and Guard State Reciprocity Cases

2. 91-day suspension for not refunding fees and abandoning civilian

clients.

3. Public reprimand for mismanaging civilian client's trust.

4. Diversion of criminal charges for state prosecutor who played sting

operation tapes for a companion.

5. Felony conviction for forcible sodomy with biological children.
9
10

LITIGATION

The number of civil lawsuits against the Department of the Army

and its officials increased slightly from the previous year, with

approximately 585 actions filed in FY 00. Cases that require civilian

courts to interpret the UCMJ remain a small, but significant portion

of this total. Most of these cases are by (former) soldiers seeking

collateral review of courts-martial proceedings, usually via petitions

for writs of habeas corpus filed in federal district courts, or in

back-pay actions filed in the Court of Federal Claims. Other suits

involve challenges to confinement conditions, to decisions to deny

clemency or parole, to revoke parole, or to other administrative

actions taken by confinement facility officials.

One case of particular note, Hall v. Department of Defense,

involves a class action filed in 1997 by all inmates confined at the

United States Disciplinary Barracks (USDB). The inmates claim they

are subject to unsafe living conditions that violate the Eighth

Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. They

allege that the USDB main building is structurally unsound, that they

are exposed to unsafe environmental conditions, and that they are

improperly subjected to certain administrative practices. The

district court denied the inmates’ request for a preliminary

injunction ordering the Army to transfer them to other correctional

institutions. In January 1999, the Army filed a motion for summary

judgment maintaining that there is no issue of fact that the inmates

are not exposed to unsafe living conditions and that the

administrative practices of which they complain are proper, accepted

correctional methods. Plaintiffs’ attorney moved to dismiss the case

in June 2000, claiming that because the new DB will be completed in

the next year, the issues presented by the lawsuit will be moot. A

hearing on the dismissal is pending.

Litigation Division is also defending three cases challenging the

Feres doctrine as it applies to military prisoners after their

punitive discharges have been executed, but while they continue to

serve sentences of confinement at the USDB and the Regional

Confinement Facilities (RCFs). All three cases, one of which involves

a service-member who was discharged before his court-martial and who

was on terminal leave when apprehended, are currently before the 10th

Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court should definitively

decide the applicability of Feres to post-discharge military prisoners

soon. These decisions will have broad ramifications for the USDB and

all RCFs.

EDUCATION AND TRAINING
11

The Criminal Law Department of The Judge Advocate General's

School (TJAGSA) in Charlottesville, Virginia, continues to focus on

sustaining and improving our military justice practice. This year, the
12

Criminal Law Department provided instruction on a variety of topics

ranging from substantive and technical litigation skills to the

history of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Advocacy training continues to be a top priority for the Criminal

Law Department. The Department devotes significant effort to training

Basic Course and Advanced Trial Advocacy Course students on trial

advocacy skills. Each Basic Course student is required to serve as

trial counsel or defense counsel in three advocacy exercises - an

administrative separation board, a guilty plea court-martial, and a

contested court-martial. Basic Course students leave TJAGSA with a

substantive understanding of the military justice system as well as

familiarization with the court-martial and administrative separation

board processes.

In addition to the Basic Course instruction, the Criminal Law

Department continues to offer advanced advocacy training in the 13th

and 14th Criminal Law Advocacy Courses, as well as offering advanced

advocacy training electives for the Graduate Course. The two-week

Criminal Law Advocacy Courses provided advanced individualized

training to over 100 judge advocates from all branches of service.

Augmented with four Reserve Component officers for each course, the

Department puts the students through the rigors of 11 small-group

practical exercises on essential litigation skills from opening

statement through closing argument. In addition, each Criminal Law

Advocacy Course student must serve as trial counsel or defense counsel

for a guilty plea and contested court-martial. The Graduate Course

electives focus more on training supervisors and managers of the

military justice system, with special emphasis on designing and

executing in-house training programs.

The Advocacy Trainer, a manual containing several advocacy skills

development drills designed to allow supervisors in the field to

conduct short and long-term training, continues to enjoy great

success. The Criminal Law Department is committed to keeping The

Advocacy Trainer current and relevant. During FY 00, the department

completed three new training modules. The Advocacy Trainer is now

available electronically to all services, and can be accessed under

the Publications listing on TJAGSA's home page

(http://www.jagcnet.army.mil/tjagsa).

The Criminal Law Department also hosted a variety of continuing

legal education courses. The Department managed the 43d Military Judge

Course, providing preparatory and refresher trainer for the newest

members of the trial judiciary. The Department also managed the Sixth

Military Justice Manager's Course, which included a popular and

informative presentation on forensic science, crime scene analysis,

and DNA testing, as well as a block of instruction on how to use The

Advocacy Trainer.
13

The Criminal Law and International & Operational Law Departments

co-hosted the 4th National Security Crimes and Intelligence Law

Workshop in June 2000. All of the services were represented in this

class of military and civilian practitioners and investigators in the

national security field.

The Criminal Law Department hosted several distinguished guest

speakers during FY 00. Chief Judge Susan Crawford of the Court of

Appeals for the Armed Forces delivered the 28th Kenneth J. Hodson

Lecture on Criminal Law in May 2000. Colonel (Retired) John Smith and

Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) Robert Nunnally discussed trial advocacy

in general and use of technology in the courtroom at the 13th Criminal

Law Advocacy Course in March 2000. In September 2000, Mr. Terry

MacCarthy, a Federal Public Defender and nationally known authority on

trial advocacy, and Professor David Schlueter, author of several books

on court-martial practice, addressed the 14th Criminal Law Advocacy

Course.

PERSONNEL, PLANS, AND POLICIES

The strength of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps at the end of

FY 00 was 1,427 (including general officers). This total does not

include 67 officers participating in the Funded Legal Education

Program. The diverse composition of the Judge Advocate General’s

Corps included 126 African-Americans, 40 Hispanics, 61 Asians and

Native Americans, and 371 women. The FY 00 end strength of 1,427

compares with an end strength of 1,426 in FY 99, 1,499 in FY 98, 1523

in FY 97, 1541 in FY 96, 1561 in FY 95, 1575 in FY 94, and 1646 in FY

93. The grade distribution of the Corps was 5 general officers; 130

colonels; 211 lieutenant colonels; 306 majors; 775 captains. Seventyone warrant officers, 360 civilian attorneys, and 1,467 enlisted

soldiers supported legal operations worldwide.

WALTER B. HUFFMAN

Major General, US Army

The Judge Advocate General
Page 1 of 2

APPENDIX - U.S. ARMY MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

Report Period: FISCAL YEAR 2000

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons)

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/

DECREASE (-) OVER

LAST REPORT

GENERAL 731 653 78 -0.8%

BCD SPECIAL 386 314 72 -8.5%

NON-BCD SPECIAL 7 4 3 -30%

SUMMARY 666 638 28 -.004%

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT +36.73%

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED [B]

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL)

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES (+ dismissals) 26 149

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 378

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 232

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 522

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 184

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 113

PART 4 – WORKLOAD OF THE U.S. ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 59 [C]

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D]

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D]

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 706

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 660

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 105 [C]

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD -10.7

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

 U.S. ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (CCA)

NUMBER 683

PERCENTAGE 96.74%

PART 6 - ACTIONS OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

 (CAAF)

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 239 of 660 42.1%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD - 0.1%

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 48 of 239 20.1%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +10.4%

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY USACCA 14.0%

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD ] +45.4%
Page 2 of 2

APPENDIX - U.S. ARMY MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS - CONT’D

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 3

RECEIVED 11

DISPOSED OF 8

 GRANTED 0

 DENIED 7

 NO JURISDICTION 1

 WITHDRAWN 0

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 6

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 555

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 312

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 176

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 74

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 24

PART 10 – STRENGTH

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 482,176

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ)

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 41,285

RATE PER 1,000 85.6

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD +6.2%

EXPLANATORY NOTES

 

[A] Acquittals include cases withdrawn or dismissed after arraignment.

[B] Based on records of trial received during FY 2000 for appellate review.

[C] Includes only cases briefed and at issue.

[D] No reason for distinguishing; GCM and BCD SPCM are not tracked separately.
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY

OCTOBER 1, 1999 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2000

SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF

MILITARY JUSTICE

In compliance with Article 6(a), Uniform Code of Military Justice,

the Judge Advocate General and the Deputy Judge Advocate General made

frequent inspections of legal offices in the United States, Europe, and

the Far East in order to supervise the administration of military

justice.

ARTICLE 69(a), UCMJ, EXAMINATIONS

Thirty general courts-martial records of trial not statutorily

eligible for automatic review by the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal

Appeals (NMCCA) were forwarded for examination to the Office of the Judge

Advocate General in fiscal year 2000. Twenty were pending at the end of

fiscal year 1999. Of the 35 cases completed, none required corrective

action by the Judge Advocate General. Fifteen cases are pending review

at the close of fiscal year 2000.

ARTICLE 69(b), UCMJ, APPLICATIONS

In fiscal year 2000, 11 applications under Article 69(b), UCMJ,

were received for review. Seventeen such applications remained pending

from fiscal year 1999. Of these 28 applications, 20 were denied on the

merits. Eight cases are currently pending review.

ARTICLE 73, UCMJ, PETITIONS

In fiscal year 2000, the Office of the Judge Advocate General

received four petitions for a new trial. Two petitions were denied and

two petitions are pending review at the close of fiscal year 2000.

APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISION

Active-Duty Personnel. The Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Review

Activity, Appellate Defense Division (Code 45) was staffed by 14 activeduty officers and two civilian staff employees at the close of fiscal

year 2000. CDR Richard W. Bagley, Jr., JAGC, USN, remained the Division

Director in this reporting period. Table 1 illustrates officer

distribution by branch of service and grade. Active-duty personnel are

usually assigned for three-year tours of duty. During fiscal 2000, seven

new attorneys reported for duty in the Appellate Defense Division, but

the Division also lost 11 experienced appellate counsel.
2
3

Table 1

Active-Duty Personnel Assigned on board

Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Review Activity

Appellate Defense Division

Service

CDR/LtCol

(0-5)

LCDR/Maj

(0-4)

LT/Capt

(0-3)

First

Tour

(0-2/0-3)

Totals

Navy 1 2 5 3 11

Marine

Corps

02103

Totals 1 4 6 3 14

Reserve Personnel. Four Naval Reserve units and a number of U.S.

Marine Corps Reserve judge advocates supported the Appellate Defense

Division. Table 2. Operating under the flexible drilling (flex-drill)

system, the Reserve Branch Head mails records of trial to Reservists, who

review them and brief the issues they deem appropriate. The case is

returned to the Appellate Defense Division, reviewed by an active duty

counterpart, and filed with NMCCA by the Reserve Branch Head. Reservists

also routinely spend two weeks of active duty training per year at

Appellate Defense Division headquarters. These Reserve elements

accounted for approximately 74% of all cases reviewed and filed with

NMCCA in fiscal year 2000. Although this percentage is high, it is

imperative to note that active-duty counsel continue to have

responsibility for reviewing and briefing the majority of complex,

multiple-issue cases.

During fiscal year 2000, NR NAVJAG 109 in Columbus, Ohio, was

commanded by Captain Ben J. Piazza, JAGC, USNR. He was relieved by

Captain John Fabian, JAGC, USNR on 1 October 2000. NR NAMARA (Defense)

111 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, was commanded by Captain Kristy L.

Christen, JAGC, USNR, and she was relieved by Captain Donald Davidson,

JAGC, USNR during this reporting period. In fiscal year 2000, the

Appellate Defense Division was augmented by two additional Naval Reserve

units headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, and Los Angeles, California.

The Fort Worth unit is commanded by Captain Robert White, JAGC, USNR and

the Los Angeles unit is commanded by Captain Donald Nelson, JAGC, USNR.
4

Table 2

Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Units/Personnel Supporting

Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Review Activity

Appellate Defense Division

Unit CAPT/Col

(0-6)

CDR/LtCol

(0-5)

LCDR/Maj

(0-4)

LT/Capt

(0-3) Totals

NAVJAG

109

Columbus,

OH

12317

NAMARA

111,

Okla.

City, OK

11237

NAVJAG

519

Los

Angeles,

CA

41005

NAVJAG

211

Fort

Worth, TX

13217

VTU 0614,

Wash. DC 11002

USMCR

IMA 03418

Totals 8 11 11 6 36

Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals Practice. The

Appellate Defense Division received 1605 records of trial docketed for

Article 66, UCMJ, review by NMCCA in fiscal year 2000. This represents a

decline of 159 records from fiscal year 1999. The Appellate Defense

Division reviewed and filed 1188 cases with NMCCA in fiscal year 2000.

While this represents a decline of 610 cases compared to fiscal year

1999, it is worth noting the number of Extraordinary Writs and Supreme

Court petitions for certiorari increased significantly during this

reporting period. Counsel in the Division drafted, filed, and argued

eight Extraordinary Writs, and drafted and filed 10 Supreme Court cert

petitions. Tables 3-5 reflect the numbers and types of pleadings filed

in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 1999.
5

Table 3

Cases Filed by Active-Duty

Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Defense Counsel

at the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals

Fiscal Year Fully

Briefed

Summary

Assignment

Submitted

on Merits

Total

Records

Reviewed

FY-00 180 25 86 291

FY-99 278 94 253 625

Table 4

Cases Filed by Reserve

Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Defense Counsel

at the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals

Fiscal Year Fully

Briefed

Summary

Assignment

Submitted

on Merits

Total

Records

Reviewed

FY-00 86 59 752 897

FY-99 70 84 1019 1173

Table 5

Cases Filed by Combined Active-Duty and Reserve

Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Defense Counsel

at the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals

Fiscal Year Fully

Briefed

Summary

Assignment

Submitted

on Merits

Total

Records

Reviewed

FY-00 266 84 838 1188

FY-99 348 178 1272 1798

The decline in the number of cases reviewed is attributable to a

number of factors: (1) the net loss of five active-duty counsel; (2) the

assignment of three experienced appellate attorneys to the full-time

representation of capital cases; and (3) the replacement of nine

experienced counsel with five inexperienced appellate counsel.

Appellate Defense Division attorneys also argued 20 times before

NMCCA, including one en banc argument.

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF)

Practice. Table 6 reflects a sizable increase in the percentage of
6

"petitions for review filed" of Navy-Marine Corps cases and those where a

petition was granted by CAAF in fiscal year 2000--roughly 29% compared to

14% in the previous fiscal year--while the number of oral arguments at

CAAF decreased by only 12.

Table 6

Representation by

Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Defense Counsel

before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Fiscal Year

Petitions

for Review

Filed

Petitions

Granted/

Briefs

Filed

Oral

Argument

Published

Opinions

FY-00 171 49 43 49

FY-99 323 45 55 54

Capital Litigation. In fiscal year 2000, the Appellate Defense

Division continues to be actively involved in the appeals of three

capital cases. The defense brief in United States v. Private Kenneth G.

Parker, USMC, NMCM No. 95-1500 was filed with NMCCA on 23 July 1999 and

the Government's answer is still pending. Appellate defense teams are

currently researching and writing briefs in United States v. Private Wade

L. Walker, USMC, NMCM No. 95-1607 (a companion case to Parker) and United

States v. Private Jesse Quintanilla, USMC, NMCM No. 98-1632, in which a

motion for Extraordinary Relief was filed on 31 July 2000 with NMCCA.

The Navy-Marine Corps Defense Capital Litigation Resource Center

(CLRC) partially completed its third year of operations. Captain Henry

Lazzaro, JAGC, USNR, the Director, was released from active duty in June

2000. The Director position will remain gapped and will be filled by

summer 2001. The CLRC, unique among the services, is co-located with the

Appellate Defense Division and provides advice on pretrial, trial, and

sentencing strategies. It also serves as a research and resource

clearinghouse with banks of motions relating to capital litigation as

well as information on expert consultants and witnesses.

In fiscal year 2000, the CLRC provided its expertise in three other

courts-martial where the death penalty was sought or seriously

considered. This relatively low number reflects the limited term of

operation for the CLRC during this reporting period. In all three cases,

however, the charges were ultimately referred non-capital. The CLRC

afforded advice and assistance in the case of United States v.

Intelligence Specialist First class James W. Fuhrman, USN, where the

Appellant pled guilty in return for a life sentence (later reduced to 50

years by the convening authority). The CLRC maintained liaison with the
7

Army and Air Force and provided advice and assistance in one potential

Army capital case (United States v. Sgt Frank Ronghi, USA) in which

negotiations led to a pretrial agreement for a plea to murder in return

for a life sentence without parole.
8

The CLRC continued to provide advice to, and coordination and

procurement of training for, counsel for three Marine Corps cases

awaiting appellate review where a death sentence was approved by the

convening authority. Finally, the CLRC plays a large role in training

trial and appellate defense counsel at the annual Defense Capital

Litigation Course taught at the Naval Justice School, Newport, Rhode

Island.

Trial Defense Assistance. The Appellate Defense Division provides

advice and support to Navy and Marine Corps trial defense counsel on a

continuing basis. The Division began publication of a monthly

newsletter, entitled Timely Objection, which summarized and analyzed all

recent CAAF and NMCCA cases. The newsletter also covered recent Federal

and State appellate decisions involving criminal justice, and contained a

"Trial Tips" section designed to aid the trial practitioner and a

training section highlighting military and civilian training relevant to

courts-martial practice. Publication of Timely Objection has been

suspended to allow all counsel to concentrate on current cases.

Publication will resume in summer 2001.

The Appellate Defense Division also maintains a rotating Field Call

watch comprised of experienced appellate attorneys who reply to shortfused questions from trial defense counsel in the field and assist them

in filing extraordinary writs, if the case warrants.

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT DIVISION

Appellate Representation. Members of the Appellate Government

Division filed a total of 1,020 pleadings last year (excluding requests

for enlargement of time). Seven hundred sixty-five of these pleadings

were filed with NMCCA, and 255 were filed with CAAF. Additionally, the

Division participated in 57 oral arguments before the two courts,

including about 40% of all arguments before CAAF.

Field Assistance. The Division’s Trial Counsel Assistance Program

responded to over 1200 telephone calls or electronic messages from trial

counsel and staff judge advocates. The issues involved ran the gamut of

military justice matters involving all phases of proceedings. The

Division provided additional assistance through worldwide dissemination

of four Viewpoint publications, in which issues of significant military

justice interest were discussed in depth, and periodic case law updates,

in which significant military appellate decisions were summarized and

discussed.

Presentations. The Appellate Government Division provided training

at the Trial Service Office Conference in Jacksonville, Florida, in May

2000, and at the monthly OJAG-wide training in Washington, DC, in

January, March, and July 2000.
9

Reserves. Throughout the year the Appellate Government Division

was supported by its Marine Corps Reserve members and its two Naval

Reserve units. These Reservists made significant contributions to the

Division's successful accomplishment of its mission.

NAVY-MARINE CORPS TRIAL JUDICIARY

The Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary (NMCTJ) consists of 33

active-duty judges and 22 Reservists serving in 12 circuits and five

branch offices. During fiscal year 2000, NMCTJ provided judicial

services in 428 general courts-martial and 2381 special courts-martial.

These numbers represent an increase in general courts-martial (79) and

special courts-martial (279) compared to fiscal year 1999. NMCTJ

provided judicial services to Fleet and Shore Activities, and Marine

Forces in the United States and around the world. Members of the Trial

Judiciary participated in continuing education at the Army Judge Advocate

General's School, the Interservice Military Judges' Seminar at Maxwell

Air Force Base, and various courses at The National Judicial College at

the University Of Nevada.

NMCTJ also provided training at various levels, including the NavyMarine Corps Senior Officer Course and other in-service courses. NMCTJ

performed an active role in mentoring judge advocates through both formal

and informal training sessions.

NAVAL LEGAL SERVICE COMMAND

Naval Legal Service Command (NAVLEGSVCCOM) is commanded by the

Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Navy and includes 293 judge

advocates, 16 Limited Duty Officers (Law), 204 legalmen, and 238

civilians. NAVLEGSVCCOM provides a wide range of legal services to

afloat and ashore commands, active duty-naval personnel, family members,

and retirees from 55 offices world-wide: eight Naval Legal Service

Offices (NLSOs), five Trial Service Offices (TSOs), the Naval Justice

School, and 47 detachments and branch offices. NAVLEGSVCCOM provides

counsel for courts-martial, administrative boards, physical evaluation

boards, legal assistance, and local commanders. NAVLEGSVCCOM also

provides assistance for claims processing and adjudication, and training

judge advocates, legalmen, and other DoD personnel. During fiscal year

2000, NAVLEGSVCCOM provided counsel for 225 general courts-martial, 818

special courts-martial, 269 Article 32 investigations, 911 administrative

separation boards; processed over 30,000 claims; provided over 235,600

legal assistance services, and provided command assistance services for

over 3,900 commands.

Last year NAVLEGSVCCOM opened a legal service office in London,

England to support Naval commands, sailors, and their families in

Northern Europe.
10

NAVLEGSVCCOM is currently researching improvements to a military

justice module for the Time Matters Case Management System. When fully

implemented, this system will allow us to more closely track military

justice cases.
11

NAVAL JUSTICE SCHOOL

 Organization. Naval Justice School (NJS) reports to Commander,

Naval Legal Service Command, for administrative and operational control.

The main NJS facility is located in Newport, Rhode Island. Teaching

detachments are based in San Diego, California, and Norfolk, Virginia

(areas of fleet concentration).

 Mission Statement. NJS shall:

 1. Oversee training of judge advocates, Limited Duty Officers

(Law), and legalmen to ensure their career-long professional development

and readiness.

 2. Provide comprehensive formal training to all sea service judge

advocates and other legal personnel to promote justice and ensure the

delivery of quality legal advice and other legal services.

 3. Train sea service commanders and senior officers in the

practical aspects of military law to enable them to perform their command

and staff duties, and train other sea service personnel to assist in the

sound administration of military justice.

 Coordination. Through the Interservice Legal Education Review

Committee (ISLERC), the Commanding Officer of NJS and the Commandants of

the Army and Air Force JAG Schools meet semi-annually to discuss new

initiatives and opportunities for cross-training, and to increase

cooperation and efficiency in the training of legal personnel within the

Department of Defense.

 Academic Programs. NJS has five "core" courses, each containing

substantial blocks of instruction relating to military justice and

operation of the UCMJ. These courses are:

1. Accession Judge Advocate Course. This nine-week course, offered

four times per fiscal year, is the accession-level course in military

justice for all judge advocates of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast

Guard. Most of the course is dedicated to military justice and courtmartial advocacy training (other topical areas include legal assistance

and administrative law). Upon graduation from NJS, judge advocates are

certified in accordance with Article 27(b), UCMJ. Fiscal year 2000

graduates:

 Navy 107

 Marine Corps 57

 Coast Guard 20

 Air Force 0

 International 4
12

2. Accession Legalman Course. This nine-week course, offered four

times per fiscal year, trains enlisted personnel selected for conversion

to the legalman rating. In fiscal year 2000, the course consisted of two

phases: (a) Paralegal, dedicated to training Navy legalmen in military

justice practice (six weeks), and (b) Court Reporters (three weeks).

Fiscal 2000 graduates: 84.

 3. Senior Officer Course (SOC) in Military Justice and Civil Law.

This five-day course is taught in Newport, Rhode Island, and other areas

of fleet and Fleet Marine Force concentration. In fiscal year 2000, the

course was offered 18 times at eight different locations. The course

prepares senior officers to execute the legal responsibilities of

command. Most of the course focuses on such areas as nonjudicial

punishment and court-martial procedures. Fiscal year 2000 participants

in SOC:

 Navy 428

 Marine Corps 132

 Coast Guard 15

 Civilian 0

 Air Force 3

 4. Legal Officer Course. In the sea services, non-lawyer "legal

officers" perform a host of military justice functions in many commands

that are not large enough to warrant assignment of a judge advocate.

This four-week course prepares these collateral duty legal officers

(typically paygrades 0-1 to 0-3) to assume legal duties in their

respective commands. This course is offered 16 times per fiscal year, at

Newport, Rhode Island, San Diego, California, and Norfolk, Virginia.

Fiscal year 2000 legal officers trained:

 Navy 446

 Marine Corps 82

 Coast Guard 2

 International 1

 5. Legal Clerk Course. Legal clerks are typically assigned to

assist non-lawyer legal officers within a command. This is usually a

collateral duty for a Navy command yeoman or personnelman, or a Marine

Corps legal services specialist. This two-week course provides training

in the preparation of legal forms and reports, service record entries,

post-mast and post court-martial procedures. In fiscal year 2000, the

course was offered 19 times at Newport, Rhode Island, San Diego,

California, and Norfolk, Virginia. Fiscal year 2000 participants:

 Navy 245

 Marine Corps 22

 Civilian 4
13

In addition to the above "core" courses, NJS offered numerous continuing

legal education programs throughout the fiscal year that contained

detailed instructions relating to the operation of the UCMJ. These

included:

Officer Courses Length

Reserve Judge Advocate Course Two weeks

Staff Judge Advocate Course Two weeks

Capital Litigation Course 2.5 days

(Separate offerings for Prosecution and Defense)

Intermediate Trial Advocacy Course One week

Advanced Trial Advocacy Course One week

Coast Guard Law Specialist Course One week

Computer Crimes Two days

National College of District Attorneys Course One week

Advanced Staff Judge Advocate Course One week

Law of Military Operations Two weeks

Joint Operational Law Two weeks

Career Force Indoctrination One week

Staff Judge Advocate Environmental Law Three days

Litigating Complex Cases Three days

Legal Assistance Manager's Workshop Two days

Estate Planning Three days

SOAC Course Two days

Continuing Legal Education Four days

Enlisted Courses Length

Reserve Legalman Course Two weeks

Legalman Legal Writing One week

Military Justice Course for the Staff Judge

 Advocate/Command Judge Advocate/Shipboard LN One week

NLSO/TSO Legalman Course Three days

Coast Guard Legal Clerk Course Two weeks

Senior Legalman Course One week

 International Programs. In fiscal year 1998, NJS introduced Legal

Considerations for Peacekeeping and Military Operations. In fiscal year

2000, 64 students from 43 countries attended the Fall and Spring

offerings of this five-week resident course held in Newport, Rhode

Island. The course covers topics including international law, UN

organizations, UN Charter, regional organizations, humanitarian relief

organizations, non-governmental organizations, law of armed conflict,

rules of engagement, status of forces agreements, national policy for

peace operations, legal issues regarding de-mining, and preventive

diplomacy. The students hear from notable guest speakers, engage in

interactive group problems and take field trips to Washington, D.C. and

UN Headquarters in New York City. In the past two years, 203 students

have completed the course.
14

 DIILS Staff. In June of 2000, oversight of the Defense Institute of

International Legal Studies (DIILS) program transferred from NJS to the

Defense Security Cooperation Agency as a joint agency activity. NJS and

DIILS continue mutual support and shared administrative resources. DIILS

has presented programs to over 13,000 senior military and civilian

government officials in 73 countries worldwide since its inception in

late 1992. Teams, consisting of judge advocates from all uniformed

services, utilize the UCMJ and their experiences to compare, contrast,

and develop military justice systems in emerging democracies. In fiscal

year 2000, DIILS presented 53 weeks of seminars in 32 developing nations.

Significantly, 26 percent of the participants have been civilian members

of these governments who determine policy and create new military justice

codes.

 Publications. NJS publishes the Naval Law Review, all materials in

support of academic programs, and any additional materials directed by

higher authorities. NJS will soon publish Volume 47 of the Naval Law

Review, containing several articles related to operational,

environmental, and international law and military justice.

MARINE CORPS ACTIVITIES

The Marine Corps active-duty judge advocate community consisted of

approximately 420 judge advocates during fiscal year 2000. Nearly half

of all judge advocates were company-grade officers, in pay grade O-3 or

below. Forty-five officers were new accessions, ordered to begin active

duty at The Basic School in Quantico, Virginia. In addition to the new

accessions, 10 officers graduated from ABA-accredited law schools by way

of government-sponsored law education programs. Four of these officers

graduated from the Funded Law Education Program (FLEP) and six graduated

from the Excess Leave Program (ELP). Twelve officers are currently

assigned to FLEP and 15 are now attending law school under the ELP.

Thirteen judge advocates attended resident professional military

education courses in fiscal year 2000. Eight majors received LL.M

degrees from the graduate course at The Judge Advocate General’s School

of the Army, Charlottesville, Virginia. Three captains completed the

Amphibious Warfare School, Quantico, Virginia and one lieutenant colonel

completed the Marine Corps Command and Staff Course, Quantico, Virginia.

One lieutenant colonel completed top-level school and two majors received

LL.M degrees through the Special Education Program (SEP). Thirteen

officers are currently attending resident professional military education

courses and two are assigned to the SEP. As unrestricted officers,

Marine Corps judge advocates continued to fill numerous non-legal

billets. Five judge advocates serve in command billets: Security

Battalion, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California; Marine Corps

Security Force Company, Kings Bay, Georgia; Headquarters Battalion,

Marine Corps Bases, Hawaii; 1st Battalion, Recruit Training Regiment,

Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, California; and Headquarters and
15

Service Battalion, Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, California.

Ten judge advocates served in joint billets.
16

The Marine Corps Reserve judge advocate community averaged 395

officers during fiscal year 2000. Approximately 275 of these officers

were actively participating in the Reserve. Fourteen Reserve judge

advocates, major through colonel, serve as appellate counsel in the NavyMarine Corps Appellate Review Activity. Reserve judge advocates serve at

bases and stations throughout the country and overseas. They provide

legal support beside, and are almost indistinguishable from, their

active-duty counterparts in billets ranging from instructors at Naval

Justice School to legal assistance attorneys at Marine Corps Base, Camp

Pendleton, California. Reserve judge advocates also serve in non-legal

billets in various combat arms and supporting commands.

DONALD J. GUTER

Rear Admiral, USN

The Judge Advocate General of the Navy
Page 1 of 2

APPENDIX - U.S. NAVY/MARINE CORPS MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

Report Period: FY 2000

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons)

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/

DECREASE (-) OVER

LAST REPORT

GENERAL 428 398 30 +23%

BCD SPECIAL 2381 2298 83 +13.3%

NON-BCD SPECIAL 0 0 0 0%

SUMMARY 1883 1802 81 +20.3%

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT +16.5%

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL)

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 98

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 163

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( SA LEVEL)

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 1496

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 271

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1467

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 31

PART 4 – WORKLOAD OF THE U.S. NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL

 APPEALS

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 1330

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 399

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 931

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 1770

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 287

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1483

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 1219

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 233

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 986

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 1881

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 453

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1428

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD -35.6%

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

 U.S. NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (CCA)

NUMBER 1770

PERCENTAGE 100%

PART 6 - ACTIONS OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

 (CAAF)

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 194 16%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -7%

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 45 23%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +7%

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CCA 3.7%

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD -20%
Page 2 of 2

APPENDIX - U.S. NAVY/MARINE CORPS MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS - CONT’D

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 17

RECEIVED 11

DISPOSED OF 20

 GRANTED 0

 DENIED 20

 NO JURISDICTION 0

 WITHDRAWN 0

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 8

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 344

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 2250

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 84

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 131

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 114

PART 10 – STRENGTH

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 546,514

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ)

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 29,612

RATE PER 1,000 54.2

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD +3.7%
REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE AIR FORCE

OCTOBER 1, 1999 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2000

In compliance with the requirements of Article 6(a), Uniform Code

of Military Justice (UCMJ), The Judge Advocate General and Deputy

Judge Advocate General made official staff inspections of field legal

offices in the United States and overseas. They also attended and

participated in various bar association meetings and addressed many

civic, professional, and military organizations.

The Judge Advocate General and other members of the Department

also participated in various events to commemorate the 50th anniversary

of the UCMJ. On 29 October 1999, The Judge Advocate General

participated in a panel discussion during the 9th annual conference on

National Security Law in a Changing World in Washington, D.C. The

conference was co-sponsored by the ABA Standing Committee on Law and

National Security, the University of Virginia School of Law Center for

National Security Law, and the Duke University School of Law Center on

Law, Ethics and National Security. The panel, consisting of The Judge

Advocate General, Former Chief Judge Walter T. Cox, III, and Eugene R.

Fidell, President, National Institute of Military Justice, and

moderator, Senior Judge Robinson O. Everett, discussed the topic:

“Fifty Years of Military Justice: Does the UCMJ Need To Be Changed?”

In April 2000, the twenty-sixth Interservice Military Judges’

Seminar at The Air Force Judge Advocate General School, Maxwell AFB,

Alabama, included a daylong symposium dedicated to the 50th Anniversary

of the UCMJ. Guest speakers included Judge Andrew S. Effron, Court of

Appeals for the Armed Forces, Professor Lee D. Schinasi, Professor

David A. Schlueter, Brigadier General Jack Rives, Brigadier General

(Ret) John Cooke, and a panel of six retired Judge Advocate Generals

of the Air Force speaking about significant military justice

developments during their respective terms. Attending the panel

discussion were former TJAGs Major General Reed, Major General Bruton,

Major General Norris, Major General Morehouse, Major General Sklute

and Major General Hawley. All of the military judges attending the

Interservice Seminar and a large number of Maxwell’s professional

military education students, faculty and special guests attended the

50th Anniversary of the UCMJ Symposium.

On 9 July 2000, The Judge Advocate General also participated in a

panel discussion during the annual meeting of the American Bar

Association in New York. The panel, consisting of The Judge Advocate

General, Professor Patricia M. Gormley, Mr. Frank J. Spinner, and

Professor Elizabeth L. Hillman, and moderator, Professor David A.

Schlueter, discussed the topic: “Sex and the UCMJ: 50 Years into the

Modern Era of Military Justice . . . Why Do the Services Still

Prohibit Fraternization, Adultery, and Unprofessional Relationships?”

THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

During fiscal year 2000, the number of cases referred to the

Court increased slightly, while the number of decisions released
2

dropped significantly. This is probably due to the increasing length

of the records of trial and the number of issues brought on appeal.

The Court continued its “Project Outreach” program, hearing oral

arguments at the United States Air Force Academy, Colorado; Randolph

AFB, Texas; and Maxwell AFB, Alabama. In conjunction with a

Professional Development Division recruiting effort, the Court heard

oral argument at the Howard University School of Law. Over 100

students and faculty attended the argument.

In September 2000, the Court also revised its Internal Rules of

Practice and Procedure.

USAF JUDICIARY ORGANIZATION

The USAF Judiciary Directorate has responsibility for overseeing

the administration of military justice throughout the United States

Air Force, from nonjudicial proceedings to the appellate review of

courts-martial. Additionally, the Directorate has the staff

responsibility of the Air Force Legal Services Agency in all military

justice matters which arise in connection with programs, special

projects, studies, and inquiries generated by the Department of

Defense (DoD), Headquarters USAF, members of Congress, and various

agencies. The Judiciary Directorate consists of the Trial Judiciary

Division, Government Trial and Appellate Counsel Division, Appellate

Defense Division, Trial Defense Division, Military Justice Division,

and the Clemency, Corrections and Officer Review Division.

The director of the Judiciary is also the current chairman of the

DoD Joint Service Committee on Military Justice. Normally this

chairmanship rotates biennially among the Services. However, in April

2000, the Air Force agreed to chair the committee for a third year.

During this fiscal year, the Committee conducted a study on the

feasibility and desirability of an independent judiciary, made

numerous conforming changes to the Manual for Courts-Martial to

implement the expanded jurisdiction of the special courts-martial; and

finalized its 2000 annual review. In his capacity as the chair of the

Committee, the director attended the February 2000 mid-year meeting of

the American Bar Association in Dallas, Texas, and also provided a

briefing at the concurrent Judge Advocate’s Association meeting on

“Deployed Military Justice.” He attended the July 2000 annual meeting

of the American Bar Association in New York and the May 2000 meeting

of the ABA Standing Committee on Armed Forces Law at Nellis AFB,

Nevada. In September 2000, the director also briefed the Code

Committee on the status of Joint Service Committee projects.

TRIAL JUDICIARY DIVISION

The Air Force Trial Judiciary had an average of 20 active duty

trial judges, 5 reserve trial judges, 10 noncommissioned officers and

a civilian employee court reporter assigned throughout 5 judiciary

circuits worldwide. The Chief Trial Judge, his military judge

assistant, one noncommissioned officer and the court reporter are

assigned to the Trial Judiciary headquarters. The military judges’
3

duties include: presiding over all general and special courts-martial

tried in the United States Air Force; serving as investigating

officers under Article 32, UCMJ; acting as legal advisors for officer

discharge boards and other administrative boards; and serving as

hearing officers in parole violation hearings and at public hearings

held to consider draft environmental impact statements. During this

fiscal year, military judges averaged approximately 125 days on

temporary duty to perform these functions at locations other than

their bases of assignment.

The Chief Trial Judge made supervisory visits to all three CONUS

circuits and both of the overseas circuits to review workload and

facilities. The Trial Judiciary has a Web site on the Internet for

trial judges. The Web site contains reference materials and is

updated continually.

The Twenty-Sixth Interservice Military Judges’ Seminar was

conducted by the Trial Judiciary at The Air Force Judge Advocate

General School, Maxwell AFB, Alabama, from

10-14 April 2000. One-hundred-seven military judges attended the

seminar from the trial judiciaries of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps,

Coast Guard, and the Air Force. The Chief Military Judge of the

Canadian Armed Forces also attended. The 2000 program included a

daylong symposium dedicated to the 50th Anniversary of the UCMJ.

The Chief Trial Judge attended the Military Judge’s Course

conducted by The Army Judge Advocate General’s School in

Charlottesville, Virginia, from 16-19 May 2000. In March 2000, one

active duty judge attended the Handling Capital Cases Course put on by

the National Judicial College at Charleston, South Carolina. In June

2000, five active duty judges attended the Criminal Evidence Course

conducted by the National Judicial College at its Reno, Nevada campus.

The Chief Trial Judge attended the annual meeting of the American

Bar Association in New York City, New York, in July 2000. He serves

on the Executive Committee of the National Conference of Special Court

Judges and as Co-Chair of the Military Courts Committee. He also

serves as the Chair of the Military Courts Committee of the Judiciary

Division, Federal Bar Association. These interactions with civilian

judges are most beneficial in promoting a greater mutual understanding

of the military and civilian justice systems and the roles of military

and civilian judges.

GOVERNMENT TRIAL & APPELLATE COUNSEL DIVISION

The following figures reflect the division’s workload in fiscal year

2000 and the previous four years:

FY 96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00

AFCCA

Briefs Filed 329 434 320 230 151

Cases Argued 27 22 10 11 19
4

USCAAF

Briefs Filed 80 85 48 29 23

Cases Argued 52 58 59 27 28

SUPREME COURT

Petition Waivers

Filed

4 15 17 2 1

Briefs Filed 00000

Appellate Government Counsel

In November 1999, the Chief, Trial and Appellate Government

Counsel Division and five appellate counsel attended the Criminal Law

New Developments Course at the Army Judge Advocate General’s School.

In addition to providing new appellate counsel an update in the most

recent criminal law developments, it was an opportunity for both

appellate counsel and trial counsel to spend several hours together

and discuss ways to better serve the base legal offices. In March

2000, five appellate counsel also attended the Military Appellate

Advocacy Symposium sponsored by The Judge Advocate’s Association at

Catholic University School of Law.

In December 1999, three appellate government counsel provided indepth training at the Military Justice Administration Workshop

conducted at The Air Force Judge Advocate General School. In April

2000, an appellate government counsel also provided instruction at the

workshop conducted at HQ SPACECOM, Peterson AFB, Colorado.

Appellate government counsel also prepared and provided an

appellate update on USCAAF and AFCCA decisions and trends in case law

for five trial counsel workshops at each of the circuits and for the

Article 32 Investigating Officer’s Course conducted at Barksdale AFB,

Louisiana, in April 2000. Additionally, appellate government counsel

provided instruction on myriad military justice topics at the Trial

and Defense Advocacy Course in January 2000 and the Advanced Trial

Advocacy Course in May 2000 conducted at The Air Force Judge Advocate

General School.

Appellate government counsel contributed to “Project Outreach,”

sponsored by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and the Air

Force Court of Criminal Appeals, by conducting oral arguments before

audiences at the United States Air Force Academy, Catholic University

School Of Law, Howard University School of Law, The Air Force Judge

Advocate General School, and at the Great Hall of the Bar of the City

of New York, educating personnel about the fairness and

professionalism of the military justice system.

Appellate counsel supplemented the division’s web site with the

November and February additions of the Appellate Update, the December

and March Advocacy Continuing Education (ACE) Newsletters and the 2000

Trial Counsel Deskbook. Easy access to these materials enhanced the
5

briefings provided by appellate government counsel at the Trial and

Defense Advocacy Course and the Advanced Trial Advocacy Course.

Currently, there are nine reserve judge advocates assigned as

appellate government counsel. They continue to provide superb

support, greatly assisting the Trial and Appellate Government Counsel

Division in carrying out its mission. In addition to preparing

written briefs, three of the reserve counsel have presented oral

argument before the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals or the Court

of Appeals for the Armed Forces during the fiscal year.

Circuit Trial Counsel

The manning authorizations for the fiscal year included 17

Circuit Trial Counsel (CTC) at 3 circuit offices in CONUS, while 4

CTCs cover the Pacific and European theaters, two per theater. During

fiscal year 2000, Circuit Trial Counsel tried 186 general courtsmartial or 56% of all general courts-martial. In addition, Circuit

Trial Counsel tried 31 special courts-martial. Several CTCs attended

the Criminal Law New Developments Course at the Army JAG School in

Charlottesville, Virginia. The CTCs in all five judicial circuits

conducted workshops for base-level prosecutors. Circuit Trial Counsel

also utilized their talents by teaching as adjunct instructors at the

Trial and Defense Advocacy Course and the Advanced Trial and Defense

Advocacy Course.

APPELLATE DEFENSE COUNSEL DIVISION

The following figures reflect the division’s workload in fiscal

year 2000 and the previous four years:
6

FY 96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00

AFCCA

Cases Briefed 534 505 603 507 398

Oral Arguments 23 22 10 9 15

USCAAF

Supplements to

Petitions

589 527 424 416 330

Grant Briefs 39 85 40 26 28

Oral Arguments 45 58 59 23 25

SUPREME COURT

Petitions 5 13 17 0 1

Briefs in Opposition 22100

Briefs on the Merits 11000

Training for our appellate defense counsel remained one of the

division’s highest priorities. Training this fiscal year included

attending civilian appellate advocacy seminars sponsored by the

National Legal Aid and Defender Association, NAACP Legal Defense &

Education Fund, Defense Research Institute, and LawRose, Inc.

Appellate defense counsel supported trial defense counsel in the

field through active participation in the five annual Chief Circuit

Defense Counsel Conferences. During this period, counsel provided

briefings to trial defense practitioners on new developments in

military criminal law. The division also created a web site to

provide immediate and useful information, including appellate court

decisions, to the trial defense community enabling them to formulate

defense tactics and strategies.

Appellate defense counsel actively participated in the Area

Defense Counsel Orientation courses providing legal guidance to

counsel just beginning their defense counsel tours. Appellate defense

counsel served as adjunct faculty members in the Advanced Trial

Advocacy Course and Trial and Defense Advocacy Course at the Air Force

Judge Advocate General School. The Law Office Manager also spoke at

the USAFE and Central Circuit Defense Paralegal Conferences-- bridging

the gap between trial defense and appellate defense paralegals.

The division hosted a Joint Appellate Defense Counsel Workshop

with appellate counsel from the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast

Guard appellate defense offices. Several high profile counsel from

the civilian sector also attended. The workshop fostered

communication and cross-feed between the individual appellate defense

communities on matters of mutual concern. This has resulted in

greater cooperation and sharing of information between the services.
7

Appellate defense counsel also contributed to “Project Outreach,”

sponsored by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and the Air

Force Court of Criminal Appeals.

TRIAL DEFENSE DIVISION

The Trial Defense Division is responsible for providing all trial

defense services within the Air Force through Area Defense Counsel

(ADC), Defense Paralegals (DP), Circuit Defense Counsel (CDC), and

Chief Circuit Defense Counsel (CCDC). These personnel report to the

Chief, Trial Defense Division (JAJD), who reports to the Director,

United States Air Force Judiciary (JAJ).

The ADC office at McClellan AFB, California, in the western

circuit was closed this year due to impending closure of the

installation. A new ADC office was opened at Bolling AFB, Washington,

D.C., in the Eastern Circuit. The division is manned with 81 ADCs

stationed at 71 bases worldwide. They are assisted by 72 DPs. The

division has 21 CDCs and 5 CCDCs. The CCDCs, along with all but four

of the CDCs, are stationed at the circuit offices located at Bolling

AFB, DC; Randolph AFB, Texas; Travis AFB, California; Ramstein AB,

Germany; and Yokota AB, Japan. A single defense paralegal

superintendent is assigned to each of the three CONUS circuits.

The continuing success of the Air Force’s Area Defense Program is

largely attributable to its independence and its energized personnel.

Other than advising and representing clients, training remains the

division’s top priority. Aside from on-the-job training and mentoring

that is provided by CCDCs and CDCs, newly appointed defense counsel

receive formal training at the Area Defense Counsel Orientation and at

annual workshops conducted by each Circuit. DP training is conducted

at annual circuit DP conferences. The division also provided adjunct

faculty members for the Trial and Defense Advocacy and the Advanced

Trial Advocacy Courses, held at the Air Force Judge Advocate General

School.

MILITARY JUSTICE DIVISION

The Military Justice Division prepares opinions and policy

positions for The Judge Advocate General and for the Air Force Board

for Correction of Military Records. They also assemble reports on

military justice requested by the White House, Congress, DoD and the

Air Staff. The division chief represents the Air Force on the DoD

Joint Service Committee on Military Justice and the deputy division

chief acts as the Executive Secretary to the Committee. The division

also provided representatives to all interservice activities involving

military justice and support for the Code Committee.
8

During the course of the past year, the Military Justice Division

served as the action agency for the review of military justice issues

on applications submitted to the Air Force Board for Correction of

Military Records. The division provided 75 formal opinions concerning

such applications. They also received 281 inquiries in specific cases

requiring either formal written replies or telephonic replies to

senior officials, including the President and members of Congress. The

Military Justice Division also reviewed 60 records of trial for review

under Article 69a, UCMJ; 7 records under Article 69b, UCMJ; and 1

record under Article 73, UCMJ.

The division co-taught the annual Military Justice Administration

Workshops with the Government Trial and Appellate Counsel Division.

In January 2000, the office also trained approximately 35 personnel

from 4 military installations on victim and witness assistance at

Travis AFB, California.

CLEMENCY, CORRECTIONS & OFFICER REVIEW DIVISION

The division's primary responsibilities continue to be (1)

recommend appropriate disposition of statutorily required sentence

review actions by the Secretary of the Air Force in officer and cadet

dismissal cases; (2) recommend action by The Judge Advocate General or

the Secretary of the Air Force, as appropriate, to effect statutorily

authorized clemency for members of the Air Force under court-martial

sentence; (3) represent The Judge Advocate General on the Air Force

Clemency and Parole Board; (4) make recommendations for the Secretary

of the Air Force to the Attorney General on Presidential Pardon

applications by court-martialed Air Force members; and (5) advise The

Judge Advocate General and the Security Forces Center on corrections

issues.

At the end of fiscal year 2000, a total of 593 Air Force

personnel were in confinement. Of those, 115 inmates were in longterm confinement at the United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort

Leavenworth, Kansas, and 97 were serving time in the Federal Bureau of

Prisons system. A total of seven inmates were enrolled in the Air

Force Return-to-Duty Rehabilitation Program during this period, with

one graduating and being returned to duty. The number of Air Force

inmates on parole at the end of fiscal year 2000 was 120, a 12 percent

decrease from last fiscal year.

AIR FORCE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL SCHOOL

The Air Force Judge Advocate General (AFJAG) School is one of

eight professional continuing education schools within Air

University’s Ira C. Eaker College for Professional Development at

Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. The AFJAG School is located in the

William L. Dickinson Law Center, a 56,000 square foot, state-of-the

art facility dedicated in 1993. The Dickinson Law Center also houses

the David C. Morehouse Center for Paralegal Studies and the Air Force

Legal Information Services Division (JAS). The AFJAG School provides

legal education and training to judge advocates, civilian attorneys,

and paralegals from all military services and many foreign countries;
9

provides legal instruction at 18 other Air University colleges and

schools; publishes The Military Commander and the Law, The Air Force

Law Review, and The Reporter; and maintains AFJAG Department liaison

with military and civilian professional organizations, law schools,

and states requiring continuing legal education.

AFJAG School Courses

The AFJAG School conducts 32 separate courses offered 46 times

each year. This includes some courses, such as the Judge Advocate

Staff Officer Course (JASOC) and Paralegal Apprentice Course (PAC),

that are offered multiple times every year. While most courses are

offered in-residence at the AFJAG School, others are conducted offsite or by utilizing distance learning technologies. In Fiscal Year

2000, over 4,200 students attended AFJAG School courses, including

over 2,000 in-residence students at the AFJAG School. AFJAG School

courses, workshops, and seminars include:

Accident Investigation Board Legal Advisor Course

Advanced Environmental Law Course

Advanced Labor and Employment Law Course

Advanced Trial Advocacy Course

Air Force Reserve Annual Survey of the Law

Air Force Systems and Logistics Contracting Course

Air National Guard Annual Survey of the Law

Claims and Tort Litigation Course

Deployed Air Reserve Component Operations and Law Course

Deployed Fiscal Law and Contingency Contracting Course

Environmental Law Course (basic)

Environmental Law Update Course

European Survey of the Law

Federal Employee Labor Law Course

Federal Income Tax Law Course

Fiscal Law Course

Information Operations Law Course

International Law Course

Judge Advocate Staff Officer Course

Law Office Manager Course

Legal Aspects of Information Operations Course

Military Judges’ Seminar

Military Justice Administration Workshop

Negotiations and Appropriate Dispute Resolution Course

Operations Law Course (with JAG FLAG Exercise)

Pacific Survey of the Law

Paralegal Apprentice Course

Paralegal Craftsman Course
10

Reserve Forces Judge Advocate Course

Reserve Forces Paralegal Course

Staff Judge Advocate Course

Trial and Defense Advocacy Course

Off-Site Education

The AFJAG School conducts four “Surveys of the Law” for judge

advocates and paralegals in the Air Force Reserves and Air National

Guard. The surveys are held at a civilian conference facility in

Denver, Colorado. The surveys provided a concise update on recent

developments in military justice and civil law. Nearly 600 judge

advocates and paralegals from the reserve components attended a survey

in Fiscal Year 2000.

Distance Learning

The AFJAG School offers two courses each year, the Fiscal Law

Course and the Air Force Systems and Logistics Contracting Course

(AFSLCC), by satellite broadcast to Air Force and Army installations

throughout the United States. In Fiscal Year 2000, over 1,250

students participated in courses via satellite. This included over

1,000 students in the Fiscal Law Course and 235 students in AFSLCC.

Also, the 5-level Paralegal Journeyman Course is offered as a nonresident course in both paper and CD-ROM formats. The Paralegal

Journeyman Course was the first career development course in Air Force

history to be offered in a CD-ROM format.

Outside Teaching

In addition to teaching within the AFJAG School, the faculty

provides approximately 1,800 hours of legal education and training

each year in the following colleges, schools, and courses within Air

University: Air War College; Air Command and Staff College; Squadron

Officer College; College of Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and

Education; International Officers School; Basic Officer Training

Course; Commissioned Officer Training Course; USAF First Sergeants’

Academy; Senior Noncommissioned Officer Academy; Group Commanders’

Course; On-Scene Commanders’ Course; Professional Military Comptroller

School; and Chaplain Orientation Course.

The AFJAG School continued its support of the Expanded

International Military Education and Training (E-IMET) Program in

Fiscal Year 2000. E-IMET is a Security Assistance Program (22 U.S.C.

§ 2347) managed by the State Department. It furthers U.S. foreign

policy goals under the Foreign Assistance Act by providing training on

human rights and democratic principles to military leaders in nations

identified as emerging democracies. Air Force judge advocates

participated in 23 joint service E-IMET training events in Fiscal Year

2000. These programs provided training to leaders from 16 nations,

including, among others, Kenya, Russia, Slovakia, Bolivia, the Czech

Republic, Croatia, and Bosnia.

Publications
11

The AFJAG School published two editions of The Air Force Law

Review, a professional legal journal comprised of articles of interest

to Air Force judge advocates and paralegals, civilian attorneys, and

others involved in military law. The Air Force Law Review is a forum

for frank discussion of current legislative, administrative, and

judicial developments. Four editions of The Reporter were published

in Fiscal Year 2000. This included a special edition in late 1999

commemorating the 50th anniversary of the AFJAG Department. The

Reporter is the AFJAG Department’s quarterly legal publication and

contains general interest articles for practitioners in the field.

The AFJAG School’s most popular publication is The Military Commander

and the Law, a six hundred plus page compendium of concise articles on

the full range of legal issues commanders face. The printed version

of The Military Commander and the Law is revised every two years and

over 20,000 copies are distributed worldwide. Distribution of the

2000 edition was completed late last year. An on-line version is

available at http://milcom.jag.af.mil and is updated every six months.

LEGAL INFORMATION SERVICES

Continuing its efforts to ensure personnel have expansive,

accurate research capabilities, FLITE, along with our Unified Law

Library (ULL) initiative, significantly enhanced computer-aided legal

research and information cross-flow capabilities within the Department

of Defense. FLITE provided the Department with access to up-to-date

judicial opinions and court information, hosting web sites for the

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the Air Force Court of Criminal

Appeals, the three Boards for Correction of Military Records, the Air

Force Discharge Review Board, and Air Force Military Trial Judges.

The ULL expanded our relationship with on-line legal research

providers, opening volumes of legal research material to our field

offices—especially those in remote and deployed locations where paperbased libraries are minimal or non-existent. Access to all LexisNexis databases was provided to all Air Force legal offices. Further

aiding our deployed personnel, the Manual for Courts-Martial and

Military Justice Reporters were published on CD-ROM and added to our

deployment and crash kits along with an annotated U.S. Code from

Lexis. FLITE also began pilot programs with our sister service JAG

Departments, allowing their personnel to access service-specific

versions of FLITE. Additionally, to encourage communication between

our field offices, FLITE established electronic forums where baselevel trial practitioners can discuss military justice issues.

Our Automated Military Justice Administrative Management System

(AMJAMS), now in its third full release, expanded the information

available to military justice offices throughout the Department, while

also upgrading the system to the Secure Socket Layer 3 protocol for

increased security of data transmission. Field offices now have the

ability to access the same graphical reports provided to The Judge

Advocate General’s Office for Article 6, UCMJ visits. Newly developed

individual case reports compile all information on a case in one

report, providing users a complete, up-to-date picture of any case in

the system. Reports for cases in progress and processing times for
12

general and special courts-martial have also been consolidated into a

more useful reference tool. For Article 15 cases, AMJAMS now

incorporates the Form 3070, with integrated data entry for the form

and database to facilitate case preparation and accuracy. Finally,

on-line reports have been added to the trial judiciary and appellate

modules, allowing more efficient case tracking at these levels.

Overall, AMJAMS has expanded information delivery options, increased

functionality, and improved the military justice process.

A joint effort between the Legal Information Services Resource

Management Division and the Trial Judiciary began testing

implementation of voice-recognition technology for court reporting.

Voice-recognition systems promise to ease the transcribing burden on

our court reporters while increasing the efficiency of preparing

records of trial. This pilot program will continue into FY 2001 and

will expand to include paralegals acting as contingency court

reporters.

PERSONNEL

As of 30 September 2000, there were 1,320 judge advocates on

duty. Company grade officers (captains and first lieutenants) made up

slightly over half of that number (653). Nearly 25% were majors (323)

and 16% were lieutenant colonels (212). Roughly 9% were colonels

(123) and above, including two major generals and three brigadier

generals.

WILLIAM A. MOORMAN

Major General, USAF

The Judge Advocate General
Page 1 of 2

APPENDIX - U. S. AIR FORCE MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

Report Period: FISCAL YEAR 2000

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons)

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/

DECREASE (-) OVER

LAST REPORT

GENERAL 438 404 34 +4.04%

BCD SPECIAL 320 306 14 -3.90%

NON-BCD SPECIAL [A]

SUMMARY 139 135 4 +52.75%

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT +6.15%

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL)

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 36

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 252

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL)

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 143

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 332

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 141

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 60

PART 4 – WORKLOAD OF THE U.S. AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 336

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 273

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 63

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 471

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL [B]

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL [B]

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 389

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 418

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD (483:389) -19.46%

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

 U.S. AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (CCA)

NUMBER 465

PERCENTAGE 98.73%

PART 6 - ACTIONS OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

 (CAAF)

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF (335/389) 86.12%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +0.82%

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED (37/335) 11.04%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +4.24%

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CCA (37/389) 9.51%

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD (412:335) -18.69%
Page 2 of 2

APPENDIX - U.S. AIR FORCE MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS - CONT’D

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 2

RECEIVED 6

DISPOSED OF 7

 GRANTED 0

 DENIED 7

 NO JURISDICTION 0

 WITHDRAWN 0

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 1

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 445

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 258

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 187

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 313

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 180

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 133

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 13

PART 10 – STRENGTH

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 351,448

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ)

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 8608

RATE PER 1,000 24.49

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD +4.43%

EXPLANATORY NOTES

 

[A] The Air Force does not convene Non-BCD SPCMs. Of the 320 BCD SPCMs tried, there were 159 convictions with a

 BCD adjudged and 161 convictions without a BCD adjudged.

[B] GCM and SPCM were not tracked separately.
REPORT OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL OF THE U. S. COAST GUARD

October 1, 1999 to September 30, 2000

NOTE: All statistics presented in this analysis are based upon the

number of court-martial records received and filed at Coast Guard

Headquarters during fiscal year 2000 and, where indicated, records

received during each of the four preceding fiscal years. The number

of court-martial cases varies widely from year to year, in part, based

on the small size of the Coast Guard. However, when viewed in a twoyear cycle there is a fairly consistent number of courts-martial, with

an average of 76 cases every two years. The two-year average has

declined in recent years (FY99-FY00 70 cases, FY97-FY98 72 cases,

FY95-FY96 85 cases).

Fiscal Year 00 99 98 97 96

General Courts-Martial 10 6 18 6 22

Special Courts-Martial 23 17 21 9 16

Summary Courts-Martial 11 3 8 10 14

Total 44 26 47 25 52

COURTS-MARTIAL

Attorney counsel were detailed to all special courts-martial.

Military judges were detailed to all special courts-martial. For most

cases, the presiding judge was the Chief Trial Judge, a full-time

general courts-martial judge. When the Chief Trial Judge was

unavailable, military judges with other primary duties were used for

special courts-martial. Control of the detail of judges was centrally

exercised by the Chief Trial Judge and all requirements were met in a

timely fashion.

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL

Seven of the ten accused tried by general courts-martial this

fiscal year were tried by military judge alone. Two of the seven

accused tried by military judge alone received a dishonorable

discharge and three received a bad-conduct discharge. Three accused

elected to be tried by general courts-martial that included enlisted

members. One of the accused tried by general courts-martial with

members received a sentence that included a bad-conduct discharge.

Nine of the ten general courts-martial resulted in convictions. Four

of the accused whose charges were referred to general courts-martial

were nonrated (pay grades E-1 through E-3), five were petty officers

(pay grades E-4 through E-6), none were chief petty officers (pay

grades E-7 through E-9), and one was a warrant officer or junior

officer (W-1 through O-3).
2

The following is a breakdown of the sentences adjudged in general

courts-martial tried by military judge alone (seven convictions):

Sentence Cases Imposed

dishonorable discharge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

bad conduct discharge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3

confinement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6

hard labor without confinement- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

reduction in pay-grade - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5

fined (total $900.00) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

restriction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

forfeiture of all pay and allowances - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

partial forfeiture of pay and allowances - - - - - - - - - - - 1

The following is a breakdown of sentences adjudged in general

courts-martial tried by members (two convictions).

Sentence Cases Imposed

dishonorable discharge- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

bad-conduct discharge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

confinement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

hard labor without confinement- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

reduction in pay-grade - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

fined (total $0.00) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

restriction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

forfeiture of all pay and allowances - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

partial forfeiture of pay and allowances - - - - - - - - - - - 1

The following indicates the frequency of imposition of the four

most common punishments imposed by general courts-martial in the past

five fiscal years.

 Reduction Punitive

 Number of in Discharge/

FY Convictions Forfeitures Confinement Pay-Grade Dismissal 

00 9 5 (56%) 7 (78%) 6 (67%) 6 (67%)

99 6 0 (0%) 6 (100%) 6 (100%) 5 (83%)

98 17 5 (29%) 12 (71%) 16 (94%) 11 (65%)

97 6 2 (33%) 4 (67%) 5 (83%) 4 (67%)

96 22 15 (68%) 19 (86%) 20 (91%) 18 (82%)
3

The following table shows the distribution of the 68

specifications referred to general courts-martial in fiscal year 2000.

Violation of the UCMJ, Article No. of Specs.

 81 (conspiracy) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

 91 (insubordinate conduct) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

 92 (failure to obey order or regulation) - - - - - - - - - 3

 93 (cruelty and maltreatment) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

107 (false official statement) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5

108 (wrongful disposition of military property)- - - - - - - 1

112a (wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled

 substances) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 30

120 (rape or carnal knowledge) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3

121 (larceny or wrongful appropriation) - - - - - - - - - - 6

125 (sodomy) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

128 (assault)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

134 (general) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL SUMMARY

There was a 67% increase from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2000

in general courts-martial records received and filed at Coast Guard

Headquarters. Due to the small size of the Coast Guard this change is

not statistically significant when viewed as a single-year change.

Over the past 5 years the Coast Guard has averaged 12 general courtsmartial per year. Seven of ten accused tried by general courts-martial

during fiscal year 2000 were tried by military judge alone. None of

these accused tried by general court-martial pled guilty to all

charges and specifications.

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

Twenty-one of the twenty-three accused tried by special courtsmartial this fiscal year were tried by military judge alone. Nine

accuseds tried by military judge alone received a BCD. One of the two

accused tried by a special court-martial with members received a

sentence that included a bad-conduct discharge. One accused elected

to be tried by a special court-martial that included enlisted members.

All of the special courts-martial except one resulted in convictions.

At one special court-martial, all charges and specifications were

withdrawn prior to findings. Fifteen of the accused whose charges

were referred to special courts-martial were nonrated (pay grades E-1

through E-3), eight were petty officers (pay grades E-4 through E-6),

one accused was a chief petty officer (pay grades E-7 through E-9),

and no accuseds were commissioned officers (W-1 through O-9).
4

The following is a breakdown of the sentences adjudged in special

courts-martial tried by military judge alone (21 convictions).

Sentence Cases Imposed

bad-conduct discharge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9

confinement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 19

hard labor without confinement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3

reduction in pay-grade - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17

fined (total $14,000.00) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4

restriction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

partial forfeiture of pay and allowances- - - - - - - - - - - 1

reprimand - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

The following is a breakdown of the sentences adjudged in the

special court-martials tried by members (two convictions).

Sentence Cases Imposed

bad-conduct discharge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

confinement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

hard labor without confinement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

reduction in pay-grade- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

fined (total $0.00) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

restriction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

partial forfeiture of pay and allowances - - - - - - - - - - 1

reprimand - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

The following shows the four sentences imposed most by special

courts-martial in the past five fiscal years.

 Reduction

 Number of in

FY Convictions Forfeitures Confinement Pay-Grade BCD 

00 23 8 (35%) 20 (87%) 19 (83%) 10 (43%)

99 17 8 (47%) 15 (88%) 16 (94%) 9 (53%)

98 20 9 (45%) 9 (45%) 17 (85%) 4 (20%)

97 9 4 (44%) 6 (67%) 8 (89%) 5 (56%)

96 14 11 (79%) 10 (71%) 13 (93%) 7 (50%)
5

The following table shows the distribution of the 350

specifications referred to special courts-martial in fiscal year 2000.

Violation of the UCMJ, Article No. of Specs.

 80 (attempts) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

 85 (desertion) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4

 86 (unauthorized absence)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14

 87 (missing movement)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

 89 (disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer) - - 2

 90 (assaulting or willfully disobeying a superior

 commissioned officer) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

 91 (insubordinate conduct) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5

 92 (failure to obey order or regulation) - - - - - - - - - 49

107 (false official statements) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17

112a (wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled

 substance) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 37

115 (malingering) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

120 (rape and carnal knowledge) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

121 (larceny or wrongful appropriation) - - - - - - - - - -136

123 (forgery) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 39

123a (insufficient funds)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15

125 (sodomy) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

128 (aggravated assault)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

130 (housebreaking) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4

134 (general) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 18

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL SUMMARY

There was a 35% increase in special courts-martial received and

filed at Coast Guard Headquarters this fiscal year over last fiscal

year. Due to the small size of the Coast Guard this change is not

statistically significant when viewed as a single-year change. Over

the past five years the Coast Guard has averaged 15 special courtsmartial per year. Twenty-one of twenty-three accuseds tried during

fiscal year 2000 by special courts-martial were tried by military

judge alone. Four accuseds tried by special courts-martial pled

guilty to all charges and specifications.

CHIEF COUNSEL ACTION UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ

In addition to the required reviews of courts-martial conducted as

a result of petitions filed under Article 66, UCMJ, a review was

conducted under Article 69(a) and (b) of all courts-martial not

requiring Article 66 appellate review.
6

PERSONNEL, ORGANIZATION, AND TRAINING

The Coast Guard has 177 officers designated as law specialists

(judge advocates) serving on active duty - 134 are serving in legal

billets and 43 are serving in general duty billets. Nineteen Coast

Guard officers are currently undergoing postgraduate studies in law

and 18 will be certified as law specialists at the completion of their

studies, 6 will graduate in 2001 including one with an LLM in

International Law, 6 will graduate in 2002, 7 will graduate in 2003.

One LLM candidate will begin study in 2001. Twenty Coast Guard

officers (6 funded postgraduate program studies and 13 directcommissioned lawyers) completed the Navy Basic Lawyer Course in

Newport, Rhode Island. All have been or are in the process of being

certified under article 27(b), UCMJ.

U. S. COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

The judges on the U.S. Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals at the

beginning of fiscal year 2000 were as follows:

Chief Judge Joseph H. Baum

Judge David J. Kantor

Judge Ronald R. Weston

Judge Lane I McClelland

In September 2000, the number of judges on the Court was increased to

six with the addition of the following new judges:

Judge William A. Cassels

Judge Robert Bruce

In addition to the decisional work of the Court, as reflected in

Appendix A, the judges of the Court have been involved in various

professional conferences, committees and seminars during the past

fiscal year. In March, 2000, Chief Judge Baum participated in a Chief

Judges’ Forum with the Chief Judges from the other service courts of

criminal appeals as a part of a two-day symposium on appellate

military advocacy at the Catholic University of America Columbus

School of Law. Chief Judge Baum also served another term this past

year as a member of the Rules Advisory Committee of the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Armed Forces.

On April 7, 2000 the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals joined

with the Navy-Marine Court of Criminal Appeals in co-hosting the

William S. Fulton, Jr. Appellate Military Judge’s Conference, which

was attended by judges from all the other service courts of criminal

appeals. The conference, held at the Federal Judicial Center in
7

Washington, DC, saw presentations and panel discussions on various

topics of interest to appellate military judges, one of which, dealing

with waiver and forfeiture of issues, was moderated by Chief Judge

Baum.

On June 12-13, 2000 the judges of the Court attended the Judicial

Conference of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

at Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law in

Washington, DC. The two-day conference included a variety of

presentations on topics such as dealing with the media, criminal

trials of the century, the public image of the military courts, and

the history of military justice in celebration of the fiftieth

anniversary of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

On September 19-20 2000, Chief Judge Baum, and Judges Kantor,

McClelland, Cassels and Bruce participated in a two-day Appellate

Military Judge’s Training Seminar at Andrews Air Force Base in

Washington, DC. The seminar was designed in part as a training

session for recently assigned judges to the service courts of criminal

appeals, but it also included presentation and panel discussions of

general judicial interest. At the seminar, Chief Judge Baum moderated

a panel discussion on judicial ethics.

ADDITIONAL MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

Appendix A contains basic military justice statistics for the

reporting period and reflects the increase/decrease of the workload in

various categories.

J. S. CARMICHAEL

Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard

Chief Counsel
Page 1 of 2

APPENDIX - U.S. COAST GUARD MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

Report Period: 1 OCTOBER 1999 - 30 SEPTEMBER 2000

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons)

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/

DECREASE (-) OVER

LAST REPORT

GENERAL 10 9 1 +67%

BCD SPECIAL 23 23 +35%

NON-BCD SPECIAL 0 0 0 UNCHANGED

SUMMARY 11 10 1 +267%

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT +69%

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 2

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 4

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 10

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 9

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 10

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1

PART 4 – WORKLOAD OF THE COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 19

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 10

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 9

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 22

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 9

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 13

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 23

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 8

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 15

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 18

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 12

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 6

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD

+15%

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

 U.S. COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (CCA)

NUMBER 23

PERCENTAGE 100%

PART 6 - ACTIONS OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

 (CAAF)

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 6/23 +26%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +16%

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 0/5 0%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -100%

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CGCCA 0/23 0%

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD -10%
Page 2 of 2

APPENDIX - U.S. COAST GUARD MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS - CONT’D

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 0

RECEIVED 0

DISPOSED OF 0

 GRANTED 0

 DENIED 0

 NO JURISDICTION 0

 WITHDRAWN 0

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 0

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 7

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 21

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 3

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 2

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 1

PART 10 – STRENGTH

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 35,754

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ)

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 1311

RATE PER 1,000 37.15

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD +33%