on 


MILITARY JUSTICE 

INCLUDING SEPARATE REPORTS 


of the 


U.S. COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS 


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, 1991 to September 30, 1992 

PROPERTY OF U.S. ARMY 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S SC

LIBRARY 
SERVICES 


of the 


U.S. Senate and House of Represen

and to the 


SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, 


SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATI

and 


SECRETARIES OF THE 


ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORCE 

PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 

For the Period 


October 1, 1991 to September 30, 1992 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

NAVY 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

AIR FORCE 

REPORT OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL OF THE COAST GUA
quarters, United States Marine Corps; and Profe

Schlueter and Stephen A. Saltzburg, Public Membe

the Secretary of Defense, submit their annual report o

ofthe Uniform Code of Military Justice, pursuant to A

form Code ofMilitary Justice, 10 USC§ 946. 

The Code Committee met on two separate occasio

year 1992 and both meetings were open to the public

ing was held on December 6, 1991. During the meetin

of the Joint-Service Committee on Military Justice b

Committee on proposed amendments to the Uniform 

Justice. These proposals included an amendment to A

a gap in court-martial jurisdiction created by decisiona

ment to Article 32 to allow an investigating officer to 

charged offenses which may be revealed during the c

vestigation; an amendment to Article 47 to remove 

limitations for refusal of a witness to appear during 

ceeding; an amendment to Article 54 to require a ve

trial only for cases reviewed pursuant to Article 66; an 

Article 57(a) to make forfeitures and reductions eff

judged; an amendment to Article 57(e) to permit d

accused's sentence when such accused is in civilian 

amendment to Article 63 to modify the maximum sen

during a rehearing; an amendment to Article 111(1) 

provision concerning the drunken operation of a veh

an amendment to Article 111(2) to provide a standard 

hol test to constitute the offense of driving while into

amendment to Article 120 to remove the spousal exe

der terminology for the offenses of rape and carnal k

briefing also covered legislative proposals that had b

the Joint-Service Committee but had not as yet be

Congress. These included an amendment to Article 

tions· for classified information and national security

to Article 62 to permit interlocutory appeals by the Un
a mailing list for persons and organizations having an in

tending future meetings ofthe Code Committee. 

The second meeting of the Code Committee was c

May 1, 1992, in the Marvin Center ofthe George Washin

sity Law Center, Washington, D.C. The Chief Judge of 

Military Appeals noted that this was an historic event a

first Code Committee meeting held outside the Courth

United States Court of Military Appeals and that the s

the meeting immediately following the Judicial Confe

United States Court of Military Appeals was to provide 

portunity for interested members of the public to atten

Judge also noted that the Court's caseload appeared to 

shape than that of any other Federal court. The Code Com

discussed trends in disciplinary proceedings in the va

Services and the desirability of uniformity of sentencing. 

the Chairman ofthe Joint-Service Committee again brie

Committee on the pendency of four proposals to amend 

Code of Military Justice which had been discussed duri

Committee's earlier meeting relating to amendments t

62, 57(a), and 95. This briefing also included a discussio

proposals to the Manual for Courts-Martial relating to pr

cerning the reinstitution of a charge which had earlie

drawn pursuant to a pretrial agreement; a limitation on o

mony concerning an accused's rehabilitation potential; the 

use of drug transactions as an aggravating factor in a p

murder case; and a provision clarifying the relationship b

from apprehension and resisting apprehension as crim

Uniform Code of Military Justice. Additionally, during 

various members of the public accepted an invitation to 

Code Committee and gave their views concerning matter

the administration of military justice. 

Separate reports ofthe United States Court ofMilitary 

the individual Armed Services address further items o

2 
Associate Judge 

ROBERT E. WISS 

Associate Judge 

Major General JOHN L. FUGH, USA 

The Judge Advocate General ofthe Army 

Rear Admiral WILLIAM L. SCHACHTE, Jr., USN 

The Acting Judge Advocate General ofthe Navy 

Major General DAVID C. MOREHOUSE, USAF 

The Judge Advocate General ofthe Air Force 

Rear Admiral PAULE. VERSAW, USCG 

Chief Counsel, U.S. Coast Guard 

Brigadier General GERALD L. MILLER, USMC 

Director, Judge Advocate Division, 

Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps 

Professor DAVID A. SCHLUETER, Public Member 

Professor STEPHEN A. SALTZBURG, Public Membe

Defense, Transportation, Army, Navy, and Air Forc

with Article 146, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 

THE BUSINESS OFTHE COUR

The United States Court ofMilitary Appeals ended 

with a full complement of five judges as authorized 

AuthorizationAct of 1990, Public Law Number 101-18

(1989). Associate Judge Susan J. Crawford was swo

ber 19, 1991, to succeed Senior Judge Robinson 0. E

Judge H.F. "Sparky" Gierke was sworn in on Novemb

Associate Judge Robert E. Wiss was sworn in on J

Despite this significant expansion in the membershi

concerted effort was made by both the judges and sta

maintain a steady workflow of cases within the Court 

fiscal year. As a result, the number of cases carried ov

Petition Docket at the end of fiscal year 1992 incre

cases over the number of cases pending at the end of 

(See Appendix A.) Furthermore, the number of cases 

plenary consideration on the Master Docket at the e

1992 increased by only 26 cases. (See Appendix B.

with the prior year's work, the Court heard 12 more 

and issued 4 more opinions during fiscal year 1992. 

C and D.)1 

Although it was expected that the case processing 

crease significantly as a result of adding two more jud

the average number of days between the filing of a p

Court and the grant of such petition increased by o

the same average time period for fiscal year 1991. (S

1 Although not part of the business of the Court, it is noted th

1992 the Court was notified that petitions for writ of certiorari 

Supreme Court of the United States in 14 Master Docket cases 

took final action. 
% p

view filed with the Court during fiscal year 1992. (See A

Pursuant to Article 142(f), Uniform Code of Military Ju

§ 942(f), the Chief Justice of the United States desig

Stanley Sporkin ofthe United States District Court for t

Columbia and Circuit Judge David B. Sentelle of the U

Court ofAppeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to 

judges of the United States Court of Military Appeals 

year 1992. In addition, pursuant to Article 142(e)(2), UC

942 (e) (2), Senior Judge Robinson 0. Everett was re

Chief Judge to sit on several cases during this same per

During fiscal year 1992 the Court admitted 448 attor

tice before its Bar, bringing the cumulative total of admi

the Bar of the Court to 28,705 attorneys. 

PUBLIC AWARENESS PROJECT 

(Project Outreach) 

Consistent with its practice established in 1988, the 

uled several special sessions and heard oral argument

cases outside its permanent courthouse in Washington, 

of its "Project Outreach", a public awareness project w

strates not only the operation of a Federal appellate c

the effectiveness and quality of the criminal justice s

Armed Services of the United States. Appellate hearin

ducted, without objection of the parties, at the United 

Academy, Annapolis, Maryland; the United States Milit

West Point, New York; the United States District Court 

Dayton, Ohio; and the United States Air Force Academ

Springs, Colorado. These hearings continue to promote 

public awareness of the fundamental fairness of the mi

system and the role ofthe Court in the overall administr

tary justice throughout the world. The Court hopes th

sands ofstudents, servicepersons, military and civilian a

6 
ous military installations throughout the world. 

VISIT OF JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CO

On February 18, 1992, the Honorable Sandra Day O

ciate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Stat

Court and met with the judges and staff ofthe Court co

ters relating to the judicial administration ofthe milit

tem under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE 

On April 30 and May 1, 1992, the Court held its a

Conference at the George Washington University Marv

the cooperation of the Federal Bar Association, Georg

University, the Military Law Institute, and the Judge 

sociation. The Judicial Conference was certified for cre

continuing legal education requirements of various stat

out the United States and was designed to assist bot

civilian practitioners in maintaining those profession

sary to practice before trial and appellate courts. This y

included the Honorable William C. Bryson, Deputy So

of the United States; the Honorable Charles E. Moy

Judge of the Maryland Court of Special Appeals; the H

H. Toal, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of S

Professor Jill J. Ramsfield, Georgetown University Law 

nel Richard E. Ouellette, USMC, Military Judge; Do

Lurie, Historian to the United States Court of Militar

Professor of History at Rutgers University; and the Ho

C. Lamberth, District Judge, United States District Co

Columbia. In addition, Captain James A. Freyer, USN, 

States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review

panel discussion on "The [Un]civil Practice of Military 

panelists Kevin J. Barry, Esq., Retired Judge, United 
Head, Criminal Law Division, Naval Justice School. 

A panel discussion moderated by Colonel Dayton M

Chief, United StatesArmy GovernmentAppellate Divi

"Common (and Not-So-Common) Ethical Problems F

Advocates" with panelists Captain Carlos L. McDade

late Government Counsel; Captain David D. Jividen

late Defense Counsel; Lieutenant Commander Charle

USCG, Senior Government Appellate Counsel; Li

mander G. Arthur Robbins, USCG, Appellate Defens

tain Robin N. Swope, USA, Defense Appellate Co

Samuel J. Smith, Jr., USA, Government Appellate 

Richard T. McNeil, USMC, Appellate Defense Counse

ant Commander Lawrence W. Muschamp, USN, Ap

ment Counsel. Another panel discussion dealt with an 

Military Rules of Evidence" with panelists Profes

Saltzburg, National Law Center, George Washington U

nel Lee D. Schinasi, USA, Judge Advocate General's 

fessor David A. Schlueter, Saint Mary's University La

The Judicial Conference opened with welcoming r

Honorable Eugene R. Sullivan, Chief Judge, United 

Military Appeals, on behalf of the Court; Colonel W

USAF (Ret.), on behalf of the Military Law Institu

Jenkins, Associate Dean for External Affairs, on be

tional Law Center, George Washington University; Alf

Esquire, on behalf ofthe Federal BarAssociation; and 

J. McLeod, III, USNR, on behalf of the Judge Advoca

In addition, a reception was held which included a nu

guished guests, including the Honorable Edwin D. W

Legal Advisor, Department of State, and the Honor

Arnold, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals 

Circuit. 

The Judicial Conference was attended by numerou

civilian lawyers as well as judges of the Courts of M

legal scholars and commentators in the field of milita

8 
signed as a command duty investigator at the sites 

alleged larcenies and knew one of the Government's cr

The Court held that while such circumstances would 

be disqualifying, the combination of such circumstanc

stantial question as to the impartiality of the court m

quently, in United States v. Brown, 34 MJ 105(CMA1

held that an accused being prosecuted for sodomy wa

exclusion for cause of a court member whose young s

victim of a homosexual assault. The Court noted that 

ber forthrightly acknowledged his son's status as a sex

tim; that he discussed the pertinent circumstances o

incident; and that he affirmed his ability to be impartia

case. The Court further emphasized that the military 

and accepted the court member's affirmation ofneutra

ful evaluation ofthe member's demeanor. 

Military Judges' Tenure 

Rejecting an argument that military judges must be 

fixed term ofoffice, the Court held in United States v. 

(CMA 1992), that the Due Process Clause of the Fi

applies to servicemembers at courts-martial; that a f

fice is one component ofjudicial independence; but th

one of several components and that, within the mili

tem, it was not a constitutionally mandated compo

cussing the numerous provisions established by Con

judicial independence ofmilitary trial and appellate ju

Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Court furthe

2 This section of the Court's annual report is prepared solely a

tool by the staff ofthe Court. It is included for the convenience of 

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

are not of precedential value and should not be cited in briefs file
accused's entire dormitory room after the dog alerte

mander had previously been provided information to 

drug detection dog was reliable and the commander 

received a tip from local civilian police agents conc

chase of drugs by members of his command. Relying 

ofinevitable discovery the Court held in United State

228 (CMA 1992), that the Government had shown 

ance ofthe evidence that, even ifthe accused had been 

the challenged evidence which consisted ofthe accus

and palm print would have been inevitably discove

the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule th

United States v. Lopez, 35 MJ 35 (CMA 1992), that t

rule should not be invoked to exclude evidence ofrati

ered during a search authorization issued by the accu

ing officer since the latter was an impartial authorizi

was a substantial basis for finding probable cause; an

tion was reasonably relied upon by the executing off

Supervisory Power 

The Court rejected a defense argument in United 

34 MJ 247 (CMA 1992), that it should exercise its su

and mandate the appointment of appellate defense 

case reviewed by a Court of Military Review. The 

such a rule would constitute an enlargement ofArti

Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 870, and would i

cise of a legislative power which the Court did not pu

Expert Witnes~es 

Relying on Military Rule of Evidence 702, the Cour

States v. Meeks, 35 MJ 64 (CMA 1992), that a milita

abuse his discretion in allowing an FBI agent to test

witness on homicide crime-scene analysis. The Cou

under the circumstances the testimony related to m

10 
Noting that the vessel to which a Navy accused 

undergoing a long-term overhaul, the Court held i

Yatchak, 35 MJ 379(CMA1992), that the imposed pu

days in confinement on bread and water was not 

accused was not attached to or embarked on a ve

pretrial confinement was in a shore facility, and 

took place ashore. 

Confessions and Admissions 

Holding that the accused's incriminating statem

Sergeant were spontaneous, the Court ruled in Uni

34 MJ 210 (CMA 1992), that such statements wer

the provisions of Article 31, UCMJ, 10 USC § 83

degree of corroboration required to establish the 

confession under Military Rule of Evidence 304, 

United States v. Maio, 34 MJ 215 (CMA 1992), th

tion must raise only an inference of the truth as to 

admitted. 

In United States v. Kelliher, 35 MJ 320(CMA199

that a regulation which required servicemembers 

with citizens of communist controlled or hostile cou

late the Fifth Amendment or Article 31, UCMJ, 10 

regulation was neutral and it did not require the r

nal activities. 

In United States v. Lonetree, 35 MJ 396(CMA19

dressed several issues relating to the accused's p

Therein the Court held that a confession by the 

States intelligence agents was voluntary and 

court-martial where the agents had displayed non

law enforcement officials and were not portrayed 

accused, although such agents allegedly induced t

false promise of confidentiality. Additionally, the Co
that United States v. Grostefon, 12 MJ 431(CMA1982), 

Court of Military Review to consider handwritten co

submitted by an accused for consideration by that cou

the Court further held that the Court of Military Rev

ordered the accused's appellate defense counsel to prov

with a detailed summary of the matters raised in the 

submission. 

In United States v. Quigley, 35 MJ 345 (CMA 1992), t

amined whether the minimum standards set forth in Un

Grostefon, supra, to provide for appellate consideration 

issues specified by servicemembers convicted by cour

equately safeguarded their right to appellate counsel. 

the Court held that the choice as to whether to call the a

appellate court to an issue through a Grostefon footnote 

tively advocate an issue by briefing it rests with couns

the Court further held that such choice is subject to sc

the circumstances of each individual case. 

In United States v. Stinson, 34 MJ 303 (CMA 1992), th

that the accused had not been prejudiced by the failure 

late defense counsel to present oral argument before the U

Army Court of Military Review. 

Regarding the obligation of the Court of Military Re

sider all issues presented to it the Court held in United Sta

35 MJ 79 (CMA 1992), that the Court of Military Rev

specifically required to address in writing all of the as

error where its opinion noted that the judges had consi

signments of error and had found them to be without m

Concerning the standard of appellate review for a c

trial on the basis of lack of mental responsibility, the C

United States v. Cosner, 35 MJ 278 (CMA 1992), that 

Military Review properly rejected such claim where the ap

was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that a reaso

fact, if presented with all available evidence, old and ne

find by clear and convincing evidence that appellant la

12 
body was found with noticeable nasal trauma. The 

that such evidence was directly related to the matt

premeditation. Subsequently, in United States v. Co

(CMA 1992), the Court held that evidence of an acc

charged drug use was improperly admitted into evi

was being charged with using cocaine and the unchar

was not offered for any legitimate purpose but tend

the accused was an habitual drug user likely to use c

Unavailability of Witnesses 

In United States v. Clark, 35 MJ 98 (CMA 1992), 

that prior to the accused's court-martial on charge

indecent acts with his minor stepdaughter, the accu

mative refusal to cooperate with the effort to locate h

daughter constructively waived any objection to the 

ruling that the stepdaughter was unavailable for purp

say rule. Therefore, the Court held that the military 

admitted into evidence the stepdaughter's taped pre

to her babysitter as such statement reflected particu

tees oftrustworthiness and was admissible under the 

tion to the hearsay rule set forth in Military Rule ofEv

Citing Military Rule ofEvidence 804(b), the Court held 

v. Ortiz, 35 MJ 391 (CMA 1992), that the unavailabi

had not been properly demonstrated where she fail

trial despite the service of a subpoena but the milita

no warrant ofattachment and did not grant a reasona

to locate and compel her attendance. Thus, the Court 

sion of her former testimony violated the accused's ri

dance of the witness in question. 

Other Cases of Interest 

In United States v. Frazier, 34 MJ 194 (CMA 1992)

that a commissioned officer was properly convicted o
Wpy

doubt that the accused was predisposed to commit the o

tion and that, therefore, he was not entrapped. 

Addressing the accused's right to a speedy trial the 

United States u. Vogan, 35 MJ 32(CMA1992), that the 

under the Sixth Amendment did not apply where he w

prison when he committed the offenses at issue. The 

held that Rule for Courts-Martial 707(a)(2) did not ap

ministrative segregation of a person already in confin

Interpreting the increased maximum punishment prov

graph 47e of the Manual for Courts-Martial as they re

"firearm" in a robbery prosecution, the Court held in U

Henry, 35 MJ 136 (CMA 1992), that the punishment 

provision based on use of a firearm in a robbery was ap

the weapon used by the accused was capable of being m

simply by replacing a missing locking lug. 

In United States u. Smith, 35 MJ 138(CMA1992), t

that a military judge did not err when he forced the 

counsel to testify against her client and that he pro

counsel's request to withdraw from representing the 

Court observed that counsel's testimony reflected tha

gave a false document to his detailed defense counsel, 

cused represented as a genuine document, with the i

document and its genuineness would be disclosed to tri

presented as evidence in his court-martial. The Court 

tions fell within the exception to the attorney-client priv

it was proper to direct the testimony of the defense cou

accused duped his counsel into aiding him in an attem

the court-martial. Finally, in United States u. McGuinn

(CMA 1992), the Court held that the preemption do

graph 60c(5)(a), Part IV, Manual for Courts-Martial, d

the Government from prosecuting the accused for v

Federal Espionage Act, 18 USC § 793(e), under Clau

134, UCMJ, 10 USC§ 934. The Court ruled that the 

14 
SUSAN J. CRAWFORD 

Associate Judge 

H. F. "SPARKY'' GIERKE 

Associate Judge 

ROBERT E. WISS 

Associate Judge 
Miscellaneous Docket................................... 3

Total........................................................... 154

CUMULATIVE TERMINATIONS 

Master Docket .............................................. 

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

Miscellaneous Docket................................... 

16

117

4

Total........................................................... 138

CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 1, 1992 

Master Docket .............................................. 

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

Miscellaneous Docket................................... 

11

32

Total........................................................... 44

OPINION SUMMARY 

CATEGORY SIGNED 

PER 

CURIAM 

MEM/ 

ORDER 

Master Docket .................... 

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

Miscellaneous Docket ........ 

120 

0 

1 

5 

1 

2 

37 

1176 

38 

Total .................................... 121 8 1251 

. 16 
PENDING (MASTER DOCKET) 

Awaiting briefs............................................. 

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

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

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


FILINGS (PETITION DOCKET) 

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

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

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

Petitions for reconsideration granted......... 

Returned from Court of Military Review... 

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


TERMINATIONS (PETITION DOCKET) 


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


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


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


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


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


Other............................................................ 


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


PENDING (PETITION DOCKET) 

Awaiting briefs............................................. 

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

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

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


FILINGS (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET) 

Writs of error coram no bis sought .............. 

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

Writs of mandamus/prohibition sought...... 

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

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

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


78 


41 


0 


119 


1283 


3 


2 


2 


1 


1291 


5 


965 


182 


16 


6 


3 


1177 


259 


67 


0 


326 


2 


4 


14 


4 


15 


39 


Signed 

Per cu

Mem/o

Total ..
RECONSIDERATIONS & REHEARINGS 

BEGIN END DISP

PEND- PENDCATEGORY ING FILINGS ING Granted D

Master Docket ..................... 0 6 0 2 

Petition Docket ................... 0 9 0 2 

Misc. Docket ........................ 0 1 0 0 

Total .. ... ... .. ................ ....... 0 16 0 4 

MOTIONS ACTIVITY 

BEGIN END DISPOSITIONS 

PEND- PENDCATEGORY ING FILINGS ING Granted Denied 

All motions .......... . 15 657 11 564 86 

18 
Petition Docket Year End P

702 

442 

273 260 

199 2

FY 85 FY 86 FY 87 FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 
Master Docket Year End Pe

258 245 

177 

65 72 69 

48 

FY 85 FY 86 FY 87 FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 

• This figure does not include 16 trailer cases to United States v. Watson, 

No. 68206/MC, and 8 trailer cases to United States v. Weiss, No. 67869/MC. 
Oral Arguments Per Year 

FY 85 FY 86 FY 87 FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 9

112 112 

102 
Total Opinions Per Year 


134 


FY 85 FY 86 FY 87 FY 88 FY 89 

• Separate Opinion Cases P (Concur, Concur in the Result, and Dissent} 

FY 90 

Majority and 
Days from Petition Filing to 

181 

143 141 142 

113 117 

. 96 

FY 85 FY 86 FY 87 FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 9
Days from Petition Granted 

to Oral Argument 

426 

176 

158 
 

14

131 

FY 85 FY 86 FY 87 FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 9
Days from Oral Argument 

to Final Decision 

261 

220 236 

185 

148 14

FY 85 FY 86 FY 87 FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 
Days from Petition Filing 

to Final Decision 

549 537 


FY 85 FY 86 FY 87 FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 

Petition Docket ~ Master Dock

• 

(Denial/Dismissal/Withdrawal) ~ (Granted Cas
Days from Filing to Final 

Decision in All Cases 

127 

109 108 

93 

76 75 

82 

FY 85 FY 86 FY 87 FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 
Total Petitions Filed Per Ye

2706 2721 2719 

2383 

2195 ~ 2160 

181

FY 85 FY 86 FY 87 FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 9
REPORT OF 


THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE ARMY 


October 1, 1991 to September 30, 1992 


During fiscal year 1992, the Office of The Judge Advocate General 

(OTJAG) continued to monitor the proceedings of courts-martial, review and prepare military publications and regulations, and develop 

and draft changes to the Manual for Courts-Martial and the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS AND U.S. ARMY 


JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES 


During fiscal year 1992, the court-martial rates show an Army-wide 

decrease in the number of courts-martial. The total number of persons tried by all types of courts-martial in fiscal year 1992 was 11.5% 

lower than fo:r 1991. This overall decrease reflects primarily a decrease of23.9% in special courts-martial not empowered to adjudge a 

bad-conduct discharge, and a 26.5% decline in summary courts-martial. There was a 0.7% decrease in general courts-martial and a 7.5% 

decline in the number ofbad-conduct discharge special courts-martial. 

Conversely, nonjudicial punishment increased by 6.6/1,000 during fiscal year 1992. The number of cases reviewed by the U.S. Army Court 

of Military Review decreased by 9.5%. 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY: FISCAL YEAR 1992 

(See table insert, attached) 

U.S. ARMY LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY 

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

the OTJAG, includes the following organizations involved in the administration ofmilitary 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 Military Review, the Clerk of Court, the Examination and New Trials Division, and the Trial Judiciary. 

29 
USATDS continued to provide support to troops in S

following Operation Desert Storm, and to the Multi-Nat

the Sinai. USATDS manned over 70 offices world-wid

fense counsel in proximity to the units they served. T

support included defense counsel deployment on comm

exercises. At specified locations, USATDS maintained 

agreements to provide mutual suppo:rt with judge advo

services. 

TRIAL COUNSEL ASSISTANCE PROG

During fiscal year 1992, the U.S. Army Trial Couns

Program (TCAP) performed its mission by providing 

advice, training, and trial assistance to military 

world-wide. In addition to services provided to Army att

had an expanded constituency among prosecutors in t

Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. Attorneys from 

vices were among the most enthusia1>tic users ofTCAP 

basic categories of TCAP services were provided duri

1992: (1) telephone inquiry assistance; (2) training sem

ferences; (3) the TCAP Memo; and (4) trial assistance. 

year 1992, TCAP attorneys responded to 1,038 teleph

for advice and assistance; conducted 20 advocacy train

in the Continental United States (CONUS), Korea/Haw

many; held three video teleconferences; published and d

approximately 475 subscribers, ten editions of the TCA

participated as trial counsel in three courts-martial. T

vided instructional assistance for trial counsel attending 

Europe (USAREUR) Criminal Law Conferences and the 

New Developments Course and Criminal Trial Advoca

The Judge Advocate General's School, U.S. Army (TJAG

In September 1991, TCAP initiated the Regional Tria

sistance Program as a test program. The program wa

stallations within Trial Defense Region I to evaluate 

quality of prosecution advocacy can be improved by usin

military attorneys from outside the staffjudge advoca

sist trial counsel in preparing and trying cases. Regiona

/ 30 
dering opinions for the Army Staff; and evaluating 

projects. During fiscal year 1992, the Criminal Law Di

to 118 White House inquiries; 221 Congressional in

quests for legal opinions from the Army Board for th

Military Records; 218 letters relating to military justi

ten to the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Arm

of the Army, and The Judge Advocate General; and 

cellaneous inquiries. The office also processed seven 

tions under Article 74, UCMJ; 31 officer dismissal cas

ofthe Army approval; and 19 Freedom oflnformation

requests. 

CHANGE OF MILITARY JUSTICE REGU

Adraft change to Army Regulation 27-10, Military J

pleted during fiscal year 1992. It incorporates a p

change, as well as including several other substantiv

Significant new provisions: clearly establish a ''beyo

doubt" standard of guilt for nonjudicial punishment p

prove the readability of records of trial; provide a me

viewing a military magistrate's decision to release a s

trial confinement, under an abuse of discretion sta

the Victim/Witness Assistance Program; and incorpor

for prosecuting criminal offenses in federal court. Th

published in fiscal year 1993. 

JOINT-SERVICE COMMITTEE ON MILITAR

The Judge Advocates General and General Counse

ment of Transportation established the Joint-Servic

Military Justice (JSC) on August 17, 1972. The Army, 

Marine Corps, and Department ofTransportation (C

vide representatives, and the United States Court ofM

provides a nonvoting representative. The JSC primar

evaluates proposed amendments and changes to the 

Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM). The JSC also se

for exchanging information and ideas relating to mili
immunity before ruling on a defense request for immun

military judges to give instructions on findings before 

ments or at both times; permit the entry ofpleas and fin

without exceptions or substitutions; adopt an exception 

sionary rule; clarify that the provisions governing the 

fied materials apply at all stages of a court-martial; rela

impeachment by prior conviction; include the definition

"deliberate ignorance" for the courts-martial of drug off

carnal knowledge as a lesser-included offense of rape

wrongful interference with an administrative action 

punishable under Article 134, UCMJ. 

The JSC also assisted in the executive coordination o

Annual Review (proposed Change 7), completed on A

Significant amendments: require the Article 32, UCMJ, 

officer to notify the convening authority of requests fo

similar information; authorize the convening authority 

tective orders for classified and similar information; a

tary judge to call post-trial sessions for reconsider

post-trial reconsideration by the military judge of prio

mit courts-martial sentences to include forfeiture of r

tainer pay; establish that endangering the life of a singl

aggravating factor for the death penalty; allow the acc

to respond to the staff judge advocate's addendum co

matters, and allow the staff judge advocate to grant t

sions to the defense to respond; require the accused to b

a copy of addenda containing new matters; incorpora

preme Court guidance concerning Sixth Amendment r

sel; clarify the scope of protective sweeps; and increase 

punishment for involuntary manslaughter, negligent h

nal knowledge, forcible sodomy, and sodomy with a chi

The JSC also completed a preliminary Eighth Annual 

MCM (proposed Change 8). The JSC is studying publi

has received pertaining to proposed Change 8. 

Several amendments to the UCMJ proposed by the 

cluded in the 1992 Department of Defense Authorizatio

cant amendments: close a "gap" in court-martial juris

32 
sion, OTJAG, maintains information concerning the 

eign criminal jurisdiction over U.S. personnel. 

During the reporting period December 1, 1990 thro

30, 1991, a total of 12,409 United States personnel, mi

ian, were charged with offenses subject to the prima

jurisdiction offoreign tribunals. Ofthese offenses, 10,0

against military personnel; 1,835 of which were subj

foreign jurisdiction. Foreign authorities nonetheless 

the exclusive foreign jurisdiction offenses to U.S. mili

for appropriate disposition. 

The remainder of the military offenses subject to f

tion, totaling 8,264 offenses, were concurrent jurisd

They involved alleged violations of both U.S. military 

law, over which the foreign country had the primary r

jurisdiction. U.S. military authorities obtained a w

jurisdiction in 7 ,672 of these incidents, for a world-w

of92.8%. 

Foreign authorities reserved for their disposition 

offenses allegedly committed by military personnel. O

2,052 were relatively minor (simple assault, disorder

traffic offenses). Traffic violations comprised 1,929, o

offenses. 

A total of 2,310 civilian employees and dependent

with offenses subject to foreign jurisdiction. As civili

ject to trial by courts-martial in peacetime, the U.S. 

jurisdiction over these offenses. Nonetheless, foreign 

leased 163 of these offenses, or 7% of the total, to U

thorities for administrative or other disposition. 

There were 3,295 final results of trial (i.e., final ac

convictions for military, civilian and dependents). Of

or 0.6% were acquittals and 3, 17 4 or 96.3% were sente

reprimand. The remainder of the final results of tria

sentences to confinement and 72 suspended sentences 
fore Army courts-martial. 

The Professional Conduct Branch has also proposed r

dures for professional conduct inquiries, which are bei

part ofthe revision ofAR 27-1, Judge Advocate Legal Se

both the current and revised procedures, allegations ar

supervisors in the field and, ifwarranted, are examined 

Advocate General's Professional Responsibility Comm

advises The Judge Advocate General on suspected viol

cal standards. Summaries of ethical inquiries resolved 

nary screening, as well as opinions ofthe Professional R

Committee, are published in The Army Lawyer on a mo

LITIGATION 

Civil litigation against the Department ofthe Army an

ees continued to increase during fiscal year 1992. Suits 

civilian courts to interpret the UCMJ, and the validity of 

pursuant to it, constitute a small but significant portion 

tion. A majority ofthese cases seek collateral review of c

proceedings. Most ofthe other cases present challenges t

conditions of confinement, specific actions taken by co

cility personnel, and parole and clemency proceedings. 

EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

During fiscal year 1992, The Judge Advocate Gen

(TJAGSA), located in Charlottesville, Virginia, provided 

tion to lawyers of the military services and other fede

Forty-three resident courses were conducted with 3,68

attendance. Courses were attended by: 1,403 active Arm

92 Marine, 266Air Force, 517 Army Reserve, and 140A

Guard officers; 130 warrant officers and enlisted sold

Department of Defense civilians; 239 non-Department 

vilians and Coast Guard officers; and 15 international 

dents. 

In addition to the 43 resident courses offered during fis

35 courses were conducted at on-site locations for a tota

34 
On May 15, 1992, the 64 students of the 40th Gra

ceived from T JAGSA a Master of Laws in Military La

44 Army judge advocates, the class consisted of 9 M

Air Force, 1 Army Reserve, 1 Army National Guard

tional military students. The 41st Graduate Class be

1992. The class is comprised of 51 active Army, 10 M

Air Force, 2 Army National Guard, and 3 internation

dents. 

Three Basic Course classes, the 126th, 127th, and 1

a total of213 Judge Advocate General's Corps officer

A Methods oflnstruction Course was offered during 

of July 1992. TJAGSA's 15 new staff and faculty me

the three-day course. 

During fiscal year 1992, TJAGSA continued to prov

ers with legal orientations prior to their assumptio

Twenty-one general officers attended General Office

tion Courses, and 243 battalion and brigade comma

tended 6 Senior Officers Legal Orientation Course

TJAGSA provided instructional materials for the 

Courses conducted at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, fo

brigade command designees. 

The Criminal Law Division sponsored five residen

gal education (CLE) courses in fiscal year 1992. The 

Advocacy Course was presented twice, in November 

ary 1992, the Procurement Fraud Course in Novembe

tary Judges Course in May-June 1992, and the Cri

Developments Course in August 1992. Additionally, t

ducted two criminal law CLE programs and one tri

gram for judge advocates assigned to U.S. Army Euro

In addition, the Criminal Law Division provided CL

Reserve Component (RC) judge advocates at 11 on-si

tions. It also taught the resident phase ofthe Judge A

Advanced Course and Judge Advocate Triennial Train

advocate officers. 

The International Law Division sponsored six reside
two instructors to Germany to present the USAREUR 

Law Course and one instructor to the USAREUR Ope

Conference. 

All instruction provided by the International Law Divis

the goal of ensuring that military lawyers are knowled

aspects of OPLAW, a body of law which includes the law 

are able to participate effectively as members of the 

operations team. Lessons learned from Operation Ju

Panama, Operation Urgent Fury in Grenada, Operations 

and Desert Storm, and from training exercises in Latin 

rope, and the Middle East have been incorporated into 

tion. Instruction was also provided at the Army War Coll

mand and General Staff College, Training and Doctri

(TRADOC), and the Naval War College. Additional ins

provided throughout the year to Army Reserve and Na

attorneys at 11 weekend on-site training locations throug

The International Law Division also helped design a p

used in training the Peruvian Military on the law appli

time and on the general international law of human rig

gram will serve as a model for similar programs for oth

In fiscal year 1993, Peru, with the assistance of TJAGS

this important training. 

The Center for Law and Military Operations (CLAMO

lished in December 1989. The purpose of CLAMO is to e

current and potential legal issues attendant to militar

through the use of symposia, the publication of profess

and the use of a joint service operational law library. T

CLAMO (also Chief, International Law Division), partic

eral conferences on operational law and presented a p

subject to an ABA conference. In April 1992, CLAMO hos

ing of the Board of Executives of the International Soc

tary Law and the Law of War. In September 1992, a re

from CLAMO participated with representatives from Eu

mand and nine Central and Eastern European countrie

ence on the "Role ofthe Military in a Democratic Societ

The Contract Law Division conducted ten CLE courses 

36 
students. Other contract law CLE programs included 

ernment Contract Law Symposium, two Fiscal 

USAREUR Contract Law Course, an on-site Fiscal La

was presented to the Air Force at Wright-Patterson 

and a Contract Litigation Course. 

In addition to the contract and fiscal law CLE cour

provided instruction to three Judge Advocate Office

and to the resident Judge Advocate Officer Gradua

division's instructors also presented classes on contra

and policy at six Reserve Component (RC) on-site tr

within the U.S. 

The Administrative and Civil Law Division conduc

courses during fiscal year 1992 - six at TJAGSA an

The CLEs at TJAGSA included two Legal Assistan

Federal Labor Relations Courses, the Administrativ

tary Installations Course, and the Federal Litigation C

seas CLEs included the USAREUR Tax CLE, the Fa

the Pacific Command (PACOM) CLE, and two USA

trative Law CLEs. Additionally, instructors taught 

installation management at six Army Installatio

Courses at Fort Lee, Virginia; standards of conduct, a

trative actions, and separations classes to three sessi

Management StaffCollege; and environmental law a

the Air Force JAG School's Environmental Law Cou

Seminar at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. The d

over 45 TJAGSA publications and developed stand

materials for use at all RC on-site instruction in fisc

addition, the division presented classes on adminis

legal assistance at 12 RC on-site training locations

Learning Center (CLC) was added to the Administ

Law Division responsibilities and CLC instruction w

the Graduate Class, three Basic Courses, and two L

CLEs. 

The Legal Assistance Branch of the Administrativ

Division revised and updated its publications, inclu

Assistance Wills Guide, the Legal Assistance Consum
sored several resident courses for RC judge advocates 

year 1992. One hundred and ninety-nine Army Reserve 

Guard judge advocates attended Triennial Training bet

and 26, 1992. Military Judge Teams, Court-Martial Tri

Court-Martial Defense Teams were trained. One h

thirty-one students attended Phase IV of the Judge Adv

Advanced Course during this same period. The 2093d U

serve Forces School in Charleston, West Virginia, prov

trative support for both courses. The department hos

National Guard StateArea Command (STARC) JudgeAd

from July 13 to 18, 1992. This workshop was attended b

cates from 15 STARC headquarters. An additional major 

gram co-hosted by the department was The Judge Advo

Regimental Workshop, from April 20 to 24, 1992. Thi

gram brought together senior RC judge advocates to d

cant legal and military issues facing the Total Army. Th

also sponsored the CLE (On-Site) Training Program. B

ber 1991 and May 1992, instructors from TJAGSA pro

2,059 judge advocates in 22 on-site training locations th

U.S. and Puerto Rico. Attendees represented all service

nents. Interaction of Active and RC judge advocate o

on-site program was invaluable. Additionally, the dep

cessed 89 applications for the U.S. Army Reserves for a

the Judge Advocate General's Corps, and 32 applicatio

recognition of National Guard judge advocates. 

On December 6, 1991, Dean Nathaniel Hansford, De

versity of Alabama School of Law, presented the Twen

Edward H. Young Lecture in Legal Education. Dean H

an informative discussion of the value of a legal educ

highlighted the issues and challenges facing legal educa

society. 

The Ninth Gilbert A. Cuneo Lecture in Government 

was presented on January 13, 1992, by Mr. Stuart M. G

tant Attorney General, Civil Division, U.S. Departme

Mr. Gerson addressed recent initiatives in civil justice r

38 
On March 26, 1992, the Twenty-First Kenneth J. Ho

Criminal Law was presented by Paul C. Giannelli, P

Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. Pro

presented a lecture on "Scientific Evidence in Crimina

in which he examined both the advantages and disad

creased use of scientific evidence in the courtroom. 

TJAGSA continues to edit and publish articles rel

law and legal practice in the Military Law Review and 

yer. The Military Law Review, the quarterly legal jour

concentrates on scholarly articles that contribute to th

ofthe body ofmilitary law. In 1992, it published the le

over thirty authors, including JAGC officers, civilia

foreign attorneys, law school professors, and law stud

tary Law Review publishes over 1,000 pages of manu

with a distribution of over 30,000 copies. The Army Law

periodical that best could be characterized as the ba

JAG Corps. It principally publishes articles and notes 

tary attorneys in their legal practices. In 1992, The 

published over 7 ,000 pages of materials with a dist

80,000 copies. 

PERSONNEL, PLANS, AND POLIC

Including law students participating in the Funde

tion Program, the strength of the Judge Advocate Ge

the end ofthe fiscal year 1992 was 1710. This total inc

30 Hispanics, 27 Asian and Native Americans, and 2

fiscal year 1992 end strength compares with an end s

in fiscal year 1991, 1771 in fiscal year 1990, 1756 in f

and 1759 in fiscal year 1988. The grade distribution o

6 general officers, 130 colonels, 200 lieutenant colon

939 captains, and 84 first lieutenants. Thirty-five o

tains and 12 first lieutenants) participated in the Fun

cation Program. Sixty-two warrant officers, including 

7 female, supported legal operations world-wide. 

To ensure selection of the best qualified candidates 
Industrial College of the Armed Forces ............................................

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

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

During fiscal year 1992, six officers completed fully 

for LL.M. degrees in specialized fields of law. 

Two hundred four new judge advocates were accesse

tenants during fiscal year 1992, and they were promo

during their first year on active duty. The Judge Advo

Corps is a separate competitive category, and selects an

officers based on Judge Advocate General's Corps vac

occur. 

John L. Fugh, 

Major General, USA 

The Judge Advocate General 

40 
PART 4 ·WORKLOAD OF THE 

TOTAL ON HANO BEGINNING OF PERIOD 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS·MAATIAL 

REl=ERREO FOR F!EVIEW 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MAFITIAL 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

ICD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL PENOtNG AT CLOSE OF PERIOD f 

GENERAL COUf'ITC ·.:.".RTlA\. 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

RATE OF INCREASE (•I/DECREASE(-) OVER NUMBER OF CASES 

REVIEWED DURING LAST AEf'ORTING PERIOD -9. 57. 

PART 5 ·APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE U.S. ARMY COU

REVIEW 

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

'ERCENTAGE OF COMA REVIEWED CASES FOfillWARDEO TO USCMA 

,EfllCENTAGE OF INCR:EASE (•I/DECREASE(-) OVIEfll Pfil!EVIOUS fillEf'ORTING PERIOD 

,EfllCENTAGE OF TOTAL f'IET!TIONS GfillANTED 

'EfllCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/OEC•UASE 1-1 OVER ll'AEVIOUS flllEll'OfllTING ll'ERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF ll'ETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED av COMA 

RATE OP: INCREASE (•I/DECREASE(-) OVER THE NUMBER OF CASES REVIEWED DURING 

LAST lllllEll'O"'TING ll'ERIOD 

l'AGE l OF 2 
NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS I 4 7 

PART 10- STRENGTH 

A.VEfUGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 659, 204 (K) ~:-·:-<:>... 

PART 11 - NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15) 

'NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 50,066 

RATE l'EFll 1,000 75. 9 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE(-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD 6.6/1000 [L] 

PAGE20F2 

[AJ Inclu:ies only original trials, oot rehearin;Js, etc. 


[BJ Inclu:ies all cases terminated for· any reason withaJt convi

[CJ Cases convened cy GCM convenirq authority in which SPCM sp

eipJWerEd to inpose a Bal. 

[DJ Base:1 on records of trial received during report pericd (P

tried (Part 1). In addition to 00s arrl BCDs, 21 dismissals of 

awrovOO· 

[EJ Does oot in::ltrle cases in which awellate revie<N was waive

[FJ Inclu:ies only cases briefed arrl at issue before the ca.xrt. 

cases -were awaiting briefs. 

[GJ cases pending before USACl'IR, which irdtrle awea

for extraordinary relief, are oot ro.rt:inely accx:unted for cy ty

martial. 

[HJ Inclu:ies 17 cases witlrlrawn fran aiopellate revie<N before d

[IJ In 37 of the cases, the accused was represented cy civilia

as cy military awellate ooonsel. 

[JJ Base:1 oo petitions acted upcn, oot those filed, during the 

[KJ Average of 11Xl11thly strergths shcMl in report OCSPER-46. 

[LJ Olarge in rate per 1,000 is based on corrected rate (82.5) 

42 
Uniform Code of Military Justic

FISCAL YEAR 1992 


SUPERVISION OFTHE ADMINISTRAT

MILITARY JUSTICE 


In compliance with the requirement ofArticle 6(a), U

Military Justice, the Judge Advocate General and th

Advocate General made frequent inspections of leg

United States, Europe, and the Far East in supervisio

istration ofmilitary justice. 

ARTICLE 69(a), UCMJ, EXAMINATI

Eighty-five general court-martial records of trial, 

eligible for automatic review by the Navy-Marine Cor

tary Review, were examined in the Office ofthe Judg

eral in fiscal year 1992. Ten cases required correctiv

Judge Advocate General. Thirteen cases are pending 

ARTICLE 69(b), UCMJ, APPLICATIO

In fiscal year 1992, 44 applications under Article 

Code ofMilitary Justice, were received for review. Of

cations were denied on the merits, while relief was g

or in part in 3 cases. Nine cases are pending review. 

ARTICLE 73, UCMJ, PETITIONS 

In fiscal year 1992, one petition for new trial was 

Office of the Judge Advocate General, and it was den

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT DIVIS

Appellate Representation. The 10 Navy and 5 Mar

cates assigned to the Appellate Government Divisio

1766 pleadings last year; 1545 with the Navy-Marine 

Military Review and 221 with the U.S. Court of Military 

numbers exclude cases which were submitted to the 
ing tried. Additional assistance is provided through t

tations, the periodic publication of Electronic Viewpo

puter bulletin board. Through these proactive endea

been approximately a 40% increase in assistance call

Presentations. Government counsel also participa

Judicial Conference of the United States Court of M

(formerly Homer Ferguson Conference) in Washington

presentations at the Army-Navy Reserve Military Jus

in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

Reserves. The Appellate Government Division cont

training and support to 12 Navy Reservists and 1 M

servist assigned to the Division. 

APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISIO

Appellate Defense Practices. A total of 2926 cases 

during fiscal year 1992 by the 18 judge advocates, Na

and their reserve counterparts assigned to the Appel

vision as appellate advocates. Of that number, 269 

mitted to the Navy-Marine Corps Court ofMilitary Re

with specific assignments of error while another 

briefed. Two hundred thirty-seven briefed cases we

the U.S. Court ofMilitary Appeals (CMA). While the 

forwarded to Appellate Defense continued to decrea

previous years, the cases received continued to cont

complex common law offenses and more sophisticated 

tion, the division submitted seven writs of certiorari 

preme Court. One extraordinary writ involving two 

gued before CMA and two government appeals wer

NMCMR, one of which involved two clients. 

Trial Defense Assistance. The Field Department c

vide on-call advice to trial defense counsel on trend

ments in appellate litigation which should be addre

level, through, for example, pretrial motions thereby "m

upon which appellate counsel can act more effectively

average of 15 phone call/FAX requests for assistanc

quiring 20-30 minutes per request to answer. 

44 
NAVY-MARINE CORPS TRIAL JUDIC

The Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary (NMCTJ) p

judges for 890 general courts-martial and 3849 specia

during fiscal year 1992. These numbers represent a

general courts and a decrease of 507 special courts 

1991. The number of active duty military judges dec

40 by 30 September 1992, while the number ofin-cou

year 1992 was 19,382, an increase of 517 hours from 1

time was 4, 716 hours for 1772 cases. This includes ca

places as Australia, Diego Garcia, Guantanamo, Bahr

The NMCTJ is composed of 14 circuits with a total of

Military judges received continuing legal education 

West Coast NMCTJ Military Judges'Meetings, the Arm

ings, Maxwell Interservice Military Judges Semina

Judicial College, the American Academy of Judicial 

Military Judges and Current Developments courses a

School and the Navy JAG Conference. Military judg

turers or seminar leaders at the Senior Officer Short 

tary Justice, the COMA Judicial Conference, the A

Association meetings, the Walter Reed Forensic Psyc

various in-service courses. Ourjudges attended meetin

can JudgesAssociation and the NationalAssociation o

The ChiefJudge visited convening authorities, staff

and legal services offices in Iceland, Groton, Newpor

Memphis, Camp Lejeune, Norfolk, Charleston, Ne

Francisco, San Diego and North Island. The ChiefJud

reserve judges weekend training drills. 

Navy and Marine Corps reserve judges tried 132 ca

the totals above) and were uniformly complimented o

in military justice and preparedness. These judges als

and West Coast Military Judges' meetings and other 

portunities with their active brethren. Reserve jud

staffed one circuit for a week while the judges ofthat 

annual training. Two reserve trial judges moved to th

Corps Court of Military Review in Fiscal Year 1992. 

On 7 August 1992, Colonel Michael C. Wholley, U
tration throughout the world. The command also inc

Justice School at Newport, Rhode Island, and the Offic

sel at the Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland. NA

is commanded by the Deputy Judge Advocate Gene

and includes 332 officers, 207 enlisted, and 197 civ

The command constitutes about 40% of the Navy's to

cate strength. 

NAVLEGSVCCOM provides a wide range oflegal s

and ashore commands, active duty naval personnel, d

retirees. Specific functions include the provision 

courts-martial and administrative boards, counse

claims processing and adjudication, counsel at phy

boards, and legal assistance. 

NAVLEGSVCCOM activities rely upon the Judge 

eral Management Information System (JAGMIS) to 

quality and responsive legal services. JAGMIS is a pe

based system which tracks each activity's work load 

disposition. Work is nearing completion on developm

tary Justice Management Information System (MJM

refine the existing JAGMIS system and integrate a con

ing system for courts-martial through the appellate p

The Naval Legal Affairs World Wide Support Strateg

is an ongoing program to provide business tools to fo

delivery of services throughout NAVLEGSVCCOM. 

program, delivery of a personal computer for each mem

mand, has been completed, and Phase II, implementa

networks at each NAVLEGSVCCOM site, is well unde

site surveys completed and many site preparation proj

pleted or ready to start. Complete implementation o

expected within the year, including tying all NAVLE

tivity LAN s together into a wide area network (WA

NAVLEGSVCCOM participation in an electronic mail 

tinued to expand. 

Finally, NAVLEGSVCCOM continues to explore w

personnel more productive through use ofinnovative 

nology. NAVLEGSVCCOM activities have already bee

46 
included the 1, November 1991 establishment of t

School Detachment at San Diego, California, and oft

of the School at the Judge Advocate General Schoo

Charlottesville, Virginia. Another major accompl

school's creation of an international training initiative 

civilian control of the military, and the law of arme

the sponsorship of the U.S. State Department, as 

panded International Military Education and Train

gram. An update of School courses follows: 

Law ofNaval Operations Workshop. Offered twic

pose of this two-week "joint" course is to train judg

all the armed services in advising commanders on i

matters and their impact on plans and operations. 

sisted of 60 hours of classroom instruction and 13 h

exercises and seminars. Attendees completing the tw

fiscal year 1992 included judge advocates from the N

Corps ( 4), Army (11), Air Force ( 11), and Coast Guard 

civilians. 

StaffJudge Advocate Course. Also offered twice a 

of this three-week course is to provide training in s

military and administrative law likely to be encou

mand legal advisor. Included in fiscal year 1992 were 

room instruction and 14 hours of practical exercis

This past year, attendees included judge advocate

(75), Marine Corps (5), Army (1), and Coast Guard (

Senior Legalman Course. Offered annually, the 

three-week course is to provide senior legalmen with 

ing in budget matters, civilian and military personn

and other management skills required of mid-level su

legal service offices. Included are 61 hours of class

and 13 hours of workshops and seminars. Twenty-ni

personnel (27 Navy and 2 Army) attended this cou

1992. 

Lawyer Course. The Naval Justice School conduc

of the nine-week lawyer course during fiscal year 1

which provides basic training in military justice, leg
unit with no judge advocate/law specialist. Included i

89 hours of classroom instruction and 37 hours of pra

and seminars. Attendees in fiscal year 1992 consist

officers, 14 Navy enlisted, and 24 Marine Corps offic

there were 209 Navy and 28 Marine Corps officers trai

Justice School Detachment in San Diego, California. 

Expanded International Military Education and Tra

In 1992, the U.S. State Department assigned the Nav

the lead in developing and teaching this highly public

ible international training program worldwide to fore

civilian defense personnel. This three-phase program 

struction in (among other topics) human rights, civili

military in a democracy, and military justice system

needs and requests of the respective nations. The c

nated by the school and the 3-to-4-person instructor 

prised of instructors from all branches of the U.S. ar

Senior Officer Course. This one-week course, sponso

of Naval Operations, prepares commanding officers, 

ers, and officers in charge to handle appropriate com

sponsibilities. Two sessions ofthe course were held at 

Island, with 81 students attending. An additional 24 

course were held at the following worldwide location

Pensacola, and Key West, Florida; Charleston, South C

Norfolk (twice), Oceana, and Quantico (twice), Virgin

necticut (twice); Parris Island, South Carolina; Camp 

Carolina; San Diego (twice), San Francisco, and C

California; Rota, Spain; Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; Guam

Yokosuka, Japan; and Bangor, Washington. The 1,3

tending these classes included: 

USN: 963 (72.5%) 

USMC: 307 (23.1%) 

USCG: 44 (3.3%) 

USA: 7 (0.5%) 

USAF: 3 (0.2%) 

CIV: 5 (0.4%) 

48 
Island. There were a total of 125 students trained in t

Legalman Course. This nine-week course offered thr

cal year 1992, provides instruction in military law and e

reporting to Navy enlisted personnel selected for con

legalman rating as well as certain Coast Guard yeom

Guard does not have a legalman rating). Included ar

lecture and 146 hours ofseminars and other practical 

past years, the Army continues to use the Naval Ju

legalman course to train court reporters. In fiscal year 

6 Coast Guard, and 17 Army students completed this 

Legal Clerk Course. This two-week course, offered fi

cal year 1992, trains members of the Navy and Marin

cess routine legal matters at small or isolated comman

the legal clerk curriculum are 39 hours of lecture a

practical exercises. In fiscal year 1992, 148 Navy, 3 Ma

listed, and 1 civilian student completed this course. In 

were 203 Navy and 19 Marine Corps students traine

Justice School Detachment in San Diego, California. 

Reserve Courses. In addition to training active-duty 

Naval Justice School also presents a number of cours

train inactive-duty reservists. The two-week Reserv

fresher Course, offered twice a year, prepares inact

advocates ofthe Naval and Marine Corps Reserve to p

ties oftheir active-duty counterparts. Similarly, the two

Legalman Course, offered in three phases, prepares e

nel in the inactive-duty reserve to serve as legalmen

year 1992, 115 students completed an in-house course 

at the School. 

Military Law Update Workshops. These workshop

two-day courses taught by the school to inactive-d

throughout the country to complement drill weekend

reserve annual training requirements. Tupics include r

ments in military justice, administrative law, and in

erational law. In 1992, Naval Justice School taught th

New Orleans, Louisiana; Charleston, South Carolin

Washington to approximately 700 reservists. 
p, y 

D.C. 

Naval Justice School Detachment, San Diego, Ca

vember 1991, the Chief of Naval Operations author

open a detachment at Naval Station San Diego. One 

Justice School Detachment was to standardize the 

fered in San Diego with that presented at the Nav

In fiscal year 92 the detachment provided instructio

in resident courses and 35,286 students throughou

detachment held 6 Legal Officer Courses and 18 C

Courses. The one-week Clerical Procedure Course 

personnel to process routine legal matters for their 

MARINE CORPS ACTIVITIES 

During fiscal year 1992, three Marine Corps judge 

ated from top level schools. There are currently tw

studying at the Naval War College, one judge adv

tional War College, one judge advocate at the Sc

Warfighting, two judge advocates at the Marine Cor

StaffCollege and one judge advocate at the Navy Co

College. Nine judge advocates graduated from Th

General's School of the Army (TJAGSA) in Charlot

There are currently ten judge advocates at TJAGS

LLM in military law. 

Tenjudge advocates in the Funded Legal Educatio

graduated from a law school with their JD, and thre

in the Excess Leave Program (ELP) graduated wi

currently twenty FLEP and thirteen ELP students 

Three judge advocates in the Special Educatio

graduated with LLMs in Environmental and Intern

judge advocates are currently attending school in 

George Washington University, Tulane University, 

San Diego. 

Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, funded twenty

cates for continuing legal education (CLE) at the 

TJAGSA; Naval Justice School, Newport, Rhode Isl

50 
ductions in funds and manpower, plans are being mad

more professional legal education through cooperat

reserve establishment and the Naval Justice School, br

ing to the judge advocates in the field. 

William L. Schachte, Jr. 

Rear Admiral, USN 

Acting Judge Advocate General ofthe Navy 
FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66. BCD SPECIAL COURTS·MARTIAL 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 ·GENERAL COURTS-MART JAL. 

PART 4. WORKLOAD OF THE NAVY-MARINE 

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF P'ERIOO 

GENERAL COUFl;TS.MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTtAL 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL. COURTS·MARTIAL 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL. 

BCD SPECIAL. COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL PENDING .6.T CLOSE OF PERIOD 

GENEP~tJRTS-MARTlAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL. 

RATE OF INCREASE l•J/OECREASE (-)OVER NUMBER OF CASES 


fltEVIEWEO DURING LAST FIEPORTING l'UllOO -25. 


PART 5 ·APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE NAVY-MARINE COUR

REVIEW 

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

PERCENTAGE OF COMR REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCMA 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE C+l/OECREASE C-) OVER l'REVIOUS REl'ORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 

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

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY COMR 

RATE OF INCREASE (•I/DECREASE(-) OVER THE NUMBER OF CA¥.-S REVIEWED DUPUNQ 

LAST REl'ORTING PERIOD 

l'AGEJ OF 2 

52 
NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS I 125 P==·=-·: 

PART 10 ·STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH ]§5.8JQ !::::::::-:-··· 

PART 11 ·NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 

RATE PER 1,000 

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

PAGE10F1 

y (), g

eral David C. Morehouse, and Deputy Judge Advocate G

dier General Nolan Sklute, made official staff inspecti

gal offices in the United States and overseas. They also 

participated in various bar association meetings and ad

civil, professional and military organizations. 

AIR FORCE COURT OF MILITARY PRE

During fiscal year 1992, the Air Force Court ofMilita

perienced a number of changes. On 1 March 1992, Co

D.S. Dixon III was sworn in as the new ChiefJudge. In 

Judge Advocate General increased the number of activ

from eight to nine in recognition of the rising appell

One ofthe reserve judges was reassigned during the ye

Court with three reserve judges. 

For administrative efficiency, the ChiefJudge reorgan

into five panels, in the process eliminating a number 

active duty judges are assigned to panels 1, 2, or 3, an

review the vast majority of the cases which the Court 

ChiefJudge presides over panel 1, Senior Judge Richa

sides over panel 2, and Senior Judge Robert Leonard 

panel 3. Senior Judge Leonard also presides over pane

created to review sensitive cases involving security clas

reserve judges are assigned to panel 5, along with Seni

McLauthlin, who presides over the panel. 

By moving some ofthe ChiefCommissioner's administ

sibilities to the ChiefCourtAdministrator, the ChiefCo

able to devote more ofhis time to law clerk functions. Pra

ing, the Court now has two full-time law clerks. 

On 22 September 1992, a revision of the Internal Ru

Force Court of Military Review was published. A maj

was accomplished during this fiscal year when the Cour

computerized. The automated docket not only improv

ability to manage its docket, but also enables the Cou

productivity accurately. 
military justice throughout the United States A

non-judicial proceedings to appellate review of court

tionally, the directorate has the staff responsibility o

Legal Services Agency in all military justice matters 

connection with programs, special projects, studies an

erated by the DoD, Headquarters USAF, members o

various agencies. Several of the Directorate's activitie

below: 

a. The Judiciary Directorate serves as the action 

review of military justice issues in applications subm

Force Board for Correction ofMilitary Records. Forma

provided to the Secretary of the Air Force concerni

tions. 

b. The Directorate received approximately 600 inqu

cases requiring either formal written replies or telep

senior executive officials, including the President a

Congress. 

c. The Directorate provided a representative to all 

tivities involving military justice. This included the Joi

mittee on Military Justice and support for the Code C

LEGAL INFORMATION SERVICE

Over 600 new personal computers were purchased 

throughout the Air Force. New notebook computers w

for the military judges to use while traveling the circ

communications between legal offices, the electroni

JAGMAIL, was updated and high speed modems wer

most offices. Computer equipment was purchased for 

Advocate General School at Maxwell AFB to use in tra

attorneys. 

The Project REFLEX portable law library softwar

and distributed to the Major Commands for deploym

cies and exercises. New computer security, anti-virus, 

fessional Development software was also distributed to 

56 
The first CDROM disk for the Defense Emergenc

Analysis and Retrieval System (DEARAS) was produc

ered by the contractor. It contains the entire U.S. cod

E~ecutive Orders as well as selected Public Laws, Do

materials, international law materials, and a variety o

rial related to national emergencies. The full text of th

is searchable on a portable microcomputer. 

TRIAL JUDICIARY 

The Air Force Trial Judiciary had an average of 24 ac

judges, 6 reserve trial judges, 14 noncommissioned offic

retaries stationed in seven (being reorganized into fiv

ciary Circuits worldwide. The Chief Trial Judge, his 

court reporter and a secretary are located at the judici

ters. The duties of these military judges included pres

general and special courts-martial tried in the United St

as well as serving as investigation officers under Artic

legal advisors at selected administrative discharge boa

ing officers at public hearings held to consider draft e

impact statements. Military Judges were on temporary 

tions other than their base of assignment more than 30

of the year. 

The Air Force Trial Judiciary made significant strides 

puterization with the acquisition of22 notebook comput

The notebooks are being configured to use the Army Ju

tion Program (using Enable 4.0 software), the 

Courts-Martial, pertinent Air Force regulations, and 

Trial Procedure Guide (AFP 111-6). Upon final distribu

judges will be issued either a notebook or a laptop com

other uses, the computers will enable trial judges to 

instructions (in addition to the oral instructions) for c

to take into their deliberations. 

The Chief Judge made supervisory visits to all CON

review workload and facilities. DICTA, the Trial Judicia

for military judges, was published quarterly. 
sexual abuse cases, and a video on "The Child Witne

Mr. William A. Peck, Head, Corrections Branch, Burea

sonnel, spoke on clemency and rehabilitation. Colone

Jr, Senior Appellate Judge, Air Force Court of Milita

sented an appellate judge's perspective for trial cour

outside speakers included: Judge William M. Bowe

Court of Criminal Appeals; Judge Richard Lee Price

preme Court, Bronx Division, and President, America

ciation; Professor Dave Schlueter, St. Mary's School 

Susan Crawford and Judge Robert Wiss of the U.S. C

Appeals spoke to the Seminar, and, along with Judge "

met with the judges in an afternoon judicial collegium

Three active duty judges and two reserve judges att

week Military Judges' Course conducted by The Arm

cate General's School at Charlottesville, Virginia, from 

5 June 1992. In September 1992, six judges attende

"Special Problems in Criminal Evidence" Course at th

dicial College, Reno, Nevada. Two judges attended th

Corps West Coast Judges Semi.1ar in November 1992

In November, the judges of the Pac~fic Circuit cond

judicial workshop at Osan Air Base, Korea. In Decem

ofthe Eastern Circuit, Northern Region, conducted a 

workshop at BollingAir Force Base, District of Colum

shops were held in conjunction with trial and defens

shops for the respective circuits; the ChiefTrial Judge 

both judicial workshops. 

Professionalism 

In early August, the ChiefTrial Judge attended the 

ofthe American BarAssociation, National Conference 

Judges, in San Francisco. He also attended the Amer

sociation annual educational meeting in Miami, FL, in 

interactions with civilian judges have been most benef

ing a greater understanding of the military justice 

role ofthe military judge. 

58 
egies were discussed. 

Workshops for base level prosecutors were conducted 

Trial Counsel in all the judicial circuits, except the Pacif

workshops were held in conjunction with Area Defen

that circuit and included joint sessions to hear present

Judge Advocate General, the Director of the Judiciary, 

tation by a judge from the United States Court of Milit

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT COUNS

In August 1992,Appellate Defense and Appellate Gov

sonnel attended the annual New Developments in Crimin

held at the Army JAG School in Charlottesville, Virgini

covered the latest military cases in all significant are

law. 

Appellate practice before the Air Force Court of Mi

(AFCMR) and the United States Court of Military App

dropped off during the year. However, while the numbe

Assignments of Error toAFCMR filed by Appellate Gove

sel was down approximately 16 percent, the number of 

before that court was up by one-third. Similarly, altho

ber of Supplementary Petitions filed with COMA was 

proximately 27 percent, the number of oral argumen

court was down by only 13 percent. 

AFC MR 

Replies to Assignment of Errors Filed ..................................... . 

Cases Argued ............................................................................. . 

COMA 

Supplements to Petitions Filed ................................................ . 

Cases Argued ............................................................................. . 

Supreme Court 

Petition Waivers Filed ............................................................... . 

Briefs Filed ................................................................................ . 

DEFENSE SERVICES 

Groundwork was laid for the 1 October 1992 split o

Services Division into two divisions. Colonel Jeffrey R. O
defense counsel have previously reported ultimately 

Services Division Chief, it was thought that this situ

rise to appellant concerns as to whether their claim

representation were truly being advocated by their ap

AREA DEFENSE COUNSEL 

The Area Defense Counsel (ADC) program continu

marks from the field. In response to concerns that th

may not be viewed by some military members as tru

the Trial Defense Division (JAJD) began a multimed

educate military personnel about the ADC mission a

ADC offices continued to improve. In 1992, 76 m

computers and printers were ordered for ADC offices

ceipt, all ADC offices will have this state-of-the-art 

goal of ensuring thatADC offices match legal offices, in 

ment and facilities, is being achieved. 

Trial defense counsel training remained our highe

ing several forms: an ADC Orientation Course for b

and ADC-selectees; annual circuit-level workshops

Advocacy and Advanced Trial Advocacy courses admin

well Air Force Base, Alabama; and on-the-job trainin

Circuit Defense Counsel and Chief Circuit Defense C

Circuit Defense Counsel share counsel table with you

ticularly during litigated and more complex courts-m

tremendous dividends. 

APPELLATE DEFENSE COUNSE

The breakdown of activity within the Appellate Div

AFC MR 

Cases Reviewed ......................................................................... . 

Oral Arguments ......................................................................... . 

Other Motions ............................................................................ . 

60 
yp

in confinement. That figure represents about a 10% inc

number in confinement at the end of FY 91, but is still 

totals over most of the past decade. A total of 441 of th

were incarcerated in central confinement facilities: 190 

2 at the Return-to-Duty Rehabilitation (RTDR) Progra

the United States Disciplinary Barracks (USDB). The 

Force prisoners on parole at the end ofFY 92 was 229, a

number as at the end of FY 91. 

The Air Force corrections facility at Lowry Air Force 

uled to close during CY 93. The Air Force is explorin

compensate for the prisoner bed space it will lose as a 

base closure. Incident to the Lowry closure, day-to-day 

of the Air Force Corrections Program will be transfe

3320th Correction and Rehabilitation Squadron (CRS) to 

Security Police Agency at Kirtland AFB, New Mexico. 

Although the DoD Order for the Services to consolida

has not yet been implemented fully, most Air Force s

removed from the USDB, and the Army has been accep

long-term prisoners, with costs borne by the Army. Re

tions Facilities (RCF) mandated in the DoD plan are m

cept prisoners from all services. Some RCFs ofthe other 

begun to accept Air Force prisoners, and our RCFs s

accept their prisoners. 

CIVIL LITIGATION 

Several petitions for habeas corpus, filed by Air For

the United States Disciplinary Barracks seeking collat

their cases, remained open. Issues include appropria

tence, insufficiency of evidence, and various evidentiar

such petition was granted on 31 July 1992 by the K

District Court in the case of U.S. v. Lips, 22 M.J. 680 (A

Two issues were raised in the challenge: 1) appropriate

ting sexually explicit magazines and a sexually explici

establish motive, intent, plan and design; and, 2) w

counsel's cross-examination into the accused's post-ar
PROGRAM 


The Legal Assistance Division (JACA) continued to 

sion oflegal services worldwide. The last annual repor

Force legal offices served 414,159 clients, providing 

Additionally, notaries provided 575,338 notarial acts. 

office visits totaled 1,182,805. 

Th assist base legal offices in the production of timely

assistance documents, JACA procured a standard wil

gram for use throughout the Air Force. This will prog

not only state specific wills, but also various ancillary do

as powers of attorney and living wills. As these docume

major portion ofthe legal assistance workload, the will p

improve the quality of the base level legal assistanc

increase office efficiency. 

House Bill 4763 introduced by Representative Montgo

revision of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil ReliefAct (S

was an active member of the Department of Defense 

tasked to address changes to the SSCRA. A subcommi

erans Affairs Committee held a hearing in April on 

changes to the SSCRA with the Honorable Christoph

tant Secretary of Defense for Force Management and P

tifying for the Department of Defense. JACAhelped d

statement before the subcommittee. The bill was not r

Committee; however, bills to amend the SSCRA are 

introduced in the next Congress, and the work accompl

will serve as a basis for future legislative proposals. 

THE REPORTER 

The Reporter periodical provided timely, practical i

important legal issues to Air Force lawyers. Each issu

formation in 15 legal areas, three in the area of milita

at least one lead article. This year's lead article topics 

procurement policy enhances air safety, American Inn

criminal liability under the UCMJ for sexual harassm

62 
faculty from the Army Judge Advocate General's School a

at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. In cooperation with the

stitute of Technology (AFIT), the Department sent 56 

courses in procurement law at the AFIT School of Syste

tics, Wright-PattersonAFB, Ohio. Six attorneys attende

courses sponsored by The National Judicial College at t

of Nevada in Reno, Nevada. Five judge advocates 

six-week medical law course at the Malcolm Grow Reg

Center at Andrews AFB, Maryland, and thirty judge 

tended the one-week medical law course at Travis AF

Both courses were sponsored by AFLSA/JACT. The De

nineteen judge advocates participate in the Legal Mas

in the fields of procurement law, labor law, environme

military law (including one Judge advocate from the U

faculty); seventeen attended civilian institutions and 

The Army Judge Advocate General School. 

THE AIR FORCE JUDGE ADVOCATE GE

SCHOOL 


The Air Force Judge Advocate General (AF JAG) Sch

within Air University's Ira C. Eaker Center for Professi

ment at Maxwell AFB, Alabama. Construction of a new A

and dormitory facility, which commenced in FY91, near

in FY92. Dedication and ribbon cutting ceremonies for b

are planned for FY93. 

Resident Courses 

The AFJAG School conducted 18 different courses wit

attended by approximately 1600 students in FY92. 

The Judge Advocate Staff Officer Course is theAFJA

sic course of instruction for new judge advocates. The 

signed to provide essential, basic, comprehensive instru

tary legal practice. The course is divided into three curr

military justice, civil law, and the judge advocate as a m

Air Force. The course develops competence in the milit
cused considerable attention in the area of military ju

lowing courses were attended by over 876 judge advo

paralegals. 

a. Judge Advocate Staff Officer Course-This course 

weeks of intensive military justice instruction. The stu

pated as trial or defense counsel in two moot court exerc

was a judge alone court-martial with a plea of guilty. T

a fully litigated trial with members. 

b. Trial and Defense Advocacy Course-This cours

week and was offered twice in FY92. It is designed to 

advocacy training to judge advocates who will be ser

trial advocates in courts-martial throughout the servic

was provided to 66 military advocates in the last fisca

plans call for expanding the course to two weeks. 

c. Advanced Trial and Defense Advocacy Course-T

one week course which was attended by 31 students in 

developed primarily to train those counsel who are curr

or have been selected to serve, as circuit trial or defens

course further develops and refines advocacy skills an

use of forensic evidence in courts-martial. 

d. StaffJudge Advocate Course-This course is use

tunity to refresh and update the law for those judge a

have been selected to serve as staffjudge advocates. It 

course which was attended by 56 members in FY92. Th

tice instruction centers on significant recent develop

law and procedures relating to nonjudicial and judicia

search and seizure, urinalysis, and substance abuse offen

is placed on the supervisory responsibility of Staff Jud

over the military justice process. 

e. Military Judges' Seminar-This is an interservice 

is primarily designed to ensure that military judges are k

with recent developments, not only in Military law, bu

most effective techniques of judicial management. It 

course which was offered once in FY92 and was attend

tary judges from all the services. 

64 
attorneys between their required attendance at RFJAG

161 ANG and 235 Reserve attorneys in attendance du

survey. The AFJAG School also conducted its first ever 

Guard Paralegal Survey during FY92. The course was a

Reserve and 42 Guard paralegals, and covered militar

claims topics of interest to enlisted members. 

Nonresident Courses 

The AFJAG School offered nonresident courses whic

approved for Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credit. 

of CLE credit earned for completion ofthese courses wa

by individual state bars. The courses available in FY92 

for Air Force Lawyers, Ethics for Claims officers, Esta

Basic Income Tax Law, Current Income Tax Law, Gove

tract Law, International Law, Supreme Court Trends in C

tice, and Environmental Law. 

The AFJAG School also provided instructional video

fessional enrichment in 44 topics in various areas of mi

and civil law. CLE credit was not offered for these enrich

These areas included: trial advocacy, criminal law, inco

environmental law, labor law, claims and tort litigation

tion law. During FY92, ten videotapes were provided in 

area of paralegal enrichment. Demand for enrichment ta

sistently heavy. 

Publications 

TheAFJAG School published one edition ofThe Air F

view in FY92. That issue was exclusively dedicated to t

bor law, providing extensive coverage to this important 

TheAFJAG School also was responsible for editing and 

preventive law materials. These materials serve to intr

formal collection of informative and relevant informa

advocates providing legal assistance to military perso

pendents. 
The Judge Advocate General 

66 
Oft 11£Vl!W UNDER ARTICL! 88 - GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

llOA REVIEW UNOSll ARTICLE 88 -ICO SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL. 139 

l!XAMINATlON UNO!Jll A'"1Ct.E 89 • GENERAL COUATl-MAJmAl 93 

PART 4 ·WORKLOAD OF THE AIR FORCE COURT OF MILITARY REV

TOTAL ON HANO R:OIN... INQ OF PERIOO 567 

Q£NEA.A.L COUR'T$-MARTIAl. 450 

ICO &P"f.CIAL COURTS-MAKTlAL 117 

RfFEAMO ,OR PIN~ Jl7 

GfNffW.. COURT&-MAKT'IAL 578 

ICO SPECIAL COIJAT'l..MARTIAI. 139 

TOTAL CASH RIVIEWEO 617 

GENERAL.COU~RT!At. 465 

llCO SPlCtAL COJ.Al'T'l-MARTIAL 1»< 

TOTAL PENOl\IQ ATCLOSI Of ll"ERIOO 667 

GENERAL COU'°'"MAJlt'TIAL 563 

ICO PfCIAL COUR'f'S.MAJmAL 104 

M.n 0, INCAlASI l+IJOl!a.u.Sl'!-1 O~NUMB!RO'CAIU 

NVllWED DURING LUT REP'ORT9'G PERIOD -.6%

PART 5 • APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE AIR FORCE 

MILITARY REVIEW 

NUMBER I 662 

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

PERCENTAGE OF COMR REVIEWED CASES !"ORW.t«l!D TO USCMA. 336/&17 

P£RCINTAGE 01" INCREASE l•ll DECREA.!a' I·! OVEA ome\r1oua ~POFmNG PERIOD 

24/336 

P£RCl'!NTAOE OP' INCAUI! I+ )IOECREASE H OVIR PREVIOU6 REP'OR'T'WrtG PERlOO 

P'el'l.C!NTA13E OP' "f'TITIONS GP.ANTED Of' TOTAL CASE& REV~ IV COMA l4{bLI 

RAT! OF INCREASI l+JJDECAEASE H OV&tl'HE NUMIB'OfCASH NVlfWm OU~G 

LAST M'OATIN~ "1l100 317/336 

PAGE l OF 2 
1lUilBY Ml'JTARY JVCOE WrrH MEMBERS 

G£NfAA1. COURT&-MARTIAL 

SPfCllL COURTS-MA.RTIAL 

315 

217 

PART 9 ·COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NVM~ OF COMl"t.AINTI I 2 5 

PART 10 ·STRENGTH 

9,323 

""-TEP911,000 19.20 

RATE OF ~CMASE l+llDE~SEH OVP ll'REVtoUS PERIOD -12. 7 

[A) SPCMs in which BCD adjudged 

PAGE 2 OF 2 

68 
preceding years. 

Fiscal Year 92 91 90 

General Courts-Martial ................................... 16 9 14 

Special Courts-Martial .................................... 26 34 42 

Summary Courts-Martial ................................ 25 18 47 

Total ................................................................ 67 61 103 

COURTS-MARTIAL 

Attorney counsel were detailed to all special courts

tary judges were detailed to all special courts-martial. F

the presiding judge was the Chief Trial Judge and fu

courts-martial judge. When he was unavailable, milita

other primary duties were used for special courts-mar

the detail ofjudges was centrally exercised by the Ch

and all requirements were met in a timely fashion. 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

Of the 16 accused tried by general courts-martial t

eight were tried by military judge alone. Three of the 

tried by military judge alone received dishonorable d

three received bad conduct discharges. Six of the eigh

by courts with members received a sentence which i

conduct discharge. One accused elected to be tried by 

included enlisted members. All 16 general courts-mar

convictions. Six of the accused whose charges were re

eral courts-martial were nonrated (pay grades E-1 throu

were petty officers (pay grades E-4 through E-6), and th

petty officers (pay grade E-7). 

The following is a breakdown of the sentences adjud

courts-martial tried by military judge alone (eight co

accused in three ofthese cases pled guilty to all charge

tions. 
The following is a breakdown of sentences adjudg

courts-martial tried by members (eight convictions). T

one of these cases pied guilty to all charges and specifi

Sentence 

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

Confinement..........................................................................................

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

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

Forfeiture of all pay and allowances ..................................................

Partial forfeiture of pay ( $20,850 total ) ...........................................

Fine ($5,000 total) ...............................................................................

The following indicates the four sentences imposed m

courts-martial in the past four fiscal years. 

Number of Reduction 

FY Convictions Forfeitures Confinement in Grade 

92 .................. 16 11 (69%) 14 (88%) 14 (88%) 

91 .................. 8 4 (50%) 7 (88%) 5 (63%) 

90 ·················· 14 10 (71%) 12 (86%) 9 (64%) 

89 .................. 5 3 (60%) 5 (100%) 3 (60%) 

The following table shows the distribution of the 271 

referred to general court-martial. 

Violation of the UCMJ, Article 

78 (Accessory after the fact ) ......................................................

80 (Attempts) ...............................................................................

81 (Conspiracy) ............................................................................

86 (Unauthorized absence) .........................................................

91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant, noncommissioned, 

petty officer) ............................................................................

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

93 (Cruelty and maltreatment) ...................................................

95 (Resistance, breach of arrest, or escape) ...............................

107 (False official statement) .......................................................

108 (Sale, loss, damage, destruction, or wrongful disposition of 

military property of the U.S.) ................................................

70 
SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

Eighteen ofthe 26 accused tried by special courts-mart

year were tried by military judge alone. Nine bad condu

were adjudged, seven to accused tried by military jud

two to accused tried by courts with members. One accus

be tried by a court which included enlisted members. 

courts-martial resulted in acquittals and charges in anoth

drawn prior to pleas. Nine ofthe accused whose charges w

to special courts-martial were nonrated (pay grades E-1 

and seventeen were petty officers (pay grades E-4 throu

The following table shows the distribution of the 292 s

referred to special courts-special. 

Violation of the UCMJ, Article 

81 (Conspiracy) ..............................................................................

83 (Fraudulent enlistment) ...........................................................

85 (Desertion) ................................................................................

86 (Unauthorized absence) ...........................................................

87 (Missing movement) .................................................................

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

92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) .......................................

93 (Cruelty and maltreatment) .....................................................

107 (False official statement) .........................................................

108 (Sale, loss, damage, destruction, or wrongful disposition of 


military property of the U.S ....................................................

112(a) (Controlled drug offenses) ........................................................

120 (Rape) ........................................................................................

121 (Larceny or wrongful appropriation) .......................................

123 (Forgery) ...................................................................................

123a (Making, drawing, or uttering check, draft, or order without 

sufficient funds) ........................................................................

125 (Sodomy) ....................................................................................

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

130 (Housebreaking) .......................................................................

132 (Frauds against the United States) .........................................

134 (General) ..................................................................................
Fine ($4,750) ...................................................................................

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

Reprimand.........................................................................................

The following is a breakdown of sentences adju

courts-martial tried by members (five convictions). 

five convictions, the accused pied guilty to all charge

tions. 

Sentence 

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

Confinement.....................................................................................

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

Forfeiture of pay ($4,506 total ) ......................................................

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

Reprimand.........................................................................................

The following indicates the four sentences imposed 

courts-martial in the past four fiscal years. 

Number of Reduct

FY Convictions Forfeitures Confinement in Gra

92 .................. 23 11 (48%) 18 (78%) 19 (83

91 .................. 26 16 (62%) 22 (85%) 21 (81

90 .................. 36 16 (44%) 18 (50%) 31 (86

89 .................. 36 18 (50%) 14 (39%) 26 (73

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL SUMM

Sixty-nine percent ofthe accused tried by special cou

tried by military judge alone. Eleven percent of the

guilty to all charges and specifications. Thirteen pe

cused tried by special courts-martial with members p

charges and specifications. There was a twenty-four p

in special courts-martial from last fiscal year. 

CHIEF COUNSEL ACTION UNDER ARTICL

In addition to the required reviews of courts-martia

result of petitions filed under Article 69, UCMJ, a d

72 
Navy asc awyeCouse Newpot, ode sad

certified underArticle 27(b), UCMJ. A total of 162 addi

quotas were filled by attorneys, paralegals, yeomen a

assigned to Coast Guard legal offices. Approximately 

spent on legal training during the fiscal year. 

U.S. COAST GUARD COURT OF MILITARY 

During fiscal year 1992, the Court was composed of 

military judges assigned by the General Counsel, Depar

portation, in his capacity as Judge Advocate Genera

Guard. The Court is presently constituted as follows: 

ChiefJudge Joseph H. Baum 

Judge Alfred F. Bridgman, Jr. 

Judge Michael C. Grace 

Judge John A. Bastek 

Judge Terrance M. Edwards 

Under Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, "

tary judges who are assigned to a Court of Military R

commissioned officers or civilians, each ofwhom must b

a bar of a Federal court or the highest court of a State.

the Court meet these qualifications. In prior years, it w

that Judge Bridgman and the ChiefJudge were civilia

mainingjudges were Coast Guard commissioned officers

in cases this past year challenging the appointment of

Court and the nature of their assignment as judges 

new look at previously held assumptions. As a result, 

to note that, in addition to their status as "civilian" em

Coast Guard, the Chief Judge is a retired Navy capt

Bridgman is a retired Coast Guard captain. The rem

judges are all Coast Guard captains on active duty. In 

amendment to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, e

"civilian life" certain categories ofretired military person

determined in U.S. u. Kovac,_ MJ _ (C.G.C.M.R. D

November 6, 1992) that all the judges on the Coast G
fense University, Captain Grace is a member of the te

of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces. Upon 

the Court by the General Counsel, judicial functions b

eral duty for these four judges, with each judge devo

sary time to meet his judicial responsibilities under A

form Code of Military Justice. U.S. v. Kovac determin

ment of judges for duty in this manner was not pro

Uniform Code of Military Justice and was not inconsis

ian and other military court practices. Moreover, it 

that judicial independence was still maintained under 

rangement. 

In prior years, the Court was divided into two panels 

with the ChiefJudge sitting on both panels. In Octobe

panels were expanded to six in order to afford the o

each judge to sit at various times with every other judg

three, thereby, incorporating the practice of the Unite

of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, as expressed in a sp

Joel M. Flaum of that Circuit at the All Services App

Judges Training Seminar in September 1991. 

Another idea advanced at the September 1991 App

Judges Training Seminar was "Project Outreach," a 

tuted by the U.S. Court ofMilitary Appeals to take app

to locations outside the Washington, D.C. area and, t

public more aware ofthe military justice appellate pro

1992, the Coast Guard Court joined in that project b

argument en bane in U.S. v. Lynch, 35 MJ 579 (C.G.C

the United States Coast Guard Academy, New London

Oral argument in Lynch was held before approximate

the majority of whom were third-year Coast Guard A

with course obligations covering military justice. Other

included some of the members of the prosecution and 

from the trial ofthis case; Academy faculty and staffan

Coast Guard law specialists from Governors Island, N

ton, Massachusetts and Newport, Rhode Island; Navy ju

from the Submarine Base, Groton, Connecticut; and 

Guard personnel and their families. After the hearing 

74 
(JAG) School in Charlottesville, Virginia. For a week inA

one judge attended the New Developments Course at th

School in Charlottesville, and three ofthe judges attended 

1992 All Services Appellate Military Judges Training Sem

by the Navy Marine Corps Court of Military Review a

Justice School in Newport, Rhode Island. 

This past year, Chief Judge Baum served again as a V

the Federal BarAssociation's Judiciary Section. He also 

serve as a Master of the Bench in the Federal American 

and Membership Chairman for the Inn during the latte

fiscal year.Additionally, as a member ofthe Judge Advoc

tion, ChiefJudge Baum served as Chairman ofthe Assoc

Nominating Committee for new officers. He also continu

ber of the U.S. Court of Military Appeals Rules Advisor

during the year. At the end of fiscal year 1992, on recom

the appellate military judges attending the seminar in Ne

Island, an ad hoc committee was formed and met to dev

ing program for appellate military judges. Chief Judge 

as an active member of that committee. 

ADDITIONAL MILITARY JUSTICE STATIS

Appendix A contains additional basic military justice 

the reporting period and reflects the increase/decrease of

in various categories. 

Paul E. Versaw 

Rear Admiral, USCG 

ChiefCounsel, U.S. Coast Guard 
FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 BCD SPECIAL COUATS·MAAT1AL 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69- GENERAL COURTS·MARTIAL 

PART 4 ·WORKLOAD OF THE 

TOTAL ON HANO BEGINNING OF PERIOD 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 

GENERAL COUATS·MAATIAL 


BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 


TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 

GENERA_!::_£9UATS-~~l~!:----+----'"-----4-------'i' 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

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


REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD -10% 


PART 5 ·APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE COAST GUARD COUR

REVIEW 

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

PERCENTAGE OF COMA REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCMA 11 /25 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+I/DECREASE l-1 OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 4/ 11 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE l+)/OECREASE l-1 OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY COMA 4 /25 

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

PAGE 1OF2 

1

Included within this total is a case where charges were withdrawn 

2

Included within this total are 21 Article 66, UCMJ, referrals and 

writs. 

76 
NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS I ,

PART 10 - STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 39, 111 

PART 11 - NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 1,186 

RATE PER 1,000 30.32 

RATE OF INCREASE (+l/OECREASE f-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD 2% 

PA.GE20F2 

3rncluded within this total are 21 reviews/action on cases referred p

Article 66, UCMJ, 2 Article 69, UCMJ, reviews/action and 2 actions i

to extraordinary writs. 

4rncluded within this total are five CGCMR reviewed cases forwarded t

which were awaiting disposition at the end of FY-92.