ANNUAL REPORT

of the

CODE COMMITTEE

on

MILITARY JUSTICE

INCLUDING SEPARATE REPORTS

of the

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

THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL

OF THE U.S. ARMED FORCES,

AND THE CHIEF COUNSEL

OF THE U.S. COAST GUARD

For the Period

October 1, 1998 to September 30, 1999
ANNUAL REPORT

SUBMITTED TO THE

COMMITTEES ON ARMED SERVICES

of the

United States Senate

and the

United States House of Representatives

and to the

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION,

and

SECRETARIES OF THE

ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORCE

PURSUANT TO THE

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

For the Period

October 1, 1998 to September 30, 1999
CONTENTS

Section 1: JOINT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CODE COMMITTEE

Section 2: REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ARMED FORCES

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

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

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

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

CODE COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO THE

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

October 1, 1998 to September 30, 1999

The Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the

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

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

Judge Advocate Division, Headquarters, United States Marine

Corps; Eugene R. Fidell, Esquire, and Professor Fredric I.

Lederer, Public Members appointed by the Secretary of Defense,

submit their annual report on the operation of the Uniform Code

of Military Justice pursuant to Article 146, Uniform Code of

Military Justice, 10 USC § 946.

The Code Committee met on two separate occasions during

fiscal year 1999 to consider various matters pertaining to the

administration of military justice. As in previous years, both

of these meetings were open to the public and interested

attendees participated in the proceedings. On each occasion,

Code Committee members were presented reports on pending cases

and trends in court-martial activity within each of the Armed

Forces. Reports and discussions also took place at both meetings

concerning the status and content of various pending proposals to

amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for

Courts-Martial.

The first meeting was held in Charleston, South Carolina,

to permit the Code Committee to visit and tour the U.S. Naval

Brig, and to receive a briefing on the wide variety of programs

administered at this military confinement facility to assist in

prisoner rehabilitation. At this meeting the Code Committee also

received and considered Annual Confinement Reports of the Army,

Navy, Marine Crops, and Air Force for the prior calendar year.

The second meeting was held in Washington, D.C. It

included consideration of a report from a representative of the

Joint-Service Committee on Military Justice concerning the

selection of court-martial members and the committee’s review of

the current manner in which nonjudicial punishment was being

administered under Article 15, UCMJ, within the Armed Forces.

Reports from the Subcommittee on the Commemoration of the 50th

Anniversary of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and a JointService Committee Study Group on Technology were also discussed.

Separate reports of the United States Court of Appeals for

the Armed Forces and the individual Armed Forces address further
2

items of special interest to the Committees on Armed Services of

the United States Senate and the United States House of

Representatives, as well as the Secretaries of Defense,

Transportation, Army, Navy, and Air Force.

SUSAN J. CRAWFORD

Chief Judge

EUGENE R. SULLIVAN

Associate Judge

H. F. “SPARKY” GIERKE

Associate Judge

ANDREW S. EFFRON

Associate Judge

WALTER T. COX III

Senior Judge

Major General WALTER B. HUFFMAN, USA

The Judge Advocate of General of the Army

Rear Admiral JOHN D. HUTSON, USN

The Judge Advocate of General of the Navy

Major General WILLIAM A. MOORMAN, USAF

The Judge Advocate of General of the Air Force

Rear Admiral J. S. CARMICHAEL, USCG

Chief Counsel, U.S. Coast Guard

Brigadier General JOSEPH COMPOSTO, USMC

Director, Judge Advocate Division

Headquarters, United States Marine Corps

EUGENE R. FIDELL, Esquire

Public Member

Professor FREDRIC I. LEDERER

Public Member
REPORT OF THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ARMED FORCES

October 2, 1998 to September 30, 1999

The Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for

the Armed Forces submit their annual report on the

administration of the Court and military justice during the

1999 Term of Court to the Committees on Armed Services of

the United States Senate and the United States House of

Representatives, and to the Secretaries of Defense,

Transportation, Army, Navy, and Air Force in accordance

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

§ 946.

THE BUSINESS OF THE COURT

The number of cases carried over on the Court’s

Petition Docket at the end of the 1999 Term of Court

reflected a decrease of 22% from the number of cases

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

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

Master Docket decreased by 27% during the same period.

(See Appendix B.)

During the 1999 Term of Court the number of petitions

for grant of review filed with the Court decreased by 12%

compared with the prior reporting period. (See Appendix

J.) Although the number of oral arguments also decreased

by 11% during the 1999 Term of Court, the number of

opinions released by the Court remained fairly constant.

(See Appendices C and D.)*

The overall average processing time from filing to

final decision in all cases during the 1999 Term of Court

decreased 16% compared with the prior reporting period.

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

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

Court increased by 16% compared with the prior reporting

period. (See Appendix E.) However, the processing time

_________

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

during its 1999 Term the Court was notified that petitions for writ of

certiorari were filed with the Supreme Court of the United States in 9

Master Docket cases in which the Court issued a final decision.
2

from the date of grant to the date of oral argument

decreased by 12% when compared with this average during the

prior Term of Court. (See Appendix F.) The average

processing time from the date of oral argument to final

decision remained fairly constant compared with the prior

reporting period. (See Appendix G.) The average

processing time from the filing of a petition to final

decision on the Petition Docket remained fairly constant,

but the same overall average on the Master Docket increased

by 15%. (See Appendix H.)

Senior Judge Robinson O. Everett was recalled and

participated in the review and decision of several cases

during the 1999 Term of Court.

During its 1999 Term the Court admitted 547 attorneys

to practice before its Bar, bringing the cumulative total

of admissions before the Bar of the Court to 31,707.

EXPANSION OF COURT WEB SITE

During the past year the Court has expanded its

Internet web site to provide users immediate access to a

special Digest of each Court opinion filed during the 1999

Term; an up-to-date Daily Journal of its workload; and a

separate up-to-date listing of all granted and certified

case issues as well as all summary disposition order cases.

These special features offer greater access by the general

public to the Court’s work and provide an opportunity for

prompt legal research by military justice practitioners.

In addition to the new Digest of each Court opinion,

Appendix K to this report contains a list of all opinions

released during the 1999 Term.

RETIREMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE

WALTER T. COX III

On September 30, 1999, the judicial term of Chief

Judge Walter T. Cox III as a judge of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ended. His

retirement marked the end of his 15-year term on the Court

and the conclusion of his 4-year tenure as its Chief Judge.

Throughout his term he authored numerous opinions which

significantly contributed to the substantive and procedural

areas of military criminal law. While serving as Chief

Judge during the past 4 years he continued on the

innovative path of his predecessors by establishing the

Court’s Internet web site, replacing its case management

system with a state-of-the-art computerized system, and
3

overseeing a major courthouse renovation project to provide

for increased office space for Court operations.

Consistent with his dedication to the Court and at the

request of Chief Judge Susan J. Crawford, Judge Cox has

consented to continue to serve on the Court as a senior

judge in active service pending nomination and confirmation

of his replacement. The judges and staff of the Court wish

to convey to Congress their gratitude and appreciation to

Chief Judge Cox for his outstanding leadership and

scholarship while leaving his imprint for judicial

excellence on the Court.

PUBLIC AWARENESS PROJECT

(PROJECT OUTREACH)

In furtherance of a practice established in 1987, the

Court scheduled several special sessions and heard oral

arguments in selected cases outside its permanent

Courthouse in Washington, D.C., during the 1999 Term of

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

developed as part of a public awareness program to

demonstrate the operation of a Federal Court of Appeals,

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

The Court conducted hearings during this period, without

objection of the parties, at Emory University School of

Law, Atlanta, Georgia; The Citadel, Charleston, South

Carolina; William and Mary School of Law, Williamsburg,

Virginia; Georgetown University Law Center, Washington,

D.C.; the United States Air Force Academy, Colorado

Springs, Colorado; Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery,

Alabama; and the United States Military Academy, West

Point, New York.

“Project Outreach” has continued to promote an

increased public awareness of the fundamental fairness of

the military criminal justice system and the role of the

Court in the overall administration of military justice

throughout the world. The Court hopes that those who

attend these hearings from both military and civilian

communities will realize that the United States is a

democracy that can maintain an armed force instilled with

the appropriate discipline to make it a world power, while

affording all its members the full protection of the

Constitution of the United States and Federal law.

JUDICIAL VISITATIONS

During the 1999 Term of Court, the Judges of the

Court, consistent with past practice and their ethical
4

responsibility to oversee and improve the entire military

criminal justice system, participated in professional

training programs for military and civilian lawyers, spoke

to professional groups of judges and lawyers, and visited

with judge advocates and other military personnel at

various military installations throughout the world.

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE

On May 6 and 7, 1999, the Court held its annual

Judicial Conference at the George Washington University

Marvin Center, Washington, D.C. The program for this

Judicial Conference was certified for credit to meet the

continuing legal education requirements of numerous State

Bars throughout the United States. The Conference opened

with welcoming remarks and a presentation by the Honorable

Walter T. Cox III, Chief Judge, United States Court of

Appeals for the Armed Forces, on the “State of the Court,”

followed by speakers who included Professor Christopher

Slobogin, Professor of Law, University of Florida College

of Law; Mr. Francis A. Gilligan, Senior Legal Advisor to

Judge Susan J. Crawford, United States Court of Appeals for

the Armed Forces; Colonel Clinton C. Pearson, USAF (Ret.),

Former Judge, U.S. Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals; Dr.

Jonathan Lurie, Historian to the United States Court of

Appeals for the Armed Forces and Professor of History,

Rutgers University; and Mr. Stephen D. Smith, Staff Counsel

in the Central Legal Staff of the United States Court of

Appeals for the Armed Forces, who moderated a panel

discussion on Military Rule of Evidence 606(b) with Colonel

Kevin Sandkuhler, USMC, Chief, Government Appellate

Division, U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals,

Colonel Russell Estey, USA, Chief, Government Appellate

Division, U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals, Captain

Michael Devine, USCG, Chief, Office of Military Justice,

U.S. Coast Guard, Colonel Douglas H. Kohrt, USAF, Chief,

Defense Appellate Division, U.S. Air Force Court of

Criminal Appeals, and Commander Richard Bagley, USN,

Defense Appellate Division, U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of

Criminal Appeals. Additional speakers included Major

Maurice A. Lescault, Jr., Professor, Administrative and

Civil Law Department, The Judge Advocate General’s School,

U.S. Army; Major Norman F.J. Allen, III, USA, Professor,

Criminal Law Department, The Judge Advocate General’s

School, U.S. Army; Professor Stephen A. Saltzburg,

Professor of Law, George Washington University National Law

Center; Major Del Grissom, USAF, Instructor, Military

Justice Division, The Judge Advocate General’s School, U.S.

Air Force; Professor Gary D. Solis, Professor of Law,
5

United States Military Academy; Charles W. Gittins,

Esquire; Lieutenant Colonel J. Kevin Lovejoy, USA, Chief,

Criminal Law Department, The Judge Advocate General’s

School, U.S. Army; Major Martin Sitler, USMC; and Major

Lewis J. Puleo, USMC, Director of the Evidence and

Environmental Law Divisions, Naval Justice School, U.S.

Navy.

The Judge Advocates Association Awards for outstanding

career attorneys in each of the Armed Forces were presented

by Colonel William R. Hagan, USA (Ret.) to the following:

Lieutenant Colonel Thomas K. Emsweiler, JAGC, USA;

Commander David A. Wagner, JAGC, USN; Lieutenant Colonel

Anthony J. Wolusky, USAF; Lieutenant Colonel Walter S.

Michael, USAFR; Major Steven D. Lindsey, USAFR; Major

Daniel J. Lecce, USMC; Commander William D. Baumgartner,

USCGR; and Lieutenant Colonel Charles D. Roberts and Major

Elizabeth C. Masters, Florida National Guard.

SUSAN J. CRAWFORD

Chief Judge

EUGENE R. SULLIVAN

Associate Judge

H.F. “SPARKY” GIERKE

Associate Judge

ANDREW S. EFFRON

Associate Judge

WALTER T. COX III

Senior Judge
6

USCA STATISTICAL REPORT

1999 TERM OF COURT

CUMULATIVE SUMMARY

CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 2, 1998

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

Petition Docket ............................ 290

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

TOTAL ...................................... 398

CUMULATIVE FILINGS

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

Petition Docket ............................1051

Miscellaneous Docket ....................... 32

TOTAL ......................................1240

CUMULATIVE TERMINATIONS

Master Docket .............................. 185

Petition Docket ............................1115

Miscellaneous Docket ....................... 32

TOTAL ......................................1332

CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 1, 1999

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

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

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

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

OPINION SUMMARY

CATEGORY SIGNED PER CURIAM MEM/ORDER TOTAL

Master Docket ........... 116 6 63 185

Petition Docket ......... 0 0 1115 1115

Miscellaneous Docket .... 0 1 31 32

TOTAL ................... 116 7 1209 1332

FILINGS (MASTER DOCKET)

 Remanded from Supreme Court ............... 1

 Returned from Court of Criminal Appeals.... 2

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

 Certificates filed ........................ 6

 Reconsideration granted ................... 1

 Petitions granted (from Petition Docket)... 147

 TOTAL ..................................... 157
7

TERMINATIONS (MASTER DOCKET)

 Findings & sentence affirmed .............. 138

 Reversed in whole or in part .............. 45 Signed .... 116

 Granted petitions vacated ................. 0 Per curiam .. 6

 Other disposition directed ................ 2 Mem/order .. 63

 TOTAL ..................................... 185 TOTAL ...... 185

PENDING (MASTER DOCKET)

 Awaiting briefs ........................... 29

 Awaiting oral argument .................... 43

 Awaiting lead case decision (trailer cases) 4

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

 TOTAL ..................................... 77

FILINGS (PETITION DOCKET)

 Petitions for grant of review filed .......1047

 Petitions for new trial filed ............. 2

 Cross-petitions for grant filed ........... 1

 Petitions for reconsideration granted ..... 0

 Returned from Court of Criminal Appeals ... 1

 TOTAL .....................................1051

TERMINATIONS (PETITION DOCKET)

 Petitions for grant dismissed ............. 5

 Petitions for grant denied ................ 917

 Petitions for grant granted ............... 147

 Petitions for grant remanded .............. 27 Signed ...... 0

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

 Other ..................................... 6 Mem/order..1115

 TOTAL .....................................1115 TOTAL .... 1115

PENDING (PETITION DOCKET)

 Awaiting briefs ........................... 63

 Awaiting Central Legal Staff review ....... 94

 Awaiting final action ..................... 69

 TOTAL ..................................... 226

FILINGS (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET)

 Remanded from Supreme Court ................. 1

 Writs of error coram nobis sought ........... 4

 Writs of habeas corpus sought ............... 1

 Other extraordinary relief sought ........... 2

 Writ appeals sought ......................... 24

 TOTAL ....................................... 32
8

TERMINATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET)

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

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

 Petitions granted ........................... 2

 Petitions denied ............................ 28 Signed .... 0

 Petitions dismissed ......................... 1 Per curiam. 1

 Other ....................................... 0 Mem/order.. 31

 TOTAL ....................................... 32 TOTAL ..... 32

PENDING (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET)

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

 Awaiting Writs Counsel review ............... 0

 Awaiting final action ....................... 2

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

RECONSIDERATIONS & REHEARINGS

 BEGIN END DISPOSITIONS

CATEGORY PENDING FILINGS PENDING Granted Denied Total

Master Docket .... 6 9 3 1 11 12

Petition Docket .. 0 7 2 0 5 5

Misc. Docket ..... 0 4 0 0 4 4

TOTAL ............ 6 20 5 1 20 21

MOTIONS ACTIVITY

 BEGIN END DISPOSITIONS

CATEGORY PENDING FILINGS PENDING Granted Denied Other Total

All motions ..... 25 926 12 874 65 0 939
Petition Docket Year End Pe

199 212

326

353

291 295

379

235

290

0

100200300400500

FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 

 APPENDIX A
Master Docket Year End Pen

72 69

95

152

119

105

73

156

105

0

50

100150200

FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 

 APPENDIX B

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

Weiss, No. 67869/MC.

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

Rexroat, No. 93-5007/AR.

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

1/

2/

3/
Oral Arguments Per Year

100

112

124 122

144

112 116 115

131

0

255075

100125150

FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 

 APPENDIX C
Total Opinions Per Year

65

105

64

125

95

129

112

129

101

144

95

111

117 118

107 113 104

12

0

255075

100125150

FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 

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

 APPENDIX D
Days from Petition Filing to 

117

96

114 113 109

151

143 140 145

0

255075

100125150175200

FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 

 APPENDIX E
Days from Petition Grant

 to Oral Argument

131

143 151

188

244

276

213

161

189

0

50

100150200250300

FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 

 APPENDIX F
Days from Oral Argument

 to Final Decision

148 141 151

159 166 169

194

163 165

0

50

100150200250

FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 

 APPENDIX G
Days from Petition Filin

to Final Decision

57

269

57

324

69

347

90

258

92

312

90

473

75

486

99

380

82

37

0

50

100150200250300350400450500550

FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 

PETITION DOCKET (DENIAL/DISMISSAL/WITHDRAWAMASTER DOCKET (GRANTED/CERTIFIED/DEATH CASE

 APPENDIX H
Days from Filing to

Final Decision in All Cas

75

82

108

145

178

138

120

139

166

0

20406080

100120140160180

FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 

 APPENDIX I
Total Petitions Filed Per 

2160

1813

1291

1610

1514

1251

1435

1234 1197

0

250500750

1000125015001750200022502500

FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 

 APPENDIX J
 APPENDIX K

OPINIONS

 

1999 Term of Court

(Oct 2, 1998 - Sep 30, 1999)

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

CASE NAME DOCKET # OPINION DATE MJ CITATION

U.S. v. Simoy 97-7001/AF Oct 20, 1998 50 MJ 1

U.S. v. Murphy 64,926/AR Dec 16, 1998 50 MJ 4

U.S. v. Clemente 97-0978/AF Feb 3, 1999 50 MJ 36

U.S. v. Graham 97-0617/AF Mar 9, 1999 50 MJ 56

U.S. v. Roland 98-0015/AF Mar 17, 1999 50 MJ 66

U.S. v. Stuart 98-5029/AF Mar 19, 1999 50 MJ 72

U.S. v. Southworth 97-1203/NA Mar 24, 1999 50 MJ 74

U.S. v. Mitchell 96-1198/AF Mar 26, 1999 50 MJ 79

U.S. v. Allen 97-1016/AR Mar 26, 1999 50 MJ 84

Steele v. Van Riper 98-8010/MC Mar 26, 1999 50 MJ 89

U.S. v. Bickley 98-0036/AR Apr 7, 1999 50 MJ 93

U.S. v. Russell 98-0207/AF Apr 7, 1999 50 MJ 99

U.S. v. Watt 98-0306/MC Apr 7, 1999 50 MJ 102

U.S. v. Reist 98-0888/MC Apr 7, 1999 50 MJ 108

U.S. v. Biagase 98-0152/MC Apr 13, 1999 50 MJ 143

U.S. v. Campbell 97-0149/AR Apr 20, 1999 50 MJ 154

U.S. v. Acevedo 97-1164/CG Apr 21, 1999 50 MJ 169
U.S. v. Gilbert 98-0034/CG Apr 21, 1999 50 MJ 176

U.S. v. Thomasson 98-0758/NA Apr 22, 1999 50 MJ 179

U.S. v. McLaughlin 96-0507/MC Apr 28, 1999 50 MJ 217

U.S. v. Savage 98-0273/AR May 3, 1999 50 MJ 244

U.S. v. Hall 97-0731/AR May 5, 1999 50 MJ 247

U.S. v. Schuler 98-0160/NA May 6, 1999 50 MJ 254

U.S. v. Thompson 98-0182/AR May 6, 1999 50 MJ 257

U.S. v. Brown 98-0251/MC May 11, 1999 50 MJ 262

U.S. v. Underwood 98-0275/AF May 11, 1999 50 MJ 271

U.S. v. Griffin 98-0056/AF May 12, 1999 50 MJ 278

U.S. v. Lacy 98-0511/MC May 12, 1999 50 MJ 286

U.S. v. Fee 98-0431/NA May 12, 1999 50 MJ 290

U.S. v. Noble 98-0569/MC May 12, 1999 50 MJ 293

U.S. v. Lee 99-0002/AF May 12, 1999 50 MJ 296

U.S. v. Belflower 98-5025/AF May 19, 1999 50 MJ 306

U.S. v. Abrams 98-0784/MC May 21, 1999 50 MJ 361

U.S. v. Olinger 98-0095/NA May 26, 1999 50 MJ 365

U.S. v. Short 98-0265/NA May 26, 1999 50 MJ 370

U.S. v. Smith 98-0356/AR May 26, 1999 50 MJ 380

U.S. v. Gray 93-7001/AR May 28, 1999 51 MJ 1

U.S. v. Falk 98-0064/AF May 28, 1999 50 MJ 385

U.S. v. Williams 98-0208/AF May 28, 1999 50 MJ 397

U.S. v. Halford 98-0325/AF Jun 2, 1999 50 MJ 402

U.S. v. McDaniels 98-0825/MC Jun 9, 1999 50 MJ 407

U.S. v. Riley 98-0146/AF Jun 14, 1999 50 MJ 410

U.S. v. Davis 97-0790/MC Jun 24, 1999 50 MJ 426

U.S. v. Williams 98-0258/AR Jun 25, 1999 50 MJ 436
U.S. v. Fox 98-0498/MC Jun 25, 1999 50 MJ 444

U.S. v. Anderson 98-0092/MC Jun 29, 1999 50 MJ 447

U.S. v. Smith 98-0775/AR Jun 29, 1999 50 MJ 451

U.S. v. Schrode 98-0029/MC Jun 30, 1999 50 MJ 459

U.S. v. Weisbeck 98-0646/AR Jun 30, 1999 50 MJ 461

U.S. v. Howard 98-0522/MC Jul 1, 1999 50 MJ 469

U.S. v. Mayo 98-1022/AR Jul 1, 1999 50 MJ 473

U.S. v. Glover 98-0822/AR Jul 2, 1999 50 MJ 476

U.S. v. Griffin 98-1075/AR Jul 12, 1999 50 MJ 480

U.S. v. McClain 98-0752/AR Jul 14, 1999 50 MJ 483

U.S. v. Bertie 98-0232/AR Jul 15, 1999 50 MJ 489

U.S. v. Voorhees 98-0309/MC Jul 15, 1999 50 MJ 494

U.S. v. Sherman 98-0489/NA Jul 15, 1999 51 MJ 73 

U.S. v. Warden 98-0237/AR Jul 21, 1999 51 MJ 78

U.S. v. Armon 98-0388/AR Jul 21, 1999 51 MJ 83

U.S. v. Spann 98-0769/MC Jul 23, 1999 51 MJ 89

U.S. v. Muirhead 98-0658/NA Jul 28, 1999 51 MJ 94

U.S. v. Anderson 97-1137/AF Jul 30, 1999 51 MJ 145

U.S. v. Eggen 98-0502/AF Jul 30, 1999 51 MJ 159

U.S. v. Sanchez 98-0635/MC Jul 30, 1999 51 MJ 165

U.S. v. Diaz-Duprey 98-0679/AR Jul 30, 1999 51 MJ 168

U.S. v. Gammons 98-5031/CG Jul 30, 1999 51 MJ 169

U.S. v. Finster 98-5032/NA Jul 30, 1999 51 MJ 185

U.S. v. Harris 98-0914/AR Aug 2, 1999 51 MJ 191

U.S. v. Gibson 98-5030/AR Aug 2, 1999 51 MJ 198

U.S. v. Owens 98-0133/AF Aug 9, 1999 51 MJ 204

U.S. v. Richter 98-0109/AF Aug 9, 1999 51 MJ 213
U.S. v. Johnston 98-0829/NA Aug 9, 1999 51 MJ 227

U.S. v. Miley 98-0721/NA Aug 11, 1999 51 MJ 232

U.S. v. Mitchell 98-0248/NA Aug 12, 1999 51 MJ 234

U.S. v. Cooper 98-0704/AF Aug 12, 1999 51 MJ 247

U.S. v. Grimm 98-0975/MC Aug 12, 1999 51 MJ 254

U.S. v. Hawes 98-0199/AF Aug 13, 1999 51 MJ 258

U.S. v. Sidwell 98-0595/AR Aug 13, 1999 51 MJ 262

U.S. v. McFadyen 99-0129/AF Aug 16, 1999 51 MJ 289

U.S. v. Scott 98-0987/AR Aug 19, 1999 51 MJ 326

U.S. v. Lewis 98-0335/NA Aug 20, 1999 51 MJ 376

U.S. v. Taylor 96-1241/AF Aug 27, 1999 51 MJ 390

U.S. v. Carpenter 98-1050/NA Aug 31, 1999 51 MJ 393

U.S. v. Nelson 98-1109/AR Sep 1, 1999 51 MJ 399

U.S. v. Kerr 98-0359/AF Sep 3, 1999 51 MJ 401

U.S. v. Hargrove 99-0346/AR Sep 3, 1999 51 MJ 408

U.S. v. Dawson 98-0434/MC Sep 9, 1999 51 MJ 411

U.S. v. Pilkington 98-0512/MC Sep 9, 1999 51 MJ 415

U.S. v. Griggs 98-1076/NA Sep 9, 1999 51 MJ 418

U.S. v. Izquierdo 98-0100/NA Sep 10, 1999 51 MJ 421

U.S. v. Marine 98-1021/MC Sep 10, 1999 51 MJ 425

U.S. v. Thompson 98-0594/AF Sep 17, 1999 51 MJ 431

U.S. v. Bradley 98-1113/AF Sep 17, 1999 51 MJ 437

U.S. v. Ford 98-0855/AR Sep 23, 1999 51 MJ 445

U.S. v. Whitner 98-0837/AR Sep 24, 1999 51 MJ 457

U.S. v. Doty 98-0949/NA Sep 24, 1999 51 MJ 464

U.S. v. Mitchell 97-0935/MC Sep 27, 1999 51 MJ 490

U.S. v. Barron 98-0210/AR Sep 27, 1999 52 MJ 1
U.S. v. Vassar 98-0321/AF Sep 27, 1999 52 MJ 9

U.S. v. Henderson 98-0847/AR Sep 27, 1999 52 MJ 14

U.S. v. Martinez 98-0998/AR Sep 27, 1999 52 MJ 22

U.S. v. Villareal 98-0200/NA Sep 28, 1999 52 MJ 27

U.S. v. Haagenson 98-0581/MC Sep 28, 1999 52 MJ 34

U.S. v. Brownfield 98-0795/NA Sep 28, 1999 52 MJ 40

U.S. v. Knight 98-0946/AR Sep 28, 1999 52 MJ 47

U.S. v. Lee 98-0952/AF Sep 28, 1999 52 MJ 51

U.S. v. Magnan 98-1001/MC Sep 29, 1999 52 MJ 56

U.S. v. Jones 97-0723/AR Sep 29, 1999 52 MJ 60

U.S. v. Hicks 97-0432/AR Sep 30, 1999 52 MJ 70

U.S. v. Schlamer 98-0301/MC Sep 30, 1999 52 MJ 80

U.S. v. Rockwood 98-0488/AR Sep 30, 1999 52 MJ 98

U.S. v. Morrison 98-0617/AR Sep 30, 1999 52 MJ 117

U.S. v. Wells 98-0681/NA Sep 30, 1999 52 MJ 126

U.S. v. Wright 98-0873/MC Sep 30, 1999 52 MJ 136

U.S. v. Fogg 98-0910/MC Sep 30, 1999 52 MJ 144

U.S. v. Rock 98-0947/AR Sep 30, 1999 52 MJ 154

U.S. v. Robbins 98-1061/AF Sep 30, 1999 52 MJ 159

U.S. v. Curtis 99-5001/MC Sep 30, 1999 52 MJ 166

U.S. v. Holt 98-0037/MC Sep 30, 1999 52 MJ 173

U.S. v. Roth 98-0270/AR Sep 30, 1999 52 MJ 187

U.S. v. Morris 98-0471/MC Sep 30, 1999 52 MJ 193

U.S. v. Davis 98-0497/NA Sep 30, 1999 52 MJ 201

U.S. v. Birge 98-1002/MC Sep 30, 1999 52 MJ 209

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

OCTOBER 1, 1998, TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1999

During fiscal year 1999 (FY 99), the Office of The Judge Advocate

General (OTJAG) continued to monitor courts-martial, review and

prepare military publications and regulations, and develop and draft

changes to the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) and the Uniform Code of

Military Justice (UCMJ). Through its Field Operating Agencies, OTJAG

provided judicial and appellate services, advice, assistance, and

professional education to ensure the orderly and efficient

administration of military justice. Numbers in this report are based

on an Army end strength of 479,426 in FY 99. The Army end strength

was 484,054 in FY 98.

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

STATISTICAL SUMMARY: FY 99

(See table insert, attached)

U.S. ARMY LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY

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

OTJAG, includes the following organizations involved in the

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

Government Appellate Division, the Defense Appellate Division, the

Trial Defense Service, and the Trial Counsel Assistance Program.

U.S. ARMY JUDICIARY

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

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

Division, and the Trial Judiciary.

U.S. ARMY TRIAL DEFENSE SERVICE

The United States Army Trial Defense Service (USATDS), a defense

service consisting of approximately 130 attorneys, provided high

quality, professional defense services to soldiers throughout the Army

from 55 offices worldwide. USATDS counsel defended soldiers facing

the entire range of allegations under the Uniform Code of Military

Justice.
2

USATDS counsel carried a large workload in FY 99 with workload

data for FYs 97, 98, and 99 as displayed below.

 FY97 FY98 FY99

General Courts-Martial 796 694 722

Special Courts-Martial 344 286 331

Administrative Boards 564 597 698

Nonjudicial Punishment 33,185 32,181 31,595

Consultations 30,026 28,668 26,794

USATDS provided defense services to deployed forces around the

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

Bosnia and Kosovo. At certain locations, USATDS maintained interservice agreements to provide defense services to military personnel

from other services. TDS continued to support soldiers in Physical

Evaluation Boards (PEB) at selected locations.

The National Capital Region Technology Management Office has

provided eight desktop video teleconferencing computer-driven units to

eight USATDS offices that support distant clients.

USATDS also assisted in developing a new memorandum of agreement

establishing relationships with newly created Reserve trial defense

units.

The Office of the Chief, USATDS, relocated to improved facilities

at Arlington, Virginia, a move that will enable the Trial Defense

Service to more efficiently lead the defense organization.

TRIAL COUNSEL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

 During Fiscal Year (FY) 1999, the U.S. Army's Trial Counsel

Assistance Program (TCAP) fulfilled its mission of providing

information, advice, training, and trial assistance to military

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

attorneys, TCAP had an expanded constituency among prosecutors in the

Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. TCAP provided four

basic categories of services during FY 1999:

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

courses; (3) publications; and (4) trial assistance. During FY 1999,

TCAP personnel (three Army judge advocates supported by a civilian

paralegal) accomplished the following: responded to 361 telephonic

requests for assistance; answered 138 e-mail requests for assistance;

sent out materials 134 times in response to calls; and, conducted 10
3

three-day advocacy training courses in the continental United States,

Korea, Hawaii, and Germany, providing 215 hours of continuing legal

education to 190 judge advocates from all services at a cost of

$23,834.00 or $125.45 per judge advocate trained. In addition, TCAP

expanded the new TCAP website consisting of 5 databases and more than

500 full-text searchable documents. The website is readily accessible

via the Lotus Notes system or the World Wide Web (WWW). Applications

for access from the WWW increased to 847, more than double the 400

applications for FY 1998. The reduction in phone calls is directly

attributable to increased website access. Reservists, National Guard,

and sister services continue to request access at a pace roughly equal

to requests from Army personnel. On one occasion, TCAP provided a

briefing on the TCAP mission to the Senior Prosecutor for the Korean

Army. For the first time, TCAP gave a presentation at the Military

Justice Managers Course at The Judge Advocate General's School.

Beyond this extensive support to trial counsel, TCAP attorneys

prepared 9 Answers and Returns to Habeas Corpus petitions filed with

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

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

monitored, and responded to 11 Extraordinary Writs filed in either the

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

Forces and handled three Government Appeals. Finally, they prepared

briefs and presented oral argument before the Army Court of Criminal

Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in assistance to

other branches of the Government Appellate Division.

SIGNIFICANT MILITARY JUSTICE ACTIONS

Criminal Law Division, OTJAG, advises The Judge Advocate General

on military justice policy, legislation, opinions, and related

criminal law actions. Specific responsibilities include: promulgating

military justice regulations and reviewing Army regulations for legal

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

federal felony and magistrate court prosecutions, legal opinions for

the Army Staff, statistical analysis and evaluation, and Congressional

inquiries.

Criminal Law Division workload data for the last three fiscal

years is displayed below:

FY 97 FY 98 FY 99

White House inquiries 139 88 111

Congressional and other inquiries 310 297 330

Clemency Petitions, Art. 74, UCMJ 11 8 8

Officer Dismissals 15 16 14

Freedom of Information

Act/Privacy Act

21 25 63
4

On March 17, 1999, Major General David R.E. Hale was convicted at

Fort Lewis, Washington, in accordance with his pleas of one

specification of making a false official statement, and seven

specifications of conduct unbecoming an officer, in violation of

Articles 107 and 133, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. Sections 907 and 933 (1988).

The offenses related to inappropriate personal or sexual relationships

with the spouses of subordinate military officers in his command. He

was sentenced to be reprimanded, to be fined $10,000.00 and to forfeit

$1,500.00 pay per month for 12 months. On July 8, 1999, in accordance

with the terms of a pretrial agreement the convening authority

approved the reprimand, a fine of $10,000.00 and a forfeiture of

$1,000.00 pay per month for 12 months. This is the third courtmartial of a flag level officer since World War II. The other two

cases were the 1952 trial of Army Major General Robert W. Grow and the

1957 trial of Rear Admiral Selden G. Hooper.

JOINT SERVICE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY JUSTICE

The Chief, Criminal Law Division, OTJAG, serves as the Army

representative to the Joint Service Committee on Military Justice

(JSC). The JSC was established by the Judge Advocates General and the

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

conducts an annual review of the MCM as required by Executive Order

12473 and DOD Directive 5500.17. The JSC proposes and evaluates

amendments to the UCMJ, MCM, and serves as a forum for exchanging

military justice information among the services. The Army acts as

Executive Agent for the JSC on a permanent basis.

During FY 99, the JSC completed its fifteenth annual review of

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

comment and a public meeting was held to receive comments from

interested parties. Highlights of the annual review’s proposed

changes include: extending to victims the same rights granted to them

in Federal court by The Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990,

42 U.S.C. § 10607(e)(2) by preventing victims who may testify at

sentencing from being excluded from the courtroom; raising the

monetary amount affecting the maximum punishments for various offenses

from $100 to $500; providing for enhanced maximum punishment when a

firearm or explosive is used for violations of Article 103 (Captured

or abandoned property); deleting para. 31(c)(6) (Article 107 - False

official statements) to conform with recent court decisions that

statements made by a suspect or an accused during an interrogation can

be false official statements; providing guidance for charging credit,

debit, and electronic transactions as violations of Article

121(Larceny and wrongful appropriation).
5

JSC legislative proposals to amend Article 111 of the UCMJ to

provide an alcohol blood/breath concentration of 0.08 or more as a per

se standard of illegal intoxication and to amend Article 19 to

increase the sentencing jurisdiction of special courts-martial to

adjudge confinement and/or forfeiture of pay for up to one year were

incorporated into DoD's Omnibus Legislation to Accompany the DoD

Authorization Act Request for FY 2000. Section 577 of the National

Defense Authorization Act for FY 2000 amended Article 19 to increase

the sentencing authority of special courts-martial but did not include

the 0.08 blood/breath concentration for Article 111. The legislation

further amended Article 19 to provide that no confinement for more

than six months or forfeiture of pay for more than six months may be

adjudged without a verbatim record and counsel and a military judge

detailed to the case absent military exigency.

Article 19 establishes maximum sentencing jurisdiction for

special courts-martial, subject to such limitations as the President

may prescribe. Currently, RCM 201(f)(2)(B)(i) limits the confinement

and forfeiture sentencing authority of special courts-martial to six

months. The JSC is drafting a special executive order, in addition to

the 2000 annual review, to make appropriate Manual changes to

implement amended Article 19.

Executive Order 13140 was signed into law on 6 October 1999.

This executive order resulted from the 1997 annual review. It amends

the qualifications of military judges to allow Reserve Component

judges to conduct trials in certain cases; provides for the use of

remote live testimony for child victims; establishes a

psychotherapist-patient privilege; adds hate crime motivation as

aggravating evidence for sentencing; adds "victim under 15" as an

aggravating factor authorizing a death sentence; and adds reckless

endangerment as an offense under Article 134.

The proposed executive order for the 1998 annual review is being

staffed. It proposes to codify the military judge's authority to

issue protective or "gag orders"; clarifies which civilian convictions

are admissible on sentencing; rejects automatic change to MRE 407

based on a change to FRE 407; updates all of the model specifications

by removing the reference to the 20th Century from the date of the

offense; conforms the Manual to Article 56a which authorizes a

sentence of life without eligibility of parole; and provides

additional guidance on the offense of adultery and the circumstances

under which its prosecution at a court-martial is appropriate.

Pursuant to Section 552 of the National Defense Authorization Act

for FY 1999, the JSC studied and reported on the method of selection

of members of the armed forces to serve on courts-martial. The study

concluded that the current member selection practice best applies the

criteria of Article 25(d), consistent with the demands for fairness
6

and justice in the military justice system. The DoD General Counsel

forwarded the study to Congress on 11 October 1999. Currently,

pursuant to a Code Committee request, a JSC ad-hoc working group is

studying the feasibility and desirability of creating an independent

judiciary. The JSC is also studying Article 15 at the request of the

Code Committee and joint military justice at the request of the Joint

Staff.

FOREIGN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

As Executive Agent for the Department of Defense, the Department

of the Army, through the International and Operational Law division,

OTJAG, compiles information concerning the exercise of foreign

criminal jurisdiction over U.S. personnel.

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

period used in other parts of this Report, does provide an accurate

picture of the exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction during this

reporting period:

 1 Dec 1996 1 Dec 1997

 to to

 30 Nov 1997 30 Nov 1998

Foreign Offense Citations 4,870 5,092

Total Civilian 1,487 1,498

Total Military 3,383 3,594

Exclusive Foreign Jurisdiction 187 192

Concurrent Jurisdiction 3,196 3,402

Traffic/Other Minor Offenses 346 335

 Foreign Jurisdiction Recalls 609 546

With the exception of Foreign Jurisdiction Recalls and

Traffic/Other Minor Offenses, there was a slight increase in all

categories. This increase was proportional across all categories in

certain major offenses, such as robbery, larceny, aggravated assault,

simple assault, and drug offenses.

This year, foreign authorities released 76 of the 192 exclusive

foreign jurisdiction cases involving military personnel to U.S.

authorities, for disposition. In concurrent jurisdiction cases in

which the foreign countries had the authority to assert primary

jurisdiction, U.S. military authorities were able to obtain waivers of

the exercise of this jurisdiction in 2,972 cases. Overall, waivers

were obtained by the U.S. in 87.3 percent of all exclusive and

concurrent jurisdiction cases. This figure reflects slightly more

than a one percent increase in such waivers from 1996-1997, when the

relevant figure was 86.1 percent.
7

During the last reporting period, civilian employees and

dependents were involved in 1,487 offenses. Foreign authorities

released 250 of these cases (16.8 percent of this total) to U.S.

military authorities for administrative action or some other form of

disposition. This year, civilian employees and dependents were

involved in 1,498 offenses. The foreign authorities released 246 of

these cases (16.4 percent of the current total).

Foreign authorities tried a total of 1,240 cases. Eight trials,

or .6 percent, resulted in acquittals. Those convicted were sentenced

as follows: 27 cases resulted in executed confinement; 53 cases

resulted in suspended confinement; and 1,152 cases (92.9 percent of

the total trials) resulted in only fines or reprimands.

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

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

professional responsibility program. This program includes tasking

judge advocates for field inquiries into allegations of professional

misconduct, reviewing reports of inquiry, and advising TJAG on

appropriate resolution of ethics cases. SOCO oversees the operation

of TJAG’s Professional Responsibility Committee and its issuance of

advisory ethics opinions. SOCO also oversees professional

responsibility training within the Army. Working closely with The

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

implementing training programs in their commands and offices.

During FY 1999, 20 professional conduct inquiries were conducted

and closed. This is an 11% increase from FY 1998’s 18 cases. Of the

20 cases closed in 1999, nine cases resulted in a finding of attorney

misconduct. Of the nine founded cases, two were minor violations of

ethics rules. The remaining seven cases were serious, resulting in

punishment including reprimands, suspensions, or resignations. The

cases include the following:

• Failing to file post-conviction matters on a client’s behalf.

• Misinforming a client about military retirement pay (resulting in a

successful malpractice claim against the Army).

• Making untruthful statements about a legal official; falsely

claiming that an Army officer was his client; and secretly paying a

civilian criminal defense attorney for legal fees without

disclosure, consultation, or the client's consent.

• Neglecting a military client’s case (after reserve attorney accepted

retainer in his civilian capacity).

• State bar suspension for fee and escrow violations and for

threatening a former client.

• Shoplifting.

• Conviction for possession of cocaine.
8

LITIGATION

The number of civil lawsuits against the Department of the Army

and its officials dropped slightly from previous years, with about 560

actions filed in FY 99. Cases that require civilian courts to

interpret the UCMJ remain a small but significant portion of this

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

collateral review of courts-martial proceedings in district courts,

usually via petitions for writs of habeas corpus, or in the Court of

Federal Claims in back-pay actions. Other suits involve challenges to

confinement conditions, to decisions to deny clemency or parole, to

revoke parole, or to other administrative actions taken by confinement

facility officials.

One case of particular note involves a class action filed in 1997

by all inmates confined at the United States Disciplinary Barracks

(USDB). The inmates claim that they are subject to unsafe living

conditions that violate the Eighth Amendment proscription against

cruel and unusual punishment. They allege that the USDB main building

is structurally unsound, that they are exposed to unsafe environmental

conditions, and that they are improperly subjected to certain

administrative practices. In FY 98, the district court denied the

inmates’ request for a preliminary injunction ordering the Army to

transfer them to other correctional institutions. In January 1999,

the Army filed a motion for summary judgment maintaining that there is

no issue of fact that the inmates are not exposed to unsafe living

conditions and that the administrative practices of which they

complain are proper, accepted correctional methods. The parties are

currently engaged in limited discovery.

EDUCATION AND TRAINING

In Charlottesville, Virginia, the Criminal Law Department of The

Judge Advocate General’s School continues to lead the way in the

Corps-wide effort to improve and sustain our military justice

practice. This year, the Criminal Law Department provided instruction

on issues ranging from technical litigation skills to managing high

profile cases.

A priority mission for the Criminal Law Department continues to

be advocacy training. From the Basic Course to the Advanced Trial

Advocacy Course, the department employed innovative techniques to

train and teach advocacy. For example, each Basic Course student is

required to serve as counsel in three advocacy exercises - an

administrative separation board, a guilty plea, and a contested courtmartial. The Basic Course student leaves TJAGSA with a realistic

familiarization of the court-martial and administrative separation

practice.
9

The Criminal Law Department’s advocacy emphasis does not stop at

the classroom door. The success of and commitment to The Advocacy

Trainer (The AT) continued throughout 1998 and carried over to 1999.

This manual contains numerous skill development drills in all aspects

of court-martial practice. Its tabular design allows supervisors to

conduct long-term building block training, or short-term targeted

“deficiency” training. The department not only published eight new

advocacy-training modules, but also made this unique publication more

accessible to the field. The AT is now available electronically to

all services. You can access The AT under the Publications listing on

TJAGSA’s home page (http://www.jagcnet.army.mil/tjagsa).

In addition to teaching the Officer Basic Course and Graduate

Course, the Criminal Law Department hosted a variety of short courses.

In May 1999, the department managed the first multi-service high

profile case management course. The target audience was staff judge

advocates and attendance was by invitation only. The course was

designed to train judge advocates in the unique legal, managerial, and

media relations aspects of high profile courts-martial. The course

offered several practical exercises and seminar sessions that proved

extremely beneficial for the students. This course was a great

success and clearly met its objectives.

The Fifth Military Justice Managers Course included new blocks of

instruction taught by members of the American Academy of Forensic

Science. The instruction included an overview of forensic evidence,

crime scene analysis, and DNA testing. The course also included a

block of instruction on how to use The Advocacy Trainer.

The Criminal Law and International and Operational Law

Departments co-hosted the 3d National Security Crimes and Intelligence

Law Workshop in June 1999. This course brought together practitioners

and investigators in the national security field. Military and

civilian students from all services attended the course. The next

iteration of this course will likely occur in June 2000.

The Criminal Law Department hosted several distinguished guest

speakers. Mr. Gerald Boyle, a prominent criminal attorney from

Milwaukee, Wisconsin, addressed the 11th Criminal Law Advocacy Course

(CLAC) in April. Mr. James McElhaney, nationally prominent for his

several books and ABA column on trial advocacy, addressed the 12th

CLAC. Chief Judge Walter Cox of the Court of Appeals for the Armed

Forces delivered the twenty-seventh Kenneth J. Hodson Lecture on

Criminal Law in November 1998. Additionally, Judge Cox presented his

final motivational talk as a CAAF judge to the 42nd Military Judge

Course. He will be greatly missed. The 22nd Criminal Law New

Developments Course in November 1998 featured Mr. Dwight Sullivan,

Managing Attorney for the Maryland American Civil Liberties Union, who

presented a lecture on the application of the Bill of Rights to the
10

military justice system. Students in the New Developments Course also

had the opportunity to hear Brigadier General Hess, Staff Judge

Advocate to the Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps, discuss his views about

the future of the military justice system.

PERSONNEL, PLANS, AND POLICIES

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

FY 99 was 1,421. This total does not include 59 officers

participating in the Funded Legal Education Program. The diverse

composition of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps included 113

African-Americans, 42 Hispanics, 58 Asians and Native Americans, and

341 women. The FY 99 end strength of 1,421 compares with an end

strength of 1,499 in FY 98, 1523 in FY 97, 1541 in FY 96, 1561 in FY

95, 1575 in FY 94, 1646 in FY 93, and 1710 in FY 92. The grade

distribution of the Corps was five general officers; 128 colonels; 207

lieutenant colonels; 328 majors; 752 captains. Sixty-four warrant

officers, 360 civilian attorneys, and 1,469 enlisted soldiers

supported legal operations worldwide.

To ensure selection of the best-qualified candidates for

appointment, career status, and schooling, The Judge Advocate General

convened advisory boards several times during the year. Selection for

appointment in the Corps averages one in three applications.

Two hundred thirty-one Judge Advocate officers completed the

following resident service schools:

U.S. Army War College .................................................................................... 2

National War College ....................................................................................... 1

Industrial College of the Armed Forces ................................. 2

Department of Justice Fellowship ................................................... 1

U.S. Army Command and General Staff College .................. 16

The Judge Advocate Officer Graduate Course ..................... 44

The Judge Advocate Officer Basic Course .............................. 163

During FY 99, seven officers completed funded study for LL.M.

degrees in the following disciplines: environmental law, contract law,

international law, criminal law, and health care law.

As a separate competitive category under the Department of

Defense Officer Personnel Management Act, officers of the Judge

Advocate General’s Corps compete among themselves for promotion.

During FY 99, the Secretary of the Army convened six selection boards

to recommend Judge Advocate officers for promotion to higher grades.

WALTER B. HUFFMAN

Major General, USA

The Judge Advocate General of the Army
Page 1 of 2

APPENDIX - U.S. ARMY MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

Report Period: FISCAL YEAR 1999

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons)

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/

DECREASE (-) OVER

LAST REPORT

GENERAL 737 692 45 +7.6%

BCD SPECIAL [A] 422 401 21 +54.6%

NON-BCD SPECIAL 10 8 2 -28.6%

SUMMARY 487 459 28 -.004%

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT +13.3%

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED [B]

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL)

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES (+ dismissals) 142 +15

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 397

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 217

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 678

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 194

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 161

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

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 85 [C]

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D]

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D]

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 679 [C]

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 739 [E]

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 59 [C]

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD -5.6%

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

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

NUMBER 729

PERCENTAGE 98.6%

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

 (CAAF)

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 312 of 739 42.2%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD + 0.6%

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 33 of 312 10.6%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -3.0%

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY USACCA 4.5%

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD ] -28.3%
Page 2 of 2

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

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 8

RECEIVED 15

DISPOSED OF 20

 GRANTED 2

 DENIED 14

 NO JURISDICTION 4

 WITHDRAWN 0

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 3

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 533

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 329

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 202

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 105

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 29

PART 10 – STRENGTH

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 473,809

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ)

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 38,879

RATE PER 1,000 82.0

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

EXPLANATORY NOTES

 

[A] Cases convened by GCM convening authority.

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

[C] Includes only cases briefed and at issue.

[D] No reason for distinguishing; GCM and BCD SPCM are not tracked separately.

[E] Includes Article 62 appeals, All Writs Act cases, and appeals withdrawn.
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY

OCTOBER 1, 1998, TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1999

SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF

MILITARY JUSTICE

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

of Military Justice, the Judge Advocate General and the Deputy Judge

Advocate General made frequent inspections of legal offices in the

United States, Europe, and the Far East in order to supervise the

administration of military justice.

ARTICLE 69(a), UCMJ, EXAMINATIONS

Thirty-six general courts-martial records of trial not statutorily

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

Criminal Appeals (NMCCA) were forwarded for examination to the Office

of the Judge Advocate General in fiscal year 1999. Twenty-one were

pending at the end of fiscal year 1998. Out of the 37 cases

completed, none required corrective action by the Judge Advocate

General. Twenty cases were pending review at the close of fiscal year

1999.

ARTICLE 69(b), UCMJ, APPLICATIONS

In fiscal year 1999, 21 applications under Article 69(b), UCMJ,

were received for review. Twelve such applications remained pending

from fiscal year 1998. Of these 33 applications, 15 were denied on

the merits, while relief was granted in whole or in part in one case.

Seventeen cases are currently pending review.

ARTICLE 73, UCMJ, PETITIONS

In fiscal year 1999, the Office of the Judge Advocate General

received four petitions for a new trial. All petitions were denied.

APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISION

Active Duty Personnel. The Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Review

Activity, Defense Division (Code 45) was staffed by 19 active duty

officers and four civilian staff employees at the close of fiscal year

1999. Commander Richard W. Bagley, Jr., JAGC, USN, relieved Captain

Carol J. Cooper, JAGC, USN, as Division Director in October 1998.

Table 1 illustrates officer distribution by branch of service and

grade. Active duty personnel are usually assigned for three-year

tours of duty. During fiscal year 1999, six new attorneys reported

for duty including three Navy judge advocates reporting for their

first tour of duty as judge advocates.
2

Table 1

Active Duty Personnel Assigned on board

Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Review Activity

Appellate Defense Division

Service

CDR/LtCol

(0-5)

LCDR/Maj

(0-4)

LT/Capt

(0-3)

First

Tour

(0-2/0-3)

Totals

Navy 1 4 5 5 15

Marine

Corps

03104

Totals 1 7 6 5 19

Reserve Personnel. The Appellate Defense Division was supported

by three Naval Reserve units and a number of U.S. Marine Corps Reserve

judge advocates. Table 2. Utilizing flexible drilling (flex-drill)

these Reservists are mailed records of trial which they review at

their homes and return with pleadings to be filed. They also

routinely spend two weeks of active duty training per year at

Appellate Defense Division headquarters. These Reserve elements

accounted for 65% of all cases reviewed and filed with the Navy-Marine

Corps Court of Criminal Appeals in fiscal year 1999. NR NAVJAG 109 in

Columbus, Ohio, was commanded by Captain Ben J. Piazza, JAGC, USNR.

NR NAMARA (Defense) 111 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, was commanded by

Captain Kristy L. Christen, JAGC, USNR. In fiscal year 2000, the

Appellate Defense Division will be augmented by two additional Naval

Reserve units headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, and Long Beach,

California.

Table 2

Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Units/Personnel Supporting

Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Review Activity

Appellate Defense Division

Unit CAPT/Col

(0-6)

CDR/LtCol

(0-5)

LCDR/Maj

(0-4)

LT/Capt

(0-3) Totals

NAVJAG

109

Columbus,

OH

11305

NAMARA

111,

Okla.

City, OK

12227

VTU 0614,

Wash. DC 11002

USMCR

IMA 00516

Totals 3 4 10 3 20
3

Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals Practice. The

Appellate Defense Division received 1764 records of trial docketed for

Article 66, UCMJ, review by the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal

Appeals in fiscal year 1999. This represents a decline of 218 records

when compared to fiscal year 1998. The Appellate Defense Division

reviewed and filed 1798 cases with the Navy-Marine Corps Court of

Criminal Appeals in fiscal year 1999. This represented a decline of

452 cases compared to fiscal year 1998. Tables 3-5 reflect the

numbers and types of pleadings filed in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal

year 1998. Appellate Defense Division attorneys also argued 31 times

before the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, including 1 en

banc argument. This represented an increase of 14 arguments over

fiscal year 1998.

Table 3

Cases Filed by Active Duty

Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Defense Counsel

at the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals

Fiscal Year Fully

Briefed

Summary

Assignment

Submitted

on Merits

Total

Records

Reviewed

FY-99 278 94 253 625

FY-98 415 223 304 942

Table 4

Cases Filed by Reserve

Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Defense Counsel

at the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals

Fiscal Year Fully

Briefed

Summary

Assignment

Submitted

on Merits

Total

Records

Reviewed

FY-99 70 84 1019 1173

FY-98 61 182 1065 1308

Table 5

Cases Filed by Combined Active Duty - Reserve

Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Defense Counsel

at the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals

Fiscal Year Fully

Briefed

Summary

Assignment

Submitted

on Merits

Total

Records

Reviewed

FY-99 348 178 1272 1798

FY-98 476 405 1369 2250
4

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Practice.

Table 6 reflects a sizable increase in the number of Navy-Marine

Corps cases reviewed by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in

fiscal year 1999, and a dramatic increase in the number of Navy-Marine

Corps cases argued before, and decided by, the Court. In fiscal year

1999, Appellate Defense represented, or assisted in the

representation, of four cases certified by the Judge Advocate General

to the Court: United States v. Curtis, 52 M.J. 166 (1999) (affirming

the lower court's opinion); United States v. Finster, 51 M.J. 185

(1999) (affirming the lower court's opinion); United States v. Byrd,

50 M.J. 754 (N.M.Ct.Crim.App. 1999) cert. __ M.J. __ (U.S.C.A.A.F. May

7, 1999) (pending argument on issue of whether proper execution of

appellant’s punitive discharge in accordance with Article 71(c), UCMJ,

made appellant’s case final under Article 76, UCMJ, and terminated

military appellate court jurisdiction over the case); and United

States v. Townes, 50 M.J 762 (N.M.Ct.Crim.App. 1999) cert. __ M.J. __

(U.S.C.A.A.F. June 18, 1999) (pending argument on issue of whether the

lack of appellant's personal request for enlisted members, on the

record, pursuant to Article 25, UCMJ, defeated the court-martial's

jurisdiction).

Table 6

Representation by

Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Defense Counsel

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

Fiscal Year

Petitions

for Review

Filed

Petitions

Granted/

Briefs

Filed

Oral

Argument

Published

Opinions

FY-99 323 45 55 54

FY-98 353 35 24 28

Capital Litigation. In fiscal year 1999, the Appellate Defense

Division was actively involved in the appeals of four capital cases.

In United States v. Private Ronnie Curtis, USMC, 52 M.J. 166 (1999),

military appellate defense counsel assisted Private Ronnie Curtis'

civilian defense counsel in responding to the Government's motions for

reconsideration of the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals'

decision affirming a life sentence in lieu of ordering a resentencing

hearing. Military appellate counsel also assisted civilian counsel in

representing Private Curtis before the Court of Appeals for the Armed

Forces when the Judge Advocate General certified to the Court a

question as to whether the Navy-Marine Corps Court could affirm a life

sentence without ordering a resentencing hearing. The defense brief

in United States v. Private Kenneth G. Parker, USMC, NMCM No. 95-1500

was filed with the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals on July

23, 1999, and is awaiting the Government's answer. Appellate defense
5

teams are currently researching and writing their briefs in United

States v. Private Wade L. Walker, NMCM No. 95-1607 (a companion case

to Parker) and United States v. Private Jesse Quintinilla, USMC, No.

98-1632, for the Navy-Marine Corps Court.

The Navy-Marine Corps Defense Capital Litigation Resource Center

(CLRC) completed its second full year of operations. Captain Henry

Lazzaro, JAGC, USNR, remained the director. The CLRC, unique among

the services, is co-located with the Appellate Defense Division and

provides advice on pretrial, trial, and sentencing strategies. It

also serves as a research and resource clearinghouse with banks of

motions relating to capital litigation as well as information on

expert consultants and witnesses. In fiscal year 1999, the CLRC

provided its expertise in four cases where the death penalty was

sought or seriously considered. In two of those cases the charges

were ultimately referred non-capital, another case concluded with the

withdrawal of the capital referral as part of a pretrial agreement,

and the fourth case is pending. The CLRC also provided advice,

coordination and procurement of Reserve counsel for three Marine Corps

cases awaiting appellate review where a death sentence was approved by

the convening authority. The CLRC maintains liaison with the Army and

Air Force appellate divisions. Finally, the CLRC plays a large role

in training trial and appellate defense counsel at the annual Defense

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

Rhode Island.

Trial Defense Assistance. The Appellate Defense Division

provides advice and support to Navy and Marine Corps trial defense

counsel on a continuing basis. Beginning in October 1998, the

Division began publication of a monthly newsletter, entitled Timely

Objection, which summarizes and analyzes all recent Court of Appeals

for the Armed Forces and Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals

cases. The newsletter also summarizes and analyzes recent federal and

state appellate decisions involving criminal justice. It also

contains a "trial tips" section designed to aid the trial practitioner

and training section highlighting military and civilian training

relevant to courts-martial practice.

The Appellate Defense Division also maintains a rotating watch of

experienced appellate attorneys who answer short-fused questions from

the field and assist in filing extraordinary writs.

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT DIVISION

Appellate Representation. The eight Navy and five Marine Corps

judge advocates assigned to the Appellate Government Division filed a

total of 852 pleadings last year, 616 with the Navy-Marine Corps Court

of Criminal Appeals and 236 with the Court of Appeals for the Armed

Forces.
6

Field Assistance. The Trial Counsel Assistance Program (TCAP) is

a function within the Appellate Government Division that provides a

central coordinating point to assist field trial counsel and Staff

Judge Advocates in the effective prosecution of courts-martial.

Eleven appellate counsel are detailed to implement this program. In

fiscal year 1999, prompt assistance was provided in response to almost

750 telephone calls or electronic messages from trial counsel and

Staff Judge Advocates requesting advice or information about cases

pending or being tried. Additional assistance was provided through

training presentations. The Appellate Government Division also

published 12 Electronic Viewpoints to the field dealing with a variety

of current legal issues.

Presentations. Government counsel participated in the 1999

Judicial Conference of the United States Court of Appeals for the

Armed Forces and made presentations at William and Mary College, The

George Washington Law Center, the Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Conference in San Diego, California, the Army-Navy Reserve Conference

in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the Courts of Criminal Appeals Judge’s

Conference in Washington, D.C., the Trial Services Office, San Diego,

California, the Trial Services Office, Norfolk, Virginia, and multiple

presentations at the Naval Justice School in Newport, Rhode Island.

These presentations included extensive support of the Government’s

Capital Litigation Course.

Reserves. The Appellate Government Division provided training

to, and received outstanding support from, eight Naval reservists

assigned to NAMARA (Govt) 116 and NAVJAG 113 and six Marine Corps

reservists. The reservists continued to make a significant

contribution to the successful accomplishment of the Division’s

mission.

NAVY-MARINE CORPS TRIAL JUDICIARY

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

active duty judges and 22 reservists serving in 13 circuit and four

branch offices. During fiscal year 1999, NMCTJ provided judicial

services in 349 general courts-martial and 2102 special courtsmartial. These numbers represent a decrease in general courts-martial

(121) and special courts-martial (220), compared to fiscal year 1998.

NMCTJ provided judicial services to Fleet and Shore activities,

and Marine Forces in the United States and around the world. Members

of the Trial Judiciary participated in continuing education at the

Trial Judiciary's annual training conference, the Naval Justice

School, the Army Judge Advocate General's School, and the Air Forcesponsored Inter-Service Military Judges' Seminar. NMCTJ also provided

training at various levels, including the Navy-Marine Corps Senior

Officer Course and other in-service courses. NMCTJ also performed an

active role in mentoring judge advocates through both formal and

informal training sessions.
7

NAVAL LEGAL SERVICE COMMAND

Naval Legal Service Command (NAVLEGSVCCOM) is commanded by the

Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Navy and includes 327 officers,

203 enlisted, and 204 civilians. NAVLEGSVCCOM provides a wide range

of legal services to afloat and ashore commands, active duty naval

personnel, dependents, and retirees from 55 offices world-wide: eight

Naval Legal Service Offices (NLSOs), five Trial Service Offices

(TSOs), the Naval Justice School, and 42 detachments and branch

offices. NAVLEGSVCCOM provides counsel for courts-martial,

administrative boards, physical evaluation boards, legal assistance,

and local commanders. NAVLEGSVCCOM also provides assistance for

claims processing and adjudication, and training judge advocates,

legalmen, and other DoD personnel. During fiscal year 1999,

NAVLEGSVCCOM provided counsel for 225 general courts-martial, 818

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

Administrative Boards; processed over 30,000 claims; provided over

500,000 legal assistance services; and provided command assistance

services for over 3,900 commands.

Over the last year NAVLEGSVCCOM closed some offices where

regionalization was more conducive to the mission. NLSO Southeast

Branch Office Orlando was closed. TSO Southeast Detachment Corpus

Christi and TSO Southeast Branch Offices Kings Bay and Roosevelt Roads

were closed.

NAVLEGSVCCOM is currently beta testing a new management record

tracking system and hopes to adopt this new system throughout

NAVLEGSVCCOM in 2000. Additionally, NAVLEGSVCCOM developed a new

quarterly productivity statistical report that should provide more

reliable information and reduce the amount of time required to

complete the report.

NAVAL JUSTICE SCHOOL

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

Naval Legal Service Command, for administrative and operational

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

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

Virginia (areas of fleet concentration). Also reporting to Commanding

Officer, NJS, is the Defense Institute of International Legal Studies

(DIILS), operating under the Expanded International Military Education

and Training (EIMET) Program.

Mission Statement. NJS shall:

1. Oversee training of judge advocates, Limited Duty Officers

(law), and Legalmen to ensure their career-long professional

development and readiness.
8

2. Provide comprehensive formal training to all sea service

judge advocates and other legal personnel to promote justice and

ensure the delivery of quality legal advice and other legal services.

3. Train sea service commanders and senior officers in the

practical aspects of military law to enable them to perform their

command and staff duties, and train other sea service personnel to

assist in the sound administration of military justice.

Coordination. Through the Interservice Legal Education Review

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

of the Army and Air Force JAG Schools, meet semiannually to discuss

new initiatives and opportunities for crosstraining, and to increase

cooperation and efficiency in the training of legal personnel within

the Department of Defense.

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

substantial blocks of instruction relating to military justice and

operation of the UCMJ. These courses are:

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

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

military justice for all judge advocates of the Navy, Marine Corps,

and Coast Guard. The majority of the course is dedicated to military

justice and court-martial advocacy training (other topical areas

include legal assistance and administrative law). Upon graduation

from NJS, judge advocates are certified in accordance with Article

27(b), UCMJ. Fiscal year 1999 graduates:

 Navy 96

 Marine Corps 63

 Coast Guard 19

 International 4

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

three times per fiscal year, trains enlisted personnel selected for

conversion to the Legalman rating. In FY 1999, the course consisted

of two phases: (a) Paralegal, dedicated to training Navy Legalmen in

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

weeks). Fiscal year 1999 graduates: 36.

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

Law. This four-day course is taught in Newport, Rhode Island, and

other areas of fleet and Fleet Marine Force concentration. In fiscal

year 1999, the course was offered 17 times, at nine locations. The

course prepares senior officers in the execution of their legal

responsibilities of command. The majority of the course focuses on

such areas as nonjudicial punishment and court-martial procedures.

Fiscal year 1999 participants in SOC:
9

 Navy 484

 Marine Corps 78

 Coast Guard 12

 Civilian 5

 Air Force 2

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

officers" perform a host of military justice functions in many

commands that are not large enough to warrant assignment of a judge

advocate. This four-week course prepares these collateral duty legal

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

their respective commands. This course is offered 16 times per fiscal

year, at Newport, Rhode Island, San Diego, California, and Norfolk,

Virginia. Fiscal year 1999 legal officers trained:

 Navy 543

 Marine Corps 77

 Coast Guard 5

 International 1

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

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

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

Corps legal services specialist. This two-week course provides

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

entries, and post-mast and post court-martial procedures. In fiscal

year 1999, the course was offered 19 times at Newport, Rhode Island,

San Diego, California, and Norfolk, Virginia. Fiscal year 1999

participants:

 Navy 330

 Marine Corps 50

 Civilian 2

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

continuing legal education programs throughout the fiscal year that

contained detailed instructions relating to the operation of the UCMJ.

These included:

Officer Courses Length

Reserve Judge Advocate Course Two weeks

Staff Judge Advocate Course Two weeks

Capital Litigation Course Three days

(Separate offerings for Prosecution and Defense) each

Intermediate Trial Advocacy Course One week

Advanced Trial Advocacy Course Two days

Coast Guard Law Specialist Course Two days

Computer Crimes Two days

National College of District Attorneys Course One week
10

Enlisted Courses Length

Reserve Legalman Course Two weeks

Legalman Legal Writing One week

Army Reserve Court Reporting Course Two weeks

Military Justice Course for the Staff Judge

Advocate/Command Judge Advocate/Shipboard LN One week

NLSO/TSO Legalman Course Three days

Coast Guard Legal Clerk Course Three weeks

Senior Legalman Course One week

International Programs. In fiscal year 1998, NJS introduced the

Legal Considerations for Peacekeeping and Military Operations Course.

In fiscal year 1999, 51 students from 32 countries attended the Fall

and Spring offerings of this five-week resident course held in

Newport, Rhode Island. The course covers topics including

International Law, UN Organizations, UN Charter, Regional

Organizations, Humanitarian Relief Organizations, Non-Governmental

Organizations, Law of Armed Conflict, Rules of Engagement, Status of

Forces Agreements, National Policy for Peace Operations, Legal Issues

Regarding Demining and Preventive Diplomacy. The students hear from

notable guest speakers, engage in interactive group problems and take

field trips to Washington, D.C. and UN Headquarters in New York City.

In the past two years, 106 students have completed the course.

The Defense Institute of International Legal Studies (DIILS) has

presented programs to over 11,000 senior military and civilian

government officials in 70 countries worldwide since its inception in

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

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

and develop military justice systems in emerging democracies. In

fiscal year 1999, DIILS presented 43 weeks of seminars in 31

developing nations. Significantly, 25 percent of the participants have

been civilian members of these governments who determine policy and

create new military justice codes.

Publications. NJS is responsible for the publication of the

Naval Law Review, all materials in support of academic programs, and

any additional materials directed by higher authorities. NJS will be

publishing Volume 46 of the Naval Law Review which will contain

several articles related to Operational and International Law and

Military Justice. NJS is constantly updating study guides and other

textual material.

MARINE CORPS ACTIVITIES

The Marine Corps judge advocate community consisted of

approximately 402 judge advocates during fiscal year 1999. Nearly

half of all judge advocates were company grade officers, in pay grade

0-3 or below. Forty-five officers were new accessions, ordered to

begin their period of active duty at The Basic School in Quantico,
11

Virginia. In addition to the new accessions, 10 officers graduated

from ABA-accredited law schools by way of government-sponsored law

education programs. Four of these officers graduated from the Funded

Law Education Program (FLEP) and six graduated from the Excess Leave

Program (ELP)(LAW). Twelve officers are currently assigned to FLEP

and 16 are now attending law school under the ELP(LAW).

Thirteen judge advocates attended resident professional military

education courses in fiscal year 1999. Five majors and two lieutenant

colonels received LL.M. degrees from the graduate course at the Army

Judge Advocate General's School, Charlottesville, Virginia. Three

captains completed the Amphibious Warfare School, Quantico, Virginia,

and one lieutenant colonel completed the Marine Corps Command and

Staff Course, Quantico, Virginia. One lieutenant colonel and one

colonel completed top-level schools and two majors received LL.M.

degrees through the Special Education Program (SEP). Twelve officers

are currently attending resident professional military education

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

Marine Corps judge advocates continued to fill numerous non-legal

billets. At the end of the fiscal year, five judge advocates were

serving in command billets: Company F, Marine Security Guard

Battalion, Frankfurt, Germany; Marine Corps Security Forces, Kings

Bay, Georgia; Headquarters Battalion, Marine Corps Base, Hawaii;

Headquarters and Service Battalion, Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San

Diego, California; and Security Battalion, Marine Corps Base,

Quantico, Virginia. Ten judge advocates continued to serve in joint

billets.

The Marine Corps Reserve judge advocate community averaged 395

officers during fiscal year 1999. Approximately 275 of these officers

were actively participating in the Reserves. Fourteen reserve judge

advocates, major through colonel, serve as appellate counsel in the

Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Review Activity. Reserve judge advocates

serve at bases and stations throughout the country and overseas. They

provide legal support alongside, and are indistinguishable from, their

active duty counterparts in billets ranging from instructors at Naval

Justice School to legal assistance attorneys at Marine Corps Base,

Camp Pendleton, California. Reserve judge advocates also serve in

non-legal billets at various combat arms and supporting commands.

JOHN D. HUTSON

Rear Admiral, USN

The Judge Advocate General of the Navy
Page 1 of 2

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

Report Period: FY 1999

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons)

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/

DECREASE (-) OVER

LAST REPORT

GENERAL 349 317 31 -25.7%

BCD SPECIAL 2102 2009 93 -9.4%

NON-BCD SPECIAL 0 0 0 0%

SUMMARY 1565 1529 36 -12.2%

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT -12.2%

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL)

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 114

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 165

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( SA LEVEL)

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 1533

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 328

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1356

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 36

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

 APPEALS

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 1495

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 453

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1042

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 1727

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 344

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1383

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 1894

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 400

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1494

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 1330

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 399

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 931

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD -24.8%

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

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

NUMBER 1727

PERCENTAGE 100%

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

 (CAAF)

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 344 18%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +2%

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 56 16%

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

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CCA 3%

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD -14%
Page 2 of 2

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

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 12

RECEIVED 21

DISPOSED OF 16

 GRANTED 1

 DENIED 15

 NO JURISDICTION

 WITHDRAWN

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 17

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 256

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1965

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 93

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 137

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 201

PART 10 – STRENGTH

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 544,896

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ)

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 28,565

RATE PER 1,000 5.2

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD -9.5%
REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE AIR FORCE

OCTOBER 1, 1998 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1999

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

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

Judge Advocate General made official staff inspections of field legal

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

participated in various bar association meetings and addressed many

civic, professional, and military organizations.

THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

The Court’s workload remained relatively stable over the past

three years; however, the Court’s production dropped from the previous

year. This is directly attributable to the reduction in the Court’s

manning. The Court began the fiscal year with seven judges. However,

in December 1998, Judge Morgan retired, and in March 1999, Chief Judge

Rothenburg retired. From April 1999 until late August 1999, the Court

had only five judges. Also, during this time period, the Court had

two Honors Law Clerks instead of three. By the end of the fiscal

year, the Court was fully manned with nine judges. Judge Wilcox,

Judge Burd, Judge Head, and Judge Roberts joined the Court.

Production should increase in 2000 now that the Court is fully manned.

The Court’s newly renovated courtroom was dedicated in April

1999.

Technologically, the Court has refined its Internet web page

(http://afcca.law.af.mil), which now includes the most recent

memorandum (unpublished) opinions. Appellate Government and Appellate

Defense Counsel can access Electronic Filing on the web page to file

Motions for Enlargement of Time with the Court. In the future,

counsel will also have the capability to file other motions

electronically.

USAF JUDICIARY ORGANIZATION

The USAF Judiciary Directorate has responsibility for overseeing

the administration of military justice throughout the United States

Air Force, from nonjudicial proceedings to the appellate review of

courts-martial. Additionally, the Directorate has the staff

responsibility of the Air Force Legal Services Agency in all military

justice matters which arise in connection with programs, special

projects, studies, and inquiries generated by the Department of

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

agencies. The Judiciary Directorate consists of the Trial Judiciary

Division, Government Trial and Appellate Counsel Division, Appellate

Defense Division, Trial Defense Division, Military Justice Division,

and the Clemency, Corrections and Officer Review Division.
2

TRIAL JUDICIARY DIVISION

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

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

assigned throughout 5 judiciary circuits worldwide. The Chief Trial

Judge, his military judge assistant and one noncommissioned officer

are assigned to the Trial Judiciary headquarters. The military

judges’ duties include: presiding over all general and special courtsmartial tried in the United States Air Force; serving as investigating

officers under Article 32, UCMJ; legal advisors for officer discharge

boards and other administrative boards; and hearing officers at public

hearings held to consider draft environmental impact statements.

During the year, military judges averaged approximately 125 days on

temporary duty to perform these functions at locations other than

their bases of assignment.

The Chief Trial Judge made supervisory visits to all three CONUS

circuits and both of the overseas circuits to review workload and

facilities. The Trial Judiciary has a Website on the Internet for

trial judges. The Website contains reference materials and is updated

continually.

The Twenty-Fifth Interservice Military Judges’ Seminar was

conducted by the Trial Judiciary at The Air Force Judge Advocate

General School, Maxwell AFB, Alabama, from 12 through 16 April 1999.

This seminar was attended by 105 military judges from the trial

judiciaries of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and the Air

Force. The 1999 program included a PROJECT OUTREACH oral argument

before the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. All

of the military judges attending the Interservice Seminar and a large

number of Maxwell’s professional military education students and

faculty attended the PROJECT OUTREACH argument.

Seven active duty trial judges attended the 3-week Military

Judges’ Course conducted by The Army Judge Advocate General’s School

in Charlottesville, Virginia, from 3 through 21 May 1999. In

September 1999, one active duty judge attended the Trying Capital

Cases Course in Reno, Nevada, conducted by the National Judicial

College. In July 1999, 6 active duty military judges attended the

Special Problems in Criminal Evidence Course in Reno, Nevada.

The Chief Trial Judge attended both the mid-year and the annual

meeting of the American Bar Association in Atlanta, Georgia, in August

1999. He serves on the Executive Committee of the National Conference

of Special Court Judges and as Co-Chair of the Military Courts
3

Committee. He also serves as the Chair of the Military Courts

Committee of the Judiciary Division, Federal Bar Association. These

interactions with civilian judges are most beneficial in promoting a

greater mutual understanding of the military and civilian justice

systems and the roles of military and civilian judges.

GOVERNMENT TRIAL & APPELLATE COUNSEL DIVISION

Appellate Government Counsel

In November 1998, the Chief, Trial and Appellate Government

Counsel Division and four appellate counsel traveled to The Army Judge

Advocate General’s School to attend the Criminal Law New Developments

Course. This course covered the latest military cases in all

significant areas of criminal law. In addition to providing the

newest counsel an update in the most recent criminal law developments,

it was an opportunity for both appellate counsel and trial counsel to

spend several hours together and discuss ways to better serve the base

legal offices.

Appellate government counsel helped develop and plan the annual

Military Justice Administration Workshop (MJAW) designed to assist

numbered Air Force and base legal offices in understanding the

complexities and problems associated with administering a military

justice program. In December 1998, the JAJG Division Chief and two

other appellate government counsel taught at the MJAW conducted at the

Air Force Judge Advocate General School at Maxwell AFB, Alabama.

Likewise, two appellate government counsel also provided instruction

at the MJAW sponsored by HQ AFSPC/JA and conducted at the Air Force

Academy in March 1999.

Appellate government counsel also prepared and provided an

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

for each of the trial counsel workshops in the five judicial circuits.

Additionally, appellate government counsel provided instruction on

myriad military justice topics at the Trial and Defense Advocacy

Course, the Advanced Trial and Defense Advocacy Course, and the Staff

Judge Advocate Course conducted at the Air Force Judge Advocate

General School.

The Trial and Appellate Government Counsel Division continues to

manage the Advocacy Continuing Education (ACE) Program. The web page

dedicated to the ACE Program is routinely updated with materials of

assistance to trial counsel worldwide, including the Trial Counsel

Deskbook annually prepared by appellate government counsel. Easy

access to these materials supplements the briefing provided by

appellate government counsel at the Trial and Defense Advocacy Course

and the Advanced Trial and Defense Advocacy Course.
4

Appellate government counsel have contributed to “PROJECT

OUTREACH,” sponsored by USCAAF and the AFCCA, by conducting oral

arguments before audiences at the United States Air Force Academy and

the Air Force Judge Advocate General School, educating personnel about

the fairness and professionalism of the military justice system.

Currently there are seven reserve judge advocates assigned as

appellate government counsel. They continue to provide superb

support, greatly assisting the Trial and Appellate Government Counsel

Division in carrying out its mission. In addition to preparing

written briefs, three reserve counsel presented oral argument before

the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals or the Court of Appeals for

the Armed Forces during the fiscal year.

Appellate practice before USCAAF and AFCCA is cyclic as indicated

below.

AFCCA FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99

Briefs Filed 412 329 434 320 230

Cases Argued 33 27 22 10 11

USCAAF FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99

Briefs Filed 71 80 85 48 29

Cases Argued 33 52 58 59 27

SUPREME COURT FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99

Petition Waivers Filed 24 4 15 17 2

Briefs Filed 2 0 0 0 0

Circuit Trial Counsel

The manning authorizations for the fiscal year included 17

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

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

During fiscal year 1999, Circuit Trial Counsel tried 222 general

courts-martial or 55% of all general courts-martial. In addition,

Circuit Trial Counsel tried 53 special courts-martial and represented

government interests in 11 officer discharge boards held Air Force

wide. Several CTCs attended the Criminal Law New Developments Course

at the Army JAG School in Charlottesville, Virginia. The CTCs in all

five judicial circuits conducted workshops for base-level prosecutors.

Circuit Trial Counsel also utilize their talents by teaching as

adjunct instructors at the Trial and Defense Advocacy Course and the

Advanced Trial and Defense Advocacy Course.
5

APPELLATE DEFENSE COUNSEL DIVISION

With the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces’

decision to reverse the sentence in United States v. Simoy, the Air

Force no longer has any death penalty cases in the appellate process.

The division continues to provide death penalty litigation training to

at least two appellate defense counsel annually.

Issues concerning Articles 57a and 58b, UCMJ, have generally been

resolved and no longer compose a significant portion of this

division’s workload.

Appellate counsel continued to support trial defense counsel in

the field through active participation in Circuit Defense Counsel

Workshops. Counsel provided briefings at the workshops to field trial

defense practitioners on new developments in the military criminal

law. Appellate counsel also taught new Area Defense Counsel at Area

Defense Counsel Orientation Courses.

The following figures reflect the division’s workload in fiscal

year 1999 and the previous four years:

AFCCA FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99

Cases Briefed 592 534 505 603 507

Oral Arguments 33 23 22 10 9

USCAAF FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99

Supplements

To Petitions 473 589 527 424 416

Grant Briefs 39 39 85 40 26

Oral Arguments 40 45 58 59 23

SUPREME COURT FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99

Petitions 26 5 13 17 0

Briefs in Opposition 0 2 2 1 0

Briefs on the Merits 0 1 1 0 0

TRIAL DEFENSE DIVISION

The Trial Defense Division is responsible for providing all

defense services within the Air Force through Area Defense Counsel

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

Chief Circuit Defense Counsel (CCDC). These personnel report directly

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

Director, United States Air Force Judiciary (JAJ).
6

The Division is manned with 81 ADCs stationed at 71 bases worldwide. They received support from 72 DPs. The Division has 21 CDCs

and 5 CCDCs. The CCDCs, along with all but four of the CDCs, are

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

Travis AFB, CA; Ramstein AB, Germany; and Yokota AB, Japan. A single

defense paralegal is assigned to each of the three CONUS circuits.

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

largely attributable to its independence and its energized personnel.

Other than advising and representing clients, training remains the

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

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

receive formal training at the Area Defense Counsel Orientation and at

various Circuit-sponsored workshops. DP training was broadened in

1998 with the introduction of Circuit DP Conferences and the added

training continues to strengthen the provision of defense services.

The Division also provided adjunct faculty members for the Trial and

Defense Advocacy Course and the Advanced Trial Advocacy Course, held

at the Air Force Judge Advocate General School, Maxwell AFB, AL.

MILITARY JUSTICE DIVISION

The Military Justice Division prepares opinions and policy

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

for Correction of Military Records. They also assemble reports on

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

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

Service Committee on Military Justice (JSC). The division chief is

also the current chairman of the JSC. The division also provided

representatives to all interservice activities involving military

justice and support for the Code Committee.

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

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

on applications submitted to the Air Force Board for Correction of

Military Records. The Division provided 98 formal opinions concerning

such applications. They also received 316 inquiries in specific cases

requiring either formal written replies or telephonic replies to

senior officials, including the President and members of Congress.

The Military Justice Division also reviewed 69 records of trial for

review under Article 69a, UCMJ; 6 records under Article 69b. The

Division also co-developed, planned and taught the annual Military

Justice Administration Workshops with the Government Trial & Appellate

Counsel Division.
7

The Military Justice Division has also conducted several major

training projects in the area of Victim Witness Assistance (VWAP).

Over the past year we traveled to two installations in Europe and six

installations in the Pacific. Approximately 400 judge advocates,

chaplains, first sergeants, security forces personnel, and health care

professionals attended the training sessions. The Division also

provided VWAP training to military judges at the Interservice Military

Judges Seminar and the new judges course. Approximately 150 military

judges were trained at these two courses. Division personnel assisted

with training provided at the National Symposium on Victims of Federal

Crime. Thirty-nine Air Force members from various Air Force career

fields attended the national symposium. Finally, a representative

from the Division attended the Gulf Coast Conference on Violence and

Its Aftermath where they briefed on the DoD VWAP Program.

CLEMENCY, CORRECTIONS & OFFICER REVIEW DIVISION

The primary responsibilities of the Clemency, Corrections and

Officer Review Division are to (1) recommend appropriate disposition

of statutorily required sentence review actions by the Secretary of

the Air Force in officer and cadet dismissal cases; (2) recommend

action by The Judge Advocate General or the Secretary of the Air

Force, as appropriate, to effect statutorily authorized clemency for

members of the Air Force under court-martial sentence; (3) represent

The Judge Advocate General on the Air Force Clemency and Parole Board;

(4) make recommendations for the Secretary of the Air Force to the

Attorney General on Presidential Pardon applications by courtmartialed Air Force members; and (5) advise The Judge Advocate General

and the Security Forces Command on correction issues.

Confinement

At the end of fiscal year 1999, a total of 526 Air Force personnel

were in confinement. Of those, 158 inmates were in long-term

confinement at the United States Disciplinary Barracks (USDB), Fort

Leavenworth, Kansas, and 88 were serving time in the Federal Bureau of

Prisons (BOP) system. There were six inmates in the Return-to-Duty

Rehabilitation (RTDR) Program, with none graduating and being returned

to duty during this period. The number of Air Force inmates on parole

at the end of fiscal year 1999 was 136, an 11 percent decrease from

last fiscal year.

AIR FORCE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL SCHOOL

The Air Force Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) School is one of

seven professional continuing education schools organizationally

aligned as part of Air University’s Ira C. Eaker College for

Professional Development at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. The
8

William L. Dickinson Law Center is home to the school, and the David

C. Morehouse Center supports Paralegal Studies. The JAG School

conducts legal education for attorneys and paralegals from all

military services; provides instruction at other Air University

schools and colleges; publishes The Reporter, The Military Commander

and the Law, and The Air Force Law Review; and maintains JAG

Department liaison with civilian professional organizations, law

schools, and states requiring continuing legal education.

Resident Courses

The JAG School conducted some 45 classes in-residence covering 30

different courses (some courses are held more than once a year), which

were attended by approximately 3,600 students. Courses, seminars, and

workshops conducted at the AFJAGS included:

 Advanced Environmental Law

 Advanced Labor and Employment Law

 Advanced Trial Advocacy

 Aircraft Accident Investigation Legal Advisor

 Claims and Tort Litigation

 Deployed Air Reserve Components Operations and Law

 Environmental Law

 Environmental Law Update

 Federal Employee Labor Law

 Federal Income Tax Law

 International Law

 Judge Advocate Staff Officer

 Law Office Manager

 Law Technology

 Legal Aspects of Information Operations

 Military Judge

 Military Justice Administration

 Negotiations and Appropriate Dispute Resolution

 Operations Law

 Paralegal Apprentice

 Paralegal Craftsman

 Reserve Component WebFLITE

 Reserve Forces Judge Advocate

 Reserve Forces Paralegal

 Staff Judge Advocate

 Trial and Defense Advocacy

In addition to this resident course curriculum, the JAG School

conducted four “Surveys of the Law” for judge advocates and paralegals

in the reserve components at a civilian conference center in Denver,

Colorado. The surveys provide concentrated legal updates and included

extensive reviews of recent development in military justice and civil
9

law. During fiscal year 1999, over 600 reserve and Air National Guard

judge advocates and paralegals attended the JAG School Surveys of the

Law. In addition, the JAG School conducted a PACOM CLE tour to update

Air Force, Army, and Navy personnel assigned overseas on a host of

legal topics, including military justice and professional ethics.

Distance Learning Courses

The JAG School utilizes distance learning for those educational

offerings that lend themselves to effective teaching through this

medium. The school presented two courses, the Air Force Systems and

Logistics Contracting Course and the Fiscal Law Course via teleseminar

(satellite downlink) to over 50 locations attended by more than 2000

personnel. In addition, the 5-skill level Paralegal Journeyman Course

is offered as a non-resident, distance learning course in both paperbased and CD-ROM versions. The CD-ROM version was the first career

development course in Air Force history to be offered in multimedia CD

format.

Outside Teaching

In addition to the resident courses, the JAG School faculty

provided military justice instruction in the following colleges,

schools, academies, and courses within Air University: Air War

College; Air Command and Staff College; Squadron Officer School;

College of Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and Education; International

Officers School; Basic Officers’ Training Course; Commissioned

Officers’ Training Course; USAF First Sergeant Academy; Senior

Noncommissioned Officer Academy; Group Commanders’ Course, and the

Chaplain Orientation Course.

In FY 99, the JAG School faculty participated in the Expanded

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

several Security Assistance Programs mandated by Congress (22 U.S.C.

2347). The program is designed to further U.S. foreign policy goals

as established in the Foreign Assistance Act. The E-IMET Program

involves joint U.S. military teaching teams sent abroad to teach human

rights, military justice, civilian control of the military, law of

armed conflict, rules of engagement, and general democratic

principles.

Publications

The school published two issues of The Air Force Law Review, a

professional legal journal consisting of articles of interest to Air

Force judge advocates, civilian attorney advisors, and other military

lawyers. The Air Force Law Review is a scholarly publication that

encourages frank discussion of relevant legislative, administrative,

and judicial developments. Additionally, four issues of The Reporter,
10

the JAG Department’s quarterly legal publication containing articles

of general interest, were distributed in December, March, June, and

September. Each issue of The Reporter has two sections dedicated to

contemporary military justice issues. A third section addresses

ethical issues that have surfaced in the military justice context.

The school updated and redistributed substantial numbers of its most

popular publication, The Military Commander and the Law, a 600+ page

compendium of legal topics addressing the issues confronting today’s

Air Force commanders. The Military Commander and the Law is also

available to military users on WebFLITE, where it is revised every six

months.

LEGAL INFORMATION SERVICES

FLITE (Federal Legal Information Through Electronics) continued

its proud tradition of legal information technology innovation for the

Department of Defense (DoD). FLITE usage continues to grow as more

legal professionals take advantage of the cutting edge communication,

information management, and computer assisted legal research functions

of the various FLITE systems. Of significant note this year, the Air

Force Court of Criminal Appeals’ electronic filing system, developed

at FLITE, was deployed and is in use today. FLITE hopes to work with

other interested Courts of Criminal Appeals and/or the United States

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to field similar systems in the

future. In addition, a beta version of a DoD Electronic Reading Room

has been developed for the three Boards of Correction of Military

Records and the three Discharge Review Boards. This web site,

complete with searchable decisional documents, is scheduled to become

operational early in calendar year 2000. FLITE also fielded a new

SIPRNET (Secret Internet Protocol Router Network) product, C-FLITE,

which now provides a place for classified legal materials. Finally,

FLITE is in the process of making technological enhancements to its

premier product, WebFLITE, which may allow portions of it to become

available to all DoD legal professionals, at no cost, sometime in

fiscal year 2000.

The Automated Military Justice Administrative Management System

(AMJAMS), known as AMJAMS III, is currently released to the field as

version 3.0. The trial judiciary and appellate modules are complete

and in use. Redesigned up-to-the-minute reports are available to all

users via the internet. The recently added investigations module

facilitates tracking of pending cases prior to an Article 15 being

offered or courts-martial charges being preferred. The addition of

five new reports and the adhoc query function greatly enhances the

usefulness of the database. AMJAMS currently facilitates tracking of

all military justice actions from cradle to grave while providing

managers with the necessary tools to manage their local programs.
11

As a result of technological advancements in the voice

recognition court reporting systems, the JAS Resource Management

Division has set up a meeting during the second quarter of FY00 at

Keesler AFB. Attendees at this meeting will include court reporters,

members of the judiciary and legal information services and a

representative from AudioScribe Corporation. These individuals will

meet to evaluate the new version of the voice recognition court

reporting system including the appropriate hardware and software

requirements.

PERSONNEL

As of 30 September 1999, there were 1,330 judge advocates on

duty. Company grade officers (captains and first lieutenants) made up

slightly over half of that number (671). Nearly 25% were majors (321)

and the remaining 15% lieutenant colonels (210). Roughly 10% were

colonels (123) and above, including two major generals and three

brigadier generals.

WILLIAM A. MOORMAN

Major General, USAF

The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force
Page 1 of 2

APPENDIX - U. S. AIR FORCE MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

Report Period: FISCAL YEAR 1999

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons)

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/

DECREASE (-) OVER

LAST REPORT

GENERAL 421 396 25 -4.75%

BCD SPECIAL 333 313 20 9.54%

NON-BCD SPECIAL [A]

SUMMARY 91 90 1 19.74%

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

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL)

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 52

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 225

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL)

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 113

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 336

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 121

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 87

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

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 354

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 275

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 79

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 465

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 342

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 123

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 483

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 344

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 139

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 336

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 273

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 63

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD (576:483) -16.15%

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

 U.S. AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (CCA)

NUMBER 463

PERCENTAGE 99.57%

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

 (CAAF)

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF (412/483) 85.30%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -16.15%

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED (28/412) 6.80%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -62.16%

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CCA (28/483) 5.80%

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD (457:412) -9.85%
Page 2 of 2

APPENDIX - U.S. AIR FORCE MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS - CONT’D

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 2

RECEIVED 6

DISPOSED OF 6

 GRANTED 0

 DENIED 6

 NO JURISDICTION 0

 WITHDRAWN 0

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 2

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 238

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 178

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 183

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 155

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 11

PART 10 – STRENGTH

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 358,353

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ)

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 8243

RATE PER 1,000 23

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD 3.24%

EXPLANATORY NOTES

 

[A] The Air Force does not convene Non-BCD SPCMs. Of the 333 BCD SPCMs tried, there were 143 convictions with a

 BCD adjudged and 190 convictions without a BCD adjudged.
REPORT OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL OF THE COAST GUARD

OCTOBER 1, 1998 to SEPTEMBER 30, 1999

NOTE: All statistics presented in this analysis are based upon the

number of court-martial records received and filed at Coast Guard

Headquarters during fiscal year 1999 and, where indicated, records

received during each of the five preceding years. Further, all

undated statistics refer to courts-martial in which the record was

received in fiscal year 1999.

Fiscal Year 99 98 97 96 95 94

General Courts-Martial 6 18 6 22 11 9

Special Courts-Martial 17 21 9 16 8 23

Summary Courts-Martial 3 8 10 14 14 15

Total 26 47 25 52 33 47

COURTS-MARTIAL

Attorney counsel were detailed to all special courts-martial.

Military judges were detailed to all special courts-martial. For most

cases, the presiding judge was the Chief Trial Judge, a full-time

general courts-martial judge. When the Chief Trial Judge was

unavailable, military judges with other primary duties were used for

special courts-martial. Control of the detail of judges was centrally

exercised by the Chief Trial Judge and all requirements were met in a

timely fashion.

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL

Four of the six accused tried by general courts-martial this

fiscal year were tried by military judge alone. None of the four

accused tried by military judge alone received a dishonorable

discharge and three received a bad-conduct discharge. Two accused

elected to be tried by general courts-martial that included enlisted

members. Both of the accused tried by general courts-martial with

members received sentences that included bad-conduct discharges. All

of the general courts-martial resulted in convictions. Two of the

accused whose charges were referred to general courts-martial were

nonrated (pay grades E-1 through E-3), four were petty officers (pay

grades E-4 through E-6), none were chief petty officers (pay grades E7 through E-9), and none was a warrant officer or junior officer (W-1

through O-3).
2

The following is a breakdown of the sentences adjudged in general

courts-martial tried by military judge alone (four convictions):

Sentence Cases Imposed

dishonorable discharge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

bad-conduct discharge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3

confinement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4

hard labor without confinement- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

reduction in pay-grade - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4

fined (total $0.00).- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

restriction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

forfeiture of all pay and allowances - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

partial forfeiture of pay and allowances - - - - - - - - - - - 0

The following is a breakdown of sentences adjudged in general

courts-martial tried by members (two convictions).

Sentence Cases Imposed

dishonorable discharge- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

bad-conduct discharge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

confinement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

hard labor without confinement- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

reduction in pay-grade - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

fined (total $0.00) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

restriction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

forfeiture of all pay and allowances - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

partial forfeiture of pay and allowances - - - - - - - - - - - 0

The following indicates the frequency of imposition of the four

most common punishments imposed by general courts-martial in the past

five fiscal years.

 Reduction Punitive

 Number of in Discharge/

FY Convictions Forfeitures Confinement Pay-Grade Dismissal 

99 6 0 (0%) 6 (100%) 6 (100%) 5 (83%)

98 17 5 (29%) 12 (71%) 16 (94%) 11 (65%)

97 6 2 (33%) 4 (67%) 5 (83%) 4 (67%)

96 22 15 (68%) 19 (86%) 20 (91%) 18 (82%)

95 11 6 (55%) 10 (91%) 9 (82%) 7 (64%)
3

The following table shows the distribution of the 99

specifications referred to general courts-martial in fiscal year 1999.

Violation of the UCMJ, Article No. of Specs.

 80 (attempts) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

 81 (conspiracy) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

 83 (fraudulent enlistment)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

 85 (desertion) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

 86 (absence without leave)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3

 87 (missing movement) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

 89 (disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer - - - 1

 90 (assaulting or willfully disobeying a superior

 commissioned officer) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

 92 (failure to obey order or regulation) - - - - - - - - - 25

 93 (cruelty and maltreatment) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3

107 (false official statement) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3

108 (wrongful disposition of military property)- - - - - - - 0

109 (waste, spoilage, or destruction of government property) 1

112a (wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled

 substances) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

116 (riot or breach of the peace) - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

117 (provoking speech or gestures) - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

120 (rape or carnal knowledge) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3

121 (larceny or wrongful appropriation) - - - - - - - - - - 14

123 (forgery) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7

123a (making, drawing or uttering check, draft, or order

 without sufficient funds) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

125 (sodomy) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4

128 (assault)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3

129 (burglary) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

133 (conduct unbecoming an officer) - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

134 (general) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 31

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL SUMMARY

There was a 67% decrease from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year

1999 in general courts-martial records received and filed at Coast

Guard Headquarters. Due to the small size of the Coast Guard this

change is not statistically significant when viewed as a single-year

change. Over the past 5 years the Coast Guard has averaged 13 general

courts-martial per year. Sixty-seven per cent of the accused tried by

general courts-martial during fiscal year 1999 were tried by military

judge alone. Twenty-five per cent of these accused pled guilty to all

charges and specifications. Fifty per cent of the accused tried by

general courts-martial with members pled guilty to all charges and

specifications.
4

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

Sixteen of the seventeen accused tried by special courts-martial

this fiscal year were tried by military judge alone. Eight received a

bad-conduct discharge. The one accused tried by a special courtmartial with members received a sentence that included a bad-conduct

discharge. No accused elected to be tried by a special court-martial

that included enlisted members. All of the special courts-martial

resulted in convictions. Seven of the accused whose charges were

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

through E-3), nine were petty officers (pay grades E-4 through E-6),

one accused was a chief petty officer (pay grades E-7 through E-9),

and no accuseds were warrant officers or junior officers (W-1 through

O-3).

The following is a breakdown of the sentences adjudged in special

courts-martial tried by military judge alone (16 convictions).

Sentence Cases Imposed

bad-conduct discharge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8

confinement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15

hard labor without confinement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

reduction in pay-grade - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15

fined (total $7,500.00) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

restriction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

partial forfeiture of pay and allowances- - - - - - - - - - - 8

reprimand - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

The following is a breakdown of the sentence adjudged in the

special court-martial tried by members (one conviction).

Sentence Cases Imposed

bad-conduct discharge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

confinement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

hard labor without confinement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

reduction in pay-grade- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

fined (total $0.00) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

restriction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

partial forfeiture of pay and allowances - - - - - - - - - - 0

reprimand - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
5

The following shows the four sentences imposed most by special

courts-martial in the past five fiscal years.

 Reduction

 Number of in

FY Convictions Forfeitures Confinement Pay-Grade BCD 

99 17 8 (47%) 15 (88%) 16 (94%) 9 (53%)

98 20 9 (45%) 9 (45%) 17 (85%) 4 (20%)

97 9 4 (44%) 6 (67%) 8 (89%) 5 (56%)

96 14 11 (79%) 10 (71%) 13 (93%) 7 (50%)

95 7 3 (43%) 5 (71%) 6 (86%) 2 (29%)

The following table shows the distribution of the 109

specifications referred to special courts-martial in fiscal year 1999.

Violation of the UCMJ, Article No. of Specs.

 80 (attempts). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6

 81 (conspiracy)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

 83 (fraudulent enlistment) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

 85 (desertion) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

 86 (unauthorized absence)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

 87 (missing movement)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

 90 (assaulting or willfully disobeying a superior

 commissioned officer) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

 92 (failure to obey order or regulation) - - - - - - - - - 9

 93 (cruelty and maltreatment)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6

107 (false official statements) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

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

 disposition of military property of the U.S.)- - - - - 0

112a (wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled

 substance) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 22

116 (riot or breach of the peace) - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

117 (provoking speech or gestures)- - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

121 (larceny or wrongful appropriation) - - - - - - - - - - 19

123 (forgery) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13

123a (insufficient funds)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

125 (sodomy) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

128 (aggravated assault)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

129 (burglary)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

133 (conduct unbecoming an officer) - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

134 (general) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 26

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL SUMMARY

There was a 19% decrease in special courts-martial received and

filed at Coast Guard Headquarters this fiscal year over last fiscal

year. Due to the small size of the Coast Guard this change is not

statistically significant when viewed as a single-year change. Over

the past five years the Coast Guard has averaged 14 special courts-
6

martial per year. Ninety-four per cent of the accused tried during

fiscal year 1999 by special courts-martial were tried by military

judge alone. Six per cent of these accused pled guilty to all charges

and specifications. None of the accused tried by special courtsmartial with members pled guilty to all charges and specifications.

CHIEF COUNSEL ACTION UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ

In addition to the required reviews of courts-martial

conducted as a result of petitions filed under Article 66, UCMJ,

a discretionary review was conducted under Article 69 of all courtsmartial not requiring appellate review.

PERSONNEL, ORGANIZATION, AND TRAINING

The Coast Guard has 171 officers designated as law specialists

(judge advocates) serving on active duty - 130 are serving in legal

billets and 41 are serving in general duty billets. Twenty Coast

Guard officers are currently undergoing postgraduate studies in law

and 19 will be certified as law specialists at the completion of their

studies (8 to graduate in 2000 including one with an LLM in Admiralty

Law, 6 will graduate in 2001 including one with an LLM in

International Law, and 6 will graduate in 2002). Nineteen Coast Guard

officers (6 funded postgraduate program studies and 13 directcommissioned lawyers) completed the Navy Basic Lawyer Course in

Newport, Rhode Island. All have been or are in the process of being

certified under Article 27(b), UCMJ.

U. S. COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

The judges for the U.S. Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals

during fiscal year 1999 were as follows:

Chief Judge Joseph H. Baum

Judge David J. Kantor

Judge Ronald R. Weston

Judge Lane I. McClelland

The Court normally sits in panels of three at U.S. Coast Guard

Headquarters in Washington, D.C. On 13 April 1999 the Court traveled

en banc to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut to

hear oral argument in the case of U.S. v. Frazier as part of “Project

Outreach,” a program instituted by the United States Court of Appeals

for the Armed Forces to take appellate hearings outside the

Washington, D.C. area, and thus, make the public more aware of the

military justice appellate process. Oral argument on the case was

held before the corps of cadets, faculty, and administration at the
7

Coast Guard Academy, Coast Guard law specialists, both active and

retired, from the surrounding area, and other guests. After the

hearing adjourned, in furtherance of “Project Outreach” objectives,

the judges and appellate counsel entertained questions from the

audience not pertaining to the case.

In addition to the decisional work of the Court, as reflected in

appendix A, the judges to the Court have been involved in various

professional conferences, committees and seminars during the past

fiscal year. In March 1999 the judges of the Court participated in

the William S. Fulton, Jr. Appellate Military Judges Conference at the

Federal Judicial Center in Washington, D.C. The conference was hosted

by the U.S. Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals and featured Chief

Judge Walter T. Cox III, who offered his perspective of the military

justice system from fifteen years on the bench of the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Armed Forces. The conference also included a

presentation by Professor James Strazzella of Temple University School

of Law on the “Art of Appellate Judging,” a talk by Major Martin H.

Sitler, USMC, of the Army Judge Advocate General’s School, on

Extraordinary Writs, and a presentation by Ms. Diane DiMarco from the

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on electronic filings. The

conference also included panel discussions with judges from the Air

Force Court on various issues facing our courts of criminal appeals.

The Air Force Court also hosted the annual Appellate Military Judges

Training Seminar, which was held on September 16 and 17, 1999, at the

Federal Judicial Center.

In May 1999 the judges of the Court attended the Judicial

Conference of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. This two-day

conference included presentations on a variety of topics, including

problems implementing Articles 57(a) and 58b, UCMJ, trickery and

deceit by law enforcement officers, various rules of evidence, ethical

questions, disobedience of orders and the law of war, and defending

high profile cases.

On 18 March 1999, Chief Judge Baum participated on a panel with

Chief Judge Cox and the Chief Judges from the other service Courts of

Criminal Appeals as part of the program for a Military Appellate

Advocacy Symposium at The Catholic University of America Columbus

School of Law. Chief Judge Baum also served another term this past

year as a member of the Rules Advisory Committee of the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Armed Forces, working on proposed rule changes for

that court. He continued to play an active role in the Federal Bar

Association as a member of the Pentagon Chapter and as immediate past

Chair of the Association’s Judiciary Division.
8

ADDITIONAL MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

Appendix A to this report contains basic military justice

statistics for the reporting period and reflects the increase/decrease

of the workload in various categories.

J. S. CARMICHAEL

Rear Admiral, USCG

Chief Counsel, U. S. Coast Guard
Page 1 of 2

APPENDIX - U.S. COAST GUARD MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

Report Period: 1 OCTOBER 1998 - 30 SEPTEMBER 1999

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons)

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/

DECREASE (-) OVER

LAST REPORT

GENERAL 6 6 0 -67%

BCD SPECIAL 17 17 -19%

NON-BCD SPECIAL 0 0 0 UNCHANGED

SUMMARY 3 3 0 -63%

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT -45%

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 6

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 16

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 6

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 5

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 9

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 2

PART 4 – WORKLOAD OF THE COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 23

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 15

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 8

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 15

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 6

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 9

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 20*

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 10

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 10

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 20

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 12

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 8

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD

 +82%

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

 U.S. COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (CCA)

NUMBER 15

PERCENTAGE 100%

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

 (CAAF)

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 2/20 10%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -63%

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 2/2 100%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +33%

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CGCCA 10%

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD -33%

* The CGCCA issued a decision on reconsideration in U.S. v. Tualla. Accordingly, there are two decisions for that case,

 accounting for 19 cases decided, with 20 decisions.
Page 2 of 2

APPENDIX - U.S. COAST GUARD MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS - CONT’D

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 0

RECEIVED 0

DISPOSED OF 0

 GRANTED 0

 DENIED 0

 NO JURISDICTION 0

 WITHDRAWN 0

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 0

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 4

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 16

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 2

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 3

PART 10 – STRENGTH

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 35,534

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ)

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 986

RATE PER 1,000 27.75

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD +6.32%