on 

MILITARY JUSTICE 

INCLUDING SEPARATE REPORTS 


of the 


U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCE

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, 1994 to September 30, 1995 


PROPERTY OF U.S. ARMY --..... ··---..,, 

THE JUDGE-ADVOCATE GENERAL'S S

LIBRARY 
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERV

of the U.S. Senate 


and the 


COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SE

of the U.S. House of Representati

and to the 


SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, 


SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATIO

and 


SECRETARIES OF THE 


ARMY, NAVY, ANO AIR FORCE 

PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 


For the Period 


October 1, 1994 to September 30, 1995 

FOR THE ARMED FORCES 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

ARMY 

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 GUARD 
ppy 

y 

the operation of the Uniform Code of Military Justic

Article 146, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC 

The Code Committee met during fiscal year 199

numerous matters pertaining to the administration o

Code of Military Justice. This meeting was open to 

interested visitors attended and participated in th

Representatives of all the Armed Forces reported on th

status of cases and trends concerning the administrat

justice within their respective Armed Forces. The Ch

Joint-Service Committee was invited to brief the Com

ious proposals to amend the Uniform Code of Milita

the Manual for Courts-Martial. 

Additionally, the Committee reviewed and considere

proposals to amend the Rules of Practice and Pro

United States Court ofAppeals for the Armed Forces. 

the Court briefed the other members of the Committe

load, including the oral argument schedule for the ye

Committee considered a report on a meeting recent

Army Judge Advocate General's School concerning 

encourage the teaching of military law in civilia

throughout the United States. 

Separate reports of the United States Court of A

Armed Forces and the. individual Armed Forces ad

items of special interest to the Committee on Armed 

United States Senate and Committee on National S

United States House ofRepresentatives, as well as the 

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

WALTER T. COX III 1 

Chief Judge 

I Chief Judge Cox assumed the position and duties of Chief Judge by 

October 1, 1995. 
g

Major General MICHAEL J. NARDOTTI, USA 

The Judge Advocate General ofthe Army 

Rear Admiral HAROLD E. GRANT, USN 

The Judge Advocate General ofthe Navy 

Major General BRYAN G. HAWLEY, USAF 

The Judge Advocate General ofthe Air Force 

Captain D. J. KANTOR, USCG 

Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Coast Guard 

Brigadier General MICHAEL C. WHOLLEY, USMC 

Director, Judge Advocate Division 

Headquarters, United States Marine Corps 

F. LEE BAILEY, Esquire 

Public Member 

TERRENCE O'DONNELL, Esquire 

Public Member 

2 Judge Wiss passed away on October 23, 1995. 

2 
in accordance with Article 146, Uniform Code of Milita

USC §946. 

THE BUSINESS OF THE COURT 

The number of cases carried over on the Court's Pe

at the end of fiscal year 1995 (295) showed little 

the number of cases pending on that docket at the 

year 1994 (291). (See Appendix A.) However, number o

over on the Master Docket at the end of this fisc

decreased by 12% from the pending Master Docke

the end of the prior fiscal year. (See Appendix B.) 

some measure because the number of petitions for 

view filed with the Court during this reporting per

by 17% from 1514 in fiscal year 1994 to 1251 duri

year. (See Appendix J.) The number of oral argume

decreased by 22% during this fiscal year (112) from t

cases argued during fiscal year 1994 (144) when the 

more oral arguments per year than it had during the 

years. (See Appendix C.). The number of Court 

decreased from 144 in fiscal Year 1994 to 111 in fisca

(See Appendix D.) 

Due to the complexity of legal issues raised in ca

the Court the average processing time from the date o

tion to the date of a grant increased from the previo

(See Appendix E.) There was also an increase during t

in the average processing time between the date of 

the date of oral argument. (See Appendix F.) However

processing time between oral argument and issuan

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

Court was notified that petitions for writ of certiorari were filed with the Su

United States in 41 Master Docket cases in which the Court issued a final 
the Court decreased significantly during fiscal year 

Appendix I.) 

Senior Judge Robinson 0. Everett was recalled and p

in the review and decision of several cases during 

1995 in which various Judges on the Court had rec

selves. 

During fiscal year 1995 the Court admitted 530 attorn

tice before its Bar, bringing the cumulative total of admis

the Bar of the Court to 30,168. 

PUBLIC AWARENESS PROJECT 

(PROJECT OUTREACH) 

Pursuant to its practice established in 1988, the Cour

several special sessions and heard oral arguments 

cases outside its permanent Courthouse in Washington

practice, known as "Project Outreach," has develop

of a public awareness program to demonstrate not only 

tion of a Federal appellate court but also the effecti

quality of the criminal justice system of the Armed Fo

United States. The Court conducted appellate hear

out objection of the parties, at the University of Virg

of Law, Charlottesville, Virginia; the United State

Academy, West Point, New York; the Association of 

the City of New York, New York; the United States 

Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado; the United St

Training Center, Great Lakes, Illinois; and the Federal C

Chicago, Illinois, during the Annual Meeting of the 

Bar Association. This program has continued to p

increased public awareness of the fundamental fairn

military criminal justice system and the role of the C

overall administration of military justice throughout 

The Court hopes that those who attend these hearing

4 
sional training programs for military and civilian law

professional groups of judges and lawyers, and visit

judge advocates and commanders at various military 

throughout the world. 

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE 

On May 18 and 19, 1995, the Court held its an

Conference in the Marvin Center, George Washingto

School of Law, Washington, D.C. The Judicial Confer

was certified for credit to meet the continuing leg

requirements of various State Bars throughout the Un

order to assist both military and civilian practitioners 

ing those professional skills necessary to practice be

appellate courts. The Conference opened with a presen

Honorable Eugene R. Sullivan, Chief Judge, United S

Appeals for the Armed Forces, on the "State of the Co

by speakers for this year's Conference who includ

Edward J. Imwinkelried, University of California Da

Law; Dr. Jonathan Lurie, Historian to the United St

Appeals for the Armed Forces and Professor of His

University; Professor Michael Noone, Catholic U

America's Columbus School of Law; Mr. Bryan Steven

Alabama Capital Representation Resource Cente

Stephen A. Saltzburg, George Washington University S

Major R. Peterson Masterton, Judge Advocate Gen

United States Army; Lieutenant Colonel Kevin W. 

Advocate General's School, United States Army; a

Fredric I. Lederer, William and Mary School of Law

Colonel John M. Smith, United States Army; Major 

United States Army; Major David S. Jonas, United S

Corps; and Captain Jane M. E. Peterson, United Sta

participated in a panel discussion on legal ethics. 
ative process. Rather, the Court noted that Military Rul

606(b), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 

inquiries into the question of whether extraneous influen

ful command influence may have been injected into th

deliberations. After reviewing the provisions of Fed

Evidence 606(b), which applied to such inquiries in Feder

als, the Court rejected the defense argument that the 

inquiry did not apply to objective factors such as voting pro

Court also noted that the affidavits in this case did not r

of unlawful command influence and therefore refused to 

post-trial affidavits in question. In addition, the Court rej

on appeal that the trial defense counsel were ineffective 

relied on a flawed examination into the accused's menta

Court held in this regard that disagreements among pro

not per se show incompetence and that the accused produc

show that the results of the examination were incorrect. T

considered numerous other allegations relating to the iss

tency of counsel and rejected each of them on the ba

accused's trial defense counsel were not shown to be ineff

case. The Court further rejected a defense claim that the m

abandoned his role as a neutral officer of the Court as w

that the prosecution had engaged in some form of misco

that neither allegation was supported by the record. A

reviewing the process used in selecting the court member

the Court held that the accused had failed to make a prim

ing that either racial or gender discrimination had occ

process of selecting members for his court-martial. 

2 This section of the Court's annual report is prepared solely as an info

the staff of the Court. It is included for the convenience of the reader to ass

ing cases of particular interest during the term. The case summaries are no

value and should not be cited in briefs filed with the Court. 

6 
udice which resulted in. a subsequent trial and co

accused for the same acts. The Court observed that s

no violation of the accused's constitutional right to 

under the provisions of RCM 707, the military judge 

his discretion in dismissing the charges in question 

dice to a subsequent trial where he found very little p

accused. 

DEFENSE COUNSEL 

The appropriate methodology for adjudicating a c

tive assistance of counsel was addressed in United Sta

MJ 1 (1995), a case in which the Court held that a Co

Appeals could properly order trial defense counsel 

claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and, if n

have issued a subpoena to enforce its order. However, 

it was error for the lower appellate court to conside

counsel's assertions in his motion to stay and quash 

affidavits as the functional equivalent of an affid

defense counsel rebutting the accused's claims of in

tance. Nevertheless, since the information contained 

counsel's motion was available from other sources, th

the accused had not been prejudiced by this error. Th

held that although a trial defense counsel may volun

to an allegation of incompetency of counsel, since suc

waives the attorney-client privilege as to matters re

claim, the same counsel could not be compelled to r

allegations until a court of competent jurisdiction ha

allegation of ineffectiveness and the government respo

the record, and determined that the allegation and t

tained evidence which, if unrebutted, would overcom

tion of competence. Only after a court has made suc

tion should trial defense counsel be compelled to justi

The Court also ruled that an unrebutted prima facie 
been prejudiced by counsel's deficient performance is 

one, namely, whether there is a reasonable probability 

sonable factfinder would have reached different results 

sel's unprofessional errors. 

COURT MEMBERS 

The procedures for examining an allegation of impro

ation of extraneous information by members of a court-m

were further defined in United States v. Straight, 42 M

Expanding on its analysis set forth in United States v. L

the Court observed that because Federal Rule of Evi

precludes inquiry into the subjective effects of extrinsic i

jurors, other Federal courts apply a presumption of pr

such extrinsic influences. Thus, the Court held that the 

had a burden to rebut the presumption in such a situati

recognizing that there may be instances where a court m

sonal knowledge would constitute extraneous prejudic

tion, the Court held that, under the facts of this case, la

one or more court members as to the possibility of parol

within the exceptions to Military Rule of Evidence 606(b

the restriction on the use of court members' statement

their sentence. The Court similarly held in United Stat

42 MJ 484 (1995), that, since none of the exceptions to M

of Evidence 606(b) were triggered in the accused's case, 

the deliberative process of the court members was proh

JURISDICTION 

In United States v. Batchelder, 41 MJ 337 (1994), th

that jurisdiction was not lost when a clerk gave the ac

charge package contrary to command directives prior 

specified in the accused's discharge orders. The Court ru

personnel separations clerk had no authority to establis

time for the discharge from that specified in the accu

8 
predicated on his own negligence. After reviewing the 

taining to the offense of pandering, the Court held in 

v. Gallegos, 41 MJ 446 (1995), that this offense di

arrangements for valuable consideration and, t

accused's statements during his guilty-plea inquiry 

include an acknowledgment that anyone received any 

tary compensation for the underlying sexual acts did 

render the guilty pleas improvident. In United States 

MJ 488 (1995), the Court held that the accused's dest

stolen blank military identification cards was sufficien

the offense of obstruction of justice where the accuse

that his accomplice was apprehended for using a fake 

card provided by the accused and that, thus, the ac

merely trying to avoid detection or implication. The 

ruled that where an accused acts to destroy evidence p

person against whom he had reason to believe there w

criminal proceedings, and with the intent to impede 

ings, such accused has committed the offense of obstr

In United States v. Martinez, 42 MJ 327 (1995), the C

conviction of negligent homicide which was predi

accused's act of giving his car keys to a friend and 

friend, who was intoxicated, to drive the car, a circum

resulted in an accident causing the friend's death

accused's contention that his conduct was not crimina

diction the Court ruled that military law had long rec

gent homicide as a punishable disorder under the g

Article 134, UCMJ. 

In United States v. Sneed, 43 MJ 101 (1995), the C

the definition of "military property of the United Stat

Article 108, UCMJ, and the sentence escalation provis

ny under Article 121. Thus, the Court held that pri

being held by the military in an evidence locker for po

a court-martial, or property so used but not yet retur
The Court held in United States v. Walker, 42 MJ 

that medical evidence showing the accused had a me

tion of sinusitis coupled with expert testimony expl

such condition could be caused by repeated drug use w

under Military Rule of Evidence 404 to rebut a def

advertent use. However, the Court further held that th

of the evidence was erroneous in a trial with cou

where (1) no limiting instruction was given to the cou

(2) such evidence was diminished by the fact that 

expert did not examine the accused, and (3) the ev

great potential for prejudicing the accused in a trial for 

use of cocaine. 

The Court held in United States v. Huet-Vaughn, 

(1995), upon reviewing a conviction of desertion wit

avoid hazardous duty and shirk important service, t

cused's motives for quitting her unit were irrelevant. D

ing between evidence relating to motive and intent, 

held that any evidence pertaining to the accused's mot

to moral or ethical reservations concerning the Persia

flict was irrelevant since such evidence did not neg

quisite intent of the crime in question. The Court als

the evidence rejected at the trial was not relevant to the 

defense" concerning refusal to obey an unlawful order 

defense applied only to individual acts and not to 

ment's decision to wage war. Thus, the Court rule

intermediate appellate court erred by holding the tria

wrong in rejecting such evidence. 

In United States v. Fisiorek, 43 MJ 244 (1995), the 

that Rule for Courts-Martial 1210, the newly-discover

rule which implements the statutory provisions for allo

trial in Article 73, UCMJ, concerning the standard f

a new trial was inappropriately severe where an 

tempted to reopen his case after findings but before 

in his court-martial. Rather, the Court held the primar

10 
EVIDENCESENTENCING 

In United States v. Irwin, 42 MJ 4 79 (1995), the C

the military judge properly allowed the prosecution 

recording of the accused's guilty-plea inquiry during a 

hearing before court members. Citing United States v. 

(CMA 1988), the Court held that the accused's statem

ed aggravating circumstances directly relating to of

he was convicted. The Court further ruled that the m

warning to the accused that his statements could be 

to him constituted sufficient notice and that a specif

the military judge to the fact that such statements cou

ing the presentencing hearing was not required. 

DISCOVERY 

Reviewing an accused's conviction of larceny which 

ed on a lease agreement signed by the accused, the C

States v. Meadows, 42 MJ 132 (1995), held that the a

denied a fair opportunity to present a defense where t

ment offered at the Article 32, UCMJ, investigation di

lease agreement offered by the Government at trial. N

handwriting on one form differed from the handwriti

form, the Court ruled that this discrepancy did n

defense where both the accused and the alleged landl

versions of the lease and the accused could not have b

the existence of both of the documents. The Court 

regard that it had little patience with appellate call

flag from an accused who, when all is said and done, 

if at all-largely by his own lack of candor with his c

COMMAND INFLUENCE 

Addressing an allegation of command influence in U

Campos, 42 MJ 253 (1995), the Court held that no 

mand influence arose in the case. Rather, the Cour

perceived demotion of the military judge who tried t
In United States v. Johnson, 42 MJ 443 (1995), 

addressed a procedural statement asserted by the Cour

Review in its second review of this case concerning the 

remanding a case to the intermediate appellate court t

new issue. Noting that the counsel representing the acc

the Court who raised a new issue was not the same app

sel who represented the accused before the Court of Mili

on its initial review of this case, the Court held that t

whether an issue was properly raised was a matter sole

discretion under Article 67, UCMJ, and it was not bound 

of procedure established by the Judge Advocates Ge

Article 66(£), UCMJ. Thus, the Court ruled that in ord

justice would be done, it determined to exercise its discr

form of a remand to consider the newly raised issue. 

In United States v. Connell, 42 MJ 462 (1995), the Cour

action of a general court-martial convening authority wh

a suspended sentence to a punitive discharge and rejecte

argument that the procedure for such an action as est

Article 72(a), UCMJ, involved a violation of due process. 

Court held that the special court-martial convening au

conducted the hearing in this case was not per se disqu

serving as a neutral and detached hearing officer and tha

facts presented, he was not personally involved in the ca

BORDER SEARCHES 

In United States v. Ayala, 43 MJ 296 (1995), the Cou

there is no requirement that customs agents have "reaso

to inspect mail coming into the United States. Followin

Circuit's decision in United States v. Glasser, 750 F.2d 1

1984), the Court held that the "reasonable cause" r

imposed by 19 U.S.C. § 482 applies only to customs sea

than border searches. 

12 
ROBERT E. WISS,3 

Associate Judge. 

3 Judge Wiss passed away on October 23, 1995. 
Miscellaneous Docket .......................... ............... 30 

TOTAL............................................................. 1435 

CUMULATIVE TERMINATIONS 

Master Docket ...................................... ............... 168 

Petition Docket ................................................... 1247 

Miscellaneous Docket ...... ..... .... ....... .... ........ .. ... . . 29 

TOTAL............................................................. 1444 

CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 1, 1995 

Master Docket ..................................................... 105 

Petition Docket ................................................... 295 

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

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


OPINION SUMMARY 

PER 

CATEGORY SIGNED CURIAM 

Master Docket.......................... 109 1 

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

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

402 

MEM/ 

ORDER 

58 

1247 

29 

TOTAL ............................... 109 1 1334 

FILINGS (MASTER DOCKET) 

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

Returned from Court of Criminal Appeals ................ 

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

Certificates filed .......................................................... 

Reconsideration granted ............................................ 

Petitions granted (from Petition Docket) .................. 

8 

4 

1 

8 

2 

131 

TOTAL ..................................................................... 154 

14 
TOTAL...................................................................... 105 


FILINGS (PETITION DOCKET) 


Petitions for grant of review filed ........................... 1243 


Petitions for new trial filed ...................................... 4 


Cross-petitions for grant filed ................................. 3 


Petitions for reconsideration granted ..................... 1 


Returned from Court of Criminal Appeals .. ... .... .... 0 


TOTAL ................................................................... 1251 


TERMINATIONS (PETITION DOCKET) 


Petitions for grant dismi.ssed .................................. . 8 


Petitions for grant denied ....................................... . 1091 


Petitions for grant granted ..................................... . 131 


Petitions for grant remanded ................................. . 6 


Petitions for grant withdrawn ................................ . 8 


Other ........................................................................ . 3 


TOTAL ................................................................... 1247 


PENDING (PETITION DOCKET) 


Awaiting briefs ........................................................ 108 


Awaiting Central Legal Staff review ..................... 43 


Awaiting final action ............................................... 144 


TOTAL .................................................................. 295 


FILINGS (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET) 


Writs of error coram nobis sought ........................... 5 


Writs of habeas corpus sought . ... . ...... ... ... ............. ... 2 


Writs of mandamus/prohibition sought .................. 8 


Other extraordinary relief sought . . ... ....... ... .... ... ... .. 8 


Writ appeals sought .................................................. 7 


TOTAL................................................................... 30 


TERMINATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET) 


Petitions withdrawn ................................................. . 1 


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


Petitions granted ..................................................... . 1 


Petitions denied ........................................................ 25 


Petitions dismissed ................................................... ·. 2 


Other ........................................................................ . 0 


TOTAL .................................................................. . 29 


Signe

Per c

Mem

TO

Signe

Per c

Mem

TO
Petition Docket ..... ..... .. ... .. .. 0 9 2 1 6 

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

TOTAL ..... ........................ 2 11 2 3 8 

MOTIONS ACTIVITY 

BEGIN END DISPOSIT

PEND­ PENDCATEGORY ING FILINGS ING Granted Denied 

All motions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . 17 786 12 718 68* 

*One motion was denied after oral argument in a published opinion. See U

Smith, 41 MJ 385 (1995). 

16 
Petition Docket Year Pe

800 

FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY

.... 

....., 

I 702 

700 

600 

•• 

500 

400 

-­ 

·------ --­ -

300 

200 

100 

0 
..... 

00 

Master Docket Year End 

300 

258 

250 

200 

150 	 

100 

50 

0 

FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY

1J 	This figure does not include 16 trailer cases to United States v. Wat

68206/MC, and 8 trailer cases to United States v. Weiss, No. 67869/M

~ This figure does not include 87 trailer cases to United States v. Mitc

93-1044/NA, and 9 trailer cases to United States v. Rexroat, No. 93-5
Oral Arguments Per Ye

150 

125 

100 

75 

50 

25 

0 

.... FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY

<O 
I\) 

0 

Total Opinions Per Ye

150 

125 

100 

75 

50 

25 

0 


FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY

0 SEPARATE OPINIONS (CONCUR, CONCUR IN THE RESULT, A

• MAJORITY CASE OPINOINS 
Days from Petition Filing t

200 

181

I ~ 

175 

150 

125···· 

··­ 117 <

100 

----­....:

·---------------

75 

50 

25 

0 

FY85 FY86 FY87 FVBB FV89 FY90 FV91 FV

I\) 

..... 
I\) 

I\) 

Days from Petition Gr

to Oral Argument 

450 426 

375 

300 

225 

150 

75 

0 

FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY
Days from Oral Argum

to Final Decision 

300 

FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

261 

I\) 

w 
I\) 

~ 

Days from Petition Fi

to Final Decision 

549 

550 

500' 

450 

40!) 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 F

0 PETITION DOCKET (DENIAL/DISMISSAUWITHDRAWAL) 

• MASTER DOCKET (GRANTED/CERTIFIED/DEATH CASES) 
Days from Filing to 

Final Decision in All C

180 


160 


140 


127 

120 L 1na 

• .-- 

100 r- ~..> 

--- -

·-------- ---

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 F

I\) 

(JI 
2750 

2500 

2250 

2000. ______ .. ft~I") 

1750 

-----­ 

1500 

-----­ 

!\;> 

m 

Total Petitions Filed Pe

3000 

I :nm; 2721 2719 

1250·····

FY85 FY86 FY87 FYBB FY89 FY90 FY91 F

1000 

750 

500 

250 

0 
assistance, and professional education to ensure the ord

cient administration of military justice. Numbers in th

based on a military end strength of 523,500 in FY 95 an

FY94. 

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY: FY 95 

(See table insert, attached) 

U.S. ARMY LEGAL SERVICES AGENC

The U.S. Army Legal Services Agency, a field operati

OTJAG, includes the following organizations involved i

istration of military justice: the U.S. Army Ju

Government Appellate Division, the Defense Appellate 

Trial Defense Service, and the Trial Counsel Assistance 

U.S. ARMY JUDICIARY 

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

Criminal Appeals, the Clerk of Court, the Examinati

Trials Division, and the Trial Judiciary. 

U.S. ARMY TRIAL DEFENSE SERVIC

During FY 95, the United States Army Trial Def

(USATDS) continued to provide high-quality, professi

counsel services to soldiers throughout the Army. USAT

data for FY 94 and 95 is displayed below: 
TRIAL COUNSEL ASSISTANCE PROG

During FY 95, the U.S. Army's Trial Counsel Assis

(TCAP) fulfilled its mission by providing information

ing, and trial assistance to military prosecutors world

tion to services provided to Army attorneys, TCAP ha

constituency among prosecutors in the Air Force, 

Corps, and Coast Guard. TCAP provided four basic ca

vices during FY 95: (1) telephone inquiry assistance

training courses; (3) the TCAP Memo; and (4) tr

During FY 95, TCAP personnel accomplished the follo

ed to 881 telephonic requests for assistance; sent out 

times in response to calls; provided 17 complete sets o

on computer disk; conducted 9 three-day advocacy tr

in the continental United States, Korea, Hawaii, 

trained in excess of 160 military attorneys from all th

cost of $17,000 or $106 per attorney trained; held 3 vi

ences; and published and distributed nine editions 

Memo to approximately 360 subscribers. On two oc

provided instructional assistance for trial counsel 

Criminal Law Advocacy Course and· coordinated at

guest speaker on DNA analysis for the Crimin

Developments Course. The Criminal Law Advocacy c

New Developments Course took place at The Ju

General's School. 

Beyond this extensive support to trial counsel, TC

prepared 12 Answers and Returns to Habeas Co

filed with the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Dist

or the United States Court ofAppeals for the Tenth 

reviewed, monitored, and responded to eight Extrao

filed in either the Army Court of Criminal Appeals o

28 
Congressional inquiries. 

Criminal Law Division workload data for the last tw

is displayed below: 

FY94 

White House inquiries ............................ . 110 

Congressional inquiries........................... . 105 

Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the 97 

Army, Chief of Staff of the Army, and 

The Judge Advocate General inquiries 

Miscellaneous inquiries ........................... . 26 

Legal Opinions for Army Board of Cor- 6 

rection of Military Records 

Clemency Petitions, Article 74, UCMJ ... 2 

Officer Dismissals ................................... . 24 

Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act. 23 

During FY 95, the Criminal Law Division represen

Advocate General on a DoD/DoJ task force revisin

Crime Victim and Witness Assistance ,Program, attend

the American Bar Association committees dealing wit

matters, and contributed to the 1994 Judicial Confere

Court ofAppeals for the Armed Forces and the annual 

Code Committee. 

JOINT SERVICE COMMITTEE 


ON MILITARY JUSTICE 


The Chief, Criminal Law Division, OTJAG, serves 

representative to the Joint Service Committee on M

(JSC) established by the Judge Advocates General and 

of Transportation (Coast Guard) on August 17, 1972. 

ducts an annual review of the MCM, as required by Ex

12473 and DoD Directive 5500.17. The JSC proposes 
with sentences adjudged by civilian or foreign jurisdiction

the convening authority to correct minor errors in action

record is forwarded for appellate review. 

The 1995 Amendments clarify the standards for revie

authorizations based on false statements and clarify tha

element of espionage is not satisfied merely because t

acted without lawful authority. It amends the procedures 

the handling and admissibility of unclassified privileged g

information, and changes the definition of inherently dan

to cover acts dangerous to "another," as opposed to "ot

1995 Amendments extend the definition of drunken or re

ing to the operation of aircraft and vessels and establish a 

alcohol level as a per se standard for proof of intoxication

Amendments also make rape gender neutral and delete 

"defense" to rape. 

During FY 95, the JSC also completed its eleventh ann

of the MCM. This review was submitted for public comm

The Army acts as Executive Agent for the JSC. In add

warding proposed changes to the MCM to DoD, the Arm

for publication of the second soft-cover edition of the 

Courts-Martial. Changes to the soft cover manual include

tion of Change 7 and the 1995 Amendments, and reorga

the appendices. 

FOREIGN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION 

As executive agent for the Department ofDefense, the D

of the Army, through the International and Opera

Division, OTJAG, maintains information concerning the 

foreign criminal jurisdiction over U.S. personnel. 

The data below, while not coinciding with the FY us

30 
Except for the increase in Foreign Jurisdiction Recal

decline in numbers in each category reflects the over

U.S. Armed Forces stationed overseas. 

This year, foreign authorities released 36 of the 183 

eign jurisdiction cases involving military personnel to 

ties for disposition. Because concurrent jurisdiction off

violations of both U.S. military and foreign laws, the 

tries had authority to assert primary jurisdiction. This 

er, U.S. military authorities were able to obtain waiv

jurisdiction in 4,481 of these incidents. Overall, w

obtained in 81.6 percent of exclusive or concurrent f

This figure reflects a slight decrease in such w

1992-1993, where the figure was 89 percent. 

Last year, when there were 1,646 offenses invo

employees and dependents, foreign authorities release

percent of the total, to U.S. military authorities for a

action or other disposition. This year, foreign author

only 53 such cases, or 4.2 percent of the total numb

employees and dependents charged, to U.S. military au

Foreign authorities tried a total of 1,117 cases. Twen

or 2 percent, resulted in acquittals. This is an incre

year's figures where only ten trials, or 0.7 percent, ofth

in an acquittal. A total of 1,010, or 90.4 percent, of 

resulted in sentences to fines or reprimands. The rema

ed 26 executed sentences to confinement and 59 su

tences to confinement. 

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 

The Professional Responsibility Branch, Standard

Office, was created in August 1991. It is charged wi
numbers for the first 10 months of calendar year 1995, 

of professional conduct inquiries will again decrease. 

average, of the cases opened, between 73 percent and 8

the allegations of attorney ethical violations are, after a 

determined to be unfounded. Among the 20 to 27 percent 

to be founded, the majority involve only minor or inadv

tions of attorney ethics rules. On average, about 30 pe

attorney ethics inquiries concern the conduct of trial 

counsel. Each year since 1987, we have conducted an av

ethics inquiry into allegations concerning a military judg

LITIGATION 

The number of civil actions against the Department 

and its employees remained high, with 811 new lawsuits 

FY 95. Civil actions requiring the civilian courts to in

UCMJ constitute a small but significant portion of the 

majority of these cases seek collateral review of court-

ceedings. Most remaining cases present challenges to 

conditions of confinement, specific actions taken by c

facility personnel, or parole and clemency proceedings. 

EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

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

Charlottesville, Virginia, remains a vibrant, busy, and u

emic institution. During FY 95, the School provided educ

law and related subjects to more than 7,000 lawyers, c

other officers, enlisted personnel, and Federal civilian em

The School conducted 50 resident courses. Approxim

students attended: 1,792 students were Active Army, 514 

Reserve, 234 Army National Guard, 1,071 Federal civil

32 
Advocate General's School is the only government enti

authorized to grant the degree of Master of Laws (LL.M

Law. The school has enjoyed American Bar Association 

since 1958. Following the passage of statutory authorit

advanced law degree, the ABA recognized the demand

standards of the Graduate Course, accepted its 

Committee's 1988 site evaluation recommendation, and 

allowing the School to award the LL.M. degree in Mili

ABA Accreditation Committee conducted a site evalu

Judge Advocate General's School in 1995. 

On May 14, 1994, 75 students of the 43d Graduate C

The Judge Advocate General's School Master of Law

Law. In addition to 52 Army judge advocates, the class 

Marine, 5 Navy, 5 Air Force, 1 U.S. Army Reserve, a

tional military students, from Canada, Singapore, A

Egypt. 

Three Judge Advocate Officer· Basic Courses, twe

length, introduced a total of 163 students: 150 Active 

Army Reserve; 6 Army National Guard; and 5 internati

students, to the practice of law in the military. The Sc

instruction to these new judge advocate officers on the 

ties of a military officer, ethics, and substantive mili

jects. The Basic Course curriculum is carefully design

new counsel for what they are likely to encounter 

assignments. 

The Judge Advocate General's School is responsible f

and providing military legal and related instruction to s

ing ofArmy National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve Ju

personnel. A number of Reserve Component units have 

require activation and deployment within seventy-five 

These missions require resident legal training for the 
The core curriculum for the Graduate Course change

ly in fall 1994. Though it still familiarized 411 studen

nal law subjects, its approach and, to a lesser degree it

changed radically. Virtually all core instruction was c

seminar format. The Graduate Course was divided into 

so that each professor taught the same material four t

groups. Along with the change in format came a shift 

Although foundational information is still provided, th

greater emphasis on analysis and evaluation of the m

system. Professors focused students on the kinds of is

likely to confront in future positions as supervisors oftr

counsel, deputy staffjudge advocates, and military jud

were expected to complete substantial reading assignm

ration for seminar presentations. A take-home exam co

bulk of the graded exercise. 

The Department offered the first Military Justice Man

in August. This course was designed to fill a long iden

acquaint justice managers (primarily chiefs ofmilitary ju

TDS representatives also were welcome) with many of t

requirements unique to that position. The Course consis

tion in most substantive areas with an emphasis on th

ties of managers and supervisors. Special emphasis w

post-trial processing and other concerns that justice m

not have encountered in prior tours as counsel. Partic

course also benefited from two guest speakers, COL 

Chief, Government Appellate Division; and COL (Re

Fulton, Clerk of Court, U.S. Army Legal Services Agency

The Military Judge Course was offered to selected of

armed services, including both active and reserve com

Criminal Law Department presented instruction to jud

from all services on recent criminal law developmen

34 
part of EIMET delegations. MAJ William T. Barto at

ference in Washington, D.C. for new professors at law s

In August, MAJ Lawrence J. Morris attended an ABA 

the death penalty in Chicago, and MAJ Donna Wrig

national conference on the investigation and prosec

abuse in Salt Lake City. 

The Criminal Law Department updates and publish

on criminal law subjects. Included within the Departm

tions are the Crimes and Defenses Desk book, the Tria

Defense Counsel Handbook, the U.S. Attorney's 

Deskbook, and Department of the Army Pamphlets 

Procedure), and 27-7 (Guide for Summary Court-

Procedure). Criminal Law professors also regularly con

cles and short notes for publication in The Army Lawye

Law Review. 

Criminal Law instruction was complemented by a

guest speaker program that included Hon. Drew S. 

Solicitor General of the United States, who delivere

Hodson Lecture in Criminal Law; Judge Herman F. Gi

Appeals for the Armed Forces, who spoke to the New D

Course in November 1994; Mr. Steve Berry, an a

Lincoln, NE; Judge B. Waugh Cigler, U.S. Magis

Western District of Virginia, and Navy Capt. Glenn W

Director, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, both ofw

the 3d CLAC; LTC Frederic L. Borch III, Office o

Advocate General, who spoke frequently about pendin

the UCMJ and MCM; and Pamela Freyd, Ph.D., exec

False Memory Syndrome Foundation, who addressed 

Evidence Elective in spring 1995. 

The Judge Advocate General's School assumed resp

development and oversight of all enlisted legal training 

in FY. 95. This mission includes all active and reserv
tiate the training development process. The Advan

Training (AIT) Program of Instruction has been re

being implemented. Upon full implementation duri

Legal Specialist AIT Course will phaseout typewri

using up-to-date computer systems and software. 

instruction are undergoing extensive review to insur

is in keeping with current missions and doctrine. 

In conjunction with the Developments, Doctrine, 

Department, and the Center for Law and Military O

Training Development Section is analyzing the parale

istrative duties required for MOS 71D Legal Specia

NCOs. 

The Military Law Review and The Army Lawyer co

vide quality articles that informed and educated judg

the active Army and the Reserve Components. In 

TJAGSA's Alumni Association presented the Profes

Award to Lieutenant Commander J. Richard Chema

"Arresting Tailhook: The Prosecution of Sexual Hara

Military," which appeared at 140 MilY L. Rev. (1992). 

The Developments, Doctrine, and Literature Depa

ued to coordinate the production of top quality Dep

Army Pamphlets, Field Manuals, Training Circulars

Training Aids. At the Department's direction, the Arm

Service (ALLS) provided needed library materials 

libraries worldwide. To enhance the quality of th

Department spearheaded an advisory panel that 

library services throughout the JAGC. The informati

this study will allow the ALLS to provide better serv

law libraries worldwide. 

Guard and Reserve Affairs (GRA) hosts the an

Component workshop at the school each April, which 

36 
The strength of the Judge Advocate General's Corps 

FY 95 was 1,561. This total includes 50 officers (46 ca

first lieutenants) participating in the Funded Leg

Program. The diverse composition of the Judge Advoc

Corps included 91 African-Americans, 42 Hispanics, 3

Native Americans, and 303 women. The FY 95 end stre

compares with an end strength of 1,575 in FY 94, 1,6

1, 710 in FY 92, and 1, 752 in FY 91. The grade distri

Corps was 5 general officers, 126 colonels, 199 lieuten

325 majors, 879 captains, and 27 first lieutenants. Fi

rant officers, 323 civilian attorneys, and 1,644 enlisted 

ported legal operations world-wide 

To ensure selection of the best qualified candidates 

ment, career status, and service schools, The Jud

General convened advisory boards several times duri

Competition for appointment in the Corps remains kee

than 10 applicants applying for each opening. 

Two hundred and nineteen Judge Advocate officers c

following resident service schools: 

U.S. Army War College....................................................... 

National War College ........................................... -............. 

Industrial College of the Armed Forces............................. 

Department ofJustice Fellowship ........... .......................... 

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

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

Judge Advocate Officer Basic Course................................. 

During FY 95, 10 officers completed funded stud

degrees in the following disciplines: environmental 

tional law, tax law, and government procurement law. 

As a separate competitive category under the De

Defense Officer Personnel Management Act, officers 
38 
PART 2 ·DISCHARGES APPROVED [B] 

Gl.NEJll.AL COUPllTS-MAflTIAL le.A LEVEU 

HUMBER OF DISHONO"AILE 01SCMA,.GES -+.".dismissals 

HUMJIEJll OP: IAO CONDUCT DISCMA,.GES 

&PECIAL COU"TS-M.4.RTIAL (SA Ll:VEU 

HUM8EJlll OF IAD CONDUCT DllCHA"GES 160 

fOJll "IEVLEW UNOEA A"TICL! &IS -CiENERAL. COUfll.TS-MAATIAL 

FOR JlllEVIEW U,..OEA AJllTICLE M • ICO SP.EC:IAL COUATS-M•lllTl,1.L 

FOPll EX•MINATIOfrrril UNOUI AJllTICLE Q • GENIE"AL COUfllTr.-MAIUIAL 

PART 4 ·WORKLOAD OF THE 

TOTAL ON HANO IEGINNING OF P'EAIOO 

GfN'EP\AL COUFITS-MARTJAL. E 

ICC 5"ECIAL COUP.TS-MARTIAL 

lllEFER"EO FOR "EVIEW 

GENE FIAL COURTS·l•U.RTIAL 

BCO Sl"EC1AL COUJl;TS.MAFITIAL 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 

GENERAL COURTS-MAFl:TlAL 

ICO Sl"EC!AL COURTS·MARTIAL 

TOTAL l"ENO!NG AT CLOSE OF l"ERIOO 

GENERAL COURTS·MARTIAL 

ICC Sl"ECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

"'ATE OF INCREASE (•)/OEC"IEASE l-1 OVER NUMBER OF CASES 


REV!EWEO 0UR1NG LAS"T l'IE•ORTING ll>f"IOO -16.9% 


PART 5 ·APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

U.S. ARM:Y COURT OF CRIMINAL 

PART 6. ACTIONS OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARME

PERCENTAGE OFCCA. REVIEWED CASES FORWAAOEO TO USCAAF rtt l 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE !•l/OECREASE {-) OVEfll l"l"IEVIOU'S "'El"OiJtTING l"EAIOO - 

l"EACENTAGEOFTOTALl"ETIT10NSCRANTE0 (H] 

PU1;CEN'TAGE OF INCR.EASE (•)IOECPlEASE 1-) OVE" PPllEVIOUS P'IEl"ORTING l"Ul.IOO 

PfACEN'TAGE OF l"ETIT10NS Gl'IANTEO OF TOTAL CASES PllEVIEWEC..IY YSACCA 

+ 

fl.ATE OF INC1'EASE (•l/OECl'lf.A.SE (-· OVUl THE NUMBER OF CASES "EVIEWED DURING 

LAST REl"OJllT1NC l"EJll100 -3

#ACEJOF2 
TIALS av MILfTAY JUDGE WITH MEMIEIU 

GENE ...AL COUfll'T'S-.U.AllfTIAL 280 

126 

PART 9 ·COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

trrilUMBE" OF COM1'LAINTS I 41 

PART10·STRENGTH 


..v-.•o• •CT•v• <HIT• ST•ENGTM rr i I s21 50Q (:::/::::·:·:····· .... ,.,.,.,,,,:,:::::::::::::::·:·

PART 11 ·NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15) 

NUMBElll OF CASES WHEP.E NONJUOIC1AL f>UN!SMMENT JMll'OSEO 

"'ATE l"EJlll ,,000 

"'ATE OF INCREASE (+}/OECf'llE.A.SE 1-1 OVU!. ""EVIOUS "EAIOO-]. 6% 

IAGElOFl 

EXPLANATORY NOTES 

(A] 	 Cases in which Army SPCM empowered by GCM convening authority t

BCD. 


[B] 	 Based on records of trial received during report period (PART 3

tried (PART l) • 


[CJ 	 Does not include cases in which appellate review was waived (on

in FY 95). 

[D] 	 Includes only cases briefed and at issue before the Court. At 

briefs were awaited in additional 311 cases not yet at issue. 

(E] 	 Cases pending before USACCA (which may include government appea

petitions for extraordinary relief) are not routinely accounted 

of court-martial. 

(E'] 	 Includes .11 appeals in which withdrawal from appellate review w

the Court. ~lso includes 11 writ· cases and 2 Government appeal

[G] 	 Total appellants represented by appointed counsel, including 14 

sented by civilian counsel. · 

[HJ Number of petitions filed in FY 95 and number of petitions qrant

as a percentage of decisions issued in FY 95. 

(I] 	 Based on average of monthly strengths reported by U.S. Army Pers

Information Systems Command. 

40 
Advocate General made frequent inspections of legal office

States, Europe, and the Far East in supervision of the ad

military justice. 

ARTICLE 69(a), UCMJ, EXAMINATIO

Fifty-four general court-martial records of trial, not stat

for automatic review by the Navy-Marine Corps Cou

Appeals, were forwarded for examination in the Office 

Advocate General in fiscal year 1995. One case required co

by the Judge Advocate General. Nineteen cases are pendin

ARTICLE 69(b), UCMJ, APPLICATIO

In fiscal year 1995, 33 applications under Article 69(b), 

of Military Justice, were received for review. Of these, 9 ap

denied on the merits, while relief was granted in whole 

cases. 1\venty-one cases are pending review. 

ARTICLE 73, UCMJ, PETITIONS 

In fiscal year 1995, 7 petitions for new trial were receive

of the Judge Advocate General. Four petitions were gran

tions are pending review. One petition was withdrawn. 

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT DIVISIO

Appellate Representation. The eight Navy and four 

judge advocates assigned to Appellate Government Division 

1655 pleadings last year; 1258 with the Navy-Marine C

Criminal Appeals and 397 with the U.S. Court of Appeals 

Forces. Additionally, the Division filed one brief in oppositi

for a writ of certiorari. 
pp

and made presentations at the Army Judge Advocate G

Graduate Course, the Army-Navy Reserve Conference 

Minnesota, and before the Courts of Criminal Appeals Jud

in Washington, DC. 

Reserves. The Appellate Government Division contin

and support ten Navy reservists and six Marine Corps res

to the Division. The reservists assigned continued to m

contribution to the successful completion of the Division

APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISION 

Appellate Defense Practices. A total of 2311 cases we

ing fiscal year 1995 by the 19 active duty Navy and Mar

advocates and their reserve counterparts assigned to 

Defense Division. This figure represented an 8.2% increa

vious fiscal year. Of that total, 503 (22%) were fully brie

Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, while 369 (16%

ily assigned. There were 385 cases petitioned to the Cour

the Armed Forces (CAAF). 

Capital Litigation. This was a particularly active yea

capital cases at the appellate level. The oral argument 

Appeals for the Armed Forces in United States v. Curtis 

two national networks, while the number of death penalty 

appeal increased to four. 

The Division co-produced the inaugural Death Penalty 

at the Naval Justice School. Appellate defense counsel als

sentations on death penalty litigation to the Judge Adv

School of the Army, the U.S. Naval Academy, and the Ju

Association annual meeting. 

Supreme Court Practice. During fiscal year 1995, 8 p

of certiorari were submitted. Of particular note, the Di

42 
The Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary (NMCTJ) is comp

cuit offices, 5 subsidiary branch offices, 35 active duty j

reserve judges. NMCTJ provided military judges for 503 g

martial and 2.626 special courts martial during fiscal yea

numbers represent a decrease of 79 general courts-martia

an increase of 55 special courts-martial ( +2%). Consider

ward trend in the overall number of courts-martial over t

years, this year's decline, only 1 % , may well mark a levelin

As a result of the continued drop in the number of ca

years, fiscal year 1995 saw a reduction in the number 

judges, from 38 to the current 35. Three judicial billets we

to be unnecessary and were taken from the east coast (Nor

coast (San Diego), and overseas (Japan). Cases continu

world-wide, including such places as Bahrain and Iceland

sea. 

Military judges received continuing legal education 

NMCTJ training conference, the Air Force-sponsored 

Military Judges Seminar, the National Judicial College, an

Judges' Course at the Army JAG School. Military judges se

ers or seminar leaders at the Navy-Marine Corps Senior Off

Military Law, offered by the Naval Justice School at nume

world-wide as well as for various in-service courses. Additio

judges took an active part in the continuing education of ju

practicing before them by conducting training through exe

tures designed by themselves as well as under the au

National Institute of Trial Advocacy. 

NAVAL LEGAL SERVICE COMMAN

Naval Legal Service Command (NAVLEGSVCCOM) pr

range of legal services to afloat and ashore commands, act
functions in the Navy's military justice system and allow T

commanding officers to become directly involved in trial ad

ing their junior counsel in court-martial cases without creati

interest. The new organization, by allowing more direct 

junior counsel by senior leadership, will improve the litig

judge advocates and enhance the ability of NAVLEGSVCCO

litigation services to both client commands and individual m

The NAVLEGSVCCOM also includes the Naval Justice Sc

Newport, Rhode Island, charged with training sea service 

cates, paralegals/court reporters for all services, and foreign 

civilian defense personnel through the Expanded Internat

Education and Training Program. Since 1991, we have also 

ing a NJS detachment in San Diego with great success. 

In November 1995, we established the Naval Ju

Detachment, Norfolk. The Norfolk detachment will allow 

Fleet to meet their training needs more efficiently by increa

ability of Fleet training opportunities, while at the same tim

stantial Atlantic Fleet and Navy training dollars. 

NAVLEGSVCCOM activities rely upon the Judge Advo

Management Information System (JAGMIS), a personal co

system which tracks each activity's work load and producti

tate high quality and responsive legal services. Furthermore

Justice Management Information System (MJMIS) has be

and successfully implemented at the appellate level, provid

dated tracking system for courts-martial in the appellate pro

year 1996, the field version of MJMIS will be implemented, 

appellate level "cradle to grave case tracking" capability all 

to the initial receipt of charges. 

The NAVLEGSVCCOM previously completed the Naval 

World Wide Support Strategy (NAVLAWSS) in 1994. This 

44 
Finally, NAVLEGSVCCOM has continued to explore w

personnel more productive through the use of electro

NAVLEGSVCCOM activities have already been provided 

compatible computers and multi-bay CD drives (readers) 

compatible, allowing several attorneys to access multiple 

search capacity. CD-ROM compatible portable computers 

provided to increase flexibility and accommodate the mobi

clients. In-house development of CDs for our most freque

ences is also well underway. Combined with CD~ROM c

computers for those judge advocates most often called 

these CDs will furnish the sea service judge advocate a com

ough research library, allowing him or her to practice eff

the most remote locations. 

NAVLEGSVCCOM is commanded by the Deputy Ju

General of the Navy and includes 328 officers, 222 enlisted

ian personnel. The command constitutes about 41 % of t

judge advocate strength. 

NAVAL JUSTICE SCHOOL 

Organization. Naval Justice School (NJS) is organized 

accordance with the Naval Justice School Standard 

Manual, NAVJUSTSCOLINST 5400.11 (SORM), and th

TRAINING PLAN, JAGINST 1500.4 (TRAINING 

Commanding Officer also serves as the Assistant Judge Ad

for Training (JAG 005). He is responsible for all JAG Cor

for the legal training of the non-JAG communities. 

Location. The Naval Justice School facilities, located 

Education and Training Center Newport, Rhode Island, ar

two buildings with a mixture of lecture halls, computer 

aided teaching technology, court rooms, seminar rooms, 

facilities required to provide up-to-date legal training. NJS 
Captatgatoag ote eese. s t

was taught by a team of military and civilian experts and sp

resenting the defense in capital cases. The course provid

of military death penalty law, the development and pr

defense theory of a case, mental health issues in mitigatio

panel, and other current issues in military death penalty l

2. Capital Litigation Training for the Prosecution. A

course taught by military and civilian experts, the focus of 

the unique aspects of prosecuting a military death penalt

areas covered included such tropics as the capital referra

trial investigation for the penalty phase, pre-trial motions, 

tification of the panel. 

3. Advanced Environmental Law for Lawyers. This f

proved an in-depth analysis of major environmental law 

the Department of the Navy. Designed to update attorneys 

lets with significant environmental law duties, the course f

identification of potential environmental law problems, re

local level, and sources of assistance. The class was atten

students from the Navy, Marine Corps, and Office of Gene

4. Expansion of the Legal Assistance Instruction Bloc

Lawyer Class. In response to fleet input concerning the be

and readiness of legal assistance efforts by Navy judge 

legal assistance instruction block on the Basic Lawyer's Cla

ed this year from 14 to 40 hours of instruction. Class 95

graduated in October 1995, was the first class to receive 

instruction. In order to facilitate this broadened training, 

assistance division was created within the Civil Law Depar

instructor billets. 

5. Legal Assistance Manager's Workshop. NLSO Le

Department Heads and Senior Paralegals were brought 

Naval Justice School for this symposium-style course wh

46 
The Marine Corps judge advocate community consiste

mately 400 certified judge advocates throughout fiscal y

total strength was consistent with fiscal year 1994 reports a

for fiscal year 1996. More than half of all judge advocates w

grade officers, in pay grade 0-3 or below. Thirty-three offi

accessions, ordered to begin their period of active duty 

School in Quantico, Virginia. In addition to the new acces

cers graduated from ABA accredited law schools from law 

grams. One officer graduated from the Funded Law Educ

(FLEP) and nine others graduated from the Excess Leave P

(ELP). Fourteen officers are currently assigned to FLEP an

attending law school on the ELP. 

Thirteen judge advocates attended resident professiona

cation courses in fiscal year 1995. One colonel graduated f

War College, one colonel graduated from the Industrial 

Armed Forces, one lieutenant colonel completed top le

Tokyo, five majors and three captains received LLM deg

graduate course at The Judge Advocate General's School of 

two captains completed the Amphibious Warfare Schoo

Virginia. One judge advocate was awarded a LLM 

Washington University after a year of full-time study on 

Degree Program. Thirteen officers are currently attending 

fessional military education courses and one is assigned to 

Degree Program. 

As unrestricted officers, Marine Corps judge advocates c

numerous non-legal billets. During fiscal year 1995 one ju

Colonel Joseph Composto, assumed command of the M

Guard Battalion, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Two of five lieu

judge advocates approved for command were slated to assu

during fiscal year 1996. Beyond our sea service and joint a
officers at Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton. Reserve ju

are also found serving in non-legal billets at various combat 

porting commands. 

HAROLD E. GRANT 

Rear Admiral, USN 

Judge Advocate General ofthe Navy 

48 
NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHAAGES 174 

NUMBER OF BAO CONDUCT DISCHARGES 194 

SPECIAL COURTS·MARTIAL CSA LEVELi 

NUMBER OF BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGES 1661 

PART 4 -WORKLOAD OF THE 

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS·MAATIAL 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PEAIOO 

GENERAL COURTS·MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS·MARTIAL 

PART 5 - APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE /IIi'rYf-".1(1.'5/_:ff COURT 

REVIEW CA,..,,,._, 

NUMBER I ~7~ I.:•,•.:•,•,•,•.=··•.:•,•,•.•,•_-.=_•-.•-•··-············· f{ ·-'·'=.=•·.-_::_•_/' ·.·.·.·.·---·.·.·.·.·...-...·.·.·.----·:·:···:·:···:·:·:·:·:-:-:·:·:·

l'E RC ENTAGE . • . ''.' ·.·.·.·.·.·.·.···""··········" .,.,. ·.· ·.·.:·:···:···:·:·

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

PERCENTAGE OF COMA AEVIEWEO CASES FORWARDED TO USCMA 

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

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 

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

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY COMA " 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-)OVER THE NUMBE .. OF c~s REVIEWED DU.. INO 

LAST AEl'ORTING PERIOD 

PAGEJOF2 
TRIALS BY Mt LITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 130 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 


SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 
 270 

PART 9 - COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS I 136 

PART 10 - STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 645 I 727 I>>:::::;::::::::-:-:-··:·····. 

PART 11 - NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 27, 633 

RATE PER 1,000 43 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE(-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD +4% 

PAGE20F2 

50 
y 

participated in various bar association meetings an

many civic, professional, and military organizations. 

THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL AP

During fiscal year 1995, the Air Force Court of Crim

reduced its case load by approximately 10 percent. Th

noticeable changes in the types of offenses being charg

the trend toward more complex cases and lengthier rec

continues. 

As a result of the DoD Authorization Act for Fiscal Y

Court's name was changed from the Air Force Court 

Review to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFC

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 


AND USAF JUDICIARY ACTIVITIES 

The Judiciary Directorate of the Air Force Legal Ser

has overall responsibility for supervising the administr

tary justice throughout the United States Air Force, from 

proceedings to the appellate review of courts-martial. 

the Directorate has the staff responsibility of the Air 

Services Agency in all military justice matters which 

nection with programs, special projects, studies, and in

erated by the Department of Defense (DoD), Headqua

members of Congress, and various agencies. Sev

Directorate's activities are discussed below: 

a. The Judiciary Directorate serves as the action ag

review of military justice issues on applications submitt

Force Board for Correction of Military Records. The Ju

vided 112 formal opinions concerning applications. 
pleted its second year of operation at Maxwell AFB, Ala

it resides on a Sun minicomputer owned and operated b

30 October 1995, there were nearly 3,500 registered us

more than 800 use the system regularly each month. Th

tem will be moved to a Sun 1000 this upcoming year, 

bases will be placed on an Internet WEB site. In fisca

FLITE distributed CDs with DoD Directives, TJAG 

AFRs and other databases, TJAG #2 with AFis and oth

and the complete set of Comptroller General Opinions 

FLITE provides more current data and constant additio

interest items, such as the Joint Ethics Regulatfon, Air 

Directives and Instructions, DoD Directives and Instruct

as rosters including Air Force Reserve, Air National 

active duty judge advocates and paralegals. Most court 

now forwarded directly from the courts to FLITE. The 

the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Force

and the services' Courts of Criminal Appeals are loade

they are received from the courts. FLITE research attorn

about 150 to 200 on-line searches per month in suppo

throughout the DoD and also provide Service Desk supp

FLITE users. 

The new on-line AMJAMS II went into production on 

1994. It runs on a minicomputer operated by JAS and is 

all offices with responsibility for military justice

improvements in reports, data capture, and data val

implemented. Reports showing statistics and individual 

courts-martial and nonjudicial punishment actions are 

as desired, but at least monthly. Development neared c

the next version, which will divide the processing betwe

microcomputer and the JAS minicomputer in a clientl

This version will be faster, allow local generation of all 

52 
g, y jg, 

are assigned to the Trial Judiciary headquarters. 

judges' duties include: presiding over all general and sp

martial tried in the United States Air Force; serving as 

officers under Article 32, UCMJ; legal advisors for offi

boards and other administrative boards; and hearing of

lic hearings held to consider draft environmental impac

During the year, military judges averaged approximat

on temporary duty at locations other than their bases o

to perform these functions. 

The Chief Trial Judge made supervisory visits to th

circuits and one ofthe overseas circuits to review workl

ities: The DICTA, the Trial Judiciary newsletter for mi

was published quarterly. 

The Twenty-First Interservice Military Judges' Semi

ducted by the Trial Judiciary at the Air Force Jud

General's School, Maxwell AFB, Alabama, from 3 to 7 

This seminar was attended by 70 military judges from t

ciaries of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard

Force, and by a military trial judge from both Canada a

In January 1995, one judge attended the Handling C

Course in Orlando, Florida, conducted by the Natio

College. In April 1995, four judges attended the Special 

Criminal Evidence Course at the National Judicial C

Nevada. Four trial judges, three active duty and one res

ed the three-week Military Judges' Course conducted b

Judge Advocate General's School in Charlottesville, Virg

May through 2 June 1995. In July, one judge attended 

Medical, and Scientific Evidence Course at the Natio

College, and in September, one judge attended two min

Children in the Courtroom and Equal Justice in the 

conducted at the National Judicial College. Finally, eac
Committee of the USCAAF. This committee is activel

recommending and reviewing proposed changes to 

Practice for the Court. 

In November 1994, all but three of the appellate 

counsel attended the annual Criminal Law New D

Course held at the Army JAG School in Charlottesvi

The course covered the latest military cases in all sign

of criminal law. 

One appellate government counsel continues to de

her time to managing the Advocacy Continuing Edu

Program. In addition to publishing monthly newsle

the last fiscal year the program manager also prep

hensive guides on sentencing and the Right to Fina

Act. The ACE Program manager has also been called u

at the circuit trial counsel workshops, major comman

staff judge advocate conferences and Department of 

cacy courses. 

Appellate government counsel have contributed 

Outreach," sponsored by the USCAAF and the AFCCA

ing oral arguments before audiences at the Air Force A

the American Bar Association convention in Chicago, 

ing to the public the fairness and professionalism of 

justice system. 

Appellate practice before the AFCCA increased in b

of briefs filed and cases argued. As noted below, th

briefs filed increased by approximately 12 percent and 

of oral arguments by almost 33 percent. However, ap

tice before the USCAAF dropped in both categories. T

matic decrease was in the area of briefs filed, which 

26 percent. 

54 
sel was increased to 19. This increase was the result o

authorizations in both the Western and Central Circu

additional authorizations were necessary to keep u

increased caseload in those circuits. Throughout the A

cuit trial counsel tried 265 general courts-martial an

courts-martial. To update circuit trial counsel on the lat

ments in the law and further enhance their trial skills, 

circuit trial counsel from all five circuits attended 

Criminal Law New Developments course held at the 

School in Charlottesville, Virginia. Workshops for base

cutors were conducted by the circuit trial counsel in all 

circuits. The workshops were timed to coincide with def

workshops and included joint sessions involving The Jud

General; the Director, USAF Judiciary; and, military tri

DEFENSE SERVICES 

The Trial Defense Division is responsible for providin

services within the Air Force through Area Defense Cou

Defense Paralegals (DP), Circuit Defense Counsel (CDC

Circuit Defense Counsel (CCDC). They report to the 

Defense Division who in turn works for the Dire

Judiciary. 

As has been the case for the past several years, the T

Division continued its realignment of personnel in conju

base closures. As of 30 September 1995, there were 8

tioned at 70 installations worldwide. They received supp

DPs. Spread throughout the 5 circuits were 21 CDCs an

The CCDCs, along with all but five of the CDCs, are stat

circuit offices at Bolling AFB, DC; Randolph AFB, TX; 

CA; Sembach AB, Germany; and Yokota AB, Japan. 
APPELLATE DEFENSE COUNSE

The Appellate Defense Division, as part of its conti

assist trial defense counsel in providing the best pos

tation for their clients, inaugurated a series of vid

"Appellate Defense Now" that cover issues and provi

trial tactics and strategy. These videotapes are provi

Defense Counsel offices and have received favorab

addition, the division produced the first edition of a q

cation, "The Defense Herald," designed to keep trial d

current on the latest case law. Appellate defense coun

themselves current by attending seminars concernin

ments in military caselaw and death penalty litigatio

Our appellate practice continues to be varied an

During the last year, we filed our initial assignment 

the AFCCA in the first Air Force death penalty ca

twelve years. Litigation of this case has presented a g

for this division, and we hope to have oral argum

AFCCA in 1996. The following figures reflect the Divis

in fiscal year 1995: 

AFCCA FY

Cases Reviewed ................................... 5

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

Other Motions ............ ....... ... ... ...... ....... 2

USCAAF 

Supplement to Petitions ...................... 4

Grant Briefs ...... .... ...... ....... ... ...... ... .... .. 

Oral Argument ..................................... 

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

Supreme Court Petitions .................... 

56 
year. 

PREVENTIVE LAW AND LEGAL 


ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 


The Legal Assistance Division continued to overse

law and legal assistance services worldwide. Duri

Force legal offices served 323,186 clients, provided 

and furnished notary services in 483,006 cases. 

The Air Force tax program is in full swing for the 

son. A new IRS-provided tax software program, "Ta

been distributed to 95 Air Force bases world-wide. Th

these bases will use the software to provide electron

vices. We anticipate that a large number of Air For

will seek help from the JA-sponsored tax programs t

result of the new software and because new restrictio

placed on H&R Block concessions at Army and Air F

tions. The restrictions prohibit H&R Block from of

Anticipation Loans at on-base sites and from conduc

ic filing from overseas bases. 

We recently revised our policies regarding who may 

general powers of a notary under 10 U.S.C. 1044a

authority for paralegals was lowered from E-5 to 

expanding the availability of notary services. Also

advocates to general court-martial convening auth

have authority to appoint commissioned officers or 

commissioned officers (MSgt and above) at geograp

rated units (GSUs) to act as notaries where legal su

readily accessible. This solves the problem of clien

travel, s.ometimes for hours, to obtain notary service. 
George Washington University 

- The University of Utah 

- The National Judicial Conference in Reno, Nevad

Army Judge Advocate General School 

The Army Judge Advocate General School (AJAGS) 

the campus of the University ofVirginia in Charlottesv

CLE courses attended by Air Force attorneys included

- Contract Attorney 

- Criminal Law Advocacy 

- Federal Courts and Boards 

- Federal Labor Relations 

- Federal Litigation 

- Fiscal Law 

- Government Contract Law Symposium 

- Law of War Workshop 

- Legal Assistance 

- Military Judge 

- Operations Law 

- Procurement Fraud 

Naval Justice School 

Air Force attorneys attended the Navy's Law 

Operations Course offered at the Naval Justice Schoo

Rhode Island. 

LL.M. Program 

'l\venty-one Air Force attorneys pursued Masters of 

Their specialties included Environmental, Procurem

tional, Space, and Labor Law. 

58 
conducts legal education for attorneys and paralegals f

itary services; provides instruction at other Air Univer

and colleges; publishes The Reporter and The Air 

Review; manages HQ USAF's Preventive Law Clearing

maintains JAG Department liaison with civilian profes

nizations, law schools, and 'states requiring continuin

cation. 

Resident Courses 

The school conducted more than 30 classes in more 

ferent courses, attended by more than 1600 students. C

seminars included: 

- Advanced Environmental Law 


- Advanced Trial Advocacy 


- Claims and Tort Litigation 


- Environmental Law 


- Environmental Law Update 


- Federal Employee Labor Law 


- Federal Income Tax 


Fiscal Law 


- Information Warfare 


- International Law 


- Judge Advocate Staff Officer 


- Military Judge's Seminar 


- Operations Law 


- Paralegal Advanced 


- Paralegal Specialist 


- Reserve Forces Judge Advocate 


- Staff Judge Advocate 


- Trial and Defense Advocacy 

Outside Teaching 

In addition to the resident courses, the AF JAGS fa

military justice instruction in the following colleges, 

mies, and courses within Air University: Air Wa

Command and Staff College, Squadron Officer 

Noncommissioned Officer Academy, Support Group 

Course, Logistics Group Commanders' Course, Chapl

Course, Contingency/Wartime Planning Course, Nat

for Trial Advocacy courses, and the USAF Special Ope

The AF JAGS participated in the Expanded Interna

Education and Training Program (E-IMET), one of s

Assistance Programs mandated by Congress (22 U.S

program is designed to further U.S. foreign policy 

lished in the Foreign Assistance Act. The E-IMET Pr

U.S. military teaching teams sent abroad to teach hum

itary justice, civilian control of the military, law of 

rules of engagement, and general democratic princ

year 1995, faculty from the AF JAGS participated in 

gram missions to Bolivia, Senegal, Zimbabwe, Slova

Hungary, Lithuania, Romania, Ghana, Poland, an

African Republic. 

Publications 

The school published two issues of The Air Force 

professional legal journal consisting of articles of 

Force judge advocates, civilian attorney advisors, and 

lawyers. The Law Review is a scholarly publication 

ages frank discussion of relevant legislative, admi

judicial developments. Additionally, four issues of Th

60 
and 85 first lieutenants. In addition, there were 250 c

neys, 932 enlisted legal technicians and 720 civilian su

nel assigned to the Department. 

BRYAN G. HAWLEY 

Major General, USAF 

The Judge Advocate General 
60 

219 

131 

PART 3 • Rl'l'ORCS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

POlt lllllVWW .JN08' A1mCU ti·........ ~....,,...L 376 

~llVllW U.D9' AlniCU • lfllCl.14 ~ 128 

IOI! ~•TIOfll UNC81 A•T1C:\l •·GEW8'AL ~~ 66 

PART 4 • WORKLOAD OF THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMI

TCTaL ON M4HO ......... Of' "'9tOO 661 

QfH9'.ALCOU~""1'1Al., 561 

ICC IJllCtA&. COV.,........m.&&. rnn 

111'1•111.MD •oa IWVllW 526 

OIHIMI. COU~titAJm.AI. 395 

ICD IJllllClM. COU.,..,_......n.t.L 131 

~T.&LCA.Sll~ 575 

GllrfUU.L ~~WA"IAL 44~ 

tc:cMCU.L~ 129 

TOTAL lll!NDNQ l.T ClO• Of' ~ ovo 

G~LCOV~W.t.a'T'IAL 506 

ICC l ..Ct.ll COU~.ll 102 

...Tl 0' lfrfC:N.AM l•l~IC'&t-ll HOVllll llAI.._,_~ 

1111VSWID OYU.O l.U1' IPO«T"lll0 1191CO -4%

PARi 5 ­ APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE TH

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS I 592 I 

PART 6 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCE

MT'I o• 1J111C•U.H t•11QICN.All ..I O"""n<IN~Of' c..lillll'Vll'WIDD!.l"""G 


L.Al'T ltll"QKTllrilt~OD 

62 
TO"fAl 'l'CDltG A'T •DO" ..-00 3 

PART 8 • ORGANIZATION OF COURT 

,.....,,.,.....,.,.&ln'.NO-.Al.Olft 

259 ODlll'.AL COVR'T9>tMll'f'\AL 

lll"ICl4..~~ 349 

~IY-.rrM'r NDM wmt ...... 

351 l~COU~I. 

~e'l.llCOV~l 96 

PART 9 ·COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

f7 

PART 10 ·STRENGTH 

8,341 

.,.,,,.,_aoo 20.95 

+2.48 

(A] 	 SPCMs in which BCD is adjudged. 

[B] 	 Includes BCD specials and non-BCD specials. 

[C] 	 The increase in SCM cases is attributed to the Air Force policy c

longer requiring an Article 15 demand for court-martial prior to 

A SCM. 
Total ................................................................ 33 47 56 

COURTS-MARTIAL 

Attorney counsel were detailed to all special c

Military judges were detailed to all special courts-mar

cases, the presiding judge was the ChiefTrial Judge, a 

eral courts-martial judge. When the Chief Trial Judge 

able, military judges with other primary duties were u

courts-martial. Control ofthe detail ofjudges was centr

by the Chief Trial Judge. and all requirements were m

fashion. 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

Nine of the 11 accused tried by general courts-mar

year were tried by military judge alone. Two ofthe nine 

by military judge alone received dishonorable disc

received bad conduct discharges and one received a dism

the two accused tried by courts with members receiv

which included a bad conduct discharge. One accused 

tried by a court which included enlisted members and 

elected to be tried by a court which included only offi

All ofthe general courts-martial resulted in convictions

accused whose charges were referred to general courts

nonrated (pay grades E-1 through E-3), seven were 

(pay grades E-4 through E-6), and one was a junio

grades W-2 through 0-3). 

The following is a breakdown of the sentences adjud

al courts-martial tried by military judge alone (nine co

64 
Sentence 

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

confinement..............................................................................................

forfeiture of all pay and allowances ...................................... .................

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

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

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

The following indicates the four sentences imposed m

al courts-martial in the past five fiscal years. 

Number of Reduction 

FY Convictions Forfeitures Confinement in Grade 

95 11 6 (55%) 10 (91%) 9 (82%) 

94 7 1 (15%) 7 (100%) 6 (90%) 

93 14 7 (50%) 13 (93%) 11 (78%) 

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

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

The following table shows the distribution of the 73 s

referred to general courts-martial. 

Violation of the UCMJ, Article 

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

81 (conspiracy) ....................................................................
year were tried by military judge alone. Two badcond

were adjudged, both by the military judge. Two accuse

tried by a court which included enlisted members an

elected to be tried by a court which included only of

One special court-martial resulted in acquittal. One 

whose charges were referred to special courts-martial 

(pay grades E-1 through E-3), six were petty office

E-4 through E-6) and one was a chief petty officer (p

The following is a breakdown of sentences adjud

courts-martial tried by military judge alone (5 convict

Sentence 

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

confinement ................................................................................. ~.........

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

partial forfeiture of pay ($4,000.00 total)............................................

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

reprimand..............................................................................................

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

The following is a breakdown of sentences adjud

courts-martial tried by members (two convictions and 

Sentence 

confinement...........................................................................................

reprimand..............................................................................................

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

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

66 
referred to special courtsspecial. 

Violation of the UCMJ, Article 

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

81 (conspiracy) .....................................................................

86 (unauthorized absence) ..................................................

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

90 (assaulting or willfully disobeying superior 

commissioned officer ..................................................

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

93 (cruelty and maltreatment)...........................................

108 (sale, loss, damage, destruction, or wrongful dispositio

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

121 (larceny or wrongful appropriation)..............................

123 (forgery) ..........................................................................

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

134 (general) ....................................... : ..................................

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL SUMMAR

Sixty three percent of the accused tried by special co

were tried by military judge alone. Sixty percent of th

pied guilty to all charges and specifications. None of 

tried by special courts-martial with members pied g

charges and specifications. There was a thirty five perc

in special courts-martial from last fiscal year. 

CHIEF COUNSEL ACTION UNDER ARTICLE 6

In addition to the required reviews of courts-martial c

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

review was conducted under Article 69 of all courts

requiring appellate review. 
U.S. COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINA

The Court consisted of the following judges at th

1995: 

Chief Judge Joseph H. Baum 

Judge John H. Fearnow 

Judge Mark A. O'Hara 

Judge John P. Wiese 

Judge David J. Kantor 

Issues challenging the status ofthe Court and its ju

initially raised in fiscal year 1992 and explained in p

continued to be asserted before this court, the Co

Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court over the past 

decision in Weiss v. U.S., 114 S. Ct. 752 (1994) left un

unique to the Coast Guard. As explained in last year

petitions for certiorari dealing with these issues 

Guard cases were pending before the U.S. Supreme C

of fiscal year 1994. The petition for certiorari in one 

United States v. Ryder, 39 M.J. 454 (CMA 1994), wa

January 1995, argued on 18 April 1995, and decid

1995. In that decision, the Supreme Court declined 

facto officer rationale which had been relied upon b

Military Appeals to affirm the action ofjudges of this 

be defectively appointed. The record was remanded 

Court of Military Appeals, now the Court of Appeals 

Forces, for further transmittal to this court in orde

could be reviewed by a properly appointed court. Wr

were also granted in the other petitioned cases and, 

United States, 515 U.S.-(1995), they were summari

the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces for furth

Before remand to this Court, the Court ofAppeals iss

68 
ences, committees, and seminars during the past fiscal y

the year offin November 1994, all ofthe judges attende

All Services Appellate Military Judges Conference host

Force Court of Criminal Appeals at Maxwell Air 

Montgomery, Alabama. In May 1995, the Chief Judge 

two-day Judicial Conference of the U.S. Court of Ap

Armed Forces at George Washington University. In 

Judge Bridgman was designated the first Senior Judge 

and also in June he represented the Court on a pane

Criminal Appeals Judges as part of the instruction 

Military Judges Course at the Army Judge Advoca

School in Charlottesville, Virginia. This was one of S

Bridgman's last official acts as an appellate military jud

retirement at the end ofJuly 1995. In September, Chief

Judge Wiese, and Judge Kantor, who is the most recen

judge to the Court, attended a three-day Appellate Mi

Training Seminar at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 

This seminar was a continuation ofthe highly success

military judges training program created expressly for 

appellate courts by Chief Judge Frank Nebeker of 

Veterans Appeals and first held in 1993. As before, a j

committee composed ofjudges from each of the Courts 

Appeals, and chaired by Chief Judge Baum of this Co

the preparations for the seminar, which was hosted thi

Army Court and presented again by ChiefJudge Nebeke

ly beneficial seminar is now an annual event for new 

enced judges alike. In addition to chairing the trainin

Chief Judge Baum participated in the program as a m

of the seminar's discussion panels. 

This past year, ChiefJudge Baum also continued his 

in form~lating proposed rule changes for the U.S. Cou

for the Armed Forces as a member of that court's rules a
Captain, USCG 

Acting Chief Counsel. U.S. Coast Guard 

Appendix A: 	 U. S. Coast Guard Courts-Martial/NJP 

October 1, 1994 to September 30, 1995 

1995) 

70 
PART 2. DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ICA LEVEL) 

NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 

NUMBER OF BAO CONDUCT DISCHARGES 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL (SA LEVEL) 

NUMBER OF BAO CONOLiCT DISCHARGES 2 

PART 3 - RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 - GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66- BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL.. 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 - GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

PART 4 ·WORKLOAD OF THE COAST GUARD 

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

!ETAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 

GENE PAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

8 

4 

RATE OF INCREASE C+l/DECAEASE C-) OVER NUMBER OF CASES 

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD +18% 

PART 5. APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE COAST GUARD COURT O

REVIEW 

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

PERCENTAGE OF COMA REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCMA 16/20 

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

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 4/ 16 

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

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GAANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY COMA 4/20 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE 1-) OVER THE NUMBER OF CASES REVIEWED DURING 

LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

PAGE l OF 2 
SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TRIALS BY M1LITAAV JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 

GENERAL COUATS·MAATIAL 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

PART 9 ·COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS I 

PART 10 ·STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH )6, 731 

PART 11 ·NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 879 

RATE PEA 1,000 24 .42 

RATE OF INCREASE (+}/DECREASE I-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD -1% 

PAGE20F2 

*Referred to CGCCA under Article 69 (d). 

**Of the two cases disposed of, one was by the Chief Counsel and 

CGCCA. 

{tu.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1996 • 4

72