INCLUDING SEPARATE REPOR

of the 


U.S. COURT OF MILITARY APPE

THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENE

OF THE U.S. ARMED FORCES

AND THE CHIEF COUNSEL 

OF THE U.S. COAST GUARD 

For the Period 


October 1, 1990 to September 30

PROPERTY 0 U.s. 

E JUOOE ADVOCATE G ERA

UBRARr 

SERVICES 

of the 


u.s. Senate and House of Re

and to the 


SECRETARY OF DEFEN

SECRETARY OF TRANSPOR

and 


SECRETARIES OF TH

ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR F

PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY 

For the Period 


October 1, 1990-September 3

NAVY 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF 

AIR FORCE 

REPORT OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL OF THE COAST 

the United States Senate and House of Repre

Secretaries of Defense, Transportation, Army, 

in accordance with Article 146, Uniform Code 

10 USC § 946. 

THE BUSINESS OF THE CO

The Defense Authorization Act of 1990, Publ

189, 103 Statutes 1570 (1989), increased the 

United States Court of Military Appeals from 

effective October 1, 1990. However, as a result 

the Court functioned during the entire fIscal 

three judges (Chief Judge Sullivan, Judge Co

Everett). Notwithstanding the fact that there 

on the Court, the Court was able to conduct b

tain a steady flow of cases throughout the cur

workflow is reflected by the fact that the nu

Court's Petition Docket at the end of fIscal ye

only 13 cases over the number of cases pendin

year 1990. (See Appendix A.) The number of 

Master Docket decreased by 3 cases during t

Appendix B.) This slight decrease resulted fro

number of oral arguments from 100 to 112 a

105 to 125 opinions issued by the Court durin

compared with fIscal year 1990. (See Appendic

The overall case processing times remained 

fIscal year 1990 to fIscal year 1991. While th

days between the fIling of a petition with the 

of such petition was reduced from 117 days to 

1 Although not part of the business of the Court, it is no

1991 the Court was notified that petitions for writ of cer

Supreme Court of the United States in 24 Master Docke

took fmal action. 
In addition, these processing times include a 70

ed for counsel to file pleadings. Thus, as the no

on the Master Docket for a granted petition inc

70 days, the overall average processing periods n

nificantly lower than the total periods indicate

appendices. For cases involving a denial or a dis

for grant of review on the Petition Docket, the 

period of 57 days remained constant from fiscal 

year 1991. (See Appendix H). The overall comb

essing time from filing to final decision for the P

Dockets taken together was 82 days for flScal y

pendix I.) The total number of petitions filed 

fiscal year 1991 was 1813. (See Appendix J.) 

Again during this fiscal year, the Chief Jus

States, acting under authority of an amendme

Code of Military Justice, designated a Judge o

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to sit in 

the United States Court of Military Appeals wh

self from hearing and deciding a particular case. 

During fiscal year 1991 the Court admitted 67

tice before its Bar, bringing the cumulative t

before the Bar of the Court to 28,257. 

PUBLIC AWARENESS PROJ

(Project Outreach) 

Consistent with its practice established in 198

uled several special sessions and heard oral arg

cases outside its permanent courthouse in W

part of its "Project Outreach," a public aware

demonstrates not only the operation of a Fede

but also the effectiveness and quality of the crim

of the Armed Services of the United States. 

were conducted, without objection of the part

2 
who attend these hearings will realize that Am

that can maintain an Armed Force instilled w

discipline to make it a world power and yet 

Force a fair and impartial justice system whi

protection of the Constitution of the United St

to its members. 

JUDICIAL VISITATION

During fiscal year 1991, the Judges of the C

past practice and their ethical responsibility 

tary justice system, participated in profession

for military and civilian lawyers, spoke to pr

judges and lawyers, and visited staff judge 

manders at various military installations throu

VISIT OF CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE U

On December 18, 1990, the Chief Justice of th

Honorable William H. Rehnquist, visited the 

time in its history and met with the Judges an

concerning matters relating to the judicial a

military justice system under the Uniform Cod

(See Appendices K and L.) 

THE JUDICIAL CONFERE

On May 2-3 1991, the Court held its annual 

at the George Washington University Marvin 

operation of the Military Law Institute, Geor

versity, the Judge Advocates Association, and 

sociation. This annual professional event, nam

Judicial Conference of the United States Court 

was formerly entitled the Homer Ferguson 
Honorable C. Boyden Gray, Counsel to the Pres

States; the Honorable William C. Bryson, Depu

of the United States; Professor Sara Sun Beale

the Honorable Julie Carnes, United States Sent

Dr. Jonathan Lurie, Historian to the United S

tary Appeals and Professor of History, Rutg

Honorable Frank Q. Nebeker, Chief Judge, Un

Veterans Appeals; Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chie

tions and Officer Review Division, Office of t

General, United States Air Force; James E. Co

Joseph W. (Wayne) Kastl, Esquire, Retired Se

States Air Force Court of Military Review; Col

Legal and Legislative Counsel to the Chairm

Staff; and the Honorable Eugene R. Sullivan, 

States Court of Military Appeals. 

In addition, Major General William Berkman

of the Reserve Forces Policy Board, Office of t

fense, chaired a panel discussion on "Judge A

ation Desert Storm" with panelists Rear Admi

The Judge Advocate General, United States N

David C. Morehouse, The Judge Advocate Gen

Air Force; Major General John L. Fugh, The 

cate General, United States Army, and Briga

L. Miller, Director, Judge Advocate Division, U

Corps._ The Honorable Walter T. Cox, III, Ju

Court of Military Appeals, moderated a panel d

and the Law-Is There a Difference?" with pan

Albertson, Judge, United States Navy-Marine 

tary Review; the Honorable Royce C. Lamb

States District Court, District of Columbia; Rea

Hoffman, Jr., JAGC, United States Navy (Ret.); 

Jay Reining, United States Coast Guard, Ch

Maintenance and Logistics Command, Atlantic

cussion on "Evidence Update Under the Mi

4 
tain Robert H. McLeran, Military Justice Proj

of the Judge Advocate General, United States 

William S. Fulton, Jr. (Ret.), Clerk of Court, U

Court of Military Review. 

Another seminar was moderated by Colonel C

Judge, United States Navy-Marine Corps Court 

with participation by Colonel Leroy F. Forem

United States Army Court of Military Review

Freyer, Judge, United States Navy-Marine Corp

Review; Colonel Howard C. Eggers, Chief Ju

Army Trial Judiciary; Lieutenant Colonel Joh

United States Air Force Court of Military Revie

ble Alfred F. Bridgeman, Jr., Judge, United 

Court of Military Review. 

The invocation was offered by Rear Admir

Chief of Chaplains of the United States Navy, 

opened with welcoming remarks by the Honora

van, Chief Judge, United States Court of M

behalf of the Court; Colonel Walter L. Lewi

behalf of the Military Law Institute; Dean John 

Dean for External Affairs, on behalf of the Na

George Washington University; and Lieutenan

Fiscus, USAF, on behalf of the Judge Advocates 

The Judicial Conference was attended by num

civilian lawyers as well as judges of the Courts 

legal scholars and commentators in the field o

was also videotaped and made available for edu

many others interested in the administration 

throughout the world. 
their face. The Court observed that the aggrav

not elements of the offense; that the history of th

Military Justice reflected that Congress had bee

the President to play a major role in determinin

ishment; and that Congress had by implication 

thority to the President, as Congress had recen

thorized the President to prescribe aggravating 

mine whether capital punishment should be im

fense of espionage under Article 106(a), UCMJ

The Court also rejected a defense argument t

court members was required, observing that su

chosen under the criteria set forth in Article 2

§ 825; that the decision on imposition of the dea

unanimous; that the military judge could reco

tion; that the convening authority could commu

and that a Court of Military Review, which is c

appellate military judges, must thoroughly re

facts of the case and the appropriateness of the 

the Court observed that RCM 1004 went furthe

statutes in providing safeguards in a captial pun

Additional issues raised in this same captial c

by the Court in a subsequent opinion after hear

on these issues. United States v. Curtis, 33 M

Therein the Court rejected the defense argum

counsel's challenge of a black court member vi

ments of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986

standard of review set forth in Hernandez v. Ne

1859 (1991). The Court observed that the trial 

2 This section of the Court's annual report is prepared sol

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

assist in easily locating cases of particular interest during t

maries are not of precedential value and should not be cited 

Court. 

6 
pp

sentences imposed in other cases. 

Article 31 Rights 

The Court ruled in United States v. Moore, 32 

that an accused's pretrial statement to a nu

plained of depression, immediately after observi

tion of his stepdaughter upon whom he had be

mitting indecent acts, was clearly given for me

that the nurse's questions to him about suspec

his stepdaughter were clearly outside the scope 

tions. In United States v. Phillips, 32 MJ 76 (CM

held that the standard in determining the volun

quent confession that had been preceded by an 

sion, where such involuntariness resulted only 

properly warn the accused of his panoply of ri

counsel, should be a determination of voluntari

totality of the circumstances. The Court dist

from one where an earlier confession was inv

was obtained through actual coercion, duress or 

by rendering a subsequent confession presump

product of the first confession. The Court rule

Court standard in Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 29

cable to the provisions of Article 31, UCMJ, 10 

the Government must prove the voluntariness 

a preponderance of the evidence, as requi

304(e)(1). 

Classified Information 

In United States v. Pruner, 33 MJ 272 (CMA 

jected a defense argument that an appellate cou

tain classified information in the Government's 

classified and held that a defense request for 

premature on the basis that, under Mil.R.Evid. 
(1957), required a contrary conclusion and ruled t

Nichols was not as broad as urged by the defense 

ols, unlike Pruner, the convening authority had 

a security clearance for the defense counsel. 

Right to Counsel 

Concerning the obligation of military polic

notify a military suspect's Dutch counsel of an 

interview of this suspect, the Court held in Uni

josa, 33 MJ 353 (CMA 1991), that such investigat

the military suspect's rights by questioning him 

fying the Dutch counsel. The Court held that s

earlier request to Dutch police for a Dutch law

with an on-going local drug investigation may w

only his discomfort in dealing with a foreign 

system, the subsequent interview of the accused 

tigator who was aware of the earlier contact be

and his Dutch lawyer did not violate the accused

second interview was preceded by full rights advi

rejected the accused's claim that Minnick v. Mi

486 (1990), required a contrary holding, and rul

Minnick was inconsistent with the Court's e

United States v. Coleman, 26 MJ 451 (CMA 1988

stant case was based. 

A question concerning defense counsel's ethica

untarily disclose the existence of evidence poten

his client was resolved in United States v. Rhea

1991). The Court ruled in this case that where t

gible items to his defense counsel which counsel 

stituted evidence potentially damaging to the c

acted properly and within his ethical obligations 

closing the existence of such evidence to the tri

pursuant to a court order after an ex parte hear

delivering such evidence to the prosecution. Ind

8 
called to active duty in accord with Air Force 

out merit. The Court noted that the accused-a

officer-was apprehended while on active duty 

tion continued even if his orders to active duty 

tionally, the Court observed that the accused w

ities in his call to active duty in light of his 

protest such irregularities and his voluntary a

duty. 

Mental Competency 

In Short v. Chambers, 33 MJ 49 (CMA 1991), 

question concerning the requirements for the tr

accused to a federal civilian facility for men

Court held that the convening authority did n

tion by transferring the accused, who had been 

competent to stand trial, to a federal correcti

treatment and consultation, noting that the a

forded a hearing under the provisions of Arti

USC § 839(a), with a presiding military judge, a

heard, legal representation, and notice that 

ferred to a mental health facility if he were fo

tent to stand trial. Thus, the Court held that 

dures afforded a military accused complied full

tional safeguards of due process enunciated in 

U.S. 480 (1980). 

Uncharged Misconduct Evidence 

" The issue of whether uncharged misconduc

under Mil.R.Evid. 404(b) against a military acc

by the Court in United States v. Jones, 32 M

Therein the Court ruled that where the iden

became an issue, evidence of prior drug sales 

tion under similar circumstances was properly 

rule. 
ed construction of such provisions. The Court fu

ticle 60(e), UCMJ, 10 USC § 860(e), should be 

clude a reconsideration with a view toward incr

except where such sentence is required by law. 

Military Rules of Evidence 

Answering a question concerning the standard 

business records under Mil.R.Evid. 803(6), the C

States v. Garces, 32 MJ 345 (CMA 1991), that 

establish the foundation for admitting document

nection with credit card purchases provided a su

for their admission as business records since the 

ally familiar with the record-keeping system so 

plain the system to the military judge and to est

the documents. The Court distinguished United 

MJ 325 (CMA 1976), in which the Court earl

stringent rule that the foundation for admittin

must be established by a person "intimately 

business operations of firms for which such ent

holding that Wilson was decided prior to the ad

tary Rules of Evidence and that the Federal Ci

peals had generally accepted the test applied in 

also applied this less stringent rule in United St

32 MJ 351 (CMA 1991). 

Concerning the admissibility of a pretrial de

sexual abuse victim the Court held in United St

412 (CMR 1991), that the deposition was admiss

lection recorded under Mil.R.Evid. 803(5), wher

had full knowledge of the incident at the time s

tion but had insufficient recollection to enable 

rate testimony at the time of the trial. The Cou

ment that the rule required that the witness b

recollection of the event "or condition described 

ment for such to qualify as past recollection reco

10 
Command Influence 

Citing Article 37, UCMJ, 10 USC § 837, the C

States v. Hilow, 32 MJ 439 (CMA 1991), that the 

of the pool of potential court members for the a

tial by a subordinate of the convening authority 

tion of the article. The Court further held that 

lection by the convening authority from the po

bers was not sufficient to purge this reversib

Court held that a rehearing on the sentence wa

the findings were unaffected by the error as t

tered pleas of guilty to the charged offenses in 

issue of command influence was addressed by t

States v. Mabe, 33 MJ 200 (CMA 1991), where th

letter from the Chief Judge of the Navy-Marine 

ary to a Chief Judge of a subordinate judicial 

superior expressed concern about lenient sente

ized absence offenses was improper and constitu

ence. However, the Court ruled that the disclos

the trial judge in this accused's case as well as 

events including action taken by the Judge A

the Navy and the Chief Judge of the local judi

any prejudice from the case. 

Finally, the Court held in United States v. 

(CMA 1991), that even assuming the action of s

service involved attempted to influence the se

tary judge and, therefore, to unlawfully manip

trial, such an attempt-even if it actually occu

cause the originally assigned military judge e

the judge in the accused's court-martial. 

Unsworn Statements of Accused 

In United States v. Rosato, 32 MJ 93 (CMA 1

that a military judge erred by limiting the cont

unsworn statement pertaining to his understan
ment. Again, the Court ruled that the right of a

tary member convicted of a criminal offense is 

cept of military justice and that although the 

mitted to rebut the accused's unsworn statemen

does not change the character of the accused's r

Other Cases of Interest 

In an opinion authored by Circuit Judge Wi

States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 

tion pursuant to Article 142(f), UCMJ, 10 USC 

held in United States v. Donley, 33 MJ 44 (C

military judge did not abuse his discretion in 

mistrial over the objection of the defense coun

court members inadvertently heard an inadmi

one of the trial witnesses. The Court noted t

almost always involve the contrary situation

judge did grant a mistrial over the objection of t

without his consent. Thus, the Court reversed 

Court of Military Review which had earlier se

and sentence in the case. 

Concerning the requirements of RCM 1l05(b) 

of Article 60, UCMJ, 10 USC § 860, the Court h

v. Davis, 33 MJ 13 (CMA 1991), that it was err

judge advocate to advise the convening author

required to view a videotape of the accused dis

tion as a child which was submitted as part 

fense clemency materials submitted by the defe

vening authority's action on his case. The Cour

that, although the provisions of RCM 1l05(b) ex

cused's post-trial submission of clemency ma

matters," the terms of Article 60 of the Code a

and Congressional intent and, therefore, the st

advice in this case was erroneous. 

12 
from court-martial prosecution had been effecti

accused when the latter had been advised by o

command that the special court-martial convenin

not subject him to a court-martial if he successfu

vilian treatment program. The Court ruled that 

stances there had been a de facto grant of imm

cused had been improperly tried by court-martial

Finally, in United States v. Choate, 32 MJ 42

Court held that "mooning" constituted indec

could be properly prosecuted as an offense u

UCMJ, 10 USC § 934, as contrary to good or

where such conduct was part of a continuing cou

grading conduct toward the wife of a fellow soldi

Eugene R. Sullivan 

Chief Judge 

Walter T. Cox, III 

Associate Judge 

Robinson O. Everett 

Senior Judge 
Miscellaneous Docket ........................................

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

CUMULATIVE TERMINATIONS 


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

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

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

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

CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 1, 199

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

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

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

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

OPINION SUMMARY 

PER 

CATEGORY SIGNED 

CURIAM 

Master Docket.............................. 122 1 

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

Miscellaneous Docket .................. __-=2~___-=-0___

TOTAL....................................... 124 1 

FILINGS (MASTER DOCKET) 


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

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

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

Certificates filed .............................................................. 6 

Reconsideration granted................................................ 5 

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

TOTAL.......................................................................... 165 

14 
Petitions for grant of review filed ............................... 

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

1811 

1 

Cross-petitions for grant filed....................................... 1 

Petition for reconsideration granted_......................... 0 

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

TOTAL .......................................................................... 1813 

TERMINATIONS (PETITION DOCKET) 

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

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

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

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

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

4 

1626 

151 

11 

8 

Other ................................................................................ . o 

TOTAL .......................................................................... 1800 

PENDING (PETITION DOCKET) 

Awaiting briefs................................................................ 133 

Awaiting Central Legal Staff review.......................... 79 

Awaiting final action ..................................................... __0

TOTAL.......................................................................... 212 

FILINGS (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET) 


Writs of error coram nobis sought............................... 1 

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

Writs of mandamus/prohibition sought ..................... 11 

Other extraordinary relief sought ............................... 4 

Writ appeals sought ....................................................... __1_5

TOTAL.......................................................................... 36 

TERMINATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET) 


Petitions withdrawn ...................................................... . 1 

Petitions remanded ........................................................ . 1 

Petitions granted ............................................................ . 1 

Petitions denied .............................................................. . 30 

Petitions dismissed ........................................................ . o 

Other ................................................................................ . o 

TOTAL ......................................................................... . 33 
ettoocet ..................... 0 3 0 

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

TOTAL ............................... 0 7 0 

MOTIONS ACTIVITY 

BEGIN END FIll' CATEGORY PEN!), PEN!), INGS Grant- ING ING 

ed 

All motions ............................ 12 584 15 455 

16 
Petition Docket Year En

FY 85 FY 86 FY 87 FY 88 FY 

.... 

...... 
0; Master Docket Year En

FY 85 FY 86 FY 87 FY 88 FY 
Oral Arguments Pe

FY 85 FY 86 FY 87 FY 88 FY 8

.. 

CD 
I\) 

o Total Opinions P

134 


FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 F

m	Separate Opinion Cases II M

(Concur, Concur in the result, 

and dissent) 
Days from Petition Fili

FY 85 FY 86 FY 87 FY 88 FY 

I\)

... 
~ Days from Petition Granted t

FY 85 FY 86 FY 87 FY 88 FY 
Days from Oral Argument 

FY 85 FY 86 FY 87 FY 88 

I\) 

w 
N 

~ 

Days from Petition Filing t

FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 F

II Petition Docket II M

; (Denial/dismissal/withdrawal) (G
Days from Filing to Final Deci

FY 85 FY 86 FY 87 FY 88 FY 

~ 

(II 
N 

Q) 

Total Petitions Filed 

FY 85 FY 86 FY 87 FY 88 FY 
Shown from left to righ

Walter T. Cox, III; Chief Jud

Chief Justice William H. Rehn

I\) 

~ Robinson o. Everett. 
N 

011 

Chief Judge Sullivan (r

Courthouse of the u.S. Court o

William H. Rehnquist. 
During fiscal year 1991, the Office of The Judg

al continued to monitor the proceedings of cou

and prepare military publications and regulation

draft changes to the Manual for Courts-Martia

Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS AND 

JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES 


As the annexed tables reveal, the number of 

the incidence of nonjudicial punishment decline

1991. The decrease mainly was due to Operations 

Desert Storm. The accompanying chart of court

reduction in general and special courts-martial a

ployment began in the fourth quarter of FY 19

deployments occurred in the first quarter of FY 

Storm battle was fought in the second quarter, 

to home stations occurred in the third and fourth 

The reduced number of trials, plus increased p

times caused by military operations, resulted 

fewer cases during the fiscal year for appellate 

Article 66, UCMJ and a 33% reduction in cases 

nation pursuant to Article 69(a), UCMJ. 

The result was a reduced caseload for the U

Military Review. While issuing 20% fewer dec

the Court of Review reduced the number of case

bers by 40%, shortened average decision times 

also lowered the average age of its pending casel

the Examination and New Trials Division, the 

court-martial cases pending examination un

UCMJ and applications for relief in inferior cou

under Article 66(b), UCMJ was decreased by mor
sel Assistance Program. 

U.S. ARMY JUDICIARY 

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

tary Review, the Clerk of Court, the Examinatio

Division, and the Trial Judiciary. 

U.S. ARMY TRIAL DEFENSE SE

During FY 1991, the United States Army Tri

(USATDS) continued to provide high-quality, p

counsel services to soldier clients world-wide. US

resented 1,633 clients at proceedings conducted 

UCMJ; 1,224 clients at general courts-martial; 80

courts-martial; and 1,130 clients at administrativ

counsel advised 54,098 clients regarding nonju

under Article 15, UCMJ, and 23,524 clients reg

administrative separation actions. 

USATDS fully supported Operation Desert 

Desert Storm, Operation Provide Comfort, and 

Force in the Sinai. This support was provided w

furnish defense counsel legal services to all oth

In addition, USATDS counsel regularly deplo

training exercises with the units they suppor

maintained the cross-service agreements with j

other U.S. Armed Forces providing mutual su

oversea::: locations. 

TRIAL COUNSEL ASSISTANCE P

During FY 1991, the U.S. Army Trial Coun

gram (TCAP) performed its mission by prov

advice, training, and trial assistance to military 

wide. In addition to services provided to Arm

had an expanded constituency among prosecutor

30 
mand (TRADOC) installations; published and 

proximately 475 subscribers, twelve editions of 

and directly participated as trial counsel in th

TCAP also provided instructional assistance fo

tending the U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR) Cri

ences and the Criminal Law New Developments 

nal Trial Advocacy Courses at the Army Judge 

School. In September 1991, TCAP initiated t

Counsel Assistance Program as a test program. 

be tested at installations within Trial Defense R

whether the quality of prosecution advocacy ca

using experienced military attorneys from outs

advocate office to assist trial counsel in preparin

The regional trial counsel assistance officers wi

in-court performance of counsel and conduct pos

the trial counsel and their supervisors. 

SIGNIFICANT MILITARY JUSTICE 

Actions involving military justice handled by 

Division, Office of The Judge Advocate General

ing and drafting legislation and regulations affe

of the Army; monitoring the administration of 

include military corrections, the Army's drug te

professional responsibility of attorneys; renderin

Army Staff; and evaluating ongoing major pr

1991, the Criminal Law Division responded to 2

quiries; 354 Congressional inquiries; 11 requests 

from the Army Board for the Correction of Mi

letters relating to military justice matters writt

of Defense, Secretary of the Army, Chief of Staf

The Judge Advocate General; and 71 other misc

The office also processed 22 clemency petition

UCMJ; 30 officer dismissal cases for Secretary o

al; and 22 Freedom of Information Act/Privac
commercial means with return receipt request

the reduction of soldiers in the Army Reserve 

Staff Sergeant, pursuant to punishment impose

UCMJ. 

JOINT-SERVICE COMMITTEE ON MILIT

The Judge Advocates General and General 

partment of Transportation established the Join

tee on Military Justice on August 17, 1972. Th

Force, Marine Corps, and Department of Tra

Guard) provide representatives, and the Unite

Military Appeals provides a nonvoting represe

Service Committee on Military Justice prima

evaluates proposed amendments and changes to 

of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts

mittee also serves as a forum for the exchange 

military justice matters. 

Change 5 to the Manual for Courts-Martial 

President Bush on June 27, 1991. It was publ

Order 12767, and is the result of the consolidate

Annual Reviews completed in 1988 and 1989

amendments included in Change 5 became ef

1991. Significant amendments include: a requi

fense to notify the prosecution of the names 

nesses, other than the accused, whom the defe

during the defense case-in-chief; a requirement 

notify t4e prosecution of its intent to raise the 

ingestion; authorization for the military judge 

conference, over objection of a party, when the 

sary to control the conduct of courts-martial

speedy trial rule; the addition of Military Rul

which excludes polygraph evidence at courts-ma

for either party to initiate pre-trial agreement n

pose the inclusion of terms and conditions in pr

clarification that a ruling of a military judge 

32 
Manual for Courts-Martial. Significant amend

lishment of procedures to investigate complain

duct or unfitness; clarification of pre-trial con

extension of the coverage of the rape shield 

UCMJ, investigations; clarification of the milit

to impose sanctions for willful violation of d

quirement that the military judge consider the 

est in not granting immunity before ruling on 

immunity; authorization for military judges to 

findings before or after arguments or at both t

mitting the entry of pleas and findings with o

or substitutions; adoption of an exception to t

clarification that the provisions governing the 

terials apply at all stages of a court-martial; re

for impeachment by prior conviction; inclusion 

"use" and "deliberate ignorance" for applicat

of drug offenses; inclusion of carnal knowledge 

offense of rape; and inclusion of wrongful inte

ministrative action as an offense punishable 

UCMJ. 

The Seventh Annual Review, completed on 

published for public comment on July 23, 19

ment period extended into FY 1992. Signific

clude: a requirement that the Article 32, UCM

cer notify the convening authority of requests 

lar information; a provision authorizing the co

issue protective orders for classified and simila

vision allowing the military judge to call post

consideration; a provision permitting post-tria

the military judge of prior rulings; a provisio

martial sentences to include forfeiture of retir

a provision establishing that endangering the 

is an aggravating factor for the death penalty

the accused ten days to respond to the staff jud

dum containing new matters, and allowing the 

to grant ten-day extensions to the defense to 
Authorization Act. 

FOREIGN CRIMINAL JURISDIC

As executive agent for the Department of De

ment of the Army, through the International an

Division, Office of The Judge Advocate Genera

mation concerning the exercise of foreign crimin

U.S. personnel. 

During the reporting period December 1, 1989 

30, 1990, a total of 18,344 United States personn

vilian, were charged with offenses subject to the 

sive jurisdiction of foreign tribunals. 15,657 of t

charged against military personnel. Of this nu

charges against military personnel were subjec

eign jurisdiction. Nonetheless, foreign authoritie

exclusive foreign jurisdiction offenses to United 

thorities for appropriate disposition. 

The rest of the military offenses subject to f

totaling 13,128 offenses, were concurrent jurisd

volving alleged violations of both United State

foreign law, over which the foreign country had 

to exercise jurisdiction. United States military a

a waiver of foreign jurisdiction in 11,751 of the

world-wide waiver rate of 89%. 

Foreign authorities reserved for their disposit

offenses allegedly committed by military person

offenses were relatively minor (simple assault, 

and traffic offenses). Traffic violations comprised 

these offenses. 

A total of 2,687 civilian employees and depen

with offenses subject to foreign jurisdiction. A

subject to trial by courts-martial in peacetime, 

has no effective jurisdiction over these offenses

eign authorities released 402 of these offenses, o

34 
Civil litigation against the Department of th

ployees continued to increase during FY 1991. 

civilian courts to interpret the Uniform Code 

and the validity of actions taken pursuant to i

but significant portion of the litigation. A maj

seek collateral review of courts-martial proceed

involved Operations Desert Shield and Desert 

other cases present challenges to the general c

ment, specific actions taken by confinement fac

parole and clemency proceedings. 

EDUCATION AND TRAINI

During FY 1991, The Judge Advocate Gene

in Charlottesville, Virginia, provided legal edu

the military services and other federal agenci

dent courses were conducted with 3,567 stud

Courses were attended by: 1,351 active Arm

Marine, 278 Air Force, 443 Army Reserve, and 

Guard officers; 73 warrant officers; 134 enliste

DoD civilians; 250 non-DoD civilians and Coast 

29 international military students. Three Basic 

123d, 124th, and 125th, graduated a total of 1

The Judge Advocate General's School conti

government entity statutorily authorized (10 

confer the degree of Master of Laws (LL.M.) in 

ognizing the demanding scholastic standards o

gram, in August 1988, the American Bar Asso

. Accreditation Committee's site evaluation re

concurred in the School's awarding of the LL.M

On May 17, 1991, the 56 students of the 39th 

ceived The Judge Advocate General's School 

Military Law. In addition to 36 Army judge 

consisted of eight Marine, four Navy, one Air F

serve, one Army National Guard, and five in
Couses coducted at 

ot eavewot, asas

450 battalion and brigade command designees. T

vided orientations on Army legal issues to five 

members. 

The Criminal Law Division sponsored five r

legal education (CLE) courses in fiscal year 1

Trial Advocacy Course was presented twice, in 

ruary, the Procurement Fraud Course in Octo

Military Judges Course in May-June, and the 

Developments Course in August. Additionally

ducted two criminal law CLE programs and one 

gram for judge advocates assigned to USAREUR

The International Law Division sponsored 

courses, each lasting one week, in FY 1991. The 

Law (OPLA W) seminars focused on the legal 

affect the judge advocate involved in military 

peacetime and in combat environments overseas

inars provide multi~isciplinary, practical, legal 

advocates participating in training exercises, 

and other overseas deployments. In addition, the 

were expanded to encompass the legal issu

counter~rug operations. The Division also sent 

Germany to present the USAREUR Operation

one instructor to the USAREUR Operational La

All instruction provided by the International 

ported the goal of ensuring that military lawye

ble in all aspects of OPLAW, a body of law whi

of war, and are able to participate effectively 

commander's operations team. Lessons learne

Just Cause in Panama, Operation Urgent Fury 

ations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and from 

in Latin America, Europe, and the Middle East 

rated into CLE instruction. Instruction was al

Army War College, the Command and Gen

TRADOC, the Marshall-Wythe School of Law at 

liam and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, and 

36 
ations through the use of symposia, the publica

papers, and the use of a joint service operational 

The Contract Law Division conducted ten C

1991. These courses provided basic and advanced 

ernment contract law and in fiscal law and p

were designed to meet the needs of governmen

also benefited contracting officers, comptrollers

ers, and others involved in the federal acquisiti

variety of classes were offered at these courses 

struction was available in government contrac

practiced at military installations, at commands 

tion of supplies and weapon systems, at comman

search and development, and at activities involv

putes and litigation. The two-week Contract Att

given three times to a total of 300 students. O

CLE programs included the annual Governm

Symposium, the Fiscal Law Course, an abbre

Course presented in Panama and Europe, and on

tracting Course. 

In addition to the contract and fiscal law CL

sion provided instruction to three Judge Advo

Courses and to the resident Judge Advocate 

Course. The division's instructors also presented 

and fiscal law and policy at five Reserve Co

Training sites within the U.s. They also taught 

law classes to members of the Reserve Comp

Judge Advocate Officer Advanced Course and J

ennial Training at Charlottesville. During Dese

sion provided extensive research activities, and 

the Judge Advocate General's School is the prem

tution for education in government contract law

The Administrative and Civil Law Division c

courses during FY 1991-six at the School and 

CLEs at the School included two Legal Assis

Federal Labor Relations Courses, the Administr
instructor participated in the Environmental La

sored by the Office of The Judge Advocate Gener

The Legal Assistance Branch of the Admin

Law Division revised and updated its publicati

Legal Assistance Wills Guide, the Legal Assista

Guide, the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief A

Guide, the Legal Assistance Office Administratio

Assistance Living Wills Guide, the Family Law 

Tax Assistance Program Guide, and the Federal 

mation Series. In addition, two new publicatio

Services Former Spouses' Protection Act Outline 

terials and the Veteran ~ Reemployment Rights 

prepared and distributed to the field. Four ma

1991 distributing these pUblications and others 

sumer Law Center Reports, Consumer Informat

Aspects of Savings Bonds, etc.) to more than 17

ance offices around the world. The branch also 

telephonic inquiries from attorneys in the field 

Desert Shield and Desert Storm. It also conduct

of publications and materials to help legal as

spond to issues arising during Operation Desert 

prepared a special Legal Assistance Update Ou

Reserve Component On-Site instruction in FY 

the branch published over 60 monthly practice 

Lawyer. The Branch solicited, edited, and wro

Third Legal Assistance Symposium issue of 

Review, which was published in Spring 1991. 

branch also addressed four civilian CLE cours

nation to train state agents and attorneys on me

family support obligations against military p

member of the branch presented classes on the 

ors' Civil Relief Act to attendees at a Connectic

CLE program and to the Credit Union Subsectio

Bar Association's Business Section. 

The Judge Advocate Guard and Reserve A

sponsored several resident courses for Reserve 

38 
q

ing program co-hosted by the department was 

General's Regimental Workshop from April 

unique program brought together approximate

and reserve component judge advocates to disc

and military issues facing the Total Army. T

sponsored the Continuing Legal Education (O

gram. Between October 1990 and May 1991, 

School provided CLE to 2009 officers in 22 regi

ters throughout the United States and Puerto 

resented all services and components. Interacti

serve Component judge advocate officers in 

was invaluable. Additionally, the department 

tions for the U.S. Army Reserves for accession 

vocate General's Corps, and 24 applications fo

of National Guard judge advocates. 

On November 29, 1990, Dean James P. Whit

ana School of Law, and Consultant on Leg

American Bar Association, presented the 

Edward H. Young Lecture in Legal Educatio

cussed the issues and challenges facing legal 

society. 

The Eighth Gilbert A. Cuneo Lecture in G

Law was presented on January 7, 1991, by M

General Counsel, House Armed Services Com

discussed current issues in government acquisi

The Third Major Frank B. Creekmore Lec

Contract Law was presented on January 10, 1

Burman, Office of Federal Procurement Policy

entation dealt with government initiatives to 

quisition. 

The Fifteenth Charles L. Decker Lecture wa

1991, by Judge Laurence H. Silberman. His 

"The Effect of Judicial Review on Agency Deci

es." 
PERSONNEL, PLANS, AND PO

Including law students participating in the Fu

tion Program, the strength of the Judge Advoca

at the end of the FY 1991 was 1752. This total in

34 Hispanics, 21 Asian and Native Americans, an

FY 1991 end strength compares with an end stre

1990, 1756 in FY 1989, and 1759 in FY 1988. The 

of the Corps was five general officers, 135 colon

colonels, 342 majors, 911 captains, and 105 first 

two officers (17 captains and 25 first lieutenan

the Funded Legal Education Program. Sixty-fiv

including six minority and four female, support

world-wide. 

To ensure selection of the best qualified can

commission, career status, and The Judge Advoc

cer Graduate Course, advisory boards convened 

Advocate General's written instructions severa

year. 

In December 1990, a selection board selected te

missioned officers to commence law school unde

Education Program. 

Fifty-three judge advocate officers completed 

ice schools: 

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

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

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

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

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

During FY 1991, five officers completed fully 

LL.M. degrees in specialized fields of law. 

One hundred seventy-nine new judge advocate

first lieutenants during FY 1991, and were pro

40 

•


N 

QUARTERLY ARMY 

FISCAL YEARS 

TOTAL TRIALS 

700 


600 


500 


400 
 

300 

200 

100 

o 

2 3 4 

1990 

FISCAL YE

1-~~M- _BC~ SP

OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT 

U.S. ARMY JUDICIARY 
"ATE OF IHCfIIEASE (+)lOECfIIEASE c-, eVE't HUM8Ut OF CASES 


,UVIEWEO DWIt'NG LAST 'U'O~TINO II'ERIOD .8% 


858 

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

REVIEW 

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

'EfIICENTAGE OF COMA "EVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCMA 

'EJillCENTAGE OF INCfIIEASE (+)loECReASE C-J DVE" ""EVIOUS "E'OlllTIHQ 'E"'OD 

'UItCENTAGE 0' TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 

'EfliCENTAGE OF IHCPlEASE C+'/DECAEASE (-, DVE" "'EVIOUS RE'O"TINQ 'E"'OO 

'EfIICENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES IUVIEWEo IV COMA "" \ 

"ATE OF INCREASE C+'/DECfIIEASE C-' OVE" THE HUM.E .. OF CASES fIIEVIEWfD OU'UN

LAST "E'OfllTIHQ 'EI'UDO 

rAGE I OF' 
PART 9· COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

HUMBEI'I 0' eOM'LAINTS I 39 

PART 10·STRENGTH· IKl 

'AGElOFl 

[A] IIcludes ally original trials, not further prooeeci

[B] IIcludes all cases not resulting in a CXlIlViction. 

[C] Cases CXlIlVened by G<M CXlIlVeni.n:] authority in web 

erpowered to inpose a KD. 


[0] Based on records of trial received (Part 3), not c

during report period. In addition, to lXS an:! BCDs, 43 

were awroved. 

[E) not irclme cases (2) in web awellate revie

[F) Includes ally cases briefed an:! at issue before th

[G) Cases perding before tJSACoIR, web irclme governm

for extraoIdinary relief, are not rwtinely acooonted fo

martial. 

[H) In 27 of the cases, the accused was represented by 

militaIy, awellate camsel. 

[I] Based on petitions acted upon, not those filed, du

[J] In addition, one case was referred to tJSACoIR p.JrSU

uou. 

[K] Average of JnCI1thly st:rerqths shown in report OCSPE

[L] Reflects chan]e in rate per 1,000. Decrease in rum

peI~. 

44 
y 

FISCAL YEAR 1991 


SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTR

MILITARY JUSTICE 


In compliance with the requirement of Ar

Code of Military Justice, the Judge Advocat

Deputy Judge Advocate General made frequent 

offices in the United States, Europe, and the F

sion of the administration of military justice. 

ARTICLE 69(a), UCMJ, EXAMIN

Eighty-nine general court-martial records of t

eligible for automatic review by the Navy-Ma

Military Review, were examined in the Office 

cate General in fiscal year 1991. One case 

action by the Judge Advocate General. 

ARTICLE 69(b), UCMJ, APPLIC

In fiscal year 1991, 46 applications under Ar

Code of Military Justice, were received for revi

plications were denied on the merits, while re

whole or in part in 2 cases. Ten cases are pendin

ARTICLE 73, UCMJ, PETITI

In fiscal year 1991, six petitions for new trial

the Office of the Judge Advocate General, an

were denied. 
pppy 

cates assigned to the Appellate Government Div

1496 pleadings; 1349 with the Navy-Marine Cor

Review and 147 with the U.S. Court of Military 

ally, the Division filed 7 briefs in opposition to p

certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court and 

ment appeals. 

Field Assistance. The Trial Counsel Assistanc

is a function within the Appellate Government 

vides a central coordinating point to assist field 

effective prosecution of courts-martial. Three ap

detailed to implement this program. Prompt ass

same day) is provided in response to telepho

counsel in the field requesting advice or infor

pending or being tried. Additional assistance i

training presentations, the periodic publication 

mulative digest of significant unpublished decis

er bulletin board. Field calls-in which a team 

provide professional advice and assistance-to

year, an average of 71 cases per month, which 

over last year. 

Presentations. The Navy hosted the Third A

Appellate Advocacy Workshop at the Washin

February 1991. Government counsel also partic

teenth Annual Judicial Conference (formerly H

ference) in Washington, DC in May 1991, and 

at the Army-Navy Reserve Military Justice Co

apoiis, Minnesota in October 1991. 

Reserves. The Appellate Government Divisio

vide training and support to 11 Navy and 3 M

ists assigned to the Division. 

APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVI

Appellate Defense Practices. The 21 judge a

Marine, assigned to the Appellate Defense D

46 
Trial Defense Assistance. The Field Departmen

vide on-call advice to trial defense counsel in t

and developments in appellate litigation which s

at the trial level, through, for example, pretria

"making a record" upon which appellate counse

fectively. There were an average of 20 phone cal

assistance per month requiring 30-45 minute

answer. Extraordinary writs were handled by a 

reflected numerous unusual issues such as gove

of a prisoner against his will with anti-psychotic 

mentally qualify the prisoner for trial. 

Reserves. The two Navy reserve units and M

superb mutual support through the year. Throug

serve Department led by a senior active duty a

training, equipping, and utilization of reserve a

has been centralized. The reserves reviewed 37% 

submitted pleadings and briefs on issues they h

notable "first" came when one of our reserve o

case and identified several issues during one 

briefed the issues to NMCMR over several more 

then orally argued the case to NMCMR during 

of active duty for training-result, case reversed. 

NAVY-MARINE CORPS TRIAL JU

The Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary (NMC

tary judges for 797 general courts-martial (GCM) 

1991, a decrease of 96 GCMs from the fiscal yea

In fiscal year 1991, 76.9% of these GCMs were 

judge alone. This represents a 1.4% increase fr

1990 rate. 

There were 4,357 special courts-martial (SPCM

fiscal year 1991, a decrease of 749 SPCMs fro

during fiscal year 1990. In fiscal year 1991, 92.7

were tried by military judge alone. 
-1 reserve Marine Corps judge 

-2 active-duty Air Force judges 

-1 Court of Military Appeals Judge 

b. West Coast Military Judges' Meeting Naval 

Coronado, CA 

-23 active-duty Navy and Marine Corps jud

-13 reserve Navy judges 

-2 reserve Marine Corps judges 

c. 	Sixteenth Interservice Military Judges' Sem

Force Base, Montgomery, AL 

-9 active-duty Navy and Marine Corps judg

-2 reserve Navy judges 

d. National Judicial College, Reno, NV 


-Special Problems in Criminal Evidence 


-1 Navy active-duty judge 


-2 Marine Corps active-duty judges 


-Alcohol and Drugs in the Court 


-1 active-duty Navy judge 


-1 active-duty Marine Corps judge 


-Advanced Evidence 


-1 active-duty Navy judge 


e. Military Judges' Course U.S. Army JAG 

ville, VA 

-7 active-duty Navy and Marine Corps judg

f. 	Military Judges' Course Naval Justice Schoo

-3 active-duty Navy and Marine Corps ju

.~ judges 


-4 Air Force judges 


-1 Army judge 


-1 Coast Guard judge 


g. Senior OffIcer Short Courses in Military Jus

-various times and places 

-presented by active~uty Navy or Marin

each circuit 

h. American Judge's Association Annual Meet

48 
y () 

-various locations and times 

-active-duty and reserve Navy and Marine C

regularly participated in training trial advo

1. Trial Advocate and Judicial Training Evolu

military judges 

-13 reserve Navy judges; 3 active-duty ju

Judge; met at Austin, TX 

-13 	reserve Navy judges; Chief Judge; and 

Oregon reservist; met at Seattle, W A 

m. WESTPAC Judicial Training Okinawa, JA 


-3 active-duty Marine Corps judges 


-2 active-duty Navy judges 


-1 active-duty Army judge 


-2 active-duty Air Force judges 


n. American Bar Association's Annual Meeting 

-Chief 	Judge participated as Chairman of 

committee 

o. 	American Academy of Judicial Education Co

University, Cambridge, MA 

A Judges Philosophy of Law/Judging 

-1 active-duty Navy judge 

p. 15th Criminal Law Development Course, Char

-1 active-duty Navy judge 

q. 	 l\1arvin Center, George Washington Univer

DC Judicial Conference of US Court of Military A

-1 active-duty Marine Corps judge 

Visit by the Judiciary. 

The Chief Judge presented his annual procedu

trative briefings to students at the military judge

Charlottesville and Newport. 

The Circuit Military Judge, Piedmont Judicial 

ville, NC, along with Navy judges of the North

participated in the instruction of students at the 

course at Naval Justice School. 
Generally. 

The Chief Judge continued to make courtesy 

convening authorities and SJAs. Comments con

that the quality of judicial services remains exc

continued emphasis on judge and trial advoca

judges critique and motivate inexperienced advoc

All judges provide post-trial critiques. 

The Trial Judiciary continues to seek economic

quality judicial services. Navy and Marine Cor

continue to provide outstanding professional judic

Economy continues to be the watchword as th

dates as the sea services draw down on end streng

Productivity, field communications, and stream

tion improved with the implementation of up

hardware and software. The year was marked w

ery of judicial services and timely input of field d

Operation "Desert Shield" and "Desert Storm". 

The Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary was 

component of the Department of Defense on the 

crisis. The judiciary coordinated efforts with othe

vided on-site judicial support. The judiciary rec

support from all Commands in and around Saud

Judiciary withdrew from in-country operations 

After the last Marine judge left Saudi Arabia

were provided by the Transatlantic (Naples, It

South (Subic Bay, PI) judicial circuits. 

The following contains a wrap-up on Desert Shi

50 
p

Shipboard-Haifa, Israel.............................................................

Diego Garcia .................................................................................

Bahrain..........................................................................................

Accused's Branch of Service: 

Marine Corps ................................................................................

Navy...............................................................................................

Navy Reserve................................................................................

Number of SPCMs...............................................................................

Number of GeMs.................................................................................

NAVAL LEGAL SERVICE COMM

Naval Legal Service Command (NAVLEGSVC

21 naval legal service offices and 22 detachments 

of U.S. Navy concentration throughout the worl

also includes the Naval Justice School at Newpo

and the Office of Legal Counsel at the Naval Aca

Maryland. NA VLEGSVCCOM is commanded by t

Advocate General of the Navy and includes 358 o

ed, and 226 civilian personnel. The command 

40% of the Navy's total judge advocate strength. 

NAVLEGSVCCOM provides a wide range of 

afloat and ashore commands, active duty naval p

ents, and retirees. Specific functions include the p

sel for courts-martial and administrative boards

mands, claims processing and adjudication, cou

evaluation boards, and legal assistance. 

NAVLEGSVCCOM activities rely upon the Jud

eral Management Information System (JAGMIS) 

quality and responsive legal services. JAGMIS is 

puter based system which tracks each activity's w

ceipt to disposition. Work has begun on develop

tary Justice Management Information System (M

refine the existing JAGMIS system and integra

tracking system for courts-martial through the ap
to be an invaluable communication tool for coo

support during Operations Desert Shield and Des

NAVAL JUSTICE SCHOOL 

During fiscal year 1991, the Naval Justice S

struction to 8,369 students worldwide (1,161 in 

ranging in length from four days to nine weeks). 

developments included the dedication of Helton-

the Senior Leadership Training Conference. An 

courses follows: 

Law of Naval Operations Workshop. Offered 

purpose of this two-week course is to train judge 

responsible for advising commanders on internat

and their impact on plans and operations. The c

30 hours of classroom instruction and 32 hours 

cises and seminars. Attendees completing the tw

fiscal year 1991 included judge advocates fro

Marine Corps (7), Army (5), and Coast Guard (12

vilians. 

Staff Judge Advocate Course. Also offered twic

pose of this three-week course is to provide train

pects of military and administrative law likely 

by a command legal advisor. Included in fiscal 

hours of classroom instruction and 14 hours of 

and seminars. This past year, attendees include

from the NavY (65), Marine Corps (6), Army (5)

(1), along with 1 civilian. 

Senior Legalman Course. Offered annually, th

three-week course is to provide senior legalme

training in budget matters, civilian and milita

agement, and other management skills required 

visors at naval legal service offices. Included are 

room instruction and 13 hours of workshops and 

two senior enlisted personnel (31 NavY and 1 A

course in fiscal year 1991. 

52 
g

bus is designed for the nonlawyer junior officer o

Coast Guard paralegal about to assume legal d

aircraft squadron, small station, or other mili

judge advocate/law specialist. Included in the co

of classroom instruction and 79 hours of pract

seminars. Attendees in fiscal year 1991 consisted 

cers, 30 Navy enlisted, 36 Marine Corps officer

enlisted, 1 Coast Guard officer, and 1 civilian. 

Senior Officer Course. This one-week course, 

Chief of Naval Operations, prepares commandi

tive officers, and officers in charge to handle app

legal responsibilities. Four sessions of the course 

port, Rhode Island, with 154 students attending

offerings of the course were held at the followin

tions: Jacksonville, Pensacola, and Mayport, F

(twice) and Parris Island, South Carolina; Norfol

Bangor, Washington; San Francisco (twice), San D

Beach, and Camp Pendleton, California; Rota, Sp

Hawaii; Guam; Yokosuka and Okinawa, Japan

North Carolina; New London, Connecticut (twic

ginia (twice); Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Great L

Corpus Christi, Texas. The 1,255 students atten

included: 

USN: 1055 (80.4%) 

USMC: 220 (17.4%) 

USCG: 16 (1.2%) 

USA: 6 (0.4%) 

USAF: 5 (0.4%) 

CIV: 1 (0.1%) 

FOREIGN: 1 (0.1%) 

Military Judge Course. This three-week cour

year, trains active-duty and reserve judge advoca

cial and general court-martial military judges

cludes 74 hours of lecture and 30 hours of prac
Advocacy teaching methodology. Upon successfu

training, they became qualified to participate a

Navy's trial advocacy training program, teachi

cacy to Navy and Marine Corps judge advocates 

Legalman Course. This nine-week course, off

fiscal year 1991, provides instruction in military 

court reporting to Navy enlisted personnel sele

to the legalman rating as well as certain Coas

the Coast Guard does not have a legalman ratin

hours of lecture, 118 hours of practice transcrip

of seminars and other practical exercises. As 

Army continues to use the Naval Justice Schoo

to train its court reporters. In fiscal year 199

Guard, and 12 Army students completed this co

Legal Clerk Course. This two-week course, of

fiscal year 1991, trains members of the Navy, C

Corps (equivalent) yeoman rating to process ro

at small or isolated commands. Included in the 

lum are 51 hours of lecture and 25 hours of pr

fiscal year 1991, 114 Navy enlisted students co

Reserve Courses. In addition to training act

the Naval Justice School also presents a num

year to train inactive-duty reservists. The 

Lawyer Course, offered twice a year, prepares 

advocates of the Naval and Marine Corps Res

duties of their active-duty counterparts. Simi

Reserve Legalman Course, offered in three pha

ed ~ personnel in the inactive-duty reserve to 

During fiscal year 1991, 119 students completed 

of instruction at the School. Naval Justice Sch

taught Reserve training courses in Norfolk, Vi

nois; and San Diego, California, with over 500 

ance. 

Specialized Briefings and Presentations. In ad

courses listed above, the Naval Justice School p

420 hours of instruction on court-martial pro

54 
MARINE CORPS ACTIVITIE

During fiscal year 1991, three Marine Corp

graduated from top level schools. There are cur

advocates studying at the Naval War College. 

cates graduated from The Judge Advocate Gene

Army (TJAGSA) in Charlottesville, Virginia. Th

nine judge advocates at TJAGSA studying for an 

law. 

Ten judge advocates in the Funded Legal E

(FLEP) graduated from law school with their JD, 

vocates in the Excess Leave Program (ELP) gra

There are currently twenty-nine FLEP and nine 

law school. 

Three judge advocates in the Special Educati

graduated with LLMs in Environmental, Interna

Law respectively. There are currently three ju

school in this program, two at George Washingt

one at the University of San Diego. 

The Chief Defense Counsel of the Marine Co

days of "NITA" style trial advocacy training 

North Carolina; Camp Pendleton, California; Oki

One day classes were held every month at each 

and pacific). A monthly newsletter was publish

defense counsels in the Marine Corps . 

. Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, funded seven

vocates for continuing legal education (CLE) 

schools: TJAGSA; NJS; National Judicial Colle

Hastings Law School, San Francisco, California

of Districts Attorneys, Houston, Texas. Areas of 

eral litigation, law of war, trial advocacy, proc

tract law, federal labor law, criminal law and e

assistance. 

During fiscal year 1991, ninety-one Marine Co

advocates were staffed in individual mobilizati

tachment billets Marine Corps wide. Thirty-four 
Both active-duty and reserve Marine Corps j

ployed to the Middle East during Operation D

During the Operation, sixty-seven courts-mart

by Marine judge advocates in the theater of ope

John E. Gordon 

Rear Admiral, USN 

Judge Advocate General of the Navy 

56 
.;.:

.... 

"ATE OF INC"E"SE (+)/DEC"EASE (-, OVUl NUMBI" OF CASES 

"rVIEWED DU"ING LAST "E'C"TINQ "1:"'00 

PART 5· APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE NAVY-MARINE 

REVIEW 

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

'E"CENTAGE OF COMA "[VIEWED CASES FDPlW."OED TO USCM. 

'["'CENTAGE OF INC"EASE C.'IDEe"EA$! (-, DVE" .,,,EVIOUI fltEII'O"TING 'I'UDD 

PUICENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS O .....NTED 

'E"CENTAGE OF INCllllASE (+)fDECfIIIEASE C-' DVE" ,,,t:VIOIJI IIIEtao"TINO PI"IOD 

'E"CENTAOE OF PETITIONS GI'tANTED OF TOTAL CASES I'tEVIIWED BY COMI't 

"ATE 0' INC ..EASE C+)/OECPlEASE c-, DVE" THE NUMBIIII 0' CASES "EVIEWED OURING 

LAST IIIEI'O ..TINQ 'ulloa 
i'ART 9· COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

PART 10· STRENGTH 


AVEJIIIIAGE ACTIVE DUTV STAENGTH 802 J 826 h::::::::::::::::::::;:;

PART 11· NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15) 

PAGE20F2 

58 
pq

Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), The Judge A

(until his retirement in April 1991), Major Ge

Nelson, his successor, Major General David C. 

Deputy Judge Advocate General, Brigadier Gener

made official staff inspections of field legal office

States and overseas. They also attended and partic

bar association meetings and addressed many c

and military organizations. 

AIR FORCE COURT OF MILITARY R

During fiscal year 1991, the Office of the Judge 

al was realigned in accordance with revised Air S

al principles. The Air Force Court of Military Revi

ciary were placed, for administrative purposes, 

Force Legal Services Agency. However, the Air Fo

tary Review remains directly supervised by the 

General. The Court added four reserve judges to it

ditional panels were created with an active duty 

two reserve judges on each panel. 

The Secretary of the Air Force recalled former 

E. Hodgson to active duty from retirement primar

in the further appellate review of a complex mu

Hodgson had written the original opinion in that c

Toward the end of this fiscal year, an honors cl

to the court. This clerk, along with the Commis

able to assist the Court not only with important re

but also with an ever increasing motion practice. 

by this court have increased 60% over the last two 

The Court now transmits its opinions electroni

West Publishing Company and LEXIS, making t

not only the electronic data bases but also printe

weeks sooner than previously. The Courts opinion

instantly available to the field through the Dep

system. 
JUDICIARY ACTIVITIES 

The Judiciary directorate of the Air Force Le

has the overall responsibility for supervising th

military justice throughout the United States A

judicial proceedings to appellate review of court

ally, the directorate has the staff responsibilit

Legal Services Agency in all military justice ma

connection with programs, special projects, stu

generated by the Air Staff; Headquarters USAF

the Department of Defense, Army, Navy, and A

of Congress; and other Federal, state and civil 

the Directorate's activities are discussed below: 

a. The Judiciary Directorate serves as the ac

review of military justice issues in application

Air Force Board for Correction of Military Re

ions were provided to the Secretary of the Ai

206 applications. 

b. The Directorate received 850 inquiries in s

ing either formal written replies or telephonic 

ecutive officials, including the President and m

c. The Directorate provided a representative 

activities involving military justice. This includ

Committee on Military Justice and support for 

tee. 

LEGAL DATA AUTOMATION AND IN

PROGRAM 


Fiscal year 1991 saw many initiatives in th

agement field. The DoD Corporate Information 

program is directed towards the standardization 

tems across service lines within each functiona

Management Review Decision (DMRD) 924 pro

to consolidate many computer operations and 

ment activities. Air Force Legal Information 

60 
data with the carrier industry. AFCIMS program 

tinued to make good progress and numerous de

given to the other services who are looking at ad

eral Legal Information Through Electronics (FLI

continued to expand both in the number of u

volume, although it was not yet opened to all Do

sion to DoD Directive 5160.64, governing FLITE a

permits the Air Force to offer on-line FLITE to 

agencies on a fee for service basis. The FLITE Se

essed an average of more than 332 research re

from legal, procurement, and finance offices thr

other federal agencies during the first ten mon

and programs included PROJECT REFLEX, the 

on 3V2" diskettes containing Air Force Regulati

tion and the Manual for Courts-Martial, which w

times and proved invaluable to judge advocates 

Storm; and the Defense Emergency Authorit

Analysis System (DEARAS) contract, which mo

ing the CD-ROM system containing federal law

executive orders needed in the event of an emer

ited amount of equipment was purchased due 

limitations. Laptop computers were obtained for 

to replace those diverted for use in Desert Storm

TRIAL JUDICIARY 

The Air Force Trial Judiciary had an average 

trial judges, 6 reserve trial judges, 6 noncommis

5 secretaries stationed in seven Trial Judiciary C

plus the Chief Trial Judge, his assistant, one co

secretary at the division headquarters. The dutie

judges included presiding over all general and 

tial tried in the United States Air Force, but als

as Investigation Officers under Article 32, UCM

selected administrative discharge boards and h

public hearings held to consider draft environm
The Trial Judiciary hired the first court rep

directly to the Trial Judiciary. This reporter ha

est levels of security clearance so the Air Force 

court reporter available to report and transcr

highly classified proceedings. The reporter ha

and reported on the latest in computer techno

record and transcribe records of trial with a vie

exploiting this technology within the Air Force. 

Training 

The Seventeenth Interservice Military Judges

ducted by the Trial Judiciary at the Judge 

School, Maxwell AFB, AL, from 22 April to 2

seminar was attended by military judges from t

of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard 

Also attending was one Canadian Armed For

The seminar focused on sentencing issues this y

presentation by Mr. Thomas Markiewicz on cle

tation, as well as a video presentation on the U.

racks. Colonel Robert Ouilette, USMC, and 

Young, USAF, spoke about their experiences 

Operation Desert Shield/Storm. Colonel Rober

and Colonel Frank Holder, NMCCMR, present

perspectives for trial court judges considerat

speakers included: U.S. Court of Appeals Judge 

U.S. District Court Judge William Dwyer; Chie

livan and Judge Walter T. Cox of the U.S. Co

peals; Mr. John Howell Director, Article III J

ministrative Offices of The U.S. Courts; and, Ju

Director, Administrative Office of Courts for Al

Four active duty judges and one reserve judge 

week Military Judges' Course conducted by The 

cate General's School at Charlottesville, VA, fr

7 June 1991. Four active duty judges attended t

tary Judges Course conducted at the Navy Justi

RI, from 22 July through 9 August 1991. Two 

62 
cational meeting at Seattle, W A, in late August. 

with civilian judges have been beneficial in prom

derstanding of the military justice system and th

tary judge. 

CIRCUIT TRIAL COUNSEL PRO

During FY91 the number of assigned circuit t

remained at 22. Throughout the Air Force, cir

tried 348 general courts-martial and 31 special co

To update circuit trial counsel on the latest de

law and further enhance their trial skills, CCTCs 

and 4th circuits attended the annual New Devel

nal law course held at the Army JAG School 

Virginia. The New Developments course covered 

cases in all significant areas of criminal law. 

CCTCs also participated in a CCTC conference, d

mation, procedures and strategies were discussed. 

Workshops for base level prosecutors were con

cuit trial counsel in all the judicial circuits, exce

The workshops were held in conjunction with A

sel in that circuit and included joint sessions to 

by The Judge Advocate General, the Director of 

a presentation by a judge from the United States 

Appeals. 

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT CO

In January 1991, JAJG and JAJD attended 

Service Appellate Counsel Workshop at the Nav

shop was attended by nearly all the appellate co

Force, Army, Navy-Marine Corps, and Coast Gu

workshop featured numerous presentations by bo

vilian speakers on topics of interest to appellate 

judges of the United States Court of Military Ap

attendees. 
Cases Argued ........................................................... 

SUPREME COURT 

Petition Waivers Filed ........................................... 

Briefs Filed .............................................................. 

AREA DEFENSE COUNSEL PR

The Area Defense Counsel Program continu

defense representation to Air Force personnel 

disciplinary action under the Uniform Code 

Currently there are area defense counsel stati

installations. Although the majority of the 

have been in military service less than four ye

ing program ensures that they are well pre

duties and responsibilities. Training for defen

attendance at an ADC Orientation Course w

the position and participation in circuit level c

held on an annual basis. In the more serious 

by general court-martial, circuit defense cou

provide greater experience to the defense team

During the year, area defense counsel were 

sian Gulf area during Desert Shield/Storm. A

action rates throughout the entire deployment 

the highly motivated and dedicated area d

available to ensure that basic constitutional a

of Air Force personnel were protected throug

sion. Air Force defense counsel were among 

ployed during Desert Shield and were among 

the end of the conflict. 

APPELLATE DEFENSE COU

Appellate practice before the United State

creased slightly. The cases reviewed for su

Force Court of Military Review (AFCMR) 

64 
Briefs in Support ................................................... .. 2

Grant Briefs ............................................................. . 

Oral Arguments ..................................................... .. 

Other Motions/Petitions ...................................... .. 1

SUPREME COURT PETITIONS ........................ .. 

CONFINEMENT FACILITIES 

At the end of the fiscal year, a total of 601 Air 

were in confinement. That figure represents about 

from the number in confinement at the end of FY9

of those prisoners were incarcerated in central co

ties: 144 at Lowry AFB; 3 at the return-to-dut

(RTDR) program; and, 211 at the United States D

racks (USDB). The number of Air Force prisone

creased from 284 at the end of FY90 to 240 at the 

8% decrease. 

During the fiscal year, the Air Force closed its de

Fort Lewis Installation Detention Facility in W

moved its prisoners and staff to a newly refurbishe

cility at Lowry AFB. The "new" facility when co

existing facility has given the base the ability to 

male and female Air Force prisoners. There were 

of prisoners awaiting transfer to central confineme

,During this period, a joint-service working grou

SECDEF to implement a DoD order for the Servic

corrections facilities. The order names the Army 

Agent for long-term corrections, and it will house, 

other Services, their long-term prisoners who have 

ferred to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Prelimina

the BOP were conducted to develop a working r

the BOP for some such transfers beginning late

The Services will house each other's short-term 

gional Corrections Facilities. A Memorandum o

Among the Services and a Draft Interservice Sup
weeks on average, vice six to nine months. 

CIVIL LITIGATION 

Civil litigation challenging actions taken 

Code of Military Justice involved petitions fo

by Air Force inmates in the United States D

seeking collateral review of their cases. Issu

ateness of sentence, insufficiency of the evide

dentiary rulings made at the trial. There wer

by any Federal district court granting relief to 

uals. A collateral review was also brought 

seeking to have a court-martial conviction ove

ual was also denied relief. 

PREVENTIVE LAW AND LEGAL A

PROGRAM 


The Legal Assistance Division (JACA) conti

sion of legal services worldwide. The last an

the base legal offices served 432,338 clients, pr

Additionally, notaries provided 615,864 notar

of office visits totalled 1,167,383. 

Desert Shield/Storm presented the most 

dressed. The designation of the Persian Gulf a

on 17 January 1991 created a variety of issu

pay exclusions and filing extensions with resp

al income taxation. The All States Tax Guide 

provide the field information on the states' 

the taxation issues raised by the conflict. 

Additionally, the mobilization generated b

issue of entitlement of reserve personnel to le

current policy, legal assistance will continue 

tional guard personnel for one year after the

personnel continue to face issues controlled 

66 
The Reporter strived to provide timely practical 

important legal issues to our military lawyers. Eac

information in 15 legal areas, 3 in the area of mili

at least one lead article. This year's lead article top

diers' and sailors' civil relief act, search authorizati

with adult victims of sex crimes. 

EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

The Judge Advocate General's Department pro

continuing legal education (CLE) opportunities to it

those of its sister services, during FY91. 

Approximately 1275 Air Force attorneys (includ

force judge advocates) attended courses held at the 

Advocate General School, Maxwell AFB, Alabama, 

Colorado. 

The Department arranged legal training for 280 

Army Judge Advocate General's School, Charlotte

and four at the Naval Military Justice School, N

Island. In cooperation with the Air Force Institut

(AFIT), the Department sent 56 attorneys to cou

ment law at the AFIT School of Systems and Logis

terson AFB, Ohio. Eleven attorneys were sent to ot

ing opportunities during FY91. Two attorneys att

law courses sponsored by The National Judicial Co

versity of Nevada in Reno. Five judge advocates a

week medical law course and 11 attorneys attende

medical law seminar. Both courses were sponsor

JACC and the Malcolm Grow Regional Medical Ce

AFB. The Department had eighteen judge advocat

the Legal Masters Program in the fields of procure

law, environmental law, and military law; 16 atten

stitutions and 2 attended the Army Judge Adv

School. 
The Judge Advocate Staff Officer Course is 

basic course of instruction for new judge adv

designed to provide essential, basic, compreh

military legal practice. The course is divided i

areas: military justice, civil law, and the j

member of the Air Force. The course develop

military practice of law and enhances basic 

course is eight weeks long and is conducted th

year. In FY91 there were 149 students who 

course. 

The AFJAG School also offers a number o

benefit the military lawyer, they include: claim

federal employee labor law, environmental law

ations law, government contracting, law offi

taxation. These courses were attended by app

tary and civilian personnel during FY91. 

The AFJAG School conducted numerous co

focused considerable attention in the area of 

following courses were attended by over 700 ju

a. Judge Advocate Staff Officer Course-T

four weeks of intensive military justice instr

participated as trial or defense counsel in two 

The first was a judge alone court-martial with 

second was a fully litigated trial with member

b. Trial and Defense Advocacy Course-Thi

week and was offered twice in FY91. It is desi

advocacy training to judge advocates who wil

trial advocates in courts-martial throughout 

tion was provided to 64 military advocates in 

c. Advanced Trial and Defense Advocacy C

a one week course which was attended by 38 

was developed primarily to train those couns

serving, or have been selected to serve, as ci

counsel. The course further develops and re

and stresses the use of forensic evidence in co

68 
e. Military Judges' Seminar-This is an in

which is primarily designed to ensure that militar

up-to-date with recent developments, not only in 

also with the most effective techniques of judicia

is a one week course which was offered once in 

tended by 65 military judges from all the services. 

f. Reserve Forces Judge Advocate Course-This 

oped with the goal of providing our Air Force Re

tional Guard judge advocates with up-to-date info

developments in military law to ensure their a

their required duties in the event of a mobiliz

week course which was held at Maxwell AFB an

AFJAG School faculty and Reserve and Guard 

During FY91, 218 students attended this cours

RFJAC, the AFJAG School conducted the Air Na

Reserve Forces Judge Advocate Annual Survey of 

conducted each year in Denver, Colorado for thre

on Friday concluding on Sunday afternoon. T

update those Reserve and Guard Attorneys betwe

attendances at RFJAC. There were 100 ANG an

torneys in attendance during the last survey. 

Nonresident Courses 

The AFJAG School offered nonresident courses 

approved for Continuing Legal Education (CLE) c

of CLE credit earned for completion of these c

mined by individual state bars. The courses availa

Professional Responsibility for Air Force Lawyers

Federal Income Tax Law, Government Contract L

Law, Supreme Court Trends in Criminal Justice, 

tal Law. Additional offerings on Current Incom

Professional Responsibility for Claims Officers we

The AFJAG School also provided instruction

professional enrichment in 64 topics in various 

justice and civil law. CLE credit was not offered 

ment courses. These areas included: trial advoca
flict and air operations. The theme issue was ex

to the area of claims and tort litigation. 

The AFJAG School also was responsible for ed

ing the preventive law Short bursts letter. This 

to introduce an informal collection of informativ

terial to judge advocates providing legal assista

sonnel and dependents. The School also catalog

pared and collected by judge advocates throug

help military members avoid personal legal pro

rials were then listed on a Preventive Law C

which was provided to all Air Force judge adv

in acquiring these informative materials for the

PERSONNEL 

As of 30 September 1991, there were 1399 j

active duty. This total included 1 major general

als, 132 colonels, 202 lieutenant colonels, 300 m

and 34 first lieutenants. In addition, there wer

neys, 800 enlisted legal technicians, and 745 c

sonnel assigned to the department. 

David C. Morehouse, 

Major General, USAF 

The Judge Advocate General 

70 
PART 2 • DISCHARGES APPROVED 

oa"'lJIIuu. COUlln'I-MAIIITIA&. leA LEVU.I 

NU.... III 0' OrIHONOtlt ....LI DISC .... llleES 83 

NU.... 11111 0" ,"0 CONDUeT OtlCHAIIICU 

"CIAL. COUIllTS....."TIA... (SA LIVIU 

NU...IIII CIt' 1"0 CO,,",OUCT OrSCHAlIIIIGU 154 

PART 3· RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW 8Y JAG 

AIR FORCE 

"ATE Oil INCIIII"SI C+I/OICIIIEASE I-I 0\1(111' PIIu"'IEJIIt Oil CASES 

IlIlIvllWEO DU.'NO LAST IIUI'OIllTINC ",littOO 

PART 5. APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

REVIEW 

tBl 

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

I'EIIICINTAOI Oil COM. IItIVII'lWEO CASES cO=."=&:'."-O:-'O::'T..::o-'u:.:s;:c,,"'.::&____--~3.!.1!..7L./,,6:.

".CINTAOI 0' ''''C''I''SII''I'OEC.~E_ 'ow(. ""EvIOUS IIIE"OfllTI""'C. "IlIIrOO 

PIIllC.NTAOIO'TOTA'-II'ITITIOI'II~~~ ... Tl:l 29/31

II'!IIICINTAOI O .. lfIIIIC.' .... St. {•• OEClltt&SII-1 O\l! ....III:!V,OUS '"E-OIltTII'IIC "'I!!III:IOO 

II"IIICINTAOI 0' II'.TITIONS CIIIAI'IITIE::I_O' TOTAl. CASU 1111111' ..... '0 IV COVill 29/62

"ATI 0" IfIIIICII"AS' t.!JOICIII'_SII .• 1)\1£111 T_I iIrIIIIuMI,1II 0' CAUS IIIlv,(w,O 0",,1111"'

L.AST IIII'CIIITINa .,111100 +0.1/4
PART.· ORGANIZATION OF COURT 

TfltuU••• " ......IT..... " JuOOI ALoO"'" 

O.......... L. COUllln......T, .... 


"ICIAL COVIIITS·"''''''T'.''' 

Tilt..... a" "IL.ITA"Y JuOal WITM MI"I.". OINI""'L COU.-rt·MAIIIT'AL 

333 


39 


298 


233 


PART 9· COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 
 d 

..y .... " Olf COMItLAINTI I 38 i


PART10·STRENGTH 

&"1".01 ACTtvl DUTY ""I"'GT'" 516,997 

PART 11· NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 1S) 

10 683 

20.66 

-16.8 

......T. ,.,. 1,000 

[Aj SPCMs in which BCD adjudged 


[Bj n of Appellate requests before AFCMR no

72 
ceived and filed at Coast Guard Headquarters du

the five preceding years. 

Fiscal Year 91 90 89 

General Courts-Martial ............................ 9 14 5 

Special Courts-Martial .............................. 34 42 40 

Summary Courts-Martial ......................... 18 47 48 

Total ..................................................... 61 103 93 

COURTS-MARTIAL 

Attorney counsel were detailed to all special cour

tary judges were detailed to all special courts-m

cases, the presiding judge was the Chief Trial Jud

general courts-martial judge. When he was unav

judges with other primary duties were used for spe

tial. Control of the detail of judges was centrally 

Chief Trial Judge, and all requirements were met i

ion. 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

Of the nine accused tried by general courts-m

year, four were tried by military judge alone. Thre

cused tried by military judge alone received d

charges and the other received a bad conduct disch

five accused tried by courts with members rece

which included a bad conduct discharge, and one 

all charges and specifications. Three of the accuse

were referred to general courts-martial were nonr

E-1 through E-3), three were petty officers (

through E-6), and three were officers. 

The following is a breakdown of the sentences ad

al courts-martial tried by military judge alone (f
The following is a breakdown of sentences ad

courts-martial tried by members (four conviction

one of these cases pled guilty to all charges and s

Sentence 

Bad conduct discharge .....................................................................

Confinement ......................................................................................

Hard labor without confinement....................................................

Reduction in rate..............................................................................

Restriction..........................................................................................

Forfeiture of all pay and allowances ............................................

Partial forfeiture of pay ($9,000 total) ..........................................

Reprimand .........................................................................................

Loss of numbers on active duty promotion list...........................

The following indicates the four sentences imp

eral courts-martial in the past four fiscal years. 

FY Number of 

Convictions Forfeitures Confinement 

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

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

89 5 3 (60%) 5 (100%) 3 

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

The following table shows the distribution of t

referred to general court-martial. 

Violation of the UCMJ, Article 

86 (Unauthorized absence) ......................................

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

93 (Cruelty and maltreatment)...............................

74 
134 (General)......................................................................

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 

Twenty-one of the 34 accused tried by special co

fiscal year were tried by military judge alone. Fift

discharges were awarded, 12 to accused tried by 

alone and three to accused tried by courts with m

cial courts-martial resulted in acquittals, and charg

were withdrawn prior to pleas. Sixteen of the 

charges were referred to special courts-martial we

grades E-1 through E-3), fourteen were petty offi

E-4 through E-6), three were chief petty officers 

and one was an officer. 

The following table shows the distribution of th

tions referred to special courts-special. 

Violation of the UCMJ, Article 

78 (Accessory after the fact) ...........................................

80 (Attempts) ....................................................................

81 (Conspiracy) .................................................................

85 (Desertion) ....................................................................

86 (Unauthorized absence) .............................................

87 (Missing movement) ...................................................

89 (Disrespect toward superior commissioned officer

90 (Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior comm

officer). 

91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant, non

sioned, or petty officer). 

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

93 (Cruelty and maltreatment)......................................

107 (False official statement) ...........................................

108 (Sale, loss, damage, destruction, or wrongful di

of military property of the U.S.). 

110 (Improper hazarding of vessel) .................................

112 (Drunk on duty) ..........................................................

112(a) (Controlled drug offenses) .........................................

113 (Misbehavior of sentinel) ..........................................

120 (Rape) ............................................................................
y y jg(

three of these 17 convictions, the accused pled g

and specifications. 

Sentence 

Bad conduct discharge .....................................................................

Confinement ......................................................................................

Hard labor without confinement....................................................

Reduction in rate..............................................................................

Forfeiture of pay ($14,876 total).....................................................

Fine ($9,500 total) .............................................................................

Restriction..........................................................................................

Other (extra duty, reprimand, etc.)...............................................

The following is a breakdown of sentences a

courts-martial tried by members (nine conviction

nine convictions, the accused pled guilty to all c

cations. 

Sentence 

Bad conduct discharge .....................................................................

Confinement ......................................................................................

Hard labor without confinement...................................................

Reduction in rate..............................................................................

Forfeiture of pay ($7,124 total).......................................................

Restriction..........................................................................................

Other (extra duty, reprimand, etc.)...............................................

The following indicates the four sentences im

cial courts-martial in the past four fiscal years. 

76 
Sixty-two percent of the accused tried by spe

were tried by military judge alone. Fourteen pe

cused pled guilty to all charges and specifications

the accused tried by special courts-martial wit

guilty to all charges and specifications. There w

percent decrease in special courts-martial from las

CHIEF COUNSEL ACTION UNDER ARTIC

In addition to the required reviews of courts-m

as a result of petitions filed under Article 69, UC

ary review was conducted under Article 69 of all c

requiring appellate review. 

PERSONNEL, ORGANIZATION, AND 

The Coast Guard has 162 officers designated 

(judge advocates) serving on active duty-122 are 

billets and 40 are serving in general duty bille

Guard officers are currently undergoing postgr

law and will be certified as law specialists at t

their studies. Eight Coast Guard officers who re

from law school completed the Navy Basic Lawye

port, Rhode Island. All have been certified un

UCMJ. A total of 222 additional training quotas 

torneys, paralegals, yeomen and secretaries a

Guard legal offices. Approximately $165,000 wa

training during the fiscal year. 

U.S. COAST GUARD COURT OF MILITA

During fiscal year 1991, the Court was compose

military judges assigned by the General Counse

Transportation, in his capacity as Judge Advoca

Coast Guard. For the period of this report, the C
In addition to the decisional work reflected 

Judges on the Court have participated in vario

ferences, committees and seminars during the 

November 1990, all of the judges participated 

All Services Appellate Military Judges Confere

nar hosted by the Air Force Court of Military 

Air Force Base. In May 1991, the Judges atten

cial Conference of the U.S. Court of Military 

Washington University. 

In September 1991, the U.S. Coast Guard 

Review hosted the Seventh Annual All Service

Judges Training Seminar at Governors Island, 

the first year for the seminar to be held out

D.C. and the first year for it to be expanded to 

speakers included Judge Charles E. Moylan, J

Court of Special Appeals, Judge Joel M. Flaum 

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and Homer E

of Justice and the Military. Representatives f

Air Force Judge Advocate General Schools and 

tice School presented analyses of opinions from 

of military review and the U.S. Court of Milita

pellate Judges Training Plan was presented by 

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

of judges and court clerks spoke on judicial uti

technology. 

Special events during the two days included 

miliarization tour of New York Harbor aboard 

Cutter, a surprise address at the seminar ba

Brothers, and a special admissions ceremony o

seminar for applicants to the bar of the U.S. C

peals. Included among those sworn in by Chi

Sullivan of that Court was Vice Admiral Paul 

Coast Guard's Commander, Atlantic Area. 

Several ideas developed at the seminar are 

by the Coast Guard Court of Military Review f

year: expansion of the Court panels from two t

78 
g

serve this past year as a member of the U.S. Cour

peals Rules Advisory Committee. 

ADDITIONAL MILITARY JUSTICE STA

Appendix A contains additional basic military 

for the reporting period and reflects the increase

workload in various categories. 

Paul E. Versaw 

Rear Admiral, USCG 

Chief Counsel, U.S. Coast Guard 
RATE OF INCREASE (.,/DECREASE (-lOVeR NUMBE PI OF CASES 

REVIEWED OUFIllNG LAST REPORTING PERIOD 

PART 5· APPELLATE COUNSEL REOUESTS BEFORE COAST GUAR

REVIEW 

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

PERCENTAGE OF COMA REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO useMA 

peRCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+,/OECREASE« I OVEf': PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 	 2

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (.)lOECREASE ( lOVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD 

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY COMA 2/

RATE OF INCREASE (+»!OECREASE (-J OVER THE NUMBER OF CASES REVIEweD DU

LAST REPORTING PERIO~ 

PAGEIOF1 

1. 	 Included within this total are eighteen Article 66, U

69, UCMJ, referral, and two extraordinary writs. 

2. 	~·Included within this total are twenty-six reviews pur

and two actions in response to extraordinary writs. 

3. 	 Included within this total are two COMR cases forward

awaiting disposition at the end of FY-91. 

80 
PART 9· COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138 

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS I 4 

PART 10· STRENGTH 

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 

PAGE20F2 

* u.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1992 0 -