CODE COMMITTEE 


on 


MILITARY JUSTICE 


INCLUDING SEPARATE REPORTS 


of the 


U.S. COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS, 


THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL 


OF THE U.S. ARMED FORCES, 


AND THE CHIEF COUNSEL 


OF THE U.S. COAST GUARD 


For the Period 


October 1, 1986 to September 30, 1987 


t-'KUl-'t.HfY OF U. S. ARMY 

THE JUDGE ADVOCAIE. GENERAL'S SCHOO,; LIBRARY - ----~--- - ., 
COMMITTEES ON ARME

SERVICES 


of the 


U.S. Senate and House of Representative

and to the 


SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, 


SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, 


and 


SECRETARIES OF THE 


ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORCE 


PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 


For the Period 


October 1, 1986-September 30, 1987 

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

MILITARY APPEALS 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 

OF THE ARMY 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 

OF THE NAVY 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 

OF THE AIR FORCE 

REPORT OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL OF THE 

COAST GUARD 
UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 


October 1, 1986 to September 30, 1987 

The Judges of the United States Court of Military Appeals

Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; the C

Counsel of the Coast Guard; the Director, Judge Advocate Divi

Headquarters, United States Marine Corps; Mary Ellen Han

Esquire, and Professor A. Kenneth Pye submit their annual repo

the operation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, pursuan

Article 67(g), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §867(

The Code Committee meetings during fiscal year 1987 wer

open to the public. During its initial meeting, the Code Comm

was briefed by the Chairman of the Joint-Service Committe

Military Justice on the impact of recent amendments to the Unif

Code of Military Justice, including a modification to Article 2(a

extend military jurisdiction over reservists; Article 6, permit

representation of the United States by judge advocates in s

federal civil cases; Article 25(cX1), permitting oral requests 

enlisted members to serve on courts-martial; Article 43, exten

the statute of limitations from three to five years in some c

Article 50a, modifying the defense of lack of mental responsibi

and Article 60, providing for a uniform rule as to the time limit fo

accused to present post-trial matters to a convening authority. 

Code Committee also discussed potential changes to the Manua

Courts-Martial regarding the referral of an accused to civilian 

thorities if he were found not guilty by a court-martial by reaso

lack ofmental responsibility. Additionally, the question regarding 

collection of common data from all Armed Services regarding mili

justice was discussed. Chief Judge Everett reported that an ed

tional film concerning the operation of the United States Cou

Military Appeals was under consideration. The possibility of invi

the United States Court of Military Appeals to sit at the Ju

Advocate General's School of the United States Army was discu

and most members considered it an extremely educational prog

for the Court to sit and hear oral arguments in real appellate case
courts-martial activity. 

Additionally, the Code Commit.tee discussed specific prop

changes to the Manual for Courts-Martial, including changes rel

to usage of "rank" and "grade" in Rule for Courts-Martial (R.

103; authority of officers serving on inactive duty for trainin

apprehend in R.C.M. 302(bX2); speedy trial rules and the calcul

of the relevant time periods involved in R.C.M. 707; incorporati

amendments concerning the statute of limitations in R.C.M. 

informing court members of an accused's previously accepted ple

guilty under R.C.M. 910 and 913; imposition of forfeitures as 

relate to the pay of reservists under R.C.M. 1003; modification o

requirements for a verbatim record of trial for general court-m

cases involving officers under R.C.M. 1103; a provision allo

substituted service of the staffjudge advocate's review on the de

counsel under some circumstances in R.C.M. 1105(c); clarificatio

commanding officer's authority to suspend court-martial sente

under R.C.M. 1108(b); use of evidence obtained in violatio

Mil.R.Evid. 305(c) and Article 31(b), Uniform Code of Military 

tice, to impeach an accused; and proposed conditions on the su

sion of nonjudicial punishment imposed under Article 15, Uni

Code of Military Justice. 

Separate reports ofthe United States Court ofMilitary Appeal

the individual services address other items of special interest t

Committees on Armed Services of the United States Senate 

House of Representatives, as well as to the Secretaries of Def

Transportation, Army, Navy, and Air Force. 

ROBINSON 0. EVERETT 

Chief Judge 

WALTER T. COX, III 

Associate Judge 

EUGENE R. SULLIVAN 

Associate Judge 

2 
Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps 

MARY ELLEN HANLEY, Esquire 

Professor A. KENNETH PYE 

The Judges of the United States Court of Military Appeals subm

their fiscal year 1987 report on the administration of the Court a

military justice to the Committees on Armed Services of the Unit

States Senate and House of Representatives and to the Secretaries 

Defense, Transportation, Army, Navy, and Air Force in accordan

with Article 67(g), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.

§867(g). 

THE BUSINESS OF THE COURT 

During the fiscal year 1987 term of the Court 2769 petitions f

grant of review, certificates for review, petitions for new trial, pe

tions for extraordinary relief and writ appeal petitions were filed wi

the Court. The number of filings was almost unchanged from fisc

year 1986 and represents a stabilization of the number of cases fil

with the Court. 

The Court reviewed and acted on 2979 petitions for grant of revie

during fiscal year 1987, representing an increase in dispositions 

15% over fiscal year 1986. The Court granted petitions for review 

226 cases, or approximately 7% of the cases considered. As a result 

the increase in the number of petitions for grant of review acted o

only 442 cases remained on the petition docket at the end of fisc

year 1987, as compared with 702 pending petition cases at the end 

fiscal year 1986. This represents a dramatic reduction of 37% in t

number of cases pending on the petition docket. 

A significant reduction in the number of cases pending on th

master docket was also accomplished during fiscal year 1987. T

Court achieved a substantial 32% reduction in the number of cases 

this docket by reducing the balance pending at the end of fiscal ye

1986 of 258 cases to a year-end balance of 177 cases in this fiscal yea

This reduction was accomplished by a 36% increase in the number 
CELEBRATION OF THE BICENTENNIAL OF THE UNITED STATE

CONSTITUTION 


On June 9, 1987, the Judges of the Court hosted a progr

celebration of the Bicentennial of the United States Constit

Judge Walter T. Cox, III, began the program by presenting a sum

of a symposium paper earlier given by him at the United States 

Military History Institute, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, 

consisted of remarks on the evolution of military justice und

United States Constitution from the early years of court-m

practice up through the enactment of the Uniform Code of M

Justice in 1950 and thereafter to the present day. 

The honored guests participating in this program included 

Bailey, Esquire; Major General Kenneth J. Hodson, JAGC, USA 

and Dean James Taylor, Jr., Wake Forest University School o

each of whom presented their observations on the significa

military justice in the history of the United States from the pe

tives of the civilian practitioner, the military community, an

academic world, respectively. Their comments included prosp

views of the development of military justice as well as the role 

United States Court of Military Appeals in that development. 

JUDICIAL VISITATIONS 

Consistent with the past practice of the Court, during fisca

1987 the Judges of the Court visited numerous military install

and delivered speeches to many professional organizations. Pre

experience has demonstrated that such visits promote a 

understanding of the Court's work and its effect on the o

administration of justice within the Armed Services. 

1 Although not a part ofthe business ofthe Court, it is noted that, during Fis

1987, the Court was notified that petitions for writ of certiorari were filed w

Supreme Court of the United States in 32 master docket cases in which the Co

final action. 

6 
Carolina Supreme Court, Raleigh, North Carolina, and addressed 

Federal Administrative Law Judges, Washington, D.C.; the Ju

Advocates Association, Washington Navy Yard Officers' Club, W

ington, D.C.; Trial and Defense Counsel, Randolph Air Force B

San Antonio, Texas; the Standing Committee on Military Law of 

American Bar Association at its Mid-Year Meeting, New Orlea

Louisiana; and the Counsellors, University Club, Washington, D

He served as a Judge in the Moot Court Competition, Chapel H

North Carolina, and addressed the National Guard JAG Conferen

Arlington, Virginia; the Eighth Annual JAG School and Continu

Legal Education Seminar, Columbia, South Carolina; the Interse

ice Military Judges' Seminar, Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgom

Alabama; the Conference of Reserve Judge Advocates, Army J

School, Charlottesville, Virginia; a Program Commemorating L

Day and the Bicentennial of the Constitution, Fort Bragg, No

Carolina; a Law Day Program at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; 

Air Force Reserve JAG Conference, Atlanta, Georgia; the Rot

Club, Durham, North Carolina; and the Coast Guard Legal Offi

Conference, Leesburg, Virginia. He further participated in a vid

taped interview for the Air Force JAG School, Maxwell Air Fo

Base, Montgomery, Alabama, and attended the 96th Meeting of 

National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State La

Newport Beach, California, and the Annual American Bar Asso

tion Meeting, San Francisco, California; and addressed the 1

Criminal Law New Developments Course, Army JAG School, Ch

lottesville, Virginia. He visited with military lawyers in Ber

Germany, and spoke at the Military Judges' Conference, Garmis

Germany. He attended the Federal Bar Association Annual Meet

Memphis, Tennessee, where he was awarded the Association's E

Kintner Award for 1987. 

Judge Walter T. Cox, Ill, attended and participated in the 1

Army JAG Conference and Annual Continuing Legal Educat

Program, Charlottesville, Virginia, and the Army's 1st and 

Circuit Judicial Conference, Fort Benning, Georgia. He presente

Symposium Paper on the Evolution of Military Justice under 

United States Constitution at the United States Military Hist

Institute, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, and visited with milit
Carolina, and spoke at judicial conferences at Fort Ord, Califo

Fort Jackson, South Carolina; and Garmisch, Germany, an

regional military legal conferences at Ft. Monroe, Hampton R

Virginia; San Antonio, Texas; and Leesburg, Virginia. 

Judge Eugene R. Sullivan participated in the Marine Corps 

Judge Advocates Conference, San Diego, California; the Army 

Conference, Charlottesville, Virginia; the U.S. Air Force Tactica

Command JAG Conference, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, an

Interservice Military Judges' Seminar, Maxwell Air Force B

Alabama. He visited with military judges and lawyers at the 12t

Force Command, Bergstrom Air Force Base, Germany; the U

States Army 2nd Infantry Division, Camp Casey, Seoul, Korea

17th Air Force Command, Air Force Base, Ramstein, Germ

various military units at Ft. Rucker, Alabama; the Naval Trai

Base, Great Lakes, Illinois; the USS NIMITZ; the United S

Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas; and various 

rine Corps units at the Marine Corps Base, Quantico, Virginia

also addressed a special session of the United States Court of App

(8th Circuit), St. Louis, Missouri; addressed students at Wake F

University Law School, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; and pa

ipated as Keynote Speaker of the Law Day Program at the U.S. N

Base, Norfolk, Virginia. 

HOMER FERGUSON CONFERENCE 

The Twelfth Annual Homer Ferguson Conference was held a

George Washington University Marvin Center on May 27-28, 1

As in previous years, this conference was jointly sponsored by 

Court and the Military Law Institute. This year's conference 

certified for credit to meet the continuing legal education req

ments of various State Bars and was designed to help both mil

and civilian practitioners maintain those professional skills n

sary to practice before trial and appellate courts. 

The speakers for this year's conference included The Honor

William W. Wilkins, Jr., U.S. Circuit Judge on the Fourth Ci

Court of Appeals; Mr. John A. Cutts, III, Deputy Clerk, U.S. Cou

8 
versity School of Law and formerly Chief Justice, North Car

Supreme Court; Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, Professor, University of W

ington, Seattle, Washington; Mr. William C. Bryson, Deputy So

General of the United States; Professor Walter E. Dellinger, 

University School of Law; Professor Paul F. Rothstein, Georg

University School of Law; and Allen J. Goldstein, Esquire. 

In addition, The Honorable Eugene R. Sullivan, Associate J

U.S. Court of Military Appeals, served as moderator of a confe

panel on Forensic Science in the Future, with panelists Major R

Thibault, Air Force Office of Special Investigations; Comm

Glenn Wagner, U.S. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology; an

Clement Smetana, Chief Serologist, Army Criminal Investiga

Laboratory. The Honorable Walter T. Cox, III, Associate Judge

Court of Military Appeals served as moderator of a panel on evi

with panelists Professor Stephen A. Saltzburg, University of Vir

School of Law; Lieutenant Colonel Lee D. Schinasi, JAGC, U.S. A

and Professor David A. Schlueter, St. Mary's University Sch

Law. 

The invocation was offered by Captain Richard A. Plishker, C

lain of the United States Coast Guard. The conferees were welc

by The Honorable Robinson 0. Everett, Chief Judge, United S

Court of Military Appeals, on behalf of the Court; Colonel Wal

Lewis, United States Air Force (Ret.), on behalf of the Military 

Institute; and Dean John S. Jenkins on behalf of The Nationa

Center, George Washington University. 

The conferees included numerous military and civilian lawy

well as Judges of the Courts of Military Review, legal scholars

commentators in the field of military justice. As in prior year

conference was videotaped to provide a medium of education for 

interested in the administration of military justice. 
held in United States v. Williams, 23 M.J. 362 (C.M.A. 1987), 

local rule of court which required the defense counsel to 

suppression motions on government counsel at least five workin

before trial was invalid as being inconsistent with the cited r

United States v. Yates, 24 M.J. 114 (C.M.A. 1987), where ev

independent ofthe accused's admissions established that injury 

named victim occurred and that some person was criminally cu

the Court held that the corroboration requirement for the acce

of the accused's confession under Mil.R.Evid. 304(g) was satis

that rule did not require that independent evidence establi

accused as the perpetrator of the alleged crimes. Examini

standards for gate inspections within the context of Mil.R

313(b), the Court held in United States v. Jones, 24 M.J. 294 (

1987), that there had been proper compliance with the app

standards set forth in the rule and that the law enforcement 

discretionary authority to select cars to be searched did not inv

such inspection. The Court specifically rejected the defense arg

that United States v. Harris, 5 M.J. 44 (C.M.A. 1978), co

interpreted to be inconsistent with Rule 313(b). 

Commenting on the accused's reasonable expectation of priv

the context of a search of government property under Mil.R

314(d), the Court held in United States v. Battles, 25 M.J. 58 (

1987), that the accused had no such reasonable expectation of p

in the berthing area of the USS ENTERPRISE where he share

area with approximately sixty other crewmembers. Additiona

Court held that the accused had no reasonable expectation of p

in a box containing drugs where he placed the box in a commo

near a maintenance locker and left such box unsealed and op

The admissibility of evidence under Mil.R.Evid. 404 gene

number of decisions by the Court during this fiscal year. The 

held in United States v. Brooks, 22 M.J. 441 (C.M.A. 1986

evidence of an accused's prior participation in drug transactio

2 This section of the Court's Annual Report is prepared solely as an infor

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

in easily locating cases of particular interest during the term. The case summ

not of precedential value and should not be cited in briefs filed with the Cou

10 
that the military judge erred in a court-martial on charges of stea

two television sets by rejecting evidence pertaining to the accu

trusting nature as it was pertinent to show the reasonableness o

accused's story that the stolen sets were given to him by ano

party. Examining the same rule in United States v. White, 23 M.

(C.M.A. 1986), the Court rejected a defense claim and held that, 

court-martial on charges of voluntary manslaughter of the accu

infant son, evidence pertaining to the diagnosis of battered c

syndrome and evidence of prior injuries to the child was inadmis

under Mil.R.Evid. 403 and 404(b), noting that the evidence 

highly probative of the critical issue of the accused's intent 

absence of accident. Citing United States v. Timberlake, 18 M.J

(C.M.A. 1984), and United States v. Rodriquez, 18 M.J. 363 (C.

1984), the Court held in United States v. Court, 24 M.J. 11 (C.

1987), that the military judge erred by rejecting defense eviden

the accused's good military character under the provision

Mil.R.Evid. 404(a) where the accused was charged with con

unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. 

Examining the provisions of Mil.R.Evid. 410 in United Stat

Barunas, 23 M.J. 71 (C.M.A. 1986), the Court held that the military 

was unquestionably an expanded version of Federal Rule of Evid

410. Thus, the Court held in Barunas that a letter which the acc

wrote to his commanding officer requesting leniency with respect t

admitted use of cocaine was "an integral part of the administr

punishment or discharge process;' and that the military judge com

ted reversible error in allowing the letter into evidence in a subseq

trial of the accused on the charge of use of cocaine. 

In United States u Fox, 24 M.J. 110 (C.M.A. 1987), the Court 

that the limitations of Mil.R.Evid. 412 on the admissibilit

evidence concerning the past sexual behavior of the victim 

nonconsensual sexual offense were applicable to both the findings 

the sentencing portions of a court-martial. The Court observed 

the defense contention that the rule should be limited to only 

findings portion of a court-martial would be inconsistent with 

purpose of the rule to protect victims of nonconsensual sexual offe

\\ 
p, 

occurred, the accused was not the perpetrator. 

However, in United States v. Welch, 25 M.J. 23 (C.M.A. 19

Court held that evidence that a 12-year-old female victim of r

sodomy offenses had had sexual intercourse with other men 

the charged offenses was admissible under Mil.R.Evid. 412 w

prosecution raised an issue as to the condition of the victim's 

Although the military judge denied the defense request to 

this evidence, the Court held that such error was harmless in 

the defense counsel's subsequent actions at trial. 

Addressing the limits of the spousal privilege set f

Mil.R.Evid. 504(b), the Court held in United States v. Tipton, 

338 (C.M.A. 1987), that such privilege applies even if a husb

wife are separated, so long as they have not been legally se

and that a communication from the accused to his wife was pr

even though he erroneously believed himself to be divorced f

wife. Thus, the Court held in Tipton that the sentence sh

reassessed because the trial court had erroneously admitted 

leged communication. 

In United States v. Varela, 25 M.J. 29 (C.M.A. 1987), the Co

that the military judge erred by rejecting evidence of the a

character for truthfulness under Mil.R.Evid. 608(aX2) where t

counsel's cross-examination of the accused as to whether h

lose his reenlistment bonu8 if convicted was sufficient to const

attack on his veracity. Citing Mil.R.Evid. 606(b), the Court 

United States v. Rice, 25 M.J. 35 (C.M.A. 1987), that a trial 

testimony during a post-trial hearing could not be used to i

the sentence he had previously imposed upon the accused. 

Noting that while a witness may have been generally qual

an expert in child sexual abuse within the meaning of Mil

702 and recognizing the previous reluctance of the Court to 

witness to testify that he or she believed a victim's versio

incident, the Court held in United States v. Petersen, 24 M

(C.M.A. 1987), that the trial court erred by allowing a wi

testify that she believed the victim's version of the inci

question. The Court stressed that there was no evidence t

12 
y y g yp

Court held in United States v. Broadnax, 23 M.J. 389 (C.M.A. 1

that the military judge erred in admitting a laboratory report 

evidence in a prosecution for forgery which contained a docum

examiner's conclusion that the accused authored a forged check w

denying a defense request for the live testimony of the docum

examiner in question. The Court distinguished the document e

ination process from a drug analysis process and laboratory repo

the basis that document examination had a much higher degr

subjectivity than pure chemical analysis. 

Concerning the admissibility of statements made by a child 

victim to a clinical psychologist and a psychotherapist for purpo

medical diagnosis or treatment under the provisions of Mil.R.

803(4), the Court held in United States v. Welch, 25 M.J. 23 (C.

1987), that the rule was not limited to statements made to lice

medical doctors and that since such statements were made fo

purpose of medical treatment, they were properly admitted u

such rule. Accord United States v. White, _25 M.J. 50 (C.M.A. 1

United States v. Nelson, 25 M.J. 110 (C.M.A. 1987). 

The residual hearsay exception provisions of Mil.R.Evid. 804

were extensively examined in United States v. Hines, 23 M.J

(C.M.A. 1986), wherein the Court held that the rule's require

that the out-of-court statement have "equivalent circumstantial 

antees of trustworthiness" was equivalent to the constitut

requirement that such statement must bear indicia of reliab

Thus, the Court held in Hines that the statements of the decl

were admissible to the extent that they were consistent with 

accused's confession but that the required reliability was not e

lished as to those portions of the statements which concerned con

to which the accused did not confess. Subsequently, the Court he

United States v. Barror, 23 M.J. 370 (C.M.A. 1987), that a state

which an alleged child sex abuse victim gave to law enforce

agents was inadmissible under Mil.R.Evid. 804(bX5), where there 

no adequate basis in the record for assessing the candor of the v

or the accuracy of such statement and there were no signif

corroborating factors presented. The Court's analysis in Hines 

applied in United States v. Groves, 23 M.J. 374 (C.M.A. 1987), 
Dunlap, 25 M.J. 89 (C.M.A. 1987), that the statement of a ch

abuse victim to a law enforcement investigator was suffi

reliable to be admissible where the statement was given five 

after the incident and was corroborated by evidence of the v

appearance and demeanor and by content which was virtuall

tical with prior excited utterances made by the victim. 

Jurisdiction 

In Duncan u Usher, 23 M.J. 29 (C.M.A. 1986), a case invo

petition for extraordinary relief, the Court held that all p

jurisdiction over the accused, an Air Force Reservist, ceased up

release from active duty with respect to any crimes he committed 

his active duty tour, although he was later ordered to active du

was on active duty at the time of trial. The Court noted that the fa

circumstances did not fall within the special military juris

provisions found in Article 3, Uniform Code of Military Just

U.S.C. §803, and that, therefore, a break in active service betw

commission of the charged offenses and the date of trial preclud

exercise of court-martial jurisdiction against the accused in thi

The Court emphasized that the legislative history of Artic

Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §802(a), did not au

the exercise of court-martial jurisdiction, and that any deficiency 

jurisdictional provisions of the Uniform Code should be left to Co

to correct. Subsequently, in United States u Cole, 24 M.J. 18 (

1987), the Court held that court-martial jurisdiction was p

exercised where an accused was charged with and found gu

fraudulent separation in violation of Article 83(2), Uniform C

Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §883(2). The Court held in Cole th

application of Article 3(b), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 

§803(b), to the accused was constitutional and was consistent w

parameters of military jurisdiction set forth in 'lbth u Quarles, 3

11, 76 S.Ct. 1, 100 L.Ed. 8 (1955). The Court ruled that the obtai

a fraudulent separation did not change the accused from the sta

military person subject to the Uniform Code to that of a civili

that, accordingly, Article 3(b) authorized the adjudication of 

cused's status in the forum of a court-martial. 

14 
(C.M.A. 1987), that the results of a polygraph examination wer

inadmissible as a matter oflaw in a court-martial proceeding. R

the Court held that the military judge should examine all the 

and circumstances concerning the issue of admissibility of the re

of a polygraph examination and, after such analysis, should 

exercise discretion within the context of the Military Rules o

dence to determine if such results should be admitted. The 

further held that a rigorous or mechanical application of the 

dards set forth in Frye u United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 

should not be applied in light of the provisions for expert testi

set forth in Mil.R.Evid. 702. However, the Court rejected a 

application of the use of polygraph examination results in U

States u Baldwin, 25 M.J. 54 (C.M.A. 1987), and held that the 

judge erred by allowing trial counsel to question an accused con

ing his "failure" of a polygraph examination at a critical point i

trial. Subsequently, in United States u Abeyta, 25 M.J. 97 (C

1987), the Court held that a military judge's rejection of de

evidence concerning the results of a polygraph examination o

accused was not prejudicial error because, under United Sta

Gipson, supra, the use of such evidence was restricted to evalu

the truthfulness ofthe trial testimony of the examinee and in Ab

the accused did not testify. 

Right to Counsel 

The Court rejected a claim in United States u Stubbs, 23 M.J

(C.M.A. 1987), that the entire prosecutor's staffshould be disqua

because a counsel who had previously entered into an attorney-

relationship with the accused was thereafter transferred to such 

However, the Court emphasized that, based on the record evid

the counsel involved had not discussed the matter with other p

cutors on the staff and that the Government had therefore m

burden of demonstrating that there had been no violation o

accused's attorney-client relationship. In United States u Payto

M.J. 379 (C.M.A. 1987), a case involving the disclosure to a go

ment counsel of information allegedly provided by the accused 
cerning another offense, which resulted in statements conc

both incidents. The Court ruled that the accused acquiesced in, 

than initiated, further interrogation after invoking his ri

counsel and the tainted interrogation was not strictly limit

separate unrelated incident. Therefore the Court held his r

counsel had been violated. In a related matter, the Court h

United States v. Vidal, 23 M.J. 319 (C.M.A. 1987), that an ac

request for counsel made to German police officials did not trig

requirements of Edwards v. Arizona, 451U.S.477, 101S.Ct.18

L.Ed. 2d 378 (1981), where the foreign investigation was n

ducted on behalf of American investigators. The Court obse

Vidal that the accused's rights were adequately protected 

requirement that he be advised of his rights prior to any interro

by American officials. 

The competency of trial defense counsel was addressed by the 

in United States v. Scott, 24 M.J. 186 (C.M.A. 1987), wherein the 

reiterated that an accused is entitled to reasonably competent c

and that reversal of a conviction required a showing of 

incompetency of counsel which affected the trial results. The 

further observed that a counsel has a duty to make reas

investigations or to make a reasonable decision that par

investigations are unnecessary. Examining the facts and c

stances reflected in the Scott record, the Court concluded that r

of the accused's conviction was required in light of civilian d

counsel's failure to promptly investigate and prepare the ac

sole defense of alibi. Another allegation of ineffective assista

counsel was addressed in United States v. Newak, 24 M.J. 238 (

1987), wherein the Court concluded that effective assista

counsel was not provided where the same attorney initially 

sented both the accused and the chief prosecution witness inv

matters arising from the same incident. 

Urinalysis Tests 

Addressing the question of whether the results of a urinalysi

were sufficient to sustain the findings of guilty to the ch

wrongful use of marijuana, the Court held in United States v. M

16 
of wrongful drug use beyond a reasonable doubt, even though 

accused introduced evidence purportedly undermining or contra

ing such inference of wrongfulness. In United States u Johnston

M.J. 271 (C.M.A. 1987), the Court upheld a program for the mon

drug testing of all naval brig and correctional custody unit 

members, noting that the term "randomly selected" as used in 

program instruction meant that testing was to be done in a ma

which could not be known or predicted with certainty by the pe

tested, even though the selection of the test date was left to 

discretion of a law-enforcement officer. 

Witnesses and Production of Evidence 

The obligation of a trial counsel to make known to the def

favorable defense evidence was addressed by the Court in Un

States u Eshalom~ 23 M.J. 12 (C.M.A. 1986). Therein, the C

observed that a general request for exculpatory evidence or info

tion by the defense and the withholding of such information by 

prosecutor would result in reversal only if the omitted evid

created a reasonable doubt that did not otherwise exist. Exami

the facts in Eshalomi the Court noted that the victim of an all

rape had executed a statement after her testimony during 

progress of the trial that was inconsistent with such trial testim

and that the trial counsel deliberately withheld such evidence 

information concerning the same victim's past medical and psy

logical history. On the basis of the foregoing, the Court concluded 

the accused's conviction should be set aside. In United States u Za

24 M.J. 132 (C.M.A. 1987), the Court held that a military judge e

by summarily rejecting a defense requested witness upon the re

sentation that such witness would assert his right against 

incrimination. Therein, the Court noted that the witness in ques

had executed a pretrial statement that he, rather than the accu

was the driver of the automobile giving rise to the court-ma

charge of involuntary manslaughter as a result of its opera

Additionally, the Court observed that the Government did not as

;hat a grant of testimonial immunity would jeopardize the fu

>rosecution of the witness in question. Thus, the Court concluded 
tation by trial counsel that such witnesses would assert their 

against self-incrimination on relevant cross-examination. The 

concluded, after noting that the issues in this record were 

contested at trial, that the trial judge had a duty to examine 

witnesses to determine if they would in fact assert such r

whether a remedy could be fashioned to avoid the denial of re

defense evidence, and whether the ultimate striking of the test

would be required. 

Although concluding in United States u Owen, 24 M.J. 390 (C

1987), that a military judge does not have the power to com

victim-witness for the prosecution to undergo a non-consensu

chiatric or physical examination, the Court observed that a trial 

was not without power to exercise leverage in the matter. Rath

Court noted that the trial judge could use the persuasive powers 

office and that ofthe trial counsel to secure the witness's consen

cross-examination could be utilized in a manner so that a psych

could observe such testimony and express an opinion concerni

sanity ofthe witness; and that, in extreme cases, the testimony 

witness could be stricken. However, after examining the fac

circumstances in Owen, the Court concluded that the trial 

properly held no further inquiry into the matter was warrante

Finally, in United States u Reece, 25 M.J. 93 (C.M.A. 1987), the 

held that a trial judge erred by refusing to order the produc

juvenile records of two victim witnesses who testified again

accused on several sex-related charges. The Court emphasized 

was the trial judge's obligation to inspect such records in cam

determine if they should be made available to the defense, rathe

allowing the trial counsel to make such a determination ex pa.rte

Substantive Law 

In United States u Desha, 23 M.J. 66 (C.M.A. 1986), the Cou

that an accused could be convicted under Article 126(a) 

Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §926(a), for aggr

arson of his own residence. Addressing the sufficiency of the ev

to sustain a conviction for involuntary manslaughter by cu

negligence under Article 119(bXl), Uniform Code of Military Ju

10 U.S.C. §919(bXl), in United States u Henderson, 23 M.J. 77 (C

18 
prior possessor who had no legal right to such contraband. 

Examining the elements of the offense of extortion set fort

Article 127, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §927, 

Court held in United States v. Hicks, 24 M.J. 3 (C.M.A. 1987), th

conviction under this punitive article could be sustained with res

to the requirement for showing that a threat was made with 

intention thereby to obtain "anything of value" or "advantage" w

the accused communicated a threat for the purpose of obtai

sexual favors from the named victim. 

In United States v. Johnson, 24 M.J. 101 (C.M.A. 1987), the C

examined the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §2155(a) required to susta

conviction for sabotage and concluded that the statute did not req

an intent to injure the national defense as long as the accused k

that injury to the national defense would be an almost inevit

result of his action. Construing the word "damage" used in Ar

108, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §908, which 

cerns damage to military property, the Court held in United Stat

Peacock, 24 M.J. 410 (C.M.A. 1987), that damage to military prop

meant any change in the condition of the property which impaire

operational readiness. Thus, the Court affirmed the conviction on 

basis of an accused's acts of placing foreign objects in aircraft 

tanks temporarily impairing their operational readiness. 

Finally, in addressing the substantive offense of obstructing jus

the Court held in United States v. Tedder, 24 M.J. 176 (C.M.A. 19

that an accused could be convicted of obstructing justice for 

which occurred before preferral of any court-martial charges gi

rise to the obstruction of justice charge. 

Robinson 0. Everett 

ChiefJudge 

Walter T. Cox, III 

Associate Judge 

Eugene R. Sullivan 

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

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


CUMULATIVE FILINGS 

Master Docket 

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

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

Reconsiderations granted........................... 

Petition Docket 

Petitions for grant filed.............................. 

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

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

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


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


CUMULATIVE TERMINATIONS 

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

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

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

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


CUMULATIVE END PENDING 

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

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

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

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


OPINION SUMMARY 

CATEGORY SIGNED PERCURIAM 

Master Docket ........................ 121 10 


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


Miscellaneous Docket ............ 3 0 


TOTAL .................................... 124 10 


3 

963 

0 

9 

5 

2705 

6 

8 

36 

2769 

318 

2979 

39 

3336 

177 

442 

0 

619 

MEM/ORDER 

187 

2979 

36 

3202 

20 
Other disposition directed............................................. 24 Mem/order ........ 

TOTAL............................................................................ 318 TOTAL.............. 

PENDING (MASTER DOCKET) 

Assigned Opinions pending .......................................... 56 

Judges' conference pending .......................................... 2 

Oral argument pending................................................. 21 

Preargument conference pending................................. 26 

Calendar committee pending ............. ;.......................... 37 

Final briefs pending .............. ........................................ 35 

TOTAL ............................................................................ 177 

FILINGS (PETITION DOCKET) 

Petitions for grant of review filed ................................. 2705 

Petitions for new trial filed........................................... 8 

Cross-petitions for grant filed....................................... 6 

TOTAL ............................................................................ 2719 

TERMINATIONS (PETITION DOCKET) 

Petitions for grant dismissed........................................ 4 

Petitions for grant denied ............................................. 2715 

Petitions for grant granted ........................................... 226 

Petitions for grant remanded........................................ 18 Signed............... 

Petitions for grant withdrawn ...................................... 16 Per curiam ........ 

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

TOTAL ............................................................................ 2979 TOTAL .............. 

PENDING (PETITION DOCKET) 

Petition briefs pending.................................................. 215 


Staff attorney action pending....................................... 144 


Court action pending..................................................... 83 


TOTAL ............................................................................ 442 


3 In 20% of these cases, the Court specified issues which were not raised by the appell

addition, 3 cross.petitions were granted in cases already on the Master Docket as certifica

review. 
·Petitions granted ........................................................... 2 Signed ......... 

Petitions denied ............................... · ... : .... · ..................... . 36 Per curiam .. 

Petitions dismissed ....................................................... . 1 Memlorder ..

TOTAL ............................................................................ 39 TOTAL........

PENDING (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET) 


Briefs pending................................................................ 0 


Action by Writs Counsel pending................................. 0 


Show cause action by Court pending ............... :........... 0 


Show cause response pending ........ .'.................... :......... 0 


Other final action pending............................................ 0 


TOTAL ............................. : ........................ : ....... : ..... :....... 0 


RECONSIDERATIONS & REHEARINGS 

_\ .. Granted Rejected 

CATEGORY FILINGS PENDING DISPOSITION

Master Docket ........................ 7 2 1 .7. 

Petition Docket 

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

................ ,: ... ; 16 1 4, 11 

TOTAL ...::::...,.:.:: ...... : .... : ..: ..... 23 3 5 18 

''11 MOTIONS ACTIVITY 

BEGIN CATEGORY PENDING FILINGS PE~'ri?i.G' DISPOSIT

·· ; Granted · Rejecte

All motions ..................... : ... : ... 20. .788. 21 695 92 

22 
During fiscal year 1987, the Office of The Judge Advocate Ge

continued to monitor the proceedings of courts-martial, to review 

to prepare military publications and regulations, and to develop 

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

of Military Justice. , 

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS AND U.S. ARMY JUDICIAL ACTIVI

During fiscal year 1987, the court-martial rates show an Army

decrease in the number of courts-martial. The total number of pe

tried by all types of courts-martial in fiscal year 1987 was 2.4% 

thanfor 1986. This overall decrease reflects primarily a decrea

special courts-martial (i.e., a 15.7% decrease.in special courts-m

empowered to adjudge a bad-conduct discharge (BCD) and a 

decline in non-BCD special courts-martial). There was a 2.2% inc

in the number of general courts-martial and a 8. 7% increase i

number of summary courts-martial. The.overall conviction rat

fiscal year 1987 was 94.5%', which represents aslight increase 

the 93.4% conviction rate for the previous fiscal year. The decrea

the overall courts~martial rate for the last few years isconsistent 

the U.S. Army Court -of Military Re~iew having 178 fewer 

referred.for its review and a 20% decrease in the number of 

reviewed (from 2631 to 2119) during fiscal year l987~ . ~ ' ' . . ; ).:·.. 

. . ,. STATISTICAL SUMMARY: FISCAL YEAR 1g37 .... 

. ~ .. "' .:.· · (See table insert, attache~),' ·· i;,• •.• 

U.S. ARMY LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY 

The U.S. Army · Legal Servic~ Agency: includes the U.S. A

Judiciary, the.Government Appellate Division, the Defense App

D{vision,. the~- Trial . Defense Service,. the· Trial Counsel . Assis

Program, the Contract Appeals Division, the Regulatory Law O

. .. . ., ' ..\ . . , ' " ' ' ~ 
ppg y 

and affirmative Federal civil litigation. The Procurement 

Division is responsible for asserting and monitoring the prose

of government remedies against fraud and irregularities in the 

acquisition process. The Professional Recruiting Office coord

the recruitment of lawyers for the Army. An Information Ma

ment Office facilitates automation of the Agency. 

U.S. ARMY JUDICIARY 

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

Military Review, the Clerk of Court, the Examination and New 

Division, and the Trial Judiciary. 

U.S. ARMY TRIAL DEFENSE SERVICE 

During fiscal year 1987 the United States Army Trial D

Service (USATDS) continued to provide effective defense c

services for soldier clients. USATDS counsel represented ap

mately 1,980 clients at Article 32 proceedings, 1,513 clie

general courts-martial, and 1,387 clients at special courts-mart

addition, USATDS counsel advised an estimated 76,135 clien

garding nonjudicial punishment, and 33,608 clients facing ad

trative separation. 

USATDS continued to develop its deployment capability. C

were sent to the Sinai in support of the Multi-National For

addition, counsel actively participated in various command tra

exercises. 

TRIAL COUNSEL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

During fiscal year 1987, the U.S. Army Trial Counsel Assi

Program (TCAP) served as a source of information, advice

training for U.S. Army prosecutors world-wide. The progra

24 
portion of The Army Lawyer. 

SIGNIFICANT MILITARY JUSTICE ACTIONS 

Actions involving military justice handled by the Criminal 

Division, Office of The Judge Advocate General, included: evalu

and drafting legislation, Executive Orders, pamphlets and re

tions affecting the operation of the Army and the Departme

Defense; monitoring the administration of military justice to in

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

responsibility of attorneys and expanded UCMJ jurisdiction 

reservists; rendering opinions for the Army Staff; reviewing va

aspects of criminal cases for action by the Army Secretariat and 

and evaluation of ongoing major projects. During fiscal year 

Criminal Law Division responded to 108 White House inquiries

Congressional inquiries, 41 requests for legal opinion from the A

Board for the Correction of Military Records, 455 letters relati

military justice matters written to the Secretary of Defense, S

tary of the Army, the Chief of Staff of the Army and The J

Advocate General, and 36 other miscellaneous inquiries. The 

also processed 57 clemency petitions under Article 7 4, UCM

officer dismissal cases for Secretary of the Army approval, 12 req

for Presidential pardon and 23 Freedom of Information ActJPr

Act requests. 

CHANGE OF MILITARY JUSTICE REGULATION 

Army Regulation (AR) 27-10, Military Justice, was revised 

tive August 10, 1987. The most significant revision was to the f

procedures for records of punishment administered under Articl

UCMJ. No permanent record of punishment will be maintaine

soldiers E-4 and below with less than three years in the Army. F

other soldiers the present system is continued where the comma
pj; p

for increasing the coverage of Article 138, UCMJ, complai

include inactive duty training soldiers; and deletion from Articl

UCMJ, procedures of the requirement for an AR 15-6 investiga

be conducted and that a specific recommendation regardin

appropriateness of the redress requested be made. 

ARMY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT FOR LAWYERS 

A study of separate rules of professional conduct for m

attorneys began shortly after the American Bar Association 

adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct in 1983. Culm

ing a four-year study, the Office of The Judge Advocate G

developed rules patterned after those of the ABA. Effective Octo

1987, Army judge advocates and attorneys over whom the The 

Advocate General has disciplinary authority are subject to a n

of professional rules, the Army Rules of Professional Condu

Lawyers. By adopting a version of the ABA Model Rules, the 

joins the growing number of states that have embraced the new 

While Army judge advocates have always been subject t

disciplinary rules of the ABA, the new Army rules have 

specifically tailored for the world-wide practice of military law

example, a separate rule clearly enunciates the relationship be

the lawyer and the commander and states when the comma

lawyer may disclose to others conversations between them. Th

rules also tailor professional standards for the defense co

recognizing that attorneys representing military clients mig

informed of future crimes which are likely to result in signi

impairment of national security or the readiness or capabilit

military unit. 

JOINT-SERVICE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY JUSTICE . 

The Judge Advocates General and General Counsel of the D

ment of Transportation established the Joint-Service Commit

26 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1987, which included the Mil

Justice Amendments of 1986. These amendments, which origin

at the Joint-Service Committee, changed the military insanity 

and shifted the burden of proof on insanity to the accused, exte

jurisdiction over reservists to include periods of inactive-duty t

ing, revised the statute of limitations for offenses to parallel th

federal civilian law, authorized oral requests for enlisted member

and simplified post-trial case processing. The second annual revi

the Manual, which had been completed in July 1986, was comb

with changes to the Manual resulting from the Military Ju

Amendments and resulted in Executive Order No.12586 on Marc

1987. Change 3 to the Manual implemented the Executive Ord

June 1, 1987. 

The third annual review of the Manual was completed in 

1987. Most of the proposed amendments made technical correc

resulting from the new finding of "Not Guilty only by reason of 

of mental responsibility" and the reserve component jurisdiction

the amendments also included a significant revision of the sp

trial rule, a clarification of when verbatim records of trial 

required in officer cases, a limitation on when a judge may inform 

court members of guilty pleas in mixed plea cases, an authorizati

impeach the accused with certain prior unwarned statements, a

clarification of who may claim the Inspector General records p

lege. The public comment period expired on October 5, 1987 

comments that were received are being considered by the Wo

Group of the Joint-Service Committee. A proposal to amend Ar

10 of the Code (speedy trial) has been approved by the Committee 

has been forwarded to the General Counsel, Department of Def

FOREIGN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION 

As executive agent for the Department of Defense, the Depart

of Army, through International Affairs Division, Office of The J

Advocate General, maintains information concerning the exerci

foreign criminal jurisdiction over U.S. personnel. 
totaling 18,943 offenses, were concurrent jurisdiction offenses 

ing alleged violations of both United States military law and 

law over which the foreign country had the primary right to e

jurisdiction. United States military authorities obtained a w

primary foreign jurisdiction in 16,589 of these incidents

world-wide waiver rate of 87.6 percent. 

Foreign authorities reserved for their disposition a total of 

offenses allegedly committed by military personnel. A total of 

of these offenses were relatively minor (simple assault, dis

conduct, and traffic offenses). Traffic violations comprised 99

cent, or 105,524 of these offenses. 

A total of 11,131 civilian employees and dependents were c

with offenses subject to foreign jurisdiction. As civilians 

subject to trial by courts-martial in peacetime, the United Sta

no effective jurisdiction over these offenses. Nonetheless, 

authorities released 280 of these offenses, or 2.5 percent of th

to United States military authorities for administrative o

appropriate disposition. 

There were 115,434 final results of trial, i.e., final acqui

final convictions for military, civilian and dependents. Of thi

ber, 283 (.25 percent of the final results) were acquittals and 

(97.3 percent) were sentences to a fine or reprimand. The rema

the final results of trial consisted of 4 7 sentences to confinem

118 suspended sentences to confinement. 

LITIGATION 

Although civil litigation against the Department of the Ar

its officers and employees continued to increase during fisc

1987, these proceedings did not often concern actions pursuan

Uniform Code of Military Justice. In Cooper v Marsh the pla

seeking a declaration that the offense of fraternization as a vi

of Article 134, UCMJ, is too indefinite and vague to comply w

process. In addition, there are several habeas corpus proc

pending in which plaintiffs are seeking collateral review of 

martial convictions. 

28 
conducted. A total of 179 Army JAGC officers graduated from 

Courses. 

The 35th Graduate Course, with an enrollment of 72 stud

graduated on 22 May 1987. In addition to 62 Army judge advo

the class consisted of five Marines, one Navy, and four foreign off

The 36th Graduate Course began on 4 August 1986. This 

contains 62 Army, five Marines, one Navy, and three foreign off

During fiscal year 1987, the School continued to provide s

officers with legal orientations prior to their assumption of comm

Fifteen general officers attended General Officer Legal Orient

Courses, and 280 battalion and brigade command designees atte

one of five resident Senior Officer Legal Orientation Courses. 

tionally, instructors from the School participated in twelve 

Command Courses conducted at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, fo

talion and brigade command designees. 

The Criminal Law Division sponsored four resident conti

legal education (CLE) courses in fiscal year 1987. The Criminal 

Advocacy Course was presented twice, in November and Februar

Military Judge Course in May-June, and the Criminal Law 

Developments Course in August. Outstanding guest speaker

these courses included Judge Wayne E. Alley, United States Di

Court for the Western District of Oklahoma; Chief Judge Robins

Everett, Court of Military Appeals; Brigadier General Dulan

O'Roark, Jr., Commander, U.S. Army Legal Services Agency 

Chief Judge of the U.S. Army Court of Military Review; Prof

Stephen A. Saltzburg, University of Virginia School of Law; Prof

James B. Haddad, Northwestern University School of Law

Charlottesville attorney John C. Lowe. In addition to spons

these CLE courses, three nonresident courses were present

Germany in October: two criminal law CLE conferences and a 

day trial advocacy course. 

The International Law Division sponsored eight resident 

courses, each lasting one week, in fiscal year 1987. The Law o

Workshop, held five times, continued to provide practical law o

training to legal officers from all four armed forces and several 

nations. The two Legal Aspects of Terrorism courses offered b
and the second quarter International Law instruction to 

Graduate Course presented the new concept of Operatio

(OPLAW) as a fully evolved legal discipline focusing on th

issues, both domestic and international, associated with the 

tion for and deployment of U.S. forces overseas, in both peace

combat environments. The interdisciplinary nature of O

illustrated by the fact that the courses incorporated instruc

each of the School's teaching divisions. All courses sponsor

Division continued to stress the practical application of Inte

Law with the goal being to help prepare judge advocat

invaluable members of a commander's operations team. 

The Contract Law Division sponsored eleven CLE courses 

year 1987. These courses were designed to meet the nee

attorneys involved in the Federal acquisition process, both t

and the experienced professional. Courses address contrac

practiced at military installations and at commands de

research, development and acquisition of weapons and m

items. They included the two-week Contract Attorneys Cour

was offered four times to a total of 304 students. The Divi

presented two Fiscal Law Courses to 165 students and th

week-long Government Contract Law Symposium, attende

attorneys from throughout the Department of Defense. The 

also presented the Advanced Acquisition Course providing 

instruction to 120 students in acquisition of weapons a

supplies. Additionally, personnel of the Contract Law Divi

sented contract law instruction at eleven Reserve Componen

cal Training sites and a CLE course in Europe to military an

personnel stationed there. Fiscal law courses were presente

other than Charlottesville for a number of Army comm

activities, including the Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Army 

Center at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, and U.S. Army, Eur

Division, in conjunction with the Procurement Fraud Divis

Office of The Judge Advocate General (OTJAG), presente

Procurement Fraud Advisors Course to 65 newly designated 

ment Fraud Advisors from Army Materiel Command, Corp

neers, Forces Command, Training and Doctrine Command, a

30 
y 

tions Course, the Advanced Federal Litigation Course, and the L

Office Management Course. In addition, instructors presented cla

at the Tax and Legal Assistance Conferences in Europe. One instr

tor presented a week of instruction at the Noncommissioned Off

Advanced Course at Fort Benjamin Harrison Indiana, and one 

structor taught installation commanders during seven separate Ar

Installation Management Courses at Fort Lee, Virginia. 

The Legal Assistance Branch of the Administrative and Civil L

Division updated and expanded the Preventive Law Series. Addit

ally, the Legal Assistance Officer's Deskbook and Formbook 

substantially revised to enhance its value to practicing attorneys, 

the All-States Wills, Consumer Law, and State Notarial Law Gui

were extensively revised and published under the new title of Le

Assistance Guides. Finally, a new short course on alternative disp

resolution was developed and presented, and the Branch provided 

instructor for the Pacific Command CLE trip, presenting legal as

tance instruction at seven locations. 

The Judge Advocate Guard and Reserve Affairs Department sp

sored two resident courses for Reserve Component Judge Advocate

fiscal year 1987. Approximately 149 Army Reserve and Natio

Guard judge advocates attended Triennial Training in Criminal L

between 15 and 26 June 1986. Phase IV ofthe Judge Advocate Off

Advanced Course was attended by 160 students during this sa

period. The attendance by Army National Guard at Triennial Tr

ing reflects the Guard's continued strong participation in Sch

programs. The 2072nd U.S. Army Reserve Forces School in Phila

phia, Pennsylvania, provided administrative support for both cour

The Department also sponsored the CLE (On-Site) Training Progr

Between October 1986 and May 1987, the School provided CLE 

1,976 officers in 23 regional population centers throughout 

United States. Attendees represented all services and all compone

On-site attendance was up four percent in 1986-87, highlighted 

strong showings by Active Army and Army National Guard ju

advocates. The Guard-hosted Sacramento, California On-site instr

tion was a great success, and more are planned for the futu
opments in 11 areas of military law. Guest speakers included 

able John 0. Marsh, Secretary of the Army; Mr. Robert T

President, Institute of Peace; General John A. Wickam, Jr. C

Staff, U.S. Army; LTG Gerald T. Bartlett, Commander, U.S. 

Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth; and LTG Jo

Moellering, Assistant to the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

The Fourth Gilbert A. Cuneo Lecture in Government Contra

was presented on January 12, 1987, by Raphael Mur, Vice Pre

Secretary and General Counsel of Grumman Aerospace Corpo

Mr. Mur's presentation was entitled "Ethics in Government Co

ing; Getting Our Houses in Order." 

On January 15, 1987, the Fourth Waldemar A. Solf Lect

International Law was presented by the Egyptian Ambassador 

United States, Honorable El Sayed Raouf El Reedy. His presen

"An Egyptian Perspective on the Middle East Peace Process

well received. 

On April 13, 1987, the 16th Annual Kenneth J. Hodson Lec

Criminal Law was presented by Professor Michael H. Graham 

University of Miami School of Law. Professor Graham ga

outstanding lecture entitled "The Confrontation Clause an

Hearsay Rule: The State of the Relationship." 

The Eleventh Charles L. Decker Lecture was given on M

1987, by Professor John C. Jeffries, Jr., Professor of Law, Univ

of Virginia School of Law, Charlottesville, Virginia. Pro

Jeffries' presentation was entitled "Freedom of Speech-Prai

Misgivings." 

On September 24, 1987, Professor Donald N. Zillman, Profe

Law, University of Utah College of Law, presented the Six

Annual Edward H. (Ham) Young Lecture. Professor Zillman 

most interesting presentation on "A Bicentennial Look at Mi

Civilian Relations." 

New editions of DA Pamphlet (Pam) 27-22, Legal Services-M

Criminal Law Evidence; DA Pam 27-173, Legal Services

Procedure; and Field Manual (FM) 27-1, Legal Guide for Com

ers, for which the School is responsible, were published during 

year 1987. Revisions of Army Regulation (AR) 27-4, Legal Se

32 
Lawyer. 

Combat Developments accomplished board reviews of two 

Tables of Organization and Equipment (TOE's). The first, 

26602L, Legal Services Command, will convert Table of Distrib

and Allowance requirements to TOE requirements. The second

27512L, Judge Advocate General's Service Organization (JAG

restructured reserve component functional organizations to p

legal services under the AirLand Battle concept and in accor

with Army of Excellence force structure guidance. Manpow

quirements Criteria studies have been initiated for all legal mi

occupational specialties (MOSs) and officer areas of concentr

The studies have been completed for the enlisted military o

tional specialties (MOS 71D and 71E). A standardized com

program was developed on the Tactical Army Combat Service Su

Computer System that enhances the provision of legal support 

legal specialists and legal NCOs at battalion and brigade level

program offers the legal specialist a variety of frequently used 

formats and memorandums. This user-friendly program is cur

being tested in TOE units at the battalion level in the 24th In

Division (Mechanized), Fort Stewart, Georgia. Standards of 

authorizations have been revamped to comport with Congres

grade "caps" and to meet the minimum requirements of Ai

Battle force structure criteria. 

PERSONNEL, PLANS AND POLICIES 

With the inclusion of law students participating in the F

Legal Education Program, the strength of the Judge Advocate 

eral's Corps at the end of fiscal year 1987 was 1820. Represe

minority groups were 104 blacks, 31 Hispanics, 17 Asian and N

Americans, and 203 women. The fiscal year 1987 end str

compares with an end strength of 1825 in fiscal year 1986, 18

fiscal year 1985, and 1816 in fiscal year 1984. The grade distrib

of the Corps at the end of the fiscal year was six general officer

colonels, 227 lieutenant colonels, 376 majors, 1042 captains, a
Funded Legal Education Program. 

Eighty-nine judge advocate officers completed the following ser

schools: 

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

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

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

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

Armed Forces Staff College ............................................................

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

Defense Language Institute ...........................................................

During fiscal year 1987, eight officers completed fully funded s

for LL.M. degrees in specialized fields of law. As a result of 

Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA), newly 

pointed judge advocates accessed for the fiscal year were com

sioned as first lieutenants. The Judge Advocate General's Corps 

separate competitive category, and selects and promotes its off

based on Judge Advocate General's Corps grade vacancies as 

occur. 

HUGH R. OVERHOLT 

Major Genera~ USA 

The Judge Advocate General 

34 
PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

RATE OF IN

DECREASE 

TYP£ COURT TRIEO CONVICTED ACQUITTALS LAST R

GENERAL I 46? 408 54 + 2.21 

aco S"ECIAl. f A 1 I n51 000 ... ·.·..·.·'.·'.·>'.:-:::-::::::::;::::-:-·:···· -15. 7% 

NON-8CO SPECIAL ? 14 178 36 -21.0l 

SUMMA RV I 4Q? 404 88 + 8.71 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+I/DECREASE(-) OVER LAST REPORT - 2, 4! 

PART [BJ 2 - DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL. (CA LEVEU 


NUMBER OF OISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 


NUMBER OF BAO CONDUCT DISCHARGES 


SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL ISA LEVEL) 


NUMBER OF BAO CONDUCT DISCHARGES 


507 

705 

718 

PART 3 - RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

- GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL l, 256 

- BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 716( C j 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 ·GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 119 

eco SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

Ej 

RATE OF INCREASE (+I/DECREASE (-I OVER NUMBEPI OF CASES 

REVIEWED OUR ING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

FOR REVIEW UN DEA ARTICLE 66 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 

PART4-WORKLOAOOFTHE U.S. Army 

TOTAL ON HANO BEGINNING OF PERIOD 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 

GENERAL COVRTS·MAATIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 

~L CDVATS-MART1AL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

-20.0: 

PART 5 ·APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE U. s Army COURT OF M

REVIEW 

-:.-u.-"'c-".-~-~-A-G-.----+-1~,~,,.~,,__'.""3·=-,:----if,\ :·:<···:····. :':':..·:::::·.:•:··:-:-•:·:::::':•:::::::::::• (: { ..•: )@{/ /:

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

PERCENTAGE OF COMA REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCMA. 48. 67. 

P'ERCENTAGE OF INCREASE l•l/OECAEASE {-I OVER "REVIOUS REPORTING PERICO -2 · 47. 

~··~·~c~·~N~T~A~G~•~o~·-T~OT_A~c-·~·T~•~T~IO~N~S~G~A~A~N~T~•~o'-------------~----·'

P'ERCENTAGE OF INCREASE !•I/DECREASE 1-l OVER P'REVIOUS REPORTING PERICO 

-+--..,8.~7

-i•5% 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTEO OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWEO BY COMA 5 · 37. 

..ATE OF INCREASE C+l/OECAEASE (-)OVER TME NUMBER OF CASES AEVIEWEO DURING 

UST REPORTING PERIOD 

+. 0(112 

PACEJOF1 
RECEIVED 

OISP'OSED OF 

GAANTEO 

DENIED 

HO JUFUSOICTION 

WITHDRAWN 

TOTAL PENDING AT ENO OF 'UUOO 

PART 8 ·ORGANIZATION OF COURT 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

PART 9 ·COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS I 41 

1,042 

966 

420 

299 

k:·:·:·:.:···:.·.·.·.·.··.····. 

PART 10 ·STRENGTH 

···:·:::::::::::=:::.::::::::::::::·:-:::::;:::::::::::::::::-:

PART 11 ·NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15) 

'NUMB EA OF CASES WHERE N0NJVOIC1AL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 99,886 

AATE PER 1,000 127.53 

RATE OF INCREASE (+I/DECREASE(-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD -10.6% 

PA.GE 2 OF 2 

[AJ Empowered by GCMCA to adjudge BCD. 

[BJ Compiled from records in Part 3. 

[C] 	 Not including 2 cases in which review was waived. 


[D] Includes only cases at issue in panel. 


[EJ Cases before ACMR are not tracked by type of court. 


[F] 	 Includes 17 Miscellaneous Docket cases (13 Writ Petitionsi 

4 Article 62 Appeals). 

(GJ 	 In addition, 8 decisions on reconsideration were issued. 

Two cases were withdrawn from review after reaching panelsi 

seven cases withdrawn earlier, during the briefing stage. 

[HJ Application filed out of time; good cause not shown. 

[IJ From cases in Part 1. 

36 
UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 

for 

FISCAL YEAR 1987 

SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF MILITARY JUSTICE 

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

Military Justice, the Judge Advocate General and the Deputy J

Advocate General continued to visit commands within the Un

States, Europe, and the Far East in furtherance of the supervisi

the administration of military justice. 

ABA OUTSTANDING YOUNG MILITARY LAWYER AWARDS 

Lieutenant Anthony B. Getchell, JAGC, USNR, Administr

Law Division has been selected as the Navy recipient of the 

Young Lawyers Division Military Service Lawyers Committee's "

standing Young Military Service Lawyer" award for 1986-87. 

award recognizes the dedication and excellence of the nearly 6

attorneys who serve in the uniformed services throughout the w

The recipient is chosen based on demonstrated excellence in 

delivery of legal services, qualities of leadership, military excell

scholarly ability, and community service. 

ADVANCED LEGAL PROGRAMS 

Twenty-one Navy JAG Corps officers attended post graduate sc

in criminal law and other programs. There are now a total of 58 N

JAG officers with identified specialties in criminal law. 

The Naval Justice School (NJS) developed a trial advocacy co

using methodology developed by National Institute for Trial Advo
officers (including two Reserves) were trained at NJS. 

- one Navy officer was trained at Army JAG School. 

ARTICLE 69(a), UCMJ, EXAMINATIONS 

Seventy-one general courts-martial, which were not stat

eligible for automatic review by the Navy-Marine Corps C

Military Review, were examined in the Office of the Judge A

General in fiscal year 1987. Of those, three required corrective 

by the Judge Advocate General. 

ARTICLE 69(b), UCMJ, APPLICATIONS 

Fifty-three applications were received in fiscal year 1987 pu

to Article 69(b), Uniform Code of Military Justice, under wh

Judge Advocate General may vacate or modify the findi

sentence of courts-martial which have become final in the s

Article 76, but have not been reviewed by the Navy-Marine 

Court of Military Review. Thirty-two applications were denied 

merits, while relief was granted, in whole or in part, in four 

ARTICLE 73, UCMJ, PETITIONS 

In fiscal year 1987, 12 petitions for new trial were reviewed 

Office of the Judge Advocate General. Six petitions were den

the rest were referred to the appropriate appellate court. 

ARTICLE 74(b), UCMJ, PETITIONS 

Ten petitions were considered in fiscal year 1987, request

Secretary of the Navy to substitute an administrative dischar

38 
ppp

certiorari were filed with the Supreme Court of the United Sta

The Trial Counsel Assistance Program (TCAP) provided a ce

point of coordination and focus to assist trial counsel in the effe

prosecution of courts-martial. Four appellate counsel implemen

program which provides assistance through field calls, presentat

newsletters, a computer bulletin board, and a digest of major un

lished decisions. Field calls-in which a team concept is us

provide advice and assistance-totalled 507 for the year, an avera

42 per month (+50%). 

Presentations: 

Government attorneys participated in a seminar with Navy re

judge advocates in the Washington, D.C., area as part ofthe Rese

training, participated in a seminar for trial counsel at Norfolk

along with the Army TCAP team, and the Assistant Dir

Appellate Government Division, and one attorney gave a pres

tion on Supreme Court practice, government appeals, and r

developments in military justice at the Navy JAG conference

entire Appellate Government Division provided training durin

fiscal year to reservists tasked to support the Division. 

APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISION 

The Appellate Defense Division, Navy-Marine Corps Appe

Review Activity, has markedly increased its Supreme Court pra

during this fiscal year. It is anticipated that this trend will cont

An average of one petition per month has been filed since April 

Brief Bank. The establishment of a computerized brief bank 

provided appellate defense attorneys with instant access to 

research product of Navy and Army appellate attorneys who 

addressed similar issues of law. It has also enabled the Divisi

provide trial defense counsel in the field with a valuable resourc

preparing trial briefs. 
ppg 

y j

identifies those issues in which the courts are most intereste

provides a means to predict the way the courts will resolve such 

in the future. The Division has also .initiated a training sy

tailored to aid both trial and defense counsel in becoming 

aggressive and effective advocates. This syllabus takes a very 

cal approach to issues, providing counsel with concrete exam

what to do and how to do it. 

Off-Site Training. The Division presented training programs 

NR NAMARA (Defense) 111 unit from Oklahoma City, Oklahom

such training is scheduled with the Columbus, Ohio, and Dis

Columbia Reserve units in the near future. The Division made 

presentations at the 1987 JAG Conference, and the same service 

being offered to various NLSO's on the East Coast. 

NAVY-MARINE CORPS TRIAL JUDICIARY 

The Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary provided military 

for 934 general courts-martial during fiscal year 1987, a decr

136 general courts-martial from the fiscal year 1986 level of 1,

fiscal year 1987, 80% of these general courts-martial were tr

military judge alone. 

There were 6,552 special courts-martial conducted during 

year 1987, a decrease of 123 special courts-martial from the 

cases of fiscal year 1986. In fiscal year 1987, 93% of these 

courts-martial were tried by military judge alone. 

Military Judges Attending Continuing Legal Education/Seminars/Lectur

Meeting/Conferences 

a. East Coast Military Judges' Meeting of Those Assigned 

Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary 

- Fleet Combat Training Center, Atlantic, Dam Neck, 

- twenty-one active-duty Navy and Marine Corps judges

Reserve Navy and Marine Corps judges. 

40 
- Criminal Evidence, Constitutional Criminal Procedu

Medical Scientific Evidence, and Search & Seizure 

e. Trial Advocacy 


- National College, Univ. of Houston 


- two active-duty Marine Corps judges. 


f. Military Judges' Course 


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


- five active-duty Navy and Marine Corps judges. 


g. Military Judges Course 


- Naval Justice School, Newport, RI 


- twenty-seven July-14 August 1987 


- six active-duty Navy and Marine Corps judges. 


h. Judges' Training during JAG Conference Springfield, VA 

-	 eleven active-duty Navy and Marine Corps Judges; 

inactive-duty Reserve Navy judge. 

i. Marine Corps SJA Conference 


- San Diego, CA 


- Deputy Chief Judge. 


Visits by the Judiciary 

The Chief Judge presented administrative briefings for student

the Military Judges' Courses at both Charlottesville and Newpo

The Circuit Military Judge, Piedmont Judicial Circuit, Ca

Lejeune, North Carolina, paid a working visit and participated in 

instruction of students at the Military Judges' Course at Na

Justice School. 

The Chief Judge visited and inspected the following judicial 

cuits and branch offices: Northeast (Philadelphia); Tidewater (N

folk); Piedmont (Camp Lejeune); Atlantic Branch (Great Lak

Northeast (Philadelphia); Northeast Branch (Newport); Sierra (Ca

Pendleton); Sierra Branch (El 'Thro); Southwest (San Diego); So

west Branch (Long Beach); Midsouth (Charleston); and South

Branch (Jacksonville). 

Generally 

Chief Judge visits to Naval Legal Service Offices, conven
· NAVAL LEGAL SERVICE COMMAND 

Naval Legal Service Command (NAVLEGSVCCOM) consi

Naval Legal Service Offices and 20 Naval Legal Service 

Detachments, located in areas of naval concentration through

world. NAVLEGSVCCOM also includes the Naval Justice 

located in Newport, Rhode Island, and the Office of Legal C

located at the Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland. NAVLE

COM manning strength included 417 officers, 204 enlisted, 

civilian employees in fisc11l year 1987; Navy judge advocates a

to NAVLEGSVCCOM comprise about 42% of the Navy's tot

advocate strength.:< -: ··, 

The Jtidge Advocate General of the Navy' serves as Com

NAVLEGSVCCOM, which provides a wide range of legal ser

afloat and shore commands, individual servicerriembers, and 

dents and retirees. Specific services performed include. prov

court-martial services, administrative discharge board ser

respondents, advice to commands on a broad spectrum of lega

claims processing and adjudication, counsel at physical ev

boards, and legal assistance. · · .. · ·· 

; ~In support of the efforts to provide quality and timely legal s

NAVLEGSVCCOM activities continue to rely.upon the Judg

cate General Management Information Systemt:which trac

activity's caseload. from receipt to disposition. This system is 

due to the growing number. of personal computers available 

activity. In the future, the planned Navy Legal Affairs .Wo

Support System will refine and expand the automation of the 

legal assistance;' budgeting~ · and office admi:ilistration fu

within NAVLEGSVCCOM, enhancing its ability to perform 

sion. -AdditiOnally, 10 sites received state-of-the art computer 

transcription equipment. this year, which. when fully imple

will serve to speed the post-trial processing of courts-martial. 

greater use is being made of available automated~ legal :

programs, such as WESTLAW. 

The NAVLEGSVCCOM Military Construction Program

targets the.need for major construction in support of.~ore 

42 
length from one to nine weeks). Additionally, the school publ

volume 36 of the Naval Law Review and prepared or edited 

content of volume 37. Other noteworthy developments includ

convening at the school of a long-range planning committee for j

advocate training. The work of this committee culminated in app

by the Judge Advocate General of a long-term program for enha

training in naval orientation for judge advocates new to the Navy 

ne~ or increased training in the areas of trial advocacy, 

assistance, civilian personnel law, coritract law, and the law of n

operations. Additionally, during fiscal year 1987, Naval Ju

School more than doubled the number of Nary and Marine C

reservists training in military law subjects, both at Newport a

Re'serve training sites in various parts of the country. Fii:ially, du

this past fiscal year, Naval Justice School became the loc

accession-level training for judge advocates from all the sea serv

Pursuant to an arrangement between the Judge Advocate Gene

the Navy and the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard,'Naval Ju

School began a resident program to train Coast Guard law speci

arid court reporters. In furtherance of. this arrangement, a. C

Guard lieutenant commander and a Coast Guard chief petty o

have been assigned to the Justice Schoolstaff. 

···An update of the school's courses follows: 

Law of Naval Warfare Workshop. Offered once a year, this co

which will expand from. 1 week to 2 weeks in 1988, trains j

advocates responsible for advising commanders on internationa

and its impact on plans and operations. The course will consist 

hours of classroom instruction and 32 hours of practical exercise

seminars. Attendees completing the one-week course in 1987 incl

32 Navy,. 4 Marine Corps, 2 Army, and 2 Air Force attorneys, 

.StaffJudge Advocate Course. Also offered once a year, this 2-

course (which will expand to 3 weeks in 1988) provides trainin

specific aspects of military and administrative . law likely t

encountered by a command legal advisor. Included in 1987 we

hours of classroom instruction and 7 hours of practical exercise

seminars. This past year, attendees included judge advocates from 

Navy (41), Marine Corps (5), and Army (2). 
civil law to incoming Navy and Marine Corps attorneys, co

166 hours of classroom instruction and 55 hours of practical ex

including 2 moot courts and 14 seminars designed to enhan

advocacy skills. In fiscal year 1987 the course was complete

Navy, 68 Marine Corps, and 1 Coast Guard lawyer. 

Legal Officer Course. During fiscal year 1987, the school he

sessions of this course (five 5-week courses and three 4-week 

including the first course convened specifically for independe

legalmen). The legal officer syllabus is designed for the no

junior officer or senior Navy legalman (paralegal) about to 

legal duties with a ship, aircraft squadron, small station, 

military unit with no military lawyer attached. Included in th

are 126 hours of classroom instruction and 79 hours of p

exercises and seminars. Attendees in fiscal year 1987 consiste

Navy officers, 59 Navy legalmen, 48 Marine Corps officers, 

Guard officers, and 2 civilian employees of the Departmen

Navy. 

Senior Officer Course. This 1-week course, sponsored by the 

Naval Operations, prepares commanding officers, executive 

and officers in charge to handle appropriate command legal 

sibilities. Six sessions of the course were held at Newport

Island, with 205 students attending. An additional 25 offerin

course were held at the following worldwide locations: Pe

Jacksonville and Mayport, Florida; Charleston and Parris 

South Carolina; Norfolk, Virginia; Bangor, Washington; Sa

cisco, San Diego, and Camp Pendleton, California; Rota, Spai

Harbor, Hawaii; Guam; Subic Bay, Philippines; Yokosuka, 

Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; New London, Connecticut; 

Christi, 'Thxas; and Quantico, Virginia. The 1,34 7 Students at

these classes included: 

USN: 902 

USMC: 412 

USCG: 15 

USA: 16 

USAF: 2 

44 
reporting to Navy enlisted personnel selected for conversion to 

legalman rating. Included are 162 hours of lecture, 118 hour

practice transcription, and 52 hours of seminars and other pract

exercises. As in past years, the Army continues to use the N

Justice School's legalman course to train its court reporters. In fi

year 1987, 131 Navy and 22 Army students completed this cours

Legal Clerk Course. This 2-week course is designed to train m

bers of the Navy's yeoman rating to process routine legal matter

small or isolated commands. During fiscal year 1987, the sch

offered five sessions of this course. Included in the legal c

curriculum are 51 hours oflecture and 25 hours of practical exerci

In fiscal year 1987, 223 students completed this course. 

Reserve Courses. In addition to training active-duty personnel, 

Naval Justice School also presents a number of courses each yea

train inactive-duty reservists. The 2-week Reserve Lawyer Co

prepares inactive-duty lawyers of the Naval and Marine Corps 

serve to perform the duties of an active-duty judge advocate. S

larly, the 2-week Reserve Legalman Course, offered in three pha

prepares enlisted personnel in the inactive-duty Reserve as legalm

During fiscal year 1987, 124 students completed a course of Res

instruction at the school. 

Specialized Briefings and Presentations. In addition to the for

courses listed above, the Naval Justice School presented more t

600 hours of instruction on court-martial procedures, search 

seizure, confessions and admissions, nonjudicial punishment, in

tigations, administrative separations, and the law of armed confli

8,316 members of selected Reserve units (at Newport, New Orle

and Alameda, California) and students at the Surface Warfare O

cers School, Chaplains School, Officer Indoctrination School, Off

Candidate School, Senior Enlisted Academy, Naval War Coll

Naval Science Institute, and Naval Academy Preparatory Schoo

Newport, Rhode Island. 

MARINE CORPS ACTIVITIES 

During fiscal year 1987, Reserve legal support for the active fo
training programs at Camp Lejeune, Camp Pendleton, Parri

Kaneohe Bay, and Okinawa using NITA methods and exp

active duty and Reserve judge advocates as instructors. Other 

judge advocates, as well as Army, Navy, and Air Force lawy

participated. A sufficient number of Marine judge advoca

received NITA-instructor training so that now trial advoc

grams may be conducted using only Marine Corps assets. 

Eleven Marine judge advocates attended year-long service 

including the Naval War College, the Industrial College of the 

Forces, the Marine Corps Command and Staff College, the C

Naval Command and Staff, the Amphibious Warfare School, 

U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's School. Four judge ad

received Master of Laws degrees from civilian law schools thro

Special Education Program. Two hundred thirty-nine judge ad

received continuing legal education at civilian and military 

through courses funded by Headquarters, U.S. Marine Co

their parent commands. Ten Marine officers earned law 

through the Funded Legal Education Program. Fifty-seven of 

hundred and eighty-four judge advocates served in command 

(nonlawyer) assignments. 

The Judge Advocate Division again sponsored a mock court

in observance of Law Day and presented it to a local middle 

HUGH D. CAMPBELL 

Rear Admira~ USN 

Judge Advocate General ofthe Navy 

46 
GENERAL ijjj 793 

BCD SPECIAL lij)) 2855 

NON-BCD SPECIAL l5bt! 2331 SUMMARY Jlll 3054 

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE l+l/DECR&'.SE (-)OVER LAST REPORT 

PART 2 ·DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL (CA LEVEL) 

NUMBER Oii DISHONORABLE! DISCHARGES 

NUMBER OP BAO CONDUCT DISCHARGES 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL ISA LEVEL) 

40 ··.··.·.··:·:·:···: .-.·.·.:-:· :;: -:·:·:.·-·· . . . . ...... . . . ··.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·· 

237 

57 

216 

316 

NUMBER OF BAO CONDUCT DISCHARGES 2 2 8 6 

PART 3 ·RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 68 ·GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE ee ­ BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

FOR EXAMINATION UNOER ARTICLE 69 ·GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

PART 4 ·WORKLOAD OF THE Navy/Marine 

TOTAL ON HANO BEGINNING OF PERIOD 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL. 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 

GENERAL. COURTS-MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 

GENERAL. COURTS-MARTIAL. 

BCD SPECIAL. COURTS-MARTIAL. 

TOTAL. PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 

GENERAL. COURTS-MAFITIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MAFITIAL 

805 

3341 

73 

-203 

+97 

-110 

+94 

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


REVIEWED DURING t..AST FIEPORTING PERIOD + 307 (+ 7%) 


PART 5 ·APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE Navy/Marine COURT OF MILI

REVIEW NUMBER 31 7 3 1:·:·:·:-:-:-:-:·:·:·:-:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·>:·:·:·:· :·:· .·.;.; :·:·:;:::;:;:;:::;:::::::;::: ·:·:· .. .•.. :-:-:-: ·.·•· .·

-••-R-C-E-NT_A_G_E---+---~~7~4~.-6-9-<tflftf t :t f }.. }.'\'\.':';' r:}·;:/){ :::.::::=:=..::::

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

PERCENTAGE OF COMR REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCMA 237

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE(-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD 41% 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 11

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

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL. CASES REVIEWED BY COMA 

861

3 sr

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD 43% 

PA.GE I OF 2 
PENDING AT BEGINNING OF PERIOD 

RECEIVED 

DISPOSED OF 

GRANTED 

OEN IED 


NO JURISDICTION 


WITHDRAWN 


TOTAL PENDING AT ENO OF PERIOD 

PART 8 - ORGANIZATION OF COURT 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

PART 9 - COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS I 1 1 6 

PART10-STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 80 3 I 51 

PART 11- NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 

RATE PEFt 1,000 

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

PAGE20F2 

48 
In compliance with the requirement of Article 6(a), Uniform Cod

Military Justice (UCMJ), The Judge Advocate General, Major G

eral Robert W. Norris, and Deputy Judge Advocate General, Ma

General Keithe E. Nelson made official staff inspections of field le

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

participated in various bar association meetings and addressed ma

civil, professional and military organizations. 

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS AND 


US AIR FORCE JUDICIARY ACTIVITIES 


The Judiciary Directorate of the Office of The Judge Advoc

General has the overall responsibility for supervising the adminis

tion of military justice throughout the United States Air Force, fr

nonjudicial proceedings to appellate review of courts-martial. Ad

tionally, the Directorate has the staff responsibility of the Office 

The Judge Advocate General in all military justice matters wh

arise in connection with programs, special projects, studies a

inquiries generated by the Air Staff; Headquarters USAF; the Se

taries of the Departments of Defense, Army, Navy, and Air Fo

members of Congress; and other Federal, state and civil agenc

Several of the Directorate's activities are discussed below: 

a. The Judiciary Directorate serves as the action agency for the rev

of military justice issues in applications submitted to the Air Fo

Board for Correction of Military Records. Formal opinions were provi

to the Secretary of the Air Force concerning 203 applications. 

b. The Directorate received 894 inquiries in specific cases requir

either formal written replies or telephonic replies to senior execut

officials, including the President and members of Congress. 

c. The Directorate provided a representative to all interserv

activities involving military justice. This included the Joint Serv

Committee and support for the Code Committee. 

DATA AUTOMATION UPGRADES 

The Directorate of Legal Information Services (AF/JAS) pla

develops and manages automated management information syste
(FLITE) system and the Defense Emergency Authorities R

and Analysis System (DEARAS) as DOD's executive agent f

puter assisted legal research. Extensive effort was expended 

converting FLITE from a batch to an interactive system in F

TRIAL JUDICIARY 

The Air Force Trial Judiciary had an average of 31 military 

duty and 7 reserve military judges, including one Chief Tria

and his assistant, assigned to 11 locations worldwide. In add

presiding over courts-martial and administrative discharge 

military judges are actively involved as hearing officers in 

hearings held to consider draft Environmental Impact Statem

The Trial Judiciary completed installation of the compu

docket management program and training ofthe court admini

in 1986 and is now upgrading the programs to take advantage 

equipment and software. 

All Trial Judiciary circuit and district offices are now lin

electronic mail which simplifies and expedites the flow of da

the exchange of information. Further refinements in this a

also planned for 1988. 

CIRCUIT TRIAL COUNSEL PROGRAM 

The number of assigned circuit trial counsel (CTC) remaine

during FY 1987. The average number of days TDY per case in 

was six. For the fourth year in a row, the percentage of all 

prosecuted by CTC increased from 26% in FY 1983; 29% in FY 

31 % in FY 1985; 36% in FY 1986; to 38% in FY 1987. Th

.number of general courts-martial tried by CTC increased ma

from 455 to 505, but the percentage of general courts-martial t

circuit trial counsel fell for the ninth straight year, this time fro

in FY 1986 to 66% in FY 1987. This was due to the con

50 
Tutal 574 542 497 440 421 446 536 

(33%) (31%) (28%) (26%) (29%) (31%) (36%) 

In support of the urinalysis program, a familiarization work

was conducted to bring circuit trial and defense counsel up to s

with recent developments at the Brooks AFB urinalysis tes

laboratory. Urinalysis continues to support the important f

against drug abuse in the Air Force and a working knowledge o

Brooks urinalysis laboratory procedures by both the prosecution 

defense is essential to a just result in all urinalysis courts-martial 

administrative proceedings. 

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT COUNSEL 

Direct U.S. Supreme Court review of the decisions of the U.S. C

of Military Appeals (COMA) markedly increased appellate gov

ment counsel (JAJG) workload in FY 1987 over FY 1986. Draft b

in opposition filed by appellate government counsel were up 33% 

FY 1986 and Air Force briefs in opposition for FY 1987 accounte

30% of the briefs filed by all services. In addition, pleadings 

positions in 23 sister service Supreme Court cases were reviewe

JAJG during FY 1987, the same number as in FY 1986. U

Article 62, UCMJ, three different cases were evaluated for the fi

of government appeals of adverse rulings by military trial judges

three cases were formally filed with the appellate courts on beha

the government. Finally, nine cases which had been certifie

COMA by The Judge Advocate General in accordance with Ar

67(bX2), UCMJ, were decided by COMA in FY 1987; all nine w

decided favorably toward the government. 

AREA DEFENSE COUNSEL PROGRAM 

Area defense counsel training concentrated on providing effe

representation to members accused of child molestation and c
APPELLATE DEFENSE COUNSEL 

Due to the significant increase in the number of puni

charges adjudged at trial, appellate defense experienced sub

increases in almost all aspects of appellate workload be

United States Air Force Court of Military Review (AFCM

COMA. The breakdown follows: 

AFCMR 

ERRORS FILED ........................................... 1012 

ORAL ARGUMENTS ................................... 15 

OTHER MOTIONS ....................................... 321 

COMA 


SUPPLEMENTS TO PETITIONS ............... 556 


BRIEFS IN SUPPORT ................................. 164 


GRANT BRIEFS ........................................... 13 


ORAL ARGUMENTS ................................... 29 


OTHER MOTIONS/PETITIONS ................. 215 


Counsel also filed eight Petitions for Certiorari at the U.S. S

Court. None were granted. 

Air Force Reserve judge advocates provided significant c

tions to the appellate defense mission. In addition to assistin

preparation of briefs, reserve attorneys argued cases before 

and COMA. They also served effectively as instructors in area 

counsel training programs. 

CONFINEMENT FACILITIES 

Last available figures during the fiscal year showed 1011 A

personnel were in confinement; 70 pretrial and 941 posttr

figure 1011 represents a nearly 20% increase over last ye

officers and women were being confined than ever before. In a

the latest data revealed that 192 Air Force prisoners were on 

52 
gp

The return to duty rehabilitation (RTDR) program at the 3

CRS, Lowry Air Force Base, continued to operate successfully. T

Air Force members were projected to be restored to duty foll

completion of the RTDR program in CY 1987. 

PREVENTIVE LAW AND LEGAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

The Preventive Law and Legal Aid Group (JACA) continued 

opment and expansion of the Preventive Law Uniform Not

System. During FY 1987, the notebook system was expanded fr

notebooks to a complete set of 21 notebooks. Of the eight s

categories in the system, seven categories now have indexed, 

copy information available. Seven Shortbursts Newsletters 

mailed to all base and command legal offices. Two of the news

were devoted entirely to income tax matters; the remaining ne

ters contained general information. On 1 July 1987, responsibil

maintaining the Uniform Notebook System and publishing 

preventive law material for the system was transferred to th

Force Judge Advocate General School, Maxwell AFB, Alabama

The staffofthe Preventive Law and Legal Aid Group organize

taught income tax training courses for overseas bases. A repre

tive ~rom JACA assisted in teaching attorneys and unit tax ad

at courses at Athens, Greece; Panama; and at three locations thr

out the Pacific: Hickam AFB, Hawaii; Yokota AB, Japan; and 

Korea. ­

During January through April 1987, tax assistance program

run by legal offices throughout the world. Over 82,000 members 

Air Force community were helped. Air Force attorneys and th

advisors they trained and supervised helped Air Force me

complete 9,641 Form 1040EZs, 13,021 Form 1040As, 17,314 

1040s, and 18,855 state tax returns. 

Legal assistance services were provided to over 400,000 c

worldwide. Tup categories continued to be wills, domestic rela

and consumer matters. The Chief, Preventive Law and Lega
the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Solorio v. United States, 

tions in using the twin residual hearsay exceptions, and the D

Procurement Fraud Unit. 

EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

The Judge Advocate General's Department provided nu

continuing legal education (CLE) opportunities to its person

well as its sister services, during FY 1987. 

THE AIR FORCE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL SCHOOL 

The Air Force Judge Advocate General School assumed re

bility for the Preventive Law Uniform Notebook System and 

inghouse Index in July 1987. The School published its first 

Shortbursts, the Preventive Law and Legal Assistance newsle

September 1987. That issue added material to three cat

(Consumer Protection, Family Law, and Legal Problems of Com

within the Uniform Notebook System. Future issues of Shor

will be published on a quarterly basis. 

Resident Courses 

The Air Force Judge Advocate General School, Center for 

sional Development, Maxwell AFB, Alabama, conducted the 

ing courses affecting military justice in FY 1987. 

a. AdvancedTrial Advocacy Course-This 1-week course p

training in advanced advocacy skills to judge advocates cu

serving as or selected for circuit trial or defense counsel. Thir

judge advocates attended this course. 

b. Judge Advocate Staff Officer Course-A course pr

seven weeks of instruction on the basics of military law. This 

was attended by 136 judge advocates. 

54 
g , py 

to judge advocates actively engaged in trial practice and was atte

by 97 judge advocates. 

f. Military Judges' Seminar-This 1-week seminar pro

military judges a forum in which to present and discuss new d

opments in military justice. This course was offered once in FY 

. and was attended by 56 military judges from all services. 

g. Aerospace Operational Law. This course provided judge 

cates with training in the domestic and internal legal issues as

ated with planning and execution of peacetime and combat mil

operations. Sixty-three judge advocates attended. 

Videotape and Seminar Programs 

The following videotape and seminar programs affecting mil

justice were offered: 

Trial Techniques ........................................................................ 9 H

International Law-Conduct of Armed Conflict ........................ 3.5 H

Supreme Court Trends in Criminal Law ................................. 4 H

Appellate Commentary ............................................................. 6 H

Expert Witnesses ....................................................................... 3 H

Impeachment under the Military Rules of Evidence .............. 3 H

Character Evidence ................................................................... 4 H

Advanced Advocacy .................................................................... 5 H

Adyanced Trial Techniques ....................................................... 6 H

Sentencing .................................................................................. 2.5 H

Search and Seizure .................................................................... 3.5 H

Government Lawyer and Professional Responsibility ............. 3 H

Professional Military Education 

'Tun area defense counsel were selected to attend Squadron O

School in residence. 

Short Courses at Civilian Institutions 

Sixteen military judges attended courses at the National Jud

College at the University of Nevada at Reno during FY 1987. 
PERSONNEL 

As of 1 October 1987, there were 1346 judge advocates o

duty. This total included 5 generals, 120 colonels, 204 lie

colonels, 336 majors, 627 captains and 54 first lieutenants. 

Robert W. Norris 

Major Genera~ USAF 

The Judge Advocate General 

56 
-~.-uR_Mc_·.-:-~-A_G_E----+----~~~~~-{l-%--<!. : . : :/:'· / .. : : ...···.·.:· ...·. 

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

PERCENTAGE OF COMA REVIEWED CASES S:QRWARDEO TO USCMA 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (•llOEC.REAS~_: I OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETIT10N~~A-~~T~E~~-----·-------~..._~~-+----,.~~

PART 1 ·BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons) 

lllATE 0' INCAEAS

DECREASE 1-1 O

TYPt! cou..T TRIED CONVICTED ACQUIT1'ALS LAST fll!POlllT 

Gl!Nl ..AL 6R7 657 30 + 35.2% eco S..ll!CIAL "17Q "17Q + ~ "% NON-BCD Sl'ECIAL 473 4ne, 6!1 + 2.2% SUMMARY ?7 ,, 4 - 28.9% OVERALL AATI! OF INCREASE (+)/OE CREASE 1-1 OVEA LAST AEPORT + 13. 7% 

PART 2 ·DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL (CA LEVEL) 

NUMBER 01' DISHONORABLE OISCHAAGES 

NUMBER 01' BAD CONDUCT OISCHAlllGES 

Sl'ECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL (SA LEVEL) 

NUMBIR 01' BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGES 

PART 3 ·RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNOEA ARTICLE 66 · GENEFl:AL COURTS-MARTIAL 

FOA REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 68 ·BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

FOR EXAMINAT.ION UNDER ARTICLE 69 - GENERAL COURTS·MAATIAL 

PART 4 ·WORKLOAD OF THE Air Force 

TOTAL ON HANO BEGINNl:'l.IG OF PERIOD 

GENERAL COUfllTS-MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

AIEFEAREO FOR REVIEW 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 

GENERAL COURTS·MARTIAL 

BCO SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL PENOING AT CLOSE OF PEFHOD 

GENERAL COURTS·MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS·MARTIAL 

150 

432 

368 

621 

348 

62 

RATE dF INCREASE (+UDECREASE t-1 OVER NUMBER OF CASES 

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD % 

PART 5 ·APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE Air Force COURT OF MILITA

REVIEW 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE l•l,OECRe ASE I -1 ove R Pf"EVtOUS REPORTING PE RlOO 


PERCENTAGE 0 F PETITIONS GRAN TE o.oc.•_ro=-r_A_L~CA_S=-•=-s-·~·=-V...c•=-•w=•o"-"•-v~c=-o~"-"--"-'"-~~+----...........%

RATE OF INCREASE l•l/OECREASE I·• OVER T1-tE NUMBER OF CASES REVIEWED DURING 


LAST REPORTING PERIOD 1.0% 

PAGE I VF~ 
PENDING AT BEGINNING OF PERIOD 

RECEIVED 

DISPOSED OF 

GRANTED 

DENIED 

NO JURISDICTION 

WITHDRAWN 

TOTAL PENDING AT ENO OF PERIOD 

PART 8 ·ORGANIZATION OF COURT 

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE Al.ONE 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TRIALS BY MILITAFW JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

SPECIAL COUFnS·MARTtAL 

PART 9 ·COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 


NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 1 i2 r· .. 
 PART 10 ·STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 59 3 .$33 

PART 11 ·NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 19 216 RATE PER 1,000 32.36 RATE OF INCREASE (+I/DECREASE (-1 OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD - 10% 

PA.GE :!OF2 

58 
The table below shows the number of courtmartial records rece

and filed at Coast Guard Headquarters during FY-87 and t

preceding years. 

Fiscal Year 87 86 85 84 83 

General Courts-Martial.. ....... 11 5 5 6 10 

Special Courts-Martial .......... 24 19 43 33 68 

Summary Courts-Martial... ... 63 50 77 105 128 

Tutal ........................................ 98 74 125 144 206 

COURTS·MARTIAL 

Attorney counsel were detailed to all special courts-martial. 

tary judges were detailed to all special courts-martial. For most c

the presiding judge was the full time general courts-martial ju

When he was unavailable, military judges with other primary d

were used for special courts-martial. Control of the detail of ju

was centrally exercised by the Chief Trial Judge, and all req

ments were met in a timely fashion. 

GENERAL COURTS·MARTIAL 

Of the eleven accused tried by general courts-martial this f

year, six were tried by military judge alone. Four received bad con

discharges. Of the five accused tried by courts with members, 

received sentences which included a bad conduct discharge. Six o

accused whose charges were referred to general courts-martial 

nonrated (pay grades E-1 through E-3), two were petty officers 

grade E-6), one was a chief warrant officer (W-3), one was a 

warrant officer (W-4), and one was a lieutenant junior grade (0
121 Garceny and wrongful appropriation) ...................................................... . 

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

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

Other offenses ................................................................................................... . 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

Fifteen of the 24 accused tried by special courts-martial thi

year were tried by the military judge alone. One of the nine a

tried by members was acquitted of all charges and specific

Three bad conduct discharges were awarded; two to accused tr

military judge alone, and one to an accused tried by a cour

members. Seven of the accused whose charges were referred to 

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

were petty officers (pay grades E-4 through E-6), four were chie

officers (pay grades E-7 and E-8), and one was a chief warrant 

(W-4). 

The following table shows the distribution of the 105 specifi

referred to special courts-martial. 

Violation of the UCMJ, Article 

85 and 86 (desertion and UA) .......................................................................... 

89 (disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer)................................. 

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

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

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


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

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

121 (larceny and wrongful appropriation)....................................................... 

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

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

Other offenses.................................................................................................... 

60 
forfeiture of pay ($9,836 total).......................................................................... 8 

other sentences.................................................................................................. 

The following is a breakdown of sentences awarded in spec

courts-martial with members (eight convictions). In one of these eig

convictions, the accused pled guilty to all charges and specificatio

Cas

Sentence Impo

bad conduct discharge....................................................................................... 1 

confinement .................................. ..................................................................... 3 

hard labor without confinement...................................................................... 2 

reduction in rate ............ ........ .................................. ........................... .............. 6 

restriction ............... ....................... ... ..... ............................................................ 2 

forfeiture of pay ($1,152 total).......................................................................... 2 

other sentences.................................................................................................. 2 

The following indicates the four sentences imposed most by spec

courts-martial in the past three fiscal years. 

Number of Reduction 

FY Convictions Forfeitures Confinement in grade BC

87 23 10 (43%) 13 (57%) 21 (91%) 3 (1

86 16 10 (63%) 7 (44%) 9 (56%) 3 (1

85 36 24 (67%) 18 (50%) 28 (78%) 7 (1

SUMMARY 

Sixty-three percent of the accused tried by special court-mart

were tried by military judge alone. Sixty-six percent of them p

guilty to all charges and specifications. Four percent of the accu

tried by special court-martial with members pled guilty to all charg

and specifications. There was a 32 percent increase in total cour

martial from last fiscal year. 
The Coast Guard has 162 officers designated as law specialist

advocates) serving on active duty. 116 are serving in legal billets 

are serving in general duty billets. Eighteen Coast Guard offi

currently undergoing postgraduate studies in law, and will be c

as law specialists at the completion of their studies. 

The Coast Guard has one full-time general court-marti

judge. Senior law specialists, most serving as district legal o

are used as military judges in special courts-martial, when re

In June 1987, as part of a major reorganization of the Coast G

regional command structure, the organization of field legal 

was significantly altered. Two Districts were eliminated, two r

support commands established, and the remaining ten Distric

reduced in size. The reorganization was centered around the 

of centralizing functions into two regional "Maintenance and 

tics Commands" (MLC's) in the San Francisco area and in Ne

In general, these commands provide personnel, contracting, 

certain specified legal functions, and other administrative sup

their regions. The Districts are thus free to focus on Coast 

operational matters. The legal office reorganization resulted 

large legal staffs at the MLC's and a reduction in the remain

District Legal Offices. As currently organized, the remaining D

Legal Offices will provide the necessary local, primarily 

tional" legal support to the District Commander while the r

legal offices in the MLC's will handle matters such as 

procurement, real property, and other general administrativ

matters. One of the functions of the MLC's is trial defense ad

With this approach, government counsel will be provided 

District Office in which the accused's unit is located and the 

counsel will be provided by the MLC. The MLC's also act as "c

houses" for such matters as pretrial confinement and provid

advice to the two Area Commanders. 

The effect of this organizational change is expected to be 

efficient military justice program. Proficiency of counsel should in

but some minor changes may have to occur to account for the in

travel needs resulting from this organization, and the poten

reduced opportunity for some attorneys to serve as trial counsel

62 
connection" test was not valid and returned to the earlier rule 

any crime committed by a member efthe Armed Forces was triabl

Court-Martial without regard to the location or nature of the offe

This was the first UCMJ case heard by the Supreme Court under 

1984 changes to the UCMJ. 

The case focused widespread attention on the Coast Guard's m

tary justice program and resulted in significant participation 

Coast Guard attorneys in professional programs. This included pa

on military justice, with an emphasis on the SOLORIO case. LC

Bruce was widely recognized for his work. As the first mili

attorney to argue a case before the Supreme Court under the Unif

Code of Military Justice, he received the ABA's Outstanding C

Guard Lawyer Award and participated in a panel discussion on 

Solorio decision at the ABA Convention in San Francisco. Both he 

LCDR Donlon received Coast Guard awards for their work. 

General Court-Martial Trial Judge participated in a moot cour

Yale Law School on the Solorio case in late 1986. The Coast Gu

acted as the host for this year's Homer Ferguson Conference w

included discussions on the case and the Coast Guard's role in 

Included as a speaker at the conference was Admiral Paul A. Yost

the Commandant of the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard has playe

increasingly active role in the process of improving the mili

justic~ system through participation in the Code Committee, 

Joint Services Committee and other professional organizations

deed, many, including Chief Judge Everett, have referred to thi

the "Year of the Coast Guard." 

U.S. COAST GUARD COURT OF MILITARY REVIEW 

During fiscal year 1987, the Court was composed of five appel

military judges assigned by the General Counsel, Departmen

Transportation in his capacity as Judge Advocate General. The C

Judge and one other Judge are civilians. The remaining three Jud

are Coast Guard commissioned officers. On 26 August 1987, a pu

installation ceremony was held at U.S. Coast Guard Headquarter

swear in the most recently appointed judge. Captain Kevin J. Ba
judges on the Court have participated in a number of profe

seminars and conferences during the past fiscal year. In Nov

1986, all the judges from the Court participated in the second A

All Services Appellate Military Judges Conference sponsored 

Military Judges Committee of the Federal Bar Association's 

ciary Section, in cooperation with the U.S. Court of Military Ap

and hosted by the Air Force Court of Military Review at the Na

Lawyers Club. In February 1987, Chief Judge Baum from the 

along with other state and federal appellate judges from acro

nation, participated in an Appellate Judges Seminar sponsored 

American Bar Association's Appellate Judges Conference a

Diego, California. Along with representative Judges from the 

Courts of Military Review, the Chief Judge participated in a 

presentation in March 1987 at the Thirteenth Interservice M

Judges Seminar at the Air Force Judge Advocate General S

Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. In May 1987, all ofthe judge

the Court attended the Twelfth Annual Homer Ferguson Conf

in Washington, D.C .. In September, the Chief Judge attend

Federal Bar Association's Annual Convention in Memphis, Thn

where he was presented an award for outstanding leadership 

1986-87 as the Chairman ofthe FBA Military Judges Committ

has been reappointed Chairman ofthat Committee and, as fisc

1987 ended, was actively involved in seminar and conference p

be sponsored by the committee, including the third Annu

Services Appellate Military Judges' Conference which will be 

in fiscal 1988 by the Coast Guard Court of Military Review. 

ADDITIONAL MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 

Appendix A contains additional basic military justice statist

the reporting period and reflects the increase/decrease of the 

load in various categories. 

J. E. VORBACH 

Rear Admira~ U S. Coast Guard 

Chief Counsel 

64 
OVElllALL "ATE OF INCREASE l+l/OECREASE (-) OVEfll LAST lllEl"OAT + 32% 

GENEAAL COUfllTS-MAATIAL (CA LEVELi 

NUMllEJlt OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 

NVMllEfll OF IAD CONDUCT D!SCMAfllllGES 

l'ECIAL COUflllTS·MARTIAL CSA LEVELi 

NUMBE" OF IAD CONDUCT DtSCHAAGES 

O· 

6 

3 

PART 2 ·DISCHARGES APPROVED 

PART 3 ·RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOflll REVIEW UNOElll: AJllTICLE 66 • OENEfllAL COURTS-MARTIAL 6 

Fofli REVIEW UNOl!lll ARTICLE II· BCD SlllEC1AL COUfllTS·MAfllTIAL 3 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER .A.fllTICL.E 99. GENE Ill AL COU"TS-MAfllTIAL 

PART 4 ·WORKLOAD OF THE COAST GUARD COURT OF MILITARY REVIEW 

TOTAL ON MANO IEGINNlf'llG OF P'Ef'llOO 

GENERAL COURTS·MARTIAL 

BCD Sll'ECIAL COURTS·MARTIAL 

lllEF!flll"EO 1'0111 "EVIEW 

GENERAL COUlllTS-MAATIAL 

ace 5'ECIAL COUATS-MAATIAL 

TOTAL CASES AEVIEWED/ Af''T'l:'T\ ''n""' 

GENEflllAL COUflllTS-MAflllTIAL • 

ICC Sf'ECIAL C:OUflllTS-MAflllTIAL ~ ~;;r\;t''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' n ::::::: 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE Ofl' 'EAIOO .• • ~::' ''' ...· OENEAAL COUATS-MAflllTIA~ 

BCD Sl'ECIAL COUflllTS-MAfl!.TIAL 
 ' 

11 ~ i'.:: @I I\ 

lllATE OF INCfl!.EA.SE (+l/DECAEASE C-J OVEA NUMB EA OIS CASES 


lllEVIEWED OUllllNG LA.ST lllEf'OlllTING f'f'llfOD -15.3% 


PART 5 ·APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE COAST GUARD COURT OF MILIT

REVIEW 

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

PEACE NT AGE OF COMA REVIEWED CASES FORWAFIOEO TO USCMA 4/1 0 40~ 

PElllCENTAGE OF INClllEASE (+I/DECREASE 1-1 OVEflll ,,UVIOUS AEPOlllTING 'Elll.IOO -13% 

PEACE NT AGE OF TOTAL l'ETITIONS OJllANTED 0 

PEflllCENTAGe- OF tNCflllEASE (-tl/DECflllEA.SE (-) OVEflll l'flllEVIOVS flllEPOflllTING PUl.IOO -1007. 

PEflllCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GflllANTEO OF TOTAL CASES l'l!VIEWEO IV COM!llt 0/10 0 

"ATE OF INClllEA.SE (•}/OECAlASE (-) OVElll THE NUMIEflli OF CASES flllEVIEWEO OUflllNG 

LAST fllE,OflllTING PEl'llOO -100% 

! 	Military judges are assigned to all cases referred to special courts-mart

The Coast Guard, therefore, considers all special courts-martial potential 

BCD cases. 

l 	Included within this total are 14 cases referred to the Court for Article 

UCMJ review, one for Article 69, UCMJ review, and one extraordinary writ 

received for action. No Article 62, UCMJ Government Appeals were received

l 	Included within this total are ten Article 66, UCMJ, one Article 69, UCMJ, 

and one extraordinary writ for review 
PENDING AT BEGINNING OF l'ERIOO 

..ECEIVEO 

DISl'OSED OF 

GRANTED 

DENIED 

HO JURISDICTION 

WITHDRAWN 

TOTAL l'ENOING AT ENO OF PERIOD 

PART 8 ·ORGANIZATION OF COURT 

TftlALS IY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 

GENERAL COUPfTS-MAFITIAL 

Sl'ECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 15 

TIUALS IY MILITAlllliY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 

GENEfllAL COURTS-MARTIAL 6 Sl'fCIAL COUAT$.MAlllTIAL 9 

PART 9 ·COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMB!" Otl COMl'LAINTS I 

PART 10 ·STRENGTH 

AVE R•G IE ACTIVE DUTY ST RE NOTH 3 7 , 8 71 k=:::::::::::;:>:··· :-:·::::::::;:::::;:::}'.:'.:::: :::::::::::::::;:;::

PART 11 ·NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15) 

NUMIU• 0' CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL 'UNISMMENT IMl'OSED 

fll:ATE OF INClltE.6.SE f+)/OECREASE (-) OVEP\ ''UVIOUS l'ERIOD 

l.AGE20F2 

.! One of the denials was for f atlure to show cause for not filing wit

2-year time limit. 

66