INCLUDING SEPARATE REPOR

of the 


U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARM

THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENE

OF THE U.S. ARMED FORCES

AND THE CHIEF COUNSEL 

OF THE U.S. COAST GUARD 

For the Period 


October 1, 1993 to September 30, 

PROPERTY OF U.S. ARMV 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENER

118PtARY 

and the 


COMMITTEE ON NATIONA

of the U.S. House of Repres

and to the 


SECRETARY OF DEFEN

SECRETARY OF TRANSPOR

and 


SECRETARIES OF TH

ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR F

PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JU

For the Period 


October 1, 1993 to September 30

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF 

NAVY 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF 

AIR FORCE 

REPORT OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL OF THE COAST G

the United States House of Representatives, an

Defense, Transportation, Army, Navy, and Air 

with Article 146, Uniform Code of Military Justic

THE BUSINESS OF THE CO

The number of cases carried over on the Court

the end of fiscal year 1994 reflected a decrease o

ber of cases pending at the end offiscal year 199

The Court also succeeded in decreasing the num

over on its Master Docket by 20% during the 

Appendix B.) 

During this reporting period the number of p

review filed with the Court decreased by 6%. (S

number of oral arguments increased by 18% to a 

during fiscal year 1994 and the number of opin

Court also increased to a 10-year high of 144 dur

(See Appendices C and D.)2 

The average processing time from the date of fil

the fiscal year to the date of a grant by the Co

decrease from the same comparative processing 

previous fiscal year. (See Appendix E.) There w

during the fiscal year in the average processin

1 Effective October 5, 1994, the United States Court 

renamed the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed 

L. No. 103-337, § 924, 108 Stat. 2663. 

2 Although not part of the business of the Court, it is not

1994 the Court was notified that petitions for writ of certi

Supreme Court of the United States in 42 Master Docket 

issued a final decision. 
before the Bar ofthe Court to 29,638. 

PUBLIC AWARENESS PROJEC

(PROJECT OUTREACH) 

Pursuant to its practice established in 1988, the 

several special sessions and heard oral arguments 

outside its permanent Courthouse in Washington, 

its "Project Outreach" Program, a public awarene

oped to demonstrate not only the operation of a F

court but also the effectiveness and quality of the 

system of the Armed Forces of the United States

conducted without objection of the parties at th

Military Academy, West Point, New York; the U

Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado; and t

North Dakota School of Law, Grand Forks, Nort

prior years these hearings promoted an increased p

of the fundamental fairness of the military justice 

role of the Court in the overall administration of 

throughout the world. The Court hopes that those w

hearings from both military and civilian commun

that the United States is' a democracy that can ma

force instilled with the appropriate discipline to 

power and yet afford each member of that armed 

impartial justice system which provides the full p

Constitution of the United States and federal law to 

JUDICIAL VISITATIONS 

During fiscal year 1994, the Judges of the Court

past practice and their ethical responsibility to over

the military justice system, participated in professio

2 
THE JUDICIAL CONFEREN

On May 12 and 13, 1994, the Court held i

Conference at the George Washington Univers

The program for this Judicial Conference was c

meet the continuing legal education requiremen

bars throughout the United States and was des

military and civilian practitioners in maintainin

skills necessary to practice before trial and ap

Conference opened with a presentation by the H

Sullivan, Chief Judge, United States Court of Ap

Forces, on the "State of the Court." The Hon

. Bryson, Deputy Solicitor General of the Unite

"Recent Developments in the U.S. Supreme Co

Lawrence E. Jahnke, Associate Judge on the No

Court, presented a program on "Courtroom Secu

Charles E. Moylan, Associate Judge on the M

Special Appeals, delivered an address on "The F

Ms. Linda Greenhouse, Reporter for The 

Washington Bureau, spoke on "The Supreme C

Jonathan Lurie, Historian to the Court and Pro

Rutgers University, spoke on the "Appointme

U.S. Court of Military Appeals"; and Profess

Georgetown University Law School, delivered a l

evidence in a criminal trial. In addition, Major 

Judge Advocate General's Corps, United Stat

"Current Ethical Issues"; Professor Stephen A. 

Washington University School of Law, spo

Evidence" and "Oral Appellate Advocacy"; the 

Gorelick, General Counsel, Department of De

address on "Criminal Law from the DoD Pers

Fredric 1. Lederer, William and Mary School 
ADMINISTRATION OF MILITARY JU

WITHIN THE ARMED FORCES 

EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF 

In Samples v. Vest, 38 MJ 482 (CMA 1994), the 

petition for extraordinary relief filed on beha

involved in the "Tailhook" incident. The Court co

evidence sustained a finding by the military judge 

had not been given an enforceable promise of transac

In Garrett v. Lowe, 39 MJ 293 (CMA 1994), the C

case in the context of a petition for extraordinary re

of a writ of error coram nobis where relief had 

rejected during the normal appellate review of th

See United States v. Garrett, 24 MJ 413 (CMA 1

rejected a government argument that coram nob

used to correct factual errors and held that such 

encompass constitutional and other fundamental e

also noted that the petitioner remained in confin

thus, the proceedings could be resolved in the con

habeas corpus. In ruling on the merits of this petitio

that the petitioner's sentence was defective becaus

had erroneously instructed the court members tha

of the members were required to agree on the sent

fourths of the members were actually required to c

3 Effective October 5, 1994, the Courts of Military Review wer

ofCriminal Appeals pursuant to Pub.L. No. 103-337, § 924,108 

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

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

in easily locating cases of particular interest during the term. 

are not of precedential value and should not be cited in briefs file

4 
agreement, providence inquiry, and a copy of th

tions of the suspension provision that was serv

purported to apply conditions to all elements 

convening authority's action after trial did not c

sion of the confinement. The Court thus ruled th

pension of confinement was improper in this ca

Court held that the suspension of other compon

was predicated on an excessively long period of 

violated Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 1l08(

examining other aspects of the petitioner's gu

accepted the view of the parties that a period of fi

a reasonable period of time as the outermost lim

period applicable to petitioner's bad-conduct disc

in grade below pay grade E-4. 

EVIDENCE 

In United States v. Chandler, 39 MJ 119 (CM

examined the facts and circumstances of a 

uttered by an assault victim and concluded tha

"excited utterance" exception to the hearsay r

Rule of Evidence (Mil.R.Evid.) 803(2). Furth

rejected a defense argument that the prosecu

used the statement during closing argument a

statement by observing that the statement was 

assault victim's trial testimony. The Court held 

when evidence is otherwise admissible under a 

the requirements for admissibility as a prior c

need not be met. In United States v. McGrath

1994), the Court ruled that the military judge p

sexual assault victim's pretrial statements u

hearsay requirements of Mil. R. Evid. 804(b)(5

had attempted to block the victim from testifying 
statements, the Court held that the interests of ju

their admissibility under Mil. R. Evid. 613(b). Ho

declined to resolve the question of their admissibi

Evid. 613(b) in the case at hand because reversib

mitted in any event where the trial judge instructe

bers that they could consider the alleged victim'

statements as evidence of the truth of the matters 

Thus, the Court held the use of such out-of-court s

stantive evidence was clearly wrong and reversal w

In United States v. Quigley, 40 MJ 64 (CMA 

addressed an issue which concerned the admissibil

under Mil. R. Evid. 803(4). The Court held that th

declarant had an expectation of receiving medic

supported by the evidence of record and that othe

provide information to satisfy the requirement th

was in fact made with the expectation of receivi

ment. Contrarily, in United States v. Faciane, 4

1994), the Court held in a child sex abuse case 

failed to establish that the child's out-of-court sta

members of a hospital's child protective committe

under the medical-diagnosis exception to the hears

In United States v. Coleman, 41 MJ 46 (CMA 

held that a trial judge did not abuse his discret

defense counsel an opportunity to cross-examine a 

ness under Mil. R. Evid. 803(18) by using stateme

article because the defense failed to establish th

question was an authoritative publication. 

ARTICLE 31 AND RIGHT TO COUNSEL 

In United States v. Bowerman, 39 MJ 219 (199

sidered the applicability of Article 31, UCMJ, to 

an enlisted accused was questioned by a medica

6 
to counsel under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 

16 L.Ed. 2d 694 (1966), the Court held in United 

39 MJ 471 (CMA 1994), that the accused's requ

attorney before providing a non-consensual urine 

tle and too early to qualify as an invocation of s

accused had not yet been read his warnings or ev

todial interrogation. The Court observed that th

query as to whether the accused would consen

not constitute a custodial interrogation with

Miranda. The Court did hold, however, that th

accused during the booking process before he 

Miranda warnings did violate the mandate of M

further held that a statement by the accused tha

ally get a lawyer" did not invoke his right to cou

where the statement was made after he was adv

counsel and had unequivocally waived those 

Court held that the statement only asserted 

counsel in the future and that the investigato

stopping the interview to clarify the accused's in

held that an unwarned admission did not tain

where the facts and circumstances reflected that 

had no substantial impact on a subsequent volu

decision to speak with the police agent. 

In United States v. LeMasters, 39 MJ 490 (CM

considered the requirement of an investigator to 

counsel before taking a statement which is set 

305(e). After noting that the accused himself i

with the investigators with knowledge of his Mir

rights and that he waived those rights, the Co

was no duty to notify counsel prior to taking 

ment. The Court ruled that the record indicat

been aware of his rights and had affirmatively 

and that there was no evidence of police overre
g

gy y 

unfamiliarity with the foreign legal system and do

mean that the suspect is unwilling to talk to an 

gator until he has been provided counsel. The C

that the statements of the accused in this case 

because after he was turned over to American a

advised of his rights under American military 

counsel, declined counsel and agreed to talk w

investigators. 

LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES 

In United States v. Foster, 40 MJ 140 (CMA 199

that the "elements test" earlier adopted in United 

37 MJ 370 (CMA 1993), to decide whether one off

cious with another for purposes of findings of gu

used in determining whether one offense is a lesse

of another. The Court observed that Article 79, UC

identical with the language of Federal Rule of Cr

31(c) but noted a unique issue in military juri

offense charged under Article 134. After noting tha

torical accident that some offenses would be specif

within the Uniform Code of Military Justice w

encompassed within the "general" Article 134, t

held that the specifically enumerated offenses 

which is per se either prejudicial to good order and 

nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. 

Court held that an offense under Article 134 c

included offense of one of the specifically enumerat

Articles 80-132 of the Uniform Code. Thus, the Co

aforementioned standard that the offense of comm

act was a lesser-included offense of both inde

sodomy. 

8 
expected military judges to exercise their auth

the buck" to the staffjudge advocate or convenin

An issue was raised in United States v. Mitche

1994), which sought to disqualify the judges o

Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals 

Judge Advocate General participated in the fi

tions of the judges of that court. The Court re

that such system deprived the Court of Crimi

pendence or the appearance of independence a

argument that the Judge Advocate General or 

Advocate General holds a prosecutorial office o

that position imply bias in favor of the Governm

quoted a portion of the recent decision of the 

Weiss v. United States,_U.S._, 114 S.Ct. 75

lows: "By placing judges under the control o

General, who have no interest in the outcome o

martial, we believe Congress has achieved an 

between independence and accountability." Fur

ruled that the de novo application of the civilian 

dard to determine a servicemember's right to a j

inappropriate since the appropriate standard 

whether the circumstances are so extraordinaril

come the balance struck by Congress. 

In United States v. Martinez, 40 MJ 82 (CMA 

cluded that a sentence rehearing was necessary 

judge in a judge-alone court-martial was approac

he had closed the court for sentence deliberati

matters pertaining to the accused's uncharged m

judge was the sentencing authority in this case, 

the judge should have opened court and submit

tions from counsel for both parties involved in 

held in United States v. Carter, 40 MJ 102 (CMA 
(), ppy 

g 

rights, the Court further held that the standard re

application in the military context. The Court h

Article 133 violation is based on the officer's priva

in the military is whether the officer's speech pos

sent danger that the speech will, in dishonoring 

officer personally, seriously compromise the perso

officer. Citing paragraph 59c(2), Part IV, Ma

Martial, United States, 1984, the Court further h

no requirement of publication, that private comm

ficient to give rise to an Article 133 violation, and 

on notice that his conduct under the circumstance

ing disrepute upon himself and his profession. T

another conviction based on an Article 133 violatio

v. Bilby, 39 MJ 467 (CMA 1994), for soliciting an

federal child pornography statute. The Court held 

essary to decide whether the statute in question 

was constitutional since the solicitation to violate 

was in itselfsufficient to give rise to an Article 133 

FREE SPEECH 

The Court rejected a defense claim in United S

MJ 420 (CMA 1994), that the First Amendme

accused's conviction under Article 134 for maki

before an audience of high school students while in 

ing his military accomplishments in Iraq during 

Shield. The Court upheld the conviction on the b

dence was sufficient to sustain a finding that the A

ited under the circumstances of this case. 

COMMAND INFLUENCE 

The Court addressed an issue in United States v

(CMA 1994), concerning whether a trial counsel

10 
ment, on the basis that Jeter involved an issue of 

qualification rather than unlawful influence. H

rejected the accused's claim of command influenc

for a limited hearing by holding that, even if so

preferral of charges against the accused had occ

court-martial level, this case was convened by 

level of command and the general court-martial c

acted independently with the advice of another s

who was not at all involved at the lower level. 

In United States v. Stombaugh, 40 MJ 208 (CM

distinguished between unlawful interference with 

and command influence which is contrary to Art

ing that if there was no mantle of official comm

private interference was involved and not co

Examining the facts of this case the Court held 

the defense witnesses was an officer and was ap

officers who did not represent the command or be

sponsored organization, any improper conduct b

cers could properly be considered as unlawful 

access to the witnesses rather than unlawful c

However, the Court further held that where on

nesses, a petty officer, was approached by a di

conduct could fairly be construed as unlawful c

But since numerous witnesses testified for the 

held that the record indicated beyond a reasona

unlawful command influence did not affect the f

and, thus, affirmed the decision of the lower cour

In United States v. Hamilton, 41 MJ 32 (CMA 

distinguished among the various stages at which 

influence may occur: preferral, forwarding with 

referral, trial, and post-trial review. Although 

influence was alleged to have occurred at the pre
further held that the duty to instruct on an affirm

not waived by a failure to request such instructio

the facts and circumstances of this case, the fa

required reversal of the conviction as to the charge 

involved in the omitted instruction. In United Sta

MJ 246 (CMA 1994), the Court considered an issue 

of testimonial immunity and a decision to prosecu

accused. The Court held under military law that 

may not prosecute the accused in question unless 

by a preponderance of the evidence that the prosec

prosecute was untainted by the immunized testimo

ular case the Court held the Government had fai

burden and reversed the accused's conviction o

However, the Court held that the immunized te

used to prosecute the accused on a separate char

that the evidence in this case was insufficien

accused's conviction on the peIjury charge. 

In United States v. Thomas, 40 MJ 252 (CMA 

rejected a defense claim that reference to his reli

precluded by Mil. R. Evid. 610 at his court-martial 

charges, ruling that the military judge properly a

that the accused had uttered a pretrial statement 

members of his religion used marijuana. The Co

accused's pretrial statement concerning his religio

integral part of his pretrial admission involving th

na and that such statement was not prohibited by 

since it was not offered to impeach the accused'

rather, as part of his admission to his commandin

ing his reason for using marijuana. In United Sta

MJ 1 (CMA 1994), the Court held that the milita

refusing to admit the accused's evidence that his 

would be contrary to his strong opposition to dru

12 
to obtain proper medical care for his daughter. I

reviewed the history of the crime of murder und

of Military Justice and prior military law and r

no evidence of congressional intent to shield pa

accountability for killing their helpless children 

of vital medical attention and that, thus, a co

could be properly predicated on either an act or a

EUGENE R. SULLIVAN 

ChiefJudge 

WALTERT. COX III 

Associate Judge 

SUSAN J. CRAWFORD 

Associate Judge 

H.F. "SPARKY" GIERKE 

Associate Judge 

ROBERT E. WISS 

Associate Judge 
CUMULATIVE TERMINATIONS 

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

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

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

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

CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 1, 1994 

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

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

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

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

OPINION SUMMARY 

CATEGORY SIGNED 

PER 

CURIAM 

M

OR

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

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

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

135 

0 

5 

4 

o 

o 

1

TOTAL.................................. 140 4 22

FILINGS W.ASTER DOCKET) 

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

Returned from Court of Military Review.................. 2 

Mandatory appeals filed ............................................ 1 

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

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

Petitions granted (from Petition Docket).................. 531 

TOTAL.................................................................... 546 

14 
Art. 62 petitions filed........ ........ ........ ...... ...... ...... ....... 


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


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


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


Returned from Court of Military Review.................. 


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


TERMINATIONS (PETITION DOCKET) 


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


PENDING (PETITION DOCKET) 

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

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

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

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


FILINGS (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET) 


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


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


Writs ofmandamus/prohibition sought.................... 


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


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


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


TERMINATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET) 


Petitions withdrawn .................................................. 


Petitions remanded .................................................... 


Petitions granted........................................................ 


Petitions denied.......................................................... 


Petitions dismissed .................................................... 


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


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


4 

2 

7 

2 

0 

1514 

16 

1000 

531 

10 

19 

o 

1576 

136 

58 

97 

291 

1 

4 

10 

83 

16 

114 

0 

0 

4 

110 

2 

0 

116 
TOTAL ........................... 1 18 2 2 

MOTIONS ACTIVITY 

BEGIN END 

PEND- FIL- PEND- GrantCATEGORY ING INGS ING ed 

All motions ......................... 8 1127 17 1054 

16 
Petition Docket Yea

...... 

...., 
...... 

00 

Master Docket Yea

...11 * This figure does not include 16 trailer cases to United States V Wa

68206IMC, and 8 trailer cases to United States V Wejss, No. 678691

-Y This figure does not include 87 trailer cases to United States V Mitc

93-10441NA, and 9 trailer cases to United States V Rexroat, No. 93-5
Oral Arguments 

..... 

ID 
I\) 

o 	

Total Opinion

D 	Separate Opinions 

(Concur, Concur in the Result, and Dis
Days from Petition F

I\) 

..... 
I\) 

I\) 

Days from Peti

to Oral Arg
Days from Oral 

to Final De

I\) 

Co) 

261 1 
I\) 

"'" Days from Pet

to Final De

o Petition Docket 

(Denial/DismissallWithdrawl) 
Days from F

Final Decision in 

I\) 

U1 
I\) 

0) 

Total Petitions File
assistance, and professional education to ensure 

cient administration of military justice. Numbe

based on a military end strength of 557,516 in F

FY93. 

MILITARY JUSTICE STATIST

STATISTICAL SUMMARY: F

(See table insert, attache

U.S. ARMY LEGAL SERVICES A

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

OTJAG, includes the following organizations inv

istration of military justice: the U.S. Arm

Government Appellate Division, the Defense Ap

Trial Defense Service, and the Trial Counsel Ass

U.S. ARMY JUDICIARY 

The U.S. Army Judiciary consists of the U

Criminal Appeals, the Clerk of Court, the Exa

Trials Division, and the Trial Judiciary. 

U.S. ARMY TRIAL DEFENSE SE

During FY 94, the United States Army Tri

(USATDS) continued to provide high-quality, p

counsel services to soldiers throughout the Arm

load data for the most recent FYs is displayed be
other services. 

TRIAL COUNSEL ASSISTANCE PR

During FY 94, the U.S. Army Trial Counsel A

(TCAP) performed its mission by providing inf

training, and trial assistance to military prosecut

addition to services provided to Army attorne

expanded constituency among prosecutors in the 

Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. Attorneys from 

continue to be among the most ardent users of TC

basic categories of TCAP services were provided d

telephone inquiry assistance; (2) training seminar

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

attorneys responded to 924 telephonic requests fo

tance (compared to 1,147 in FY 93), conducted seven 

courses in the Continental United States (CONUS), 

Germany; held one video teleconference; and publ

uted to approximately 350 subscribers, twelve ed

Memo. TCAP also provided instructional assistan

attending the U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR

Conferences and the Criminal Law New Develop

CriminalLaw Advocacy Courses at The Judge A

School, U.S. Army. 

SIGNIFICANT MILITARY JUSTICE A

Criminal Law Division, OTJAG, advised The 

General on military justice policy, legislation, op

criminal law actions. Specific responsibilities inclu

military justice regulations and reviewing Army re

sufficiency; military corrections; the Army's drug 

28 
q

Clemency Petitions, Article 74, UCMJ.... 

Officer Dismissal Actions ......................... 

Freedom of InformationlPrivacy Act ....... 

During FY 94, the Criminal Law Division p

International Law Division in the 1st Internat

Military Justice in Lima, Peru; represented TJA

force revising the Federal Crime Victim and 

Program; attended meetings of the American B

mittees dealing with military law matters; an

1994 Judicial Conference of the U.S. Court of Ap

Forces and the annual meeting of the Code Comm

JOINT-SERVICE COMMITT

ON MILITARY JUSTICE 

The Chief, Criminal Law Division, OTJAG, 

representative to the Joint-Service Committee 

(JSC) established by the Judge Advocates Gener

of Transportation (Coast Guard) on August 17, 

ducts an annual review of the MCM, as required 

12473 and DoD Directive 5500.17. The JSC pro

amendments to the UCMJ and MCM, while se

exchanging military justice information. 

During FY 94, Change 7 (the 1991 and 1992 

promulgated by the President as Executive Ord

December 1994. Highlights of Change 7 inc

increase in permissible punishments for homici

and a revision of the sentencing rules relating to 

itative potential. The Military Rules of Evidence 

by Change 7 to conform military practice to re
rations is no longer an authorized courtmartia

the SJA must inform the convening authority of 

for clemency made by the sentencing authority. 

court-martial sentences to run consecutivel

adjudged by civilian or foreign jurisdictions and 

ing authority to correct minor errors in actions b

forwarded for appellate review. 

Change 8 clarifies the standards for review of 

tions based on false statements and clarifies that 

of espionage is not satisfied merely because the a

out lawful authority. It amends the procedures c

dling and admissibility of privileged government 

than classified, and changes the definition of inh

acts to cover acts dangerous to "another" as op

Change 8 extends the definition of drunken or r

the operation of aircraft and vessels and establ

alcohol level as proof of intoxication. Change 8 als

der neutral and adds spousal rape as an offense. 

The Army acts as Executive Agent for th

Committee on Military Justice. Consequently, b

proposed changes to the MCM to DoD, the Army 

publication of a new soft-cover Manual for Courts

MCM's user-friendly format also resulted in signi

to DoD. 

FOREIGN CRIMINAL JURISDIC

As executive agent for the Department 

Department of the Army, through the Internation

Law Division, OTJAG, maintains information co

cise of foreign criminal jurisdiction over U.s. perso

The data below, while not coinciding with the 

30 
g

all decline of Army personnel stationed overseas. 

This year, foreign authorities released 67 of th

eign jurisdiction cases involving military person

authorities for disposition. Because the conc

offenses involved violations of both U.S. militar

the foreign countries had authority to assert p

This year, however, U.S. military authorities w

waivers of foreign jurisdiction in 4,942 of these 

waivers were obtained in 89.0 percent of exclusiv

eignjurisdiction cases. A total of 1,646 civilia

dependents were charged with offenses subject 

tion. As civilians are not subject to trial by cour

time, the U.S. has no effective jurisdiction over 

year, when there were 2,155 offenses involving 

and dependents, foreign authorities released 807

the total, to U.S. military authorities for adminis

position. This year foreign authorities released 3

of the total, to U.S. military authorities. 

Foreign authorities tried a total of 1,494 case

percent, resulted in acquittals, and 1,374, or 9

in sentences to fines or reprimands. The rema

executed sentences to confinement and 75 susp

confinement. 

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIB

The Professional Responsibility Branch, Sta

Office, was created in August 1991. It is charg

TJAG's professional responsibility program, pre

bility of the OTJAG Criminal Law Division. 

In 1987 the Army published AR 27-26, Rul
pq

defense counsel. 

LITIGATION 

Civil litigation against the Department of t

employees continued to increase during FY 94. S

civilian courts to interpret the UCMJ, and the v

taken pursuant to it, constitute a small but signifi

litigation. A majority of these cases seek collatera

martial proceedings. Most remaining cases presen

general conditions of confinement, specific actions 

ment facility personnel, or parole and clemency pro

EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

The Judge Advocate General's School, US A

Charlottesville, Virginia, remains a vibrant, busy an

institution. During FY 94, the School provided edu

and related subjects to more than 6,515 lawyers, c

officers, enlisted personnel, and to civilians of the 

and other federal agencies. 

The School conducted 46 resident courses this ye

last year. -During FY 94, 3,401 students, 1,160 of w

Army, graduated compared to 3,648 (1,461 Active 

93. During FY 94, 637 students were member

Components, a decrease of 20 from FY 93. Federal C

attending resident courses at the School numbered 

802 in FY 93. Other military departments sent 7

Air Force, 128 Marine, and 241 Navy) in FY 94 c

in FY 93. Also attending classes in FY 94 were 4

Coast Guard and 17 International Military Studen

32 
sessions presented in FY 93 were attended by 2

The "flagship" educational experience of the 

Judge Advocate Officer Graduate Course. T

General's School is the only government enti

rized to grant the degree of Master of Laws (LL

In 1988, the American Bar Association recogniz

the demanding scholastic standards of the G

concurred in the School's awarding the LL.M

Law. 

On May 14, 1994, 75 students of the 42d Gra

The Judge Advocate General's School Master 

Law. In addition to 52 Army judge advocates, 

10 Marine, 5 Navy, 5 Air Force, 1 US Army Re

tional military students, 1 from Canada and 1 

Graduate Class graduated 76 students. 

Three Judge Advocate Officer Basic Cours

length, introduced a total of 134 students (127 

Army Reserve, 2 Army National Guard, and 3 I

students) to the practice of law in the military. 

instruction to these new judge advocate officers 

of a military officer, ethics, and substantive mili

Basic Course curriculum is carefully designed t

tioners for what they are likely to encounter 

ments. 

The Basic Course criminal law instruction 

more accurately reflect the needs of the milita

of the Basic Course clinical training program 

technique exercises were transferred to a new 

Criminal Law Advocacy Course. This course, h

this Spring, was created to provide newly assig

counsel an intensive two-week trial advocacy 

to a trial slot. The biannual Criminal Law Adv
Division participated in cross-disciplinary educ

with the Criminal Law Division at the Basic Pr

Course. The Criminal Law Division presented in

advocates from all services on recent criminal l

during the Criminal Law New Developments Cour

In addition to resident instruction, the Crimi

taught criminal law at reserve on-site locations, i

Europe. The division also supported a two week 

the Judge Advocate Triennial Training and the 

Officer Advanced Course for members of the Reser

The Criminal Law Division updates and publis

criminal law subjects. Included within the division

the Crimes and Defenses Deskbook, the Trial Cou

Counsel Handbook, the U.S. Attorneys Prosec

Department of the Army Pamphlet 27-173 (Tria

Department of the Army Pamphlet 27-7 (Guide for 

Martial Trial Procedure). Criminal Law instruct

contributed articles and short notes for publica

Lawyer and the Military Law Review. 

Criminal Law instruction was complemented b

guest speaker program that included Judge Walte

Judge Herman F. Gierke, from the U.S. Court of 

Mr. John F. Depue, Senior Attorney, Terrorism an

Division, Department of Justice; Major General (U

Kenneth J. Hodson, Washington, D.C.; Profe

Lederer, William & Mary School of Law; and Pro

Mauet, University of Arizona College of Law. Ot

trial attorneys from the private sector including 

Lincoln, Nebraska, also participated in the guest 

The Honorable Jo Ann Harris, Assistant At

Department of Justice, Criminal Law Division, p

Kenneth J. Hodson Lecture in Criminal Law. 

34 
Additionally, the School is playing an importa

Department of Defense teach democratic, huma

law concepts throughout the developing wo

United States Government programs, the Schoo

Albania, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Rwanda, Se

Zimbabwe, Honduras, and other nations in su

important missions. 

The Developments, Doctrine, and Literature D

to coordinate the production of top quality Depa

Pamphlets, Field Manuals, Training Circu

Training Aids. The Department developed a

approval of a new table of organization and equi

Advocate General Service Organization (JAGSO

Reserve Component organization designed to su

vices provided in a theater of operations by JAG

to the Army units and commands in theater. T

began work on a new study analyzing paralegal 

support requirements for legal specialists and co

The Military Law Review and The Army Lawy

vide quality articles that informed and educated 

the active Army and the Reserve Component

TJAGSA's Alumni Association presented its P

Award to Major Walter G. Sharp, Sr., for his ar

Deterrence of Environmental Damage During 

Case Analysis of the Persian Gulf War," which a

L. Rev. 1 (1992). 

The Guard and Reserve Affairs Division (GRA

Reserve Component Workshop at the School ea

supports reserve component Judge Advocate Tr

well as the resident Phase II of the Judge 

Advanced Course. Over 350 Army judge advo

courses. GRA coordinates reserve component at
Reserve commanders. Additionally, an Operationa

and a Domestic Operational Law Workshop 

Component legal communities are being developed. 

PERSONNEL, PLANS, AND POLI

The strength of the Judge Advocate General's Co

FY 94 was 1,575. This total includes 43 officers (3

first lieutenants) participating in the Funded 

Program during FY 94 compared to 34 officers (3

first lieutenants) in FY 93. The composition of the 

General's Corps included 86 Mrican-Americans, 

Asian and Native Americans, and 281 women. 

strength of 1,575 compares with an end strength o

1,710 in FY 92, 1,752 in FY 91, and 1,771 in FY 90. 

bution of the Corps was 6 general officers, 129 c

tenant colonels, 334 majors, 880 captains, and 35 

Sixty-two warrant officers, 307 civilian attorneys, a

soldiers supported legal operations worldwide. 

To ensure selection of the best qualified candidat

mission, career status, and service schools, The 

General convened advisory boards several times 

Newly a~cessed officers were commissioned as first 

One h"Lindred and ninety-eight Judge Advocate o

the following service schools: 

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

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

Industrial College ofthe Armed Forces .........................

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

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

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

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

36 

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

REVIEW 

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

PERCENTAGe OF COMR REVIEweo CASES FORWARDED TO USCMA 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/OECREAse (_) eVER flREVIQUS REPORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTEe 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/OECREASE (-lOVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEweo BY COMA 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/OECREASe (-J OVER THE NUMBER of CASES REVIEwED DUR

LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

I'ACE10F2 

38 
PART 9· COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS I 

PART 10· STRENGTH 

AVer::lAGE ACTIVE CUTY STRENGTI-4 to::::::::: .... 

!'ACE 2 OF 2 

EXPLANATORY NOTES 

[A) 	 Original trials only. 

[B) 	 All cases terminated other than by conviction. 

[C) 	 Cases convened by GCM convening authority in which 

empowered to impose a BCD. 

[D) 	 Based on records of trial received during report p

tried (PART 1). In addition to DDs shown, 16 dism

approved. 

[E) 	 Does not include cases in which appellate review w

[F) 	 Includes only cases briefed and at issue before th

briefs were awaited in an additional 314 cases. 

[G) 	 Cases pending before USACMR (.which may include gov

petitions for extraordinary relief) are not routin

of court-martial. 

[H) 	 Includes 6 appeals in which withdrawal from appell

Also includes 14 writ cases. No Government appeal

[I) 	 Total appellants represented by counsel. O~ that 

represented by civilian counsel. 

[J) 	 Based only on petitions acted upon during the repo

[K) 	 Average of monthly strengths shown in report DCSPE

[L) 	 Previous year includes 220 ·trailer cases· involvi

method of designating military trial and appellate 

MILITARY JUSTICE 

In compliance with the requirement of Articl

of Military Justice, the Judge Advocate Gen

Judge Advocate General made frequent inspect

the United States, Europe, and the Far East 

administration of military justice. 

ARTICLE 69(a), UCMJ, EXAMI

Sixty-three general court-martial records of 

eligible for automatic review by the Navy-M

Military Review, were forwarded for examinati

Judge Advocate General in fiscal year 1994. O

rective action by the Judge Advocate General. S

ing review. 

ARTICLE 69(b), UCMJ, APPLIC

In fiscal year 1994, 31 applications under A

Code of Military Justice, were received for 

applications were denied on the merits, while 

whole or in part in 4 cases. Twelve cases are pe

ARTICLE 73, UCMJ, PETIT

In fiscal year 1994, six petitions for new trial 

Office of the Judge Advocate General. Five pe

and one petition is pending review. 
g p

staff judge advocates in the effective prosecution 

Four appellate counsel are detailed to impleme

Prompt assistance (usually the same day) is provid

telephone calls or electronic messages from trial 

judge advocates in the field requesting advice or i

cases pending or being tried. Additional assist

through training presentations, the periodic public

Viewpoint, and a computer bulletin board. Throug

and effective methods, there has been a 3% incre

calls over the last year. 

Presentations. Government counsel also particip

Judicial Conference of the United States Court o

Armed Forces in Washington, D.C., and made pre

Army Judge Advocate General's School's Grad

Army-Navy Reserve Conference in Minneapolis

before the Courts of Criminal Appeals Judge

Washington, D.C. 

Reserves. The Appellate Government Division con

and support 12 Navy reservists and 9 Marine 

assigned to the Division. The Reservists assigned c

a significant contribution to the successful co

Division's mission, including the presentation of 

before the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal 

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

APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISIO

Appellate Defense Prac:ices. A total of 2154 cas

during fiscal year 1994 by the 20 active duty Navy 

advocates and their reserve counterparts assigned 

Defense Division. Of that total, 618 were fully bri

42 
States Supreme Court was particularly activ

1994. Two cases were orally argued. United Sta

a systemic attack on the method of appointin

appellate judges. United States v. Davis invol

concerning police practices after a suspect m

comment regarding a desire for counsel in the m

tion. Although the government prevailed in bot

will have a significant impact on military pra

serve as landmark precedent for every jurisdict

Trial Defense Assistance. The Field Departm

vide immediate, on-call advice to field defense c

developments in appellate litigation and sugge

in pending cases. On average, the Division re

call per day and the response has ranged from 

taking only a few minutes to the filing of extrao

ing several months of litigation. 

Reserves. The Division continues to rely h

standing support provided by its reserve asse

involved in approximately 25% of the Division's 

a senior active duty appellate attorney as Res

vides excellent centralized case management 

control of the reserve docket. 

NAVY-MARINE CORPS TRIAL J

The Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary (NM

tary judges for 582 general courts-martial and 

martial during fiscal year 1994. These numbers 

of 152 general courts-martial (-20.7%) and a de

courts-martial (-15.7%). Despite the overall de

the total numbers of hours expended trying 

27312 in fiscal year 1993 to 28042 in fisca
NavyMarine Corps Senior Officer Courses in Mi

by the Naval Justice School at numerous locati

well as for various in-service courses. 

NAVAL LEGAL SERVICE COMM

Naval Legal Service Command (NAVLEGSVC

wide range of legal services to afloat and ashore 

duty naval personnel, dependents, and retiree

world-wide. Specific functions include the provi

courts-martial and administrative boards, coun

claims processing and adjudication, counsel at p

boards, and legal assistance. In addition, the com

the Naval Justice School at Newport, Rhode Isl

training sea service judge advocates, and paraleg

for all services, as well as foreign military and ci

sonnel through the Expanded International Milit

Training Program. 

In fiscal year 1994, NA VLEGSVCCOM complet

of a three year reorganization plan. When comple

COM would consist of 12 Naval Legal Service 

(down from 16 at the beginning of the fiscal year a

mentation began) and 28 detachments and bran

end of the fiscal year, NA VLEGSVCCOM stood at 

detachments and branch offices. NA VLEGSVCCO

by the Deputy Judge Advocate General ofthe Nav

officer, 207 enlisted, and 170 civilian personnel. T

stitutes about 40% ofthe Navy's total judge advoc

Commander Naval Legal Service Command (C

COM) and the Judge Advocate General initiate

to improve litigation services within NA VLEGSVC

of that study, COMNA VLEGSVCCOM proposed 

44 
Legal Service Command to provide litigation s

commands and individuals. The prototype is ex

the beginning of fiscal year 1995 and be stud

about two years; if adopted, it would require ex

reorganization plan. 

NAVLEGSVCCOM activities rely upon t

General Management Information System (J

high quality and responsive legal services. JA

computer based system which tracks each acti

receipt to disposition. Following last year's su

tion of the headquarters module of the Military 

Information System (MJMIS - a consolidated 

courts-martial through the appellate process), t

mately 50% of the necessary work completed o

MJMIS which will extend the appellate level 

tracking capability all the way back to the initia

The Naval Legal Affairs World Wide 

(NA VLA WSS) is an ongoing program to prov

foster the efficient delivery of services throug

COM. Phase I of this program, delivery of a p

each member of the command, Phase II, site 

Area Network (LAN) cable plant installation 

COM activities, plus the Office of the Judge Ad

completed in prior fiscal years. Phase III, imp

at each of the remaining 13 NAVLEGSVCCOM 

on schedule and on budget in fiscal ye

NA VLEGSVCCOM activity LAN s together into 

(WAN). Fiscal year 1994 also saw many NAVLE

working with area Staff Judge Advocates to ti

LAN and, through the WAN, place them in 

much of the rest of the uniformed Navy legal 

tion, NA VLEGSVCCOM participation in an el
NAVAL JUSTICE SCHOOL 

ORGANIZATION. Naval Justice School (NJS) 

operates in accordance with the Naval Justice 

Organizational Manual, NAVJUSTSCOLINST 540

the JAG CORPS TRAINING PLAN, JAGINST 15

PLAN). The Commanding Officer also serves as th

Advocate General for Training (JAG 005). He is r

JAG Corps training and for the legal training of t

munities. 

LOCATION. The NJS facilities at Newport, Rho

the mixture of computer labs, computer aided tea

lecture halls, court rooms, and seminar rooms wh

. requires. The NJS Detachment in San Diego is a t

Training Center (FTC) and is suitable for teachin

Legal Officer Course and the two week enlisted L

which are offered to reduce training costs for wes

seeking officer and enlisted legal training. 

ACADEMIC PROGRAMS. NJS trains four categ

Judge Advocates, paralegals, non-legal line and s

and foreign officers. NJS is the primary legal tr

Navy, Marine, and Coast Guard Judge Advocates

and Reserve. NJS also teaches court-reporting to 

Coast Guard enlisted personnel, both active duty 

initiatives include: 

1. Intermediate Trial Advocacy Course. The Int

gives experienced practitioners a chance to refin

skills. Focusing on communication skills and adv

issues, the course uses NJS instructors and a civi

offered six times per year at sites throughout the c

States. 

2. Advanced Environmental Law. This five day c

46 
will cover the aspects of defending a client wh

military death penalty case. 

6. Capital Litigation for the Prosecution. Th

will be taught at NJS by government and mili

cover the aspects of prosecuting a military death 

MARINE CORPS ACTIVIT

During fiscal year 1994, two Marine Corps jud

ated from top level schools. There is currently 

studying at the Naval War College, one study

Top Level School Tokyo, and two judge advo

Corps Amphibious Warfare School. One judge 

at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces. E

graduated from the Judge Advocate General's 

(TJAGSA) in Charlottesville, Virginia. There 

judge advocates at TJAGSA studying for a LLM 

Ten judge advocates in the Funded Legal 

(FLEP) graduated from a law school with thei

advocate in the Excess Leave Program (ELP) 

There are currently four FLEP and twenty-five 

school. 

One judge advocate is currently attending sch

Degree Completion program (ADP), at G

University and three judge advocates graduated 

of Washington. 

All funding for continuing legal education (

local commands because of downsizing and a d

funds. 

During fiscal year 1994, one hundred and fo

Reserve judge advocates were staffed in individ

mented detachment billets Marine Corps wide. 
48 
PART 6· U. S. COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS ACTIONS 

PERCENTAGE OF COMA ",eVIEWED CASES FORW.....DED TO USCMA 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+,/OECAEASE (-) eVE" 'AEVIOUS AE'OATING 'EAIOO 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTEO 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/OEC"EASE (-, Dve.. "fltevlOUS fIIIE~"TINQ 'EIIIIOO 

PERCENTAGE OF ..ETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES "EVIEWED BV COMA 

"ATE OF IHCIUASE (+JlDECfltEASE (-, oveR THE NUMBER OF CASES ..EVIEWED DURI

LAST "epOATING ,,£fIt'OO 

rAGE I OF:l 
.pART 9 -COMPLAINTS UNO£R ARTtCLE 138 


'WUMB'EA DF 'COM'"L. ... 'NTS I 163 


PART 10· STRENGTH 

PAGEZOFZ 

50 
addressed many civil, professional, and military 

THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMIN

At the beginning of fiscal year 1994 the num

before the Air Force Court of Military Review 

than the year before. There was an 11 percent d

cases forwarded for review and personnel c

Court two judges short of its authorized stren

months, as a result cases reviewed by this Co

percent. 

The trend toward more complex cases, higher 

referred for trial by general courts-martial and 

trial continues. Further reductions in the Cour

ipated during the coming fiscal year absent an

stances. 

One of the positive developments during th

appellate judges training course jointly initia

military review from each service. By combini

have devised a way to ensure newly appointed j

efficient, and effective training for their appella

On 1 August 1994, the Air Force Court of Cri

an open house to celebrate the 25th anniversa

the courts of review. Among the honored gue

Sullivan from the United States Court of Ap

Forces, Chief Judges from two other services, t

initial Air Force Court of Military Review, and 

judges from this Court. 
y jpp

Force Board for Correction of Military Records. Th

vided 142 formal opinions concerning applications. 

b. The Directorate received 612 inquiries in spec

ing either formal written replies or telephonic repli

cials, including the President and members of Congr

c. The Directorate provided representatives to 

activities involving military justice and suppo

Committee. 

d. The Directorate removed a regulatory restricti

summary court-martial which required the accused 

trial by court-martial in response to an offered Artic

e. The military justice regulations, AFR 111-1 

were completely revised and issued as Air Force Ins

and 51-202 respectively. 

f. The information programs office brought 

Military Justice Analysis and Management System 

line in an interim form. The final version, which w

real time information on military justice matters, i

operational in FY 1995. 

LEGAL INFORMATION SERVIC

During FY 94, the Legal Information Services D

pleted its first full year of operation collocated wi

Judge Advocate General's School at the Dickins

Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. 

Nearly 400 new personal computers and 275 note

were purchased for legal offices throughout the Air 

the Air Force Judiciary. New and upgraded Loca

(LAN) systems were purchased for 71 Air Force leg

them state of the art data communications capabi

52 
p

interest items, such as the Joint Ethics Regulati

Directives and Instructions, DoD Directives an

well as rosters including Air Force Reserve, A

and active duty judge advocates and paralegal

sions are now received directly from the cour

decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Armed 

vice's Courts of Criminal Appeals are loaded a

received from the courts. FLITE research attorn

150 to 200 on-line searches per month in suppor

out the DoD and also provide Service Desk 

FLITE users. 

Throughout the year, work continued on deve

Automated Military Justice Analysis and Ma

(AMJAMS II). The system resides on the sam

does FLITE. Mter field testing, an interim versio

to be opened for field use during October 1994. T

reduce manpower required to track military jus

timeliness of management information, and prov

eration of documents as data is entered into the s

In addition to continued support of the D

Authorities Analysis and Retrieval System (DE

staff produced additional CD-ROM products, 

equipment. A prototype containing all Do

Instructions was delivered in September and is 

tributed throughout DoD. Mastering of a CD-RO

cially tailored assortments of data of particular i

legal offices neared completion. The CD-ROMs c

PC with a CD-ROM reader. 

The Project REFLEX portable law library sof

and distributed to the major commands for dep

cies and exercises. It will migrate to the CD envir
, gg

cers at public hearings held to consider draft envi

statements. During the year, military judges spe

125 days on temporary duty at locations, other th

assignment, to perform these functions. 

The Chief Trial Judge made supervisory visits 

cuits to review workload and facilities. The D

Judiciary newsletter for military judges, was publi

The Trial Judiciary's court reporter completed 24 

program converting her from closed microphone r

type/computer-assisted transcription reporting (C

program was extended to twenty-four months to m

given Marine Corps CAT reporters. This traini

determine baseline cost and feasibility of conver

phone reporters to CAT. She is now reporting case

The Twentieth Interservice Military Judges' S

ducted by the Trial Judiciary at the Air Force 

General's School, Maxwell AFB, Alabama, from 

This seminar was attended by nearly 50 militar

trial judiciaries of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, 

Air Force. 

Four active duty judges and two reserve jud

three-week Military Judges' Course conducted by 

Advocate General's School at Charlottesville, Virg

through 3 June 1994. Also in April, three trial ju

one-week Advanced Special Problems in Crimina

at the National Judicial College, Reno, Nevada

attended the Forensic, Medical, and Scientific Ev

July 1994, while another attended the Handlin

Course in February 1994. All of the judicial circu

or three day workshops durring the year. All wor

in conjunction with trial and defense counsel wo

54 
p

counsel on the latest developments in the law a

their trial skills, Chief Circuit Trial Counsel (C

circuits also attended the annual Criminal Law 

Course held at the Army JAG School in Charl

While there, the CCTCs also participated in 

Workshops for base-level prosecutors were cond

trial counsel in all the judicial circuits. The work

coincide with defense counsel workshops and inc

involving The Judge Advocate General, th

Judiciary, and military trial judges. 

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT CO

In November 1994, several appellate defe

government counsel attended the annual Crimi

opments Course held at the Army JAG Schoo

Virginia. The course covered the latest military 

cant areas of criminal law. Additionally, in ord

government counsel current in trial practice

undertaken to detail them as trial counsel in cou

er their schedules permitted. During fiscal yea

appellate counsel prosecuted two general cour

court-martial, and 2 officer discharge boards. 

In March 1994, The Judge Advocate Genera

Advocacy Continuing Education Program (ACE

prehensive continuing education program i

advocacy. One government appellate counsel wa

ACE Program manager. This individual devotes 

preparing monthly newsletters, comprehensive "o

packages, and assisting in training throughout th

Appellate practice before the Air Force Court 
DEFENSE SERVICES 

The Trial Defense Division is responsible for pro

services within the Air Force through Area Defen

Defense Paralegals (DPs), Circuit Defense Counsel 

Circuit Defense Counsel (CCDC), reporting ultima

Trial Defense Division. 

Base closures and realignments, as well as the 

figuration of the judicial circuits, continued to re

the Trial Defense Division team. As presently con

86 ADCs stationed at 75 locations worldwide. They 

77 defense paralegals. Spread throughout the 5 ju

21 CDCs and 7 CCDCs; all of the CCDCs and all b

are assigned to the circuit offices at Yokota A

Bolling AFB, Randolph AFB, and Travis AFB. F

located with ADCs at Kadena AB, Ramstein AB

and Hurlburt AFB; a fifth CDC is located at RAF M

office. 

The division continued its multimedia campai

Force personnel about the ADC mission and role 

dence. 'fhe Division completed work with AF Ne

20th anniversary of the Area Defense Counsel Prog

in an article in the June 1994 issue of the Airm

high point of the commemorating events took plac

TJAG hosting a luncheon at the Bolling AFB Off

Among the 140 attendees were 20 SES and general 

the ChiefJudge of the United States Court of Appe

Forces and two Associate Judges, the General 

Department of Defense, the Air Force Inspector G

Advocate General of the Navy, the Assistant 

56 
. tion of the 20 years of dedicated service by defens

Trial defense counsel training remained one of 

est priorities. Currently, the training continu

forms: an ADC Orientation Course for new ADC

annual circuit-level workshops; the Trial and 

Course and the Advanced Trial Advocacy Course

conducted at Maxwell AFB; and on-the-job tra

CDCs and CCDCs. The Division also hosted 

Conference at Andrews AFB in June. 

APPELLATE DEFENSE COUN

AFCMR FY92 FY

Cases Reviewed ........................... 554 

Oral Arguments .......................... 36 

Other Motions ............................. 392 

COMA 


Supplements to Petitions ........... 440 

Grant Briefs ................................ 18 

Oral Arguments .......................... 27 

Other Motions ............................. 167 

SUPREME COURTS PETITIONS .. 4 

CONFINEMENT FACILITIE

At the end ofFY 94, a total of 593 Air Force per

finement, seven fewer than at the end of FY 

below the totals over most of the past decade. A 

inmates were in post-trial confinement, includin

confinement at the United States Disciplinary 

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and two who are s

Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) system. There 

in the Return-to-Duty Rehabilitation (RTDR) 
respective federal facilities. 

PREVENTIVE LAW AND LEG

ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

The Legal Assistance Division continued to over

law and legal assistance services worldwide. Durin

legal offices served 404,622 clients, provided 72,3

nished notarial services in 464,509 cases. The num

visits totaled 905,308. 

One of the Division's significant projects involv

ment of the Pentagon Legal Assistance Office. In 

Force, Army and Navy agreed to consolidate leg

vices at the Pentagon in one office, called the 

Assistance Office, versus each service having 

existed in the past. The Pentagon Legal Assista

seeing clients on 22 February 1994. Each service 

attorney and one legal technician in support of th

Assistance Office and are equally sharing the co

office. All Pentagon personnel from all the servi

assistance now receive support from this offic

Legal Assistance office has enabled the services t

vide the full range of legal assistance services 

reductions. 

EDUCATION & TRAINING 

The Judge Advocate General's Department pr

continuing legal education (CLE) and advanced d

its personnel, and those of its sister services. Ai

occupied more than 2000 training slots in course

locations. Air Force attorneys attended courses at: 

58 
Dickinson Law Center is home to the school 

Center supports Paralegal Studies. The building 

Representative William L. Dickinson, who 

Congress from 1964 to 1993. 

Resident Courses 

The School conducted nearly 30 classes in m

courses, attended by more than 1600 students. C

- Advanced Environmental Law 


Advanced Trial Advocacy 


Claims and Tort Litigation 


Environmental Law 


Environmental Law Update 


Federal Employees Labor Law 


Federal Income Tax Law 


Fiscal Law 


International Law 


Judge Advocate Staff Officers' Course 


Military Judge's Seminar 


Operations Law Seminar 


Paralegal Advanced Course 


Paralegal Specialists Course 


Reserve Forces Judge Advocate Course 


StaffJudge Advocates' Course 


Trial and Defense Advocacy Course 


Nonresident Courses 

The AF JAGS offered nonresident courses app

by various states. The amount of credit allow

these courses is determined by individual sta

Courses included: 
Publications 

The AF JAGS published the Master Operations L

Air Force Law Review. 

The AFJAGS also published a quarterly lega

Reporter, which provided timely, practical inform

topics of interest to Air Force lawyers. Each issue 

on 15 areas of the law, including 3 military ju

AFJAGS continued to publish The Military Com

Law, an BOO-page compendium of legal topics add

confronting today's Air Force commanders. 

ARMY JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S SCHOOL 

The Army Judge Advocate General's School (AJA

the campus of the University of Virginia in Charlo

CLE courses attended by Air Force attorneys inclu

Contract Attorneys Course 

Criminal Law Advocacy Course 

Federal Labor Relations 

Federal Litigation Course 

Fiscal Law 

Government Contract Law Symposium 

Law of War Workshop 

Legal Assistance Course 

Military Judge Course 

Operations Law Seminar 

Procurement Fraud Course 

Naval Justice School 

Air Force attorneys attended the Navy's Law of M

Course offered at their facility in Newport, Rhode 

60 
tains and 74 first lieutenants. In addition, ther

attorneys, 820 enlisted legal technicians and 7

personnel assigned to the Department. 

NOLANSKLUTE 

Major General, USAF . 


The Judge Advocate General 

 ....... I,. OISHONOc1 01>< 

.c"'8E~ o~ ..o CONOOCTCISC>IA""" 265 

IPiCtAL eou~MAlmAL 'SA L.EVllJ 112 

PART 3 - RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JA

Fe'" RfV1fW UNDER AIimCL! ae . Ql!NlEJ'.Al eoVfn'l..MAm.t.L 418 

"''' REVIEW UNDER AfmC1.f de ..Ia) S~'AL. cOUM'S-MAA'TlAL 112 

flO" EX,AMINA TlON UNCIA ARnell ea • GENERAl. COUIfT$.MARTlAL 64 

PART 4 - WORKLOAD OF THE AIR FORCE COURT OF MILITAR

TOTAL ON HANO IIOrwNINQ 0, ~OD 703 

GENERAL eOVRT$-"''''''TlAL. 565 

ItO S~etA1. COUII{TS.MAmAL 138 

"EFlRRED FOR A!V1fW ~~7 

GEN£FIAL COURTa-t.lAJIIIT1AL 459 

BCD 8~CI.AL COUAT$.MARTI.Al ~II 

TOTAL. CAlli R!VI!WU) 599 

arunL COV,",-MAn.AL 467 

.eo SPlelAl ec~..u."T1AL 132 

TOTAL PENOING AT Cl.OS( 0' P£AIOCI 661 

GENfMl COVIln'$-MAlmAl ~~7 

ICC IP5:CtAl eOUAT'S-MAJrnlL 100 

~TI 0' INCIIliAIi (+lIDI!Clla!AH (.I OVER NUMIIR 01 e.ua ..vIEWED OUAJNCI LUT RfPOUlNG PlRiCD 

PARI - 5- APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE AIR F

MILITARY REVIEW 

530 

100% 

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

509/599 

P'!'-CENTAGE 0, !NCR,"'S! 1... 1/ OECFtEASf (. OVER P'RE¥IOU& JlliZP'OIimN(J ~IOD 

~"CENT.&.Ci~ ,,, TOT"'L~ONt: CAANTm 52/509 

Pf"CENTACiE 0' P"fT1'T1or-.:. OIUN"!"EO OF TOTAL CASES R£VIEWEO BY COMIII 52/599 

MTI 0' INCIIIUIf ,+)fOICREAII fol OIiEA Tt<f, NUMUR or CAHIIllfVItWED DVNNQ 

UST "IPORTING ~OQ 

62 
TO'TA!,. P!NOINQ AT !NO 0' """00 .. 1 

PART 8· ORGANIZATION OF COURT 

~IY ..UT.... JUCQI 040IIt 

G!NrM.L. eoVIIIT8-MAJIIT1AL 226 

SPECIA!,. COlJ~M.tJmAL 153 

1JIA1.I1Y MIUT~ JUDGE WI'TH MEMIlRI 

G!N!M.L. COU~MARTIAL 266 

SPEC1AL COUJI'T$.MAJmAL 215 

PART 9· COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

PART 10· STRENGTH 

NUMIIR OF CASES WHEAE NONJUDICIAL """NISMME!'fT IMI"OSfD 

FIA"I"EP9I '.000 18.47 

RATE 011' (NCR,US( !.. IIO!CR!ASE to) OVER "'IVIOUIII'I!JUOD 

7562 

,,",,"2.'2 

[ A 1 No SPCMs "'ere referred as non-BCD 
64 

Fiscal Year 94 93 

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

Special Courts-Martial .................................. 23 31 

Summary Courts-Martial .............................. 15 11 

Total ................................................................ 47 56 

COURTS-MARTIAL 

Attorney counsel were detailed to all speci

Military judges were detailed to all special courts

cases, the presiding judge was the Chief Trial J

general courts-martial judge. When the Chie

unavailable, military judges with other primary d

special courts-martial. Control of the detail of ju

exercised by the Chief Trial Judge, and all requ

in a timely fashion. 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIA

Of the nine accused tried by general courts-

year, six were tried by military judge alone. One 

tried by military judge alone received a dishonor

three received bad conduct discharges. One of 

tried by courts with members received a sentenc

bad conduct discharge. None of the accused elect

court which included enlisted members. Seve

courts-martial resulted in convictions. One of t

charges were referred to general courts-martial 

grades E-l through E-3), six were petty officer

through E-6), one was a junior officer (pay grades 

and one was a senior officer (pay grades 0-4 throu
Sentence 

dismissal...........................................................................................

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

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

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

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

fine ($3,707.13 total)........................................................................

The following indicates the four sentences impose

al courts-martial in the past five fiscal years. 

Number of Redu

FY Convictions Forfeitures Confinement in G

94 7 1 (15%) 7 (100%) 6 (9

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

92 16 11 (69%) 14 (88%) 14 (8

91 8 4(50%) 7(88%) 5 (6

90 14 10 (71%) 12 (86%) 9 (6

The following table shows the distribution of the 

referred to general courts-martial. 

Violation of the UCMJ, Article 

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

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

107 (false official statement) .......................................

66 
tary judge alone. Two accused elected to be tri

included enlisted members. Two special courts

acquittals and another was declared a mistrial. 

whose charges were referred to special courts-m

(pay grades E-l through E-3), thirteen were 

grades E-4 through E-6) and two were chief pet

E-7). 

The following table shows the distribution of t

referred to special courts-special. 

Violation of the UCMJ, Article 

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

83 (fraudulent enlistment).................................

85 (desertion) ................................................ , .....

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

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

89 (disrespect toward superior commissioned o

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

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

107 (false official statement) ...............................

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

disposition of military property of the U.S

112(a) (controlled drug offenses) ..............................

116 (riot or breach of peace) ..................................

120 (rape and carnal knowledge) ........................

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

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

123(a) (making, drawing, or uttering check, draft, o

order without sufficient funds) ...................

125 (sodomy) ..........................................................

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

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

134 (genera!) ..........................................................
p

The following is a breakdown of sentences adj

courts-martial tried by members (four convictions

four convictions, the accused pled guilty to all char

tions. 

Sentence 

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

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

forfeiture of pay ($8,544 total) ........................................................

The following shows the four sentences imposed 

courts-martial in the past five fiscal years. 

Number of Red

FY Convictions Forfeitures Confinement in G

94 20 6 (30%) 17 (85%) 20 (10

93 27 8 (29%) 19 (70%) 20 (7

92 23 11 (48%) 18 (78%) 19 (8

91 26 16 (62%) 22 (85%) 21 (8

90 36 16 (44%) 18 (50%) 31 (8

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL SUM

Eighty percent of the accused tried by special co

tried by military judge alone. Fifty-six percent of th

68 
The Coast Guard has 170 officers designated 

(judge advocates) serving on active duty - 133 are 

lets and 37 are serving in general duty billets. Nin

officers are currently undergoing postgraduate 

will be certified as law specialists at the complet

Seventeen Coast Guard officers who recently g

school completed the Navy Basic Lawyer Course 

Island. Of these officers, all but one have been or a

being certified under Article 27(b), UCMJ. One 

the bar examination on his first attempt. A tota

training quotas were filled by attorneys, paralega

retaries assigned to Coast Guard legal offic

$115,000 was spent on legal training during the fi

U. S. COAST GUARD COURT OF MILIT

An amendment to the Uniform Code of Mi

became effective the first month of FY95 changed 

service courts of military review to courts of 

Accordingly, FY94 was the last year for this Co

the U. S. Coast Guard Court of Military Review

the Court was composed of five appellate mil

whom were commissioned officers. Three of th

duty Coast Guard captains and the other two 

who are also civilian employees of the Coast G

divided into six panels with the Chief Judge sitti

the only judge with primary duty as a judge. The 

tion of the Court has enabled each judge to rou

with every other judge on a panel of three. The co

following judges at the close ofFY94: 

ChiefJudge Joseph H. Baum 
(CGCMR 1992), affirmed 39 M.J. 454 (CMA 1

granted, 63 U.S.L.W. 3513 (U.S. January 6, 1995

following question: 

May the de facto appointment rationale b

to affirm the acts of civilians improperly 

serve as military appellate judges by the Ju

General of an Armed Force, who is not a

make appointments under the Appointme

the Constitution, when those acts include affir

conviction on direct appeal? 

That case is expected to be argued in April.1995 

presumably will resolve the issues left unanswere

supra. Meanwhile, cases continue to be referred 

the Court. 

The attached statistics reflect the Court's work 

a decline in the number of cases decided. That 

from the loss of full time clerical and administr

significant period of time as part of the Coas

efforts to comply with Government mandated b

ment level reductions. The Court is now at full st

opment, along with internal streamlining that 

should result in a better than ever production yea

One of the cases referred to the Court in FY94 

for the Coast Guard. It was the first referral of a 

tial record which did not qualify for review under 

Article 69, UCMJ, which was amended a few year

referrals, provided the authority to refer this case 

an application for relief under Article 69 had be

Chief Counsel. Upon referral, it was joined with 

extraordinary writ that had been filed with the C

action on the accused's application for relief unde

70 
recently appointed judge to the Court, atte

Appellate Military Judges' Training Seminar 

Navy Yard. 

That training seminar was a continuation of t

appellate military judges training program tha

previous year at Bolling Air Force Base by 

Nebeker of the Court ofVeterans Appeals. As be

committee composed of judges from each of th

review, and chaired by Chief Judge Baum of this 

preparations for the seminar, which was host

Navy-Marine Corps Court. Again, the seminar w

such benefit to both new and experienced judg

decided to make it an annual event, possibly 

Advocate General's School. In addition to chairin

mittee, Chief Judge Baum acted as moderator 

nar's panel discussions. 

This past year, Chief Judge Baum also particip

proposed rules changes for the U.S. Court of M

member of that court's rules advisory committee

to play an active role in the Federal Bar Associ

ofthat association's Judiciary Division and as ch

Long Range Planning Committee. 

In the spring of last year, the Court's jud

involved in the Coast Guard's Legal Officers Co

convened by the Chief Counsel to examine wa

services in the Coast Guard. Utilizing "total qu

methodology, the Chief Counsel was able to 

Guard's senior military and civilian attorneys i

ultimately produced viable courses of action to 

Guard's legal program in a variety of importa

military justice advocacy. All of the Court's ju

this highly successful conference. 
72 
""TE OF INCFIIEASE (+I/DEClitEASE (-, ove .. NUMBER OF CASES 

fII(VIEWED DU"'NG LAST REPOATING ""UOD 

PART 5· APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE COAST GUARD 

REVIEW 

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

'ERCENTAGE OF COMA REVIEWED CASES fOAWAIIIOED TO USCMA 4 16 

'ERCENTAGE Of INCAEASE (+)IDECfltEA$E 1-' oveR .... evIOus 'n~"TING 'eA'OO 

'E"CENTAGE OF TOTAL "ETITION$ GRANTED 1/4 

'E"CENTAGE OF 'NCREAse (+)lDECREASE (_, OVE'" 'REVIOUS "E"OATING "EfilIOO 

'EACENTAGE OF 'ETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES fIIEVIEWED BY COM" 1.. 4 

"ATE 0' INCREASE '+)lDECAEASE 1-' OVER THE NUMBE .. 0' CASES "IVIEWED DU"INQ 

LAST fIIE'OfllT.NG 'EAIOD 

*One extra-ordinary writ related to'~~!~:fll actions before 

GCH or SPCM. 
PART 9 - COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS I 4 

PART 10 - STRENGTH 

AV! ......OE ACTIVE OUT'" STfIIENGTt04 

PART 11- NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT 

'AGE20F2 

*Referred to CGCMR under Article 69(d) 

**At end of period. CGCMR had not acted on record refer

Article 69(d) 

r:r U.S. Government Printing Office 1995402-195 

74