ANNUAL REPORT

SUBMITTED TO THE

COMMITTEES ON ARMED SERVICES

of the

United States Senate

and the

United States House of Representatives

and to the

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION,

and

SECRETARIES OF THE

ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORCE

PURSUANT TO THE

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

For the Period

October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2002
CONTENTS

Section 1: JOINT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CODE COMMITTEE

Section 2: REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ARMED FORCES

Section 3: REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE ARMY

Section 4: REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY

Section 5: REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE AIR FORCE

Section 6: REPORT OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL OF THE COAST GUARD
SECTION 1

JOINT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CODE COMMITTEE
JOINT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE

CODE COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO THE

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2002

 The Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces,

the Judge Advocate Generals of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, the Chief

Counsel of the Coast Guard, the Director, Judge Advocate Division,

Headquarters, United States Marine Corps, Professor Lee D. Schinasi, and

United States Magistrate Judge Jacob Hagopian, Public Members appointed by

the Secretary of Defense, submit their annual report on the operation of

the Uniform Code of Military Justice pursuant to Article 146, Uniform Code

of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 946.

 The Code Committee met on May 16, 2002, to consider various matters

pertaining to the administration of military justice. As in previous

years, the meeting was open to the public. The Committee received a report

from the Joint Service Committee on Military Justice that summarized

changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for CourtsMartial. The Joint Service Committee representative reported that the

Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act included two amendments

to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first amendment modified

Article 111 of the Code by changing the blood alcohol limit for the offense

of drunk driving to agree with that of the state where the offense was

committed, but not more than .10 percent. The second amendment requires no

less than twelve court-martial members in capital cases, unless the

convening authority determines that twelve members are not reasonably

available due to military exigencies. The committee representative also

reported changes to the Manual for Courts-Martial that included a one-year

limit on confinement at special courts-martial and the inclusion of a more

narrow definition of adulterous relationships which are prejudicial to good

order and discipline or are service discrediting. Other matters under

consideration are a review of the nonjudicial punishment provisions of

Article 15 of the UCMJ, the recommendation of the Department of Defense's

Domestic Violence Task Force, a comparison of the International Criminal

Court’s provisions and the UCMJ, and a proposal for allowing an accused to

request sentencing by the military judge following a conviction by members.

 The Code Committee requested the Joint Service Committee to study the

use of pleas of nolo contendere in courts-martial and the possibility of

providing sentencing credit for pretrial confinement or restriction when

confinement is not adjudged by a court-martial.
 Separate reports of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed

Forces and the individual Armed Forces address further items of special

interest to the Committees on Armed Services of the United States Senate

and the United States House of Representatives, as well as the Secretaries

of Defense, Transportation, Army, Navy, and Air Force.

SUSAN J. CRAWFORD

Chief Judge

H. F. “SPARKY” GIERKE

Associate Judge

ANDREW S. EFFRON

Associate Judge

JAMES E. BAKER

Associate Judge

EUGENE R. SULLIVAN

Senior Judge

Major General THOMAS J. ROMIG, USA

The Judge Advocate General of the Army

Rear Admiral MICHAEL F. LOHR, USN

The Judge Advocate General of the Navy

Major General THOMAS J. FISCUS, USAF

The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force

Rear Admiral R. F. DUNCAN, USCG

Chief Counsel, U.S. Coast Guard

Brigadier General KEVIN SANDKUHLER, USMC

Director, Judge Advocate Division

Headquarters, United States Marine Corps

Professor LEE D. SCHINASI

Public Member

Magistrate Judge JACOB HAGOPIAN

Public Member

2
SECTION 2

REPORT OF THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ARMED FORCES
REPORT OF THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ARMED FORCES

October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2002

 The Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

submit their annual report on the administration of the Court and military

justice during the 2002 Term of the Court to the Committees on Armed

Services of the United States Senate and the United States House of

Representatives, and to the Secretaries of Defense, Transportation, Army,

Navy, and Air Force in accordance with Article 146, Uniform Code of

Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 946.

THE BUSINESS OF THE COURT

 The filing and disposition of cases are set forth in the attached

statistical report and graphs. Additional information pertaining to

specific opinions is available from the Court’s published opinions and

Daily Journal. Other dispositions may be found in the Court’s official

reports, West’s Military Justice Reporter and on the Court’s web site.

 Senior Judge Eugene R. Sullivan served the entire Term of Court as an

active Judge. Additionally, Senior Judge Walter T. Cox, III, was recalled

and participated in the review and decision of several cases.

 During the 2002 Term of Court, the Court admitted 363 attorneys to

practice before its Bar, bringing the cumulative total of admissions before

the Bar of the Court to 32,589.

RETIREMENT OF JUDGE EUGENE R. SULLIVAN

 On September 30, 2001, Judge Eugene R. Sullivan’s term as a Judge of

the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces expired. However,

at the request of the Court he continued to serve as a Senior Judge for the

entire 2002 Term of the Court. His many years of service are greatly

appreciated by the Judges and Staff of the Court.
PUBLIC AWARENESS PROJECT

(PROJECT OUTREACH)

 In furtherance of a practice established in 1987, the Court scheduled

several special sessions and heard oral arguments in selected cases outside

its permanent Courthouse in Washington, D.C., during the 2002 Term of

Court. This practice, known as “Project Outreach,” was developed as part

of a public awareness program to demonstrate the operation of a Federal

Court of Appeals, and the quality of the military’s criminal justice

system. The Court conducted hearings during this period, without objection

of the parties, at the University of Virginia School of Law,

Charlottesville, Virginia, the Catholic University of America, Columbus

School of Law, Washington, D.C., the United States Naval Academy,

Annapolis, Maryland, the Georgetown University Law Center, Washington,

D.C., the United States Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado,

Seattle University School of Law, Seattle, Washington, and Fort Lewis,

Washington.

 “Project Outreach” has continued to promote an increased public

awareness of the fundamental fairness of the military criminal justice

system and the role of the Court in its administration. The Court hopes

that those who attend these hearings from both military and civilian

communities will garner further appreciation for the United States

military, the UCMJ, and the essential role both play in providing for the

national security of the United States.

JUDICIAL VISITATIONS

 During the 2002 Term of Court, the Judges of the Court, consistent

with past practice and their ethical responsibility to oversee and improve

the entire military criminal justice system, participated in professional

training programs for military and civilian lawyers, spoke to professional

groups of judges and lawyers and visited with staff judge advocates and

commanders at various military installations throughout the world.

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE

 On May 14 and 15, 2002, the Court held its annual Judicial Conference

at the Marvin Center, George Washington University, Washington, D.C. The

program for this Judicial Conference was certified for credit to meet the

continuing legal education requirements of numerous State Bars throughout

the United States. The Conference opened with welcoming remarks by the

Honorable Susan J. Crawford, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals

for the Armed Forces, followed by speakers for this year’s Conference,

including Professor Jonathan R. Turley, George Washington University School

of Law, Professor Jeffrey Rosen, George Washington University School of

Law, Dr. Wayne Blackmon, George Washington University School of Law,

Colonel Lawrence J. Morris, USA, Chief, Criminal Law Division, Office of

2
the Judge Advocate General, United States Army, Lieutenant Commander

Rebecca A. Conrad, JAGC, USN, Naval Justice School, United States Navy,

Colonel Charles R. Myers, USAF (Ret.), United States Air Force Academy,

Professor Stephen A. Saltzburg, George Washington University School of Law,

Professor Kenneth R. Feinberg, Georgetown University School of Law,

Professor Ronald H. Spector, George Washington University History

Department, Dr. Gary D. Solis, Chief, Oral History, United States Marine

Corps, Major Bradley J. Huestis, USA, Professor, Criminal Law Division, The

Judge Advocate General’s School, United States Army, and Major Timothy C.

MacDonnell, USA, Professor, Criminal Law Division, The Judge Advocate

General’s School, United States Army.

SUSAN J. CRAWFORD

Chief Judge

H.F. “SPARKY” GIERKE

Associate Judge

ANDREW S. EFFRON

Associate Judge

JAMES A. BAKER

Associate Judge

EUGENE R. SULLIVAN

Senior Judge

3
USCA STATISTICAL REPORT

2002 TERM OF COURT

CUMULATIVE SUMMARY

CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 1, 2001

Master Docket .............................. 60

Petition Docket ............................ 190

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

TOTAL ...................................... 253

CUMULATIVE FILINGS

Master Docket .............................. 103

Petition Docket ............................ 974

Miscellaneous Docket ....................... 30

TOTAL ......................................1107

CUMULATIVE TERMINATIONS

Master Docket .............................. 113

Petition Docket ............................ 863

Miscellaneous Docket ....................... 31

TOTAL ......................................1007

CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 1, 2002

Master Docket .............................. 50

Petition Docket ............................ 301

Miscellaneous Docket ....................... 2

TOTAL ...................................... 353

OPINION SUMMARY

CATEGORY SIGNED PER CURIAM MEM/ORDER TOTAL

Master Docket ........... 70 2 41 113

Petition Docket ......... 0 1 862 863

Miscellaneous Docket .... 0 2 29 31

TOTAL ................... 70 5 932 1007

4
FILINGS (MASTER DOCKET)

 Remanded from Supreme Court ............... 1

 Returned from Court of Criminal Appeals.... 0

 Mandatory appeals filed ................... 0

 Certificates filed ........................ 1

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

 Petitions granted (from Petition Docket)... 101

 TOTAL ..................................... 103

TERMINATIONS (MASTER DOCKET)

 Findings & sentence affirmed .............. 69

 Reversed in whole or in part .............. 41 Signed .... 70

 Granted petitions vacated ................. 0 Per curiam ... 2

 Other disposition directed ................ 3 Mem/order .. 41

 TOTAL ..................................... 113 TOTAL ...... 113

PENDING (MASTER DOCKET)

 Awaiting briefs ........................... 10

 Awaiting oral argument .................... 22

 Awaiting lead case decision (trailer cases) 18

 Awaiting final action ..................... 0

 TOTAL ..................................... 50

FILINGS (PETITION DOCKET)

 Petitions for grant of review filed ....... 957

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

 Cross-petitions for grant filed ........... 14

 Petitions for reconsideration granted ..... 0

 Returned from Court of Criminal Appeals ... 0

 TOTAL ..................................... 974

TERMINATIONS (PETITION DOCKET)

 Petitions for grant dismissed ............. 1

 Petitions for grant denied ................ 746

 Petitions for grant granted ............... 101

 Petitions for grant remanded .............. 2 Signed ...... 0

 Petitions for grant withdrawn ............. 13 Per curiam .. 1

 Other ..................................... 0 Mem/order.. 862

 TOTAL ..................................... 863 TOTAL .... 863

5
PENDING (PETITION DOCKET)

 Awaiting briefs ........................... 156

 Awaiting Central Legal Staff review ....... 67

 Awaiting final action ..................... 78

 TOTAL ..................................... 301

FILINGS (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET)

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

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

 Writs of habeas corpus sought ............... 5

 Other extraordinary relief sought ........... 9

 Writ appeals sought ......................... 16

 TOTAL ....................................... 30

TERMINATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET)

 Petitions withdrawn ......................... 0

 Petitions remanded .......................... 0

 Petitions granted ........................... 3

 Petitions denied ............................ 28 Signed .... 0

 Petitions dismissed ......................... 0 Per curiam. 1

 Other ....................................... 0 Mem/order.. 30

 TOTAL ....................................... 31 TOTAL ..... 31

PENDING (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET)

 Awaiting briefs ............................. 2

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

 Awaiting final action ....................... 0

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

RECONSIDERATIONS & REHEARINGS

BEGIN END DISPOSITIONS

CATEGORY PENDING FILINGS PENDING Granted Denied Total

All Cases ..... 0 24 0 4 20 24

MOTIONS ACTIVITY

BEGIN END DISPOSITIONS

CATEGORY PENDING FILINGS PENDING Granted Denied Other Total

All motions ..... 7 536 3 512 28 0 540

6
Petition Docket Year End Pe

353

291 295

379

235

290

226

152

190

0

100200300400500

FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 
Master Docket Year End Pen

152

119

105

73

156

105

77 70

60

0

50

100150200

FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 

1/ This figure does not include 87 trailer cases to United States v. Mitchell, No. 93-1044/NA, and 9 trailer cases 

Rexroat, No. 93-5007/AR.

2/ This figure does not include 133 trailer cases to United States v. Gorski, No. 97-0034/AF.

1/ 2/
Oral Arguments Per Year

122

144

112 116 115

131

116 113

81

0

255075

100125150

FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 
Total Opinions Per Yea

112

129

101

144

95

111

117 118

107 113

104

129

102

123 124

110

75 

0

255075

100125150

FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 F

TOTAL SEPARATE OPINIONS (CONCUR, CONCUR IN THE RESULTTOTAL COURT OPINIONS
Days from Petition Filing to 

113 109

151

143 140 145

168

129 133 

0

255075

100125150175200

FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 
Days from Petition Gran

 to Oral Argument

188

244

276

213

161

189

166

148

125 

0

50

100150200250300

FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 
Days from Oral Argument

 to Final Decision

159 166 169

194

163 165

182

169 17

0

50

100150200250

FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 
Days from Petition Filin

to Final Decision

90

258

92

312

90

473

75

486

99

380

82

371

85

429

70

380

70

330

0

50

100150200250300350400450500550

FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 

PETITION DOCKET (DENIAL/DISMISSAL/WITHDRAWAL)MASTER DOCKET (GRANTED/CERTIFIED/DEATH CASES)
Days from Petition Filin

to Final Decision

90

258

92

312

90

473

75

486

99

380

82

371

85

429

70

380

70

330

0

50

100150200250300350400450500550

FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 

PETITION DOCKET (DENIAL/DISMISSAL/WITHDRAWAL)MASTER DOCKET (GRANTED/CERTIFIED/DEATH CASES)

Days from Filing to

Final Decision in All Cas

145

178

138

120

139

166

139

129

110 

0

20406080

100120140160180

FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 
Total Petitions Filed Per 

1610

1514

1251

1435

1234 1197

1051

753

926 

0

250500750

1000125015001750200022502500

FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 
SECTION 3

REPORT OF THE

JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE ARMY
REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE ARMY

OCTOBER 1, 2001 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2002

During fiscal year 2002 (FY 02) and in compliance with Article 6(a),

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), The Judge Advocate General and

senior members of his staff made 29 official visits at 44 installations in

the United States and overseas. In addition, the Office of The Judge

Advocate General (OTJAG) continued to monitor courts-martial, review and

prepare military publications and regulations, and develop and draft

changes to the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) and the UCMJ. Through its

Field Operating Agencies, OTJAG provided judicial and appellate services,

advice, assistance, and professional education to ensure the efficient

administration of military justice. Numbers in this report are based on an

average Army end strength of 516,599 in FY 02. The Army end strength

number for this year includes 486,500 Regular Army personnel on duty as of

30 September 2002 and includes an average of 26,443 mobilized Army Reserve

and National Guard personnel supporting Operations Enduring Freedom and

Noble Eagle, and an average of 3,656 mobilized Army Reserve and National

Guard personnel supporting operations in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Southwest

Asia. The Army end strength was 480,801 for FY 01. The FY 01 and prior

year numbers did not include the small number of mobilized reserve

component personnel on active duty.

SIGNIFICANT MILITARY JUSTICE ACTIONS

The Criminal Law Division, OTJAG, advises The Judge Advocate General

on military justice policy, legislation, opinions, and related criminal law

actions. Specific responsibilities include the following: promulgating

military justice regulations, reviewing Army regulations for legal

sufficiency, military corrections, the Army's drug testing program, federal

felony and magistrate court prosecutions, producing legal opinions for the

Army Staff relating to military justice matters, statistical analysis and

evaluation of trends in judicial and nonjudicial punishment and responding

to congressional inquiries.

Criminal Law Division workload data for the last three fiscal years

is displayed below:

FY 00 FY 01 FY 02

White House inquiries 163 161 33

Congressional and other inquiries 312 272 206

Clemency Petitions, Article 74,

UCMJ

858

Officer Dismissals 23 22 19

Freedom of Information

Act/Privacy Act

54 13 9
On 6 September 2002, the Army published a new Army Regulation 27-10,

Military Justice, effective 14 October 2002. The new regulation contains

many significant changes. A few notable changes include: Special CourtsMartial Convening Authorities may now refer cases to a Special CourtMartial empowered to adjudge a Bad-Conduct Discharge so long as other MCM

requirements are met and the SJA prepares a pretrial advice under the

provisions of Rules for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 406 prior to referral;

court reporters must be detailed to all SPCMs; appellate authorities for

nonjudicial punishment pursuant to Article 15, UCMJ, may now change filing

determinations, but only to the advantage of the appealing soldier; the

automatic reduction to pay grade E-1 mandated by Article 58a now applies

only to enlisted soldiers with an approved sentence that includes a

punitive discharge or more than six months confinement; home addresses and

social security numbers will not be used to identify witnesses; Social

Security Numbers, other than the accused’s, will only be used to verify

that the members actually detailed by the convening authority are present,

and thereafter no documents that include social security numbers, other

than documents related to the accused, will be maintained in the Record of

Trial; implementation of the requirements of 42 U.S.C. section 14071 by

requiring trial counsel to provide notice of registration requirement to

those convicted of a covered offense that are not sentenced to confinement;

by direction of HQDA, the Report of Result of Trial, DA Form 4430, must now

indicate (1) whether or not the convicted service member must submit to DNA

processing IAW 10 U.S.C. section 1565, and (2) whether the conviction does

or does not require sex offender registration IAW 42 U.S.C. section 14071;

and provision of habeas corpus assistance in death penalty cases, allowing

TJAG to appoint military counsel to assist counsel appointed by the

District Court or individually retained counsel throughout the appellate

process.

JOINT SERVICE COMMITTEE (JSC) ON MILITARY JUSTICE

The Army is the Executive Agent for publication of the Manual for

Courts-Martial (MCM) and this year published the 2002 edition. This

edition incorporates the last three executive orders and contains the

following statutory changes: changes to Article 54, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. §

854), requiring a verbatim record in special courts-martial in which the

sentence adjudged includes a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for more

than six months, or forfeiture of pay for more than six months; changes to

Article 74(a), UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 874(a)), limiting secretarial clemency

authority in cases including a sentence to confinement to life without the

eligibility of parole; and, changes to Article 111, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 911),

changing the blood alcohol content limit to in excess of the lesser of .10,

the limit under the law of the State in which the conduct occurred, or

2
(outside of the United States) such lower limit as the Secretary of Defense

may prescribe. The MCM is available electronically at

http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/mcm2002.pdf. It is also available in

hardcopy from the Government Printing Office at http://www.gpo.gov/ or by

telephone at (202) 512-1800; fax (202) 512-2250.

During FY 02, the JSC completed its eighteenth annual review of the

MCM. The JSC published this review in the Federal Register for public

comment on 20 May 2002 and held a public meeting on 27 June 2002 to receive

comments from interested parties. Highlights of the annual review’s

proposed changes include the following with regard to the Rules for CourtsMartial: amending R.C.M. 201 and R.C.M. 1004, both of which give guidance

on the affirmative action necessary to refer a capital case; amending

R.C.M. 307 making what was previously non-binding discussion part of the

binding rule to help eliminate the unreasonable multiplication of charges

against one person; modifying R.C.M. 501 and R.C.M. 805 by requiring that

in all capital cases, the court-martial must be comprised of a military

judge and no fewer than twelve members, unless twelve members are not

reasonably available because of physical conditions or military exigencies;

and adding R.C.M. 1103A to prevent indiscriminate viewing or disclosure of

materials ordered sealed by the military judge. In addition, the JSC

recommended several changes to the punitive articles of the MCM. These

changes include: inserting a new subparagraph (ii) in Part IV, Paragraph

14c(2)(a) (Article 90), making the question of the lawfulness of an order

an issue to be decided by the military judge; and replacing the current

text of Paragraph 109 (Article 134) by expanding the items about which one

can communicate a threat or hoax to include not only explosives or bombs,

but also, weapons of mass destruction, biological or chemical agents,

substances, or weapons, or hazardous material.

 The JSC drafted two Executive Orders (EO) to amend the MCM to

implement these proposed changes and the changes proposed in 2001. Both of

these EOs are pending executive approval in FY 2003.

 The JSC submitted responses to the Department of Defense General

Counsel on the JSC’s review of the Report of The National Institute Of

Military Justice-Sponsored Commission on the 50th Anniversary of The UCMJ

(more commonly known as The Cox Commission). The JSC also continued its

studies on joint military justice proposals, technology, and proposed

expansion of subpoena authority.

3
MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

STATISTICAL SUMMARY: FY 02

(See table insert, attached)

U.S. ARMY LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY

The U.S. Army Legal Services Agency, a field operating agency of

OTJAG, includes the following organizations involved in the administration

of military justice: the U.S. Army Judiciary, the Government Appellate

Division, the Defense Appellate Division, the Trial Defense Service, and

the Trial Counsel Assistance Program.

U.S. ARMY JUDICIARY

The U.S. Army Judiciary consists of the U.S. Army Court of Criminal

Appeals, Office of the Clerk of Court, the Trial Judiciary, and the

Examination and New Trials Division.

U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals/Office of the Clerk of Court

The Clerk of Court receives records of trial for review under Article

66, UCMJ. The cases are referred to one of the three judicial panels of

the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals for appellate review. Also

received are appeals under Article 62, Petitions for Extraordinary Relief,

and Withdrawals from Appellate Review.

The Clerk of Court is also the custodian of the Army’s permanent

court-martial records dating from 1939. Inquiries about courts-martial are

received from federal and state investigative agencies, law enforcement

offices, military historians, media, veterans, and the accused. Because

the Brady Bill requires the processing of handgun applications within three

workdays, many expedited requests are received from the Federal Bureau of

Investigation’s National Instant Background Check System. Also, state

sexual offender registries submit many requests.

Inquiries Received FY 01 FY 02

Freedom of Information Act 214 188

Privacy Act 74 60

Certified Copies of Convictions 292 417

Total Number of Requests 580 665

The Office of the Clerk of Court provides assistance to overseas

trial jurisdictions in processing requests for non-DOD civilians to travel

to overseas trials. This includes making travel arrangements, assisting

with requests for expedited passport processing, and issuing invitational

travel orders.

4
Trial Judiciary

Military judges preside over the trial of all Army special and

general courts-martial worldwide. Eighteen active duty and fourteen Army

Reserve judges tried courts-martial in remote locations, including Bosnia,

Kosovo, and Kuwait, as well as in military courtrooms throughout the United

States, Europe, Japan, and Korea. Significant increases in the number of

cases tried in FY 2002 were fueled in part by increases in so-called “club

drug” offenses, absence without leave and desertion offenses, and Internet

and child pornography offenses. Increased numbers of soldiers on active

duty as the result of activation of National Guard and Reserve units also

contributed to a significantly increased caseload.

Examination & New Trials Division

Pursuant to a delegation from the Judge Advocate General, the

Examination and New Trials Division [ENT] examines under Article 69(a)

UCMJ, all general court-martial cases not otherwise reviewed under Article

66, UCMJ. Last year ENT examined 85 cases and acted on five applications

for relief from inferior courts-martial under Article 69(b), UCMJ. There

were no petitions for new trial under Article 73 and no relief required

under RCM 1201(b)(2) where a general court-martial convening authority

failed to take corrective action recommended by a judge advocate based on a

legal error. ENT also performed an administrative check on 168 cases

involving acquittals, post-trial separations under Chapter 10 AR 635-200,

and waivers of appellate review.

U.S. ARMY TRIAL DEFENSE SERVICE

The U.S. Army Trial Defense Service (USATDS), a defense service

consisting of approximately 130 active duty and 170 reserve attorneys,

provided high quality, professional defense services to soldiers throughout

the Army from 55 active duty installations worldwide and 40 reserve

locations. USATDS counsel defended soldiers facing the entire range of

allegations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

USATDS counsel workload from FY 98 through FY 02 is displayed below.

 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02

General CourtsMartial694 722 733 782 821

Special CourtsMartial286 331 392 316 537

Administrative Boards 597 698 597 826 918

Nonjudicial

Punishment

32,181 31,595 30,633 35,786 40,769

Consultations 28,668 26,794 24,051 33,546 37,476

5
USATDS provided defense services to deployed forces around the world,

including Southwest Asia, Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo and Central Asia. TDS

counsel worldwide continue to achieve phenomenal success at the pretrial

stages of litigation. The change to Army Regulation 27-10 to fund all

defense counsel travel by USALSA from the first stage of the investigation

can only improve the overall quality of service to the soldier/client. By

getting actively involved in the case at its earliest stages, defense

counsel have, in many instances, successfully negotiated non-punitive

dispositions of cases. At some locations, TDS maintained inter-service

agreements to provide defense services to military personnel of sister

services. Also, at select locations, TDS counsel continued to support

soldiers at Physical Evaluation Boards. TDS has seen an overall increase

in both the number of courts-martial and their complexity, including three

pre-meditated murder cases in Europe.

TDS completed the Force Design Update (FDU) started in 2001 in

coordination with the Combat Developments Department of The Judge Advocate

General’s School. Through the FDU process, TDS examined and reviewed how

best to provide trial defense services to the Army. Specifically, TDS

examined the organization’s current operational requirements and

recommended changes to the doctrine, training, and organization. There

will be significantly more Table of Organization & Equipment (TOE)

positions as a result of this process.

TDS continues to expand its use of desktop video teleconference

(DVTC) equipment to provide defense services to clients who are not colocated with TDS counsel. Offices located outside the continental United

States (OCONUS) are making the best use of the technology. The continued

success of the technology has generated hopes for expansion of the service

to provide DVTC capabilities to remote areas throughout the world,

particularly for our deployed counsel in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Central Asia.

TDS counsel in Europe have also developed a deployable resource library on

CD ROM, which contains an extensive set of references, training materials,

an attorney brief bank, standardized forms, case management tools, client

information papers, and similar data in a readily portable and easily

accessible format. USATDS has launched a new and improved website to

monitor and control personnel actions, travel, training, and research which

allows for increased active and reserve attorney use.

Building on the formal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) made in

2001, the Trial Defense Service and the Defense Appellate Division (DAD)

continue to foster a very close working relationship. Most recently, DAD

and TDS have coordinated to monitor post-trial processing delays to ensure

that our clients are receiving the very best representation throughout both

the trial and appellate process, with smooth transition of counsel between

our organizations.

6
TDS counsel continue to foster a close working relationship with

reserve defense counsel assigned to the 154th and the 22d Trial Defense

Service Legal Services Organizations (TDS LSOs). The 154th TDS LSO,

consisting of 90 commissioned officers, a warrant officer and 13 enlisted

paralegals, provides defense services to soldiers assigned to units in the

Eastern half of CONUS and in Europe. The 22d TDS LSO, consisting of 74

commissioned officers and 18 enlisted paralegals, provides defense services

to soldiers assigned to units in the Western half of CONUS and Asia. Some

individual TDS offices have established joint training programs with their

local reserve TDS personnel and have conducted highly successful joint

training conferences. The Chief, U.S. Army Trial Defense Service,

exercises technical supervision over the reserve TDS LSOs. He is

responsible for the performance of defense counsel services and provides

oversight for the units’ training and readiness. Reserve support to active

duty TDS offices remains outstanding, with reserve officers providing

critical support at Fort Hood, Fort Stewart and Fort Bragg, as well as

other offices with increased caseloads. Several reserve judge advocates

have volunteered, have served, and are serving in Camp Bondsteel, Kosovo,

as deployed defense counsel.

The California Army National Guard has proposed an initiative that is

currently under review at National Guard Bureau/Department of the Army

level that would turn the 22nd LSO, currently made up of all USAR

personnel, into a multi-component unit with one team of defense lawyers

being National Guard attorneys. This would truly result in provision of

defense services across all components in accordance with the TDS model and

standards. The advantages for all parties are many. Both the National

Guard and Reserves gain organizational capacity and flexibility. Training

opportunities involving TDS would be maximized. Both National Guard

defense counsel and units would train as they fight. California would

comply with its statutory mandate to conform as nearly as practicable to

active duty practice. Potential complaints of actual or perceived unlawful

command influence over defense services would be minimized. Finally, the

concept of utilizing a predominantly Reserve LSO to provide legal defense

services for Army National Guard troops will be validated. This could set

a precedent for all 54 states and territories as to how defense services

should be provided in the Guard.

Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Training for TDS counsel was

conducted in weeklong, consolidated regional conferences attended by active

duty and reserve TDS counsel, as well counsel from other services. The

multi-region/multi-service approach to CLEs resulted in more productive and

informative CLEs, benefiting all attendees. All training sessions included

extensive practical exercises and individual critiques by experienced

attorneys. This year there was an increase in participation by both

7
reserve counsel and counsel from our sister services. In Korea, TDS has

entered an agreement for cross-training with the Marines in Okinawa. To

date, 2002 CLEs were conducted at Fort Carson, Colorado; Charleston, South

Carolina; and Savannah, GA. The training focused TDS counsel on honing

their courtroom skills and expanding their knowledge of military justice

with particular emphasis on evidentiary objections and arguments. TDS

counsel in Europe participated in the Bi-Regional training in April 2002,

held in Garmisch, Germany. For the first time, enlisted support personnel

attended and received tailored instruction along with the attorneys.

TRIAL COUNSEL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

The United States Army’s Trial Counsel Assistance Program (TCAP)

fulfilled its mission of providing information, advice, training

opportunities, and trial assistance to American military prosecutors

worldwide. Composed of four Army judge advocates and a civilian office

assistant, TCAP also serves as a third branch of the Army’s Government

Appellate Division and utilizes this position to link trial and appellate

counsel together to resolve issues of common import to the successful

prosecution of courts-martial. In that light, TCAP serves as the

prosecutor’s appellate advocate for extraordinary writs and Government

appeals during the prosecution of a case and as the Government’s advocate

during habeas corpus litigation of cases that have passed through the

ordinary course of appellate review. In tandem, these dual missions for

TCAP buttress the fieldwork of trial by court-martial and enhance the

appellate finality of ensuing convictions.

TCAP provided five basic categories of services during FY 2002: (1)

telephone/e-mail/and website forum inquiry assistance; (2) advocacy

training courses and other training events; (3) dissemination of

publications on a variety of subjects; (4) trial assistance; and (5)

appellate assistance. In so doing, TCAP personnel accomplished the

following: (1) responded to an average of over 100 telephonic and email

requests for assistance per month; (2) conducted seven regional advocacy

training conferences in the United States and Germany, providing hundreds

of hours of continuing legal education to approximately 175 military judge

advocates and 50 Army Criminal Investigation Division agents; (3) provided

electronic and paper copies of countless articles and other publications to

judge advocates around the world; (4) published daily “Trial Tip of the

Day” messages on the TCAP internet website as well as responded to numerous

messages and inquiries posted therein; (5) actively participated in the

preparation and trial of several courts-martial, one of which involved a

murder committed by a senior Army officer; and (6) responded to three

extraordinary writs and filed one Government appeal with the Army Court of

Criminal Appeals (ACCA). TCAP prepared over a dozen answers and returns to

habeas corpus petitions filed with various Offices of the U.S. Attorney or

with the United States Court of Appeals for several circuits.

8
In response to the need for vigorous investigation, prosecution and

treatment of sexual abuse cases, TCAP re-tooled the scenario used in its

training conferences. The FY 02 version trained participants in a “startto-finish” approach employing complex facts and issues within a mock child

abuse scenario that required the students to research and argue their case

under critical scrutiny. For FY 03, TCAP will utilize at eight regional

training conferences a scenario that presents facts and issues involving

domestic sexual violence. Additionally, the revised TCAP website now

includes interactive training scenarios that allow users to train

themselves on trial issues and legal principles involved in sexual abuse

cases.

In FY 03, at regional training conferences, TCAP will expand its

client base to include as students National Guard and Reserve judge

advocates. Finally, TCAP will host Army Chiefs of Justice in a “train the

trainers” conference designed to enhance the students’ skills in developing

their subordinates’ trial advocacy abilities.

FOREIGN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

As Executive Agent for foreign criminal jurisdiction, the Army,

through the International and Operational Law Division, OTJAG, compiles

information concerning the exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction over

U.S. personnel.

The data below, while not drawn from precisely the same reporting

period used in other parts of this Report, provides an accurate picture of

the exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction during this reporting period:

 1 Dec 1999 1 Dec 2000

 to to

30 Nov 2000 30 Nov 2001

Foreign Offense Citations 4,440 4,498

Total Civilian 1,254 1,074

Total Military 3,186 3,424

Exclusive Foreign Jurisdiction 190 156

Concurrent Jurisdiction 2,996 3,268

Traffic/Other Minor Offenses 283 297

Foreign Jurisdiction Recalls 435 344

This year, foreign authorities released to U.S. authorities 2 of the

156 exclusive foreign jurisdiction cases involving military personnel. In

concurrent jurisdiction cases in which the foreign countries had the

authority to assert primary jurisdiction, U.S. military authorities were

able to obtain waivers of the exercise of this jurisdiction in 3,078 cases.

Overall, the U.S. obtained waivers in 94.1% of all exclusive and concurrent

jurisdiction cases. This figure reflects a 2.7% increase in such waivers

from 1999-2000, when the relevant figure was 91.4%.

9
During the last reporting period, civilian employees and dependents

were involved in 1,254 offenses. Foreign authorities released 94 of these

cases (7.5 % of this total) to U.S. military authorities for administrative

action or some other form of disposition. This year, civilian employees

and dependents were involved in 1,074 offenses. The foreign authorities

released 112 of these cases (10.4 % of the current total).

Foreign authorities tried a total of 698 cases. Twelve trials, or

1.7%, resulted in acquittals. Those convicted were sentenced as follows:

16 cases resulted in executed confinement; 55 cases resulted in suspended

confinement; and 615 cases (88.1 % of the total trials) resulted in only

fines or reprimands.

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

 The Standards of Conduct Office (SOCO) manages TJAG’s professional

responsibility program. This program comprises (1) administratively

reviewing complaints for credibility, (2) tasking judge advocates to run

field inquiries concerning professional misconduct allegations, (3)

reviewing reports of inquiry, and (4) advising TJAG on appropriate

resolution of ethics cases. SOCO oversees the operation of TJAG’s

Professional Responsibility Committee and its issuance of advisory ethics

opinions.

 The office also oversees professional responsibility training within

the Army. SOCO attorneys: (1) give informal one-on-one ethics advice, (2)

present ethics topics at professional events, and (3) help judge advocates

(in close communication with The Judge Advocate General’s School) to give

training programs at commands and offices.

 Additionally, SOCO actively manages information to: (1) track ethics

cases, (2) release information under the Freedom of Information and Privacy

Acts, and (3) keep an attorney ethics web site.

Multijurisdictional Practice

 SOCO’s attorneys researched and prepared comments for the ABA

Commission on Multijurisdictional Practice. The Commission’s originally

proposed Model Rule 5.5 would have left military lawyers unprotected in

three of our most important service areas:

Giving legal assistance to individual soldiers, retirees, and their

families;

Representing individual defense clients in criminal or adverse

administrative actions; and

10
Representing the National Guard of the states, Puerto Rico, Guam, the

Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia.

 In March 2002, MG Michael J. Marchand, The Assistant Judge Advocate

General, testified in person before the Commission in New York.

 Our efforts succeeded. As approved by the ABA House of Delegates on

August 12, 2002, the Commission’s report (with minor changes) and newly

amended ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 5.5 removed doubt about the

authority of military attorneys to practice across state lines as they

provide their clients legal assistance and defense services on active duty,

in the reserves, and in the National Guard.

Notices and Complaints during FY 2002

Credibility Reviews. 32 notices and complaints had administrative

disposition after credibility reviews determined that no inquiries

were warranted (down 11 percent from FY 2001’s 36 administrative

dispositions).

Inquiries. Six inquiries were conducted and closed (unchanged from

FY 2001’s six closed inquiries). None of this year’s inquiries were

founded (compared with three founded inquiries of six total closed

during FY 2001).

LITIGATION

 The number of civil lawsuits filed in federal, state, and

international courts against the Department of the Army and its officials

increased this year from previous years. 552 actions were filed in FY 02,

an increase of 17% from the year before. Cases requiring civilian courts

to interpret the UCMJ remain a small, but significant portion of this

total. Most of these cases are by soldiers and former soldiers seeking

collateral review of courts-martial proceedings, usually via petitions for

writs of habeas corpus filed in federal district courts, or in back-pay

actions filed in the Court of Federal Claims. Other suits involve

challenges to confinement conditions, to decisions to deny clemency or

parole, to parole revocation, or to other administrative actions taken by

confinement facility officials.

 An important case that is almost at its end, Hall v. Department of

Defense, is a class action filed in 1997 by all inmates confined at the

United States Disciplinary Barracks (USDB), Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. The

inmates claimed they were subject to unsafe living conditions that violated

the Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment.

11
They alleged that the USDB main building is structurally unsound, that they

are exposed to unsafe environmental conditions, and that they are

improperly subjected to certain administrative practices. Plaintiffs’

attorney later moved to dismiss the case because a new USDB was under

construction and scheduled to be completed in 2001, thereby mooting the

issues presented in the lawsuit. In February 2001, the district court

dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, but several of the inmates

appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

In the interim, the Army Corps of Engineers delayed the completion date for

the new USDB to June 2002. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the

district court to determine what effect, if any, the new completion date

would have on the inmates' health and safety. In March 2002, the district

court determined that the new completion date would have no effect on the

inmates’ health and safety and notified the Court of Appeals of its

findings. By the end of October 2002, all of the inmates were transferred

into the new facility. The Army plans to file a supplemental brief

notifying the Court of Appeals that the move to the new USDB is complete

and the issues raised by plaintiffs’ suit are finally moot.

 Litigation Division also routinely defends challenges to the Feres

doctrine as it applies to military prisoners after their punitive

discharges have been executed, but while they continue to serve sentences

of confinement at the USDB and the Regional Confinement Facilities (RCFs).

We recently received a favorable decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the Tenth Circuit in the lead case on this issue, Ricks v. Nickels,

when the court upheld the application of the Feres doctrine to a military

prisoner’s lawsuit. The court concluded that because plaintiff was

convicted by a military court, incarcerated at a military prison, and was

subject to the UCMJ if he committed crimes while at the USDB, any injuries

he may have incurred inside the prison, even after execution of discharge,

were “incident to service,” and therefore, any cause of action was barred

by Feres.

 In 2002, United States District Courts remained mindful of the Army’s

court-martial jurisdiction. In Schaefer v. White and Beck v. United

States, federal district courts in the Middle District of Georgia and the

District of Columbia, respectively, rejected plaintiffs’ habeas corpus

petitions and requests for injunctive relief to enjoin the Army from

proceeding with ongoing courts-martial against plaintiffs. Relying

primarily on the principles of comity, the district courts respected the

jurisdiction of the courts-martial and permitted them to proceed

unencumbered.

 Also, in McKinney v. United States, in a broad opinion acknowledging

the unique, separate, and distinct nature of the military justice system,

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that The Judge

Advocate General’s (TJAG) review of a court-martial under Article 69, UCMJ

12
is not subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA). The appellate court held that the statutory scheme created by

Congress for review of courts-martial extends to Article 69, UCMJ

decisions, and therefore, precludes judicial review.

 Finally, the Army defended litigation involving the Right to Financial

Privacy Act (RFPA) (12 U.S.C. §§ 3401 et. seq.) and the release of

financial records pursuant to a subpoena issued during the pretrial phase

of the court-martial process. Flowers v. First Hawaiian Bank, involved a

retired Command Sergeant Major (CSM) who filed a lawsuit alleging the Army

obtained his financial records in a manner that violated the RFPA. Courtmartial proceedings were initiated against the CSM. In preparation for an

Article 32, UCMJ investigation, the trial counsel contacted two banks and

requested CSM Flowers’ financial records using Department of Defense Form

453 (Subpoena). The banks complied with the requests and delivered

Flowers’ financial records to the trial counsel. CSM Flowers ultimately

retired in lieu of court-martial. He then filed suit against one of the

banks, First Hawaiian, alleging that it violated the RFPA by releasing his

financial records without ensuring that the Army complied with the notice

provisions in the RFPA. The U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii

disagreed with CSM Flowers and held that the bank did not violate the RFPA.

The court found that the records were lawfully released pursuant to an

exception in the RFPA that negates the notice requirements for banks when

the financial records are sought by a government authority in connection

with litigation. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit reversed and held that, although the financial records were sought

for litigation in which CSM Flowers and the Army were parties, the trial

counsel used an illegal subpoena to obtain the financial records. Because

the subpoena was not lawfully issued, the bank did not lawfully release the

records, therefore, the bank and the Army violated the RFPA. The Ninth

Circuit remanded the case for further action and to allow CSM Flowers to

amend his complaint to add the Army and Fort Jackson Federal Credit Union

as defendants.

EDUCATION AND TRAINING

 The Criminal Law Department of The Judge Advocate General's School

(TJAGSA) in Charlottesville, Virginia, remains focused on sustaining and

improving our military justice practice. This year, the Criminal Law

Department provided instruction on a variety of topics ranging from

substantive criminal law to technical litigation skills.

 Assisting military justice managers with post-trial processing was a

top priority last year for the Department. The 37 students of the 8th

Military Justice Managers Course received significant instruction on the

practical “how to” of court-martial post-trial processing as well as case

13
law instruction. Justice managers received a number of resources on CD Rom

for use in the field, including examples of case tracking systems. Of

particular note, noncommissioned officers attended the course for the first

time. The mixture of officer and noncommissioned officer justice managers

provided for a superb exchange of ideas and systems.

 Advocacy training continues to be a top priority for the Criminal Law

Department. The Department devotes significant effort to training Basic

Course and Advanced Trial Advocacy Course students on trial advocacy

skills. Each Basic Course student is required to serve as trial counsel or

defense counsel in three advocacy exercises - an administrative separation

board, a guilty plea court-martial, and a contested court-martial.

 In addition to the Basic Course instruction, the Criminal Law

Department continued to offer advanced advocacy training in the 17th and

18th Criminal Law Advocacy Courses, as well as offering advanced advocacy

training electives for the Graduate Course. The two-week Criminal Law

Advocacy Courses afford the students more individualized and specialized

trial advocacy training. Augmented with four Reserve Component officers

for each course, the Department puts the students through rigorous smallgroup practical exercises on essential litigation skills from opening

statement through closing argument. Each Criminal Law Advocacy Course

student must serve as trial counsel or defense counsel for a guilty plea

and contested court-martial. The Graduate Course electives focus more on

training supervisors and managers of the military justice system, with

special emphasis on designing and executing training programs.

 The Department began an initiative to overlap training opportunities

with the School’s Court Reporter Training Division headed by Master

Sergeant Monique Wagner. During Criminal Law Advocacy Course exercises,

each court reporter undergoing the transition to voice recognition court

reporting sat through a practical exercise and recorded the young trial

attorney’s performance. The court reporters transcribed the exercise and

provided the transcript to the judge advocates. The linkup with the court

reporters in a training environment provided young judge advocates with

constructive feedback while simultaneously providing a tremendous training

opportunity for the court reporters.

 In addition to the Military Justice Managers Course and the Criminal

Law Advocacy Courses, The Criminal Law Department also hosted a variety of

continuing legal education courses. The Department managed the 45th

Military Judge Course, providing preparatory and refresher training for the

newest members of the trial judiciary of each service. The Department also

managed the Twenty-Fifth Criminal Law New Developments Course attended by

234 judge advocates from all services. The New Developments Course

included popular and informative presentations from Colonel (Retired) Fran

Gilligan and Dr. Andrew Baker. Colonel Gilligan presented an overview of

recent Fourth Amendment cases while Dr. Baker from the Armed Forces

Institute of Pathology provided the students with an after lunch talk on

forensic pathology.

14
 The Criminal Law Department hosted other distinguished guest speakers

during the year. Colonel (Retired) Keith Hodges provided young trial

advocates with practice pointers, both in and outside the courtroom, during

the 17th and 18th Criminal Law Advocacy Courses. The Honorable Marc

Racicot, a former Army judge advocate, delivered the 30th Kenneth J. Hodson

Lecture on Criminal Law. Mr. Racicot treated the audience with an

insightful presentation detailing how his experiences as a trial counsel

assisted him during his tenures as the Attorney General and Governor of

Montana.

PERSONNEL, PLANS, AND POLICIES

 The attorney strength of the active component Judge Advocate General’s

Corps at the end of FY 02 was 1,474 (including general officers). This

total does not include 73 officers attending funded law school while

participating in the Funded Legal Education Program. The attorney strength

of the reserve component Judge Advocate General’s Corps at the end of FY 02

was 2,860 and the strength of the Army National Guard at the end of FY 02

was 613. The diverse composition of our attorney population included 130

African-Americans, 38 Hispanics, 60 Asians and Native Americans, and 375

women. The FY 02 end strength of 1,474 in compares with an end strength of

1,462 in FY 01, 1,427 in FY 00, 1,426 in FY 99, 1,499 in FY 98, 1,523 in FY

97, 1,541 in FY 96, 1,561 in FY 95, 1,575 in FY 94, and 1,646 in FY 93.

The grade distribution of the Corps’ attorneys was 5 general officers; 123

colonels; 216 lieutenant colonels; 318 majors; and 812 captains. An

additional seventy-nine warrant officers, 372 civilian attorneys, and 1,439

enlisted paralegals supported legal operations worldwide.

THOMAS J. ROMIG

Major General, USA

The Judge Advocate General

15
APPENDIX - U.S. ARMY MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

Report Period: FISCAL YEAR 2002

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons)

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/

DECREASE (-) OVER

LAST REPORT

GENERAL 788 757 31 +2.3%

BCD SPECIAL [A] 592 574 18 +67.2%

NON-BCD SPECIAL 10 8 2 +233.3%

SUMMARY 858 793 65 +27.6%

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT +22.6%

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED [B]

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL)

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES (+ dismissals) 106 + 19

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 252

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL (TR LEVEL)

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 174

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 596

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 254

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 154

PART 4 – WORKLOAD OF THE U.S. ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 117 [C]

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D]

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D]

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 785 [C]

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 785 [E]

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 115 [C]

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD +1.3%

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

 U.S. ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (CCA)

NUMBER 852

PERCENTAGE 97.7%

PART 6 - ACTIONS OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

 (CAAF)

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 258 of 785 32.8%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -0.2%

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 28 of 281 9.96%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -46.15%

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY USACCA 3.5%

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD ] -20.8%

Page 1 of 2
APPENDIX - U.S. ARMY MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS - CONT’D

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 1

RECEIVED 6

DISPOSED OF 6

 GRANTED 0

 DENIED 6

 NO JURISDICTION 0

 WITHDRAWN 0

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 1

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 626

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 499

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 162

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 93

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 21

PART 10 – STRENGTH

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 516,599**

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ)

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 44,318

RATE PER 1,000 85.8

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD -8.5%

**Army Strength in FY 02 (516,599) includes a Regular Army strength of 486,500 as of 30 September 2002

and an average of 26,443 mobilized Reserve Component personnel supporting Operation Enduring Freedom

and Noble Eagle and 3,656 mobilized RC personnel supporting operations in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Southwest Asia.

EXPLANATORY NOTES

 

[A] Cases convened by GCM convening authority.

[B] Based on records of trial received during FY for appellate review.

[C] Includes only cases briefed and at issue.

[D] No reason for distinguishing; GCM and BCD SPCM are not tracked separately.

[E] Includes Article 62 appeals, All Writs Act cases, and appeals withdrawn.

Page 2 of 2
SECTION 4

REPORT OF THE

JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY

OCTOBER 1, 2001 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2002

SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF

MILITARY JUSTICE

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

Military Justice (UCMJ), the Judge Advocate General and the Deputy Judge

Advocate General made frequent inspections of legal offices in the United

States, Europe, and the Far East in order to supervise the administration

of military justice. These inspections, conducted by subject matter

experts, examined the full range of military justice processes at those

offices inspected.

ARTICLE 69(a), UCMJ, EXAMINATIONS

Forty general courts-martial records of trial that were not

statutorily eligible for automatic review by the Navy-Marine Corps Court of

Criminal Appeals (NMCCA) were forwarded for examination to the Office of

the Judge Advocate General in fiscal year 2002. An additional nine cases

were pending at the end of fiscal year 2001. Out of the 21 cases

completed, none required corrective action by the Judge Advocate General.

At the close of fiscal year 2002, 28 cases were pending review under

Article 69(a), UCMJ.

ARTICLE 69(b), UCMJ, APPLICATIONS

In fiscal year 2002, applications for review under Article 69(b),

UCMJ, were received in 23 cases. At the end of fiscal year 2001, 14 such

applications were pending. Of these 37 cases, 22 were denied on the

merits. At the end of fiscal year 2002, 15 cases were pending review.

ARTICLE 73, UCMJ, PETITIONS

No petitions were received in the Office of the Judge Advocate

General during fiscal year 2002.

APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISION (Code 45)

Mission. The Appellate Defense Division represents Navy and Marine

Corps appellants before the NMCCA, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed

Forces (CAAF), and U.S. Supreme Court. It also represents some appellants

before the Navy Clemency & Parole Board, if their case is in appellate

review. The Division provides assistance to trial defense counsel in the

field by helping to file extraordinary writs before NMCCA and CAAF;

providing an informal death penalty assistance team to advise field defense

counsel facing potential capital cases; and providing advice on specific

cases in litigation at trial.
 Organization. The Division’s mission is accomplished thorough the

integrated efforts of both active duty and reserve judge advocates.

Captain Carol J. Cooper, JAGC, USN, was the Division Director until June

2002, when she was relieved by Commander George F. Reilly, JAGC, USN.

Lieutenant Colonel Eric B. Stone, USMC, reported aboard as Deputy Director

in July 2002.

 A dedicated team of 14 Navy and Marine Corps judge advocates comprised

the Division’s active duty contingent. During the summer of 2002, the

Division was supported by two newly commissioned Naval Reserve officers who

were second year law students in the Navy’s JAG Student program. These

officers received considerable training in the military justice system and

provided invaluable support to the Division as research assistants,

analysts and moot court judges.

The Division was fully staffed with civilian personnel, with a lead

legal clerk/office manager and two legal clerks assisting the active duty

personnel, and two legal clerks exclusively assigned to the Reserve Branch.

The Division emphasized cross training of personnel in order to provide

greater flexibility in task assignment.

The support by 40 Navy and Marine Corps reserve judge advocates

assigned to the Division proved invaluable in making significant progress

against the case backlog. Reserve attorneys filed more than 1700 cases,

71% of the total for the year. This number almost matches the total number

of cases filed by active duty and reserve counsel in fiscal year 2001.

The Division’s supporting reserve units are able to maximize

productivity by flexible drilling. They can work from their homes or

offices rather than a Reserve Center. They are provided access to LEXISNEXIS for legal research on their cases, and maintain connectivity with the

Reserve Branch by phone or e-mail. The Division also established a Unit

Law Advisor program where an active duty appellate counsel is assigned to

assist members of a reserve unit with substantive or procedural legal

issues.

The responsibilities of the Reserve Branch Head were increased to

include more than mere administrative support to reserves. The Branch Head

is also tasked with maintaining a database that tracks the progress of a

case assigned to a reserve attorney from mail-out through CAAF petition.

This system, developed in-house, dramatically increased the Division’s

accountability for cases assigned to reserve attorneys and established

achievable productivity goals and monitor progress on both an individual

and unit basis. The Division’s supporting reserve units are: NR NAVJAG

109, Columbus, Ohio; NR NAMARA (Defense) 111, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma;

NAVJAG 519, Los Angeles, California; and NAVJAG 211, Fort Worth, Texas.

2
The Division also received volunteer support from three dedicated

Naval Reserve judge advocates from NR VTU [Voluntary Training Unit] 614.

The Marine Corps Reserve contingent consisted of 12 independently assigned

reserve judge advocates.

In addition to their normal monthly caseload goal, seasoned reserve

attorneys were also called upon to review a number of older cases in an

effort to expedite their processing. This program worked extremely well as

it not only moved the cases forward in the review process but also provided

reserve counsel an opportunity to work with more challenging and complex

cases.

The Appellate Defense Division exemplifies how the teamwork of

reserve and active duty commands can successfully accomplish a mission that

neither could possibly do alone. The success of this partnership was

recognized with the presentation of the prestigious RADM Hugh Howell Award

to the Appellate Defense Division as the best reserve gaining command in

the East.

Fiscal Year 2002 Highlights

Appellate Representation. The Appellate Defense Division worked

diligently during this fiscal year to reduce the backlog of pending cases,

which began the year at approximately 1300 cases. The “backlog” number is

the sum of cases where no initial pleadings have been filed with the NMCCA.

Division counsel, active and reserve, filed a total of 2406 cases during

fiscal year 2002 and received 2099 new records of trial, thus reducing the

backlog by 325 cases. Nearly 40% more cases were filed in fiscal year 2002

compared with the previous year.

A total of 28% of the cases reviewed were fully briefed to the NMCCA,

and another 11% were summarily assigned. This represents an increase in

briefed cases of 109% over the previous year and 76% more summary

assignments. In addition, 290 cases were petitioned to the CAAF, with 22

grants of review issued. Division counsel engaged in oral argument in 11

cases before the CAAF, and 8 cases before the NMCCA. The Division

participated in two CAAF Project Outreach arguments at the U.S. Naval

Academy and Georgetown University Law School. Oral argument was also heard

at the Naval Academy before the NMCCA. The following figures reflect the

Division’s workload over the past three fiscal years:

3
NMCCA FY 00 FY01 FY02

Briefs Filed 288 324 677

Total Cases Filed 1286 1722 2406

Oral Arguments 16 12 8

USCAAF

Petitions Filed 196 140 290

Supplements Filed 186 111 237

Briefs Filed 42 19 13

Oral Arguments 41 19 11

U.S. Supreme

Court

Petitions Filed 8 6 0

Capital Litigation. In fiscal year 2002, the Appellate Defense

Division continued to be involved in the appeal of three capital cases.

An increased emphasis on these capital cases is planned for fiscal year

2003 in an effort to move the cases toward review. Arrangements have been

made for two qualified and experienced reserve judge advocates to be

recalled to active duty in fiscal year 2003 to work on these cases. In

the case of U.S. v. Parker, the government answer was filed in May 2001

and the defense reply is nearly complete and ready for filing. One of the

recalled reserve attorneys will have significant responsibility for the

Parker case. In the companion case of U.S. v. Walker, although the lead

counsel was the released from active duty, new counsel was assigned well

before the old counsel was released. This smoothed the transition to new

counsel and the case continues moving forward with vigor. The lead

counsel in U.S. v. Quintanilla also left active duty during the year. New

counsel was appointed and the other recalled reserve attorney will be

assigned as lead counsel on this case when he reports aboard in early

January 2003.

4
The Navy-Marine Corps Capital Litigation Resource Center (CLRC),

unique among the services, is co-located with the Appellate Defense

Division and provides advice on pretrial, trial, and sentencing strategies.

It also serves as a research and resource clearinghouse with banks of

motions relating to capital litigation as well as information on expert

consultants and witnesses. The CLRC maintains a close working relationship

with the Army and Air Force and provides advice and assistance in potential

capital cases. The CLRC plays a large role in training trial and appellate

defense counsel at the annual Defense Complex Litigation Course taught at

the Naval Justice School, Newport, Rhode Island. The CLRC was active this

year as Captain Cooper, in addition to her duties as the Director, provided

assistance to the field in several cases where the death penalty was being

considered or sought. Lieutenant Colonel Dwight Sullivan, USMCR, assumed

this role as a collateral duty upon his arrival in January.

Support for the Fleet

Trial Defense Assistance. The Appellate Defense Division provides

advice and support to Navy and Marine Corps trial defense counsel on a

continuing basis. The Division maintains a rotating Field Call watch

comprised of experienced appellate attorneys who reply to short-fused

questions from the trial defense counsel in the field and assist them in

filing extraordinary writs.

Training Provided. Appellate defense attorneys gave presentations at

training sessions for trial defense counsel at Camp Lejeune, North

Carolina, and Naval Submarine Base, Bangor, Washington. These

presentations focused on “hot topics” in appellate litigation and how to

best preserve issues for appeal at the trial level. With significant

reserve support, the Division also resumed publication of a quarterly

newsletter, Timely Objection, providing updates in the law and practice

tips for trial defense counsel.

Training and Enhancements. All Division counsel attended training on

appellate advocacy sponsored by the District of Columbia Bar Association

and the CAAF Conference. Division counsel also attended the CAAF Capital

Case seminar, the Naval Justice School course on defense of complex cases,

the Army JAG School’s criminal law new developments course, and the Judge

Advocate’s Association course on military appellate advocacy.

Other Division attorneys attended training specific to particular

areas of trial and appellate practice. The Division has one counsel

designated as a National Security Law specialist, another as a computer

crimes specialist, and a third as a DNA evidence specialist. Once trained

in their specialty area, these attorneys assist their colleagues as well as

trial defense counsel with issues related to the particular area of

5
law. Other specialized training was provided to Division attorneys

assigned to capital cases. The Division also sent two attorneys to

Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Education courses in Columbia,

South Carolina, fully funded by DOJ.

The Division Director initiated a “back to basics” internal training

program for Division counsel in a successful effort to enhance the case

review process and increase productivity. The reserve training program for

reservists was completely revised and brought newly assigned reserve

counsel into the Division for introductory training early in their

assignment. This effort was successful in reducing the overall learning

curve for these attorneys and enabled them to be productive within a short

time of joining their units.

During fiscal year 2002, all members of the Division, military and

civilian, received new computers and software upgrades, resulting in

greater efficiency and capability. In addition, requirements and funding

plans were developed to replace time-worn furniture and workstations. The

significant increase in productivity and consequent reduction in case

backlog was a direct result of training enhancements for both newly

assigned and experienced appellate counsel, institution of a revamped

indoctrination training program for newly assigned reserve attorneys, and

implementation of the new reserve case assignment and tracking system, in

conjunction with a great deal of hard work and zealous representation by

our attorneys.

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT DIVISION (Code 46)

The primary mission of the Appellate Government Division is to

represent the United States at the appellate level in general and special

courts-martial arising from the Navy and Marine Corps, pursuant to Article

70, Uniform Code of Military Justice. In addition, the Division provides

support to staff judge advocates and trial counsel throughout the Navy and

Marine Corps on issues related to pretrial, court-martial and post-trial

proceedings.

At the end of fiscal year 2002, the Division had eleven (11) active

duty judge advocates and two (2) civilian staff members. Colonel Rose

Marie Favors, USMC, continued in the billet of Division Director.

Commander Robert P. Taishoff, JAGC, USN, assumed the billet of Division

Deputy after earning his LLM (Litigation) from George Washington University

through the Navy Graduate Education Program.

The Division was also supported by 15 Navy Reservists from two Navy

Reserve Detachments --- NAVJAG 116 (Detroit) and NAMARA 116 (Minneapolis).

Four Marine reservists served as Individual Mobilization Augmentees. The

Division revised the manner in which it employed support from Navy and

Marine reservists. Specifically, the process for assigning, tracking and

6
filing appellate briefs was streamlined under the leadership of senior

reservists who were accountable for the performance of their subordinates.

As a result, reservists filed more briefs, of a consistently high quality

and in a timely manner; the revision significantly improved responsiveness,

training and integration. The Division also benefited from the reservists

who, by their varied experiences as civilian attorneys, provided superb

training and mentorship for active duty members of the Division.

During fiscal year 2002, the Division received support from two Navy

Reserve judge advocates who were recalled to active duty. Commander Paul

Jones, JAGC, USNR, served as Division Deputy for a two-month period.

Commander Edward S. Mallow, JAGC, USNR, served as Appellate Government

Counsel and also provided support to Code 20 (Military Justice) on issues

related to Operation Enduring Freedom/Noble Eagle.

During summer 2002, the staff was supported by two Navy officers, law

students in the Navy Legal Education program, as well as a Marine second

lieutenant, also a law student. These officers received considerable

training in the military justice system and provided invaluable support to

the Division as research assistants, analysts and moot court judges.

During fiscal year 2002, the Division instituted several

organizational changes in order to maximize assets and establish priorities

in support of its primary mission. The most critical change was

establishing the billet of Senior Appellate Counsel [SAC], held by an

officer who by demonstrated leadership, experience and skill is involved in

critical stages of all cases and issues within the Division. The SAC also

ensures consistency in the government's position in related cases whether

in briefs or oral arguments. Within six months of establishing the billet,

the Division saw measurable improvements in the number and quality of

briefs its counsel produced. The SAC also assumed a preeminent role in the

Division's Trial Counsel Assistance Program [TCAP], resulting in greater

responsiveness and quality in the Division's support to trial counsel and

staff judge advocates throughout the Navy and Marine Corps. Several

administrative duties were shifted to the civilian staff from counsel who

could then focus greater attention on their roles as appellate advocates.

To the maximum extent possible, those duties that did not require a judge

advocate to perform or an officer to execute were delegated to the civilian

staff. In addition, greater emphasis was placed on cross-training the

civilian staff so that no task would go unattended in anyone's absence. As

a result, productivity by counsel and civilian staff significantly

improved.

During fiscal year 2002, the Division filed 102% more briefs at the

NMCCA than in fiscal year 2001. Similarly, in fiscal year 2002, the

Division filed 9% more briefs at the CAAF than in fiscal year 2001. The

following chart reflects these increases.

7
FY00 FY01 FY02

NMCCA

 Briefs filed 429 395 798

 Other pleadings 303 277 456

CAAF

 Briefs filed 47 41 45

 Other pleadings 126 82 91

During fiscal year 2002, Division judge advocates presented oral

argument at the United States Naval Academy and Georgetown University

School of Law, for outreach programs sponsored by the CAAF and the NMCCA.

Participation in these programs served to educate and inform students at

those institutions about the fairness and professionalism of the military

justice system. Division counsel responded to numerous requests for

assistance from Navy and Marine staff judge advocates and trial counsel

regarding government appeals and petitions for extraordinary relief.

Issues in these cases included evidentiary rulings by military judges and

suppression of evidence, among others.

During fiscal year 2002, the Division significantly revised Trial

Counsel Assistance Program procedures. In addition to realigning that

function under the SAC, mentioned above, procedures were implemented with a

view towards ensuring accurate, complete, timely responses to inquiries

from the fleet while not detracting from appellate government counsel's

ability to accomplish the Division's primary mission. Specifically,

formalized e-mail procedures were incorporated as a tool for inquiries from

the fleet and Division responses. Although telephone calls still served as

the primary means of communication, the newly implemented e-mail procedures

proved to be extremely efficient, reliable and manageable.

Members of the Division also provided support to the Fleet by

presenting lectures to a variety of audiences and by serving as members of

panel discussions at conferences attended by the Division's sister service

counterparts and at the United States Naval Academy.

During fiscal year 2002, members of the Division received training

consistent with their duties as appellate counsel. Courses included: the

Criminal Law New Developments Course at The Army JAG School; advocacy

skills training through the Department of Justice; a Computer Crimes

8
course; and, the Association of Government Attorneys in Capital Litigation

Course. Several reservists and four members of the Division attended the

Military Appellate Advocacy Symposium during March 2002. Other members of

the Division attended the CAAF Judicial Conference in May.

 During fiscal year 2002, all members of the Division, military and

civilian, received new computers and software upgrades, resulting in

greater efficiency and capability. In addition, requirements and funding

plans were developed to replace time-worn furniture as well as a copier,

shredder and a telefax machine.

NAVY-MARINE CORPS TRIAL JUDICIARY

 The Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary is a joint Navy-Marine Corps

activity led by the Chief Judge. Its mission is to provide certified

military judges for Navy and Marine Corps general and special courtsmartial. The Judiciary is organized into 12 judicial circuits and is

supported by Naval Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve Individual Mobilization

Augmentees.

The Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary (NMCTJ) consists of 35 active

duty and 23 reservists serving in 12 circuits and five branch offices.

During fiscal year 2002, NMCTJ provided judicial services in 499 general

courts-martial and 2188 special courts-martial. These numbers represent an

increase in general courts-martial (18) and a decrease in special courtsmartial (76), as compared to fiscal year 2001.

NMCTJ provided judicial services to Fleet and Shore Activities, and

Marine Forces in the United States and around the world. Members of the

Trial Judiciary participated in continuing education at The Army Judge

Advocate General’s School, the Interservice Military Judges’ Seminar at

Maxwell Air Force Base, and various courses at the National Judicial

College at the University of Nevada, Reno.

NMCTJ also provided training at various levels, including the NavyMarine Corps Senior Officer Course, Naval Justice School Basic Course, and

other in-service courses. NMCTJ performed an active role in mentoring

judge advocates through both formal and informal training sessions.

NAVAL LEGAL SERVICE COMMAND

 Naval Legal Service Command (NAVLEGSVCCOM) is commanded by the

Commander, Naval Legal Service Command and is composed of 286 Judge

Advocates, 16 Limited Duty (Law) Officers, 203 Legalmen, and 209 civilians.

Through eight Naval Legal Service Office Commands and six Trial Service

Office Commands, NAVLEGSVCCOM provides a wide range of legal services to

afloat and ashore commands, active duty naval personnel, family members,

9
and retirees from 57 offices world-wide. Additionally, much of the

responsibility for Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard legal training is

accomplished by the Naval Justice School, which is also part of the

NAVLEGSVCCOM. NAVLEGSVCCOM provides counsel for courts-martial, various

administrative hearings, physical evaluation boards, legal assistance, and

as legal advisors to Navy and Marine Corps Commands. NAVLEGSVCCOM also

provides assistance for claims processing and adjudication, and training

judge advocates, legalmen, and other DOD personnel. During fiscal year

2002, NAVLEGSVCCOM provided counsel for 285 General Courts-martial, 773

Special Courts-martial, 272 Article 32 Investigations, 1044 Administrative

Hearings, processed over 45,000 claims, provided over 237,320 legal

assistance services, and provided over 50,000 command assistance services

for over 3,750 commands.

 NAVLEGSVCCOM is developing HELM (Home Electronic Legal Manager) system

for case management. The Legal Assistance Time Management program has been

implemented at all sites and work is on-going on the military justice

module.

NAVAL JUSTICE SCHOOL

Organization. Naval Justice School (NJS) reports to Commander,

NAVLEGSVCCOM, for administrative and operational control. The main NJS

facility is located in Newport, Rhode Island. Teaching detachments are

based in San Diego, California, and Norfolk, Virginia (areas of fleet

concentration).

Mission Statement. NJS shall:

1. Oversee training of Judge Advocates, Limited Duty Officers (Law),

Legalmen and legal specialists to ensure their career-long professional

development and readiness.

2. Provide comprehensive formal training to all sea service judge

advocates and other legal personnel to promote justice and ensure the

delivery of quality legal advice and other legal services.

3. Train sea service commanders and senior officers in the practical

aspects of military law to enable them to perform their command and staff

duties, and train other sea service personnel to assist in the sound

administration of military Justice.

10
Coordination. Through the Interservice Legal Education Review

Committee (ISLERC), the Commanding Officer of NJS and the Commandants of

the Army and Air Force JAG Schools, meet semi-annually to discuss new

initiatives and opportunities for cross-training, and to increase

cooperation and efficiency in the training of legal personnel within the

Department of Defense.

Academic Programs. NJS has six "core" courses, each containing

substantial blocks of instruction relating to military justice and

operation of the UCMJ. These courses are:

1. Accession Judge Advocate Course. This nine-week course, offered

four times per fiscal year, is the accession level course in military

justice for all judge advocates of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.

The majority of the course is dedicated to military justice and courtmartial advocacy training (other topical areas include legal assistance and

administrative law). Upon graduation from NJS, judge advocates are

certified in accordance with Article 27(b), UCMJ. Fiscal year 2002

graduates:

Navy 75

Marine Corps 58

Coast Guard 15

2. Accession Legalman Course. This nine-week course, offered four

times per fiscal year, trains enlisted personnel selected for conversion to

the Legalman rating. In fiscal year 2002, the course consisted of two

phases: (a) Paralegal, dedicated to training Navy Legalmen in military

justice practice (six weeks), and (b) Court Reporting (three weeks).

Fiscal year 2002 graduates: 56

3. Senior Officer Course (SOC) in Military Justice and Civil Law.

This one week course is taught in Newport, Rhode Island, and other areas of

Fleet and Fleet Marine Force concentration. In fiscal year 2002, the

course was offered 21 times at 7 different locations. The course prepares

senior officers in the execution of their legal responsibilities of

command. The majority of the course focuses on such areas as nonjudicial

punishment and court-martial procedures. Fiscal year 2002 attendance:

Navy 475

Marine Corps 199

Air Force 1

Coast Guard 0

Civilian 3

11
 4. Legal Officer Course. In the sea services, non-lawyer "legal

officers" perform a host of military justice functions in many commands

that are not large enough to warrant assignment of a judge advocate. This

four-week course prepares these collateral duty legal officers (typically

paygrades 0-1 to 0-3) to assume legal duties in their respective commands.

This course is offered 16 times per fiscal year, at Newport, Rhode Island,

San Diego, California, and Norfolk, Virginia. Fiscal year 2002 legal

officers trained:

Navy 75

Marine Corps 58

Coast Guard 15

Civilian 0

5. Legal Clerk Course. Legal Clerks are typically assigned to

assist non-lawyer legal officers within a command. This is usually a

collateral duty for a command yeoman, or personnelman, or a Marine Corps

legal services specialist. This two-week course provides training in the

preparation of legal forms and reports, service record entries, and postmast and post court-martial procedures. In fiscal year 2002, the course

was offered 18 times at Newport, Rhode Island, San Diego, California, and

Norfolk, Virginia. Fiscal year 2002 participants:

Navy 276

Marine Corps 20

Civilian 6

 6. Basic Legal Specialist Course. In January 2002, the Marine Basic

Legal Specialist School transferred from Camp Johnson, North Carolina, to

Newport, Rhode Island, to become the sixth core course offered by the Naval

Justice School. The legal services specialist MOS encompasses every facet

of legal administration with the exception of court reporting. This course

for enlisted Marines last 9 1/2 weeks and is offered four times per fiscal

year. It is an accession level course. The curriculum consists of

military justice, post-trial review, and legal administration. Other

topical areas include typing, basic correspondence, computer research, and

English and grammar. Upon graduation from NJS, Legal Specialist Marines

are prepared for assignment throughout the Marine Corps legal community

including Naval Legal Services Offices. Since moving to Newport in January

2002, there have been 85 graduates.

 In addition to the above "core" courses, NJS offered numerous

continuing legal education programs throughout the fiscal year that provide

detailed instruction relating to military law. These included:

12
Officer Courses Length

Reserve Judge Advocate Course Two weeks

Staff Judge Advocate Course Two weeks

Complex Litigation Course One week

(Separate offerings for Prosecution and Defense)

Intermediate Trial Advocacy Course One week

Coast Guard Law Specialist Course One week

Reserve JAGC Military Law Update Workshops 2 1⁄2 days

Computer Crimes Two Days

National College of District Attorneys Course One week

Law of Military Operations Two weeks

Staff Judge Advocate Environmental Law Three days

Legal Assistance Manager's Workshop Two days

Law of Naval Operations One week

Family and Consumer Law One week

NITA One week

National Security Litigation Three Days

Military Justice Managers Course Three Days

USMC Basic Operational Law Training One week

Estate Planning One week

SOAC Course Four days

Continuing Legal Education Two days

Enlisted Courses Length

Reserve Legalman Course Two weeks

Legalman Research and Drafting Course One week

Legalman Legal Writing One week

Military Justice Course for the Staff Judge

 Advocate/Command Judge Advocate/Shipboard LN Two weeks

NLSO/TSO Legalman Course Three days

Coast Guard Legal Clerk Course Two weeks

Senior Legalman Course Three days

Advanced Legal Specialist Two weeks

Senior Enlisted Leadership Three days

Marine Scopist Course Eight weeks

 Publications. NJS is responsible for the publication of the Naval Law

Review, all materials in support of academic programs, and any additional

materials directed by higher authorities. In fiscal year 2003, NJS will be

publishing Volume 48 of the Naval Law Review which will contain articles

related to Military Justice, Operational and Environmental Law, and Legal

Assistance.

13
MARINE CORPS ACTIVITIES

There are approximately 428 active-duty Marine judge advocates and

400 reserve judge advocates. Additionally, there are 18 warrant officers

and 396 enlisted members working in legal offices. These offices support

the Fleet Marine Forces in the continental United States, overseas and on

deployment throughout the world. Our drilling reserve judge advocate

community provides substantial support to each of our offices. This

support is coordinated at two annual meetings, the Reserve JA conference

and the IMA all-hands drill. Marine Corps judge advocates perform a

variety of missions. They work in the military criminal justice system as

prosecutors, defense counsel, military judges, appellate defense counsel,

or appellate government counsel in criminal cases of all descriptions.

Legal assistance attorneys assist Marines, Sailors, military retirees, and

family members in estate planning, domestic relations law, consumer law,

tax law, property law, landlord and tenant law, debtor and creditor law,

adoptions, and citizenship cases. Marine judge advocates also advise

commanders during military operations, reviewing military operations plans

and providing advice on the Law of War, rules of engagement, and domestic

law relating to the employment of force and support of our allies. Other

proactive areas include environmental law, civil law, contract law,

international law, claims and tort law, and labor law. In addition, because

Marine Corps judge advocates are unrestricted line officers, many serve in

non-legal billets. For example, this year alone, Marine judge advocates

served as Commanding Officers of the following units: Marine Wing

Headquarters Squadron-1, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, Okinawa, Japan; Support

Battalion, Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, California; Support

Battalion, Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, South Carolina;

Headquarters and Support Battalion, Logistics Base, Barstow, California;

and Headquarters and Support Battalion, Marine Corps Base, Kaneohe Bay,

Hawaii.

 The Marine Corps accesses 45 judge advocates a year from civilian law

schools and private practice, in addition to the 10 judge advocates that

are lateral transfers from other Marine Corps occupational fields via the

Law Education Program. We continue to have more applicants than openings

and are able to use a board process to screen all applicants to ensure the

highest quality. Applicants come from diverse backgrounds but can

generally be described as coming from top-tier ABA accredited law schools.

They have higher than average LSAT scores and have successfully completed

the rigorous Marine Corps Officer Candidate Course training program. The

process of becoming a Marine Corps judge advocate is four-fold. First,

eligible applicants must attend Officer Candidate School (OCS) in Quantico,

14
Virginia. This strenuous ten-week course is designed to test a candidate’s

leadership and physical abilities. Successful completion leads to a

commission as a Second Lieutenant. Second, all Marine Corps officers

attend the Basic School (TBS). The Basic School is a rigorous, 6-month

program that provides each lieutenant the foundation to be an infantry

platoon commander. The phrase “every Marine a rifleman” applies even to

judges advocates. Third, each judge advocate must complete the Basic

Lawyer Course at the Naval Justice School in Newport, Rhode Island.

Finally, each judge advocate must successfully complete the newly

implemented Basic Operational Law Training (BOLT) Course. BOLT provides

judge advocates a week of training in operational and international law.

Successful completion of OCS, TBS, the Basic Lawyer Course, and BOLT

culminates in designation as a judge advocate. Upon reporting to their

commands, various continuing legal education training opportunities are

available to include command and Headquarters, Marine Corps sponsored

programs. Currently, training opportunities are available at each of the

service judge advocate schools. Additionally, various civilian continuing

legal education opportunities are provided for judge advocates.

Approximately twelve judge advocates each year are selected for advanced

(LL.M.) training at civilian law schools and the Judge Advocate General’s

School of the U.S. Army. Additionally, each year five to six judge

advocates attend a military specific training course such as Amphibious

Warfare School, Command and Staff College, or War College. Our warrant

officer and enlisted members also undergo a significant training regime.

On average, 10 enlisted Marines are enrolled in a stenography/scopist

course and each year 30 enlisted Marines attend the Legal Service

Specialist Mid-Career Course at Naval Justice School.

Currently, enlisted Marines are enrolled in paralegal programs and

have the opportunity to attend legal education courses offered by the

Marine Corps, Army, Navy, and Air Force, including the Legalman/Legal

Services Specialist Mid-Career Course and Legal Research and Writing at

Naval Justice School.

The average debt for new Marine Corps judge advocates is $57,000.

Following the other services, the Law School Education Debt Subsidy (LSEDS)

has now been approved and is undergoing implementation in the Marine Corps.

Captains who have completed their initial active duty obligation and intend

to augment into the regular Marine Corps are eligible. Selection to major

is the upper parameter for eligibility. Thirty thousand dollars is the

authorized payment to be made in yearly installments of $10,000. Officers

accepting LSEDS incur a further 3-year commitment.

15
The following chart contains military justice statistical

information for the Marine Corps in fiscal years 2001 and 2002.

Fiscal

Year

End

strength

GCM SPCM SCM Total

Courts

NJP Total

Adseps

FY02 173,733 223 1,419 1,009 2,651 8,523 11,868

FY01 172,934 227 1,513 1,037 2,777 13,351 11,696

MICHAEL F. LOHR

Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy

The Judge Advocate General of the Navy

16
APPENDIX - U.S. NAVY/MARINE CORPS MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

Report Period: FY 2002

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons)

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/

DECREASE (-) OVER

LAST REPORT

GENERAL 499 481 18 +3.7%

BCD SPECIAL 2188 2144 44 -3.4%

NON-BCD SPECIAL 0 0 0 0%

SUMMARY 2098 2078 20 -.7%

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT -1.5%

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL)

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 164

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 207

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( SA LEVEL)

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 1612

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 410

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1600

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 40

PART 4 – WORKLOAD OF THE U.S. NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL

 APPEALS

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 2083

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 550

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1533

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 2015

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 400

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1615

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 1926

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 244

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1682

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 2198

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 716

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1482

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD +11.6%

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

 U.S. NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (CCA)

NUMBER 2015

PERCENTAGE 100%

PART 6 - ACTIONS OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

 (CAAF)

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 289 4.6%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -3.4%

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 22 7.6%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +7.4%

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CCA 1.1%

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD -+57%

Page 1 of 2
APPENDIX - U.S. NAVY/MARINE CORPS MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS - CONT’D

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 14

RECEIVED 23

DISPOSED OF 22

 GRANTED 0

 DENIED 22

 NO JURISDICTION 0

 WITHDRAWN 0

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 15

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 403

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 2077

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 96

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 111

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 101

PART 10 – STRENGTH

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 557,210

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ)

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 31,530

RATE PER 1,000 56.6

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD -10%

Page 2 of 2
SECTION 5

REPORT OF THE

JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE AIR FORCE
REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE AIR FORCE

OCTOBER 1, 2001 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2002

THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

During fiscal year 2002, the Court rendered over 435 decisions. This

represents a decrease of 22% from fiscal year 2001.

The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals hosted the annual William S.

Fulton Jr. Appellate Military Judges' Conference at the Thurgood Marshall

Federal Judiciary Center on 25 and 26 September 2002. The Conference,

sponsored by the American Bar Association, was certified for credit to meet

state continuing legal education requirements. Chief Judge Susan J.

Crawford opened the Conference and provided comments on topics of interest

at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The conferees enjoyed

presentations from several other distinguished speakers including Senator

(then Congressman) Lindsey O. Graham, South Carolina; Senior Judge Walter

Cox, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces; Mr. Leroy Foreman, U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces; Mr. Andrew Oosterbaan, Department of

Justice; Professor Jeffrey Van Detta, John Marshall Law School; Mr. Gary

Bockweg, Administrative Offices of the Federal Courts and several appellate

military judges.

The Court continued its “Project Outreach” program, hearing oral

arguments at the United States Air Force Academy, Colorado; Maxwell AFB,

Alabama; Scott AFB, Illinois; and George Mason University, Virginia.

TRIAL JUDICIARY

The Air Force Trial Judiciary had an average of 22 active duty trial

judges, six reserve trial judges, and nine noncommissioned officers

assigned throughout five judiciary circuits worldwide. The military

judges’ duties include: presiding over all general and special courtsmartial tried in the United States Air Force; serving as investigating

officers under Article 32, UCMJ; serving as legal advisors for officer

discharge boards and other administrative boards; conducting parole

violation hearings; and presiding at public hearings held to consider draft

environmental impact statements. Fiscal year 2002 was once again a very

busy year for the USAF Trial Judiciary, with judges presiding over more

than 1000 general and special courts-martial around the world.

The Trial Judiciary conducted the Twenty-Eighth Interservice Military

Judges’ Seminar, from 22-26 April 2002 at The Air Force Judge Advocate

General School, Maxwell AFB, Alabama. This seminar was attended by 119

military judges from the trial judiciaries of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps,

Coast Guard, Air Force and a military judge from the Canadian armed forces.
The Chief Trial Judge attended the last week of the Military Judges’

Course conducted at The Army Judge Advocate General School in

Charlottesville, Virginia, from 29 April - 19 May 2002 to participate in a

roundtable presentation with the Chief Trial Judges of the sister services,

conduct seminars with the new judges, evaluate moot court exercises, and

participate in the graduation ceremony. The European Circuit Chief

Military Judge served as an adjunct instructor for the Defense Institute of

International Legal Studies (DIILS) in Buenos Aires, Argentina from 21 - 30

June 2002, and Riga and Leipaje, Latvia, in January and March 2002.

Another Air Force military judge served as an adjunct instructor for DIILS

in Vilnius, Republic of Lithuania, from 22 - 26 June 2002.

Our active duty and reserve judges attended several seminars and

courses this year. Air Force judges were represented at the “Handling

Capital Cases” symposium at the National Judicial College (NJC), New

Orleans, the Advanced Criminal Evidence Course, held by the NJC in Reno,

NV, the Computer Crimes Course at NAS Fort Worth, TX, the AFLSA Reserve

Training Seminar held in Washington, DC, and the Criminal Law New

Developments Course at the Army JAG School.

GOVERNMENT TRIAL & APPELLATE COUNSEL DIVISION

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT COUNSEL

In November 2002, the Division Chief and three appellate counsel

attended the Criminal Law New Developments Course at the Army Judge

Advocate General School. This course covered the latest military cases in

all significant areas of criminal law. In addition to providing new

appellate counsel an update in the most recent criminal law developments,

it was an opportunity for both appellate counsel and trial counsel to spend

several hours together and discuss ways to better serve the base legal

offices. In February, five appellate counsel attended the USCAAF Symposium

sponsored by The Judge Advocate’s Association at George Washington

University School of Law. Also, in May 2002, four appellate counsel

attended the USCAAF Judicial Conference, at George Washington University

School of Law. These conferences provided current information on appellate

issues and guidance on appellate practice.

In October, three appellate government counsel provided in-depth

training at the Military Justice Administration Course (MJAC) conducted at

the Air Force Judge Advocate General School (AFJAGS).

2
Appellate government counsel prepared and provided an appellate

update on USCAAF and AFCCA decisions and trends in case law at trial

counsel workshops at each of the five circuits. Additionally, appellate

government counsel provided instruction on a myriad of military justice

topics at the Trial and Defense Advocacy Course in January 2002, and the

Advanced Trial and Defense Advocacy Course in April 2002.

Appellate government counsel have contributed to “Project Outreach,”

sponsored by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and the Air Force

Court of Criminal Appeals, by conducting oral arguments before audiences at

the United States Air Force Academy, The Air Force Judge Advocate General

School, Scott Air Force Base, and at the Seattle University School of Law,

educating attendees on the fairness and professionalism of the military

justice system.

The Division produced a number of important publications this year,

including the Appellate Update, the Advocacy Continuing Education (ACE)

Newsletters and the 2002 Trial Counsel Deskbook. In turn, these documents

were placed on the Division’s website, providing practitioners easy and

immediate access to the latest in military justice caselaw.

Currently, there are nine reserve judge advocates assigned as

appellate government counsel. They continue to provide superb support,

greatly assisting the Division in carrying out its mission. In addition to

preparing written briefs, five reserve counsel presented oral arguments

before the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for

the Armed Forces during the fiscal year.

A summary of Air Force Appellate (Government) practice follows:

AFCCA FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02

 Briefs Filed 320 230 151 203 181

 Cases Argued 10 11 19 20 12

USCAAF FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02

 Briefs Filed 48 29 23 46 99

 Cases Argued 59 27 28 32 28

SUPREME COURT FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02

 Petition Waivers

 Filed 17 2 1 1 0

 Briefs Filed 0 0 0 0 0

3
CIRCUIT TRIAL COUNSEL

Manning authorizations for the fiscal year included 17 Circuit Trial

Counsel (CTC) at three circuit offices in CONUS, while 4 CTCs cover the

Pacific and European theaters, 2 per theater. During fiscal year 2002,

CTCs tried 253 general courts-martial and 28 special courts-martial. In

November, several CTCs attended the Criminal Law New Developments Course at

the Army JAG School. The CTCs in all five judicial circuits conducted

workshops for base-level prosecutors. Circuit Trial Counsel also utilize

their talents by teaching as adjunct instructors at the Trial and Defense

Advocacy Course and the Advanced Trial and Defense Advocacy Course.

APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISION

Training of appellate defense counsel remains one of the Appellate

Defense Division’s highest priorities. This training includes attending

military and civilian appellate advocacy seminars sponsored by The Judge

Advocate General’s Department, USCAAF, the Federal Bar Association, the

Judge Advocates’ Association, and LawProse.

Appellate defense counsel served as adjunct faculty members in the Advanced

Trial Advocacy Course and the Trial and Defense Advocacy Course at the Air

Force Judge Advocate General School. Appellate defense counsel continued

to support trial defense counsel in the field by actively participating in

circuit defense counsel workshops. Counsel also briefed field defense

practitioners on new appellate developments in military criminal law. The

Division’s Law Office Manager spoke at the Eastern and Central Circuit

defense paralegal workshops, highlighting the differing roles of trial

defense and appellate defense paralegals.

 Appellate defense counsel contributed to “Project Outreach” sponsored

by the AFCCA and USCAAF by participating in oral arguments before audiences

at the United States Air Force Academy, the Seattle School of Law, the

General Hemingway Annual Paralegal Symposium at Scott AFB, and the Air

Force Judge Advocate General School.

The following figures reflect the division’s workload over the past

five fiscal years:

AFCCA FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02

 Briefs Filed 603 507 399 481 525

 Cases Argued 10 9 15 14 12

4
USCAAF FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02

 Supplements to

 Petitions 424 416 330 457 412

 Grant Briefs 40 26 28 31 33

 Cases Argued 59 23 25 31 28

SUPREME COURT FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02

 Petitions 17 0 1 6 3

 Briefs in

 Opposition 1 0 0 0 0

 Briefs on the

 Merits 0 0 0 0 0

TRIAL DEFENSE DIVISION

The Trial Defense Division is responsible for providing all trial

defense services within the Air Force through Area Defense Counsel (ADC),

Defense Paralegals (DP), Circuit Defense Counsel (CDC), and Chief Circuit

Defense Counsel (CCDC). These personnel report to the Chief, Trial Defense

Division (JAJD), who reports to the Director, United States Air Force

Judiciary (JAJ). The Chief, Trial Defense Division is assisted by the

Deputy Chief and Law Office Manager.

The Division is manned with 81 ADCs stationed at 71 bases worldwide.

They are assisted by 72 DPs. The Division has 21 CDCs and 5 CCDCs. The

CCDCs, along with all but four of the CDCs, are stationed at the circuit

offices located at Bolling AFB, DC, Randolph AFB, TX, Travis AFB, CA,

Ramstein AB, Germany, and Yokota AB, Japan. A single defense paralegal

superintendent is assigned to each of the three CONUS circuits and the

European Circuit.

The continuing success of the Air Force’s Area Defense Counsel

Program is largely attributable to its independence and its energized

personnel. To ensure the best representation for Air Force clients,

training remains the division’s top priority. The Chief and all five CCDCs

attended the Criminal Law New Developments Course at the Army Judge

Advocate School. On a continuing basis, each CCDC and CDC provides on-thejob training and mentoring to ADCs. Newly appointed defense counsel

receive formal training at the Area Defense Counsel Orientation and at

annual workshops conducted by each Circuit. Each circuit conducts DP

training at annual DP workshops. In addition, the division ensured each

ADC attended the Trial and Defense Advocacy Course and that all CDCs

attended the Advanced Trial Advocacy Course. The Division provided adjunct

faculty members for these two courses held at the Air Force Judge Advocate

General School.

5
MILITARY JUSTICE DIVISION

The Military Justice Division prepares opinions and policy positions

for The Judge Advocate General and for the Air Force Board for Correction

of Military Records. The Division also provides responses to military

justice inquiries requested by the White House, Congress, DoD and

Headquarters Air Force. During the past fiscal year, the Division received

156 inquires involving specific cases requiring either formal written

replies or telephonic replies to senior officials, including the President

and members of Congress.

The Division represents the Air Force on the DoD Joint Service

Committee (JSC) on Military Justice. The JSC recommends and implements

changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for CourtsMartial. The Division also provides representatives to all interservice

activities involving military justice and support for the Code Committee.

The Military Justice Division serves as the action agency for the

review of military justice issues on applications submitted to the Air

Force Board for Correction of Military Records. During fiscal year 2002,

the Military Justice Division wrote 94 formal opinions concerning such

applications. The Military Justice Division also reviewed 97 records of

trial for review under Article 69a, UCMJ, 5 records under Article 69b,

UCMJ, and no records under Article 73, UCMJ.

The Division conducted the sixth annual Military Justice

Administration Course at the Air Force Judge Advocate General School. Over

125 judge advocates and paralegals attended the “back to basics” one-week

workshop, emphasizing the procedures and methods necessary to ensuring the

proper management of the military justice system.

CLEMENCY, CORRECTIONS AND OFFICER REVIEW DIVISION

The Division's primary responsibilities continue to be to (1)

recommend appropriate disposition of statutorily required sentence review

actions by the Secretary of the Air Force in officer and cadet dismissal

cases; (2) recommend action by The Judge Advocate General or the Secretary

of the Air Force, as appropriate, to effect statutorily authorized clemency

for members of the Air Force under court-martial sentence; (3) represent

The Judge Advocate General on the Air Force Clemency and Parole Board; (4)

make recommendations for the Secretary of the Air Force to the Attorney

General on Presidential pardon applications by court-martialed Air Force

members; and (5) advise The Judge Advocate General and the Security Forces

Center on corrections issues.

6
At the end of fiscal year 2002, 503 Air Force personnel were in

confinement. Of those, 85 inmates were in long-term confinement at the

United States Disciplinary Barracks (USDB), Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and

115 were serving time in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) system. A

total of 26 inmates were enrolled in the Air Force Return-to-Duty

Rehabilitation (RTDR) Program during this period, with two graduating and

being returned to duty. The number of Air Force inmates on parole at the

end of fiscal year 2002 was 122, a 6 percent decrease from last fiscal

year.

AIR FORCE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL SCHOOL

The Air Force Judge Advocate General (AFJAG) School is one of eight

professional continuing education schools in Air University's Ira C. Eaker

College for Professional Development at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama.

The AFJAG School is located in The William L. Dickinson Law Center, a

56,000 square foot academic facility dedicated in 1993. The Dickinson Law

Center also houses the David C. Morehouse Center for Paralegal Studies and

the Air Force Legal Information Services Division (JAS). The AFJAG School

provides legal education and training to attorneys and paralegals from all

military services, other federal agencies, and many foreign countries. The

AFJAG School faculty provides instruction at several Air University schools

and colleges as well as courses throughout the Department of Defense. The

AFJAG School publishes The Reporter, The Air Force Law Review and The

Military Commander and the Law. The AFJAG School maintains AFJAG

Department liaison with civilian professional organizations, law schools,

and states requiring continuing legal education.

AFJAG School Courses

The AFJAG School conducted 39 classes (some courses are held more

than once a year) and two symposia in Fiscal Year 2002 for more than 3,500

students. The decrease in the number of classes and number of students

were a result of the cancellation of some courses and reduced attendance in

others following the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks. Courses,

seminars, symposia, and workshops conducted at the AFJAG School included:

Accident Investigation Board Legal Advisor

Advanced Environmental Law

Advanced Labor and Employment Law

Advanced Trial Advocacy

Claims and Tort Litigation

Deployed Air Reserve Components Operations and Law

Deployed Fiscal Law and Contingency Contracting

Environmental Law

Environmental Law Update

7
Federal Employee Labor Law

Federal Income Tax Law

Housing Privatization

Information Operations Law

International Law

Judge Advocate Staff Officer

Law Office Manager

Legal Aspects of Information Operations

Military Judges

Military Justice Administration

Negotiation and Appropriate Dispute Resolution

Operations Law

Paralegal Apprentice

Paralegal Craftsman

Reserve Forces Judge Advocate

Reserve Forces Paralegal

Roles of Civilians in Military Operations

Staff Judge Advocate

Trial and Defense Advocacy

Off-Site Courses

Normally the AFJAG School conducts four “Annual Surveys of the Law” for

approximately 500 judge advocates and paralegals in the Air Force Reserve

and Air National Guard. The surveys provide concise legal updates and

extensive reviews of recent developments in military justice. The surveys

are conducted at a civilian conference facility in Denver, Colorado, and

historically take place in early October. As a result of the 11 September

2001 attacks, the FY 2002 surveys scheduled for 5-7 October 2001 were

cancelled and rescheduled in January 2003.

Distance Learning (DL) Courses

The AFJAG School conducted two DL courses, the Air Force Systems and

Logistics Contracting Course and the Fiscal Law Course, by live satellite

broadcast (one-way video and two-way audio) to more than 50 Air Force and

Army sites throughout the United States. Approximately 1,300 personnel

participated in DL courses in fiscal year 2002.

Outside Teaching

In addition to teaching AFJAG School courses, faculty members provide

over 1,200 academic hours of instruction annually on a wide range of legal

topics in other colleges, schools, and courses within Air University.

These include: Air War College; Air Command and Staff College; Squadron

Officer School; College of Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and Education;

School of Advanced Airpower Studies; International Officer School; Officer

8
Training School; Senior Noncommissioned Officer Academy; USAF First

Sergeant Academy; Professional Military Comptroller School; Group

Commanders' Course; Wing Commanders’ Seminar; Advanced Personnel Officer

Course; and the Chaplain Orientation Course. Additionally, the faculty

performs more than 1,200 hours of instruction annually in other schools,

courses, and conferences throughout the world. In fiscal year 2002, AFJAG

School personnel instructed at the Inter-American Air Force Academy; Air

National Guard International Humanitarian Law Symposium; USAF Special

Operations School; U.S. Army Judge Advocate General School; American

Society of Military Comptrollers Conference; and the Harvard Conference on

Humanitarian Issues in Military Targeting.

The AFJAG School participates in the Expanded International Military

Education and Training (E-IMET) program, one of several security assistance

programs mandated by Congress. The program promotes U.S. foreign policy

goals as established in the Foreign Assistance Act. The E-IMET Program

involves joint U.S. military training teams teaching human rights, military

justice, civilian control of the military, the law of armed conflict, rules

of engagement, and general democratic principles in countries designated as

emerging democracies. Faculty from the AFJAG School participated in four

E-IMET missions in fiscal year 2002. E-IMETs were conducted for Bulgaria,

Macedonia, Slovenia, and Madagascar.

Publications

Each year, the AFJAG School publishes two issues of The Air Force Law

Review, a professional legal journal consisting of articles of interest to

Air Force judge advocates, civilian attorney advisors, and others with an

interest in military law. The Law Review is a scholarly legal publication

that encourages candid discussion of relevant legislative, administrative,

and judicial developments. Additionally, four issues of The Reporter, the

Department's quarterly legal publication containing articles of general

interest, were produced and distributed. The AFJAG School continues to

distribute large quantities of its most popular publication, The Military

Commander and the Law, a 550+ page compendium of concise legal papers

addressing issues confronting military commanders. The printed version was

updated in Fiscal Year 2002 and more than 15,000 copies were printed and

distributed worldwide. An electronic version is available on-line at

http://milcom.jag.af.mil and is updated every six months.

LEGAL INFORMATION SERVICES

During fiscal year 2002, the Legal Information Services (JAS)

Division continued to exploit the force-multiplying power of information

technology (IT) by launching four new software initiatives while continuing

to upgrade and refine several of its existing platforms and services.

9
Most notable among the new initiatives, JAS developed an ingenious

Reserve Deployment/Mobility Readiness Data Base (RDRDB). The RDRDB,

created by Reserve Air Force judge advocates, allows Air Force war planners

at all levels to determine the mobility readiness of their reserve

personnel. The RDRDB allows war planners to assess reserve personnel

mobility readiness and home station reserve support capabilities through a

set of weighted readiness indicators. The RDRDB is being adopted not only

by the Reserve Components, but also by the US Air Force in general.

A second JAS initiative is the Air National Guard JAG-Distance Finder

(ANGJDF). The ANGJDF allows Staff Judge Advocates at all levels of command

to identify and contact ANG and Reserve judge advocates within a variable

radius from any base. The ANGJDF uses US Census and Roster data to track

ANG and Reserve judge advocates by the Zip Code of the base and the judge

advocate in question. For example, if the SJA at Kirtland AFB, New Mexico,

wants to know whether there are any ANG and Reserve judge advocates within

50 miles of Kirtland AFB, the SJA can turn to the ANGJDF to obtain a print

out of the available personnel.

JAS electronically archived the late Dr. Schubert’s post war European

collection. Dr. Schubert donated thousands of legal policy documents he

had collected and created over many years to The Judge Advocate General’s

Department. The documents are a treasure trove of information that faced

deterioration and destruction had they not been archived.

LEGAL ASSISTANCE AND PREVENTIVE LAW PROGRAM

The Legal Assistance Division oversees a global legal assistance and

preventive law program. During 2002, Air Force legal assistance programs

served over 284,000 clients, representing a 12% increase from the previous

year, prepared 125,235 wills (75% increase over 2001), 192,580 powers of

attorney (18% increase over 2001), and provided over 415,000 notaries, an

increase of 22% from 2001. The Division also coordinated field testing of

a new on-line statistical and data tracking program for legal assistance

that will eliminate the burden of manually preparing an annual written

report. The program will allow the Department, at all levels of command,

to immediately retrieve data on the volume of legal assistance work each

office completes, organized by criteria such as type of legal issue and

grade of client. The new program, known as WebLIONS, begins full operation

on 2 January 2003.

During the 2002 tax-filing season, a record 98 Air Force legal

offices offered electronic tax filing services to those eligible for

military tax program assistance. These sites filed 126,687 electronic

federal returns and 18,174 federal paper returns, for a total of 145,861

federal income tax returns, as well as 27,997 state electronic returns and

42,779 state paper returns, for a total of 70,876 state income tax returns.

10
Employing 205 JA personnel and 3531 volunteers worldwide, the Air Force tax

program assisted members in filing 206,737 returns, at a savings of

$15,752,837 in fees. Implemented in 2002, the web-based Tax Program

Reporting System allows all levels of command to immediately access the

data in real time. Again, significant time and effort are saved in

preparing the annual report of the tax program.

PERSONNEL

As of 30 September 2002, the Air Force Judge Advocate’s Department

had 1370 judge advocates on active duty. Company grade officers

(lieutenants and captains) made up approximately half of that number (665).

Slightly more than 25% were majors (349) and 16% were lieutenant colonels

(222). Almost ten percent of the Department were colonels (129) and above,

including two major generals and three brigadier generals.

THOMAS J. FISCUS

Major General, USAF

The Judge Advocate General

11
APPENDIX - U. S. AIR FORCE MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

Report Period: FISCAL YEAR 2002

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons)

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/

DECREASE (-) OVER

LAST REPORT

GENERAL 564 534 30 +15.10%

BCD SPECIAL 384 194 19 +12.94%

NON-BCD SPECIAL [A] 157

SUMMARY 119 118 1 -5.55%

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT +11.61%

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL)

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 61

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 367

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL)

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 173

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 448

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 169

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 96

PART 4 – WORKLOAD OF THE U.S. AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 361

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL [B]

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL [B]

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 617

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL [B]

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL [B]

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 564

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 480

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD (563:564) +.17%

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

 U.S. AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (CCA)

NUMBER 603:617

PERCENTAGE 97.73%

PART 6 - ACTIONS OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

 (CAAF)

PERCENTAGE OF AFCCA REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCAAF (381/564) 67.55%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -7.58%

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED (42/423) 10.24%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +.24%

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CCA (42/563) 6.91%

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD (423:381) -9.92%

Page 1 of 2
APPENDIX - U.S. AIR FORCE MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS - CONT’D

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 3

RECEIVED 0

DISPOSED OF 3

 GRANTED 0

 DENIED 3

 NO JURISDICTION 0

 WITHDRAWN 0

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 0

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 605

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 359

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 246

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 343

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 205

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 138

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 28

PART 10 – STRENGTH

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 357,537

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ)

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 9109

RATE PER 1,000 25.48

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD +5.83%

EXPLANATORY NOTES

 

[A] The Air Force does not convene non-BCD SPCMs. Of the 384 SPCMs tried, there were 194 convictions with a

 BCD adjudged, 157 convictions without a BCD adjudged and 19 acquittals.

[B] GCM and SPCM were not tracked separately.

Page 2 of 2
SECTION 6

REPORT OF THE

CHIEF COUNSEL OF THE COAST GUARD
REPORT OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL OF THE U. S. COAST GUARD

October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2002

NOTE: All statistics are based on the number of court-martial records

received and filed at Coast Guard Headquarters during fiscal year 2002 and,

where indicated, records received during each of the four preceding fiscal

years. The number of court-martial cases varies widely from year to year,

in part, based on the small size of the Coast Guard.

Fiscal Year 02 01 00 99 98

General Courts-Martial 04 15 10 6 18

Special Courts-Martial 23 17 23 17 21

Summary Courts-Martial 11 18 11 3 8

Total 38 50 44 26 47

COURTS-MARTIAL

Attorney counsel and military judges were detailed to all special

courts-martial. The Chief Trial Judge details all military judges and all

requests were timely met. When the Chief Trial Judge was unavailable,

military judges with other primary duties were detailed to special courtsmartial and general courts-martial judges from other military services were

detailed to general courts-martial.

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL

Three of the four accused tried by general courts-martial this fiscal

year were tried by military judge alone. One elected to be tried by

general courts-martial that included officer and enlisted members. All

four general courts-martial resulted in convictions and of the accused

whose charges were referred to general courts-martial, one was nonrated

(pay grades E-1 through E-3), two were petty officers (pay grades E-4

through E-6), none were chief petty officers (pay grades E-7 through E-9),

and one was a commissioned officer (W-1 through O-9). One of the accused

tried by general courts-martial pled guilty to all charges and

specifications.

The following table summarizes the sentences adjudged in general

courts-martial tried by military judge alone (three convictions):

Sentence Cases Imposed

dishonorable discharge/dismissal- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3

bad conduct discharge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

confinement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3

hard labor without confinement- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

reduction in pay-grade - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

fined (total $3,000.00) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

restriction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

forfeiture of all pay and allowances - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

partial forfeiture of pay and allowances - - - - - - - - - - - 0
The following table summarizes the sentences adjudged in general

courts-martial tried by members (one conviction):

Sentence Cases Imposed

dishonorable discharge- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

bad-conduct discharge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

confinement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

hard labor without confinement- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

reduction in pay-grade - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

fined (total $0.00) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

restriction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

forfeiture of all pay and allowances - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

partial forfeiture of pay and allowances - - - - - - - - - - - 0

The following table compares the frequency of imposition of the four

most common punishments imposed at general courts-martial in the past five

fiscal years.

 Reduction Punitive

 Number of in Discharge/

FY Convictions Forfeitures Confinement Pay-Grade Dismissal

02 4 1 (25%) 3 (75%) 3 (75%) 4 (100%)

01 15 4 (27%) 14 (93%) 13 (87%) 10 (67%)

00 9 5 (56%) 7 (78%) 6 (67%) 6 (67%)

99 6 0 (0%) 6 (100%) 6 (100%) 5 (83%)

98 17 5 (29%) 12 (71%) 16 (94%) 11 (65%)

The following table shows the distribution of the 47 specifications

referred to general courts-martial in fiscal year 2002.

Violation of the UCMJ, Article No. of Specs.

 78 (accessory after the fact) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

 81 (conspiracy) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

 92 (failure to obey order or regulation) - - - - - - - - - - 4

120 (rape or carnal knowledge) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

121 (larceny or wrongful appropriation) - - - - - - - - - - - 1

125 (sodomy) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5

134 (general) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 32

 47

Four general courts-martial represent a 73% decrease in general

courts-martial records received and filed at Coast Guard Headquarters in FY

2002 over the previous fiscal year. The Coast Guard has averaged 10

general courts-martial per year over the last 5 years with four to eighteen

cases a year. This decrease in general courts-martial in FY 2002 is

somewhat offset by the increase in special courts-martial.

2
SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

Twenty-two of the twenty-three accused tried by special courts-martial

this fiscal year were tried by military judge alone. One elected to be

tried by special courts-martial with officer members. All of the special

courts-martial resulted in convictions and eighteen accused received a BCD.

One accused tried by special court-martial pled guilty to all charges and

specifications. Eighteen of the accused whose charges were referred to

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

were petty officers (pay grades E-4 through E-6), none were chief petty

officers (pay grades E-7 through E-9), and none were commissioned officers

(W-1 through O-9).

The following table summarizes the sentences adjudged in the twentythree special courts-martial cases:

Sentence Cases Imposed

bad-conduct discharge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 18

confinement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 22

hard labor without confinement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

reduction in pay-grade - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17

fined (total $400.00) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

restriction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

partial forfeiture of pay and allowances- - - - - - - - - - - 9

reprimand - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

The following table compares the four sentences imposed most by

special courts-martial in the past five fiscal years:

 Reduction

 Number of in

FY Convictions Forfeitures Confinement Pay-Grade BCD 

02 23 9 (39%) 22 (96%) 17 (74%) 18 (78%)

01 17 9 (53%) 17 (100%) 12 (71%) 9 (53%)

00 23 8 (35%) 20 (87%) 19 (83%) 10 (43%)

99 17 8 (47%) 15 (88%) 16 (94%) 9 (53%)

98 20 9 (45%) 9 (45%) 17 (85%) 4 (20%)

The following table shows the distribution of the 191 specifications

referred to special courts-martial in fiscal year 2002.

Violation of the UCMJ, Article No. of Specs.

 80 (attempts)- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

 81 (conspiracy)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - 6

 83 (fraudulent enlistment, appointment, or separation) - - 2

 85 (desertion)- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5

 86 (unauthorized absence) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15

 87 (missing movement)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5

3
 90 (assaulting or willfully disobeying a superior

 commissioned officer) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3

 92 (failure to obey order or regulation) - - - - - - - - - 14

107 (false official statement)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6

112a (wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled

 substance) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 62

117 (provoking speeches or gestures) - - - - - - - - - - - 1

121 (larceny or wrongful appropriation) - - - - - - - - - - 12

123a (making, drawing, or uttering check, draft or order

 without sufficient funds)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

125 (sodomy)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

128 (aggravated assault)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6

134 (general) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 50

 191

There was a 35% increase in special courts-martial received and filed

at Coast Guard Headquarters this fiscal year over last fiscal year. Over

the past five years the Coast Guard has averaged twenty special courtsmartial per year with seventeen to twenty-three special courts-martial a

year. While a 35% increase in special courts-martial in one year is

significant, the total number of general and special courts-martial held in

the last year is the second lowest total number of general and special

courts-martial held in the last five years.

CHIEF COUNSEL ACTION UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ

In addition to the required reviews of courts-martial conducted as a

result of petitions filed under Article 66, UCMJ, one review of a general

courts-martial was conducted under Article 69(d)(1), UCMJ.

PERSONNEL, ORGANIZATION, AND TRAINING

The Coast Guard has 181 officers designated as law specialists (judge

advocates) serving on active duty of which 137 are serving in legal billets

and 44 are serving in general duty billets. Twenty-three Coast Guard

officers are currently undergoing postgraduate studies in law and will be

certified as law specialists at the successful completion of their studies.

Eight students will graduate in 2003, seven will graduate in 2004, and

eight will graduate in 2005. Fourteen Coast Guard officers (including

three funded postgraduate program studies and eleven direct-commissioned

lawyers) completed the Navy Basic Lawyer Course in Newport, Rhode Island.

All have been or are in the process of becoming certified under Article

27(b), UCMJ.

U. S. COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

 The following judges sat on the U.S. Coast Guard Court of Criminal

Appeals during fiscal year 2001:

4
 Position Name Sworn-In Departed

 Chief Judge Joseph H. Baum 1 Apr 1985

 Judge David J. Kantor 1 Jul 1997

 Judge Robert W. Bruce 6 Sep 2000

 Judge Gary A. Palmer 19 Apr 2001

 Judge Ronald E. Kilroy 25 July 2001 30 Sep 2002

 Judge Thomas R. Cahill 1 Mar 2002

In addition to the decisional work of the Court, as reflected in

Appendix A, the judges of the Court have been involved in various

professional conferences, committees and seminars during the past fiscal

year.

In March, 2002, Judge Bruce participated in a panel of appellate

military judges that made a presentation to the Military Appellate Attorney

Seminar presented by the Judge Advocates Association at Catholic University

School of Law in Washington, DC. The panel provided an opportunity for

appellate attorney’s to discuss items of interest with sitting appellate

judges.

In May, 2002, Judge Bruce participated in a panel of appellate

military judges that made a presentation to the Military Judges Course at

the Army Judge Advocate General School in Charlottesville, VA. The panel

provided an opportunity for the new trial judges to discuss items of

interest with sitting appellate judges.

On 17 September 2002, the judges participated in the Coast Guard’s

2002 Legal Officers Conference, Military Justice Day at the Sheraton Suites

in Alexandria, VA. The Conference that day included informative

presentations and discussion on the state of military justice in the Coast

Guard, various issues in the pretrial, trial, post-trial and appellate

phases of Courts-Martial, and a presentation on current trends in military

law by Judge Robert Bruce. Vice Admiral Thad W. Allen, Chief of Staff,

U.S. Coast Guard, discussed current Coast Guard issues and the role the

Coast Guard legal community plays in those evolving issues.

On 25 and 26 September 2002, the judges participated in the William

S. Fulton, Jr. Appellate Military Judges Conference and Training Seminar at

the Federal Judicial Center in Washington, D.C. The conference was hosted

by the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals and featured an opening address

by Chief Judge Susan J. Crawford, entitled “More Answered and Unanswered

Questions.” The conference included presentations on “Current Issues in

Military Law” by The Honorable Lindsey O. Graham, U.S. House of

Representatives, “Standards of Review” by Mr. LeRoy F. Foreman,

Commissioner to CAAF Judge H.F. Gierke; “Lessons on Judicial Writing” by

Professor Jeffery A. Van Detta, John Marshall Law School; “The Scope of

Article 66(c), UCMJ” by Colonel Michael J. Breslin, Senior Judge, Air Force

5
Court of Criminal Appeals; “Prosecuting Child Pornography after Ashcroft v.

Free Speech Coalition” by Mr. Andrew G. Oosterbaan, Chief, Child

Exploitation and Obscenity Section, U.S. Department of Justice; “Is There

Justice for All: A Contemporary Look at Courts-Martial” by the Honorable

Walter T. Cox III, Senior Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed

Forces; “Case Management and Electronic Filing” by Mr. Gary Bockweg,

Project Director, Office of Information Technology, Administrative Offices

of the U.S. Courts; “Ethical Considerations for Judges” by Colonel Keven

Kuhn, USAFR, The Judge Advocate General’s School, USAF; and a discussion of

recent specific service military judge opinions by a representative from

each of the respective services. Judge Robert Bruce represented the Coast

Guard. Judge Kantor, Judge Bruce, Judge Palmer, and Judge Cahill were in

attendance.

Chief Judge Baum served another year as a member of the Rules

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

ADDITIONAL MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

Appendix A contains the formal Coast Guard, Fiscal Year 2002 military

justice statistics.

R. F. DUNCAN

Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard

Chief Counsel

6
APPENDIX - U.S. COAST GUARD MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

Report Period: 1 OCTOBER 2001 - 30 SEPTEMBER 2002

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons)

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/

DECREASE (-) OVER

LAST REPORT

GENERAL 4 4 0 -73%

BCD SPECIAL 23 23 +35%

NON-BCD SPECIAL 0 0 0 UNCHANGED

SUMMARY 11 11 0 -39%

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT -14%

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 2

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 1

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 18

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 3

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 18

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1

PART 4 – WORKLOAD OF THE COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 19

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 14

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 5

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 27*

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 10

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 16

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 32*

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 19

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 12

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 14

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 4

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 10

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD

+33%

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE

 U.S. COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (CCA)

NUMBER 27

PERCENTAGE 100%

PART 6 - ACTIONS OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

 (CAAF)

PERCENTAGE OF CCA REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 5/32 16%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -24%

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 4/16 25%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -58%

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CGCCA 3/32 9%

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD -31%

*One of the extraordinary writ petitions related to a civilian conviction, not a court-martial.

Page 1 of 2
APPENDIX - U.S. COAST GUARD MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS - CONT’D

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 0

RECEIVED 0

DISPOSED OF 0

 GRANTED 0

 DENIED 0

 NO JURISDICTION 0

 WITHDRAWN 0

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 0

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 3

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 22

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 1

PART 10 – STRENGTH

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 36,773

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ)

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 1379

RATE PER 1,000 37.50

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD -4.50%

Page 2 of 2