MILITARY JUSTICE 

INCLUDING SEPARATE REP

of the 


U.S. COURT OF MILITARY AP

THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GE

OF THE U.S. ARMED FOR

AND THE CHIEF COUNS

OF THE U.S. COAST GUA

For the Period 


October 1, 1983 to September 30

PROPERTY OF U.S.ARt8f 

THE JUDGEADVOCATE GENERAL'S 

LIBRARY 
SERVICES 


of the 


SENATE AND OF THE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTAT

and to the 


SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

AND SECRETARY OF TRANSPORT

and the 


SECRETARIES OF THE DEPARTME

THE ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FO

PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUS

For the Period 


October 1, 1983-September 30, 19
REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY APPEAL

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 FOR

REPORT OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL OF THE COAST GUARD 
UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 

October 1, 1983 to September 30, 1984 

Pursuant to the amendments to the Uniform Code 

tice as enacted by Congress within the Military Just

P.L. 98-209, 97 Stat. 1393 (1983), the Code Com

constituted during fiscal year 1984. Professor A. K

Mary Ellen Hanley, Esquire, were appointed by t

Defense as the public members of the Committee. Th

bers joined the Judges of the United States Court of M

the Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, an

Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard; and the Director, 

Division, Headquarters, United States Marine Corp

the Committee. As so constituted, the Code Committe

nual report on the operation of the Uniform Code of 

During fiscal year 1984, the Code Committee met 

sions to review the final drafts and the dissemination 

Courts-Martial, United States, 1984, which replaced 

Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (Revised edition)

reviewed the efforts which had been made by the staff

Court of the United States, the Solicitor General's 

United States Court of Military Appeals, as well as 

yers within each of the Armed Services, to develop 

internal procedures for seeking certiorari review b

Court, which was authorized by the Military Justice 

suant to the interest expressed in the Senate Repor

the passage of the Military Justice Act of 1983, S. Rep

Cong., 1st Sess. (1983), the Code Committee decide
ROBINSON 0. EVERETT 

Chief Judge 

ALBERT B. FLETCHER, JR. 

Associate Judge 

WALTER T. Cox III 

Associate Judge 

Major General HUGH J. CLAUSEN 

The Judge Advocate Genera~ U.S. Army 

Rear Admiral THOMAS E. FLYNN ... 

The Judge Advocate Genera~ U.S. Navy 

Major General THOMAS B. BRUTON 

The Judge Advocate Genera~ U.S. Air Force 

Rear Admiral EDWIN H. DANIELS 

Chief Counse~ U.S. Coast Guard 

Brigadier General WALTER J. DONOVAN 

Director, Judge Advocate Division, 

Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps 

MARY ELLEN HANLEY 

Esquire 

Professor A. KENNETH PYE 

2 
The Judges of the United States Court of Military A

their fiscal year 1984 report on the administration of 

military justice to the Committees on Armed Services 

States Senate and House of Representatives and to the 

Defense, Transportation, Army, Navy, and Air Force 

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

THE BUSINESS OF THE COURT 

During the fiscal year 1984 term of the Court, 329

grant of review, certificates for review, cross-petitions, 

sideration petitions, petitions for new trial, petitions fo

relief and writ appeal petitions were filed with the Cour

highest total number of such filings since the creation 

Congress in 1951 and, although the increase over last ye

only 2 percent, this was the third consecutive year 

number of such cases was filed with the Court. 

In addition to this record number of filings, the Cou

acted on 3528 petitions for grant of review during fi

reflecting an increase in such review actions of 26 per

year 1983. The Court granted further review in 433 of 

12 percent of the cases considered. On the master docke

appeals, certificates for review, and granted petitions, 

final action in 467 cases, which reflects an increase in fin

of 137 percent over fiscal year 1983. Approximately 48 

Court's actions on these master docket cases affirmed 

the Courts of Military Review. Although the Court 

record number of filings during fiscal year 1984, the n

pending action by the Court at the end of this year wa

percent as a result of the increased number of final acti

period. 

The number of petitions for extraordinary relief and w

tions filed with the Court during fiscal year 1984 was su
On March 31, 1984, Judge William H. Cook retired fr

States Court of Military Appeals. However, he elec

Senior Judge status on April 1, 1984, and was recalled to 

on the Court by Chief Judge Robinson 0. Everett on Ap

continued such active service until June 30, 1984, wh

full retired status as a Senior Judge. In serving on t

decade, Judge Cook left a legacy of numerous opinio

significantly contributed to the administration of milit

Fortunately, the vacancy created by Judge Cook's r

quickly filled by the President with the nomination of 

Thompson Cox, III, on June 28, 1984, his confirmation 

States Senate on July 27, 1984, and his investiture on 

1984. Judge Cox brings to the Court extensive experi

judge in South Carolina, a private practitioner of law, 

and military trial judge in the Judge Advocate Genera

United States Army. As a result of Judge Cox's arri

fiscal year 1984 term, the Court was able to continue i

vacancy of less than three months and was able to begin 

with a full schedule of oral arguments. 

JUDICIAL VISITATIONS 

Consistent with the past practice of the Court, the Ju

during fiscal year 1984 to visit military installation

speeches to various professional organizations an

seminars for the purpose of informing both the milita

communities of the Court's responsibility in the admin

military justice system and to facilitate a better under

Court's role in this system. 

In fulfillment of this responsibility, Chief Judge Ev

meetings and spoke to a Duke University Law School S

the Civitan Club in Durham, North Carolina; the Univ

mond Law School Legal Forum, Richmond, Virginia; 

Guard Legal Officers' Seminar and a joint meeting of t

and Pentagon Chapters of the Federal Bar Association

4 
Course, Judge Advocate General of the Army's S

tesville, Virginia; Trial, Defense and Judiciary Confere

Germany; the German-American Friendship Dinner, H

many; the Military Law Committee of the General Pr

the American Bar Association, Nellis Air Force Ba

Naval Reserve Trial Judiciary Conference, Reno, N

Federal Bar Association's Seminar on Constitution

Courts, Baltimore, Maryland. 

Judge Cook, prior to his retirement, addressed a con

judge advocates at the U.S. Coast Guard Headquarte

D.C. 

Judge Fletcher visited and spoke at the Air Force 

General's Annual Survey of the Law Conferences at 

Base, Abilene, Texas, and at Westover Air 

Massachusetts; the New York Bar Association's C

York; the U.S. Pacific Commanders' Legal Conference

Republic of the Philippines; and various other confere

judge advocates at the Naval Legal Service Office, H

the Naval Legal Service Office, Subic Bay, Republic of 

the Naval Fleet Activities, Yokosuka, Japan; Yokota A

Camp Butler, Okinawa, Japan; Osan Air Force Base, K

Korea. 

Shortly after Judge Cox took the oath of office to

fiscal year 1984, he delivered a speech to the Pentago

Federal Bar Association, Washington, D.C. 

As in previous years, the visits and speeches of the 

them with an opportunity to ascertain the impact of 

sions on the administration of the Uniform Code of M

all levels of the military community. 

HOMER FERGUSON CONFERENCE 

The Ninth Annual Homer Ferguson Conference w

George Washington University on May 16-17, 1984, 
Massachusetts Trial Court. 


Major General Kenneth J. Hodson, USA (Ret.). 


Assistant Dean John S. Jenkins, National Law C

Washington University. 


General John A. Wickham, Jr., Chief of Staff, U.S

Professor Yale Kamisar, University of Michigan L

Professor Frederic I. Lederer, Marshall-Wythe Scho

lege of William and Mary. 


Professor Stephen A. Saltzburg, University of 

School. 


Professor David Schlueter, St. Mary's University S

Major Lee Schinasi, Office of the Judge Advocate 

Army. 


The Honorable Gerald Bard Tjoflat, U.S. Court of 

Circuit. 


Mr. Paul Summit, Special Counsel for Criminal Law

Committee on Judiciary. 


Colonel James G. Garner, Chief Trial Judge, U.S. A

Professor Abraham S. Goldstein, Yale University L

The Honorable Lois H. Herrington, Assistant Att

for Justice Assistance. 


Professor James Taylor, Jr., Wake Forest Univeris

The Honorable Robinson 0. Everett, Chief Judge, 

Military Appeals. 

The invocation for this year's conference was offere

miral Ross H. Trower, Chaplain's Corps, U.S. 

6 
During the fiscal year 1984 term the Court decided n

which interpreted various provisions of the Military Rul

which were promulgated by the President in 1980. In U

Dulus, 16 M.J. 324 (C.M.A. 1983), the Court relied o

Military Rules of Evidence (hereafter cited as Mil.R.Ev

ing a conviction resulting from the administrative in

automobile after the military owner was placed in pr

ment. Citing Mil.R.Evid. 301(f)(2), the Court held in U

Williams, 16 M.J. 333 (C.M.A. 1983), that a military ju

by refusing a defense request to strike the direct t

witness who invoked his right against self-incrimina

examination. The Court concluded that since the refus

cross-examination question was related to a collater

military judge was not required to strike the direct test

witness. The question of when and under what circum

vestigator must notify an attorney prior to interrogatin

cused was addressed by the Court in United States v. 

M.J. 338 (C.M.A. 1983). Therein, the Court held that th

quirement under Mil.R.Evid. 305(e), or under the prio

United States v. McDonald, 9 M.J. 81(C.M.A.1980), t

torney prior to interrogating his client where the attorn

tionship related to a separate offense which was not clo

the offense under investigation. The Court disting

holdings in United States v. McOmber, 1 M.J. 380 (C.M

United States v. Lowry, 2 M.J. 55 (C.M.A. 1976), on 

these earlier cases involved the questioning of suspe

represented by attorneys where the questioning related 

closely related offenses which had produced the attorn

tionships. 

Considering the question of whether an issue had been 

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

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

ly locating cases of particular interest during the term. The case su

precedential value and should not be cited in briefs filed with the Co
y p

q

of the vehicle without obtaining a search warrant. Noti

underlying Mil.R.Evid. 701 and 702, the Court held in Un

Tyler, 17 M.J. 381 (C.M.A. i984), that a lay witness coul

the substance given to him by the accused and used by the 

cocaine. In so holding, the Court relied on previous dec

Court which held that the prior user of a drug may expres

as to the identity of such drug. 

The question of when and under what circumstances an 

present favorable evidence as to aspects of his military c

addressed by the Court in United States v. Piatt, 17 M.J

1984). Therein, the Court reversed a court-martial c

holding that when the charges against the accused arose i

of his performance of his military duties as a drill in

military judge erred by excluding proffered evidence 

character as a drill instructor. The Court concluded tha

404 was not intended to exclude evidence of military cha

specific issue relating to that character was involved in t

accused. This ruling was later applied in United States v

M.J. 451 (C.M.A. 1984), where the Court reversed a conv

basis of a similar issue. Finally, in United States v. Dillon

(C.M.A. 1984), the Court held that a decedent's statem

possessed cocaine which had been obtained from a perso

the accused and which the decedent intended to sell 

missible under Mil.R.Evid. 804(b) as a declaration aga

terest. The Court so ruled after concluding that there was 

that the decedent believed that his statement might su

any criminal liability. 

Authority of the Court 

Government counsel argued in United States v. Matth

354 (C.M.A. 1983), that the Court did not have jurisd

judicate the constitutionality of the imposition of the de

under the procedures set forth in the Uniform Code of Mi

8 
Court, as is illustrated by a number of decisions rende

fiscal year 1984 term. In United States u. Aceuedo-V

(C.M.A. 1983), the accused was charged with the arson o

racks. During the providence inquiry, the accused ackn

he intended to burn a coat within the barracks, but asse

not intend to burn the barracks itself. In overruling U

Greene, 20 U.S.C.M.A. 297, 43 C.M.R. 137 (1971), the 

arson was not a specific intent crime and that 

acknowledgement that he intended to burn a coat with

was sufficient to sustain a plea of guilty to the arson o

This ruling was later applied by the Court in United Sta

17 M.J. 8 (C.M.A. 1983), wherein the Court affirmed an 

son conviction despite the accused's contention that 

was improvident. Addressing the "innocent purpose

respect to a guilty plea to a wrongful appropriation ch

Stutes u. Kustner, 17 M.J. 11 (C.M.A. 1983), the Court 

cused's conduct must be viewed from an objective stan

Court ruled that where an accused took property for 

demonstrating the lack of security at a storage facility

did not require a rejection of his plea of guilty to wron

tion. The Court specifically rejected an earlier holding i

v. Roark. 12 U.S.C.M.A. 478, 31 C.M.R. 64 (1961). th

such a statement would, if believed, constitute a defense 

crime. Finally, in United States u. Hannan, 17 M.J. 115 

the Court held that a military judge. when conducting a 

accused's guilty plea, was not obligated to inquire int

understanding of his parole eligibility conditions. The 

such a collateral consequence was not a necessary part 

inquiry and that, therefore, the judge was not required 

the matter on his own initiative. 

·--,-Aspreviously reported in the annual report for fiscal year 1983. 

the death penalty in United States u. Mattheu·s. 16 M.J. 354 (C.M.A. 

comply_ with ~~ose procedures which were constitutionally required a

lawful 1mpos1t1on of such punishment. 
Relying on its earlier decision in United States v. McG

408 (C.M.A. 1982), the Court held in United States v. Fou

(C.M.A. 1983), that a servicEil regulation which required 

administered to military investigative agents seek

authorization did not require the exclusion of evidence o

search which was authorized without first administerin

oath to the agents seeking the search authorization. The 

ed in Foust that the search was authorized by a person 

do so and that such authorization was predicated on pr

Pretrial Confinement Credit 

In United States v. Allen, 17 M.J. 126 (C.M.A. 1984), 

that in light of a Department of Defense instruction w

that procedures employed by the Armed Services for 

court-martial sentence be in conformity with those pub

Department of Justice, a military accused was entitle

credit for the period of pretrial confinement where such a

sentenced to confinement by the court-martial. 

Appellate Counsel Responsibilities 

The question of the parameters of an appellate cou

sibilities to identify issues where an accused insists that 

was addressed by the Court in United States v. Arroyo

(C.M.A. 1984). The Court held that an appellate def

responsibilities as set forth in United States v. Grostefo

(C.M.A. 1982), required such counsel merely to identify 

an accused desired to be presented to the appellate cour

extent to which such issues warranted any argument or 

matter residing within the sound professional judgment 

Gender-Based Charges 

The question of whether the offense of indecent assa

constitutionally gender-based offense was addressed b

10 
offense. 

Extraordinary Relief 

A question concerning the trial counsel's authorit

charge which had been referred to trial by court-marti

by the Court in Satterfield v. Drew, 17 M.J. 269 (C

facts presented to the Court in a petition for ext

reflected that, after the military judge granted a de

suppress urine test results in this drug case, the trial 

the military judge that the charge was withdrawn. S

military judge was asked to reconsider his ruling and

tion, ruled that the test results were admissible and 

court-martial continue. However, relying on principle

Court granted the petition for extraordinary relief file

and held that the trial counsel had implied authority 

charge and that, in the absence of a re-referral, the 

longer legally before the court-martial. 

Post-Trial Hearing by Military Judge 

The authority of a military judge to conduct a p

under Article 39(a), Uniform Code of Military Jus

§839(a), was addressed by the Court in United States 

297 (C.M.A. 1984). The Court held in this case that 

could conduct such a hearing to inquire into an allega

member had engaged in misconduct by exerting unlaw

fluence during the deliberations of the court-martial. T

ed this conclusion by holding that the military judge 

power in ruling that he did not believe he could take an

action. 

Sufficiency of Evidence 

In United States v. Sargent, 18 M.J. 331 (C.M.A. 

held that an accused could not be convicted 
WALTER T. Cox, III 

Judge 

12 
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. 

0 

13 

3 

3226 

7 

3 

44 

3296 

CUMULATIVE TERMINATIONS 

Master Docket . 

Petition Docket 

Miscellaneous Docket 

TOTAL. 

467 

3528 

43 

4038 

CUMULATIVE END PENDING 

Master Docket . 

Petition Docket 

Miscellaneous Docket 

TOTAL 

236 

624 

2 

862 

OPINION SUMMARY 

CATEGORY SIGNED PERCURIAM MEMI

Master Docket . 

Petition Docket 

Miscellaneous Docket 

TOTAL 

87 

0 

3 

90 

21 

0 

0 

21 

35

352

4

-

392
--

PENDING (MASTER DOCKET) 

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

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

Oral argument pending .....·...... . 

Preargument conference pending ... . 

Calendar committee pending ........... . 

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

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


FILINGS (PETITION DOCKET) 

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

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

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

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


TERMINATIONS (PETITION DOCKET) 

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

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

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

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

Petitions for grant withdrawn ... . 

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

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


PENDING (PETITION DOCKET) 

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

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

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

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


63 


0 


28 


13 


108 


24 


236 


3226 


3 


7 


3236 


22 


2947 


433 


107 


13 


6 


3528 


323 


111 


190 


624 


Signe

Perc

Mem

TOTA

3 In 31 percent of these cases, the Court specified issues which w

appellant. 

14 
PENDING (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET) 

Briefs pending 1 

Action by Writs Counsel pending . . . . . 0 

Show cause action by Court pending . . . 0 

Show cause response pending . . . . . . . . 1 

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

TOTAL.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 


RECONSIDERATIONS & REHEARINGS 

CATEGORY FILINGS PENDING DISP

Granted 

Master Docket ....... 9 2 

Petition Docket ...... . . . . . . . . . 22 6 

Miscellaneous Docket ... 2 1 0 

- -

TOTAL .............. 33 3 8 

MOTIONS ACTIVITY 

BEGIN END 

CATEGORY PENDING FILINGS PENDING DIS

Granted 

All motions . 42 1036 48 819 

draft changes to the Manual for Courts-Martial and the 

of Military Justice. 

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS 


AND U.S. ARMY JUDICIARY ACTIVITIES 

During fiscal year 1984, the court-martial rates show 

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

tried by all types of courts-martial in fiscal year 198

than the year before. This overall decrease reflects prim

in special and summary courts-martial (i.e., a 32.4% dec

courts-martial empowered to adjudge a bad-conduct di

decline in non-BCD special courts-martial and a 42.3

summary courts-martial). There was a 8.8% decrease in 

general courts-martial, which had remained relatively 

cent years. The overall conviction rate for fiscal year 1

which represents a slight rise from the 93.2% convicti

previous fiscal year. 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY: FISCAL YEAR 198

(See table insert attached.) 

THE U.S. ARMY LEGAL SERVICES AGENC

The U.S. Army Legal Services Agency includes t

Judiciary, the Government Appellate Division, the Def

Division, the Trial Defense Service, the Trial Counsel A

gram, the Contract Appeals Division, the Regulato

Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks Division, and th

Recruiting Office. The latter four sections have no fun

the U.S. Army Judiciary and its court-martial mission

Appeals Division and the Regulatory Law Office repre
Division, and the Trial Judiciary. 

U.S. ARMY TRIAL DEFENSE SERVICE 

During fiscal year 1984 the United States Army Tr

vice (USATDS) identified and litigated the issue of unl

influence in over 150 cases arising in one jurisdiction i

footnote of the leading case, the Army Court of Milita

ed USATDS counsel for the dedication and profession

by USATDS counsel in bringing the issue to lig

USATDS was directed to provide assistance to those 

and former service members identified as drug users a

ty urinalysis testing procedures during the 

1982-November 1983. USATDS lawyers advise these c

them in preparing and submitting their applications 

Army Board for the Correction of Military Records. 

USATDS continued to develop its deployment cap

were deployed to the Sinai in support of the Multi-Na

Observers, to Grenada in support of the combat effor

Germany, Spain, and Honduras in support of trainin

TRIAL COUNSEL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

During fiscal year 1984, the Trial Counsel Assistanc

Army Legal Services Agency, provided advice and t

counsel. The program responded to almost 140

assistance by providing trial counsel with verbal adv

authorities. The program conducted training seminar

in the United States and overseas. The program's m

designed to keep trial counsel current in criminal law

incorporated into a newly created "Advocacy Sectio

Lawyer. This change in format will result in cost eff

creased circulation. 

18 
CHANGE OF MILITARY JUSTICE REGULATIO

Army Regulation 27-10, Military Justice, is being re

ment minor changes. The projected effective date is M

The changes will continue the process of implementi

Manual for Courts-Martial, 1984, and the Military Justi

STUDY OF MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM 


UNDER COMBAT CONDITIONS 


In 1983, the Wartime Legislation Team, under the sup

Criminal Law Division, completed a major study of the 

system, with a view toward ensuring that the sys~ w

ly and efficiently in an armed conflict, without unduly b

manders or unnecessarily utilizing resources. Summari

were published in the Spring 1984 issue of the Militar

(Volume 104) and the May 1984 issue of the Military R

ed by the US Army Command and General Staff Colle

Team's recommendations were incorporated in the new 

tional recommendations suitable for peacetime implem

been forwarded to the Joint-Service Committee on Mi

JOINT-SERVICE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY JUS

The Judge Advocates General and the General C

Department of Transportation established the Joint-S

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

Force, Marine Corps, and Department of Transpo

Guard) provide representatives and a nonvoting repres

vided by the U.S. Court of Military Appeals. The Join

mittee on Military Justice primarily prepares and eval

amendments and changes to the Uniform Code of Milit

the Manual for Courts-Martial. The Committee also ser

for the exchange of ideas relating to military justice m

the services. 
specifications. Several new offenses under Article 1

defined, and some maximum punishments are changed

The Army served as executive agent for printing the 

new, more usable binder was designed in conjunction w

The Military Justice Act of 1983 contains seve

changes to the UCMJ. Cases decided by the United 

Military Appeals may now be appealed directly to the 

Supreme Court. New articles have been added to the C

an article for drug offenses (Article l 12a), and several b

ministrative procedures have been simplified. 

MILITARY JUSTICE ACT OF 1983 ADVISORY COM

As part of the 1983 Act, Congress directed that the 

Defense form a commission to study six issues: 

1. Whether the military judge should exercise 

authority in all non-capital courts-martial. 

2. Whether there should be suspension power fo

judges and the Courts of Military Review. 

3. Whether trial and appellate military judges sh

tenure. 

4. Whether special courts-martial should be allowed 

one year confinement at hard labor. 

5. Whether there should be reconstitution of the 

Court of Military Appeals to a court organized.under A

Constitution of the United States. 

6. How to establish of a fair and equitable retirem

judges of the United States Court of Military Appeals

The Commission is composed of a senior judge advo

service, a staff attorney from the United States Court 

20 
The Working Group's report was submitted to the Join

mittee on Military Justice in September 1984, and 

studied for implementation. 

FOREIGN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION 

As executive agent for the Department of Defense, th

of the Army, through International Affairs Division, 

Judge Advocate General, maintains information conce

cise of foreign criminal jurisdiction over U.S. personn

. reporting period, 1December1982 through 30 Novemb

of 101,772 U.S. personnel, military and civilian, were ch

fenses subject to either the exclusive or primary (concu

tion of foreign tribunals. Of these offenses, 92,924 

against military personnel. Of this number, 70,510 

against military personnel were subject to exclusive f

tion. Foreign authorities released 987 of the exclusive f

tion offenses to U.S. military authorities for administ

appropriate disposition. 

The remainder of the military offenses subject to f

tion, totaling 22,414 offenses, were concurrent jurisdict

volving alleged violations of both U.S. military law a

over which the foreign country had the primary rig

jurisdiction. Foreign authorities waived their primary 

U.S. military authorities in 19,779 of these incidents, f

waiver rate of 88.2%. 

Thus, during the reporting period, foreign authoriti

their disposition a total of 72,158 offenses allegedly 

military personnel, of which 69,523 charges were reporte

the exclusive jurisdiction of foreign authorities. It is sig

that 70,477 or 97.7% of the military offenses reserved 

by foreign authorities involved traffic violations. 

A total of 8,848 civilian employees and dependents 
finement and 70 unsuspended sentences to confinem

courts. 

. LITIGATION 

Litigation involving the Army during fiscal year 198

impact upon military justice. 

EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

During fiscal year 1984, The Judge Advocate Ge

located in Charlottesville, Virginia, provided legal 

lawyers of the military services and other federal agen

resident courses were conducted with 2,806 students 

Courses were attended by 1,801 Army, 76 Navy, 100 M

Force, 47 Coast Guard, 95 Army National Guard, 523 

foreign students. Three Basic Classes, the 102d, 103d, 

conducted. A total of 216 Army JAGC officers gradua

The 32d Graduate Course, with an enrollment o

graduated on 18 May 1984. In addition to 69 Army Ju

the class consisted of five Marines, one Navy, and two f

The 33d Graduate Course began on 1 August 1984. Thi

60 Army, five Marines, one Navy, and three foreign of

During fiscal year 1984, the School continued to pro

ficers with a legal orientation prior to their assumptio

Sixteen general officers attended General Officer Leg

Courses, and 340 battalion and brigade command desi

one of five resident Senior Officer Legal Orientation 

tionally, instructors from the School participated 

Command Courses conducted at Fort Leavenworth, K

talion and brigade command designees. 

The Criminal Law Division sponsored five resident c

education courses in fiscal year 1984. The New De

Criminal Law Course was taught once, the three week 

22 
and Marine Corps lawyers serving there, and the Adva

missioned Officer Course at Fort Benjamin Harrison, I

The International Law Division sponsored four one w

the Law of War, a one week Advanced Law of War S

focused on the Grenada military operation, a new, one w

vocate Operations Overseas Course which concentrate

forces agreements, and one 2112 day course on the Legal A

rorism. The Legal Aspects of Terrorism Course will be e

week next year. Additionally, the Division provided inst

for a one week course in the Federal Republic of Germa

of War sponsored by U.S. Army Europe and a five week 

the Pacific sponsored by Pacific Command, bringing the 

tional legal developments to Army, Air Force, Navy, 

Guard, and allied officers. All courses were designed fo

by both judge advocates and operational staff officers. I

the "operationalization of international law", the majo

courses was on practical, hands-on training, rather th

Similar instruction was presented to both active and re

ensure that they were prepared to provide timely, accura

on military operations. 

The Contract Law Division and Administrative Law 

conducted full agendas of resident courses of instructi

Advocate Guard and Reserve Affairs (formerly Re

Department sponsored two resident courses for Reser

Judge Advocates in fiscal year 1984. Approximate

Reserve and National Guard judge advocates atten

Training in Administrative and Civil Law between 18 

1984. Phase IV of the Judge Advocate Officer Advance

ministrative and Civil Law) was attended by 110 stude

same period. The attendance by Army National Guard

nial Training, their first, reflects the Guard's expanded p

School programs. Judge Advocate Triennial Training re

Team Training as the title of this instruction. The 103

Reserve School in Farrell, Pennsylvania, provided admi
MAJOR PROJECTS 

On 20 March 1984, the 13th Kenneth J. Hodson Lect

Law was presented by Professor Joseph W. Bishop, J

Professor of Law at Yale Law School. 

On 10 November 1983, the First Waldemar A. Solf L

national Law was presented by Professor John Norto

University of Virginia School of Law. His presentatio

Aspects of the Conflict in Central and South America," 

enlightening. 

The Eighth Charles L. Decker Lecture was given o

This year's lecture was presented by the Honorable R

Judge for the United States Court cf Appeals for the 

umbia Circuit, who spoke on the First Amendment an

The School hosted the 1983 Worldwide Judge Advo

Conference during 11-14 October 1983. Over 100 se

vocates from posts throughout the world conferred on a

and discussed recent developments in all areas of mili

New editions of AR 27-3, Legal Assistance, and TC 

Justice-Enlisted Personnel Training, for which the Sch

ble, were published during fiscal year 1984. The revisio

27-162, Claims, TC 27-1, Your Conduct in Combat, AS

The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Conve

1907, and GTA 27-1-2, Army Rules for Imposing Nonj

ment, were also completed and will soon be issued. Rev

other publications is ongoing. Fourteen instructional d

made available to attorneys in the field through the De

Information Center. Articles of interest to military atto

to be distributed to the field through the DA PAM 

Military Law Review, and the DA PAM 27-50 seri

Lawyer. 

The Combat Developments Office has been heavi

designing the "Army of Excellence'', the total reorga

Army which replaces the "Army 86" concept. All divisi

24 
PERSONNEL, PLANS AND POLICIES 

With the inclusion of law students participating in the 

Education Program, the strength of the Judge Advoc

Corps at the end of fiscal year 1984 was 1916. Represen

groups were 80 blacks, 19 Hispanics, 14 Asian and Nati

and 167 women. The fiscal year 1984 end strength com

end strength of 1821 in fiscal year 1983, 1815 in fiscal y

1781 in fiscal year 1981. The grade distribution of the Co

of the fiscal year was: 6 general officers, 111 colonels, 2

colonels, 402 majors, 971 captains, and 48 first lieutenan

58 officers (50 captains and 8 first lieutenants) partic

Funded Legal Education Program. There were also 7

ficers. 

To ensure that the best qualified candidates for initia

career status, and The Judge Advocate Officer Graduat

selected, formal boards were convened under The Jud

General's written instructions several times during the 

In November 1983 a selection board was convened to 

tive duty commissioned officers to commence law sch

Funded Legal Education Program. 

Ninety-eight Judge advocate officers completed the f

ice 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 

During fiscal year 1984, five officers completed fully-fu

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

Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA), newly-ap

advocates accessed for the fiscal year were commiss
26 
SPECIAL COURTS·MARTIAL (SA LEVEL) 

NUMBER OF BAO CONDUCT DISCHARGES 

PART 3 ·RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

~EW UNDER ARTICLE 66 ·GENERAL COURTS·MARTIAL 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 ·BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69. GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

PART 4 ·WORKLOAD OF THE U.S. 

TOTAL ON HAND 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-MART1AL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS.MARTIAL 

1 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

PART 5 - APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE THE US ARMY COUR

REVIEW 

NUMBER 

PE ACE NT AGE 

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

PERCENTAGE OF COMA REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCMA 

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

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 

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

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY COMA 

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

LAST REPOFHING PERIOD 

PAGE I OF 2 
SPEl:IAl COURTS·MARTIAL 

PART 9 ·COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS I 4 0 

PART 10 ·STRENGTH 

PART 11 ·NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 

AVERAC>E ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 787•.445' 

RATE PER 1,000 

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

PAGE20F2 

28 
UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 

for 

FISCAL YEAR 1984 

Supervision of the Administration of Military Justic

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

Military Justice, the Judge Advocate General and the 

Advocate General continued to visit commands wit

States, Europe, and the Far East in the supervision of 

tion of military justice. 

Court-Martial Workload. 

There has been a small decrease in the total number o

during fiscal year 1984. (See Exhibit A, attached to th

ing fiscal year 1984, the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Co

Review received for review 4,676 new court-martial case

749 general courts-martial and 3,927 special courts-m

pared with 5,807 courts-martial and 3,927 special co

compared with 5,807 courts-martial, consisting of 717 

martial and 5,090 special courts-martial during fiscal ye

4,676 new cases received by the U.S. Navy-Marine 

Military Review in fiscal year 1984, 4,198 accused requ

counsel (90%). 

Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary. 

The Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary provided mil

770 general courts-martial during fiscal year 1984, a 

cases from the fiscal year 1983 level of 805 general co

fiscal year 1984, 70% (539 of 770 cases) of the general 
Military Judges Course (21 May-8 June 1984), 13 m

(3 USMC Reserve military judges also attended). 

Naval Justice School, Newport, Rhode Island: 

Military Judges Course' (23 July-10 August 198

judges 

(1 USMC Reserve military judge also attended). 

10th Interservice Military Trial Judges Seminar: 

Maxwell AFB, Montgomery, Alabama (2-6 A

military judges 

National Judicial College, Reno, Nevada: 

Criminal Evidence Course (13-18 May 1984) two m

Medical-Scientific Evidence Course (23-28 Septem

military judge 

Advanced Evidence Course (28-30 September 198

judge 

Association of Trial Lawyers of America, Atlantic Cit

Criminal Trial Techniques Seminar (23-24 Ma

military judge 

Federal Bar Association, Washington, DC: 

Newly Appointed District Court Judges Seminar (

one military judge 

Law for Military Attorneys Institute, Fort Sam Hous

General Seminar (24 April-4 May 1984) one milita

U.S. 	 Army Trial Judiciary (European Division), G

Germany: 

Conference (5-17 September 1984) one military ju

Captain Price, Chief Judge until his retirement from th

on 29 July 1984, presented an administrative briefing 

the Military Judges Course at the U.S. Army JAG Sch

30 
g, , p

Law and Procedure." 

Captain Edward M. Byrne, who assumed the dutie

on 29 July 1984, presented an administrative briefing 

tending the Military Judges Course at the Naval 

Newport, Rhode Island, between 7 and 9 August 198

Captain Maitland G. Freed, the Circuit Military J

Judicial Circuit, Norfolk, Virginia, paid a "workin

Military Judges Course at the Naval Justice School, 

Island, between 7 and 11 August 1984. 

In response to a projected decline in caseload, tw

billets will be left unfilled at both the Tidewater Judic

folk, Virginia, and the Southwest Judicial Circuit, Sa

nia. The judge's billet at the Midsouth Judicial Circu

Memphis, Millington, Tennessee, will also be left unf

During fiscal year 1984, total in-court time for all 

was 27,044 hours, 6,210 hours less than in fiscal yea

No major events are anticipated during this fiscal y

adversely affect the performance of the Navy-Mar

Judiciary. 

Naval Legal Service Command 

During fiscal year 1984, the Naval Legal Ser

(NAVLEGSVCCOM) consisted of 20 Naval Legal Ser

21 Naval Legal Service Office Detachments, located i

concentration throughout the world. NAVLEGSVC

also include the Naval Legal Service Trial Defense Ac

Jacksonville, Florida, and its two detachments in Ch

Carolina, and Orlando, Florida; the Naval Justice S

Newport, Rhode Island; and the Office of Legal Coun

Academy, Annapolis, Maryland. The total manpower a

the NAVLEGSVCCOM includes 420 officers, 222 e

and 239 civilian employees (including 24 direct-hire f
p

risen dramatically during the past few years, part

military justice area, partially as a result of the 

tolerance" policy towards substance abuse. Specifically

number of general and special courts-martial has rise

fiscal year 1978 to 6,236 in fiscal year 1984. 

The NAVLEGSVCCOM underwent the following 

changes during fiscal year 1984: 

a. It acquired command responsibility over the 

School. · 

b. The Naval Legal Service Office Detachmen

Mississippi, was established on 1 April 1984. 

Significant events during fiscal year 1984: 

a. Naval Legal Service Command Instruction 

mulgated on 3 January 1984, contains procedure

legal services to remote commands and deployed u

the Naval Legal Service Offices with providing o

vices to requesting commands. 

b. The Judge Advocate General's Managemen

System (JAGMIS) proceeded smoothly through th

phase and into the operational phase. The pilot pr

plemented at the Naval Legal Service Office, Pensa

1984. Additionally, personal computers and associa

were procured and distributed throughout the Nav

Command during October 1984. It is expected tha

be operational by March 1985 and will provide a 

military justice case tracking and management ca

Naval Justice SchooL 

The Naval Justice School in Newport, Rhode Islan

two major changes during fiscal year 1984. On 1 Oc

school changed claimancy from the Chief of Naval 

Training to the Commander, Naval Legal Service Com

32 
p, g 

and various trial advocacy practical exercises. Training 

to 123 Navy lawyers, 63 Marine Corps lawyers, and 1 f

lawyer from Indonesia. 

Legal Officer Course. Seven 5-week courses were pr

the year. This course is designed for the nonlawyer, such 

ficer about to assume duties as a legal officer of a 

squadron, small station, or other military unit with no m

assigned. Included in the course curriculum are 125 hou

instruction and 75 hours of practical exercises and sem

was provided to 225 Navy officers, 51 Marine Corps 

Coast Guard officers. 

Senior Officer Course. This 1-week course, sponsored 

Naval Operations, is designed primarily for commandi

executive officers and is intended to prepare those off

the legal problems normally faced by senior officers 

military justice and civil law. Six courses were held in N

Island, and 159 students attended. An additional 25 co

in the following locations: Jacksonville and May

Charleston, South Carolina (2); Norfolk, Virginia (2); W

and Bangor, Washington; San Francisco, California (

California (2); Camp Pendleton, California; Rota, Spain

Hawaii; Subic Bay, Republic of the Philippines; Yokosu

ris Island, South Carolina; Camp Lejeune, North Carol

Maryland; Memphis, Tennessee; New London, C

Sigonella, Italy; and Quantico, Virginia. The officers a

remote courses were as follows: 

NAVY: 863 

USMC: 367 

USCG: 69 

USA: 14 

USAF: 2 

Civilians: 4 
divided into three phases and offered in alternate yea

introduction to legal clerk duties and familiarization w

ing equipment. Phase II is advanced paralegal train

ters as legal assistance, standards of conduct, claims

search and seizure, and use of court reporting equip

deals exclusively with court reporting techniques and 

intended growth pattern is for Reserve students to 

phases in a 4-year period. During fiscal year 1984, trai

ed to 20 students in phase I and 18 students in phase 

be conducted in July 1985 with an expected particip

imately 20 students. 

Legal Clerk Course. Four 3V2-week classes were c

the year. This course is designed to train enlisted pers

legal yeomen or legal clerks at their respective comma

from the subsequent 5V2-week court reporter course w

quired for conversion to the legalman rating in the Na

Clerk Course commencing 4 August 1984, the cours

duced to 12 days, the syllabus was changed to basic leg

the requirement to attend this course as a prerequisi

legalman was dropped. See "Legalman Course" below

Navy personnel attending the Legal Clerk Course d

year. 

Court Reporter Course. Three 5V2-week courses we

ing fiscal year 1984. The purpose of this course was 

personnel in the field of closed-mask court reporti

coupled with the Legal Clerk Course, now provides the 

ing for advancing to the legalman rating. Training 

Navy and 9 Army personnel. See "Legalman Course

Legalman Course. This course was created by 

3V2-week Legal Clerk Course and the 5V2-week Court 

into one 9-week course of instruction. The subject ma

the two courses was combined and augmented to pr

the military justice system, administrative and civil l

assistance, legal research, trial/defense paralegal tech

34 
Martia~ 1984, prompted revisions in virtually ever

authored at the Naval Justice School. The revised Ch

Manual of the Judge Advocate General necessitated fur

The revisions involved over 4 months of intense rewritin

administrative, clerical, and printing support. Cours

revised accordingly, and the 1 August 1984 changes we

phasized in the fleet courses. 

The Naval Justice School acquired the West Autom

minal (WALT) system this fiscal year. This computer

research system is primarily used by staff instructors 

updating, but introductory training is offered on a v.ol

all interested lawyer students. 

Marine Corps Activities. 

a. During fiscal year 1984, the Director, Judge Advo

became a full voting member of the Code Committee est

the authority of Article 67(g), Uniform Code of Militar

change was effected by the Military Justice Act of 198

b. Throughout fiscal year 1984, increased emphasis w

activities of Reserve Mobilization Training Units (MTUs

MTUs have provided over 8,000 hours of legal services 

tive and Reserve units, dependents, and retirees. MTU 

recently placed first in the military category of the 

Lawyers Division for Comprehensive Achievements 

special ABA recognition for their project on minority re

prepare for the increased demand for experienced judge

of mobilization, five Reserve officers are assigned to 

billets as certified military judges in the Navy-Marin

Judiciary. 

c. On 2 August 1984, the Marine Corps published 

Order 3300.3. It addresses a comprehensive Law of W

gram, consolidating all pre-existing LOW-related subj

viding an extensive reference index. The order pro
supervise defense counsel performance and prepare 

fitness reports. Command flexibility is retained, ho

judge advocates will still have authority to reassign j

to meet requirements generated by local caseload

consuming prior references to Headquarters, U.S. Ma

f. During fiscal year 1984, nine Marines attended ye

including the Naval War College, the Armed Forces S

Command and Staff College, and the Army JAG Scho

ville. One hundred and forty-six Marine judge adv

civilian and military schools for courses lasting from 3 

g. The Director, Judge Advocate Division, visite

Parris Island and Beaufort, South Carolina; Quanti

Toro, California; Yuma, Arizona; Hawaii; Okinaw

Japan; and the Naval Justice School and Army JAG 

h. Twenty-three of our 409 judge advocates are serv

or staff (nonlawyer) assignments. 

i. On 12 October 1984, the Honorable Walter Cox 

Court of Military Appeals, visited the Judge Advoca

was given detailed briefings. At the Annual Marine C

ficers Symposium, each commanding general extended 

Judge Cox to visit the bases and commands of int

schedule is being arranged. 

Article 69, UCMJ, Applications. 

a. The number of applications filed pursuant to Art

Code of Military Justice, under which the Judge Ad

may vacate or modify the findings or sentence of cour

have become final in the sense of Article 76, but have n

by the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Revi

25 percent during fiscal year 1984. 

b. In fiscal year 1984, 73 applications were receive

Advocate General. Ten applications were pending from 

these 83 cases, 51 were reviewed during fiscal year 19

36 
by the Judge Advocate General, and one petition was f

U.S. Court of Military Appeals for appropriate review

penc:hug receipt of the record of trial, one petition w

compliance with procedural requirements, and one peti

after the end of the fiscal year. 

Article 74(b), UCMJ, Petitions. 

Four new petitions were submitted in fiscal year 198

Secretary of the Navy to substitute an administrativ

the punitive discharge executed pursuant to the sent

martial. One case was pending from the prior fiscal yea

granted one petition and denied one. Three petitio

review. 

T.E.FLYNN 

Rear Admiral, JAGC, 

Judge Advocate Gene
PART 2 ·DISCHARGES APPROVED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL (CA LEVELi 

NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 

NUMBER OF BAO CONDUCT DISCHARGES 

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL (SA LEVEL} 

NUMBER OF BAO CONDUCT 01SCHARGES 

PART 3 ·RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 ·GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 - BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

PART 4 ·WORKLOAD OF THE NAV¥ 

TOTAL ON HANO BEGINNING OF PERIOD 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

REFERRED FOR RE;VIEW 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

eco SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

RATE OF INCREASE {+I/DECREASE 1-1 OVER NUMBER OF CASES 

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD -I 

PA.RT 5 ·APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE CO

REVIEW 

_N·"'·u_RM"'c"•"'ENc."Tc..A_G_E____.___..c4'-!1~99"'8o""7.---'I•.. =,·.:~,~....::.}.'.•.:~.: :::::::::::::::::·:::::·::::::.;:::;:::::::;:::;::::::::::::::::·:····. 

. ;:::;::::::::=::::;:;:::::::::::;:;:;:::;:::\:)}~:~:):::::::-:· .·. 

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

PERCENTAGE OF COMA REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCMA 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE {•)/DECREASE (-1 OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOO 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE !•I/DECREASE 1-l OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY COMA 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE 1-1 OVER THE NUMBER OF CASES REVIEWED DURING 

LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

PAGE/ OF2 

Note: Parts 1,2,8 and II contain manual figures.for 4th Quarte

38 
PART 9 - COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS I 113 


PART 10 - STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 607 692 


PART 11 - NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 

RATE PEA 1,000 

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

PACE20F2 

Military Justice, The Judge Advocate General, Major G

B. Bruton, and Deputy Judge Advocate General, 

Robert W. Norris made official staff inspections of fiel

the United States and overseas. They also attended and 

various bar association meetings and addressed ma

sional and military organizations. 

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS AND 


US AIR FORCE JUDICIARY ACTIVITIES 


During fiscal year (FY) 1984; the Judiciary Director

of the Judge Advocate General processed over 3844 ac

military justice. The Directorate has the overall re

supervising the administration of military justice 

United States Air Force, from nonjudicial proceedin

review of courts-martial. Additionally, the Directora

responsibility of the Office of The Judge Advocate 

military justice matters which arise in connection 

special projects, studies and inquiries generated by 

Headquarters USAF, the Secretaries, Departments of 

Navy, and Air Force, members of Congress and othe

and civil agencies. Several of the Directorate's activiti

below: 

a. The Judiciary Directorate serves as the action 

review of military justice issues in applications subm

Force Board for Correction of Military Records. Form

provided to the Secretary of the Air Force concerning 1

b. The Directorate received 1113 inquiries in specific 

either formal written replies or telephonic replies to sen

ficials, including the President and members of Congr

c. The Directorate provided representatives to all 

tivities involving military justice. This included the Joi

mittee and support for the Code Committee. As d
bases. It enables the Department to answer specific inq

in progress and to prepare studies on various aspec

justice administration, as required by Congress and oth

tal agencies. 

During FY 1984 the system produced approximatel

reports on a monthly and quarterly basis. The system w

answer many individual requests for particular statistic

These special requests were received from such activitie

Armed Services Committee, Air Force Security Polic

Force Military Personnel Center. 

Trial Judiciary 

The Air Force Trial Judiciary had an average of 33 

judges, including the Chief Trial Judge and his assista

12 locations worldwide. A new district office with 

military judge was opened at Torrejon AB, Spain, to 

difficulties and the workload in the Sixth Circuit. 

A pilot program of selected Reserve judge advoca

special court-martial judges was a success. It is now a p

tion to the Trial Judiciary and has been expanded 

Reserve officers to sit as general court-martial judges a

qualified. Two additional Reserve officers were added 

the five circuits in the United States has an assigned R

judge. 

Circuit Trial Counsel Program 

To directly support the urinalysis drug control progr

tional circuit trial counsel were authorized through the e

raising the number to 23. Thereafter, a headquarters re

the number to be cut by two, to 21. The percentage of t

counsel were TDY increased from 45% to 49.5% of assi

42 
() 

() 

() () 

(

In support of the urinalysis program at least one circ

from each circuit was specially trained. The enforced 

only trained counsel would prosecute the complex 

scientific evidence of drug abuse. The prosecution of 

cases continues to meet with success. 

Appellate Government Counsel 

In preparation for practice before the United States 

our appellate government counsel worked with their 

the sister services and the Department of Justice to f

for this certiorari practice. A complete plan estab

sibilities, coordination requirements, and suspenses wa

The Court of Military Appeals did not decide any 

suitable for certiorari petition in FY 1984. Thus, th

Force cases submitted to the Supreme Court. 

Area Defense Counsel Program 

The Area Defense Counsel Program celebrated its 1

in 1984. A recent survey of major command (MAJCO

confirmed the outstanding success and acceptability 

and its operational practices will remain the same int

future. There are now about 120 defense counsel ass

stallations. Due to increased operations resulting from 

of ground-launched cruise missiles, efforts are in pro

two additional defense counsel. 

The Reserve Area Defense Counsel Augmentation 

commenced in the summer of 1984. Five reservists 

Area Defense Counsel offices at Chanute AFB, Illinois

New Jersey, Langley AFB, Virginia, Andrews AFB, 

Randolph AFB, Texas, -.vere certified pursuant to the p

ticle 27(b), UCMJ (10 USC 827(b)), by JAG Order on 2
AFB, Colorado, disposition boards are convened in all c

finement exceeds four months. 

The Fort Lewis Installation Detention Facility (IDF

accepting Air Force prisoners in the latter part of FY 19

full allocation of 125 Air Force prisoners by May 1984

20 prisoners are turned over each month. The original a

the Army was to confine prisoners with between 60 days 

time remaining in their sentence. During FY 1984 t

was increased to 24 months. In limited situations, pris

entry to the USDB may be approved for transfer to 

IDF and confined there until space becomes ava.ij.able 

The rehabilitation program at the 3320th CRS, Lo

Base, continues to operate successfully, but with a 

population. The average load in the program is about h

in FY 1983. Use of this program for convicted airmen w

ise for restoration is consistent with a quality force an

be Air Force policy. 

At the end of the fiscal year, 7 4 7 Air Force personnel 

ment, 80 pretrial and 667 post-trial. There were 71 Air F

on parole and 78 on leave. 

PREVENTIVE LAW AND LEGAL ASSISTANCE PRO

The Air Force Legal Assistance Program continued t

ly in terms of total numbers of clients and cases (over 

and 1.1 million cases during calendar year 1983) but a

research resources available to legal assistance pro

reference guides to the laws of the fifty states on dom

wills and estates, consumer protection, garnishment and 

notarial acts were distributed by the Preventive Law 

Group. Moreover, a microfiche bank of selected legal art

44 
and extent of their potential liability to the United State

to their assigned quarters or government provided furn

plementary initiative, still underway, involves educating 

industry to the special insurance needs of military housi

with a view to the development of a policy tailored to s

These programs have contributed to improved morale

munity more sensitive to the legal implications of thei

tivities and the timely resolution of countless individual l

which, if allowed to fester, could have adversely aff

complishment of the Air Force mission. 

FEDERAL LEGAL INFORMATION THROUGH 


ELECTRONICS (FLITE) 


The Office of The Judge Advocate General continu

FLITE's data bases during FY 1984. Plans were laid to c

torate of Legal Information Services to manage the 

Automation Project as well as successor information 

systems to AMJAMS and CAMPS. Lt Col Raymond R

arrived in August of 1984 to assume the dual roles of 

Automated Data Processing Single Manager for the L

Center. A new Program Management Division was also 

manned. Initial project funding will be in FY 1985. 

Funds were received from the Department of Defense 

Defense Emergency Authorities Retrieval and Anal

(DEARAS). This system will be maintained on microcom

laser disk storage in order to be independent of telecom

The data base will consist of selected statutes, regulatio

and "shelf legislation" related to emergency authority an

New key-word-in-context (KWIC) indexes of the Federa

Regulation (FAR) and of statutes and Comptroller Gene

related to Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities wer

distributed in microfiche format. 
The Reporter will remain in multiple colors through 

EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

The Judge Advocate General's Department provid

tinuing legal education (CLE) opportunities to its pe

its sister services, during FY 1984. 

The Air Force Judge Advocate General School 

Resident Courses 

The Air Force Judge Advocate General School

Management Development Center, Maxwell AFB

ducted the following courses in FY 1984. 

a. Advanced Trial Advocacy Course - A 1-week co

in 1984, providing training in advanced advocacy s

vocates currently serving as or selected for circui

counsel. Thirty-six judge advocates attended this co

b. Claims and Tort Litigation Course - This co

struction to supervisory personnel assigned to litig

positions. This course was offered to both lawyers an

was attended by 58 attorneys and 70 paralegals. 

c. Environmental Law Course -This 1-week cours

attorneys, provided specialized instruction to attorne

addressing and resolving environmental problems. 

d. Federal Employee Labor Law Course - This 

specialized instruction to lawyers who represent th

ministrative proceedings involving complaints again

labor negotiations. Sixty attorneys received train

through this course. 

e. Judge Advocate Staff Officer Course - A co

weeks of instruction on the basics of military law. T

fered 4 times in FY 1984 and was attended by 193 jud

1 foreign officer. 

46 
y g

military judges a forum in which to present and 

developments in military justice. This course was offere

1984 and was attended by 59 military judges from all s

j. Legal Services Advanced Course - This 2-week co

law office management education to Noncommissio

(NCOs). It was offered once to 47 Air Force NCOs and 

the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. 

k. Basic Legal Services Specialist Training. This tra

ducted at the Legal Services Specialist Course at K

Mississippi. It was offered 11 times during FY 1984 to 14

NCOs. Legal Services refresher training is also conduct

AFB, Mississippi. 

Videotape and Seminar Programs 

Laws of Federal Labor/Management Relations ........... 

Trial Techniques .................................... 

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

Federal Income Tax ................................. 

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

Appellate Commentary .............................. 

Environmental Law ................................. 

Computer Assisted Legal Research ..................... 

Estate Planning .................................... 

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

Impeachment under the Military Rule of Evidence ......... 

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

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

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

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

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

Government Lawyer & Professional Responsibility ........ 

Government Contract Law ............................ 
During FY 1984, six judge advocates received their 

degrees in government contract law, three in environme

international law, two in labor law, one in criminal l

space law. 

U.S. Army JAG School and Naval Justice School Courses 

Eighty-one judge advocates attended the basic pr

course, twenty attended the advanced procurement law 

attended the military judge's course at the U.S. Arm

Charlottesville, Virginia. Judge advocates also attend

War Workshop, Advanced Law of War Seminar, the 

Advocacy Course, and the Fiscal Law Course at the U

School. Three judge advocates attended the military ju

the Naval Justice School, Newport, Rhode Island. 

PERSONNEL 

As of 30 September 1984, there were 1332 judge advo

duty. This total included 5 generals, 105 colonels, 206 

onels, 310 majors, 652 captains, and 54 first lieutenan

THOMAS B. BR

Major Genera~ 

The Judge Ad

48 
GENUIAL COUIUS·MAATIAL IC.A LEVELJ 

NUMIEJllll 0' OISHONOflllABLE DISCHARGES 

NUMIEA OF BAO CONDUCT DISCHARGES 

SPECIAL COUl'tTS·M.4illlTIAL ISA LEVEL) 

98 

.<l.l. 

NUMllELlll OF BAO CONDUCT DISCHARGES 363 

PART 3. RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

TOTAL ON HANO BEGINNING OllS PERIOO ·..:::;:;::··· 

GENElllAL COUATS·MAATl.A.L 

REFERRED FOA REVIEW 

GENERAL COURTS-MAAT!Al. 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL ,ENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

r.co SPEClAl. COURTS·MARTIAL 

FOflll REVIEW UNOElll A ATIC LI ff· GENERAL COUATS-MAATtAL 

FOLlll fllllVIEW UNOE,. AATICLI ff. aco SPECIAL COUATS-MAlllJTIAL 

FOLlll EXAMINATION UNOElll ALlllTICLE 99 ·GENE Ill AL COUATS-MAATIAL 

PART 4 ·WORKLOAD OF THE AIR FORCE 

RATE OF INCREASE l+)/OECREASE {-)OVER NVMIER 0' CASES 


REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING Pf:llllQO + 1.7% 


PART 5 ·APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE AIR FORCE COU

REVIEW 

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

PERCENTAGE OF COMllt'REVIEWEO CASES FORWARDED TO USCMA 528/774 

PERCENTAO I OJI INCfllll!ASI {+I/DECREASE 1-1 OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OJI TOTAL P'ETITIONS GRANTED 6Q/ 5 2 8 

P'ERCENTAGI! OP INCREASE (+)/DECREASE(-) OVER PREVIOUS REl'ORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOT Al CASES RE VIEWED av COMA 6o·117 4 

FIATE OF INCREASE l+l/OECREASE 1-1 OVER Tl-IE NUMBER OF CASES REVIEWED OU RING 

LAST REPORTING PER100 

PAGEi OF! 
• S,.ECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 438 

PART 9 ·COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMBER 0'1 COMPLAINTS I 36 

PART 10 ·STRENGTH 


AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 580,265 !\::.::····-:::::.·:····· 


PART 11 ·NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15) 

NUMBER OF CASES WMERE NONJUDICIAL l'UNISHMENT IMPOSED 25 682 RATE PER 1,000 44.26 RATE OF INCREASE f+)/OECFllEASE (-)OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD - 14. 4% 

PAGE 20F 2 

50 
Th:> table below shows the number of court-martial rec

and filed at Coast Guard Headquarters during FY-84 

preceding years. 

Fiscal Year 84 83 82 81 

General Courts-Martial 6 10 9 2 

Special Courts-Martial 33 68 79 58 

Summary Courts-Martial. 105 128 151 192 

Total ... 144 206 239 252 

COURTS-MARTIAL 

Attorney counsel and military judges are detailed 

courts-martial. For most cases, the presiding judge was 

general courts-martial judge. When he was unavaila

judges with other primary duties were utilized for sp

martial. Control of the detail of judges is centrally exe

Chief Trial Judge, and all requirements have been me

fashion. 

General Courts-Martial 

Charges referred to the six general courts-martial conv

included 21 specifications alleging violations of Article

and 134 (only two of these courts involved marijuana or o

ed drugs). One accused was tried by military judge alone 

and he received a sentence which included a bad conduct 

the five accuseds tried by courts with members, tw

sentence which included a bad conduct discharge. 
referred to special courts-martial. 

Violation of the UCMJ, Article 

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

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

91 (willful disobedience or disrespect) ........................

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

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

121 (larceny and wrongful appropriations) ....................

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

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

134 or 92 (marijuana offenses) .............................

134 or 92 (other controlled drug offenses) .....................

other offenses ..........................................

The following is a breakdown of sentences awarde

judge alone in special courts-martial (9 convictions). 

Sentence 

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

confinement at hard labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

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

forfeiture of pay ($5,850 total) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

others ........................................ · · · · · · · · 

In 4 of these 9 convictions, the accused pled guilty t

specifications. 

The following is a breakdown of sentences awarded 

martial with members (23 convictions). 

52 
In 6 of these 23 convictions, the accused pied guil

and specifications. 

The following indicates the three sentences imposed 

courts-martial in the past three fiscal years. 

Number of Reductio

FY Convictions Forfeitures Confinement in grad

84 32 21(66%) 18(56%) 26(81%

83 62 35(56%) 35(56%) 49(79%

82 74 48(65%) 41(55%) 46(62%

Summary 

Three of the six general courts-martial, two with m

with military judge alone, adjudged a sentence which 

conduct discharge. Twenty-seven percent of the a

special court-martial were tried by military judge alon

percent of them pied guilty to all charges and specifi

five percent of the accused tried by special court-marti

pied guilty to all charges and specifications. There was 

decrease in the total courts-martial this fiscal year fr

CHIEF COUNSEL ACTION UNDER ARTICLE 69, 

In addition to the required reviews of courts-martia

result of petitions filed by accused under Article 69, 

tionary review is conducted under Article 69 of all co

requiring appellate review. Five actions were taken as 

reviews, as follows: 

Findings of guilty and sentence set aside, charges co

be referred to another court-martial convened by 

proper authority or could be dismissed . . . . . . . . . . . 

Findings of guilty and sentence set aside, charges 

dismissed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
military judges in special courtsmartial when require

The Ninth Coast Guard Basic Law Specialist Course 

Coast Guard Reserve Training Center, Yorktown, Vi

September 1984 through· 2 November 1984. The sev

normally introduces both the direct commissioned la

regular officers, just completing law school, to the m

would soon perform as Coast Guard law specialists. 

course was devoted to military justice. Nonjudici

jurisdiction, professional responsibility and ethics, co

trial/defense counsel duties, and the Articles of the 

quently litigated were some of the areas covered. Ea

given an opportunity to demonstrate recently acquired 

skills in moot courts. Nineteen Coast Guard officer

undergoing post-graduate studies in law and will be 

specialists at the completion of their studies. 

Court Reporting Course. A two week experimental 

reporting was held at the Coast Guard Reserve T

Yorktown, Virginia, from 17 through 28 October 1983. 

this experimental course was to determine whether th

could train its own enlisted personnel in the field of op

reporting in a relatively short period of time. A secon

course is scheduled for October 1984 and will be exp

weeks in duration. 

ADDITIONAL MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTIC

Appendix A contains additional basic military justi

the reporting period and reflects the increase/decrease 

in various categories. 

EDWIN H. DANIE

Rear Admiral US

Chief Counsel, U.S

54 
TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD +100 

NUMBER OF BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGES 

SPECIAL COUATS·MAATlAL CSA LEVEL) 

NUMBER OF BAO CONDUCT DISCHARGES 

PART 3 - RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 ·GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL Q) 

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 ·BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL Q) 

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69- GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL Q) 

PART 4 - WORKLOAD OF THE COAST GUARD 

TOTAL ON HANO BEGINNING OF PERIOD 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

07 

11 

03 

03 

PART 5 ·APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE COAST GUARD COU

REVIEW 

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

PERCENTAGE OF COMA REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCMA 8/14 

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

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 018 PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE f+l/OECREASE (-I OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY COMA Q/14 

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE 1-) OVER THE NUMBER OF CASES REVIEWED OUR ING 

LAST REPORTING PEAtOO 

PAGEIOF2 
GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 05 SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 24 

PART 9 - COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS I 04 

PART 10 - STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 38,853 

PART 11 - NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15) 

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 

RATE PER 1,000 

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

PAGE 20F 2 

1. Military judges are assigned to all cases refe=ed to speci

The Coast Guard, therefore, considers all special courts-martia

BCD cases. 


2. In one general court-martial case before the CMR, the proce

abated due to the death of the marrtier while on appellate leave. 

56 •u.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING