on 

MILITARY JUSTI

INCLUDING SEPARATE REPORTS 

of the 

U.S. COURT OF MILITARY APPEAL

THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERA

OF THE U.S. ARMED FORCES, 

AND THE CHIEF COUNSEL 

OF THE U.S. COAST GUARD 

For the Period 

October 1, 1989 to September 30, 1

t->HUPERTY OF U. S. ARMY 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL~§ 

LIBRARY 
SERVICES 

of the 

U.S. Senate and House of Repres

and to the 

SECRET ARY OF DEFENSE, 

SECRET ARY OF TRANSPORTATI

and 

SECRETARIES OF THE 

ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORC

PURSUANT TO THE 

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTIC

For the Period 

October 1, 1989-September 30, 199
REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

NAVY 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

AIR FORCE 

REPORT OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL OF THE COAST GUA
Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard; the Director, Ju

vision, Headquarters, United States Marine Corp

David A. Schlueter and Steven A. Saltzburg sub

report on the operation of the Uniform Code of 

pursuant to Article 67(g), Uniform Code of Military 

§ 867(g). 

The Code Committee met on three separate 

fiscal year 1990 and all meetings were open t

number of visitors attended each of these meetin

Committee was pleased that the public demonstrat

est in the matters being considered. The first me

Committee was held on January 30, 1990. Pursu

tion of the Code cOmmittee, the Chairman of 

Committee on Military Justice was present to disc

various proposals to amend the Uniform Code of 

Additionally, the Chairman discussed a proposed 

707, Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM), Manual fo

1984, which would modify the standards relating 

After some discussion over the matter the Code 

body declined to adopt any particular position t

matter. The Chairman then discussed a propose

Manual which would prohibit the admission into 

results of polygraph testing of a military accused. 

Pursuant to the invitation of the Chief Judg

States Court of Military Appeals the representativ

Services summarized the statistical data avail

recent trends in court-martial activity and other 

tions. In response to an inquiry by the Chief Judg

bers of the Code Committee noted that the recen

case of Solorio ,;. United States, 483 U.S. 435 (19

had very little impact throughout the military c

tionally, the members discussed the 1989 amendm

form Code of Military Justice which expanded th

tary Appeals from three to five judges and the var
required; an Article 32 amendment to authorize th

officer, when other unsworn charges are discovered

inquire into them without the present burden of firs

the convening authority for formal authorization 

scope of the Article 32 investigation; a change to Art

to permit an additional peremptory challenge w

members are added to a court-martial upon the exer

tory challenges, and to permit a military judge, w

martial membership falls below a quorum, to go forw

cle 39(a) sessions; and a change to Article 3 to solve a 

court-martial jurisdiction over a discharged servicem

enlists after having committed offenses prior to the 

Proposed amendments to the Manual for Court

also discussed which related to a requirement that a 

sel be provided to a servicemember within 72 hours 

tion of a request to military authorities for such cou

cation of rape shield law provisions to Article 32 pre

tions; a change to RCM 701 to establish sanctions fo

tions of discovery rules; an addition to RCM 920 to a

al civilian rule and allow a military judge to give 

court members before or after closing arguments b

amendment to RCM 704 to adopt the rule in federal 

concerning immunity requests; changes to RCM 910 

vide a shorter and more simplified form of pleading

in guilty plea cases; an addition to Military Rul

(MRE) 311 to adopt the rule in Harris v. New York

(1971), concerning the admissibility of a statement m

cused after an unlawful apprehension; an amendme

to provide clearer guidance on handling court-mart

involving classified information and the closed sessi

martial relating thereto; and the addition in parag

Manual for Courts-Martial to provide for a specific 

Article 134 for wrongful interference with an admini

under the "obstruction of justice" category. 

2 
impact of the Solorio decision was relatively slight i

community. 

The Clerk of the U.S. Court of Military Appeals 

overview of the work load goals of the Court and 

Court was endeavoring to bring its Master Docket o

granted petition cases as well as its Petition Docke

low as reasonably possible by the end of the 1989-

further reported that every effort possible was b

achieve another year in which the lowest number of 

would be carried over to the next term of Court. Th

then noted the pending death penalty case of Un

Curtis, Dkt. No. 63044/MC, which would be argued d

rent term of court With a large number of amicus 

participating in the 'oral argument. Concerning a

before the Court, the Chief Judge noted that a Spec

been appointed by the Court to inquire into the f

stances surrounding the extensive appellate proces

various cases which were being filed with the Cour

Chief Judge commended the Department of Defens

lent logistical and administrative support to the U.S

tary Appeals during the year. 

The members of the Code Committee next discus

relating to judge alone sentencing; a proposed amen

cle 26 to provide for continuing jurisdiction of the 

and a proposal to transfer control of the military c

cilities from the Department of Defense to the Fed

Prisons. 

The final meeting of the Code Committee during f

was held on September 28. The meeting began with 

the docket of the United States Court of Military A

which the Clerk of Court noted that the carryover ca

the Court's Petition Docket were expected to be red

ther than in the prior year and that, with the except

plex 'death-penalty case-United States v. Curtis-
by C

SPAN. He observed that the entire pilot pr

tremely well and that the cameras appeared to be ve

in the courtroom during the entire hearing. Anoth

the Code Committee expressed his view that the qu

vocacy on both sides in the Curtis hearing was very h

The Chairman of the Joint-Service Committee on 

tice was then asked to brief the Code Committee o

pending legislation to amend the Uniform Code of M

The Chairman noted that only three proposed amen

Uniform Code of Military Justice were reported ou

in the fiscal year 1991 Department of Defense Auth

These proposed amendments concerned (1) an amen

cle 39(a) permitting military judges to conduct sessio

require the presence of court members when the 

the court-martial has been temporarily reduced be

(2) an amendment to Article 41 requiring the parties 

waive any challenges for cause as to remaining mem

exercise of challenges for cause has temporarily red

bership of the court-martial below a quorum; and (3) 

Article 136 authorizing civilian legal assistance attor

by the Armed Services to have the general powe

public in all notarial acts to be executed by active du

reserve military personnel, and all others eligible f

ance, both overseas and within the United States. 

then observed that the Joint-Service Committee on M

had considered additional proposals to amend the U

Military Justice, including an amendment to Arti

would eliminate the spousal rape exemption and ma

gender neutral; a change to Article 51 wh,ich woul

sentencing in all courts-martial consisting of a mili

members would be determined by the military judge 

cused requested otherwise; an addition to Article 5

provide a means by which an accused whose convict

by a Court of Military Review and who has not yet c

4 
that a subcommittee would be appointed to consid

change. Additionally, proposed changes to Article 26 

jurisdiction of the military judge were referred to th

Committee on Military Justice for further study. 

mittee then discussed the impact of Operation D

military justice and legal manpower requirements 

Services. 

Concerning earlier discussions on the possible t

tary confinement facilities to the Bureau of Prisons

of the Code Committee was that the care of mi

should not be transferred to the Bureau of Prison

Code Committee was opposed to any such action. 

mittee also reviewed and discussed proposed chang

dling of an investigation of alleged judicial miscon

Armed Services. 

The Clerk of the United States Court of Military 

ed that the Court's Rules Advisory Committee ha

that the Court had approved and implemented a 

Judges after it had been published for comment 

Register and no comments were received. Additiona

that various proposals were being discussed to mod

rule for the Court in view of the expansion of th

judges, and that consideration was being given to r

rule that the vote of two judges would be sufficient 

a petition for review when the Court reaches full 

five judges. 

Finally, Judge Cox asked that the minutes of the 

the expression, of himself and Judge Sullivan for 

toward Chief Judge Everett for his fine leadership o

the Code Committee over the past ten years. Chief 

expressed his gratitude to the members of the Code 
Rear Admiral JOHN E. GORDON, USN 

Judge Advocate General of the Navy 

Major General KEITHE E. NELSON, USAF 

Judge Advocate General of the Air Force 

Rear Admiral PAULE. VERSAW, USCG 

Chief Counsel, United States Coast Guard 

Brigadier General GERALD L. MILLER, USMC, 

Director, Judge Advocate Division, 

Headquarters, United States Marine Corps 

Professor DAVID A. SCHLUETER 

Professor STEPHEN A. SALTZBURG 

6 
p

Secretaries of Defense, Transportation, Army, Navy

in accordance with Article 67(g), Uniform Code of M

10 USC § 867(g). 

THE BUSINESS OF THE COUR

The trend in the overall reduction of pending c

reflected in fiscal years 1986 through 1989 continu

year 1990. Specifically, the number of pending case

Docket was reduced from 260 cases at the end of 19

at the end of 1990 .. (See Appendix A.) While the Co

an increase in the number of pending cases on its 

during the same period (48 to 72), every case filed 

Miscellaneous Docket had been finally disposed o

1990. (See Appendix B.) Thus an overall total of onl

carried over to be decided in the following term of 

resents a reduction of 13 percent in the number o

carried over between the end of fiscal year 1989 and 

current fiscal year. During the course of 1990 the C

arguments in 100 cases, an increase of 13 percent 

the Court heard oral argument in only 89 cases. (Se

Only one case that had been argued during 1990-

case-was remaining on the docket of the Court at t

year 1990. The Court issued 105 opinions during 1

rate opinions (concurring or dissenting) being filed 

cases. 1 This represents a decrease of 12 percent over 

Court issued 120 opinions. (See Appendix D.) Ho

crease in the number of opinions released during 19

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

1990 the Court was notified that petitions for writ of certiorari 

Supreme Court of the United States in 21 Master Docket cases 

took final action. 
a final decision was reduced by 20 percent from 1

days. (See Appendix G .) Thus, the total average pro

cases which received plenary consideration by the 

the filing of a petition on the Petition Docket and 

on the Master Docket was reduced by 30 percent fr

1989 to 269 days in 1990. (See Appendix H.) This ma

ment equaled a similar reduction of 30 percent in th

case processing time achieved by the Court's previo

fiscal year 1989. 

Computation of these case processing times includ

allotted for counsel to file pleadings. Therefore, 

briefing cycle under the Court's Rules of Practice 

requires 70 days for the filing of briefs in cases 

Docket, the average period for the actual considerat

tion of a case by the Court after the filing of such p

nificantly less than the average times indicated in A

andH. 

The above discussion of processing times concerns 

cases in which petitions for grant of review have b

the Court for plenary consideration. Examination 

trend for cases finally disposed of on the Court's P

involving denial or dismissal of petitions for gran

flects an average high of 80 days in fiscal year 1987 

low of 55 days in 1989. The processing time for fisca

slight increase of 2 days to an average of 57 days. 

H.) 

In addition to the review work of the Court it is 

the first time in the history of the Court, the Chie

United States, acting under authority of a recent 

Uniform Code of Military Justice, designated a Jud

States Court of Appeals to sit in place of a Judge 

States Court of Military Appeals, who had recuse

hearing and deciding a particular case. The entire 

administratively accomplished without encounterin

8 
has found that this public awareness project has pr

of the Armed Services as well as the civilian comm

tunity to gain a greater appreciation of the proce

Congress has established for the military justice sy

ly, the Court conducted an actual appellate hearin

States Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, 

Mary's University School of Law, San Antonio, Tex

tion of the Bar of the City of New York, New York

States Military Academy, West Point, New York. 

provided the judges an opportunity to meet with b

the Armed Services and civilians who were intere

tary justice system. Such off-site hearings have p

creased public awareness of the role of the Court in 

ministration of military justice and have provided 

for a greater public understanding of the militar

and the manner in which it is administered throug

During fiscal year 1990 the Court also participa

live telecast of an oral argument conducted before 

On August 29, 1990, the case of United States v. 

63044/MC, a case involving capital punishment, w

by C-SPAN. Thus, nationwide viewers were provide

ty to observe the presentations of oral orgument b

senting the military accused and the United Stat

number of other lawyers representing various assoc

ed in the issue of capital punishment. By providin

portunity to observe such an important hearing th

that the public will be better informed of the pro

the military justice system to protect the rights of 

vicemember as well as the United States. 

JUDICIAL VISITATIONS 

During fiscal year 1990, the Judges of the Court, 

past practice and their ethical responsibility to im
he has led the Court by authoring numerous opini

significantly contributed to the substantive and proc

military criminal law, as well as by his perceptive 

developing the Court's computerized manageme

system and in establishing such educational p

projects as off-site court hearings and televised cou

His term expires concurrently with the effective d

tive amendment to the Uniform Code of Military Ju

panded the Court from three to five judges. Cons

dedication to the Court and to the overall adminis

tary justice, and at the request of Chief Judge Sulli

sor, he has elected to continue to serve the Court a

in active service during this period of transition. 

staff of the Court wish to convey to Congress the

Chief Judge Everett for his outstanding leadershi

during his term of office. 

HOMER FERGUSON CONFEREN

The Fifteenth Annual Homer Ferguson Conferen

the George Washington University Marvin Cente

1990 under the sponsorship of the United States C

Appeals and with the cooperation of the Military 

the George Washington University National Law Ce

Advocates Association and the Federal Bar Associa

vious years, the conference was certified for credit t

tinuing legal education requirements of various Sta

to assist both military and civilian practitioners 

those professional skills necessary to practice befo

pellate courts. 

The speakers for this year's conference included 

Wayne E. Alley, Judge, United States District Cour

trict of Oklahoma; Timothy B. Dyk, Esquire; Leig

quire, and Paul Koffsky, Esquire, Office of the G

10 
Honorable William C. Bryson, Deputy Solicitor G

United States; and Colonel Fred K. Green, JAGC, U

Legislative Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Ch

In addition, the Honorable Walter T. Cox, III, A

United States Court of Military Appeals, chaired a p

on "Ethics and Military Practice" with panelists Ga

Assistant United States Attorney, Western District 

nel Eileen Albertson, USMC, Judge, United State

Corps Court of Military Review; and Rear Admiral 

man, Jr., JAGC, U.S. Navy (Ret.). The Honorable E

van, Associate Judge, 2 United States Court of Mi

served as the moderator of a panel entitled "Evi

with panelists Stephen A. Saltzburg, Professor of L

of Virginia School of Law; Lieutenant Colonel Le

JAGC, USA, and Professor David A. Schlueter, Sai

versity School of Law. The conference concluded w

seminars for military judges, for those interested in 

ments concerning child-victim confrontation issues

interested in current death-penalty issues. 

· The invocation was offered by the Reverend Jose

and the conferees were welcomed by the Honorab

Everett, Chief Judge, United States Court of Milita

behalf of the Court; Colonel Walter L. Lewis, U

behalf of the Military Law Institute; Dean John S. J

ate Dean for Administrative Affairs of The Nation

George Washington University; and Captain Ke

USCG, President of the Judge Advocates Association

The conferees included numerous military and c

as well as Judges of the Courts of Military Review, 

and commentators in the field of military justice. As 

2 Judge Sullivan was subsequently designated by the Presid

States to become the Chief Judge of the United States Court of M

October 1, 1990. 
term of court. Specifically, in United States v. Gib

(CMA 1990), the Court examined the provisions o

ment that related to the waiver of the accused's righ

the agreement originated with the defense and, as 

the military judge, purported to waive the accused

and hearsay objections to pretrial statements of c

tims, the Court cited United States v. Jones, 23 MJ 3

in ruling that such an agreement did not require 

the accused's pleas of guilty. The Court stressed 

ment did not constitute any substantial prejudice 

the accused, did not involve an act of overreaching 

officials, and did not involve an attempt by such off

trate a trial proceeding. Subsequently, in United S

30 MJ 331(CMA1990), the Court held that the inclu

sion in a plea agreement that the convening autho

pend forfeitures in excess of a specified amount was 

the collateral consequence of an accused entering 

status upon the expiration of his obligated term 

Court observed that the accused's pleas of guilty w

by such a provision. 

In United States v. Wilkins, 29 MJ 421 (CMA 1

was asked to resolve a question of whether an accu

guilty to the uncharged offense of receiving stolen 

such offense was not a lesser included offense of the 

of larceny. The Court held that by entering into a 

ment with the accused, the convening authority's 

functional equivalent of an order by this official 

tioned charge be referred to a court-martial for t

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

tool by the Staff of the Court. It is included for the convenien

assist in easily locating cases of particular interest during the t

maries are not of precedential value and should not be cited in b

Court. 

12 
gy

UCMJ, was limited to a period of active duty while 

a member of the reserve component. 

In United States v. Poole, 30 MJ 149 (CMA 1990), 

that the jurisdiction to try a member of the arm

court-martial continued to exist until he was disch

delay in effecting the discharge of the accused invo

the Court cautioned that unreasonable delays in d

tary personnel might constitute a defense to some m

relating to the performance of military duties. 

Article 31 Rights 

Concerning the applicability of Article 31, UCMJ, 

in United States v. Loukas, 29 MJ 385 (CMA 199

chief of an aircraft in flight was not required to war

his Article 31 rights where he questioned the accu

his drug abuse after the accused was observed hallu

aircraft. The Court stressed that the crew chief was 

his operational responsibilities for the safety of th

crew rather than law enforcement or disciplinar

Court also held in Loukas that although the accu

quently questioned by another individual in violatio

such error was harmless and that any "interpretatio

decision of the Court in United States v. Reynolds, 

37 CMR 23 (1966), which would preclude a test or 

for prejudice was erroneous. 

In United States v. Steward, 31 MJ 259 (CMA 

held that the doctrine of "presumptive taint" does n

only a technical violation of an accused's rights und

involved. Rather, the Court held that the proper in

ascertain whether his subsequent confession was vo

ering all the facts and circumstances of the case, inc

lier technical violation of Article 31(b). 
sufficient for a fact finder to find the requisit

produce death or grievous bodily harm in view of th

mony presented to the trier of fact. Relying on its 

in United States v. Womack, 29 MJ 88 (CMA 198

United States v. Durnford, 30 MJ 137 (CMA 1990

fense argument that an order directing the accuse

in sexual activity without informing his partner tha

ed with HIV and taking precautions against sprea

was overbroad. The Court held that such an order 

to consensual nondeviant sexual intercourse with a 

in view of the military interest in preventing the 

infection to the civilian population. 

Rehabilitation Potential 

As in previous fiscal years the Court addressed 

when and in what manner an accused's superiors m

his rehabilitative potential or desirability for cont

the military. Citing United States v. Ohrt, 28 MJ 3

and United States v. Horner, 22 MJ 294 (CMA 1986)

in United States v. Cherry, 31 MJ 1 (CMA 1990), th

commanding officer should not have been allowed 

sentencing hearing in a manner suggesting that the 

arated from the service where such testimony wa

on an individual assessment of the accused's chara

tial for rehabilitation. The Court reached a similar 

States v. Kirk, 31 MJ 84 (CMA 1990). However, a 

was reached in United States v. Wilson, 31 MJ 

where a witness testified that the accused would 

function as a senior NCO in the United States 

opinion was a reflection of the witness' actual know

pellant's work, personal life, and character for 

years. The Court stressed that such testimony was 

sion of personal opinion concerning the severity o

what punishment would be appropriate for such o

14 
ypg

the accused's incriminating statements to his civilia

protected by the attorney-client privilege even if, p

closure, military authorities had not yet discovered 

preferred any charges in connection therewith. 

Access to Witnesses 

Citing Article 46, UCMJ, and Rule for Courts-

701(e), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1

held in United States v. Irwin, 30 MJ 87 (CMA 199

quirement of the convening authority that a third 

present during the defense pretrial interviews of a 

sodomy and a child victim of assault and battery 

The Court stressed that such a condition-which d

the interviews of the trial counsel-denied the defen

portunity to obtain witnesses where the defense 

notice or opportunity to respond to the prosecution r

an observer and no legitimate basis was presented to 

authority to justify the restriction in question. How

that such a restriction was lifted prior to trial; that 

interviewed the child witnesses only once after the l

striction; and that the third party observer was ord

close statements made during the interviews except 

the defense or by a competent court, the Court he

fense had not been prejudiced in this case and tha

these proceedings was harmless. 

Confinement Pending Appellate Review 

The Court addressed the question in Moore v. Ak

(CMA 1990), under what circumstances, if any, a se

entitled to be released from confinement where the 

tary Review reverses his conviction and the case is 

United States Court of Military Appeals for furthe

the provisions of Article 67(b)(2), UCMJ. After exam
y

In United States v. Bickel, 30 MJ 277 (CMA 1

upheld a commander's policy of requiring any pers

tested positive for marijuana during an inspection 

other urine sample at the next inspection. The Cou

the second test was a mere continuation of the ori

and, thus, constituted a random test rather than a 

be based on reasonable suspicion. Subsequently, in 

Sutton, 31 MJ 11 (CMA 1990), the Court held that 

urinalysis test for drugs which did not meet the De

fense minimum standards for a positive test resu

used in a court-martial, even for purposes of cross-

United States v. McClain, 31 MJ 130 (CMA 1990)

dressed the question of whether the results of a 

properly admitted into evidence where such urin

ducted pursuant to a consent which was subseque

to be invalid. The Court rejected the prosecution arg

existence of probable cause to obtain such authori

the results admissible where the commander invo

thorized a search pursuant to probable cause but, r

consent. The Court observed that the Government 

voluntary consent to search when consent is used 

such search. In addition, the Court specifically over

cation in its earlier decision in United States v. Sim

(CMA 1989), that the validity of the consent was irr

able cause existed to authorize a search. 

Expert Witnesses 

Observing that a properly qualified expert witne

as to the symptoms and manifestations that are c

dren who have suffered sexual abuse and whether t

ited any such symptoms and how they might affect 

the Court held in United States v. Harrison, 31 MJ 

that the expert witness exceeded the proper limits 

16 
Senior Judge 
Miscellaneous Docket ............................................. 

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

CUMULATIVE TERMINATIONS 

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

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

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

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

CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 1, 1990 

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

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

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

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

OPINION SUMMARY 

PER 

CURIAM CATEGORY SIGNED ME

OR

Master Docket.............................. 96 5 

Petition Docket ............................ 0 0 22

Miscellaneous Docket.................. 4 0 

~~~~~~~~~~~

Total............................................... 100 5 23

18 
PENDING (MASTER DOCKET) 

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

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

A waiting final action ....................................................... __ o_ 

Total................................................................................ 72 

FILINGS (PETITION DOCKET) 

Petitions for grant of review filed ................................. 2151 

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

Cross-petitions for grant filed......................................... 4 

Petition for reconsideration granted............................. 1 

Returned after remandf:!d ................................................ 1 

Total ................................................................................ 2160 

TERMINATIONS (PETITION DOCKET) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 

1992 

191 

32 

6 

0 

Sign

Per 

Me

Total ................................................................................ 2221 Tot

PENDING (PETITION DOCKET) 

Awaiting briefs.................................................................. 148 

Awaiting Central Legal Staff review............................ 51 

Awaiting final action ....................................................... __ O_ 

Total................................................................................ 199 

FILINGS (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET) 

Writs of error coram nobis sought................................. 0 

Writs of habeas corpus sought ....................................... 6 

Writs of mandamus/prohibition sought....................... 6 

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

Writ appeals sought ......................................................... __ 4_ 

Total................................................................................ 18 
RECONSIDERATIONS & REHEARIN

BEGIN END 

CATEGORY PEND- F1LINGS PEND- ING ING Grante

Master Docket .......................... 0 10 0 1 

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

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

Total ....................................... 0 13 0 1 

MOTIONS ACTIVITY 

BEGIN CATEGORY PEND- F1LINGS ING 

All motions ............. . 2 571 

20 

END 

PENDING 

12 

DIS

Granted Rejecte

504 37 
i:s 

c 

Lii 

.. 

ftS 

,. 

... 

~ 

u 

0 

" 

c 

0 

·-

... 

·-.... 

G) 

a. 
a. 

,, 

c 

I.I.I 

.. 

ca 

,. 

.... 

Cl) 

~ 

CJ 

0 

Q 

.. 

Cl) 

.... 

en 

ca 

== 

22 
.. 

Cl) 

a. 

en 

.. 

c 

CD 

E 

:s 

m 

.. 

c 

-

m 

.. 

0 
FY 85 FY 86 

D Separate Opinion Cases 

(Concur, Concur in the result, 

and dissent) 

APPENDIX D 

;,q; 

FY 87 FY 88 

~ Majo
.... 

m 

c 

·--·-.... 

c 

0 

·-.... 

·-.... 

Cl) 

a. 

E 

0 

.. 

.... 

en 

>-

res 

Q 
ca .. .. c 

" Cl> c E 

0 :s 

·-

== .. i<t 

a.. ca E .. oO 

.. 0 

.. .. 

~ ca 

Q 

26 
N 

..., 

FY 85 

APPENDIX G 

FY 86 FY 87 FY 88 
Fy 85 

l:.AO --

..,,-r-.1 :>tiJ 

~ 

FY 86 FY 87 FY 88 

LI Maste

D Petition Docket 

(Denial/dismissal/withdrawal} 

APPENDIX H 

(Grant
and to prepare military publications and regulatio

op and draft changes to the Manual for Courts-

Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS AND 

JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES 

During fiscal year 1990, the court-martial rates 

wide decrease in the number of courts-martial. The 

persons tried by all types of courts-martial in fisc

12.3% lower than for 1989. This overall decrease r

a decrease of 18.5% in special courts-martial not e

judge a bad-conduct discharge, and a 17.9% decl

courts-martial. There was a 9.3% decrease in speci

empowered to adjudge a bad-conduct discharge, a

crease in the number of general courts-martial. Th

tion rate for fiscal year 1990 was 93.0%, which is 

viction rate for the previous fiscal year. The U.S

Military Review, despite having 26 more cases 

review than in fiscal year 1989, significantly redu

backlog, resulting in an 8.6% increase in the num

viewed (from 1,752 to 1,903) during fiscal year 1990

STATISTICAL SUMMARY: FISCAL YE

(See table insert, attached) 

U.S. ARMY LEGAL SERVICES AG

The U.S. Army Legal Services Agency includes 

Judiciary, the Government Appellate Division, the 

late Division, the Trial Defense Service, the Tria

ance Program, the Contract Appeals Division, the 

Office, the Intellectual Property Law Division, the 

sion, the Procurement Fraud Division, the Enviro

vision, and the Professional Recruiting Office. The 
Law Division is responsible for providing advice a

the Army Staff on environmental legal issues, as w

the agency counsel in environmental litigation in co

the Office of the General Counsel and Department 

Professional Recruiting Office coordinates the recr

yers in the Army. An Information Management O

automation of the U.S. Army Legal Services Agency

U.S. ARMY JUDICIARY 

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

tary Review, the Clerk of Court, the Examination 

Division, and the Trial Judiciary. 

U.S. ARMY TRIAL DEFENSE SERV

During fiscal year 1990, the United States Arm

Service (USATDS) continued to provide high-quali

defense counsel services to soldier clients world-

counsel represented 2,092 clients at proceedings c

Article 32, UCMJ; 1,580 clients at general courts-m

ents at special courts-martial; and 1,336 clients at 

boards. USATDS counsel advised 68,373 clients reg

cial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, and 30,504 

ing a variety of administrative separation actions. 

USATDS fully supported OPERATION DESERT S

ments. As U.S. Army units departed to the Kin

Arabia, USATDS counsel accompanied 'them. USA

to send a defense counsel to the Sinai in support o

tional Force, while other counsel participated in com

exercises and numerous deployments. Additionally

tinued to operate cross-service agreements with jud

other U.S. Armed Forces to provide mutual support 

cations overseas. 

30 
eight in the United States, four in the Federal Re

ny, and one in Korea. TCAP also provided instruct

trial counsel attending the U.S. Army Europe's Cr

ferences and the Trial Advocacy Courses at the A

vocate General's School. Throughout the year, 

training for approximately 350 counsel. Over 40

TCAP Training Memorandum are distributed ea

publication combines information on recent crimi

ments with practical advice on how trial counsel 

developments. Two new sections of the Memo have 

The first is a series of trial advocacy supplements

ten in a "trial notebook" format and include "how

to advocacy and evidentiary foundations. The sec

entitled "We've Been Asked," includes questions of 

bility to prosecutors with short, concise answers. 

examination of criminal law developments is p

publication of articles in TCAP's Trial Counsel F

The Army Lawyer. 

SIGNIFICANT MILITARY JUSTICE A

Actions involving military justice handled by th

Division, Office of The Judge Advocate General, in

ing and drafting legislation, executive orders, pam

lations affecting the operation of the Army and th

Defense; monitoring the administration of milita

clude military corrections, the Army's drug testin

fessional responsibility of attorneys, and expanded 

tion over reservists; rendering opinions for the Arm

ing various aspects of criminal cases for action by 

tariat and Army Staff; and evaluation of ongoing 

During fiscal year 1990, the Criminal Law Divisi

238 White House inquiries, 420 Congressional inqu

for legal opinions from the Army Board for the Co
CHANGE OF MILITARY JUSTICE REGU

Army Regulation 27-10, Military Justice, was r

January 25, 1990. This regulation now authorizes 

record of nonjudicial punishment (Article 15, UCM

formance fiche of the soldier's official military 

(OMPF) when another Article 15 is already filed i

fiche; permits enlisted soldiers (E-5 and above) to p

partment of the Army Suitability Evaluation Boar

record of punishment under Article 15 from the pe

to the restricted fiche of the OMPF; contains provis

tarily activate retired soldiers for court-martial 

changes Article 138, UCMJ, complaint procedure

that complaints follow command channels, not area 

reach the general court-martial convening authority 

JOINT-SERVICE COMMITTEE ON MILITAR

The Judge Advocates General and General Cou

partment of Transportation established the Joint-S

tee on Military Justice on August 17, 1972. The A

Force, Marine Corps, and Department of Transp

Guard) provide representatives, and the United S

Military Appeals provides a nonvoting representat

Service Committee on Military Justice primarily 

evaluates proposed amendments and changes to the 

of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts-Ma

mittee also serves as a forum for the exchange of i

military justice matters. 

Change 4 to the Manual for Courts-Martial wa

President Bush on March 23, 1990. Change 4, publ

tive Order No. 12708, is a result of the Third Annu

pleted in 1987. Amendments included in Change 4 

on April 1, 1990. Significant amendments include: a

officers on inactive-duty training to apprehend; clar

32 
, 

, pp

and Budget for evaluation and interdepartmental c

nificant amendments include: a requirement for 

notify the prosecution of the names of all defense 

than the accused, whom the defense intends to ca

fense case-in-chief; a requirement for the defense to 

ecution of its intent to raise the defense of innoce

thorization for the military judge to call a pretrial 

objection of a party, when the conference is nece

the conduct of courts-martial; revisions to the spee

addition of Military Rule of Evidence 707, whic

graph evidence at courts-martial; authorization fo

initiate pre-trial agreement negotiations, or propo

of terms and conditions in pre-trial agreements; cl

ruling of a military judge is stayed pending appea

the definition of "operating" necessary for the o

driving; an increase of the maximum punishmen

for attempted murder; and the elimination of fals

lesser included offense of perjury. 

The Sixth Annual Review, completed on May 15

lished for public comment on June 29, 1990. Base

ments received, minor modifications were made, an

ecutive order was forwarded to Office of the Gene

partment of Defense, on November 19, 1990. Chan

the 1990 Annual Review constitute proposed C

Manual for Courts-Martial.. Significant amendmen

lishment of procedures to investigate complaints o

duct or unfitness; clarification of pre-trial confinem

extension of the coverage of the rape shield rul

UCMJ, investigations; clarification of the military j

to impose sanctions for willful violation of discove

ment requiring the military judge to consider the 

terest in not granting immunity before ruling on a 

for immunity; authorization for military judges to 

on .findings before or after arguments or at both 
with Change 4 on November 15, 1990. The Defense 

Act for Fiscal Year 1991 contained changes to Artic

and 142 of the UCMJ. Amendments to Article 39 p

tary judge to conduct sessions that do not require t

members when the membership of the court ha

dropped below quorum. Article 41 amendments chan

dures to be followed when challenges reduce the mem

court below quorum. Article 136 amendments aut

legal assistance attorneys employed by the armed 

general powers of a notary public. Article 142 amen

that U.S. Court of Military Appeals judges must be a

civilian life, and that "civilian life" does not include 

ees who have 20 or more years of active service. 

FOREIGN CRIMINAL JURISDICTIO

As executive agent for the Department of Defens

ment of the Army, through the International Af

Office of The Judge Advocate General, maintains in

cerning the exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction 

sonnel. 

During the reporting period December 1, 1988, th

ber 30, 1989, a total of 105,280 United States perso

and civilian, were charged with offenses subject to 

exclusive jurisdiction of foreign tribunals. A total 

these offenses were charged against military pers

number 89,695 of the charges against military perso

ject to exclusive foreign jurisdiction. Nonetheless, f

ties released 498 of the exclusive foreign jurisdicti

United States military authorities for appropriate di

'I'he rest of the military offenses subject to foreig

totaling 14,009 offenses, were concurrent jurisdicti

volving alleged violations of both United States mi

foreign law over which the foreign country had the 

34 
had no effective jurisdiction over these offenses. N

eign authorities released 240 of these offenses, or 

the total, to United States military authorities for 

or other appropriate disposition. 

There were 97,535 final results of trial, (i.e., fin

final convictions for military, civilian and depen

number 139, or .04 percent of the final results, were 

97,369, or 99.9 percent, were sentences to a fine or 

remainder of the final results of trial consisted of 

confinement and 80 suspended sentences to confine

LITIGATION 

Civil litigation against the Department of the A

ployees continued to increase during fiscal year 19

ing the civilian courts to interpret the Uniform C

Justice, and the validity of actions taken pursuant 

a small but significant portion of the litigation. A m

cases seek collateral review of courts-martial proce

the other cases present challenges to the general c

finement, specific actions taken by confinement fa

and parole and clemency proceedings. 

EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

During fiscal year 1990, The Judge Advocate Gen

cated in Charlottesville, Virginia, provided legal e

yers of the military services and other federal age

resident courses were conducted with 3,905 student

Courses were attended by: 1,251 Army, 96 Navy, 92 

Force, 63 Coast Guard, 516 Army Reserve, and 32 

Guard officers; 131 enlisted soldiers; and 1,153 civili

national military students. Three Basic Course Cla

12lst, and 122d, graduated a total of 210 Judge Ad

Corps officers. 
National Guard, and four international military stud

Graduate Class began on July 30, 1990. The cla

Army, eight Marine, four Navy, one Air Force, one 

Guard, one Army Reserve, and five international mi

During fiscal year 1990, the School continued to 

officers with legal orientations prior to their assum

mand. Thirty-four general officers attended Genera

Orientation Courses, and 186 battalion and brigade c

nees attended one of four resident Senior Officers 

tion Courses. Additionally, instructors from the Scho

in twelve Pre-Command Courses conducted at For

Kansas, for approximately 900 battalion and brigade 

ignees. The School also provided orientations on Ar

to a member of the House of Representatives and tw

members. 

The Criminal Law Division sponsored five resid

legal education (CLE) courses in fiscal year 1990. 

Trial Advocacy Course was presented twice, in Nove

ruary, the Procurement Fraud Course in Novembe

Judges Course in May-June, and the Criminal Law 

ments Course in August. Outstanding guest spea

courses included Colonel Alfred F. Arquilla, Chief, G

pellate Division, U.S. Army Legal Services Agency

Lowe, noted civilian trial attorney; Chief Warrant 

William D. Jungbluth, forensic fingerprint examin

Criminal Investigation Laboratory; Major General 

then-Assistant Judge Advocate General for Civil L

Acting The Judge Advocate General, U.S. Army); Co

Gleason, Chief, Procurement Fraud Division, Office 

Advocate General, U.S. Army; Mr. Michael Hertz, 

mercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Departm

Mr. John Ford, attorney and auditor, Office of the 

sel, Defense Contract Audit Agency; Honorable John 

Judge, U.S. District Court, District of Massachuse

Walter T. Cox, III, Judge, U.S. Court of Military Ap

36 
p, gg 

with presentations by experts from the Departmen

Department of State, the Department of Justice, 

Bureau of Investigation. A representative of the 

fense of the Federal Republic of Germany attended 

also gave a presentation on terrorism counteractio

Republic. All involved actively discussed the vari

confronted during terrorism counteraction operatio

ducted domestically or overseas. The Operational L

the second quarter International Law instruction to 

uate Course, stressed Operational Law (OPLA W) 

pline focusing on those domestic and international 

sociated with the preparation for, and deploymen

overseas, in both peacetime and combat environme

ing to other instructional requirements, the divis

structors to Germany to assist in the presentation o

Europe Operational Law Course and one instruc

Army Europe International Law Conference. All co

by the division continued to stress the practica

international law, an approach designed to prepare 

to serve as valuable members of a commander's o

One instructor participated in a forum on OPERA

SHIELD, held at Duke University. In May, the div

Conference of American Armies Legal Symposium

conference, attended by representatives from 17 L

American countries, dealt with issues such as terr

international criminal activity. The Iraqi invasion 

the subsequent deployment of thousands of Acti

Component personnel to Saudi Arabia, raised myr

All international law instruction after August 2, 

discussion of legal issues relevant to the situation 

East. Feedback to the School from the deployed uni

judge advocates are better able than ever before to 

solve international and operation law issues. The 

and Military Operations (CLAMO), established in 
The Contract Law Division conducted 11 CLE co

year 1990. The courses sponsored by the division prov

advanced instruction in government contract law an

and policy. The courses were designed primarily to 

of government lawyers, but they also benefited contr

comptrollers, program managers, and others involved 

acquisition process, from novices to experienced p

wide variety of classes was offered at these courses 

instruction was available in government contract an

practiced at military installations, at commands dev

tion of supplies and weapon systems, at commands d

search and development, and at activities involved 

putes and litigation. The two-week Contract Attorne

given three times to a total of 297 students. The a

ment Contract Law Symposium was attended by 1

tary and civilian lawyers from throughout the Go

Fiscal Law Course was offered twice to a total of 253 

Installation Contracting Course was conducted fo

practicing at military posts worldwide. The Program 

torneys Course attracted 38 attorneys who advise 

major weapon systems programs. The Contract Clai

and Remedies Course featured matters involving c

putes and remedies for the 88 litigators who attende

ment Material Acquisition Course offered in-depth 

specialized subject areas to 75 experienced govern

lawyers. In addition to the contract and fiscal law CL

division provided instruction to 198 members of thre

cate Officer Basic Courses and to 61 members of the 

Advocate Officer Graduate Course. The division's i

presented classes on contract and fiscal law and po

serve Component Technical Training sites within 

tionally, the division presented an overseas CLE c

law to the Corps of Engineers in Europe, and th

38 
structor also taught environmental law courses a

Force Base as part of an Air Force course, and par

environmental law course sponsored by the Army

Judge Advocate General. 

The Legal Assistance Branch of the Administr

Law Division revised and updated its publications

Legal Assistance Wills Guide, the Legal Assistance 

Guide, the Legal Assistance Notarial Guide, the L

Office Administration Guide, the Legal Assistan

Guide, the Legal Assistance Re.al Property Guide, 

Assistance Program, the Tax Information Series, an

sistance Attorneys Federal Income Tax Supplement. 

tion, the Legal Assistance Living Wills Guide, wa

distributed to the field. A member of the branch as

velopment of new will and power of attorney progra

Automation Army-Wide System (LAAWS), which w

worldwide in the summer. The branch conducted a 

of publications and materials to help legal assist

spond to issues arising during OPERATION DES

Members of the branch published over 70 monthly p

The Army Lawyer. An article was also prepared fo

the Virginia Bar Association magazine. A member 

also addressed four civilian CLE courses throughou

train state agents and attorneys on methods for e

support obligations against military personnel. 

The Judge Advocate Guard and Reserve Affai

sponsored several resident courses for Reserve Co

advocates in fiscal year 1990. Approximately 151 

and National Guard judge advocates attended Trie

between June 18 and 29, 1990. This year, the Milita

and Legal Service Teams were trained. Phase IV o

vocate Officer Advanced Course was attended b

during this same period. The 2093d U.S. Army 

School in Charleston, West Virginia, provided adm
tendees represented all services and component

Active and Reserve Component judge advocate o

site program continues to be invaluable. Addition

ment processed 113 applications for the U.S. Army 

cession into the Judge Advocate General's Corps

tions for federal recognition of National Guard jud

The Criminal Law Division produced the follow

during the fiscal year: JA 310, Trial and Defens

book (February 1, 1990) (replacing Dep't of Army 

tary Justice Handbook For The Trial Counsel A

Counsel (October 1982)); Dep't of Army Pam. 27-

dure Guide (April 20, 1990); and Dep't of Army Pa

32(b) Investigating Officer's Guide (September 16, 

The Seventh Gilbert A. Cuneo Lecture in Gove

Law was presented on January 8, 1990, by Pro

Nash, George Washington University, Washington

Lecture was entitled "Improving the Acquisition P

The Second Major Frank B. Creekmore Lectur

Contract Law was presented on January 11, 1990

Augustine, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, 

Corporation. The Creekmore lecture was entitled "

ment Reform". 

On February 22, 1990, the 19th Annual Kennet

ture in Criminal Law was presented by Dean Joh

former School Commandant and currently the De

al College of District Attorneys. Dean Douglass p

standing lecture on personal and professional eth

have been reprinted at 129 Military Law Review 1

The Fourteenth Charles L. Decker Lecture was 

29, 1990, by Judge Robert R. Merhige, Jr. His lec

"Mass Tort Litigation-Making Mountains into 

School's Alumni Association financed the preserva

of memorabilia pertaining to Major General Charl

first Commandant of the School in Charlottesville

40 
ing center with 30 student work stations and a 

system. The learning center makes the School one 

equipped, automated legal training centers in the 

Basic and Graduate Course students receive instru

er basics, word processing, and LAA WS, better pre

assignments to judge advocate offices throughout th

Articles of interest to military attorneys continu

ed to the field through the DA Pam 27-100 serie

Review, and the DA Pam 27-50 series, The Army L

PERSONNEL, PLANS, AND POLI

Including law students participating in the Fund

tion Program, the strength of the Judge Advocate 

at the end of the fiscal year 1990 was 1773. This to

blacks, 29 Hispanics, 19 Asian and Native Ame

women. The fiscal year 1990 end strength compa

strength of 1756 in fiscal year 1989, 1759 in fisca

1820 in fiscal year 1987. The grade distribution of 

end of the fiscal year was three general officers, 

lieutenant colonels, 319 majors, 976 captains, and 

ants. Forty-six officers (25 captains and 21 first lieu

pated in the Funded Legal Education Program. Th

warrant officers. 

To ensure selection ·of the best qualified candi

commission, career status, and The Judge Advocat

cer Graduate Course, advisory boards convened u

Advocate General's written instructions several t

year. 

In December 1990, a selection board selected ten 

missioned officers to commence law school under th

Education Program. 

Sixty-two judge advocate officers completed the f

schools: 
ficers based on Judge Advocate General's Corps g

they occur. 

John L. Fugh 

Major General, USA 

Acting The Judge Advocate General 

42 
PART4-WORKLOADOFTHE U.S. ARMY COU~TOFMILITARYRE

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COUATS·MAATIAL 

OENEAAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

BCD S'ECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 

GENE .. Al COUPITS-MAPITIAL 

BCD Sl"ECIAL COUPITS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 

GENERAL COUATS-MA .. TIAL 

BCD S'ECIAL COU,.TS-MAATIAL 

.. ATI Of INC .. EASE (+)IDECAEAS£ C-) OVEft NUMBEft OF CASES 

.. EVIEWED DUftlNG LAST lllE"O~INO "EftlOD +8 • 6% 

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

REVIEW 

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

PERCENTAGE OF COMA REVIEWED CASES FOAWAftDED TO USCMA 

l'EASEP,.. BE eF INC .. EASE (+)/DECREASE (-JOVE .. ""EVIOUS •u.-oATING "IEAIOD in % 

PEftCENTAGE OF TOTAL "fTITIONS GRANTED 

l'CP'ISEPffA8E e, INCREASE (•)/OECP'IEASE (-JOVER ,,.EVIOUS AEftORTING PEP'llOO in % 

PEP'ICENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES PIEVIEWEO IV COMA 

~INCREASE (+)/DECREASE C-) OV£ft THE NUM8Eft Of CASES ftEVIEWEO DUAINO 

LAST AE"O"TING ,E,.100 in ! 

l'AGEIOFl 
NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS I 

PART 10 ·STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH ] 4 7, 5 3 7 [ J] 

PART 11 ·NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15) 

'NUMBER OF CA.SES WHEFtE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 

.. ATE PE .. 1,000 

fll'T[ er IUCREASE (+)/DECAEASE (-1 OVER PAEVIOUS PEAIOO 

l'.AGEZOF:Z 

NOTES 

76 152 

101. 87 

-7.57 

[AJ Includes only original trials (i.e., not rehearings).· 

[BJ In the Army only, specifically empowered by GCM conven

impose BCD. 

[CJ Source: Records received for review (Part 3), not tri

[DJ Also approved were 31 dismissals of commissioned or w

[EJ Does not include 2 cases in which appellate review was 

[FJ Includes only cases at issue in the court panels. 

[GJ Appeals, writ petitions, and interlocutory appeals are

by type of court. 

[HJ Two cases referred to CMR pursuant to amended Article 

[IJ Includes applications filed out of time. 

[JJ Average of four quarterly reports. 

44 
MILITARY JUSTICE 

In compliance with the requirement of Article 

Code of Military Justice, the Judge Advocate G

Deputy Judge Advocate General made frequent insp

offices in the United States, Europe, and the Far E

sion of the administration of military justice. 

ARTICLE 69(a), UCMJ, EXAMINAT

One hundred and twelve general court-martial 

not statutorily eligible for automatic review by th

Corps Court of Military Review, were examined in t

Judge Advocate General in fiscal year 1990. This re

increase over fiscal year 1989. Eight cases requ

action by the Judge Advocate General. 

ARTICLE 69(b), UCMJ, APPLICATI

In fiscal year 1990, 53 applications under Article 

Code of Military Justice, were received for review. 

plications were denied on the merits, while relief 

whole or in part in 7 cases. Eight cases are pending 

ARTICLE 73, UCMJ, PETITIONS 

In fiscal year 1990, one petition for new trial w

the Office of the Judge Advocate General. Tha

denied. 

ARTICLE 74(b), UCMJ, PETITION

Two petitions to substitute an administrative for

for a punitive discharge or dismissal executed in a
position to petitions for writs of certiorari from th

Court, 2 briefs in Government appeals, and 3 brie

fied by the Judge Advocate General. 

Assistance To The Field. The Trial Counsel Ass

(TCAP), established within the Appellate Gover

provides a central coordinating point to assist tria

effective prosecution of courts-martial. Four appe

detailed to implement this program. Prompt assist

same day) is provided in response to telephone 

counsel in the field requesting advice or informa

currently, or soon to be, in trial. Additional assist

through presentations, the periodic publication of 

mulative digest of significant unpublished decision

er bulletin board. Field calls-in which a team co

provide professional advice and assistance-total

year, an average of 66 per month. 

Presentations. Government counsel made prese

Army-Navy Reserve Military Justice Conference 

Minnesota, in October 1989, and the Second Annu

Appellate Advocacy Workshop at Andrews Air Fo

ia, in January 1990, and participated in the Th

Homer Ferguson Conference in Washington, D.C. in 

Reserves. The Appellate Government Division c

vide training and support to 17 Navy and 4 Mari

ists assigned to the Division. 

APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISIO

Appellate Defense Practices: The 20 judge advoc

the Appellate Defense Division reviewed a total 

fiscal year 1989. Of that number, 717 cases were 

U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review 

signments of error. The Division also raised specifi

error in 120 of the 692 cases submitted to the U.S

46 
minutes judge advocate research time was required 

significant request. Extraordinary writ practice wit

is not included as a matter of trial defense assistanc

Presentations 

a. May 1990-Director, Appellate Defense Divisio

rienced Department Head made presentations at th

serve Judge Advocate General's Conference in Chica

b. June 1990-Director, Appellate Defense Divisio

rienced Department Head made presentations at 

Reserve Judge Advocate General's Conference in 

California, and at the Na val Legal Service Office, 

California. 

c. September 1990-Director, Appellate Defense D

experienced Department Head made presentation

Coast Reserve Judge' Advocate's Conference in No

and at the Naval Legal Service Office, Norfolk, Virg

The Appellate Defense Division continued to pr

structured training throughout the fiscal year to th

unit and voluntary training unit judge advocates 

Marine Corps judge advocates who support the D

judge advocates are fully integrated into the Divisi

for approximately 40 percent of the case reviews. 

NAVY-MARINE CORPS TRIAL JUDIC

The Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary (NMCTJ

tary judges for 893 general courts-martial (GCM) du

1990, a decrease of 81 GCMs from the fiscal year 19

In fiscal year 1990, 75.5% of these GCMs were tr

judge alone. This represents a 4.5% increase from 

1989 rate. 

There were 5,106 special courts-martial (SPCM) co

fiscal year 1990, a decrease of 748 SPCMs from 
-4 reserve Navy and Marine Corps judges 

-Chief Judge, Air Force 

-2 active-duty Air Force judges 

b. West Coast Military Judges' Meeting Naval 

Coronado, CA 

-20 active-duty Navy and Marine Corps jud

-11 reserve Navy and Marine Corps judges 

-2 active-duty Air Force judges 

c. Fifteenth interservice Military Judges' Sem

Force Base, Montgomery, AL 

-10 active-duty Navy and Marine Corps jud

-2 reserve Navy judges 

d. National Judicial College, Reno, NV 

-Special Problems in Criminal Evidence 

-2 Navy and 1 active-duty Marine Corps jud

-Handling Capital Cases 

-1 active-duty Navy judge 

e. Military Judges' Course U.S. Army JAG S

ville, VA 

-11 active-duty Navy and Marine Corps jud

judges 

f. Military Judges' Course Naval Justice Schoo

-10 active-duty Navy and Marine Corps jud

judges 

-10 Air Force judges 

-1 Army judge 

-2 Coast Guard judges 

-1 judge from Sri Lanka 

g. U.S. Army JAG School, Charlottesville, VA 

Development Course 

-2 active-duty judges 

h. Senior Marine Judge Advocate Conference C

-4 active-duty Marine Corps judges 

-The Chief Judge 

48 
-The Chief Judge 

1. National Institute of Trial Advocacy (NITA) 

-Various locations and times 

-8 active-duty Navy and Marine Corps judges 

ed in training trial advocates 

m. Trial Advocate and Judicial Training Evoluti

military judges 

-14 reserve Navy judges; the Chief Judge; met 

-14 reserve Navy judges; 1 reserve Army ju

judge; met at San Francisco, CA 

n. WESTPAC Judicial Training Okinawa, JA 

-1 active-duty Marine Corps judge 

-1 active-duty Army judge 

-4 active-duty Air Force judges 

-2 active-duty Navy judges 

o. Evidence University of San Diego 

-Sponsored by the San Diego Bar Association 

-A Look at the Expert Witness and the Testim

-1 active-duty Navy judge 

-1 active-duty Marine Corps judge 

p. Virginia Bar Association's Annual Meeting Wil

-Chief Judge participated 

q. American Academy of Judicial Education C

bridge, MA 

-1 active-duty judge 

r. Tri-Service Judges Conference Garmish, Germa

-the Chief Judge 

s. University of Minnesota/Military judge's Trai

lis, MN 

-1 active-duty Navy judge 

-1 Air Force judge 

t. Army Trial Judiciary West Coast Meeting Co

co 

-3 active-duty Navy judges 
-sponsored by Office of the Chief Judge, Na

Trial Judiciary 

-2 active-duty Navy judges 

-1 Marine Corps judge 

-1 Air Force judge 

-1 Army judge 

-1 Coast Guard judge 

z. 1st Annual Forensic Medicine and Law Semi

Washington, DC 

-2 active duty Navy judges 

Visit by the Judiciary 

The Chief Judge presented his annual administr

students at the military judges' courses at both C

Newport. 

The Circuit Military Judge, Piedmont Judicial 

ville, NC, along with Navy judges of the Northeas

ited and participated in the instruction of studen

judges' course at Naval Justice School. 

The Chief Judge, along with the Chief Judges 

the Air Force, worked toward uniformity in judi

frequently discussed matters of mutual concern. 

The Chief Judge visited and inspected the follo

cuits and branch offices: Northeast branch (New

(Norfolk); Piedmont (Camp Lejeune); Sierra (C

Southwest (San Diego); WESTPAC North (Yokos

South (Subic Bay); Keystone (Okinawa); and 6th A

cuit (Korea). 

Generally 

The Chief Judge frequently makes courtesy call

vening authorities and SJAs. Comments indicate 

quality of judicial services is excellent. There is 

phasis on judicial and advocate training. Trial jud

50 
Operation "Desert Shield" 

The Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary was the 

component of the Department of Defense on the sce

crisis. Commander Mark Dawson, JAGC, USN, WE

Judicial Circuit, tried cases aboard USS INDEPEND

to "Desert Shield." In addition, the Judiciary coor

with other services and provided Lieutenant Colon

USMC, as on-site judicial support as soon as authori

in Saudi Arabia was granted. A full-time military ju

to provide in-country judicial service to convening au

NAVAL LEGAL SERVICE COMMAN

Naval Legal Service Command (NAVLEGSVCCO

21 naval legal service offices and 22 detachments lo

of concentration throughout the world. The comman

the Naval Justice School at Newport, Rhode Island, 

of Legal Counsel at the Naval Academy, Annapo

NA VLEGSVCCOM is commanded by the Deputy Ju

General of the Navy and includes 367 officers, 229 en

civilian employees. The command constitutes abou

Navy's total judge advocate strength. 

NA VLEGSVCCOM provides a wide range of leg

afloat and ashore commands, active duty naval pers

ents, and retirees. Specific functions include the pro

sel for courts-martial and administrative boards, c

mands, claims processing and adjudication, couns

evaluation boards, and legal assistance. 

To facilitate high quality and responsive legal s

LEGSVCCOM activities rely upon the Judge Adv

Management Information System (JAGMIS), a m

based system which tracks each activity's case load f

disposition. The Military Justice Management Inform
NAVAL JUSTICE SCHOOL 

During fiscal year 1990, the Naval Justice Sch

struction to 8,356 students worldwide (1,201 in r

ranging in length from four days to nine weeks). A

School prepared and submitted for publication vo

Naval Law Review. Other noteworthy developmen

continued work on the new classroom building, th

two video teletraining broadcasts, the establishme

Support Activity 101, and modification of the Sch

give it oversight responsibility for all judge ad

Navy-wide. An update of School courses follows: 

Law of Naval Operations Workshop. Offered tw

purpose of this two-week course is to train judge ad

responsible for advising commanders on internatio

and their impact on plans and operations. The cou

30 hours of classroom instruction and 32 hours o

cises and seminars. Attendees completing the two

fiscal year 1990 included judge advocates from 

Marine Corps (8), Air Force (1), Army (1), and Coast 

with 1 civilian. 

Staff Judge Advocate Course. Also offered twice 

pose of this three-week course is to provide trainin

pects of military and administrative law likely to 

by a command legal advisor. Included in fiscal yea

hours of classroom instruction and 7 hours of pr

and seminars. This past year, attendees included 

from the Navy (60), Marine Corps (8), Army (1), a

(1). 

Senior Legalman Course. Offered annually, the 

three-week course is to provide senior legalmen 

training in budget matters, civilian and military 

agement, and other management skills required of 

52 
by 124 Navy, 65 Marine Corps, and 9 Coast Guard 

with 1 Navy LDO (Law) selectee. 

Legal Officer Course. During fiscal year 1990, th

seven sessions of the four-week legal officer course. 

cer syllabus is designed for the nonlawyer junior of

Navy and Coast Guard paralegal about to assume le

a ship, aircraft squadron, small station, or other mil

no judge advocate/law specialist. Included in the c

hours of classroom instruction and 79 hours of prac

and seminars. Attendees in fiscal year 1990 consiste

officers, 23 Navy legalmen, 36 Marine Corps officer

Guard officer. 

Senior Officer Course. This one-week course, spo

Chief of Naval Operations, prepares commanding o

tive officers, and officers in charge to handle approp

legal responsibilities. Six sessions of the course were 

port, Rhode Island, with 196 students attending. An 

offerings of the course were held at the following w

tions: Jacksonville and Mayport, Florida; Charlesto

Parris Island, South Carolina; Norfolk, Virginia (t

Washington; San Francisco (twice), San Diego (twice

and Camp Pendleton, California; Naples, Italy; 

Hawaii; Subic Bay, Philippines; Yokosuka and Ok

Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; New London, Conn

Quantico, Virginia (twice); Annapolis, Maryland; 

Tennessee. The 1,267 students attending these classes 

USN: 934 (73.7%). 

USMC: 285 (22.4%). 

USCG: 41 ( 3.2%). 

USA: 2 ( 0.2%). 

USAF: 4 ( 0.4%). 

CIV: 1 ( 0.1 %). 

Military Judge Course. This three-week course, 

year, trains active-duty and reserve judge advocates t
Institute of Trial Advocacy teaching methodology. 

completion of the training, they became qualified 

instructors in the Navy's trial advocacy training p

courtroom advocacy to Navy and Marine Corps 

worldwide. 

Legalman Course. This nine-week course, offere

fiscal year 1990, provides instruction in military la

court reporting to Navy enlisted personnel selecte

to the legalman rating as well as certain Coast G

the Coast Guard does not have a legalman rating). 

hours of lecture, 118 hours of practice transcriptio

of seminars and other practical exercises. As in 

Army continues to use the Naval Justice School's 

to train its court reporters. In fiscal year 1990, 8

Guard, and 14 Army students completed this cours

Legal Clerk Course. This two-week course, offe

fiscal year 1990, trains members of the Navy, Coa

Corps (equivalent) yeoman rating to process routi

at small or isolated commands. Included in the leg

lum are 51 hours of lecture and 25 hours of pract

fiscal year 1990, 181 students completed this cou

Marine Corps, and 1 civilian. 

Reserve Courses. In addition to training active

the Naval Justice School also presents a number 

year to train inactive duty reservists. The tw

Lawyer Course prepares inactive-duty judge advoc

and Marine Corps Reserve to perform the duties 

duty counterparts. Similarly, the two-week Re

Course, offered in three phases, prepares enlisted 

inactive-duty Reserve to serve as legalmen. During 

88 students completed an in-house course of in

School. Naval Justice School instructors also ta

training courses in Norfolk, Virginia; Chicago, I

Diego, California, with over 500 reservists in attend

54 
MARINE CORPS ACTIVITIES 

During fiscal year 1990, the Chief Defense Counsel 

Corps continued to expand and enhance the trial adv

programs conducted at Quantico, VA; Camp Lejeu

Island, SC; Camp Pendleton, CA; Kaneohe Bay, HI; 

Japan. Instructors are experienced active duty and r

Corps judge advocates; several have received form

from the National Institute of Trial Advocacy (NITA

fense counsel observation and evaluation has increas

ern and western regions in order to identify skill are

emphasis. 

Sixteen Marine Corps judge advocates attended ye

schools, including the Naval War College, the Na

University, the Marine Corps Command and Staff Co

phibious Warfare School, and the U.S Army Judge 

eral's School. Eight judge advocates received Master 

from the Judge Advocate General's School and fro

schools through the Special Education Program. Twe

ficers earned law degrees through the Funded Legal 

Excess Leave (Law) Programs. 

Continuing legal education at civilian and milita

funded by Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps for 25 ju

with others attending training provided by the Depa

tice. Judge advocates throughout the Marine Corps 

continuing legal education through NITA, state b

legal education programs, and training funded by the

mands. 

The Counsel for the Commandant Individual Mob

mentee (IMA) Detachment was formed during fisca

assist active duty judge advocates in the areas of la

ronmental law, contracts, and other specialty areas

members of the 3d and 4th Civil Affairs Groups, man
John E. Gordon 

Rear Admiral, USN 

Judge Advocate General of the Navy 

56 
PART 3. RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

PART 4 ·WORKLOAD OF THENavv/Marine ConOOURT OF MILITARY R

GENEAAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

llCD SPECIAL COUATS-MAATIAL 

AEFEPllAEO FOR REVIEW 

GENERAL COUATS·MAflltTIAL 

aco SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 

GE NEPAL COUFtTS·MAATIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL f'ENOING AT CLOSE 0, PEPUOD 

GENERAL COURTS-MAFITIAL f1fi2 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL RR 1. 

ftATI Of INCREASE t+)/OECAEASE (-) OVEfll NUMBEll!i OF CASES 

FIEVIEWED DUAING LAST AEPOATINO l'ERIOD -29% 

PART 5. APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE Navy/Marine C

REVIEW Corps 

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

PE fllCENTAGE 0, COMA REVIEWED CASES FOAWAADED TO USCMA 

PEfllCENTAGE OF tNCAEASE (+J/DECAEASE (-, OVEfll PfllEVIOUS "EPOfllTINO PEfUOD 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS 0,.ANTEO 

PERCENTAGE OF INC,. EASE t+l/DECAEASE (-) OVEA PfllEVIOUS "EPO,.TING PE .. 100 

PEfllCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GfllANTED OF TOTAL CASES fllEVIEWEO IY COMfll 

RATE OF INC .. EASE (+)/DECfllEASE ,_, OVE" THE NUMIEfll OF CASES fllEVllWED DURING 

LAST "E"OfllTING f'EflllOD 

,AGEIOF2 
PART 9 ·COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMBEPI OF COMPLAINTS I 15 0 

PART 10 ·STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE OUTV STRENGTH 8 0 l 1027 [;\:::::;:;:/:;:::;:::;:;:;:;';::'

PART 11 ·NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMP'OSED 

f'liATE l'EA 1,000 

f'liATE OF INClllEASE t+)IOECAEASE (-) OVEA PREVIOUS PERIOD 

P.AGElOF2 

58 

55,332 

69.08 

+3. 5 
ea, ajoGeeaavd C. 

oeouse, ade oc

tions of field legal offices in the United States and o

also attended and participated in various bar associ

and addressed many civil, professional and military 

AIR FORCE COURT OF MILITARY RE

The Air Force Court of Military Review is und

changes. During fiscal year 1990, we added a judge a

missioned officer. The Court is now comprised of 10 J

missioner, 1 Noncommissioned officer and 3 civili

The Noncommissioned officer is responsible for much 

istration of the Court and some legal research and w

mainder of administrative work is being ably perfor

vilian employees. These changed assignments will a

missioner to devote more time researching and writi

also established a Rules Advisory Committee with a 

liar to the Court of Military Appeals' court commit

mittee's basic function is to refine the Court's interna

facilitate the appellate process, by increasing comm

tween the Court, the appellate divisions and the mili

vision. Finally, the Court and the Trial Judiciary c

efforts to promulgate standards for judicial ethics. Th

will be published as an Air Force operating instructio

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS AND U.S A

JUDICIARY ACTIVITIES 

The Judiciary Directorate of the Office of The Ju

General has the overall responsibility for supervisin

tration of military justice throughout the United Sta

from nonjudicial proceedings to appellate review of c

Additionally, the Directorate has the staff respon

Office of The Judge Advocate General in all militar
ing either formal written replies or telephonic rep

ecutive officials, including the President and memb

c. The Directorate provided a representative to 

activities involving military justice. This included t

Committee and support for the Code Committee. 

LEGAL DATA AUTOMATION AND INFO

PROGRAM 

The Directorate of Legal Information Services 

develops and manages automated management 

tems in support of military justice, claims, office a

puter assisted legal research and other Air Force 

of Defense legal services programs. The Director

quired over 3,000 computers, 113 Local Area Netwo

placed orders from the Desktop III contract to help 

ing computer requirements. In response to O

Shield, the Directorate developed a software packa

that contained the Manual for Courts-Martial, th

tion, and pertinent Air Force Regulations. The p

signed for use on the laptop computers used in the 

allowed the legal personnel to perform full text se

copies of any required pages. The program was also 

to the other military services. The JAGMAIL worl

mail system was expanded to 277 offices and w

AT&T 3B2 minicomputer at the AF/JAS offices 

were received for development of the second prot

fense Emergency Authorities Retrieval and A

(DEARAS), and fielding of the first units is expe

comprehensive appellate case tracking and fi

system was developed for the Military Justice Div

the status of all active appellate cases and the disp

inactive cases. The functional description for the 

Justice Information Management System (AFJIMS

60 
month in FY 90. A new mainframe operating envir

veloped for online FLITE which will allow regist

sands of users throughout DoD and other federal 

ning in FY 91. The FLITE Service Center processed 

research requests per month from legal, procurem

offices in various DoD, Coast Guard and other federa

TRIAL JUDICIARY 

The Air Force Trial Judiciary had an average of 

and 6 reserve military trial judges, including one Ch

and his Assistant, assigned to the USAF Trial Judi

tions throughout the world. The duties of these mil

cluded presiding over all general and special courts-

the United States Air Force, but also included ser

gating Officers unde~ Article 32, UCMJ, legal advi

administrative discharge boards and hearing off

hearings held to consider draft environmental imp

The Air Force Trial Judiciary implemented s

which attempted to take advantage of the technolo

available computer systems. The Trial Judiciary 

Case Management System, which was initiated in 

and is now providing timely and accurate case da

helps in forecasting trends and in researching area

the military justice system. Our laptop computer p

ues to mature. We have only 10 laptop computers a

tary judges, but we have been able to develop and u

produce written instructions for court members in 

This project is continuing but has been hampered 

available computers to equip each trial judge with 

laptop computer. We have also made extensive use 

electronic mail systems available to transmit case 

Judiciary management information to our circu

throughout the world. 
ings in time and manpower available through this 

must be explored and tested. Finally, this reporter 

important resource to train and assist court repor

and to work on developing standardized procedures 

for records of trial. 

CIRCUIT TRIAL COUNSEL PROG

During FY 90 the number of assigned circuit tri

remained at 22. Throughout the Air Force, circu

tried 496 general courts-martial and 28 special cour

To update circuit trial counsel on the latest deve

law and further enhance their trial skills, a worksh

ed 20-21 November 1989 at Bolling AFB, DC, for 

Chief Circuit Trial Counsel. The workshop feature

and discussions on urinalysis cases, designer drug

problems in child abuse cases, prosecution of AID

update on topics of interest in the federal courts

also featured a presentation by The Judge Ad

Major General Nelson, and luncheon with Judge R

ett, Chief Judge, United States Court of Military Ap

Workshops for base level prosecutors were condu

cuit Trial Counsel in all the judicial circuits. With 

the seventh circuit, the workshops were held in c

Area Defense Counsel in that circuit and included 

hear presentations by The Judge Advocate General

the Judiciary, and a presentation by a judge fr

States Court of Military Appeals. 

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT COUN

In January 1990, JAJG and JAJD hosted the 

Service Appellate Counsel Workshop at Andrews 

workshop was attended by nearly all the appella

62 
their term which started 1 October 1990. After th

Larkin spent several hours with the staff at JAJG 

preparation of briefs in Air Force cases before the 

as well as topics of concern to both of our offices. 

Appellate practice before the Air Force Court of 

States Court of Military Appeals, and the United 

Court continued at a brisk rate. Oral arguments b

of Military Appeals increased 27% in FY 90 over F

ison of briefs and other petitions filed and oral arg

AFCMR 

Replies to assignment of errors filed ............................................

Cases argued .....................................................................................

COMA 

Supplementary Petitions Filed ......................................................

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

Supreme Court 

Petition waivers filed ......................................................................

Briefs filed .........................................................................................

AREA DEFENSE COUNSEL PROG

During the year, the Department continued its em

Defense Counsel (ADC) training through the A

Courses held at Bolling AFB and the circuit confere

ally in each of the Air Force's seven judiciary circ

conferences provide not only valuable training but 

for all the Circuit Defense Counsel and ADCs to 

experiences and lessons learned. During FY 1990, a 

Court of Military Appeals attended each of the seve

ences. Such outstanding support demonstrated to A

counsel just how vital their endeavors are to our 

system. 
last year. However, the general motion practice bef

COMA has noticeably increased. The breakdown 

follows: 

AFCMR 

Errors filed .......................................................................................

Oral arguments ...............................................................................

Other motions ..................................................................................

COMA 

Supplements to petitions ...............................................................

Briefs in support .............................................................................

Grant briefs ......................................................................................

Oral arguments ...............................................................................

Other motions/petitions ................................................................

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

CONFINEMENT FACILITIES 

At the end of the fiscal year, a total of 7 49 Air 

were in confinement. That figure represents about 

from the number in confinement at the end of FY 

454 of those prisoners were incarcerated in central 

cilities at Lowry AFB (52), the return to duty rehab

program (14), Ft. Lewis IDF (164) and the United 

nary Barracks (USDB) (224). The number of Air Fo

parole increased from 265 at the end of FY 1989 to 

of FY 1990, a 7% increase. During the fiscal year, 

roles were revoked. 

During the fiscal year, the Enhanced Minimum C

at Lowry (a transition program for selected priso

achieved minimum custody and are nearing their m

dates from confinement) continued to operate succ

of 75 prisoners participated in the program during 

64 
y pg

p

ices discretion to either retain long-term prisoners at 

no cost to the other Services), or transfer them t

Bureau of Prisons. At the end of the fiscal year t

being evaluated by OSD. 

The RTDR program at the 3320th CRS, Lowry 

banner year, judged at least by comparison to recen

teen rehabilitees were restored to productive Air Forc

ing completion of the RTDR program in FY 1990, 

during the preceding year. It is anticipated that the 

be restructured during FY 1990 as a result of an AT

tive. 

CIVIL LITIGATION 

Civil Litigation challenging actions taken under 

Code of Military Justice involved petitions for habea

by Air Force inmates in the United States Discipli

seeking collateral review of their cases. Issues inclu

ateness of sentence, insufficiency of the evidence, an

dentiary rulings made at the trial. In addition, se

challenged the legality of courts-martial using sent

ards different from those used in other federal cr

There were no decisions issued by any Federal distric

ing relief to any of these individuals. 

ENVIRONMENT AL ACTIONS 

During Fiscal Year 1990, subsequent to an invest

Article 32, Article 15 punishment was imposed upon 

an offense directly related to environmental matters. 
book System. JACA continues to be responsible fo

cedures concerning the Preventive Law and Lega

gram1' worldwide. 

The Chief of JACA also served as the Air Force 

the DoD Armed Forces Income Tax Council. 

through April 1990, tax assistance programs were 

cers throughout the world. Over 161,288 members 

community were helped. Air Force attorneys and 

they trained and supervised, civilian overhires, a

helped Air Force members or their dependents 

Form 1040EZs, 28,996 Form 1040As, 38,570 Form 

state tax returns. 

THE REPORTER 

The Reporter strived to provide a quality review 

issues important to our military lawyers. Lead arti

evant information in the areas of: living wills, ho

winning law of armed conflict training program

damage claims and government contractors, and 

disability with the Durable Power of Attorney. 

EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

The Judge Advocate General's Department pro

continuing legal education (CLE) opportunities to i

those of its sister services, during FY 1990. 

During FY 1990, approximately 1400 Air Force 

ing 594 air reserve force judge advocates) attende

the Air Force Judge Advocate General School, M

bama, and in Denver, Colorado. Of these, about 

judge advocates, as well as all of the Air Force Re

cates, received military justice training. 

66 
gram in the fields of procurement law, environmen

law, and international law. One judge advocate atten

Judge Advocate General's School to study for his LL.

law. 

THE AIR FORCE JUDGE ADVOCATE GE

SCHOOL 

The Air Force Judge Advocate General (AFJAG) S

ed within Air University's Ira C. Eaker Center for Pr

velopment at Maxwell AFB, Alab~ma. 

Resident Courses 

The AFJAG School conducted 16 different course

approximately 1600 students in FY 1990. 

The Judge Advocate Staff Officer Course is the A

basic course of instruction for new judge advocates. 

designed to provide essential, basic, comprehensive 

military legal practice. The course is divided into thr

areas: military justice, civil law, and the judge a

member of the Air Force. The course develops com

military practice of law and enhances basic advoca

course is eight weeks long and is conducted three tim

year. In FY 1990 there were 161 students who gradu

course. 

The AFJAG School also offers a number of specia

benefit the military lawyer, they include: claims and 

federal employee labor law, environmental law, inter

ations law, government contracting, law office man

taxation. These courses were attended by approxima

tary and civilian personnel during FY 1990. 

The AFJAG School conducted numerous course

which focused considerable attention in the area of m

The following courses were attended by over 700 ju
course is a one week course which was attended 

FY 1990. It was developed primarily to train those 

currently serving, or have been selected to serve, 

defense counsel. The course further develops and 

skills and stresses the use of forensic evidence in c

d. Staff Judge Advocate Course-This cou

opportunity to refresh and update the law for t

cates who have been selected to serve as staff judg

a two week course which was attended by 58 stud

The military justice instruction centers on signifi

opments in both law and procedures relating to n

dicial punishment, search and seizure, urinalysi

abuse offenses. 

e. Military Judges' Seminar-This is an in

which is primarily designed to ensure that militar

up to date with recent developments, not only in 

also with the most effective techniques of judicia

is a one week course which was offered once in 

attended by 68 military judges from all the service

f. Reserve Forces Judge Advocate Course

developed with the goal of Providing our Air Fo

Air National Guard judge advocates with up-to-da

recent developments in military law to ensure th

form their required duties in the event of a mobili

week course which was held in Denver, Colorad

School faculty and attended by approximately 243 

Nonresident Courses 

The AFJAG School offered seven nonresident co

been approved for Continuing Legal Education (

amount of CLE credit earned for completion of t

determined by the individual state bar or licensin

courses available in FY 1990 were Professional R

Air Force Lawyers, Estate Planning, Federal I

68 
The AFJAG School published two editions of The 

Review in FY 1990. The FY 1990 editions included 

and one theme issue. The traditional issue was rec

taining one of the best articles published in the 

armed conflict and air operations. The theme issue 

dedicated to the area of claims and tort litigation 

The AF JAG School also was responsible for editin

ing the preventive law Shortbursts letter. This cov

to introduce an informal collection of informative a

terial to judge advocates providing legal assistance 

sonnel and dependents. The School also catalogued 

pared and collected by judge advocates throughou

help military members avoid personal legal problem

rials were then listed on a Preventive Law Clear

which was provided to all Air Force judge advocat

in acquiring these informative materials for their of

PERSONNEL 

As of 30 September 1990, there were 1398 judg

active duty. This total included 2 major generals, 3 b

als, 123 colonels, 218 lieutenant colonels, 324 majo

and 41 first lieutenants. 

Keithe E. Nelson 

Major General, USAF 

The Judge Advocate General 
PAAT' ·WORKLOAD OF THE AIR 

TOTA.LON KANO llGtNPti~Q 0' 1'1111100 

OINClllAL C:OUllllTl·MAlllTIAL 

ICD SPICIAL cou.-n-M.a.i.TIAL 

11111'1111111111110 ~ tlllVlf" 

OINllllAL COVlllTS·MAlllTIAL 

ICC Sl'ICIAL CQUpltTl-MAJll:TIAL 

TOTAL CASIS llllVllWID 

GINElllAL COUllllTS·MAlllTIAL 

ICC 5'1CIAL COUlllTS·MA .. TIAL 

TOTAL l'll'o!OINQ AT CLOSE 01' l't:llt100 

GIENll'IAL COUlllT,·MAlllTtAL 

lllATI O' tNCllllASI t•llDICllllASI 1-1 OVllll NUMBElll. 0' C.ASIS 

lllfVllWIO OUllllNQ LAST llllll'OlllTING ll'IJlll:IOO 

PART 5 ·APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

REVIEW 

881 

~lfltCENTAGI 99.8% 

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

-16.4% 

FORCE 

11'1111 CINT AO I OP COMlll Ill IV 1 fWE 0 CASE s •o~•-w_._._o_• O~T"O_u_s_c_ .. _. __ ~3~7~7~/~8 .... o._s.._ __

ll'llllCINT AOI OP TOT AL ll'ITITIOl'.!J...2!_A'-~'-r-"("'~-----·----~3~6""/_3"""7-'7---~

ll'llltCl'NTAGI OP INCllllASI 1-l·OECll'tAS( I ·I 0V(lll ll'lllfVt0US llllfll'Q,i!Tlf'tt(j •e,i1100 

ll'lfltCINTAOI 0, ,.l!TITIONS ClllANTE:l_O, TQ'f'AI.. CASIS ,ilfVllEWEO llY C0'-11111 ) 6 /8 Q 5 

Ill.A.Tl OP INClll.l.All l•)f0f;C,i!IASI I .• l)\1'£111 T"'"l "-'UMlf.111 OP CASES Jlll:EV•(WEO ou1111NQ 

LA.!T ,i!f.-0.-,TINO _,, •100 

70 
PART 9 ·COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMlllll Oii COMll'L.AINTS 

PART 10 ·STRENGTH 

20 

AVllllAGI ACTIVI DUTY STllllNCTH 5 4 6 S fi 5 3 

PART 11 ·NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15) 

NUMllJllll 011 CASIS Wf"lllU N0NJU01ClAL. ~UNISMM!NT IM11'0$10 

".ATlll'lllli 1,000 

PACE: OF~ 

(A] SPCMs in which BCD adjudged 

[BJ Reflects change in Rate per 1,000 

I 

I 

13'62 

24.84 

-5.6% 

Fiscal Year 90 89 88 

General Courts-Martial ........................................ 14 5 13 

Special Courts-Martial .......................................... 42 40 25 

Summary Courts-Martial ..................................... 47 48 35 

Total ............................................................. 103 93 73 

COURTS-MARTIAL 

Attorney counsel were detailed to all special court

tary judges were detailed to all special courts-ma

cases, the presiding judge was the Chief Trial Judg

general courts-martial judge. When he was unava

judges with other primary duties were used for spec

tial. Control of the detail of judges was centrally e

Chief Trial Judge, and all requirements were met in 

ion. 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

Of the fourteen accused tried by general courts-m

year, nine were tried by military judge alone. Of th

tried by military judge alone, four received dis

charges, one received a bad conduct discharge and 

ceived dismissals. One of the five accused tried b

members received a sentence which included a di

charge, and the other four received bad conduct dis

the accused whose charges were referred to general 

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

cers (pay grades E-4 through E-6), and four were off

The following is a breakdown of sentences adjud

courts-martial tried by the military judge alone (ni
Loss of numbers on active duty promotion list ..............................

The following is a breakdown of sentences adj

courts-martial tried by members (five convictions)

convictions did the accused plead guilty to all ch

cations. 

Sentence 

Dishonorable discharge ......................................................................

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

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

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

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

Partial forfeiture of pay ($43, 7 40 total) ...........................................

The following indicates the four sentences impo

eral courts-martial in the past four fiscal years. 

Number of Red

FY convictions Forfeitures Confinement 

90 ...................... 14 10 (71%) 12 (86%) 

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

88 ...................... 12 8 (75%) 12 (100%) 

87 ...................... 11 5 (45%) 8 (73%) 

The following table shows the distribution of 

tions referred to general courts-martial. 

Violation of the UCMJ, article 

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

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

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

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

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

74 
134 (General) ...............................................................................................

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

Twenty of the 42 accused tried by special cour

fiscal year were tried by the military judge alone. 

conduct discharges were awarded; fourteen to accuse

tary judge alone, and three to accused tried by a co

bers. Seventeen of the accused whose charges were r

cial courts-martial were nonrated (pay grades E-1 

twenty-three were petty officers (pay grades E-4 thr

was a chief petty officer (pay grade E-7), and one wa

petty officer (pay grade E-8). Five special courts-mar

acquittals and one resulted in a mistrial. 

The following table shows the distribution of the 

tions referred to special courts-martial. 

Violation of the UCMJ, article 

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

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

82 (Solicitation) ..........................................................................................

85 and 86 (Desertion/UA) ........................................................................

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

90 (Willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer) ....................

91 Unsubordinate conduct toward a petty officer) ...............................

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

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

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

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

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

111 (Drunken or reckless driving) ..........................................................

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

113 (Misbehavior of sentinel) ...................................................................

121 (Larceny and wrongful appropriation) ...........................................

123 (Forgery) ...............................................................................................
Bad conduct discharge ..........................................................................

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

Hard labor without confinement ........................................................

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

Forfeiture of pay ($12,880 total) ..........................................................

Fine ($2,920 total) ..................................................................................

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

Other (extra duty, reprimand, etc.) ....................................................

The following is a breakdown of sentences adj

courts-martial tried by members (16 convictions). I

16 convictions, the accused pled guilty to all charg

tions. 

Sen!A>nce 

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

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

Hard labor without confinement ........................................................

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

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

Forfeiture of pay ($8,976 total) ............................................................

Fine ($1,000 total) ..................................................................................

Other (extra duty, reprimand, etc.) ....................................................

The following indicates the four sentences impo

cial courts-martial in the past four fiscal years. 

FY Number of Forfeitures Confinement Reduction in 

convictions grade 

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

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

88 .. 25 9 (36%) 13 (52%) 18 (72%) 

87 .. 23 10 (43%) 13 (57%) 21 (91 %) 

76 
as a result of petitions filed under Article 69, UCM

ary review was conducted under Article 69 of all cou

requiring appellate review. 

PERSONNEL, ORGANIZATION, AND TR

The Coast Guard has 152 officers designated as 

Gudge advocates) serving on active duty-119 are s

billets and 33 are serving in general duty billets. 

Coast Guard officers are currently undergoing postg

in law and will be certified as law specialists at the 

their studies. Eight Coast Guard officers who rece

from law school completed the Navy Basic Lawyer C

port, Rhode Island. All have been certified under 

UCMJ. A total of 328 additional training quotas we

torneys, paralegals, yeomen and secretaries assig

Guard legal offices. Approximately $160,000 was s

training during the fiscal year. 

U.S. COAST GUARD COURT OF MILITAR

During fiscal year 1990, the Court was composed o

military judges assigned. by the General Counsel, 

Transportation, in his capacity as Judge Advocate 

Coast Guard. The Chief Judge and one other Judge a

ployees. The remaining three Judges are commissio

the U. S. Coast Guard. The Court is presently con

lows: 

Chief Judge Joseph H. Baum. 

Judge Alfred F. Bridgman, Jr. 

Judge Michael C. Grace. 

Judge John E. Shkor. 

Judge John A. Bastek. 
Federal Bar Association's Judiciary Section, w

Military Judges Committee among its various ju

Judge Grace, who is a member of the Military J

and the Pentagon Chapter of the Federal Bar A

as the Chapter's liaison to the Judiciary Section

Barry, who was a member of the Court until hi

the Coast Guard in August 1990, served as Presi

Advocates Association for fiscal year 1990. 

ADDITIONAL MILITARY JUSTICE ST

Appendix A contains additional basic military 

for the reporting period and reflects the increa

workload in various categories. 

Paul E. Versaw 

Rear Admiral, USCG 

Chief Counsel, U.S. Coast Guard 

78 
NUMBElll Oii BAO CONDUCT DISCHARGES 17 

PART 3 ·RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDE"' ARTICLE t56 ·GENERAL COURTS-MAATIAL 

P'OR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE H ·BCD SPICIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 99 ·GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

PART 4 -WORKLOAD OF THE COAST :ffiJARD 

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OP:: PERIOD 

GENERAL COUfllTS-MARTIAL 

BCD Sl'ECIAL COUfllTS-MARTIAL 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 

GENEAAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MA .. TIAL 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF ll'EFUOD 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 9 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MAP'ITIAL 8 

lllATE OF INCREASE C+l/DECfUASE C-) OVER NUMBER OF CASES 

P'IEVIEWED DURING LAST AE,.ORTING "ERIOD +13% 

PART 5 ·APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE COAST GUARD 

REVIEW 

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

PERCENTAGE OF COMA REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCMA 8/26 

P'EACENTAGE OF INCREASE (+I/DECREASE 1-1 OVEA PAEVIOUS AEP'Ofll:TING P'EIUOD 

P'ERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 

P'EACENTAGE OF INCREASE (+I/DECREASE(-) OVEA ll'P'IEVIOUS REll'OATING P'fRIOD 

P'ERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED Oft TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY COMlll 

RATI OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE(-) OVER THE NUMBER OF CASES REVIEWED DUfll:ING 

LAST RE,.OATING P'EAIOD 

PAGEIOF2 

CO

·!/Two of the seven dishonorable discharges are in fact dismissa

2/Included within this total are twenty-nine initial Article 66

two Article 66, UCMJ, remands by the U. S. Court of Military 

66, UCMJ, reconsideration granted by the Coast Guard Court of 

on motion by the Government, and one Article 62, UCMJ, appeal 
NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS I 

PART10·STRENGTH 

AVE A AGE ACTIVE OUTY STRENGTH 37, Q87 [:::\:;:::;::;:;::;: ·:::::;:-:::·:'·: ·.·.;.;.·

PART 11 ·NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15) 

NUMB Ult OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL l'UNISHMENT IMPOSED 

RATE PER 1,000 

AATE OF INCREASE f+)IOECREASE (-} OVEA PREVIOUS PERIOD 

PAGE20F2 

1,414 

38.12 

-.6% 

}/Included within this total are twenty-five reviews pursuant to 

and one review of a Government appeal under Article 62, UCMJ. 

extraordinary writ actions. 

80 (r U.S. GOVERNllENT PRINTI