INCLUDING SEPARATE REPORT

of the 


U.S. COURT OF MILITARY APPEA

THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENER

OF THE U.S. ARMED FORCES

AND THE CHIEF COUNSEL 


OF THE U.S. COAST GUARD 

For the Period 


October 1, 1987 to September 30, 

PRur'tJ-< I Y OF U. S. ARMY 


THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'

LIBRARY - 

SERVICES 

of the 


u.s. Senate and House of Repr

and to the 


SECRETARY OF DEFENS

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORT

and 


SECRETARIES OF THE 

ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FO

PURSUANT TO THE 

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JU

For the Period 


October 1, 1987-September 30, 

AIR FORCE 

REPORT OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL OF THE COAST 

the United States Senate and House of Repres

Secretaries of Defense, Transportation, Army, N

in accordance with Article 67(g), Uniform Code 

10 USC § 867(g). 

THE BUSINESS OF THE CO

During flscal year 1988"" the Court accomplis

duction in its case backlog. Speciflcally, at th

1988, only 273 cases remained on the Court's P

represents a reduction of 38% in the number o

the end of flscal year 1987, when 442 such case

a reduction of 61% over the flve-year high of 7

pending at the close of flsqal year 1986. (See A

lar flve-year trend in the Master Docket reflec

tion in year-end pending cases. Although 258 ca

the end of fISCal year 1986, and 177 cases were 

of fIScal year 1987, only 65 such cases were pe

flscal year 1988. This represents a reduction of 

of Master Docket cases pending at the end of fl

63% reduction in the same category of cases p

flscal year 1987. (See Appendix B.) This reducti

log paralleled a dramatic reduction in" the tim

ule Master Docket cases for oral argument. T

duced from a flve-year high of 426 days in flsc

176 days in flscal year 1988-a reduction of 59%

There were 2360 cases fIled with the Cour

1988, which represents a reduction of 15% i

flscal year 1987 when 2769 cases were fIled. 

acted on 2638 cases during fISCal year 1988, w

the signiflcant reduction in the number of pend

discussed. In addition, the Court heard oral a

during flscal year 1988. Although this number 

tion in the number of oral arguments heard d
ucopeet o

tee Judges sce 986. 

In addition to its case review workload, the C

attorneys to practice before its Bar during fisca

ing the cumulative total of admissions before th

to 26,801. 

TERM OF COURT ESTABLIS

After working for over two years to achieve a 

tion in the number of cases carried over at the 

year and to approach a current caseload status, 

tember 30, 1988, established an annual Term of 

nated, initially, as the October 1988 Term of Co

to be designated as the October Term of Court f

year. By order issued on September 30, 1988, the 

on due consideration, that establishment of suc

would have a beneficial effect on the prompt and 

of those cases in which plenary consideration 

which have thus been placed on the Court's Mas

PUBLIC AWARENESS PROJ

(Project Outreach) 

The Court has determined that it is importan

the Aimed Servic~s, as well as those in the c

throughout the United States, to gain a greater 

procedural safeguards Congress has provided in t

system, and particularly in the appellate revie

convictions and sentences. To this end the Court 

1 Although not part of the business of the Court, it is n

Year 1987, the Court was notified that petitions for writ of ce

the Supreme Court of the United States in 32 Master Doc

Court took final action. 

2 
of Virginia School of Law, which is adjacent 

Judge Advocate General's School in Charlotte

though the cases selected would otherwise hav

Court at its courthouse in Washington, D.C., 

occurred at the invitation of the Judge Advoca

provided an opportunity for senior members of 

well as civilian professors and law students fro

Virginia, to meet with the Judges and view ho

ed by appellate advocates for decision by the Co

Motivated by the widespread favorable recep

event, the Court accepted a similar invitation 

ment in two Air Force cases at Wake Forest U

Law, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, on March 

the positive educational results of these two of

programs, the Court plans to continue this pub

JUDICIAL VISITATIONS 

The Judges of the Court continued during f

sistent with the past practice of the Court, to 

mote continuing legal education programs f

throughout the world. By their visits to numero

tions and their participation in military as w

education programs and seminars, the Judges c

a more informed awareness of the Court's wo

preciation of the overall administration of 

Armed Services. 

Consistent with this objective, Chief Judge R

gave the 1988 Law Day Speech at Dover Air Fo

addressed the General Practice Section at the 

ciation Mid-Winter Meeting in Philadelphia, 

Military Law Section' of the Texas Bar; the Co

Justice of the Association of the Bar of the Ci
Bar Association and the Federal Bar Associatio

late Judges Seminar Advanced Refresher Course 

versity Law School; and he judged the finals 

Competitions. 

Judge Walter T. Cox, III, addressed civilian j

at the Mid-Year Meeting of the American Bar A

Annual Convention of the Federal Bar Associati

ed the Judicial Conference of the Fourth Circuit 

tary lawyers and judges at the Army Judge A

School; Fort Shafter and Schofield Barracks, H

Force Base, Mississippi; Fort Bragg, North Car

Force Judge Advocate General's School in Alaba

livered a paper on the evolution of military jus

Constitution to senior military officers attending 

lege of the Armed Forces. In addition, he accom

van on an official visitation of Army, Navy an

mands in South Carolina. 

Judge Eugene R. Sullivan attended the Arm

General's Conference, the Coast Guard-State 

Drug Seminar, and the Missouri Bar Judicial C

visited various commands, including Headquar

Command, 9th Air Force Command, Charleston 

Jackson, South Carolina, the Army Criminal 

mand, the Berlin Brigade, and V Corps units. 

Sullivan gave speeches to students at Carnegie 

Georgia Military College, and the West Point 

He also addressed the Pacific Commander's (PAC

ence, the Military Airlift Command Staff Judge 

ence, and the Army JAG Reserve Component W

lottesville, Virginia. 

4 
Force; The Honorable Wayne E. Alley, Un

Court, Western District of Oklahoma; The Ho

Bryson, Deputy Solicitor General of the Unite

Fidell, Esquire, and Jan Horbaly, Esquire, of W

Jonathan Lurie, Historian to the United State

Appeals and Professor of History, Rutgers Un

Pomerantz, Chief of Counter-terrorism Section, 

tive Division, FBI Headquarters; Mr. Thomas 

cial Assistant for Clemency and Rehabilitation

Advocate General of the Air Force; Dr. Robert 

ty Special Counsel of the Committee on Forei

United States Senate and Professor of Law, Oh

sity; Major General Eugene R. Cromartie, C

States Army Criminal Investigation Comma

Hugh D. Campbell, The Judge Advocate Gen

Navy; Commissioner Ilene H. Nagel, United 

Commission; Mr. Thomas W. Taylor, Deputy G

stallations and Operations), Department of Def

Noelker, Licensed Clinical Psychologist; Profe

teller, Professor of Law, Duke University Law 

E. Flynn, District of Columbia Bar Counsel; 

Kathleen A. Buck, General Counsel of the Dep

In addition, The Honorable Eugene R. Sulliv

United States Court of Military Appeals, serve

conference panel on Current Forensic Techni

Major Robert Thibault, United States Air Force

a recognized expert on forensic hypnosis; Dr. C

a recognized expert on crime victimology; 

Slicner, an experienced medical specialist in 

sexual abuse. 

The Honorable Walter T. Cox, III, Associate J

Court of Military Appeals, served as modera

panel on the Law of Evidence which included P

Saltzburg of the University of Virginia School 
indicated speakers serving as experts in their re

The invocation was offered by Captain I. Carro

States Navy, District Chaplain, Naval District o

conferees were welcomed by The Honorable Ro

Chief Judge, United States Court of Military Ap

the Court; Colonel Walter L. Lewis, United Stat

on behalf of the Military Law Institute; and De

on behalf of The National Law Center, George W

sity. 

The conferees included numerous military a

as well as Judges of the various Courts of Mil

scholars, and commentators in the field of mil

prior years, the conference was videotaped to p

education for those interested in the administra

tice. In addition, C-SPAN, the Cable Satellite 

work, filmed and televised major portions of th

public broadcasting network throughout the Uni

SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS AFFEC

ADMINISTRATION OF MILITARY JUSTI

ARMED FORCES 2 


Jurisdiction 

A very significant case concerning the Court'

risdiction was decided during fiscal year 1988. 

Navy-Marine Corps Court ofMilitary Review v. 

(CMA 1988), the Court resolved a petition for e

filed by members of the United States Navy-Ma

2 This section of the Court's Annual Report is prepared so

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

assist in easily locating cases of particular interest during 

maries are not of precedential value and should not be cite

Court. 

6 
pg g

General concerned was utilizing an order from 

General of the Navy to implement her investig

concerning the Court of Military Review and th

dience of such order potentially involved pun

parameters of the Uniform Code of Military Ju

pellate jurisdiction over the members of the 

Review was apparent. In addition, the Court co

ercise of its jurisdiction was appropriate, as th

stances involved a potential chilling effect on th

Review's exercise of its appellate judicial respon

Uniform Code of Military Justice, and that u

may invoke examination of the decisional proc

gruntled individual made an anonymous alle

court concerned. As the judges of the Court of M

the duty and responsibility to uphold the inte

ence of the Court of Military Review, the Court 

judges were placed in the untenable position o

that responsibility by obeying an order which 

the integrity and independence of their court or 

order at the risk of facing disciplinary proceed

rameters of the Uniform Code of Military Justic

nized a qualified privilege concerning investig

decisional processes of the Court of Military R

the privilege extended only to the decisional p

regard the Court noted that the facts and circum

at hand presented some risk that the investigat

General would infringe upon the deliberative j

concluded that, in view of its position as the hig

military justice system, the United States Co

peals should exercise authority to judicially su

gative infringement upon this qualified privile

protect the judicial integrity of the Court of Mi

at the same time recognizing that judges are n

vestigations, the Court concluded that a judicia
gpy 

terminate court-martial jurisdiction. The Court 

cause the discharge certificate under the facts o

effect a valid discharge, the present case was c

able from those cases where the delivery of suc

effect a valid discharge. 

Answering the question of whether the decisio

Court of the United States in Solorio v. United St

107 S.Ct. 2924, 97 L.Ed.2d 364 (1987), should be a

ly, the Court held in United States v. Avila, 27 M

that the decision of the Supreme Court concern

diction over the person should be applied retroa

held that Articles 2 and 17,> UCMJ, originally 

martial jurisdiction over all members of regular 

armed forces; that these statutory provisions ha

stantially unchanged from their inception; and t

recognized this jurisdiction was pre-existing to 

Avila was subject to court-martial for the same 

lorio. 

Command Influence 

Since its inception, the United States Court o

has been sensitive to the issue of command in

views as the mortal enemy of military justice. 

year 1988 term, the Court continued its policy o

mand bfluence from the military justice system

v. Cruz, "25 MJ 326 (CMA 1987), the Court was fac

tion of command influence where a commander 

unit formation during which suspected drug ab

fied. The record revealed that their unit crests w

they were called various names by the command

otherwise degraded in public; and that they were 

view of the entire formation. The Court ruled t

actions may have reflected an attempt to insure 

receive severe punishment, there was no direct o

8 
ence set forth in United States v. Thomas, 22 M

cert. denied, _ U.S. _, 107 S.Ct. 1289,94 

the Court ordered the findings and sentence 

evidence reflected that officer and enlisted p

cused's command attempted to influence a cou

influence was not rendered harmless where n

was conducted, command lectures were condu

the environment of the court-martial, various 

jected to improper influences, and no purging 

the Court of Military Review. 

Witnesses 

In United States v. Vanderwier, 25 MJ 263 (C

emphasized the requirements of the Confront

Sixth Amendment, Article 49, UCMJ, and M

dence (Mil.R.Evid.) 804(b) in holding that the m

consider all circumstances to determine if a wi

for the purpose of accepting a pretrial depositio

timony at the accused's court-martial. Here, 

stances reflected that the government witness 

available within only two days after the accus

the Court held that the pretrial deposition wa

ted into evidence. However, after examination 

the Court further held that the accused had no

the erroneous admission of such deposition. 

Addressing the appropriate scope of the testi

nesses, the Court held in United States v. Toipp

1987), that an expert witness, if properly qualif

to a child's ability to separate truth from fanta

various patterps of consistency in the stories of 

tims and compare those patterns with patte

story. However, the Court held in Toippa that 

specifically testify as to the truthfulness of a 

tim's report of sexual abuse. 
to a teenage victims outofcourt statements c

cused's alleged indecent assault in order to rehab

testimony after she had been impeached by evide

she was severely retarded and susceptible to sugg

ly, the Court held in Jones that the behavior 

sponses of severely retarded people were a prope

testimony. 

In United States v. Hill-Dunning, 26 MJ 260 

Court noted that Mil.R.Evid. 704 abolished the 

rule but further observed that opinion testimony 

timate issue still must meet the test of admiss

the other Military Rules of Evidence. Thus, th

while an expert witness may assume the truth o

person being examined for the purposes of eval

sis, that expert cannot thereby also testify that, 

ion, the person in question is truthful. 

Resolving the question of when the Governme

defense-requested expert witness in a court-ma

charges, the Court held in United States v. Van 

(CMA 1988), that the employment of a defens

witness was required where such witness wou

Government had not followed proper procedure

accused's urine sample which gave rise to a char

trolled substance. 

Military Judges 

In United States v. Elzy, 25 MJ 416 (CMA 198

that a military judge did not err by failing to 

himself under circumstances where a trial defens

ed to withdraw from the case in a manner indi

not believe the accused. However, in United Sta

MJ 30 (CMA 1988), the Court held that where a 

disqualified from presiding over an accused's cou

approval of the accused's request for trial by jud

10 
py jg

in-law, such relationship did not constitute a pe

to sit on the court-martial, but the matter was 

examination. Therefore, the Court held that the 

advocate had an affirmative duty to inform th

cate, the trial counsel, and the defense counsel 

ship. The Court emphasized that under milita

has only one peremptory challenge and that c

should be liberally construed. In United States 

454 (CMA 1988), the Court held that a court me

disqualified solely on the fact that as a senior 

martial panel, he wrote or endorsed the perfo

ciency reports of a junior member of the same p

Courts of Military Review 

Citing Article 66, UCMJ, the Court held i

Turner, 25 MJ 324 (CMA 1987), that a Court 

must resolve a case both factually and legally. A

case under consideration was unclear whether 

tary Review had determined the factual sufficie

as well as its legal sufficiency, the case was rem

mediate appellate court for further proceeding

Military Procedure 

Concerning the obligation of the staff judge a

a written pretrial advice for the convening auth

34, the Court held in United States v. Murray

1988), that failure to comply with this requirem

dictional defect. Thus, while the failure to prov

held to be error, the Court ruled that reversa

where the accused was not prejudiced and th

motion at trial concerning such deficiency. The 

a party in a court-martial is entitled to addition

lenges was addressed by the Court in United 
tory challenges. 

In United States v. Healy, 26 MJ 394 (CMA 19

that its earlier decision in United States v. Gr

(CMA 1982), did not change the rules under A

Code of Military Justice, as to what the Court 

must review for sentence appropriateness. Thu

that the Court of Military Review did not err by 

motion to submit documents to that court on th

appropriateness. In United States v. Wynn, 26 M

the Court addressed the procedural uncertaint

military accused has a right to file a petition fo

with the Supreme Court of the United States 

States Court of Military Appeals granted a pe

review and subsequently returned the case to a 

thority for corrective action. In view of the unce

serve an accused's right to file a petition for c

date, the Court adopted a rule whereby it would 

tition for grant of review filed by an accused up

pellate defense counsel that a previous petition 

had been granted in the same case and the acc

the corrective action below was inadequate. 

Citing Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 913(c)(5)

United States v. Ray, 26 MJ 468 (CMA 1988), th

did not err by allowing the Government to reope

defense rested without presenting any evidence. 

In United States v. Smith, 27 MJ 25 (CMA 19

that a military judge did not abuse his discreti

trial defense counsel from advising or questionin

members during the voir dire portion of the tria

confinement for life was a mandatory penalty fo

meditated murder. 

After analyzing the historical development of t

tary judge within the context of the military j

Court held in United States v. Griffith, 27 MJ 4

12 
of murder where the accused denied an attem

the evidence reflected the use of a deadly weapo

an inference of an attempt to kill. However, th

such an inference was not a conclusive presu

death under Article 118, UCMJ, involving an 

was not automatically murder. Rather, the C

the court members could have held that the o

tary manslaughter under Article 119(bX2), UC

was no intent to kill the victim. Additionally

Wilson that although the accused was convic

court members thereby rejecting voluntary man

tary judge improperly rejected a defense reque

. struction on provocation, noting that although 

have been insufficient to reduce a homicide offe

voluntary manslaughter, such evidence was 

and mitigation. 

The question of whether knowledge was an el

charged under Article 112a, UCMJ, for offense

or possession of contraband substances was add

in United States v. Mance, 26 MJ 244 (CMA 

Court observed that there was some confusion a

edge was an element of the offense or whethe

affirmative defense which had to be raised by 

analyzing the statute in question and its histor

Court concluded that two elements of knowledg

a conviction for either the possession or use o

stance: knowledge of the presence of the substa

that the substance either used or possessed w

cordingly, the Court held that a military judge 

the two components of knowledge as elements 

Court noted in Mance, however, that the opinio

permissible inference of knowledge where th

such an inference. 
evidence in the case at hand was sufficient to c

fession in question. Citing Huddleston v. Unite

_, 108 S.Ct. 1496,99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988), and 

Court held in United States v. Mirandes-Gonzale

1988), that the standard for admitting extrinsi

misconduct which was otherwise admissible wa

sufficient evidence for a reasonable court mem

the accused in fact committed the extrinsic of

standard of Mirandes-Gonzalez in United State

50 (CMA 1988), the Court held that the military 

mitted evidence of prior uncharged acts of sex

which the accused had been previously tried an

courts. However, the Court further held that 

erred by not allowing the defense to introduce 

quittals but found no prejudice in view of the o

evidence of guilt in the case. 

Search and Seizure 

In United States v. Clow, 26 MJ 176 (CMA 19

that a military accused's husband who had m

cused's apartment but who returned on numero

taining a key to such apartment could give a 

search of the apartment as he exercised suffici

premises for such purpose. Additionally, the Co

ficials could have relied on his apparent authori

sent in question. The issue of whether an acc

reasonable expectation of privacy in his forme

dressed by the Court in United States v. Ayala

1988). The Court concluded that the accused in 

retained such expectation of privacy since he w

dence and had surrendered his keys to a third-

ice, even though he retained some residual resp

residence. Additionally, the Court held in Ayala 

the accused's hotel room and his apprehension 

14 
g

to introduce evidence that he was unable to fo

to kill as a result of extreme sleep deprivation b

was not asserting an issue of mental responsib

Article 50a, UCMJ. However, the Court ruled th

cused was not raising an issue of mental respon

kill was an element of the charged offense and

distinction between the defense of mental res

fense evidence attacking an element of the G

Therefore, the Court concluded that RCM 916(k

es the admissibility of evidence pertaining to m

did not preclude the proffered defense evidence 

Substantive Law 

The question of whether an accused could be 

under Article 126, UCMJ, where the owner of t

tered into an agreement with the accused to b

was addressed by the Court in United States v

(CMA 1988). The Court ruled that the malice 

need not be directed toward any particular b

that, therefore, the owner's consent for the bur

fraud an insurance company was more than suf

malice and did not preclude the accused's con

United States v. Johnson, 26 MJ 415 (CMA 19

that the accused's alleged conduct of attempti

prosecution was sufficient to constitute the off

under the provisions of Article 115, UCMJ. Subs

States v. Mervine, 26 MJ 482 (CMA 1988), the 

attempted larceny was not committed when the 

to obtain a cancellation of a debt by improper 

the definition of larceny under Article 121, UC

cluded that the term was used in the same ma

law and required the taking of someform of ta

such conduct was not involved in the case unde

conviction for attempted larceny was set aside. 
decision to admit the statement, but observed 

tor's conduct in failing to comply with Article 3

circumstances to be considered along with othe

whether the statements made by the accused 

warning were voluntary. 

The Court ruled in United States v. Holt, 27 M

that an accused's statements during a providenc

used as an admission at the sentencing hearing, 

waived his Article 31, UCMJ, rights as to the ch

Hypnosis 

In United States v. Robinson, 26 MJ 361 (CM

was required to resolve a claim by an accused 

interviews, which were conducted while he wa

rendered his subsequent statements involuntary

that statements uttered while unde a hypnotic 

cally unreliable but rejected the accused's cla

quent statements were a product of such hypnot

noted that there was an interval of approximat

tween the hypnotic interviews and the statemen

upon examination of the remaining evidence, c

statements were not involuntary and that the m

erly accepted them into evidence. 

Discrimination 

In United States v. Santiago-Davila, 26 MJ 38

Court held that Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79

L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), applied to court-martial procee

Batson is based on an equal-protection right to 

from which no "cognizable racial group" has b

that the Armed Services of the United States ha

eradicating racial discrimination, the Court he

protection right must apply to court-martial p

record indicated that the trial counsel perempto

only court member who had an Hispanic surna

16 
dependently of such accused's previotlS immun

other court-martial. After examining the reco

held that the prosecution had failed to meet t

reversed the accused's conviction. 

Speedy Trial 

After examining the purpose of the, requi

trial set forth in United States v. Burtbn, 21 

166 (1971), the Court held in United States 

138 (CMA 1988), that "the part of Burton wh

right to a speedy trial based simply on an ac

for is overruled, prospectively." The Court not

the adoption of speedy trial standards set fo

accused's Sixth Amendment rights, and the 

rule in Burton fully met the purpose sought t

by the "demand prong" of Burton. 

Robinson O. Everett 

Chief Judge 

Walter T. Cox, III 

Associate Judge 

Eugene R. Sullivan 

Associate Judge 
Petition Docket .....................................................

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

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

CUMULATIVE TERMINATIONS 

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

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

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

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

CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 1, 1988 

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

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

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

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

OPINION SUMMARY 

CATEGORY 

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

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

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

SIGNED 

121 

0 

2 

PER CURIAM 

6 

0 

1 

M

TOTAL ....................................... 123 7 

18 
PENDING (MASTER DOCKET) 

Awaiting briefs.................................................................. 11 

Awaiting oral argument.................................................. 46 

Awaiting final action ....................................................... __8

TOTAL................................................................................ 65 

FILINGS (PETITION DOCKET) 

Petitions for grant of review filed ................................. 2185 

Petitions for new trial filed............................................. 6 

Cross-petitions for grant filed ......................................... __4

TOTAL ................................................................................ 2195 

TERMINATIONS (PETITION DOCKET) 


Petitions for grant dismissed .......................................... 6 

Petitions for grant denied ............................................... 2196 

Petitions for grant granted ............................................. 117 

Petitions for grant remanded ......................................... 28 

Petitions for grant withdrawn........................................ 16 

Other ................................................................................... 1 

TOTAL ................................................................................ 2364 

PENDING (PETITION DOCKET) 

Awaiting briefs.................................................................. 151 

Awaiting Central Legal Staff review............................ 93 

Awaiting final action ....................................................... 29 

TOTAL ................................................................................ 273 

1 In 16% of these cases, the Court specified issues whic

appellant. 
TOTAL ................................................................................ 32 

PENDING (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET) 

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

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

Awaiting final action ....................................................... __2_ 

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

RECONSIDERATIONS & REHEAR

CATEGORY BEGIN 

PEN!), 

ING F1LINGS END 

PEN!), 

ING 

G

Master Docket .......................... 2 11 0 

Petition Docket ........................ 1 11 0 

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

TOTAL....................................... 3 26 0 

MOTIONS ACTIVITY 

BEGIN END 

CATEGORY PEN!), F1LINGS PEN!), ING ING G

All motions ............................... 21 537 26 4

20 
PETITION D

FY 84 FY 85 

N

.... 
N 

N 

MASTER DO

FY 84 FY 85 
DAYS FRO

TO 

426 

FY 84 FY 85 

N 

Co) 
N 

~ 

ORAL AR

FY 84 FY 85 
TOTAL 

FY 84 FY 85 

I~~

/

. /

N 

U'I 

al continued to monitor the proceedings of cour

and to prepare military publications and regula

op and draft changes to the Manual for Cou

Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

MILITARY JUSTICE STATIS

AND U.S. ARMY JUDICIAL ACT

During fiscal year 1988, the court-martial ra

wide decrease in the number of courts-martial. 

persons tried by all types of courts-martial in f

1.8% lower than for 1987. This overall decrease 

decrease in special and summary courts-marti

crease in special courts-martial empowered to 

duct discharge (BCD), a 15.4% decline in non-

martial and a 5.5% decline in summary courts-

an 11.6% increase in the number of general 

overall conviction rate for fiscal year 1988 was 

sents a slight increase from the 94.5% convictio

ous fiscal year. The decrease in the overall cou

the last few years is consistent with the U.S. A

tary Review having 75 fewer cases referred fo

7.2% decrease in the number of cases reviewed 

during fiscal year 1988. 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY: FISCAL 

(See Appendix A) 

U.S. ARMY LEGAL SERVICES A

The U.S. Army Legal Services Agency inclu

Judiciary, the Government Appellate Division, 

late Division, the Trial Defense Service, the T

ance Program, the Contract Appeals Division, 

Office, Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks Div
and related activities of the Department of th

tion Division is responsible for representing A

fensive and affirmative Federal civil litigation

Fraud Division is responsible for asserting a

prosecution of government remedies against f

ities in the Army acquisition process. The Env

vision, established August 5, 1988 by order of 

Army, is responsible for providing advice an

ARSTAF on environmental legal issues, as we

agency counsel in environmental litigation in c

Office of the General Counsel and Department 

fessional Recruiting Office coordinates the rec

in the Army. An Information Management Of

mation of the Agency. 

u.s. ARMY JUDICIARY 

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

tary Review, the Clerk of Court, the Examinat

Division, and the Trial Judiciary. 

u.s. ARMY TRIAL DEFENSE S

During fiscal year 1988, the United States 

Service (USATDS) continued to provide high-

defense counsel services to soldier clients w

counsel represented 2017 clients at proceedin

Article 32, UCMJ, 1708 clients at general cour

clients at special courts-martial. USATDS cou

clients regarding nonjudicial punishment unde

and 33,690 clients regarding a variety of admin

actions. 

USATDS continued to send a counsel to the 

the Multi-National Force while other counsel 

mand training exercises and numerous deploy

28 
Program (TCAP) served as a source of inform

training for U.s. Army prosecutors world-wid

sponded to nearly 1200 requests for assistance, 

major special prosecutions, and provided writ

areas of criminal trial advocacy. The program 

training seminars at nine locations in the Un

the Federal Republic of Germany, and one in 

vast majority of the attendees were Army pr

included members of the Navy, Marine Corps

Air Force. Additionally, a large number of rese

began attending these seminars. Starting in Ju

vocate offices were unable to fund trial cou

TCAP seminars. To continue its mission, TCA

day assistance visits/training seminars at th

Throughout the year, TCAP trained in excess 

program continues to publish a monthly TCAP 

dum informing all trial counsel of new crimin

and trial techniques. A more analytical revi

ments is provided through the TCAP's Trial 

tion of The Army Lawyer. 

SIGNIFICANT MILITARY JUSTICE 

Actions involving military justice handled b

Division, Office of The Judge Advocate Genera

ing and drafting legislation, Executive Orders, 

lations affecting the operation of the Army and 

Defense; monitoring the administration of mi

clude military corrections, the Army's drug te

fessional responsibility of attorneys and expan

tion over reservists; rendering opinions for the 

ing various aspects of criminal cases for action 

tariat and Staff; and evaluation of ongoing ma

fiscal year 1988, Criminal Law Division respo

House inquiries, 298 Congressional inquiries, 2

opinions from the Army Board for the Cor
y g() , y 

tive April 18, 1988. This regulation now contain

Military Justice within the Reserve Component

needed to implement Title V~II, National Au

fiscal year 1987 (Military Justice Amendments 

the procedures for the imposition of punishmen

UCMJ, by Reserve Component Commanders, a

for the involuntary active duty of a reserve s

under the UCMJ is contemplated. 

Other AR 27-10 revisions: irtcorporate the S

Item program and change the procedures for fi

ishment under Article 15; provide guidance f

Court-Martial Convening Authority; reference 

Professional Conduct for Lawyers as the applica

ical conduct, replacing the ABA Model Code 

sponsibility; authorize military judges to condu

ant to AR 190-47 at USDB to determine the n

care; include, in the list of victim services,. the 

tion and household goods shipment for family m

and correct an error in printing of the last chan

al rules for the filing of an Article 138 complain

JOINT-SERVICE COMMITTEE ON MILI

The Judge Advocates General and General 

partment of Transportation established the Joi

tee on Military Justice on August 17, 1972. Th

Force, Marine Corps, and Department of Tr

Guard) provide representatives and a nonvotin

provided by the U.S. Court of Military Appeals

Committee on Military Justice primarily prep

proposed amendments and changes to the Un

tary Justice and Manual for Courts-Martial. T

serves as a forum for the exchange of ideas rela

tice matters among the services. 

30 
29, i988. The proposed amendments included 

32 witness availability limits, allowing unsworn 

at Article 32 investigations in time of war, per

ferences over objection of a party, authorizing 

in certain felony-murder cases, requiring defen

accused of post-trial and appellate rights, incre

maximum punishment for escapes from post-tr

clarifying staff judge advocate's post-trial recom

ments. Other minor technical amendments wer

public comment period began on July 11, 198

September 26, 1988. The Joint-Service Comm

comments received and, on October 21, 1988, 

proposed executive order to the Office of the G

partment of Defense. In November 1988, the 

nated with the services, and on November 25

executive order was submitted to the Office 

Budget for evaluation and interdepartmental c

The Joint-Service Committee approved the f

lative proposals and submitted them to the O

Counsel, Department of Defense for interdep

tion and submission to Congress. On March 1

posal to amend Article 57(a), UCMJ, to make

regulation to the contrary, forfeiture of pay an

ductions in grade effective upon announcement 

approved. On September 21, 1988, an Army pr

ticle 136, UCMJ, to allow civilian legal assista

as notaries public and to allow all persons elig

ance to use notarial services within the Unite

was approved, and a CMA proposal to amend 

concerning the appropriate scope of military c

approved. 

FOREIGN CRIMINAL JURISD

As executive agent for the Department of D

ment of the Army, through International Affai
States military authorities for appropriate dispos

The rest of the military offenses subject to fo

totaling 17,578 offenses, were concurrent jurisd

volving alleged violations of both United States 

foreign law over which the foreign country had 

to exercise jurisdiction. United States military au

a waiver of primary foreign jurisdiction in 15

dents, for a world-wide waiver rate of 89.9 percen

Foreign authorities reserved for their dispo

118,821 offenses allegedly committed by military 

of 117,864 of these offenses were relatively min

disorderly conduct, and traffic offenses). Traff

prised 99.5 percent, or 117,402 of these offenses. 

A total of 17,018 civilian employees and depend

with offenses subject to foreign jurisdiction. As 

subject to trial by courts-martial in peacetime, 

had no effective jurisdiction over these offenses

eign authorities released 332 of these offenses, 

the total, to United States military authorities 

or other appropriate disposition. 

There were 135,469 final results of trial, i.e., 

final convictions for military, civilian and de

number 360 (.3 percent of the final results) w

131,576 (99.6 percent) were sentences to a fine o

remainder of the final results of trial consisted 

confinement and 96 suspended sentences to confi

LITIGATION 

Civil litigation against the Department of the 

ployees continued to increase during FY 88. Ch

the civilian courts' interpretation of the Uniform 

Justice and the validity of actions taken pursuan

provide a small but significant portion of those a

there were numerous proceedings seeking collat

merits of courts-martial. Such litigation included 

32 
resident courses were conducted with 3,159 stud

Courses were attended by 1,503 Army, 79 Navy

Force, 22 Coast Guard, 495 Army Reserve, 

Guard officers, 73 enlisted soldiers, 695 civilian, 

al military students. Three Basic Course Classe

and 116th, graduated with a total of 206 Judge 

Corps (JAGC) officers. 

On December 4, 1987, The Judge Advocat

became the nation's only government entity st

to confer the degree of Master of Laws in 

School's degree conferring authority was inclu

Authorization Act, signed into law by Presiden

lated in 10 U.S.C. 4315: 

Under regulations prescribed by the Se

Army, the Commandant of The Judge Adv

School of the Army may, upon the recomm

faculty of such school, confer the degree of 

<LL.M.) in Military Law upon the graduat

who have fulfilled the requirements for tha

On May 20, 1988, the 71 students of the 3

became the first officers to receive The Judge 

School Master of Laws in Military Law. In a

judge advocates, the class consisted of five Mar

three international military students. The 3

began on August 1, 1988. This class contains 

rines, one Navy, and four international military 

During fiscal year 1988, the School continue

officers with legal orientations prior to their 

mand. Twenty-three general officers attende

Legal Orientation Courses, and 254 battalion an

designees attended one of five resident Senior O

tation Courses. Additionally, instructors from th

ed in twelve Pre-Command Courses conducte

worth, Kansas, for battalion and brigade comm
y ggy 

Army Court of Military Review; and noted trial 

Bailey, Eugene R. Fidell, and Donald L. Wolff. In 

soring these CLE courses, three nonresident cours

in Germany in October and nonresident instruc

in five different countries during the Pacific Com

tember. 

The International Law Division sponsored f

courses, each lasting one week, in fiscal year 1988

Workshop, held three times, continued to provid

war training to legal officers from all four armed 

eral international military students. The Legal 

ism course offered by the Division continued th

lished in prior courses, of augmenting the School

presentations by experts from the Department o

partment of State, the Department of Justice, 

Bureau of Investigation. A representative of th

fense of the Federal Republic of Germany attend

also gave a presentation on terrorism counteract

Republic. All involved actively discussed the va

confronted during terrorism counteraction operat

ducted domestically or overseas. The Third Jud

Military Operations Seminar and the second qua

Law instruction to the 36th Graduate Course pre

of Operational Law (OPLAW) as a fully evolved 

cusing on those legal issues, both domestic and i

ciated with the preparation for and deployment o

seas, in both peacetime and combat environme

also presented instruction to the Judge Advocat

ing and Judge Advocate Officer Advanced Cour

by Reserve officers. All courses sponsored by th

ued to stress the practical application of Internat

proach designed to prepare judge advocates to 

members of a commander's operations team. 

The Contract Law Division sponsored eleven 

fiscal year 1988. These courses were designed to 

34 
sition of weapons and other supplies. Additi

presented the Contract Claims, Litigation and 

32 attorneys, and the Commercial Activities P

attorneys. Two new courses were also added 

curriculum in fiscal year 1988. The First A

Contracting Course was presented to 57 attorne

tract law at military installations. Also, the F

ers' Attorneys Course was presented to 41 atto

sibilities include providing legal advice to p

major weapon systems. Finally, personnel of t

vision presented contract law instruction at 

nent Technical Training sites, a CLE course o

in Contract Law to military and civilian pe

Europe, and the Fiscal Law Course to the C

Europe. 

The Administrative and Civil Law Divisio

tinuing legal education courses, including two 

Legal Assistance Course, two presentations o

Relations Course, the Administrative Law for M

Course, and the Federal Litigation Course. In 

presented classes at the Administrative Law, T

ance Conferences in Europe. One instructor 

commanders during five separate Army Insta

Courses at Fort Lee, Virginia. The Division 

structor for the Western Pacific Command (W

presenting instruction at five locations. Two 

Administrative and Civil Law Division taught 

Management Staff College. 

The Legal Assistance Branch of the Adm

Law Division developed a package of proposed 

ment a federal statutory will act, and it wro

major revision and expansion of the wills an

portions of the Legal Automation Army-wid

software. New and revised publications that 

clude the Tax Information Series and the Lega
g y

and International Law/Claims Teams were tra

the Judge Advocate Officer-Advanced Course w

students during this same period. The attendanc

al Guard at Triennial Training reflects the 

strong participation in School programs. The 207

serve Forces School in Philadelphia, Pennsylvan

istrative support for both courses. The Departm

the CLE (On-Site) Training Program. Between 

May 1988, the School provided CLE to 2463 off

population centers throughout the United State

sented all services and all components. On-Site 

a strong sixteen percent in 1987-88, highlighted 

by Active Army and Army National Guard ju

Guard hosted On-Sites this year in New Orlean

in Park City, Utah. Interaction of Active and R

judge advocate officers in the On-Site Program 

valuable. The last major training program host

1988 Judge Advocate General's Reserve Com

during 12-15 April 1988. One hundred and 

Active and Reserve Component judge advocates 

significant legal and military issues facing th

nents. Guest Speakers included Professor Graha

of Virginia School of Law; Mr. Hays Parks, In

Division, Office of The Judge Advocate Gener

Abercrombie, State Judge Advocate, Headqu

Command, Louisiana Army National Guard; Ju

livan, United States Court of Military Appeals; 

Commander, Army Reserve Personnel Center; a

Office of the General Counsel, Department of th

MAJOR PROJECTS 

The School hosted the 1987 Judge Advocate G

and Annual Continuing Legal Education Progr

4-7, 1988. O.rer 170 senior judge advocates fro

36 
United States Claims Court. The Cuneo Lect

Judge's View of the Judicialization of the Adm

On April 20, 1988, the Fifth Waldemar A. S

national Law was presented by Professor Lou

at Columbia University Law School. His pres

dent and Congress in Foreign Affairs," was we

On March 24, 1988, the 17th Annual Kenne

in Criminal Law was presented by Chief Just

of the Supreme Court of Virginia. Chief Judge 

standing lecture entitled "George Mason, Joh

Constitution." 

The Twelfth Charles L. Decker Lecture wa

25, 1988, by Senator Strom Thurmond. Senator 

tation was entitled "The Military Officer and t

New editions of DA Pamphlet (Pam) 27-21, 

tive Law Handbook; DA Pam 27-153, Contrac

173, Military Justice: Trial Procedure; and DA 

and Defenses, will soon be issued. Revisions o

cations are ongoing. A total of thirty-five ins

are now available to attorneys in the field 

Technical Information Center. Articles of inter

neys continue to be distributed to the field t

27-100-series, Military Law Review, and the D

The Army Lawyer. 

Combat Developments completed the develo

JAGC Tables of Organization and Equipment 

of Department of the Army approval for both 

TOE, Legal Services Command (26602L), will 

tribution and Allowance (TDA) requirements t

It will provide defense counsel and military ju

TOEs on the AirLand Battlefield. The second T

General's Service Organization (JAGSO), prov

bution of assets within the current organizati

JAGSO TOE provides for more judge advoc

ability to provide total legal services and legal 
the Army test site for the Battalion Personne

Center Study located at the 24th Infantry Divis

Fort Stewart, Georgia. This user-friendly program 

ion and brigade-level legal personnel with a vari

used legal formats and memoranda. 

PERSONNEL, PLANS AND POLI

With the inclusion of law students participatin

Legal Education Program, the strength of the Jud

eral's Corps at the end of the fiscal year 1988 was 

ing minority groups were 108 blacks, 30 Hispani

Native Americans, and 212 women. The fisca

strength compares with an end strength of 1820 in 

1825 in fiscal year 1986, and 1824 in fiscal year 19

tribution of the Corps at the end of the fiscal yea

officers, 132 colonels, 211 lieutenant colonels, 354 

tains, and 77 first lieutenants. There were 34 off

and four first lieutenants) participating in the Fu

cation Program. There were also 69 warrant office

To ensure selection of the best qualified cand

commission, career status, and The Judge Advoca

cer Graduate Course, advisory boards were con

Judge Advocate General's written instructions sev

the year. 

In November 1987 a selection board was conv

active duty commissioned officers to commence 

the Funded Legal Education Program. 

Eighty-six judge advocate officers completed the 

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 ...............................................................

38 
cers based on Judge Advocate General

s Corp

they occur. 

HUGH R. OVERHOLT 

Major General, USA 

The Judge Advocate General 
REVieWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

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

REVIEW ,....................................... '.. ,.<.<..,•.,•.,•.,...,....... 

NUMe E R 1 , 949 .............. :::::::::::::::::;:::':'" 

=PE:'R::-C::E~N=T'"'A-::G-::E---+-~979:z..:C-4%~---I)\i~) ::::::::: ::::::::..:..;.;.;.:.:....... :::::::::::r~)if\)i(~ 

I f. 

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

PERCENTAGE OF COMR REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCMA 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREAS& I.)/OECREASE ( ) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/!).ECREASE (-lOVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOO 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY COMR 

RATE OF INCREASE I+)/OECREASE 1_) OVER THE NUMBER OF CASES REVIEWED DURIN

LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

PAGE 1 OF 2 

40 
PART 9 • COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS I 48 

PART 10· STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 

PAGE20F1 

NOTES 

[A] 	 Original trials, not rehearings and new tri

[B] 	 Referred to BCD-empowered SPCM. 

[C] 	 Compiled from records received (part 3).

[0] 	 In addition, 22 dismissals were approved.

[E] 	 Appellate review waived in 2 cases. [F] 	 Appellate review waived in 1 case. [G] 	 Includes only briefed cases at issue. 

[H] 	 Pending cases are not accounted for by type 

[I] 	 Includes 7 writ petitions, 3 Article 62 app

69 referral, and 1 petition for certificate 

[J] 	 Two cases at issue withdrawn from review (p

at issue).

[K] 	 Applications filed out of time without good 

[L] 	 Compiled from cases in Part 1 of report. 

p

Uniform Code of Military Ju

for 


FISCAL YEAR 1988 


SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINIST

MILITARY JUSTICE 


In compliance with the requirement of A

Code of Military Justice, thlil Judge Advocat

Deputy Judge Advocate General continued 

within the United States, Europe, and the Far 

of the supervision of the administration of mili

TRAINING AT MILITARY JUDGES 

Seven Navy officers (including one Reserve) 

cers (including two Reserves) were trained a

School and one Navy officer was trained at the 

ARTICLE 69(a), UCMJ, EXAMIN

Sixty-three general courts-martial, not sta

automatic review by the Navy-Marine Corp

Review, were examined in the Office of the Jud

al in fiscal year 1988. One required corrective 

Advocate General. 

ARTICLE 69(b), UCMJ, APPLIC

Fifty-five applications were received in fiscal 

to Article 69(b), Uniform Code of Military Just

cations were denied on the merits, while rel

whole or in part, in 7 cases. Six cases are pendi
APPELLATE GOVERNMENT DIV

The Appellate Government Division filed a tot

with the Navy-Marine Corps of Military Review 

of Military Appeals. This excludes cases which 

the courts without specific assignment of error

Division filed 5 briefs in opposition to petitions fo

ri with the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The Trial Counsel Assistance Program (TCAP

tablished within the Appellate Government Divi

Corps Appellate Review Activity, and provides 

coordination to assist trial counsel in the effec

courts-martial. Four appellate counsel are deta

this program which provides assistance through 

tations, newsletters, a computer bulletin board

major unpublished decisions. Field calls-in whi

is used to provide advice and assistance-totaled 

an average of 47 per month, up from an average 

FY 86 and 42 per month in FY 87. 

Presentations: 

a. October 87-Director, Appellate Governmen

attorneys gave presentations to a combined A

Judge Advocate Conference at Minneapolis, MN. 

b. June 88-Director, Appellate Government D

torney gave presentations at a Military Justice 

delphia, PA, co-sponsored by the Naval Legal 

the Federal Bar Association. 

The Appellate Government Division also 

during the fiscal year to reservists tasked to su

APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVIS

Appellate Defense Practice: The 18 officers assi

late Defense Division reviewed a total of 3,634 c

44 
trips are now being planned to present the cou

by 5 of this Division's most experienced offic

NLSOs and Marine Corps law centers worldwid

Although the course is presented by the Ap

sion, the materials and presentations are "co

this is not a defense-oriented course, but rath

all judge advocates who are in any way involv

viewing courts-martial. The topics and problem

sion are taken directly from cases reviewed b

cover such areas as speedy trial, search and s

relief, post-trial review, child-abuse litigation

nesses, residual hearsay, and extrinsic miscond

NAVY-MARINE CORPS TRIAL J

The Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary prov

for 880 cases referred for trial by general c

during fiscal year 1988, an increase of 47 ge

from the fiscal year 1987 level. In fiscal yea

these general courts-martial were tried by mil

compared with 80% in fiscal year 1987. 

There were 5,908 special courts-martial con

year 1988, an increase of 485 special courts-m

year 1987 level. In fiscal year 1988, 5,494 (9

courts-martial were tried by military judge a

1987 percentage of military judge alone cases w

During flScal year 1988, total in-court hour

21,759 hours, which is 2,170 hours less than 

fiscal year 1988, total travel was 5,952 hours, w

105 hours. 

1. Military Judges Attending Continuing Legal 

Seminars/Lectures/Meetings/Conference

a. East Coast Military Judges' meeting 


-Naval Air Station, Norfolk, VA 

d. National Judicial College, Reno, NV 

-Advanced Evidence 

-2 active-duty Marine Corps judges 

e. Department of Justice 

-The Legal Education Institute, Washington

-Advocacy Skills: Expert Witnesses and Tri

deotaped Lecture Series by Irving Younger 

-3 active-duty Navy and Marine Corps judge

f. 	Military Judges' Course 

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

-4 active-duty Navy and Marine Corps judge

g. Military Judges' Course 

-Naval Justice School, Newport, RI 

-3 active-duty Navy and Marine Corps judge

-4 Navy and Marine Corps reserve judges 

h. U.S. Army Judge Advocate Officer Graduate 

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

-1 active-duty Marine Corps judge 

i. Winter Leadership Conference 

-United States Marine Corps, Greensboro, N

-1 active-duty Marine Corps judge 

j. Senior Officer Short Courses in Military Justi

-Various times and locations 

-presented by 1 active-duty Navy or Marine 

k. American Correctional Association, College P

-American Correctional Association Meeting

-Chief Judge participated with Army and A

1. 	Military Law Institute 

-13th Annual Homer Ferguson Conference 

-5 active-duty Navy judges 

m. National Institute of Trial Advocacy (NITA) 

-various locations and times 

-5 active-duty Navy and Marine Corps judge

ed in training trial advocates 

n. Computer Training 

46 
p. Reserve judge training for contested caes 


-Chicago, IL 


-15 reserve Navy and Marine Corps judges 

q. Military Judges' Seminar 

-Quantico, VA 

-3 active-duty Navy and Marine Corps 

Marine Corps judges 

r. Island Judicial Circuit Trial Advocacy Train

-Pearl Harbor, HI 

-3 active-duty Navy and Marine Corps ju

Army judge; 1 USCMA Judge 

s. Evidence 

-University of San Diego, sponsored by 

Assn. 

-"A Look at the Expert Witness and the 

dren" 

-1 active-duty Navy and 1 active-duty Mar

t. 8th Texas Biennial Institute on Law 


-Fort Sam Houston, sponsored by the U.S. 

-"Federal Sentencing Guidelines" 


-1 active-duty Navy judge 


Visits by the Judiciary 

The Chief Judge presented administrative br

at the military judges' courses at both Charlotte

The Circuit Military Judge, Atlantic Judiciar

ton, DC, made a working visit and participated i

students at the military judges' course at Naval 

The Chief Judge visited the Chief Judges of 

Air Force frequently to work toward uniformity 

and discuss matters of mutual concern. 

The Chief Judge visited and inspected the fo

cuits and· branch offices: Northeast (Philad

branch (Newport); Tidewater (Norfolk); Piedmo

Midsouth (Charleston); Southeast branches (Ma
y, 

jgppq

The Trial Judiciary continues to seek economi

quality judicial services. Navy and Marine Co

provide exceptionally good support as needed. 

Economy is the watchword as the activity con

billets in response to the critial need to dr

strength. Billets at Island (Pearl Harbor), Nort

and WESTPAC North (Yokosuka) were reduced 

activity has now been reduced from 54 to 50 and 

are projected. 

Streamlining document requirements, special

grams for judicial reports and other software h

ductivity and communication within the circuits 

activities. 

NAVAL LEGAL SERVICE COM

Naval Legal Service Command (NA VLEGSV

21 naval legal service offices and 21 detachment

of naval concentration throughout the world; a n

Kings Bay, Georgia, opened in September 1988. 

also includes the Naval Justice School, located 

Island, and the Office of Legal Counsel, located a

my, Annapolis, Maryland. NA VLEGSVCCOM 

extended to 398 officers (down from 417), 254 enl

ian employees in fiscal year 1988; Navy judge ad

NAVLEGSVCCOM comprise about 41% of the 

advocate strength. 

The Judge Advocate General of the Navy al

mander, NAVLEGSVCCOM. NA VLEGSVCCOM 

range of legal services to afloat and shore comm

servicemembers, and to dependents and retiree

performed include the provision of court-martia

trative discharge board services to responden

mands on a broad spectrum of legal issues, clai

48 
ing, and office-administration functions within 

enhancing its ability to perform its mission. 

communications ability continues to be enhan

electronic-mail (E-Mail) accounts were broug

year. These accounts permit rapid communi

tween NA VLEGSVCCOM activities, staff ju

Marine Corps legal centers around the world. 

As part of the fiscal year 1989 Department 

Construction program, four projects were 

LEGSVCCOM; two new legal service office 

Harbor, Hawaii, and Mayport, Florida, and 

structures at the legal service office in Norfo

Naval Justice School, Newport, Rhode Island. 

tions were accomplished this past year at the 

in Subic Bay, Republic of the Philippines; Lo

and Bremerton, Washington. 

NAVAL JUSTICE SCHO

During fiscal year 1988, the Naval Justice 

struction to 6,505 students worldwide, (1,096 

ranging in length from three days to nine wee

school prepared and edited the content of vol

Law Review which is scheduled for distribu

1989. Other noteworthy developments include 

state-of-the-art computer facility in the para

the approval of Congress and the President fo

tion to the Naval Justice School, which will a

..of the school. An update of the school's courses 

Law of Naval Operations Workshop. Offer

course was expanded from one week to two 

1988. Its purpose is to train judge advocates wh

advising commanders on international law 

impact on plans and operations. The course co

classroom instruction and 32 hours of practica

nars. Attendees completing the two-week cour
Senior Legalman Course. This twoweek cours

was also expanded to three weeks in fiscal yea

senior legalman with the specialized training in 

vilian and military personnel management, and 

skills required of mid-level supervisors at nav

fices. Included are 61 hours of classroom instru

of workshops and seminars. Twenty-one senior 

(18 Navy, 1 Marine Corps, 1 Air Force, and 1 A

course in fiscal year 1988. 

Lawyer Course. The Naval Justice School cond

of the nine-week lawyer course during fiscal yea

which provides basic training in military justic

ministrative and civil law to incoming Navy, 

Marine Corps judge advocatesllaw specialists, c

of classroom instruction and 55 hours of practic

ing 2 moot courts and 14 seminars designed to 

cacy skills. In fiscal year 1988, the course wa

Navy, 42 Marine Corps, and 15 Coast Guard j

specialists. 

Legal Officer Course. During fiscal year 198

eight sessions of this course (four five-week cou

week courses). The legal officer syllabus is 

nonlawyer junior Navy and Marine Corps offic

and Coast Guard enlisted paralegals about to 

with a ship, aircraft squadron, small station, or 

with no judge advocate attached. Included in 

hours of classroom instruction and 79 hours of 

and seminars. Attendees in fiscal year 1988 co

officers, 28 Navy legalmen, 28 Marine Corps off

Guard enlisted. 

Senior Officer Course. This one-week course

Chief of Naval Operations, prepares command

tive officers, and officers in charge to handle ap

legal responsibilities. Six sessions of the course 

port, Rhode Island, with 165 students attendin

offerings of the course were held at the follow

50 
USN: 

USMC: 

USCG: 

USA: 

USAF: 

ClV: 

918 

496 

38 

17 

4 

2 

(62%) 

(34%) 

(2%) 

(1%) 

(§ 1%) 

(§ 1%) 

Military Judge Course. This three-week cou

year, trains active-duty judge advocates to serve 

eral court-martial military judges. The syllabu

of lecture and 30 hours of practical exercises a

which students preside as military judges duri

moot courts-martial. In fiscal year 1988, 7 Nav

and 5 Air Force judge advocates completed this 

Trial Advocacy Instructor Clinic. The Naval 

ducted a trial advocacy instructor clinic in Mar

day course prepares experienced trial practitio

advocacy training programs in the field. Se

trained in the National Institute of Trial Adv

ing method and have since conducted highly 

programs at naval legal service offices in vario

instructor clinics will be conducted annually, 

programs conducted regularly throughout the 

Command. 

Legalman Course. This nine-week course, o

fiscal year 1988, provides instruction in militar

court reporting to Navy enlisted personnel sel

to the legalman rating as well as certain Coa

man (as the Coast Guard does not have a legal

ed are 162 hours of lecture, 188 hours of practic

52 hours of seminars and other practical ex

years, the Army continues to use the Naval Ju

man course to train its court reporters. In 

Navy, 4 Coast Guard, and 35 Army students co

Legal Clerk Course. This two-week course i

members of the Navy, Coast Guard, Army (
advocates. Similarly, the two-week Reserve Leg

fered in three phases, prepares enlisted personn

duty Reserve to serve as legalmen. During fiscal 

dents completed a course of Reserve instruction a

Specialized Briefings and Presentations. In add

courses listed above, the Naval Justice School pre

640 hours of instruction on court-martial proce

seizure, confessions and admissions, non-judicial p

tigations, administrative separations, law of th

armed conflict, and rules of engagement to 4,099 

ed Reserve units and students at the Surface 

School, Chaplains School, Officer Indoctrinatio

Candidate School, Senior Enlisted Academy, an

College. 

MARINE CORPS ACTIVITIE

During fical year 1988, Reserve legal support fo

continued to grow. The law Mobilization Train

provided invaluable support consistent with their 

to specified commands and Headquarters, U.S. M

agencies. The assisgnment last year of the San 

provide support to the Naval Legal Service Office

was model of cooperation between legal support 

Service. 

The Chief Defense Counsel of the Marine Cor

and Regional Defense Counsel conducted frequen

tions al1d inspections at all locations where def

assigned. 

The Marine Corps, through the auspices of t

sponsored trial advocacy training programs at m

tions throughout the world using National Instit

cacy (NITA) methods and experienced active 

judge advocates as instructors. Marine judge adv

both prosecution and defense billets, as well as 

Air Force lawyers, participated. Our goal of se

52 
dred forty-three judge advocates received! con

tion at civilian and military schools through 

Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, and their pa

Marine officers earned law degrees through the 

cation Program. Fifty-eight of the 502 judge 

command or staff (nonlawyer) assignments. 

EVERETT D. STUMBAUGH 

Rear Admiral, USN 

Judge Advocate General of the Navy 
I+l/OECAEASE (-) OVER NUMBER OF CASES 

LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

PART 5· APPELLATE COUNSEL REOUESTS BEFORE 

Corps REVIEW 

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

PERCENTAGE OF COMA REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCMA 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREAse I+I/DECREASE 1-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE {+)/DECREASE 1-' OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIO~ 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES AEVIEWED BY COMR 

RATE OF INCREASE I+)!OECREASE I-lOVER THE NUMBER OF CASES AEVIEWED DURING 

LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

PAGEIOF2 

*Percentage reflects adjusted figure of 3443 BCD sp

FY 1987 

**Percentage reflects adjusted figure of 3044 NON-BC

tried in FY 1987 

54 
PART 9· COMf'LAINTS UNOER ARTICLE 138 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS I 188 

PART 10· STRENGTH 

PAGE 20Fl 

In compliance with the requirement of A

Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), The Judg

Major General Keithe E. Nelson, and Deputy 

eral, Major General David C. Morehouse, mad

tions of field legal offices in the United State

also attended and participated in various bar 

and addressed many civil, professional and m

MILITARY JUSTICE STATIST

U.S. AIR FORCE JUDICIARY A

The Judiciary Directorate of the Office of 

General has the overall responsibility for sup

tration of military justice throughout the Uni

from nonjudicial proceedings to appellate revi

Additionally, the Directorate has the staff 

Office of The Judge Advocate General in all 

ters which arise in connection with progra

studies and inquiries generated by the Air 

USAF; the Secretaries of the Departments of D

and Air Force; members of Congress; and oth

civil agencies. Several of the Directorate's ac

below: 

a. The Judiciary Directorate serves as the a

review of military justice issues in applicatio

Air Force Board for Correction of Military R

ions were provided to the Secretary of the A

105 applications. 

b. The Directorate received 776 inquiries in 

ing either formal written replies or telephonic 

ecutive officials, including the President and m

c. The Directorate provided a representativ

activities involving military justice. This inclu

Committee and support for the Code Committe
the base level for the Automated military Jus

Management System was tested and fielded at 

mands. A comprehensive office management sy

and tested, with fielding to begin shortly. The 

for the Claims Automated Management System 

full development as the Air Force Claims Inform

System (AFCIMS). The Directorate also operate

Information Through Electronics (FLITE) syste

Emergency Retrieval and Analysis System (DER

utive agent for computer assisted legal resea

FLITE system was terminated on 30 Septemb

tion to the new on-line interactive FLITE system 

TRIAL JUDICIARY 

The Air Force Trial Judiciary had an ave

active duty and 6 reserve military judges, inclu

Judge and his assistant, assigned to 11 location

dition to presiding over courts-martial and 

charge boards, military judges are actively invo

cers in public hearings held to consider draft en

statements. 

The Trial Judiciary completed the upgrade o

agement and docketing program. In addition, 

dures used in our electronic data transfer and E

The Trial Judiciary has received ten laptop 

now preparing software and formats to permit 

lize thE-se computers in the trial of courts-marti

will permit the trial judges to generate writ

court members for both findings and sentencing

electronic mail communications with their circu

CIRCUIT TRIAL COUNSEL PRO

The number of assigned circuit trial counsel 

22 during FY 1988. The average number of da

58 
from 687 in FY 1987 to 891 in FY 1988, as w

the average number of TDY days per case. 

In support of the urinalysis program, a wor

to familiarize circuit trial and defense coun

AFB urinalysis testing laboratory. Urinalysis 

the important fight against drug abuse in the 

knowledge of the Brooks urinalysis laborator

the prosecution and defense is essential to a 

nalysis courts-martial and administrative proc

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT C

Direct U.S. Supreme Court review of the 

Court of Military Appeals (COMA) significantl

government counsel (JAJG) workload in FY 

More petitions of writs of certiorari were file

tioners in FY 1988 than the sister services c

crease occurred in FY 1988 over FY 1987. Br

creased over 400% between the two periods. 

were filed in 80% of all cases and accounted 

briefs filed by all the services. In addition, pl

of 15 sister service Supreme Court cases were 

FY 1988. Under Article 62, UCMJ, two case

the filing of government appeals of adverse 

trial judges. Additionally, four cases were ce

The Judge Advocate General in accordance 

UCMJ. Finally, 10 appellate update briefing

given at various workshops and conferences 

personnel. 

AREA DEFENSE COUNSEL PR

Due to the continued high rate of turnover 

sel, the Defense Services division (JAJD) rene

training the fundamentals of trial practice th

fense Counsel Orientation course. In additio
soned practitioners serve as defense attorneys in 

courts-martial and are used to train the newer 

sel. This pilot progra~ began at the start of FY 1

APPELLATE DEFENSE COUN

Appellate practice before the United State

nearly doubled from last year. In this most de

appellate work, counsel filed 16 petitions of cer

to only 9 in FY 1987. Errors and appeals filed w

Court of Military Review (AFCMR) and the Unit

Military Appeals (COMA) also rose. The breakdow

AFCMR F

ERRORS FILED ..................................................... . 

ORAL ARGUMENTS ............................................ . 

OTHER MOTIONS ................................................. . 

COMA 


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

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

GRANT BRIEFS ..................................................... . 

ORAL ARGUMENTS ............................................ . 

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

Air Force Reserve judge advocates contributed s

development of the law. The major change in th

court instructions in urinalysis cases stemmed f

cases prepared and one later argued before CO

assigned to JAJD. 

CONFINEMENT FACILITIE

Last available figures during the fiscal year 

Force personnel were in confinement; 90 pretr

trial. The figure 1,111 represents a nearly 10% 

60 
y pg

1988 offering an option to transfer selected 

achieved minimum custody status from the U

USDB bed spaces for other long-term prisone

can be increased to 80 if and when additional m

The return to duty rehabilitation (RTDR) pr

CRS, Lowry Air Force Base, continued to 

Seven Air Force members were restored to du

tion of the RTDR program in FY 1988. 

PREVENTIVE LAW AND LEGAL A

PROGRAM 


The Preventive Law and Legal Aid Group 

providing of legal services to over 425,000 cli

categories continued to be wills, domestic rela

matters. The Chief of JACA served as liaison 

Association's Standing Committee on Legal As

Personnnei. 

The Air Force Judge Advocate General Scho

for the continued development and expansio

Law Uniform Notebook System. JACA continu

for policy and procedures concerning the Preve

Assistance programs worldwide. 

During January through April 1987, tax 

were run by legal offices throughout the world

bers of the Air Force community were helped. 

and the tax advisors they trained and supervi

members complete 18,390 Form 1040EZs, 2

43,558 Form 1040s, and 29,149 state tax returns

THE REPORTER, AFRP 1

The Reporter continued to provide timely in

variety of legal issues. Lead articles focused a

verse subjects as: the proper use of safety mis
SCHOOL 


In accordance with the-new preventive law reg

27, the Commandant appointed a faculty member 

Law Program Director. A new format was institu

bursts newsletter and the School published four S

ing all Uniform Notebook System categories 

School will expand publication of Shortbursts to 

1989 to better serve legal offices worldwide. I 

Resident Courses 

The Air Force Judge Advocate General Sch

Center for Professional Development, Maxwell A

ducted the following courses affecting military j

a. Advance Trial Advocacy Course-This I

vides training in advanced advocacy skills to jud

rently serving as or selected for circuit trial o

Thirty-five judge advocates attended this course. 

b. Judge Advocate Staff Officer Course-A 

seven weeks of instruction on the basics of m

course was offered four times during FY 1988 an

145 judge advocates 

c. Reserve Forces Judge Advocate Course

which provides Air Force Reserve personnel and 

men with up-to-date information on recent dev

tary law. This course was offered twice in FY 198

ed by 123 Reservists and Air National Guard pers

d. Staff Judge Advocate Course-This 2-we

recently assigned staff judge advocates with both 

in military law and an update on recent develo

59 judge advocates attended this course. 

e. Trial and Defense Advocacy Course-T

offered four times during FY 1988, provides basic 

to judge advocates actively engaged in trial pra

tended by 127 judge advocates. 

62 
The following videotape and seminar program

justice were offered: 

Trial Advocacy.........................................................................

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

Supreme Court Trends in Criminal Law............................

Expert Witnesses ....................................................................

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

Character Evidence ................................................................

Advanced Advocacy ................................................................

Advanced Trial Techniques ..................................................

Sentencing ................................................................................

Search and Seizure .................................................................

Government Lawyer and Professional Responsibility......

Litigating Insanity..................................................................

Post-Trial and Appellate Process.........................................

Professional Military Education 

Ten area defense counsels were selected to at

cers' School in residence. 

Short Courses at Civilian Institutions 

Sixteen military judges attended courses at th

College at the University of Nevada at Reno du

u.S. Army JAG School and Naval Justice Scho

Six military judges attended the basic milita

the Army Judge Advocate General (Army JAG

ville, Virginia, and five military judges attende

judges course at the Naval Military Justice Scho

Island. Approximately 245 other Air Force 

training at the Army JAG School in numerou

the Criminal Trial Advocacy Course, Advanced 

Course, Judge Advocate and Military Operatio

War Workshop, Legal Aspects of Terrorism Co

native Disputes Resolution Course. 
duty. This total included 5 generals, 121 colone

colonels, 340 majors, 632 captains and 40 first lieu

KEITHE E. NELSON 

Major General, USAF 

The Judge Advocate General 

64 
illATa 0' INCIIII.,II.I/OIC".",1 I-I avUt NyMel" all CASIS 

IIt!VIIWIO QUIIIINQ LAST IIIIL1'QIltTINO "1111100 

PART 5· APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE Air 

Force 

REVIEW 

PART 8· U. S. COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS ACTIONS 

"IIIICINT"a. 0" eo"-UIIIIIIIVIIWIC CASU ·ORWA"OEO TO uSCM'" 621/111& 

I'.IItCINTAQI 0' INCIltI"•• (.1I0EC-'ItI~SI_ ' Ovllll"III!EIIIQUS IIIEI'OIltTIf't,jG 1'1111100 

I'IIIICINTA.OI 0' TOT"I.. "'TITIO"'" ~ oIIl.~'~'~.="_________-,4!L1.1/../.Il6",2:..J1

","ceNT.01 0" "ITITION, c ......... T!:).0"'..:'",O:..:'.::",,,L..::C:.:'.::.5,,".:..;.~.:..:v,,,'0; ....::..,.,0=.';...::.CO,,-'.::':.:."--"u...L

"AT. o~ INC"IASII.1I0ICIIIIASII .• ",,1." '01' ""Vl1li I IE " 0' CAses IIIlv'Ew£O OU"

LAST IItI~O(lllTINQ '(IItIOD 
PART 9· COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

HUM••,. 0' COMI'LAINTS I 26 

PART 10· STRENGTH 

'ACE!OFJ 

66 
ceived and filed at Coast Guard Headquarters 

the 5 preceding years. 

Fiscal Year 88 87 86 

General Courts-Martial ............................ 13 11 

Special Courts-Martial .............................. 25 24 

Summary Courts-Martial ......................... 35 63 5

Total ............................................................. 73 98 7

COURTS-MARTIAL 

Attorney counsel were detailed to all special 

tary judges were detailed to all special court

cases, the presiding judge was the full time ge

judge. When he was unavailable, military jud

mary duties were used for special courts-mar

detail of judges was centrally exercised by the 

and all requirements were met in a timely fashi

GENERAL COURTS-MART

Of the 13 accused tried by general courts-mar

four were tried by military judge alone. Of thes

a dishonorable discharge, two received bad cond

one officer received a dismissal. Of the nine acc

with members, two received sentences which i

able discharge, and two received bad conduct d

the accused whose charges were referred to ge

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

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

(pay grade E-7), one was a chief warrant officer 

a chief warrant officer (W-3). 

The following is a breakdown of sentences a

tary judge alone in general courts-martial (4 c
fine ($4,000 tota!) ...............................................................................

The following is a breakdown of sentences aw

courts-martial with members (8 convictions). 

Sentence 

dishonorable discharge .....................................................................

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

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

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

partial forfeiture of pay ($20,300 tota!)..........................................

fine ($8,000 total) ...............................................................................

The following indicates the four sentences imp

eral courts-martial in the past four fiscal years. 

Number of Re

FY Forfeitures Confinement 

Convictions in 

88 12 8 (75%) 12 (100%) 9 (

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

86 5 5 (100%) 5 (100%) 4 (

85 9 6 (67%) 7 (78%) 5 (

The following table shows the distribution of 

tions referred to general courts-martial. 

Violation of the UCMJ, Article 

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

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

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

91 (insubordinate conduct toward a petty officer) 

68 
SPECIAL COURTS-MART

Fifteen of the 25 accused tried by specia

fiscal year were tried by the military judge a

duct discharges were awarded; six to accus

judge alone, and two to accused tried by a 

Twelve of the accused whose charges were 

courts-martial were nonrated (pay grades E-

were petty officers (pay grades E-4 through 

chief petty officers (pay grade E-7). 

The following table shows the distribution 

tions referred to special courts-martial. 

Violation of the UCMJ, Article 

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

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

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

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

91 (insubordinate conduct toward a petty offic

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

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

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

military property of the U.S.}....................

122(a} (controlled drug offenses) ...............................

121 (larceny and wrongful appropriation}...........

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

125 (sodomy}.............................................................

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

130 (housebreaking) ................................................

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

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

The following is a breakdown of sentences 

tary judge alone in special courts-martial (15 
The following is a breakdown of sentences a

courts-martial with members (10 convictions). I

convictions, the accused pled guilty to all char

tions. 

Sentence 

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

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

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

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

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

forfeiture of pay ($1,150 total) .........................................................

fine ($6,254 total) ...............................................................................

The following indicates the four sentences imp

cial courts-martial in the past four fiscal years. 

Number of 

FY Forfeitures Confinement 

Convictions 

88 25 9 (36%) 13 (52%) 

87 23 10 (43%) 13 (57%) 

86 16 10 (63%) 7 (44%) 

85 36 24 (67%) 18 (50%) 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL SUM

Sixty percent of the accused tried by special c

tried by military judge alone. Fifty-three percen

pled guilty to all charges and specifications. Ten 

cused tried by special courts-martial with memb

70 
, , 

The Coast Guard has 161 officers designate

Gudge advocates) serving on active duty. 120 

billets and 41 are serving in general duty bille

Guard officers are currently undergoing pos

law, and will be certified as law specialists a

their studies. 

The Coast Guard has one full-time genera

judge. Senior law specialists, most serving as d

are used as military judges in special cour

quired. 

U.S. COAST GUARD COURT OF MIL

During fiscal year 1988, the Court was compo

military judges assigned by the General Cou

Transportation in his capacity as Judge Adv

Chief Judge and one other Judge are civili

three Judges are Coast Guard commissioned 

1988, Captain Michael C. Grace; USCG, who 

the Court, was sworn in again as an appel

having been reappointed as a replacement 

Frederick F. Burgess, Jr., USCG. The Court is 

as follows: 

Chief Judge Joseph H. Baum 

Judge Alfred F. Bridgman, Jr. 

Judge Carl Josephson 

Judge Kevin J. Barry 

Judge Michael C. Grace 

In addition to the decisional work reflected 

Court also filed an amicus curiae brief with th

tary Appeals in the case of United States Navy

of Military Review v. Hon. Frank C. Carlucci 

Defense and Hon. June Gibbs Brown, Inspector 
py 

y g

Bar Association, which is chaired by the Chief 

with the Coast Guard's role in this year's con

Counsel of the Coast Guard made the principal 

ference's luncheon speaker. 

Chief Judge Baum, as a newly appointed m

Court of Military Appeals' Rules Advisory Co

meetings of that committee in February, March 

with Judges from the other Courts of Milita

Bridgman, representing the Coast Guard Court

panel presentation in March 1988 at the Four

Military Judges Seminar at the Air Force Judge 

School, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. In 

from the Court attended the Thirteenth Annua

Conference in Washington, D.C. As Chairman 

Association Military Judges Committee, the Ch

and hosted a luncheon in June 1988 under that 

ces at Fort Myer Officers' Club, with the Hono

Ryan, Jr. of the District of Columbia Superior 

speaker. In July 1988, tl.e Chief Judge and Judg

ed a seminar in Washington, D.C. sponsored by t

sociation on Drug Testing: Constitutional, Legi

tory Issues. In September 1988, the Chief Judg

attended the Federal Bar Association Annual N

Washington, D.C. Throughout the year, Judges f

ularly attended and supported the monthly Fe

tion Pentagon Chapter luncheon meetings. 

Judge Barry, on October 1, 1988 succeeded t

Chairman of the Federal Bar Association's Mi

mittee. 

72 

"ATE 0' INCREASE (+"DECREASE 1-' oveR NUMBER OF CASES 

RIVIEWED DURING LAST fIIIEPOflilTING "l:fIt'OD 

PART 5· APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE COAST GUARD 

REVIEW 

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

PERCENTAGE OF COMA REVLEWEO CASES FORWARDED TO USCMA 1

IIERCENTAGE OF INCA EASE (+1/0ECREASE ( ) OVUII ,.,.evlou, RE~RTINa rEfII'DO 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL "IETITIONS G"..,NTED 

PERCENTAQE OF INCREASE (+)lDECREASE (-lOVER "IIIEVIOVS RE.-oRTINQ "E'UOO 

P'IIICENTAGE OF PETITIONS OlitANTED OF TOTAL CASES fIIEVIEWED BY COMfit 

"ATE OF INCREASE (+)lOECREAS£ (_, OVER THE NUMBI" OF CASES REVIEWED OU'UNO 

LAST AEPO~TING PERIOD 

'AGE I OF 1 

11 One of the four dishonorable discharges is in fact a dis

!I 	Included within this total are ten Article 66. UCMJ. one 

and one extraordinary writ for review. 

11 	 Included within this total are 18 Article 66. UCMJ refer

UCMJ Government Appeal; 5 extraordinary writ petitions. 

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

74 
PART 9· COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

HUMin .. OF COM"LAINTS I 

PART 10· STRENGTH 

AVE~"'G£ ACTIVE DUTY STAENGTH 

PAGE10Fl 

11 	 for assignment of another appellate defense counsel. 

the total of 25 "referred for review" and the sum of 2

courts-martial and 6 BCD special courts-martial result

one extraordinary writ petition did not relate to a co

u.s. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review v. Ca

Article 62 Government Appeal was from a special court-

conviction or sentence yet. 


~I Included within this total are 15 cases referred under 

referred under Article 69, UCMJ, one Article 62, UCMJ 

extraordinary writ petitions, and one motion for assig

defense counsel. One of the extraordinary writs was U

of Military Review v. Carlucci. in which the Coast Gu

filed an Amicus Brief with the U. S. Court of Military 

between the total of 23 "total cases reviewed/acted up

15 general courts-martial and 6 BCD special courts-ma

that one extraordinary writ petition did not relate to 

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

Government Appeal was from a special court-martial wi

yet. 

11 u.s. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review v. Ca

included in total , thus the difference of one between 

Acted Upon and this block. 

u.s.